Military Review

"To protect against hypersonic weapons of Russia": The US decided to modernize the missile defense system

52
"To protect against hypersonic weapons of Russia": The US decided to modernize the missile defense system

The United States decided to modernize the missile defense system due to the emergence of new weapons of destruction in Russia, including hypersonic weapon. Reports about it RT citing a document from the United States Missile Defense Agency.


In recent years, the enemy has been rapidly developing new complex and promising means of destruction, including hypersonic gliding warheads, as well as supersonic, subsonic and hypersonic highly maneuverable cruise missiles.

- the document says.

The Pentagon plans to modernize the key element of missile defense - missile defense - the Command and Control System, Combat Management and Communication (C2BMC). This system connects Patriot, THAAD, Aegis, AN / TPY-2 radar, space-based infrared system (SBIRS) and others into a single whole, allowing you to maintain a multi-level missile defense potential.

C2BMC allows planning missile defense operations, implementing a comprehensive response to all means of destruction, including ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as to hypersonic warheads.

At the same time, it is noted that the modernization of the C2BMC, which traditionally takes place sequentially, with the addition of one new functionality, designed to protect against ballistic missiles, should be accelerated. Usually, each stage takes from 24 to 36 months, which does not suit the Pentagon due to the growing threats of the use of hypersonic weapons from Russia and China.

The US Missile Defense Agency has already announced a tender to search for proposals and ideas on accelerating work to improve missile defense. At the same time, it is emphasized that acceleration should not affect the functioning of the system.

The modernized missile defense system will have to not only accept new elements, but also be compatible with similar systems of the US allies and NATO partners.
52 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. rocket757
    rocket757 22 March 2021 11: 50
    +5
    "To protect against hypersonic weapons of Russia": The US decided to modernize the missile defense system

    No one can defend against a massive blow ... and one by one, such things will not fly.
    1. cniza
      cniza 22 March 2021 12: 45
      +2
      The race is starting to pick up steam ...
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 22 March 2021 13: 04
        +1
        These are big babosiks, PROFIT !!!
        There is nothing more to discuss ...
        1. cniza
          cniza 22 March 2021 13: 13
          +3
          Yes, they did it, the main thing is that we are able to continue our program and not break down ...
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 22 March 2021 13: 18
            0
            We have comprehensive protection and, most importantly, for now, these are vigorous loaves.
            1. cniza
              cniza 22 March 2021 13: 20
              +3
              Yes, and we need to strictly adhere to the framework, so as not to overstrain, like the USSR ...
              1. rocket757
                rocket757 22 March 2021 13: 24
                +1
                Right. Spending money on dummies ... is very harmful.
                1. ironic
                  ironic 22 March 2021 16: 47
                  -3
                  It depends on who. For those who earn money, it is also useful.
          2. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 22 March 2021 17: 38
            +1
            Quote: cniza
            Yes, they did it, the main thing is within our means

            They themselves ran into, now defense is much more expensive than attack!
            1. cniza
              cniza 22 March 2021 17: 48
              +2
              They have no problems with money, but with development ...
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 22 March 2021 17: 50
                +1
                Quote: cniza
                They have no problems with money

                From just money, missile defense cannot be blinded, here resources, production and time of specialists are needed, with an unobvious result.
                1. cniza
                  cniza 22 March 2021 18: 26
                  +3
                  Here, here I am about the same thing, and time is much more valuable than money ...
      2. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 22 March 2021 17: 37
        +1
        Quote: cniza
        The race is starting to pick up steam ...

        For once, they didn’t plunge us into expenses, but we were the enemy!
        1. cniza
          cniza 22 March 2021 17: 48
          +3
          Yes, the main thing turned out, they fussed ...
    2. ironic
      ironic 22 March 2021 16: 46
      -2
      And given the fact that there are only 4 of them so far, this is an advertising campaign in the fight for the budget.
  2. zwlad
    zwlad 22 March 2021 11: 51
    -1
    In normal times, each stage takes from 24 to 36 months, which does not bother the Pentagon due to the growing threats of the use of hypersonic weapons from Russia and China.

    Someone urgently needed to cut the loot.
    1. ironic
      ironic 22 March 2021 16: 44
      -2
      Where is it wrong?
  3. tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 22 March 2021 11: 52
    -4
    So, after all, not against Iran. And our hypersound does not accidentally maneuver. Then there will be a surprise.
    1. Thrifty
      Thrifty 22 March 2021 11: 57
      +3
      Tralflot1823 - we have hypersound maneuvers INTENTIONALLY, and not accidentally! So, surprises are yet to come! !!
      1. ironic
        ironic 22 March 2021 16: 34
        -1
        Well, yes, in general, exactly as much as the glider is able to maneuver at the border of the atmosphere. And so far there are already 4 surprises, and there will be as many as 12, two a year. That from the point of view of the exchange of nuclear strikes, in the amount of one and a half thousand on each side, no more than a drop in the ocean. So, an attempt to exert political pressure for a lot of money.
  4. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 22 March 2021 12: 29
    -2
    made a decision to modernize the missile defense system due to the appearance of new weapons in Russia
    At the same time, they decided to start by publicly insulting the President of Russia. A strange upgrade? They still do not have the means to prevent a retaliatory strike, but they are already openly rude at the state level. Although, what can you take from someone who, at the age of 78, calls himself a "tough guy." Well, maybe only analyzes.
  5. knn54
    knn54 22 March 2021 12: 30
    0
    ETERNAL fight of sword and shield.
  6. Last centurion
    Last centurion 22 March 2021 12: 50
    -1
    Here the main thing is to cut money, and not to defend yourself. Probably the manufacturers of anti-missile raitenons and others like them have an icon - a framed map of Russia, on which they pray for wealth. Daily. Three times. Maybe six. And on the side, they also put the Chinese one ... Well, doubly Schaub ...
    1. ironic
      ironic 22 March 2021 16: 35
      0
      And where is the money to cut is not the main thing? The vanguard didn't drink it?
  7. Arkon
    Arkon 22 March 2021 12: 50
    +1
    Great news, I think. Defense overspending is what the doctor ordered. We have already gone through this.
    1. ironic
      ironic 22 March 2021 16: 41
      -2
      List of Countries by Military Spending for 2019 according to SIPRI Fact Sheet
      Rank in 2018 Country / Expenditures, billion $ / Change compared to the previous year (%) / Change for 2010 ÷ 2019 (%) / Share of the country's GDP (%)
      1 / US / 732,0 / 5,3 / -15 / 3,4
      .
      4 / Russia 65,1 / 4,5 / 30 / 3,9


      Those. US spending is lower than that of Russia in relation to the country's earnings.
      1. Arkon
        Arkon 22 March 2021 18: 49
        +1
        Why don't you take into account the debt burden?
        1. ironic
          ironic 22 March 2021 21: 24
          -4
          Because American debts go to the development of turnover in trade and industry, to active credit. And the relatively small debts of the Russian Federation to stifle credit. If there were enough money for everything, then okay, but this is obviously not the case, which means this is not a plus, but a minus.
          1. Arkon
            Arkon 23 March 2021 07: 49
            +1
            Your reasoning is logically flawed. First, expenditures on the army should be calculated not from GDP, but from the revenue side of the budget. In the US, it is about $ 3.5 trillion. dollars. (https://tass.ru/ekonomika/9742727) At the same time, expenditures on the army amounted to 2020 billion in the same 740. Total - 21% of budget revenues excluding servicing the state debt.
            Now we take Russia. Income in 2020 - 20 trillion. rubles (http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_308390/8e2dd0994342861d9616fc6cb51fd401f8b41f9e/), army expenditures - 1.9 trillion rubles. Total - about 10%.
            Thus, the burden of the military budget on the economy in Russia is two times lower than in the United States, even without taking into account the servicing of the public debt. If we subtract debt servicing from income, which in the United States is about 500 billion rubles, and in Russia - 900 billion rubles, then the ratio will already be 25% for the United States and practically the same 10% for Russia. Not twice, but two and a half times.
            I hope you understand that you cannot "credit" anyone with the cost of servicing the state debt. Or don't you understand?
            1. Stena
              Stena 23 March 2021 15: 47
              +1
              Quote: Arkon
              Thus, the burden of the military budget on the economy in Russia is two times lower than in the United States, even without taking into account the servicing of the public debt. If we subtract debt servicing from income, which in the United States is about 500 billion rubles, and in Russia - 900 billion rubles, then the ratio will already be 25% for the United States and practically the same 10% for Russia. Not twice, but two and a half times.
              I hope you understand that you cannot "credit" anyone with the cost of servicing the state debt. Or don't you understand?

              Also in the Russian Federation, the largest non-public sector is GtG, which is not included in GDP. And also not included in public income and expenses. Therefore, the ratio in our favor is even greater.
              And also double and triple accounting of transactions in the US GDP in the secondary market. As well as accounting for non-production operations in the stock market.
              Therefore, the ratio is not at all in favor of the USA.
              1. ironic
                ironic 24 March 2021 01: 04
                -1
                Faith is always above knowledge.
            2. ironic
              ironic 24 March 2021 01: 03
              -2
              There is no complicated logical reasoning here. But there is no mistake in the information. There is no need to count so and do not think so, but what you write is balancing act, and not logic, designed to shrug off what? Low public debt of Russia? In your case, this is not a plus, but the lack of credit for future development. It is by means of increasing, if necessary, the national debt and it is possible to lend, you simply will not understand this, because you do not want, and not because you cannot. Therefore, I do not hope.
              1. Arkon
                Arkon 24 March 2021 07: 51
                0
                Quote: ironic
                No, you don't need to think so and don't think so,


                Who exactly doesn't count and why?
                1. ironic
                  ironic 25 March 2021 20: 39
                  0
                  Nobody, except those who want to grumble approvingly. Because it is fraudulent to count only federal revenues in relation to one item of expenditure. You should also read that this year they will reduce the deficit by more than a third, but this is not written in Russian ...
                  1. Arkon
                    Arkon 25 March 2021 21: 22
                    0
                    Quote: ironic
                    Because it is fraudulent to count only federal revenues in relation to one item of expenditure.


                    Oh how. Well, that is, you are not aware that expenses can only be made from income. No, you can, of course, steal from a neighbor and also spend. Or print fakes. And spend too. This path seems to be closer to you.
                    1. ironic
                      ironic 25 March 2021 21: 37
                      0
                      I do know that not only. This is exactly what credit is for. Devaluation is a technique, it is not used in order to push the money supply somewhere and raise the stock. You probably are not aware that it is stimulated by domestic consumption when it falls below a certain level. To me, any path that leads to increased production is closer than any that leads to stagnation.
                      1. Arkon
                        Arkon 26 March 2021 07: 46
                        0
                        Quote: ironic
                        I do know that not only. This is exactly what credit is for.


                        Credits, unfortunately "consumers" must be returned. And if they are not returned, then it is not called taking a loan, but robbing. I do not recommend that you take this slippery path.
                      2. ironic
                        ironic 30 March 2021 11: 31
                        0
                        And they do it with success. By the way, I also successfully did it twice in my life. The mortgage is called. But now I also live in my own home and gave my mother my home. So the States in terms of loans are even in a better position than I was. So they are up to problems with returns, like through Red Square, in reverse, after circumcision. But the projects are not yet waiting for their turn, but are immediately funded.
                      3. Arkon
                        Arkon 30 March 2021 12: 18
                        0
                        Quote: ironic
                        By the way, I also successfully did it twice in my life.


                        Didn't you serve the loan? And I am sure that you serviced the loan precisely from your income side, and not based on the turnover of the enterprise where you work. Is that so? Also, it is on the basis of your salary that your other expenses are considered - even the purchase of food, even the purchase of a gun.
                        But if this is so, then it is not very clear why you propose to calculate the amounts for servicing loans and military expenditures of states, comparing them with the total turnover of money in the state (enterprise), and not with their revenue side. smile
                      4. ironic
                        ironic 30 March 2021 12: 29
                        0
                        No, not only. I also served the loan indirectly by serving part of my needs with my own hands, which is included in indirect income, but is not net profit. The more dirty turnover I have, the more the bank will give me a loan, based on the potential growth of income, stimulating an even greater increase in turnover, without which the net profit will not grow. This is how it is actually done.
                      5. Arkon
                        Arkon 30 March 2021 13: 21
                        0
                        Quote: ironic
                        what is included in indirect income, but is not net income


                        Please explain this phrase. What is the difference between "indirect income" and "net profit" in your understanding.
                      6. ironic
                        ironic 30 March 2021 13: 42
                        0
                        Domestic consumption is not included in the calculation of government revenues.
                      7. Arkon
                        Arkon 30 March 2021 14: 45
                        0
                        Those. "indirect income" and "net profit" are just "income" and you have used different terms for the catch phrase and you cannot explain their difference in the context of the term "income". Okay.

                        Quote: ironic
                        Domestic consumption is not included in the calculation of government revenues.


                        And what does this have to do with it? What does military spending have to do with "domestic consumption"?
                      8. ironic
                        ironic 30 March 2021 15: 34
                        0
                        What have I done now? Those. you can't read?

                        Domestic consumption is the satisfaction of a part of the market without taking into account the income hidden in this turnover.
                      9. Arkon
                        Arkon 30 March 2021 16: 59
                        0
                        Quote: ironic
                        What have I done now? Those. you can't read?


                        I have no idea what you have done now. However, to my question: "What is the difference between" indirect income "and" net profit "in your understanding." You did not answer.

                        You can try again. wink
                      10. ironic
                        ironic 30 March 2021 17: 34
                        0
                        You did not understand this, you can try to understand it again. wink
                      11. Arkon
                        Arkon 31 March 2021 16: 48
                        0
                        Now I understand.
                      12. ironic
                        ironic 31 March 2021 17: 16
                        +1
                        By the way, judging by the data of the state budget of the Russian Federation in English, from the fourth quarter of the 19th to the 3rd quarter of the 20th the Russian Federation had practically no average budget deficit at all. And there is not enough money. Those. You have practically no credit.
  • Emil Azeri
    Emil Azeri 22 March 2021 13: 54
    -4
    Kinetic intercept systems are such that only 30-40% of the case depends on missiles, the rest is behind radars. Calculating a direct hit of missiles with a target is a matter of exceptionally high technology and powerful computers.