Military Review

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

82

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


The Pentagon notes that at 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 Deveselu, Romania and Redzikovo in Poland, declared 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 Russian missile potential, which was, by and large, obvious from the beginning in our country.

The main problem that is being considered by the US military department today is related to questions about the effectiveness of the THAAD system. In particular, it is indicated that the speed of the target, which can be intercepted by the anti-missile of this complex, is estimated at 4,8 km / s maximum. And for the hypersonic maneuvering unit of the Avangard missile system, the speed is 6,5 km / s (maximum), as shown by tests. At the same time, the attack may not necessarily come from the "transatmospheric area" to which the functionality of the American THAAD is "sharpened".

Initially, the United States stated that it might take up to 50 interceptors to defeat one of the newest Russian hypersonic missile units, which in itself looks like a variant of multiple missile launches in the hope that at least one interceptor missile will "catch something." But now the Pentagon, wishing once again to receive additional funding, actually admits the obvious - the existing US missile defense system, including THAAD complexes, against the hypersonic Russian weapons powerless. Vanguard 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-missile missiles and combat laser weapons. But how realistic it is with existing laser technologies to achieve from the beam "burning out" a rocket unit maneuvering at colossal speed is still a rhetorical question.

It is important to note here the fact that statements about the need to modernize the US missile defense system, including to counter 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."
Photos used:
Lockheed Martin
82 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. iouris
    iouris 19 December 2020 16: 35
    +18
    Let's conduct a natural experiment.
    1. figwam
      figwam 19 December 2020 16: 39
      +17
      the existing US missile defense system, including THAAD complexes, is powerless against Russian hypersonic weapons. Vanguard blocks will not be intercepted.

      In my opinion, they already began to suspect something, well done.
      1. Reserve officer
        Reserve officer 19 December 2020 19: 42
        +19
        So they have created a missile defense system in Europe from Iranian missiles. There was no talk about Russia.
        So what's the panic now? Let Europe be protected from Iran.
    2. bar
      bar 19 December 2020 16: 43
      +31
      Conduct joint exercises. We'll launch the vanguard, they'll catch it. If they don't get caught, we'll run it again laughing
      1. Alex777
        Alex777 19 December 2020 22: 12
        +8
        It will cost them too much.
        First, the States need to destroy chemical weapons,
        Renew START-3, pay in gold ...
        Long list. wink
      2. Machito
        Machito 21 December 2020 06: 30
        +2
        Quote: bar
        Conduct joint exercises. We'll launch the vanguard, they'll catch it. If they don't get caught, we'll run it again laughing

        The American missile defense system was nothing.
    3. Doccor18
      Doccor18 19 December 2020 16: 46
      +15
      Quote: iouris
      Let's conduct a natural experiment.

      Maybe we will limit ourselves to cartoons. I really want to hold my great-grandchildren in my arms ...
    4. knn54
      knn54 19 December 2020 17: 23
      +1
      No matter how lasers (accidentally) start shooting down their anti-missiles ...
    5. military_cat
      military_cat 19 December 2020 18: 15
      +1
      Quote: iouris
      Let's conduct 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.
      1. Volder
        Volder 19 December 2020 20: 51
        +3
        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 radars have covered the entire border perimeter with an "umbrella".
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 19 December 2020 20: 58
        +11
        Quote: military_cat
        but we will not intercept them in the same way.

        Are you sure about that?
        Our missile defense system is built on different physical principles than those of the Yankees.
        We are fans of "champagne". And the cowboys are all trying to hit the flying bullet with a bullet.
        And our "bullet" suddenly became "maneuvering", which caused the Yankees to sharply lose sight ...
        (This is the difference between Champagne and Whiskey! (C)) bully
        1. military_cat
          military_cat 19 December 2020 21: 17
          -5
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          Are you sure about that?
          Our missile defense system is built on different physical principles than those of the Yankees.
          As of today, nothing will help from a massive strike. And before the appearance of maneuvering warheads, it did not help either.

          As for kinetic warheads, cowboys (as well as Jews, Chinese, Indians) need them to track down misses. If the anti-missile is not kinetic, then it is impossible to say whether it was able to successfully disable the ballistic target (and whether it is necessary to send another anti-missile).
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 19 December 2020 21: 45
            +6
            Quote: military_cat
            If the anti-missile is not kinetic, then it is impossible to say whether it was able to successfully disable the ballistic target (and whether it is necessary to send another anti-missile).

            Colleague, I understand your skepticism. But the "brick" does not explode like a thermonuclear weapon. Maximum - make a hole in the asphalt ...
            (We will survive this trouble! (C). Leopold the Cat.) laughing
    6. APASUS
      APASUS 19 December 2020 20: 57
      +4
      Quote: iouris
      Let's conduct a natural experiment.

      This will never happen in life. That the Americans are against full-scale tests of the M1 Abrams super tank, that against comparative tests of the F-35, and now you are also proposing air defense. If a full-scale comparison is made and shortcomings in any system are revealed, then to whom then will this manure be sold? And so the weapons from the United States take all the first places in all magazines and ratings !!
  2. Operator
    Operator 19 December 2020 16: 36
    +12
    The rhetoric "this is not the latest weapon, but just Russian animation" is the lot of Bandera bully

    The only thing I didn't understand: how are the Americans going to shoot down a GPB flying in a plasma envelope with a laser?
    1. boris epstein
      boris epstein 19 December 2020 16: 52
      +18
      Laser missile defense has already happened. SDI, which Mishka Humpbacked was led to, although academician Savin argued to him that it was a dummy. Actually, Savin's arguments are relevant now.
  3. SRC P-15
    SRC P-15 19 December 2020 16: 36
    +7
    "We drank and ate, had fun, counted and shed tears!" yes
  4. lopvlad
    lopvlad 19 December 2020 16: 38
    +8
    suggests that the United States decided to abandon the rhetoric of the style "this is not the latest weapon, but just Russian animation."


    Russian animation is such that it makes the pants of American partners who have built and built missile defense bases around Russia not against Russia dirty.
    And then bang and the animation after watching which their missile defense was embarrassed.
  5. poquello
    poquello 19 December 2020 16: 38
    +2
    therefore, financing at the expense of the Arabs is questionable, we decided to look for money from the FRS typewriter)))))))))))
  6. Cron
    Cron 19 December 2020 16: 38
    +10
    After the presentation of the new weapon's GDP, 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
  7. cons
    cons 19 December 2020 16: 39
    +1
    Well it's time to act!
  8. wt100
    wt100 19 December 2020 16: 50
    +13
    They were not building missile defense against us, well then we, too, are not against them. bully
  9. Mikle2000
    Mikle2000 19 December 2020 16: 54
    +6
    One might think no vanguards could be intercepted. Well, half a hundred interceptor missiles will be fired, well, they will shoot down a dozen targets from several THOUSANDS, half of them are false. It seems to me that it is better to throw eight to ten warheads with one carrier than one or two vanguards. More will reach the enemy.
    1. awg75
      awg75 19 December 2020 19: 15
      +3
      and everything that is will fly. and such, and such and many unknowns)))
    2. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 19 December 2020 21: 34
      +2
      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 at slower speeds.
  10. Alexander K_2
    Alexander K_2 19 December 2020 17: 07
    -27%
    Enchanting! Still, these Vanguard units flew wherever they were launched. The events in Syria and Karabakh in relation to the Russian ones, which speak much more simply of the opposite, in fact, all new models in fact, 99% - an EMPTY CALL! fellow
    1. lucul
      lucul 19 December 2020 20: 01
      +7
      Enchanting! Still, these Vanguard units would fly wherever they were launched. The events in Syria and Karabakh in relation to the Russian ones, much easier to say the opposite, in fact, all new samples in fact, 99% - an EMPTY CALL! fellow

      How sausage you are from the news)))
      1. Alexander K_2
        Alexander K_2 19 December 2020 20: 37
        -16%
        What news? Maybe about the one that says: there will be some kind of Miracle, Vanguard, and its parts, how will they scatter to pieces and cannot be tracked? So from this news every taxpayer in Russia should be sausage, because these are the taxes that were taken from him! And you are not sausage from this Brad? drinks
        1. lucul
          lucul 19 December 2020 20: 41
          +6
          And you are not sausage from this Brad?

          From your ?
          The British 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.
          You have some kind of neglected form of nihilism.
          1. Alexander K_2
            Alexander K_2 19 December 2020 21: 47
            -10%
            So I'm talking about the miracle, Vanguard, and you are about a duck, about nihilism, about the British and sayings. The vanguard is a miracle weapon of Russia, which, if it takes off, and even reaches where it was directed, then the evil and insidious Americans. perhaps they will not touch him. The Vanguard will fly quickly - quickly, but it will hit exactly - for sure !!! And you about hunting and waterfowl. fool
            1. Sergey Kulikov_3
              Sergey Kulikov_3 19 December 2020 22: 34
              +6
              Are you saying that the Americans are dumber than you, since they are preparing to intercept "cartoons"?
              1. Alexander K_2
                Alexander K_2 20 December 2020 10: 13
                -2
                Your truth, the whole world is surprised at the stupidity of the amerikosov, and takes advantage of their achievements. Great countries invest COLLOSAL funds at the mere rumor of an American threat, they keep 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 are buying multimillion-dollar real estate on the territory of an “enemy” country. So who's the bigger fool? hi
  11. Kuz
    Kuz 19 December 2020 17: 18
    +15
    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 talked about themselves earlier, are under threat.
  12. Ros 56
    Ros 56 19 December 2020 17: 27
    +3
    Shta striped, worried?
  13. Whirlwind
    Whirlwind 19 December 2020 17: 30
    -6
    Yes, and this missile defense will be enough for them for their eyes, unless they finally go to sleep and start Armageddon themselves.
    As soon as the GUGLU disconnects the Russian Federation at least from YouTube, such a hungry howl will rise in the cities that the lights are out.
    And taking into account the fact that all the hardware and software we have from them and are constantly updated by them, and not only on home PCs, but also on CNC machines, etc. and so on ... Then they are 100% insured.
    And yes. On the way, the Internet of Things and 5 G for them, well, the cherry is his Majesty AI. Whose are you ...?
    So it's too early for us to fly to the moon. On Earth, urgent and expensive affairs are up to their throats.
  14. Alexander 3
    Alexander 3 19 December 2020 17: 37
    +2
    The literate know that the war, if anything, will be the last, but you have to make money on weapons. For this you have to constantly be afraid and screaming. In America, there are great specialists with extensive experience.
  15. rocket757
    rocket757 19 December 2020 17: 38
    0
    The forest is getting thicker, the partisans are getting thicker ..... the appetites of the striped military-industrial complex are immense.
    They will, will print candy wrappers and pair them for everyone and for everything. Oh yes, competitors, everyone, will fall to drive to the nail!
    Hard times are coming, and not just for us.
  16. HAM
    HAM 19 December 2020 17: 43
    +2
    One thing is good - now they are catching up, maybe, finally, their muzzle will crack ...
  17. Old26
    Old26 19 December 2020 18: 09
    0
    I wonder what has to do with the US missile defense system based on the THAAD complex? It, like the Aegis shipborne system (the Aegis Ashore ground-based system is designed exclusively for intercepting medium-range missiles (according to the American classification - intermediate) range (missile firing range up to 3500 km)
    To intercept the Fvangards, only a missile defense system based on GBI strategic interceptor missiles can be used. And this is a completely different matter
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 19 December 2020 18: 44
      0
      THAAD are also going to be used to intercept ICBM warheads.
      But already on the descent before hitting the target. Unlike GBI from Alaska,
      which should intercept ICBMs in the middle section.
      GBI has several attempts, THAAD has only one.
      Therefore, the probability is low, and only when protecting the object.
    3. rudolff
      rudolff 19 December 2020 18: 44
      +1
      And in the case of interception in the active area, to the bulb, what is the head of the ICBM.
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 19 December 2020 21: 29
        +2
        Quote: rudolff
        And in the case of interception in the active area, to the bulb, what is the head of the ICBM.

        Rudolph, hello lost soul! drinks
        What a "head" exactly - to the light bulb ... Not to the light bulb shooting bearing. If the route lies through the UP, then the GBI from Alaska simply will not reach it. And the Siberian missile divisions with 100UTTH do not really fall under the distribution.
        Then, it is logical to assume that with a big BADABUM "K * events" will be held 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 amas, I suppose, know this perfectly well: with the deployment on the R-28 DB, you can bury a tomahawk and start bargaining for acceptable terms of "surrender".
        (Unless, of course, anything extraordinary happens ... There is also Comrade Xi - our lover of Eskimo - there is ... and the ambitions of the Celestial Empire are worse than the Union had at one time.)
        IMHO.
        1. rudolff
          rudolff 19 December 2020 22: 22
          +1
          Hello Boa, buddy! Yes, not lost. I look in, read. I write only rarely, my enthusiasm has died.
          drinks
          1. The comment was deleted.
  18. Egor53
    Egor53 19 December 2020 18: 31
    +4
    USA defends Romania and Poland from ... Iran.
    Do they have there not enough psychiatric hospitals for State Department employees?
  19. Alexey Sommer
    Alexey Sommer 19 December 2020 18: 48
    +2
    Vanguard blocks will not be intercepted

    This has long been known.
    1. lucul
      lucul 19 December 2020 19: 59
      0
      This has long been known.

      Any sane person, but our liberals are not among them.
  20. Herman 4223
    Herman 4223 19 December 2020 20: 49
    +2
    Are they worried that the vanguard will accidentally go to Iran?
    1. lucul
      lucul 19 December 2020 20: 50
      0
      Are they worried that the vanguard will accidentally go to Iran?

      Not without it ))))
      1. Herman 4223
        Herman 4223 19 December 2020 20: 52
        0
        I thought so. lol
  21. faterdom
    faterdom 19 December 2020 21: 04
    +1
    Did you want to defend Europe from Iran and North Korea?
    Molots! Protected!
    For all these years, neither the first nor the second dared to attack Europe with their undemocratic missiles!
    So, from Europe, money is due, of course ... And more!
    Any democracy is worth something only 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!
  22. Klingon
    Klingon 19 December 2020 21: 19
    +3
    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 originally sharpened to withstand a plasma temperature of several thousand degrees ... it is even more incomprehensible how they are going to aim at it and keep the beam on a hyperspeed target .. it's like shooting at a meteorite
  23. A_Lex
    A_Lex 19 December 2020 22: 03
    0
    Now the United States is already trying to directly associate these facilities with countering Russian missile potential, which was, by and large, obvious in our country from the very beginning.


    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 refutation of him can be safely regarded as a lie. By the way, the Americans in this regard, as usual, go further and as a pretext they use not even the opponent's actions, but assumptions about his actions. Those. for them, as for self-proclaimed themselves top-notch, as evidence, their own interpretation of the events that have occurred or may occur is sufficient. This is a typical consequence of the Protestant ethic in which one can read and interpret the Bible as desired, and as a result, find in it a direct encouragement to enrichment. It turns out to be a very convenient position - I believe in what I want and I take it as an axiom.
  24. Guazdilla
    Guazdilla 19 December 2020 22: 21
    0
    The Pentagon notes that at 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 picked up speed. That is why the bulk of dangerous starts for them are concentrated beyond the Urals.
    That is, the goal of missile defense in Romania and Poland is being achieved so far.
    1. Svetlana
      Svetlana 19 December 2020 23: 32
      +3
      Quote: Guzadilla
      the bulk of dangerous starts for them are concentrated beyond the Urals.

      Vanguards should be placed closer to America, for example, in Pevek, Kolyuchinskaya or Mechigem 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
  25. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 19 December 2020 23: 39
    0
    Missile defense in Romania and Poland and Aegis from the seas should shoot down missiles at the start. And how do they differ from conventional ballistic missiles at the beginning of the trajectory?
    1. pyc.arpeccop tornado 150
      pyc.arpeccop tornado 150 20 December 2020 11: 14
      +1
      Nothing. Therefore, to their deployed missile defense system in Europe, Russian ICBMs should preferably be launched further
      and preferably from mobile missile systems.
  26. voronin
    voronin 19 December 2020 23: 55
    +4
    How suspicious - the Americans admit the ineffectiveness of their weapons ...
  27. Egor53
    Egor53 20 December 2020 00: 19
    +1
    The United States has no anti-missile defense against Russian missiles, and cannot be.
    The whole world knows about it. Whether this will deter the Americans from a nuclear strike - who knows. Only cowardice can hold back.
  28. Alien From
    Alien From 20 December 2020 00: 55
    +1
    Every tricky sugar bowl has its own spoon laughing
  29. Al Asad
    Al Asad 20 December 2020 01: 42
    +2
    Wait, missile defense in Romania and Poland officially defended Europe from Iranian missiles. What side are the Russian missiles on?
    1. piterpen
      piterpen 20 December 2020 02: 15
      -4
      That's right. The United States and its allies want to defend themselves against a few Iranian and Korean missiles. It will never be possible to protect an anti-missile defense system from a massive nuclear missile strike by the Russian Federation. Therefore, all sorts of "Vanguards" there, if even they became possible sometime, The Russian Federation was not needed, would. Such systems are not needed by the United States. And they abandoned the implementation of this program back in 2013. Both the Russian Federation and the United States, with the nuclear weapons they already have, have no chances to avoid devastating retaliation strikes. Against a friend. This became finally 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 of such a possibility in principle. Therefore, everything written in the article is just another propaganda fiction.
      1. Dude
        Dude 20 December 2020 05: 07
        +1
        That's right. The United States and its allies want to defend themselves against a few Iranian and Korean missiles <...> This became completely clear to both the USSR and the United States back in 1963. Everything is logical and understandable. Therefore, the United States cannot 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 fun of it, they did it.
  30. piterpen
    piterpen 20 December 2020 02: 02
    -2
    And where in the United States did these confessions sound? By chance, again not in the magazine "The National Interest" published by Dmitry Simes, he is nee Komsomol worker Dmitry Simis?
  31. VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
    VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK 20 December 2020 06: 35
    0
    There will probably be no time left from detection to interception! Even if hypersonic!
  32. Egg
    Egg 20 December 2020 10: 18
    0
    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, there were vigorous warheads, on the S-75, in my opinion, too. This is just for the landing of a massive attack, that of aircraft, that of a massive missile attack. I suspect that the situation with modern air defense systems is no worse.
  33. Zomanus
    Zomanus 20 December 2020 12: 05
    -1
    They apparently forgot about our Poseidon submarine complexes ...
  34. Old26
    Old26 20 December 2020 19: 01
    +3
    Quote: Svetlana
    Vanguards should be placed closer to America, for example, in Pevek, Kolyuchinskaya or Mechigem 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
    Missile defense in Romania and Poland and Aegis from the seas should shoot down missiles at the start. And how do they differ from conventional ballistic missiles 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 Russian missile bases are withdrawn from their attack.

    Quote: Alexander K_2
    Enchanting! Still, these Vanguard units would fly wherever they were launched.

    I will reveal to you a terrible secret. The Vanguards flew to the place where they were launched. And you "minus" for not knowing the materiel

    Quote: Egor53
    The United States has no anti-missile defense against Russian missiles, and cannot be. The whole world knows about it.

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

    Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
    There will probably be no time left from detection to interception! Even if hypersonic!

    Quite enough. The very fact of the start will be known 20-25 minutes before the BG falls. Radar early warning system will give updated data in 7-8 minutes, depending on where the missiles are aimed
    1. Svetlana
      Svetlana 20 December 2020 21: 20
      0
      Quote: Old26
      digging mines in Pevek and Anadyr and creating all the infrastructure?

      From Mechigmenskaya Bay to Eielson Air Base in Alaska 1150 km
      1250km from Kolyuchinskaya Bay to Eielson Air Base in Alaska
      From Kanchalan Bay in the Anadyr region to Eielson airbase 1650 km
      From Chaunskaya Bay in the Pevek region to Eielson airbase 1860 km
      Elmendorf airbase is even closer.
      All of the listed water areas are located in the territorial waters of Russia.
      Digging of mines is not required if the Vanguards are placed in ampouled underwater containers, anchored in the aforementioned waters, closed from the penetration of a foreign submarine fleet. The protection against ICBMs of the enemy at the underwater base is higher than that of the mine, since the exact coordinates of the base are unknown and the water layer guarantees the absence of direct contact between the warhead that arrived on hypersonic and the ampouled container before the explosion. The launch is also possible in winter, with preliminary opening of the ice cover by explosion. Containers with Vanguards can be transported to the base by the Northern Sea Route. And containers may not contain Avangads, but, for example, modernized Iskander with a range increased to 1200 km. A particularly expensive infrastructure for the operation of underwater missile containers is not required. Only submarine cable to coastal radio point. It is also possible to communicate with sonars similar to those used on the Russian Vityaz deep-sea vehicle, see https://www.gazeta.ru/science/2020/05/09_a_13077277.shtml
  35. Old26
    Old26 20 December 2020 21: 34
    +3
    Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
    If the route lies through the UP, then GBI from Alaska simply will not reach it. And the Siberian missile divisions with 100UTTH do not really fall under the distribution.

    Two points.
    1. None of our ICBMs can fly through UP now. The range is simply not enough. Yuri Borisov once said that "Sarmat" can fly through the UP, although there are a lot of questions, but how much will he "drag the goodies" 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 no longer)
  36. Old26
    Old26 21 December 2020 00: 11
    +3
    Quote: Svetlana
    Quote: Old26
    digging mines in Pevek and Anadyr and creating all the infrastructure?

    From Mechigmenskaya Bay to Eielson Air Base in Alaska 1150 km
    1250km from Kolyuchinskaya Bay to Eielson Air Base in Alaska
    From Kanchalan Bay in the Anadyr region to Eielson airbase 1650 km
    From Chaunskaya Bay in the Pevek region to Eielson airbase 1860 km
    Elmendorf airbase is even closer.
    All of the listed water areas are located in the territorial waters of Russia.

    Perfectly. AND? The length of the active section is about 800 km, the height of the active section is about 400 km. It is not difficult to place ships with the Aegis complex in this region, as well as to build a couple of Ijes Ashur bases in Alaska and the islands. You put the Americans in favorable conditions in advance. Shoot down the Vanguard taking off 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 GBI interceptors.

    Quote: Svetlana
    Digging of mines is not required if the Vanguards are placed in ampouled underwater containers, anchored in the aforementioned waters, closed from the penetration of a foreign submarine fleet. The protection against ICBMs of the enemy at the underwater base is higher than that of the mine, since the exact coordinates of the base are unknown and the water layer guarantees the absence of direct contact of the warhead that arrived on the hypersound with the ampouled container before the explosion.

    To begin with, the TPK in which Avangard is being transported is not intended to be placed under water. In fact, the TPK contains only the first and second stages of the rocket, and the extension, the aggregate-instrument compartment with the breeding stage, the Avangard itself and the nose fairing are OUTSIDE TPK ...... Security? In fact, water is not compressible, as far as I remember from a high school physics course. And a hydrodynamic shock from even a small nuclear explosion to hell will break this container ...

    Quote: Svetlana
    The launch is also possible in winter, with preliminary opening of the ice cover by explosion.

    You only forget one thing. launch from the container in which the rocket is located is impossible. There is no launch equipment. Previously, such a floating launcher was planned under the EMNIP Skat project. But there was, albeit a non-self-propelled (low-self-propelled), but an underwater missile base.
    You forget one more important detail. There is a ban on placement in the water column (ocean, sea, lake launchers, stationary or mobile, if their missile launch range exceeds 600 km (up to 600 can still be placed in their own thermal pipes)
    Violating this principle, we will open Pandora's box. Our enemy will be able to place an order of magnitude more such containers along our entire coastline. And what will we gain from this?

    Quote: Svetlana
    A particularly expensive infrastructure for the operation of underwater missile containers is not required. Only submarine cable to coastal radio point. It is also possible to communicate with sonars similar to those used on the Russian deep-sea vehicle "Vityaz"

    Are you going to download FZ from the radio? New in the preparation of the rocket for launch. Well, sonar. He then why, if these containers NOT SELF PROPELLED, ANCHORED
    1. Svetlana
      Svetlana 21 December 2020 16: 10
      0
      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 multi-layer. Outside - a waterproof layer of painted metal, under it - a layer of foam concrete, Under the 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 and launch ampulized 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; therefore, it is not easy to destroy a multilayer container buried by 100..200 m.
      Quote: Old26
      It is not difficult to place ships with the Aegis complex in this region, as well as to build a couple of Ijes Ashur bases in Alaska and the islands.
      The cost of accommodation and maintenance of Aegis Ashor is much more expensive than the cost of placing underwater containers with Iskander. The Iskanders can maneuver, making them difficult targets for Aegis Ashore.
      Quote: Old26
      Violating this principle, we will open Pandora's box.
      Hasn't the USA, 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 prohibition, one can call the underwater containers submarines and attach a fake screw to them for clarity. In principle, the aforementioned inner waters are ideal for placing SSBNs in them, since there will be no seawulf tails behind them. The enemy observes only those treaties that are beneficial to him. If it was profitable for him to place underwater containers off our shores, he would have done it long ago.
  37. DmSol
    DmSol 21 December 2020 09: 15
    0
    there is an opinion that the missile defense system in Romania and Poland is an offensive and not a defensive complex directed against Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg.
  38. Old26
    Old26 21 December 2020 17: 02
    0
    Quote: DmSol
    there is an opinion that the missile defense system in Romania and Poland is an offensive and not a defensive complex directed against Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg.

    This opinion is based on the fact that the MK-41 can theoretically be placed "axes". But the Romanian base is located as if we would say "you can't figure it out on purpose." It is located in such a place that theoretically "axes" can fly into the territory of the Russian Federation 100-150 km inland. And with the saturation of the Crimea with air defense systems, strike weapons during an attack on the Crimea will be destroyed even before they arrive.
    Base in Poland against Kaliningrad? well, you have to be very wise to use a missile worth millions of dollars at 1/10 of its range. If the area is saturated with air defense systems, they will be destroyed on the approach. Moreover, they will need to fly 13 minutes to the border of the region.
    It's the same with Peter. Subsonic missiles have zero chances of breaking through to it. Again, due to the saturation of the Leningrad and Pskov regions with air defense systems.
  39. Old26
    Old26 22 December 2020 21: 19
    +2
    Quote: Svetlana
    Reinforced concrete in ground silos is also not compressible. But there is foam concrete - a compressible material. The container must be made multi-layer. Outside - a waterproof layer of painted metal, under it - a layer of foam concrete, Under the 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 and launch ampulized 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; therefore, it is not easy to destroy a multilayer container buried by 100..200 m.


    Will you shoot from a depth of 100-200 meters too ?? The depth of the launch corridor for SSBNs (both ours and others) is about 30-50 meters. When outside this corridor, the start command is reset.
    Further. Your construction will weigh .... Count yourself. I'm lazy. But the dimensions of the Vanguard carrier are about 28 meters and a diameter of 2,5. Even if the TPK is made of fiberglass, it will weigh several tons. Plus the rocket itself with a launch weight of 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 accommodation and maintenance of Aegis Ashor is much more expensive than the cost of placing underwater containers with Iskander. The Iskanders can maneuver, making them difficult targets for Aegis Ashore.

    ABOUT! Now you are going to put Iskanders into these underwater containers. Iskander can maneuver only in the first seconds of flight and in the heads of especially advanced users. Engine running time is about 45-75 seconds. While the engine is running, he is still able to do something ("maneuver"). After that, a burned-out blank flies to the target, which only has small aerodynamic surfaces. And he almost cannot maneuver, except for a turn by a couple of degrees, which allows him to have a KVO of 10 meters. Will you also enter the flight task from the radio point on the shore?

    Quote: Svetlana
    Hasn't the USA, having withdrawn from the SALT treaty, already opened the box?

    No. It is not unpleasant to hear this for certain members of the forum, who argue that it is impossible to conclude agreements with the United States and they are not negotiable, but the basic, fundamental restrictions on the same SALT are observed. Read the SALT agreement and all its annexes and additional agreements. The restrictions that were then approved include (offhand, from memory):

    1. Limitation 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 just idle talk and nothing more.

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

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

    4. Ban on the deployment of ballistic missiles on strategic bombers with a range of more than 600 km.
    This prohibition lasted all the time of the existence of the SALT-2 treaty, and despite the fact that in other treaties this provision was no longer there, both parties continue to adhere to this provision. But even a "violation" of this provision is not a violation, since the contract is no longer valid.

    5. Prohibition of creation and deployment on aircraft that are not
    strategic bombers (transport and cargo aircraft, regardless of affiliation) cruise missiles with a range of more than 600 km.

    This means that neither side can convert its transport (cargo passenger) aircraft into a cruise missile carrier. Therefore, the MC-747 program did not leave the project stage.

    6. Ban on deployment on ships, ships and other floating craft
    ballistic missiles with a range of more than 600 km, except for submarines

    This means that all our talks about the fact that we can place ballistic missiles with a range of more than 600 km on the waterways of our country on barges, etc. 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 reservoirs or in the water column (stationary or mobile) equipped with ballistic missile bases with a range of more than 600 km.
    And this puts an end to your idea.

    There are many more interesting provisions (for example, that on BB rockets should not exceed 40% of the throw weight). 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 prohibition, one can call the underwater containers submarines and attach a fake screw to them for clarity. In principle, the aforementioned inner waters are ideal for placing SSBNs in them, since there will be no seawulf tails behind them. The enemy observes only those treaties that are beneficial to him. If it was profitable for him to place underwater containers off our shores, he would have done it long ago.

    Well, our opponents should not be considered boobies and stupid. Compare a submarine with sometimes unlimited or long range and a decent speed with an underwater launch container, which may or may not be self-propelled at all, or have a speed of 3-4 knots and a cruising range of 40-50 miles - well, this should be considered a round enemy. , which is actually fraught. The prop screw can of course be supplied. 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 and intercontinental-range missiles. And they will make several hundred such containers. And they will not place near us, but not far from us, for example, in the waters of the same Japan. Or will convert several dozen of their ships, for example, container ships, into carriers of ballistic or cruise missiles.
    Therefore, before making a proposal, you need to think about a response, and not hope that the enemy is stupid and will not "detect" anything of this
    1. Sancho_SP
      Sancho_SP 23 December 2020 08: 33
      0
      It must be understood that all theoretical studies imply violation / ignoring / cancellation of these agreements.

      The creation and deployment of conceptually new delivery systems is already an accelerating stage in the arms race, where treaties are not constants.
    2. Svetlana
      Svetlana 23 December 2020 10: 21
      0
      Quote: Old26
      the structure will weigh ...

      The construction will of course be heavy. But this weight and depth reserve will allow breaking the ice at launch. The top of the structure (protective container) can be made conical-pointed to rip open the ice when the container floats. After the ballast tanks have been blown out with compressed air and the anchors have been fired, the heavy cylindrical protective container pointed at the top will begin to acquire vertical speed. The vertical speed of the heavy structure when hitting the ice will allow the conical top to break through the ice cover of the water area. Then the top of the structure is shot off with a detonation cord, the cover of the inner transport and launch container of the TPK is opened and the launch is made.
      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 that of water. Therefore, to create zero buoyancy of the structure, reinforced concrete is placed under a layer of foam concrete, whose density is greater than that of water.
      Quote: Old26
      Entering a flight task

      Flight missions for stationary targets are introduced at the manufacturing plant during the military acceptance period before packaging products for dispatch to the deployment sites.
  40. Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 23 December 2020 08: 27
    0
    But in fact, these vanguards are not particularly needed.

    The high-altitude detonation of the first of a batch of warheads will make it impossible for radar guidance for tens of minutes, if not for hours. And the next blocks will pass through the epicenter of the high-altitude blast without any problems in a minute.
  41. Old26
    Old26 23 December 2020 17: 02
    +2
    Quote: Sancho_SP
    It must be understood that all theoretical studies imply violation / ignoring / cancellation of these agreements.

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

    Two, but there is a Joint Advisory 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 questions about our intercontinental weapons systems such as Poseidon, Petrel, Albatross.

    Quote: Svetlana
    The construction will of course be heavy. But this weight and depth reserve will allow breaking the ice at launch. The top of the structure (protective container) can be made conical-pointed to rip open the ice when the container floats. After the ballast tanks have been blown out with compressed air and the anchors have been fired, the heavy cylindrical protective container pointed at the top will begin to acquire vertical speed. The vertical speed of the heavy structure when hitting the ice will allow the conical top to break through the ice cover of the water area. Then the top of the structure is shot off with a detonation cord, the cover of the inner transport and launch container of the TPK is opened and the launch is made.

    It is not clear why this "vegetable garden" should be fenced. 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 place these complexes closer to the enemy, creating "Greenhouse" conditions for him to intercept. He will intercept products at the launch site when his speeds are still low.

    Quote: Svetlana
    Flight missions for stationary targets are introduced at the manufacturing plant during the military acceptance period before packaging products for dispatch to the deployment sites.

    You think so? Maybe ampulization of tanks also occurs at the manufacturer's plant. And if you suddenly need to change the PZ, and those that already inside do not correspond to the moment, then how?

    Quote: Sancho_SP
    But in fact, these vanguards are not particularly needed.

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

    Based on the tests of the "K" series, it was concluded that the radar, in particular the meter range, recovered its performance after about 10-15 minutes
    1. Svetlana
      Svetlana 23 December 2020 19: 46
      0
      Quote: Old26
      put these complexes closer to the enemy
      Then the flight time decreases, and with a mass launch, the probability of interception decreases. A mass launch can be simultaneous, and an anti-missile launch from one Burke is strictly alternate.
      Quote: Old26
      ampulization of tanks also takes place at the factory

      The carrier of Avagard, the UR-100, is of course a good rocket developed in 1963, one of the first ampulized.
      But now there are more modern, solid-propellant missiles that do not require refueling of liquid propellants. Refueling of solid fuel and subsequent ampulization of carbon fiber tanks takes place at the manufacturing plant before shipment to the Customer.
  42. Old26
    Old26 23 December 2020 20: 03
    +2
    Quote: Svetlana
    Quote: Old26
    put these complexes closer to the enemy
    Then the flight time decreases, and with a mass launch, the probability of interception decreases. A mass launch can be simultaneous, and an anti-missile launch from one Burke is strictly alternate.

    So you also want to mass-produce these "floating monsters"? Aren't you afraid to leave a country without pants?
    Anyway. Burka missiles are unable to intercept ICBMs after OUT. You give 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 Avagard, the UR-100, is of course a good rocket developed in 1963, one of the first ampulized.
    But now there are more modern, solid-propellant missiles that do not require refueling of liquid propellants. Refueling of solid fuel and subsequent ampulization of carbon fiber tanks takes place at the manufacturing plant before shipment to the Customer.

    In fact, Avangard has never been installed on the UR-100. The missiles of this family were decommissioned in 1991. And it is installed on the UR-100N UTTH (missiles of the UR-100 and UR-100N families are different missiles).
    And an immodest question: why amputation of solid fuel. Everything is clear with the liquid tank, the tanks are ampouled so that the fuel and oxidizer are not in the engine fittings, so that all gaskets and other seals are not exposed to MCT. And why should I amputate solid ???
    1. Svetlana
      Svetlana 23 December 2020 21: 12
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Burka missiles are unable to intercept ICBMs after completion of OUT

      Are Burke missiles capable of intercepting a hypersonic missile such as Iskander or Gazelle in the stratosphere? Meanwhile, the Iskander's trajectory lies mainly in the stratosphere, not in space.
      Quote: Old26
      solid why amputate ???

      So that the mice do not gnaw on solid fuel. They will distort the internal geometry of the solid propellant rocket - there will be an off-design combustion mode. And so that the insides of a solid-propellant rocket engine do not become damp and oxidized as a result of long-term storage under the influence of humidity and atmospheric oxygen.
  43. Old26
    Old26 24 December 2020 00: 51
    +2
    Quote: Svetlana
    Are Burke missiles capable of intercepting a hypersonic missile such as Iskander or Gazelle in the stratosphere? Meanwhile, the Iskander's trajectory lies mainly in the stratosphere, 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 range, 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). Only around Moscow. Why are these comparisons between Gazelle and Standard, it's like trying to decide who is stronger: a whale or an elephant

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

    Yeah, okay. Mice are cool, of course. But in order to get to the fuel, they will have to gnaw through the TPK, which is most often made on TT-rockets 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 and humidity regime is maintained in the TPK