Blocks of "Avangard" will not be intercepted: Questions arose in the United States about the effectiveness of the missile defense system against hypersonic weapons of the Russian Federation

In connection with the appearance in Russia of hypersonic missile systems of various types, the United States raised the question of how effective the anti-missile defense system being built is.

The Pentagon notes that at the time of the beginning of the creation of missile defense elements in Romania and Poland, the system looked more than relevant, but now questions arise about its effectiveness.

This discussion alone actually “unmasks” the goal of the American side, which (the side), before starting the construction of facilities in the Romanian Deveselu and the Polish Redzikovo, stated that “this is not against Russia, but as a defense against Iran.” Now the United States is already trying to directly associate these facilities with countering the Russian missile potential, which was in our country, by and large, initially obvious.

The main problem that the US military is considering today is related to questions about the effectiveness of the THAAD system. In particular, it is indicated that the speed of the target, which the anti-missile system of this complex can intercept, is estimated at a maximum of 4,8 km / s. And for the hypersonic maneuvering unit of the Avangard missile system, the speed is at the level of 6,5 km / s (maximum), which tests have shown. At the same time, the attack may not necessarily come from the “extraatmospheric area”, on which the functionality of the American THAAD is “sharpened”.

Initially, the United States stated that it might take up to 50 anti-missiles to destroy one of the latest Russian hypersonic missile units, which in itself looks like a variant of salvo firing from several complexes in the hope that at least one anti-missile "hooks something." But now the Pentagon, wanting to once again receive additional funding, actually admits the obvious - the existing US missile defense system, including THAAD systems, against the hypersonic Russian weapons powerless. Avangard blocks will not be intercepted.

The US military department is going to improve its missile defense systems. For this, as stated, a combined missile defense system can be implemented - classic anti-missiles and combat laser weapons. But how realistic it is with the existing laser technologies to achieve from the beam the “burning out” of a missile unit maneuvering at a colossal speed - so far the question is mostly rhetorical.

Here it is important to note the fact that statements about the need to modernize the US missile defense system, including to counter the Avangard, indicate that the United States has decided to abandon the rhetoric of the style "this is not the latest weapon, but just Russian animation."

Comments

[iouris]

Let's do a natural experiment.

[figwam]

the existing US missile defense system, including THAAD systems, is powerless against Russian hypersonic weapons. Avangard blocks will not be intercepted.

In my opinion, they have already begun to suspect something, well done.

[Reserve officer]

So they created missile defense in Europe from Iranian missiles. There was no talk about Russia.
So what's the panic now? Let Europe be protected from Iran.

[bar]

Conduct joint exercises. We'll launch the Vanguard, they'll catch it. If they don't catch it, we'll launch it again

[Alex777]

It will cost them too much.
First, the States need to destroy chemical weapons,
Extend START-3, pay in gold...
Long list.

[Machito]

Quote: bar

Conduct joint exercises. We'll launch the Vanguard, they'll catch it. If they don't catch it, we'll launch it again

The American missile defense turned out to be zilch.

[Doccor18]

Quote: iouris

Let's do a natural experiment.

We can limit ourselves to cartoons. I really want to hold great-grandchildren in my arms ...

[knn54]

No matter how lasers (accidentally) start shooting down their anti-missiles ...

[military_cat]

Quote: iouris

Let's do a natural experiment.

In this case, we also have to intercept their blocks. And although for some reason it is not customary to remember this, we will not intercept them in the same way.

[Volder]

Quote: military_cat

In this case, we also have to intercept their blocks. And although for some reason it is not customary to remember this, we will not intercept them in the same way.

Of course, we will intercept when the S-500 begins to enter the troops en masse. Theoretically, we will be able to cover the whole of Russia with these complexes - just like the new radar stations covered the entire perimeter of the border with an "umbrella".

[Boa kaa]

Quote: military_cat

but we will not intercept them in the same way.

Are you sure about this?
Our missile defense is built on other physical principles than the Yankees.
We are fans of "champagne". And the cowboys are all trying to hit a flying bullet with a bullet.
And our "bullet" suddenly became "maneuvering", which is why the Yankee sharply lost sight ...
(This is the difference between Champagne and Whiskey! (c) )

[military_cat]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

Are you sure about this?
Our missile defense is built on other physical principles than the Yankees.

As of today, nothing will help from a massive blow. And before the advent of maneuvering warheads, it didn’t help either.

As for kinetic warheads, cowboys (as well as Jews, Chinese, Indians) need them to track misses. If the anti-missile is not kinetic, then whether it was able to successfully disable the ballistic target (and whether it is necessary to send another anti-missile) is impossible to say.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: military_cat

If the anti-missile is not kinetic, then whether it was able to successfully disable the ballistic target (and whether it is necessary to send another anti-missile) is impossible to say.

Colleague, I understand your skepticism. But the "brick" does not explode like a thermonuclear weapon. Maximum - will make a hole in the asphalt ...
(We will survive this trouble! (c). Cat Leopold.)

[APASUS]

Quote: iouris

Let's do a natural experiment.

This will never happen in my life. That the Americans are against full-scale tests of the M1 Abrams super tank, that they are against the comparative tests of the F-35, and now you also offer air defense. If there is a full-scale comparison and shortcomings in any system are revealed, then to whom will this manure be sold? And so weapons from the USA take all the first places in all magazines and ratings !!

[Operator]

The rhetoric "this is not the latest weapon, but just Russian animation" is the lot of Bandera

The only thing I didn’t understand is how are the Americans going to shoot down a GPB flying in a plasma shell with a laser?

[boris epstein]

Laser missile defense was already there. SDI, to which Mishka Humpbacked fell for, although Academician Savin proved to him that it was a dummy. Actually, Savin's arguments are still relevant today.

[SRC P-15]

"Drank, ate, had fun, counted - shed tears!"

[lopvlad]

says that in the States they decided to abandon the rhetoric of style "this is not the latest weapon, but just Russian animation."

Russian animation is such that it makes the pants of American partners who built and built missile defense bases around Russia not against Russia get dirty.
And then bam and animation after watching which embarrassment happened to their missile defense system.

[poquello]

therefore, financing at the expense of the Arabs is in question, we decided to look for money from the FRS typewriter)))))))))))

[Cron]

After the presentation of the GDP of new weapons, local "experts" shouted about cartoons, although the states themselves immediately said that they were aware of these developments. Well, as they say, they stink, stink and will stink, but the caravan goes on

[cons]

Well it's time to act!

[wt100]

They built missile defense not against us, well then we, too, are naturally hypersonic not against them

[Mikle2000]

You might think not the vanguards can be intercepted. Well, half a hundred anti-missiles will be fired, well, they will shoot down a dozen targets out of several THOUSANDS, of which half are false. It seems to me that it is better to throw eight to ten combat units with one carrier than one or two vanguards. More will fly to the enemy.

[awg75]

and everything that is will fly. and such, and such and many unknown)))

[Sergey Sfiedu]

There are also big doubts that THAAD and Standard-3 will be able to shoot down ICBMs. They are designed to intercept medium-range missiles, which have lower speeds.

[Alexander K_2]

Enchanting! Still, these blocks, "Vanguard", flew to where they were launched. The events in Syria and Karabakh in relation to the Russian ones, much more simply say the opposite, in fact, all the new models are in fact, 99% - EMPTY RING!

[lucul]

Enchanting! Still, these blocks, "Vanguard", flew to where they were launched. The events in Syria and Karabakh in relation to the Russian ones, much more simply say the opposite, in fact, all the new models are in fact, 99% - EMPTY RING! fellow

How do you get sick of the news)))

[Alexander K_2]

From what news? Maybe about the one where it is declared: they say there will be some kind of Miracle, Vanguard, and its parts, how will they shatter into pieces and it is not possible to track them? So every taxpayer in Russia should be shaken by this news, because these are the taxes that were taken from him! And you are not sausage from this Brad?

[lucul]

And you are not sausage from this Brad?

From your ?
The English have a good saying - if someone quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, flies like a duck - then most likely this is a duck.
What kind of neglected form of nihilism do you have.

[Alexander K_2]

So I'm talking about a miracle, Vanguard, and you are talking about a duck, about nihilism, about the English and sayings. The avant-garde is a miracle weapon of Russia, which, if it takes off, and even reaches where it was sent, then the evil and insidious ,, Americans ,. maybe they won’t even touch him. the Vanguard will fly quickly - quickly, but it will hit exactly - exactly !!! And you about hunting and waterfowl.

[Sergey Kulikov_3]

Are you still saying that the Americans are dumber than you, since they are preparing to intercept "cartoons"?

[Alexander K_2]

Your truth, the whole world is surprised at the stupidity of the Americans, and takes advantage of their achievements. Great countries are investing HUGE funds at the mere rumor of an American threat, keeping their funds in American banks. I don’t understand why their children are sent to study with fools, apparently they themselves are not enough Fools, they buy many millions of real estate in the territory of an “enemy” country. So who's the bigger fool?

[Kuz]

In the United States, questions arose about the effectiveness of the missile defense system against hypersonic weapons of the Russian Federation

Their "way of life" and "Western values," as they used to describe themselves, are under threat.

[Ros 56]

Shta striped, excited?

[Whirlwind]

Yes, even this missile defense system will be enough for them, unless they completely go crazy and start Armageddon themselves.
As soon as Google turns off the Russian Federation at least from YouTube, such a hungry howl will rise in the cities that the carcasses will turn off the lights.
And taking into account the fact that all the hardware and software we have is from them and is constantly updated by them, and not only on home PCs, BUT also on CNC machines, etc. etc... They are 100% insured.
And yes. The Internet of Things and 5 G under them are on the way, and the cherry is his majesty AI. Whose wake up..?
So it's too early for us to fly to the moon. On Earth, urgent and expensive cases are up to the throat.

[Alexander 3]

The literate know that the war, if anything, will be the last, but you really need to make money on weapons. To do this, you need to constantly get scared and squeal. In America, there are great specialists with extensive experience.

[rocket757]

The forest is getting thicker, the partisans are getting thicker ..... the appetite of the striped military-industrial complex is immense.
They will, they will print candy wrappers and pair them with everyone and for everything. Oh yes, competitors, everyone, will fall to drive to the nail!
Hard times are coming, and not just for us.

[HAM]

One thing is good - now they are catching up, maybe, finally, their muzzle will crack .....

[Old26]

Interestingly, what does the US missile defense system based on the THAAD complex have to do with it? It, like the Aegis ship system (the ground-based Aegis Ashor, is designed exclusively to intercept medium-range (according to the American classification - intermediate) range missiles (missile firing range up to 3500 km)
To intercept Fvanguards, only a missile defense system based on GBI strategic anti-missiles can be used. And this is a completely different matter.

[voyaka uh]

THAAD is also going to be used to intercept warheads of ICBMs.
But already on the descent before hitting the target. Unlike GBI from Alaska,
which should intercept ICBMs in the middle section.
GBI has sort of a few tries, THAAD has just one.
Therefore, the probability is low, and only when protecting the object.

[Boa kaa]

Quote from rudolf

Yes, and in the event of an interception in the active site, to a light bulb, what kind of head does an ICBM have.

Rudolf, hello, lost soul!
Which "head" is exactly - to the light bulb ... Not to the light bulb, the bearing of the shooting. If the route lies through the UP, then the GBI from Alaska simply will not get it. Yes, and Siberian missile divisions with 100UTTH are not particularly subject to distribution.
Then, it is logical to assume that with a big BADABOOM, "K * measures" will be carried out to ensure the RNA: we are not in vain deploying our beaters in Chukotka ...
So, there are no naive people in the General Staff for a long time, and the ams, I believe, are well aware of this: with the installation on the R-28 database, you can bury the tomahawk and start bargaining for acceptable terms of "surrender".
(Unless, of course, nothing extraordinary happens ... There is also Comrade Xi, a lover of our popsicle, there ... and the ambitions of the Celestial Empire are worse than the Union once had.)
IMHO.

[Egor53]

The United States defends Romania and Poland from .... Iran.
Do they have enough psychiatric hospitals for State Department employees?

[Alexey Sommer]

Vanguard blocks will not be intercepted

This has long been known.

[lucul]

This has long been known.

Any sane person, but our liberals are not among them.

[Herman 4223]

Are they worried that Iran will accidentally get the avant-garde?

[lucul]

Are they worried that Iran will accidentally get the avant-garde?

Not without it ))))

[Herman 4223]

I thought so.

[faterdom]

Wanted to protect Europe from Iran and S. Korea?
Molotz! Protected!
For all these years, neither the first nor the second dared to attack Europe with their undemocratic missiles!
So, money is due from Europe, of course... And more!
Any democracy is only worth something if it knows how to defend itself! (V.I. Lenin) Or was it not about democracy? Well, the main thing is about the cost, and this is the main thing!

[Klingon]

how they are going to shoot down a hypersonic device with a laser is a mystery to me, because the coating of such a device was initially sharpened to withstand a plasma temperature of several thousand degrees ... it is even more unclear how they are going to aim at it and hold the beam on a hyper-speed target .. it's like shooting at a meteorite

[A_Lex]

Now the United States is already trying to directly associate these facilities with countering the Russian missile potential, which was in our country, by and large, initially obvious.

I never understood this obsessive desire to achieve "frank confession." Actions are always more important than words. Therefore, if the enemy carries out actions that threaten your interests, any of his denials can be safely regarded as a lie. By the way, the Americans, as usual, go further in this regard and use as a pretext not even the actions of the opponent, but assumptions about his actions. Those. for them, as for self-proclaimed first-rate ones, their own interpretation of events that have occurred or may occur is sufficient as evidence. This is a typical consequence of the Protestant ethic, in which one can read and interpret the Bible as one likes, and as a result find in it a direct encouragement to enrich oneself. It turns out a very convenient position - I believe in what I want and I consider it an axiom.

[Guazdilla]

The Pentagon notes that at the time of the beginning of the creation of missile defense elements in Romania and Poland, the system looked more than relevant, but now questions arise about its effectiveness.

At the initial stage of the flight of our missiles, their system is still relevant today, because the Aegis reach missiles that have not gained speed. That is why the bulk of the launches that are dangerous for them are concentrated beyond the Urals.
That is, the goal of missile defense in Romania and Poland is being achieved so far.

[Svetlana]

Quote: Guzadilla

the bulk of launches dangerous for them are concentrated beyond the Urals.

Vanguards should be placed closer to America, for example, in Pevek, Kolyuchinskaya or Mechigemskaya Bay in Chukotka. Carthage must be destroyed. But this is not against the Americans, but to protect against the Martians :)
https://zen.yandex.ru/media/polulet/izrailskii-general-rasskazal-o-sotrudnichestve-s-inoplanetianami-5fd45f4d9480ec78dc2b7c0b

[Zaurbek]

ABM in Romania and Poland and Aegis from the seas should shoot down missiles at the start. And how do they differ from conventional BRs at the beginning of the trajectory?

[pyc.arpeccop tornado 150]

Nothing. Therefore, Russian ICBMs should preferably be launched farther away to their missile defense system being deployed in Europe
and, preferably, from mobile missile systems.

[voronin]

Somehow suspicious - the Americans admit the inefficiency of their weapons ...

[Egor53]

The United States does not have any anti-missile defense against Russian missiles, and cannot have it.
The whole world knows about it. Whether this will deter the Americans from a nuclear strike - who knows. Only cowardice can hold back.

[Alien From]

For every tricky sugar bowl, there is a spoon

[Al Asad]

Wait, the missile defense system in Romania and Poland officially protected Europe from Iranian missiles. What side are the Russian missiles here?

[peterpen]

That's right. The United States and its allies want to defend themselves against a few Iranian and Korean missiles .. It will never and nowhere be possible to protect missile defense from a massive nuclear missile strike of the Russian Federation. Therefore, all sorts of "Vanguards" there, even if they were once possible, The Russian Federation would not need such systems. The United States does not need such systems. And they refused to implement this program back in 2013. Both the Russian Federation and the United States with their nuclear weapons carriers already have no chance of avoiding devastating retaliation strikes against a friend. This became completely clear to both the USSR and the United States back in 1963. Everything is logical and understandable. Therefore, in the USA there can be no talk of such a possibility in principle. Therefore, everything written in the article is another propaganda fiction.

[Dude]

That's right. The United States and its allies want to defend themselves against the few Iranian and Korean missiles <...> It became completely clear to both the USSR and the United States back in 1963. Everything is logical and understandable. Therefore, in the United States there can be no talk about such a possibility in principle. Therefore, everything written in the article is another propaganda fiction.

Of course of course. And Able Archer 83, so, for the sake of fun, they carried it out.

[peterpen]

And where in the USA were these confessions made? By chance, again, not in the magazine "The National Interest", published by Dmitry Simes, he was also a Komsomol worker Dmitry Simis in his nee?

[VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK]

From detection to interception, there will soon be no time left! Even if hypersonic!

[Egg]

Quote: military_cat

As of today, nothing will help from a massive blow

Even on the S-200, when I served, in addition to the usual one, there were vigorous warheads, on the S-75, mine too. This is just for landing a massive attack, that of aircraft, that of a massive missile attack. I suspect that things are no worse with modern air defense systems.

[Zomanus]

They apparently forgot about our Poseidon underwater systems ...

[Old26]

Quote: Svetlana

Vanguards should be placed closer to America, for example, in Pevek, Kolyuchinskaya or Mechigemskaya Bay in Chukotka.

Are you ready to finance the digging of mines in Pevek and Anadyr and the creation of the entire infrastructure?

Quote: Zaurbek

ABM in Romania and Poland and Aegis from the seas should shoot down missiles at the start. And how do they differ from conventional BRs at the beginning of the trajectory?

They should, but who will give them. Especially the sea "Aegis"?
And the deployment of these bases in Romania and Poland is such that practically all of Russia's missile bases are removed from under their attack.

Quote: Alexander K_2

Enchanting! Still, these blocks, "Vanguard", flew to where they were launched.

I will tell you a terrible secret. The Avangards flew to the place where they were launched. And you "minus" for ignorance of the materiel

Quote: Egor53

The United States does not have any anti-missile defense against Russian missiles, and cannot have it. The whole world knows about it.

I must note that there is no missile defense against a massive launch and no country can have it. A missile defense system can be guaranteed to intercept a dozen simple targets, but is not capable of intercepting hundreds of missiles with MIRVs and decoys ...

Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK

From detection to interception, there will soon be no time left! Even if hypersonic!

Quite enough. The very fact of the launch will be known 20-25 minutes before the fall of the BG. Early warning radars will give updated data in 7-8 minutes, depending on where the missiles are aimed

[Svetlana]

Quote: Old26

digging mines in Pevek and Anadyr and creating the entire infrastructure?

From Mechigmen Bay to Eielson Air Base in Alaska 1150 km
From Kolyuchinskaya Bay to Eielson Air Base in Alaska 1250 km
From the Kanchalan Bay in the Anadyr region to the Eielson air base 1650 km
From Chaun Bay near Pevek to Eielson Air Base 1860 km
Elmendorf Air Base is even closer.
All of these water areas are located in the territorial waters of Russia.
Digging of mines is not required in the case of placement of Vanguards in ampouled underwater containers, moored in the mentioned water areas, closed from the penetration of foreign submarine fleet. Underwater-based security against enemy ICBMs is higher than mine-based, since the exact coordinates of the basing are unknown and the layer of water guarantees that there is no direct contact of the warhead that arrived at hypersonics with the ampoule container before the explosion. The launch is also possible in winter, with a preliminary opening by an explosion of the ice cover. Containers with Vanguards can be transported to their base by the Northern Sea Route. And containers may not contain Avangads, but, for example, modernized Iskanders with a range increased to 1200 km. Particularly expensive infrastructure for the operation of underwater containers with missiles will not be required. Only a submarine cable to the coastal radio point. It is also possible to communicate with sonars similar to those used on the Russian deep-sea vehicle Vityaz, see https://www.gazeta.ru/science/2020/05/09_a_13077277.shtml

[Old26]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

If the route lies through the UP, then the GBI from Alaska simply will not get it. Yes, and Siberian missile divisions with 100UTTH are not particularly subject to distribution.

Two remarks.
1. NONE of our ICBMs can now fly through the UP. The distance is simply not enough. Yu. Borisov once stated that the Sarmat could fly through the UP, although a lot of questions arise, but how much will he then "drag the gifts" to the adversary
2. There are no Siberian divisions with 100 UTTH. There were two of them in the European part - Tatishchevskaya and Kozelskaya (now gone)

[Old26]

Quote: Svetlana

Quote: Old26

digging mines in Pevek and Anadyr and creating the entire infrastructure?

From Mechigmen Bay to Eielson Air Base in Alaska 1150 km
From Kolyuchinskaya Bay to Eielson Air Base in Alaska 1250 km
From the Kanchalan Bay in the Anadyr region to the Eielson air base 1650 km
From Chaun Bay near Pevek to Eielson Air Base 1860 km
Elmendorf Air Base is even closer.
All of these water areas are located in the territorial waters of Russia.

Wonderful. AND? The length of the active section is about 800 km, the height of the active section is about 400 km. Deploying ships with the Aegis complex in this region is not difficult, as is building a couple of Aegis Ashur bases in Alaska and the islands. You are putting the Americans on favorable terms in advance. Shooting down the soaring "Vanguard" in such a situation is not difficult. And consider one more thing. Even before the end of the OUT, he will be in the zone of destruction of the GBI anti-missiles.

Quote: Svetlana

Digging of mines is not required in the case of placement of Vanguards in ampouled underwater containers, moored in the mentioned water areas, closed from the penetration of foreign submarine fleet. Underwater-based security against enemy ICBMs is higher than mine-based, since the exact coordinates of the basing are unknown and the layer of water guarantees that there is no direct contact of the warhead that arrived at hypersonics with the ampoule container before the explosion.

Let's start with the fact that the TPK, in which the Avangard is currently being transported, is not intended to be placed under water. In fact, only the first and second stages of the rocket are in the TPK, and the extension, the assembly and instrument compartment with the breeding stage, the Avangard itself and the head fairing are located OUTSIDE TPK.... Security? In fact, water is not compressible, as far as I remember a high school physics course. And the hydrodynamic impact from even a small nuclear explosion will fucking break this container ...

Quote: Svetlana

The launch is also possible in winter, with a preliminary opening by an explosion of the ice cover.

You are only forgetting one thing. launch from the container in which the rocket is located is not possible. There is no launch equipment. Previously, such a floating launcher was planned under the EMNIP Skat project. But there was even a non-self-propelled (slightly self-propelled), but an underwater missile base.
You are forgetting another important detail. There is a ban on placing in the water column (oceanic, sea, lake launchers, stationary or mobile, if their missile launch range exceeds 600 km (up to 600 can still be placed in their own tervods
By violating this principle, we will open Pandora's box. Our enemy will be able to place an order of magnitude more of these containers along our entire coastline. And what do we gain by doing so?

Quote: Svetlana

Particularly expensive infrastructure for the operation of underwater containers with missiles will not be required. Only a submarine cable to the coastal radio point. It is also possible to communicate with sonars similar to those used on the Russian deep-sea vehicle "Vityaz"

And are you going to download software from the radio? New in the preparation of the rocket for launch. Well, sonar. Why is he, if these containers NOT SELF-PROPELLED, ANCHORED

[Svetlana]

Quote: Old26

water is not compressible

Reinforced concrete in ground silos is also not compressible. But there is foam concrete - a compressible material. The container must be made multilayer. Outside - a waterproof layer of painted metal, under it - a layer of foam concrete, Under foam concrete - a layer of reinforced concrete to create zero buoyancy of the container. Under the reinforced concrete - a layer of the shell of the transport-launch ampouled container. The pressure of the shock wave decreases with increasing distance to the epicenter, according to the Sedov-Sadovsky formula, inversely proportional to the cube of the radius, so it is not easy to destroy a multilayer container buried by 100..200 m.

Quote: Old26

Deploying ships with the Aegis complex in this region is not difficult, as is building a couple of Aegis Ashur bases in Alaska and the islands.

The cost of placing and maintaining Aegis Ashor is an order of magnitude more expensive than the cost of placing underwater containers with Iskanders. Iskanders can maneuver, so they are difficult targets for Aegis Ashor.

Quote: Old26

By violating this principle, we will open Pandora's box.

Hasn't the US, having withdrawn from the SALT treaty, already opened the box?

Quote: Old26

There is a ban on placement in the water column (ocean, sea, lake launchers, stationary or mobile

But what about submarines - don't they, located in the water column, have launchers? To formally comply with the said ban, you can call underwater containers submarines and attach a fake screw to them for clarity. In principle, the aforementioned inland waters are ideal for placing SSBNs in them, since there will be no tails in the form of seawolves behind them. The enemy observes only those treaties that are beneficial to him. If it were profitable for him to place underwater containers off our coasts, then he would have done it long ago.

[DmSol]

there is an opinion that the missile defense system in Romania and Poland is an offensive, not a defensive complex, directed against Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg.

[Old26]

Quote: DmSol

there is an opinion that the missile defense system in Romania and Poland is an offensive, not a defensive complex, directed against Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg.

This opinion is based on the fact that "axes" can theoretically be placed in the MK-41. That's just the base of Romania is located, as if we would say "you can't imagine it on purpose." It is located in such a place that, theoretically, "axes" can fly into the territory of the Russian Federation 100-150 km deep. And if Crimea is saturated with air defense systems, strike weapons during an attack on Crimea will be destroyed even before they fly up.
Base in Poland against Kaliningrad? Well, you have to be very wise to use a rocket worth millions of dollars at 1/10 of its range. If the area is saturated with air defense systems, they will be destroyed on approach. Moreover, they will need 13 minutes to fly to the border of the region.
Same thing with Peter. Subsonic missiles have zero chances to break through to it. Again, due to the saturation of the Leningrad and Pskov regions with air defense systems ..

[Old26]

Quote: Svetlana

Reinforced concrete in ground silos is also not compressible. But there is foam concrete - a compressible material. The container must be made multilayer. Outside - a waterproof layer of painted metal, under it - a layer of foam concrete, Under foam concrete - a layer of reinforced concrete to create zero buoyancy of the container. Under the reinforced concrete - a layer of the shell of the transport-launch ampouled container. The pressure of the shock wave decreases with increasing distance to the epicenter, according to the Sedov-Sadovsky formula, inversely proportional to the cube of the radius, so it is not easy to destroy a multilayer container buried by 100..200 m.

Will you also shoot from a depth of 100-200 meters ?? The depth of the launch corridor for SSBNs (both ours and others) is about 30-50 meters. When leaving this corridor, the start command is reset.
Further. Your structure will weigh .... Count for yourself. I'm lazy. But the dimensions of the Avangard carrier are about 28 meters and a diameter of 2,5. Even if TPK is made of fiberglass, it will weigh several tons. Plus the rocket itself with a launch weight of under 110 tons. Plus a layer of reinforced concrete, plus a layer of foam concrete. And do you think that a layer of foam concrete or something else will be sufficient to create zero buoyancy ???

Quote: Svetlana

The cost of placing and maintaining Aegis Ashor is an order of magnitude more expensive than the cost of placing underwater containers with Iskanders. Iskanders can maneuver, so they are difficult targets for Aegis Ashor.

ABOUT! Now you are going to put Iskanders in these underwater containers. Iskanders can maneuver only in the first seconds of flight and in the minds of especially advanced users. The engine running time is about 45-75 seconds. Here, while the engine is running, it is still capable of doing something (“maneuvering”). After that, a burnt-out blank flies to the target, with only small aerodynamic surfaces left. And he almost cannot maneuver, except for a couple of degrees of rotation, which allows him to have a CVO of 10 meters. Will you also enter the flight task input from the radio station on the shore?

Quote: Svetlana

Hasn't the US, having withdrawn from the SALT treaty, already opened the box?

No. How unpleasant it is for certain members of the forum to hear this, who argue that it is impossible to conclude agreements with the United States and that they are incapable of negotiating, but the basic, fundamental restrictions on the same SALT are observed. Read the SALT treaty and all its appendices and additional agreements. The restrictions that were then approved include (offhand, from memory):

1. Restriction on the number of warheads on ICBMs in the amount of 10 units.
That is, all the talk that the Sarmat ICBM will carry 16, 20, or even 24 warheads is ordinary idle talk and nothing more.

2. Limitation on the number of warheads on SLBMs in the amount of 14 units.

3. Restriction on the number of warheads (cruise missiles) on strategic bombers in the amount of 20 units.
The rules for offsetting BB on aircraft may vary from contract to contract, but
maximum number - unchanged

4. A ban on the deployment of ballistic missiles with a range of more than 600 km on strategic bombers.
This ban lasted throughout the existence of the SALT-2 treaty, and despite the fact that other treaties no longer had this provision, both parties continue to adhere to this provision. But even a "violation" of this provision is not a violation, because the agreement is no longer in effect.

5. Prohibition of creation and deployment on aircraft other than
strategic bombers (transport and cargo aircraft, regardless of affiliation) cruise missiles with a range of more than 600 km.
This means that none of the parties can convert their transport (cargo passenger) aircraft into a carrier of cruise missiles. Therefore, the MS-747 program did not leave the project stage

6. Deployment ban on ships, vessels and other floating craft
ballistic missiles with a range of more than 600 km, except for submarines
This means that all our talk about the fact that we can place ballistic missiles with a range of more than 600 km on barges, etc., on the waterways of our country is a common ignorance of the provisions of the treaty

7. A ban on the creation and deployment outside their territorial waters of underwater missile bases at the bottom of water bodies or in the water column (stationary or mobile) equipped with ballistic missiles with a range of more than 600 km.
And this puts an end to your ideas

There are still many interesting provisions there (for example, that on missiles BBs should not exceed 40% of the weight being thrown). And a number of others

Quote: Svetlana

But what about submarines - don't they, located in the water column, have launchers? To formally comply with the said ban, you can call underwater containers submarines and attach a fake screw to them for clarity. In principle, the aforementioned inland waters are ideal for placing SSBNs in them, since there will be no tails in the form of seawolves behind them. The enemy observes only those treaties that are beneficial to him. If it were profitable for him to place underwater containers off our coasts, then he would have done it long ago.

Well, we should not consider our opponents boobies and stupid. Compare a submarine with sometimes unlimited or long range and decent speed with an underwater launch container that may either not be self-propelled at all or have a speed of 3-4 knots and a range of 40-50 miles - well, this should be considered an enemy as a round fool which is generally dangerous. Of course, you can put a fake screw. But do not forget that their military budget is almost 10 times larger than ours. We can place a couple of dozen containers (again, in our territorial waters with medium-range and intercontinental-range missiles. And they will make several hundred of such containers. And they will place them not at their side, but not far from us, for example, in the waterways of the same Japan. Or they will convert several dozen of their ships, for example, container ships, into carriers of ballistic or cruise missiles.
Therefore, before offering, you need to think about the answer, and not hope that the enemy is stupid and will not "detect" anything

[Sancho_SP]

It must be understood that all theoretical research implies the violation / ignoring / cancellation of these agreements.

The creation and putting on duty of conceptually new delivery systems is already an accelerating section of the arms race, where treaties are not constants.

[Svetlana]

Quote: Old26

the structure will weigh ....

The construction will certainly be heavy. But this weight and depth reserve will allow breaking ice during launch. The top of the structure (protective container) can be made conical-pointed for breaking ice when the container floats. After purging the ballast tanks with compressed air and firing off the anchors, the heavy cylindrical protective container, pointed at the top, will begin to acquire vertical speed. The vertical speed of a heavy structure upon impact with ice will allow the conical top to break through the ice cover of the water area. Then the top of the structure is fired off with a detonation cord, the lid of the TPK's internal transport and launch container is opened and the launch is carried out.

Quote: Old26

a layer of foam concrete or something else will be sufficient to create zero buoyancy ???

The density of foam concrete used to protect against a shock wave in water is less than the density of water. Therefore, to create zero buoyancy of the structure, reinforced concrete is placed under the layer of foam concrete, whose density is greater than that of water.

Quote: Old26

Entering a flight task

Flight missions for stationary targets are entered at the manufacturing plant during the military acceptance period before packaging of products for shipment to deployment sites.

[Sancho_SP]

Yes, in fact, these vanguards are not particularly needed.

A high-altitude detonation of the first of a batch of warheads will make radar guidance impossible for tens of minutes, if not hours. And the next blocks without any problems will pass through the epicenter of a high-altitude explosion In a minute.

[Old26]

Quote: Sancho_SP

It must be understood that all theoretical research implies the violation / ignoring / cancellation of these agreements.

Creation and putting on duty of conceptually new delivery systems is already an accelerating section of the arms race, where treaties are not constants.

Dv, but there is a Joint Consultative Commission, which solves the accumulated issues. If the United States does not withdraw from the START-3 treaty, then it is this commission that will decide on our intercontinental weapons systems such as "Poseidon", "Petrel", "Albatross"

Quote: Svetlana

The construction will certainly be heavy. But this weight and depth reserve will allow breaking ice during launch. The top of the structure (protective container) can be made conical-pointed for breaking ice when the container floats. After purging the ballast tanks with compressed air and firing off the anchors, the heavy cylindrical protective container, pointed at the top, will begin to acquire vertical speed. The vertical speed of a heavy structure upon impact with ice will allow the conical top to break through the ice cover of the water area. Then the top of the structure is fired off with a detonation cord, the lid of the TPK's internal transport and launch container is opened and the launch is carried out.

It is not clear why to fence this "garden". After all, it will no longer be just some kind of container, but, sorry, a cyclopean structure. Not only do you have that, in addition to the plastic of a standard TPK with a hundred-ton rocket, there will also be layers of reinforced concrete and foam concrete, plus a steel shell, plus ballast tanks. In short, there is no point in such a structure IMHO. In addition, you are going to put these complexes closer to the enemy, creating "Greenhouse" conditions for him to intercept. It will intercept products in the launch area when its speeds are still low

Quote: Svetlana

Flight missions for stationary targets are entered at the manufacturing plant during the military acceptance period before packaging of products for shipment to deployment sites.

You think so? Maybe the ampulization of tanks also takes place at the factory. And if you suddenly need to change the PZ, and those that are already inside do not correspond to the moment, then how?

Quote: Sancho_SP

Yes, in fact, these vanguards are not particularly needed.

A high-altitude detonation of the first of a batch of warheads will make radar guidance impossible for tens of minutes, if not hours. And the next blocks without any problems will pass through the epicenter of a high-altitude explosion In a minute.

Based on the tests of the "K" series, it was concluded that radars, in particular the meter range, restored their performance after about 10-15 minutes of time

[Svetlana]

Quote: Old26

put these complexes closer to the enemy

Then the flight time decreases, and during a mass launch, the probability of interception decreases. A mass launch can be simultaneous, and a launch of anti-missiles from one Burke can be strictly sequential.

Quote: Old26

ampulization of tanks also takes place at the factory

The carrier of the Avagard, the UR-100, is of course a good rocket developed in 1963, one of the first ampulized.
But now more modern, solid-propellant rockets have appeared that do not require refueling of liquid propellant components. Refueling of solid fuel and subsequent ampulization of carbon fiber tanks takes place at the manufacturing plant before being sent to the Customer.

[Old26]

Quote: Svetlana

Quote: Old26

put these complexes closer to the enemy

Then the flight time decreases, and during a mass launch, the probability of interception decreases. A mass launch can be simultaneous, and a launch of anti-missiles from one Burke can be strictly sequential.

So you also want the mass production of such "floating monsters"? A country without pants are not afraid to leave?
Anyway. Burke's missiles are not capable of intercepting ICBMs after the end of the OUT. You give them the opportunity to place them so that they can intercept and ICBMs before they pick up speed.

Quote: Svetlana

Quote: Old26

ampulization of tanks also takes place at the factory

The carrier of the Avagard, the UR-100, is of course a good rocket developed in 1963, one of the first ampulized.
But now more modern, solid-propellant rockets have appeared that do not require refueling of liquid propellant components. Refueling of solid fuel and subsequent ampulization of carbon fiber tanks takes place at the manufacturing plant before being sent to the Customer.

In fact, the Avangard was never installed on the UR-100. The missiles of this family were decommissioned in 1991. And it is installed on the UR-100N UTTKh (missiles of the UR-100 and UR-100N families are different missiles).
And an immodest question: why ampulization of solid fuel. Everything is clear with liquid, the tanks are ampouled so that fuel and oxidizer are not in the engine fittings, so that all gaskets and other seals are not exposed to SRT. And solid why ampoule???

[Svetlana]

Quote: Old26

Burke missiles are not capable of intercepting ICBMs after the end of the OUT

Are Burke's missiles capable of intercepting a hypersonic missile such as an Iskander or a Gazelle in the stratosphere? Meanwhile, the trajectory of the Iskanders lies mainly in the stratosphere, and not in space.

Quote: Old26

solid why ampoule???

So that mice do not gnaw on solid fuel. Distort the internal geometry of the solid propellant rocket engine - there will be an off-design combustion mode. And so that the insides of a solid rocket engine do not get damp and oxidize as a result of long-term storage under the influence of humidity and atmospheric oxygen.

[Old26]

Quote: Svetlana

Are Burke's missiles capable of intercepting a hypersonic missile such as an Iskander or a Gazelle in the stratosphere? Meanwhile, the trajectory of the Iskanders lies mainly in the stratosphere, and not in space.

Which model are you interested in? If Block 2A, then its interception range is about 2500 km, its altitude reach is 1500. Blocks 1A and 1B have less - range 700, altitude reach - 500. Enough? The maximum speed for the Iskander is 2,1 km / s, for Blocks 1A and 1B - 2,7 (for block 2A - 4,5)
The range of the new "Gazelle" is about 100-120 km (as they say). It is worth only around Moscow. Why these comparisons of "Gazelle" and "Standard" is the same as trying to decide who is stronger: a whale or an elephant

Quote: Svetlana

So that mice do not gnaw on solid fuel. Distort the internal geometry of the solid propellant rocket engine - there will be an off-design combustion mode. And so that the insides of a solid rocket engine do not get damp and oxidize as a result of long-term storage under the influence of humidity and atmospheric oxygen.

Uh-huh, understandable. Mice are really cool. Only now, in order to get to the fuel, they will have to gnaw through the TPK, which is most often made on TT missiles not from plastic, but from metal, then gnaw through the body of the rocket ... Do they have circular saws instead of teeth? As for humidity and atmospheric oxygen, the temperature-humidity regime is maintained in the TPK