Military Review

Does the USA need an expensive missile defense system? American lawmakers are being asked to think

25

The US Congressional Research Service has published a 35-page document on the Navy Aegis missile defense (ABM) program. The report covers more than just история question, but a number of very acute questions are also raised. Members of Congress must consider and decide whether the country needs just that kind of protection and for that kind of money.


Recall that the Aegis system was originally developed in the 70s of the last century not for global missile defense, but for solving highly specialized tasks: in order to provide American warships (as well as military fleets US allies) protection against airstrikes, anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM) and other similar surface and submarine threats. In reality, the system was first deployed in the Navy in 1983.

The Aegis system is now equipped on all Ticonderoga class cruisers (CG-47) and Arleigh Burke class destroyers (DDG-51) of the US Navy. Moreover, like fossil fish, the system got out on land, where it turned into land-based missile defense systems Aegis Ashore. Today they are available in Poland and Romania. However, the main point is that at a certain stage it was decided to radically change its functionality and potential. Someone's clever heads at the Pentagon were struck by the idea that the Aegis is also quite suitable for the fight against intercontinental ballistic missiles of a potential enemy. This is how the Aegis BMD business was born.

As a result, ships equipped with the Aegis missile defense system operate both in European waters (allegedly to protect Europe from potential ballistic missile attacks from countries such as Iran) and in the western Pacific Ocean and the Persian Gulf. According to Washington, this is done "to provide regional protection against potential ballistic missile attacks from North Korea and Iran."

Thanks to the efforts of the "marketers" from the Pentagon and the State Department, active sales of the Aegis system to the allied countries of the United States began in the late 1980s. Currently, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Spain and Norway are already in service, are building or planning to build ships equipped with this system. An important nuance: in theory, only the ships available to Japan are capable of intercepting targets that are more serious than enemy aircraft or short-range anti-ship missiles.

What is the reason? Develop the system to the level of the Aegis BMD and push it hard to allies, as is now done with the vaunted "best fighter in the world" F-35. There is, however, a significant catch. Even a few. According to the statistical calculations cited by the Research Service, based on the data from the Aegis BMD tests carried out from 2002 to the present, despite the significant progress achieved in recent years and quite good performance (in comparison with the Patriot air defense system, which is capable of shooting down only a missile with a guarantee " antiques "), there is no need to talk about the high efficiency of the system.

When using the most advanced SM-3 interceptor missile, the total number of training targets hit tends to 80%. But if we talk about shells that imitated medium-range missiles, then it drops to almost 60-70%. It is especially bad when trying to stop a MIRV. But if we are talking about a real attack using a nuclear weapons, the effectiveness of the missile defense system is below 100%, in fact, is equivalent to zero. No, you can, of course, continue to develop the system, improve it and improve it. That's just ...

The Aegis BMD program is funded in large part by the budget of the "US main anti-missile agency" MDA. Some allocations go through the Navy, mainly additional funding for missile defense work. MDA's proposed budget for fiscal 2021 requires a total of approximately $ 1,8 billion in procurement and research and development funding for Aegis BMD's efforts. This is taking into account the financing of the Polish and Romanian Aegis Ashore facilities. Moreover, according to the budget for the 2021 fiscal year, the number of Navy Aegis ships with missile defense should increase from 48 at the end of 2021 fiscal year to 65 at the end of 2025 fiscal year.

These are just colossal costs. But there are also plans to create another Aegis Ashore facility in Guam and turn it into a similar base for the Aegis test center in Hawaii. How much the implementation of these projects will result in is problematic to assume. And is it worth it? How reasonable is it to invest tens or even hundreds of billions in a missile defense system, which, at least for now, is unable to provide full security guarantees?

It is in this regard that the main choice that the authors of the report put before members of Congress is whether to approve, reject or change the proposed funding levels for both the Aegis BMD program and the proposed increase in the number of ships with this system. The Research Service warns that the decisions of the Congress on the Aegis missile defense program could significantly affect the US missile defense, its potential. Huge funds have already been invested in the program. But is it worth continuing?
Author:
Photos used:
Wikipedia / Aegis (missile defense system)
25 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. SRC P-15
    SRC P-15 19 October 2020 18: 14 New
    +3
    Huge funds have already been invested in the program. But is it worth continuing?

    "Saw Shura, Saw ..." yes
    1. Civil
      Civil 19 October 2020 19: 07 New
      -14 qualifying.
      And if not a ballistic missile, but a swarm of UAVs of several thousand (tens of thousands) pieces with tactical nuclear weapons? How to build a missile defense / air defense system?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 19 October 2020 19: 31 New
        12
        Quote: Civil
        and a swarm of UAVs of several thousand (tens of thousands) pieces with tactical nuclear weapons?

        Trillions, what is already there
        1. Civil
          Civil 19 October 2020 20: 08 New
          -11 qualifying.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Quote: Civil
          and a swarm of UAVs of several thousand (tens of thousands) pieces with tactical nuclear weapons?

          Trillions, what is already there


          The obvious cannot be denied with the tenacity of the insane. I considered you a reasonable person. There is already a UAV with a strategic flight range.
          1. kot423
            kot423 19 October 2020 20: 36 New
            +8
            Quote: Civil
            The obvious cannot be denied with the tenacity of the insane. I considered you a reasonable person. There is already a UAV with a strategic flight range.

            Yap. Photo launcher for ch-901.
            "The drone 1.2 meters long weighs 9 kg and flies at a speed of about 150 km / h. The range of its action is 15 km, the" patrolling aerial bomb "can be in the air for up to 120 minutes. The onboard camera allows detecting objects at a distance of up to 2 km, and the electric motor , on the assurance of the developer, does not make unnecessary noise. "
            And where is the "strategic flight range", + what kind of "tactical yabch" can you hang on it?
            PS Warning excuses from your side - UAVs with a range and carrying capacity - will never be done in "thousands and tens of thousands" - these are your wet fantasies, so Andrey is right in the comment above.
            1. Civil
              Civil 20 October 2020 09: 19 New
              -1
              This is the final part, the final result, which may be, this is a sample of work at the final stage, you can google a UAV with a strategic range if you understand what it is.
          2. The eye of the crying
            The eye of the crying 19 October 2020 22: 19 New
            0
            And where will tens of thousands of nuclear weapons come from?
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. denis obuckov
        denis obuckov 19 October 2020 20: 46 New
        -1
        We need a UAV not with a nuclear charge, but with a Covid 19 that will infect other UAVs
      4. Umalta
        Umalta 20 October 2020 01: 09 New
        -1
        So a swarm of UAVs numbering several tens of thousands, not a single regional one will survive.
        1. vVvAD
          vVvAD 21 October 2020 18: 40 New
          -1
          Strategic nuclear? So no budget can handle them. laughing
        2. Umalta
          Umalta 22 October 2020 13: 55 New
          -2
          I talked about a regional one and several tens of thousands of UAVs without nuclear weapons, count the minusers yourself, warheads and missiles necessary to repel this raid. On up to react to emotionally, but rationally. Of course, the question of creating such a number of drone UAVs remains open.
    2. Terenin
      Terenin 19 October 2020 19: 09 New
      +4
      Does the USA need an expensive missile defense system?
      Well. if the contractor is Russia, then ... yes! yes
    3. RealPilot
      RealPilot 19 October 2020 19: 54 New
      0
      Better to leave the project ...
      And then other promising medium-range missiles also get up in its launchers and tomogavki.

      After all, this complex also has striking capabilities, which the Americans have already demonstrated from its Mk 41 launchers .. And even in the ground version.
  2. parusnik
    parusnik 19 October 2020 18: 15 New
    10
    Why should we worry about the US military budget? They will approve the program, it won't be easier, they will not approve, the same thing ..
  3. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 19 October 2020 19: 47 New
    +1
    Here I would put irony aside - because it seems to be not a global missile defense system, and at the same time - it seems to be the same. With the dominance of the US satellite constellation and a fairly good network centric, this is a potentially dangerous thing, given the large and dispersed American fleet and at least 2 directions, which are saturated at the expense of American allies.

    It is not even this system itself that is dangerous, but what it can evolve into, in the case of an array of successful and directed R&D. Strictly speaking, now the bulk of our real security rests on the ICBM - and the issue (in the future) of increasing the effectiveness of missile defense is one of our most serious defense issues in principle. In my opinion.
  4. Virus-free crown
    Virus-free crown 19 October 2020 19: 57 New
    -1
    During the Reagan era, when sane Americans protested against pumping trillions of dollars into SDI, they had one comedian there who, in practice, on stage showed the probability of "97 percent interception" of Soviet missiles bully

    A dude enters the stage all in white ... opens an umbrella ... takes a needle and pokes the umbrella several times ... raises the umbrella above him ... and a bucket of ink pours out on him from above ... he is under the umbrella ... but almost all are already in "black" hi
  5. FIR FIR
    FIR FIR 19 October 2020 19: 59 New
    +1
    Huge funds have already been invested in the program. But is it worth continuing?

    Do Americans really have a choice?
    11 nuclear aircraft carriers also "eat" a very decent amount every year, so give them up ... Strategists like B1B and B2 are also not cheap to operate.
    And Aegis in general is the cornerstone of the air defense missile defense system not only of the fleet, but of the entire American army. Therefore, all these maxims, such as "expensive" and "is it necessary" are more like ladies' curtsies ...
  6. rocket757
    rocket757 19 October 2020 20: 01 New
    +2
    The question is, of course, interesting ... I just doubt that the congressmen will bother to count something there !!! Lobbyists from military corporations will bring in as much as they should and the issue will be resolved in their favor!
  7. 123456789
    123456789 19 October 2020 20: 34 New
    -1
    When using the most advanced SM-3 interceptor missile, the total number of training targets hit tends to 80%. But if we talk about shells imitating medium-range missiles, then it drops to almost 60-70%. It is especially bad when trying to stop a MIRV. But if we are talking about a real attack with the use of nuclear weapons, the effectiveness of the missile defense system is below 100%, in fact, is equivalent to zero. No, you can, of course, continue to develop the system, improve it and improve it. That's just ...

    according to the most optimistic (for whom? :) calculations, we get the cost of missile defense = 4 the cost of the means of attack that the missile defense is capable of intercepting.
    The US military budget in 2020 will reach almost $ 750 billion for the first time. This is comparable to the total annual military budget of all countries of the world and exceeds the Russian budget by 16 times. "Gazeta.Ru"
  8. veritas
    veritas 19 October 2020 20: 59 New
    +3
    Huge funds have already been invested in the program. But is it worth continuing?

    Of course it is. Print and spend more dollars.
  9. Old26
    Old26 19 October 2020 21: 13 New
    +4
    Quote: Civil
    And if not a ballistic missile, but a swarm of UAVs of several thousand (tens of thousands) pieces with tactical nuclear weapons? How to build a missile defense / air defense system?

    What is so sickly - several tens of thousands. "Not enough however"

    Quote: Civil
    The obvious cannot be denied with the tenacity of the insane. I considered you a reasonable person. There is already a UAV with a strategic flight range.

    Sorry, Vadim, but what, from such a launcher will be launched strategic UAVs that will be able to carry YaBZ? There will never be many strategic ones. Look, the same RQ-1 Raven was produced in the amount of over 19000 units, the MQ-1Predator in the amount of 360, and the strategic RQ4 Global Hawk only 42
    and you will not have a Roy of several tens of thousands with YABZ. Due to the lack of such a number of YaBZ ...

    Quote: RealPilot
    And then other promising medium-range missiles also get up in its launchers and tomogavki.

    There are no nuclear "tomahawks" with a range of 2500 km now. those that are from Romania except Crimea, in principle, will not fly anywhere, and if they do, they will fly at a distance into the territory of Russia by a maximum of 30-50 km.
    Promising medium-range missiles of 533-mm caliber? Cool. For the North Koreans, 600 mm flew a maximum of 450 km. And as a medium-range in this form factor is not even fiction, but nonsense ...
  10. The eye of the crying
    The eye of the crying 19 October 2020 22: 21 New
    -1
    But if we talk about shells imitating medium-range missiles, then it drops to almost 60-70%.


    Do they shoot down 2 out of 3 targets? Not bad.
  11. A. Privalov
    A. Privalov 20 October 2020 00: 39 New
    -4
    A cheap ribka is a filthy yushka.
  12. ZEMCH
    ZEMCH 20 October 2020 12: 41 New
    0
    These are just colossal costs. But there are also plans to create another Aegis Ashore facility in Guam and turn it into a similar base for the Aegis test center in Hawaii. How much the implementation of these projects will result in is problematic to assume. And is it worth it? How reasonable is it to invest tens or even hundreds of billions in a missile defense system, which, at least for now, is unable to provide full security guarantees?

    They will be partially beaten off from the allies, but for now the MIC lobby is pushing the budget. They generally don't care what percentage of missiles shot down, they are only interested in profit.
    At the next report in Congress they asked, does it seem strange to you that $ 3 million was spent on pencils? The answer was simple, we provide a thousand jobs for Americans, and without pencils!
    Congress satisfied the answer!
  13. times
    times 22 October 2020 15: 00 New
    16
    Apparently, an understanding is coming of the futility of the existing missile defense system. We need something new, more expensive.