Military Review

"Russian hypersonic missiles - a weapon of defense": the Italian press on the appointment of new combat systems

32

The sharp build-up of missile defense by the United States took place against the background of the high attack potential of American troops. This strategy for the development of the armed forces has led to a military imbalance with Russia. Therefore, Moscow, faced with the threat of defeat in a possible war, was forced to seek means of restoring parity.


Shield against Russia


This opinion is voiced by the Italian edition Analisi Difesa. As noted, the United States began expanding its missile defense system back in 2002, when it decided to unilaterally withdraw from the 1972 ABM Treaty, which prohibited the widespread deployment of defense against ballistic missiles.

The rejection of it [this agreement] by the United States created the danger of the complete superiority of the American nuclear weaponsthat would free Washington's hands. Therefore, the Russians and even the Chinese seriously thought about how to balance the situation. And what could be better than hypersonic weapons, which are very difficult to track and shoot down? It was necessary to forge new spears that could break new enemy shields
- writes the Italian press.

"Russian hypersonic missiles - a weapon of defense": the Italian press on the appointment of new combat systems


Spears of different systems


As explained, the expansionist nature of the military doctrine of the United States can be seen even in the strategy of developing hypersonic weapons, which, according to the Pentagon, was supposed to facilitate the conduct of wars of conquest.

For the Americans, the development of hypersound was a means of searching for conventional means of lightning-fast attack, capable of reaching anywhere in the world within an hour after launch. [These combat systems] were seen as an alternative to using expeditionary forces against "rogue states", which was fraught with heavy casualties
- notes Analisi Difesa

As indicated, while Russia did not present hypersonic weapons as a means of enhancing the combat power of conventional weapons. Work in this direction was intended to dramatically increase the offensive potential of nuclear weapons and, thus, nullified all American progress in the field of missile defense.

Russia, fully aware of the danger of the situation in which it finds itself, has made rapid progress in the format of defense weapons - such products as Zircon, Avangard and Dagger - making America a catch-up, and to this day.

The principle of deterrence, which seemed to be threatened by the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, seems to have been preserved.
- explains the publication, pointing out that the successes of Russian developers ultimately nullified billions of dollars spent by the United States on missile defense.

32 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. deniso
    deniso 26 November 2020 08: 18
    +4
    We are great! Fear us !!!
    1. Antifreeze
      Antifreeze 26 November 2020 08: 45
      +21
      Where to go? "Necessity for inventions is cunning!"
  2. askort154
    askort154 26 November 2020 08: 49
    +9
    ... the successes of Russian developers ultimately nullified the billions of dollars spent by the United States on missile defense.

    Just two lines, and how good the ear! Bravo, Italian!
    1. NDR-791
      NDR-791 26 November 2020 09: 09
      +3
      at the same time, Russia did not present hypersonic weapons as a means of enhancing the combat power of conventional weapons. Work in this direction was intended to dramatically increase the offensive potential of nuclear weapons
      That's what they really put on their ass. Only in this composition! So I wonder how ??? do the brains of amers work? If they did not foresee that making such rockets it is pointless to equip them with conventional TNT? And it will be precisely the strengthening of the nuclear component.
      1. Kart
        Kart 26 November 2020 09: 33
        +10
        They are conditionally 90% sure that Russia will not use nuclear weapons under any circumstances.
        And only the remaining interest does not allow them to start immediately.
        Domestic fighters against the regime are singing about this confidence together with the United States.
        Three options:
        1. They will finally convince themselves that Russia will not apply. Then the world is waiting for 3 MB.
        2. Through the efforts of the opposition and economic sanctions, they will still destroy the power. Then Russia can be taken with bare hands, and this time finally. The mistakes of the 90s, when it seemed to them that we were going to die ourselves - they would not allow it a second time.
        3. All opposition will continue to continue, slowly but surely. They will bark louder at the borders, but to no avail.
        1. NDR-791
          NDR-791 26 November 2020 09: 42
          -5
          Your second point looms to me on the horizon. And I'll explain why. Our supreme cabbies are more concerned that the reins are not taken away from them here and now, until they reach the point determined by the time. And then what with that mare will be for them violet. And all this inaction, and even open closing of eyes to the ongoing confirmation of this. Which is sad but true what
          1. Hagen
            Hagen 26 November 2020 12: 44
            +1
            Quote: NDR-791
            Our supreme cabmen are concerned more so that the reins are not taken from them

            As soon as someone starts claiming that he can read other people's thoughts, it instantly becomes clear that they will shamelessly lie. wassat
        2. Kuroneko
          Kuroneko 26 November 2020 11: 24
          +4
          Quote: Carte
          Three options:

          There is a fourth.
          4. The built system of robbing foreign countries, suppressing them politically / economically, and in general - general domination - is finally becoming obsolete (America has long been the deepest economic crisis, poured only for the time being with new tons of green candy wrappers from the Fed). Then the United States simply does not have a choice - a war with China / Russia and come what may. Otherwise, the States will simply bend themselves, they cannot but parasitize on someone. They are preparing intensively now, inflating the military budget to cosmic values ​​- although they are already clearly late. The moment has already been missed, but, I repeat, they will have no choice. Hence the preparation for the dehumanization of the Russians, which began long ago, in order to convince both our citizens and the vassal countries that we SHOULD be destroyed, for we are stupid evil Mordor, and orcs, not people. In principle, the training manual has not changed since the time of the Third Reich.

          Personally, I expect the start of a global turmoil in the next 10 years. The States will not last longer without a big war. Yes, of course, their calculation is to stay on the sidelines, and let all sorts of Poland drag the chestnuts out of the fire. But it is unlikely to come out this time.
  3. Shiva83483
    Shiva83483 26 November 2020 09: 07
    +2
    The principle of deterrence, which seemed to be threatened by the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, seems to have been preserved.
    - explains the publication, pointing out that the successes of Russian developers ultimately nullified the billions of dollars spent by the United States on missile defense ... Well, if even the Italians understood it ...
  4. Dmitry Makarov
    Dmitry Makarov 26 November 2020 09: 22
    +4
    No, well, hundreds of $ Billions spent by the Americans on missile defense were not wasted, now they have protection from Iran and North Korea, let them now play in this league, this is their level.
  5. rocket757
    rocket757 26 November 2020 09: 30
    +3
    It's just another stage of military rivalry .... it's a terrible thing, in general, but it is no longer possible to retreat.
    1. hydrox
      hydrox 26 November 2020 09: 45
      +4
      Quote: rocket757
      Just another stage of military rivalry ... a terrible thing,

      For the States, let this matter remain scary and unknown, but we are somehow tired of running "after", now we can take a breath and change the theme of "brute strength" to grace and elusiveness (along with irresistibility!)
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 26 November 2020 10: 17
        +3
        Running in pursuit is difficult, but running ahead is unlikely to be easy either ... except perhaps it flatters pride.
        There are no better options anyway.
        1. hydrox
          hydrox 26 November 2020 19: 44
          +2
          This is the case when there is nowhere to go, you still have to run, perhaps having slightly slowed down the pace, but at the same time deepening the study of details - after all, it is in them that all Satan is buried lol
          And let the Yankes catch up (if they succeed).
          Today for the first time the start of Zircon was shown to the general public ...
          Well, fast, infection! laughing
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 26 November 2020 19: 55
            +1
            We have different segments of weapons in priority, because the main ones are different levels of tasks and goals, basically.
            There are intersections, but not many.
            1. hydrox
              hydrox 26 November 2020 20: 23
              +1
              And this should not be done: copying is complete nonsense: we just need to work properly in the segments that we consider to be priorities, and in which we have the maximum gap in materiel with the enemy.
              And then history will show whose path was more correct.
              Because the main thesis of the United States is: "Weaken Russia economically by all measures and possibilities, and when Russia is weakened economically, it will be possible to take it with our bare hands."
              That is why we simply have neither the right nor the financial capabilities to develop air defense and missile defense systems along the width of the entire front.
              1. rocket757
                rocket757 26 November 2020 20: 48
                0
                Quote: hydrox
                That is why we simply have neither the right nor financial capabilities to develop air defense and missile defense systems along the width of the entire front.

                Somewhat wrong .... an integrated, combined approach!
                Where necessary, where it is easier and more effective, it is possible to expand the control zone, to influence the enemy's strike assets.
                In some cases, it is more effective to concentrate defense assets on the most important areas and objects!
                In general, the Siberian forests, distant expanses are not protected everywhere, but all possible ways to the objects are important, the main thing to control and protect!
                So our defenders know a lot about this and do not need anyone's advice.
                1. hydrox
                  hydrox 27 November 2020 08: 46
                  0
                  And I don't mind in this part: but with such a shameful management of Russia's economic resources, there will NEVER be enough funds to provide both social and defense industries - the defense industry should work in an emergency mode. By the way, 2% of the curvature of the linearity of the personal income tax scale is a mockery of pennies and common sense: what is paid in pennies is guaranteed to remain in the financial turnover of Russia, and what is given to liber thieves is guaranteed to go offshore.
                  1. rocket757
                    rocket757 27 November 2020 09: 30
                    0
                    Everything in our life is intertwined, interdependent!
                    If it has arrived somewhere, it means that it has disappeared somewhere .... but this is another topic for discussion.
                    1. hydrox
                      hydrox 27 November 2020 10: 18
                      -1
                      It is possible to discuss for a long time, but the landing is needed now, while the people still trust, but all of course, and to take up the liber thieves in an adult way for loans-for-shares auctions of 93-96 is still scary, or ... is external interference worse?
                      1. rocket757
                        rocket757 27 November 2020 10: 44
                        0
                        A raven, a raven will not peck out its eyes ... unless the food supply becomes scarce to the point.
                        Discussed, discussed and .... will be discussed many times.
                      2. hydrox
                        hydrox 27 November 2020 11: 26
                        -1
                        No, the overseas raven will not miss this opportunity.
                      3. rocket757
                        rocket757 27 November 2020 11: 45
                        0
                        Overseas of the same species .... only his flock is different and at the expense of feed, they will not be divided in any way.
  • rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 26 November 2020 10: 14
    +2
    The Italian very correctly analyzed the situation and put it on the shelves. The principle of containment has indeed been preserved, which greatly infuriates the Americans. Economically pressed, pressed, but could not crush, they tried to violate parity in nuclear weapons and withdraw from the ABM treaty, but even then it was a bummer. Hence such hysteria and endless sanctions.
  • sav
    sav 26 November 2020 10: 37
    +16
    Russian hypersonic missiles - defense weapons

    Conclusion: you need to strengthen the Fleet.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 26 November 2020 10: 38
    -4
    All were mixed in a heap: Vanguard, Dagger, Zircon.
    Of the three, only Vanguard is particularly challenging for missile defense.
    The other two are difficult to intercept, but it is possible with existing means.
    1. hydrox
      hydrox 26 November 2020 19: 50
      0
      This is especially for "warriors": to show that you cannot run with two feet in three mutually orthogonal directions ...
  • 22 dmdc
    22 dmdc 26 November 2020 13: 21
    +2
    Quote: voyaka uh
    All were mixed in a heap: Vanguard, Dagger, Zircon.
    Of the three, only Vanguard is particularly challenging for missile defense.
    The other two are difficult to intercept, but it is possible for existing means

    Oh yeah! A rusty colander is easy to handle.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 26 November 2020 19: 57
      -1
      No, the Iron Dome definitely won't do it. Zero chances.
      But already David's Sling - a larger system -
      can "try" to intercept the Dagger (Iskander) in the middle section.
      Zircon - it is not yet clear what it is, and what its speed
      at the terminal site.
  • viktor.
    viktor. 26 November 2020 14: 59
    0
    ... Through the efforts of the opposition and economic sanctions, they will still destroy the power. Then Russia can be taken with bare hands, and this time finally. The mistakes of the 90s, when it seemed to them that we were going to die ourselves, they would not allow it a second time. Unfortunately, we have a lot of fools!
  • Old26
    Old26 26 November 2020 15: 13
    0
    Quite controversial article, to be honest. Some of the Italians' passages do not "fit into any gate" at all.
    and the conclusions are quite controversial. Let's take some examples

    As noted, the United States began expanding its missile defense system back in 2002, when it decided to unilaterally withdraw from the 1972 ABM Treaty, which prohibited the widespread deployment of defense against ballistic missiles.

    Quite a controversial statement. It is good, at least that they do not write that the United States "violated the ABM Treaty." At the same time, the main reason that the United States withdrew from this treaty was not indicated. And the reason is not only in Russia, but also in the changed situation in the world. If in 1972 only a few countries possessed medium-range missiles, then after 30 years the number of opponents of the same United States possessing such weapons increased significantly. In the articles related to the withdrawal from the treaties, it is written that if the country considers that the treaty limits its defense capabilities, then it can withdraw from this treaty.
    And what happened at the time of 2002. There is only one country in the world - Russia (the former USSR) had a strategic missile defense system. And the USA, their Safeguard system was mothballed by EMNIP in 1976.
    That is, in fact, the United States did not have a strategic missile defense system in 2002. They began to deploy it (or, as it is written in the article, "began to expand the missile defense system" in 2002. Under the 1972 treaty, the United States had the right to have left (under the 1974 protocol - one) missile defense system deployment area with 100 interceptors. Having "expanded" they have two interceptor deployment areas with a total number of interceptors equal to 48. And, apparently, talks about bringing the second position area to the level of the first, and even more so the deployment of the third and fourth position areas - all this is nothing more than propaganda noise. The Americans realized that with existing technologies they can only intercept individual missiles launched with a 100% guarantee. can not.
    But to create for themselves (and indirectly for the allies) a missile defense system capable of intercepting MRBMs - they can. But for this they also needed to withdraw from the ABM Treaty ... The locations of the same ABM bases in Europe allow us to conclude what they are mainly intended for ...

    And what could be better than hypersonic weapons, which are very difficult to track and shoot down?

    This is also a controversial conclusion. Tracking hypersonic weapons is no more difficult than conventional ballistic missiles, which are essentially hypersonic themselves. Shoot down? Yes, most likely it will be more difficult to do than an unguided warhead, but to say that it is impossible to shoot them down is to take a nap in advance on our laurels, which in fact will not exist. Moreover, not a single country (neither Russia nor China), when testing its hypersonic ones, has conducted the entire test cycle, which would allow answering the following question: how difficult is it to shoot down a hypersonic maneuvering target

    Russia, fully aware of the danger of the situation in which it finds itself, has made rapid progress in the format of defense weapons - such products as Zircon, Avangard and Dagger - making America a catch-up, and to this day.

    It is difficult to call an offensive weapon a defense weapon, especially a long (not to mention intercontinental) range

    Quote: denis obuckov
    We are great! Fear us !!!

    Is it already possible to grumble without turning on the brain?

    Quote: NDR-791
    at the same time, Russia did not present hypersonic weapons as a means of enhancing the combat power of conventional weapons. Work in this direction was intended to dramatically increase the offensive potential of nuclear weapons
    That's what they really put on their ass. Only in this composition! So I wonder how ??? do the brains of amers work? If they did not foresee that making such rockets it is pointless to equip them with conventional TNT? And it will be precisely the strengthening of the nuclear component.

    Their brains work the same way as others. Do not trust the media in everything. But, as far as truly conventional hypersonic weapons are concerned, the Americans began to develop them within the framework of the BSU (rapid global strike) concept and in fact were originally intended for actions against rogue countries, because for the Americans it was clear that against countries such as Russia and China - this weapon is not real and in fact was not intended. It is worth remembering what was the beginning of work in this area. A strike with two cruise missiles on a mujahideen camp in Afghanistan when bin Laden was in this camp. Two Tomahawk missiles, namely they only had conventional warheads, were launched from an American ship (EMNIP - nuclear submarine) and "walked" to the target for about two hours. During this time, bin Laden was already able to leave for another place. It became clear that something faster was required.

    A sharp increase in the potential of nuclear weapons simply will not work due to the fact that the maneuvering hypersonic apparatus itself is a more dimensional "unit" than the same nuclear warhead. And where there were 3-6 conventional, non-guided warheads on the missiles, only one is placed. For example, count. In Russia, it is planned to deploy two regiments of Vanguard carriers in the amount of 12 pieces. If each ICBM of this type had 6 conventional warheads, then there were ONE maneuvering ones. As a result, 12 Vanguards will be deployed on 12 ICBMs instead of 72 NUBBs. It is difficult to call this an increase in the potential of nuclear weapons. The only option that has not yet been tested by anyone is to complicate the work of the missile defense system. Complicate but not paralyze
    1. ont65
      ont65 30 November 2020 13: 54
      0
      Medium-range missiles do not directly threaten the United States. The missile defense, as it was rightly said, was deployed on a large scale to stop the ability to repel attacks from the borders of Russia, where NATO forces are being built up. Vanguard is a meaningful name, such a system will be used for targets of the first stage, including so that subsequent strikes by other means take place without interference.