Military Review

"Zircon" as a solution to the "Aleutian stranglehold"

77

A quote from a recently sensational publication in our media: in Forbes (USA):


Erexon Air Force Base is so terrible that when US ground forces want to conduct combat training or exercises in the harsh cold climates, they often use it ... But for all its shortcomings, Erexon has tremendous strategic value.
... Not a single American airfield (we are not talking about aircraft carriers) can place fighters so close to Russia.

We are talking about the Erexon airbase on Shemiya Island (Aleutian Islands).


"Aleutian noose" or "pistol at the temple of Kamchatka"


Airfields, and in large numbers, appeared on the Aleutian Islands during the Second World War - as a result of active hostilities (including in this area) between the United States and Japan.


View of the American airbase in the Aleutian Islands during a blizzard (World War II)

Despite the extremely harsh conditions, the needs of the war forced them to actively develop the islands (turning them in fact into a single "Aleutian air hub").

The airfield closest to Kamchatka on Attu Island (now Casco Cove airport, was with the LORAN navigation station under the control of the US Coast Guard) is practically not used today. Moreover, living conditions there are considered so harsh that all BO staff lived in the same building and without families.

However, during the Second World War, both military activity and human life were in full swing there.


Pilots of the American 54th Fighter Squadron greet a group of army nurses at the airfield of Attu Island

The most habitable and developed among all the western Aleutian Islands was the former Shemya airbase (located on the island of the same name), which operated until July 1, 1994. Nevertheless, the airfield with a large runway (more than 3 km) is still owned and operated by the US Air Force.

During the Cold War, Shemya airbase was actively exploited by reconnaissance aircraft and base patrol aircraft of the P-3C Orion Navy.

Now in the United States, the question is again raised not only of the deployment of a strong group of anti-submarine aircraft on Shemie, but also of ensuring its cover with 5th generation F-22 fighters. Moreover, if necessary, a number of runways on the Aleutian Islands can be restored in a short time.

The goal of the United States is clear - the base of the Pacific Fleet and the NSNF Vilyuchinsk and the grouping of submarine forces deployed there (including the NSNF) of the Russian Navy.


Strategic objects in the Vilyuchinsk area

Taking into account the distance to Vilyuchinsk just over a thousand km, the F-22 with Erickson are able to ensure reliable permanent air supremacy (the MiG-31BM, which has received a very limited modernization, will certainly not be able to withstand the F-22A). And not just in the northwestern part of the Pacific Ocean, but also over the waters of the Avacha Bay adjacent to the Russian Federation. And to ensure the work of modern patrol (countercurrent) aircraft P-8 Poseidon.

Three key factors of the "modern anti-submarine warfare system"


Three key factors of the "modern anti-submarine warfare system" that are worth talking about over and over again:

1. Low-frequency "illumination" of the submarine search area, providing reliable detection of even completely noiseless submarines.

"Zircon" as a solution to the "Aleutian stranglehold"

2. The active use of "backlight" (and using the most effective - very low-frequency (hundreds of Hz) range) and multi-position methods of working with anti-submarine aviation "So-called partners".


Why does the naval aviation of the Navy not have this?

The question is to the leadership of the Ministry of Defense and to the ex-chief of Naval Aviation (who appointed the head organization in the Russian Federation for patrol anti-submarine complexes "a firm" that had absolutely no experience in creating them, but in which he now "effectively found a job").

3. New non-acoustic search tools.

From the memoirs of the head of the department of advanced design of the Central Research Institute. Krylova A.M. Vasiliev about the deputy head of the USSR Navy, Admiral Novoselov:

... at the meeting he did not give the floor to the head of the institute, who was eager to tell about experiments to detect the surfaced trace of a submarine using a radar ... Much later, at the end of 1989 ,. asked him why he dismissed the question.
To this Fyodor Ivanovich replied as follows:
“I know about this effect, it is impossible to defend against such detection, so why upset our submariners?


Admiral F. I. Novoselov

Note. According to those who knew Admiral Novoselov well, he was a very wise and experienced leader. It is worth recalling that a number of systems and complexes that have become the "brand" of the Russian Navy today were laid down under him. And he did not hide from the facts - it was under him that active work was going on, including on new means of search. It's just that the question of the submarine in the structure of the military-industrial complex of the USSR was "organizationally difficult." And here it was sometimes necessary to act, as they say, "on soft paws."

Conclusions:
the threat of the US aviation group from Shemya is real. And the deployment of a strong air group (F-22 and P-8) is able not only to disrupt the deployment of submarines (of any forces) from Kamchatka, but also to call into question the effectiveness and expediency of Kamchatka's NSNF grouping.

However, there is a solution.

Hypersonic response with maximum efficiency


A stationary airfield with valuable modern combat aircraft is just the ideal target for hypersonic missiles. Given the severe restrictions on the GOS, they objectively have limited characteristics. And therefore, they require special high-precision target designation systems when used against mobile naval targets. Obviously, the requirements for such systems when firing Zircons will be much higher and stricter than those for Onyx (with a seeker with a much larger detection area).

However, the location of the stationary airfield is a priori known, and it is precisely for such objects that the use of hypersonic missiles will have a very high effect.

Taking into account the official statement about the possibility of using the Zircon anti-ship missile system from the standard 3S14 vertical launchers, it is logical to assume that there is a real possibility of its use from the Bastion coastal anti-ship complex (ABSCRK) (with its corresponding revision).


Accordingly, the use of the necessary (and not very large) outfit of Zircon hypersonic missiles at the Erickson airbase (Shemya island) from Kamchatka, with a very high probability, allows not only to destroy the airbase itself, but also very complex and expensive aircraft of the 5th generations. Taking into account this factor, the expediency of using hypersonic missiles (very expensive) for such purposes is quite justified.

Bastion has already been deployed in Kamchatka. "Zircon" is completing tests (it should be noted that for the destruction of stationary targets, it is advisable to modify it with a "simplified" control and targeting system to ensure a reduction in the cost of the rocket and the accumulation of the necessary ammunition).

And now the "inverted chessboard"


When analyzing the possibilities and effectiveness of new types and samples weapons, as well as the ways of its application, the "principle of the inverted chessboard" is of great value. That is, it is imperative to look at the situation from the side of the enemy. Moreover, not only from the point of view of countering our new weapons, but also the capabilities (new weapons) or methods of using them by the enemy. And sometimes the conclusions (with this approach) turn out to be quite unexpected.

In 2018, the US Army officially announced its ongoing development of a promising missile system with a Long Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW) hypersonic warhead. And already quite recently, some of its characteristics were publicly named: first of all, the range - 1725 miles (2775 km).


The statement about the delivery of the first LRHW missile system to the troops should be considered very optimistic. However, such work is being carried out in the United States and is very active. And now we can confidently assume that the United States will receive one or another hypersonic missile, and in the near future.

After that, questions arise about our goals. And this is not only Vilyuchinsk and Elizovo in Kamchatka, but also all the northern bases. Immediately I recall the scandalous photo from Hajiyevo in 2015 with the "group expectation" of enemy warheads, most of our strategic APCR in the "puddle" of a small base.

Yes, hypersonic targets go astray. And this success of our anti-aircraft missile system "Antey-2500" was officially and with legitimate pride reported back at the "Army-2020". However, only with special air defense systems and special and extremely expensive air defense systems.

In other words, we get a situation of "frontal military-technical and economic competition" with the enemy - many times stronger in the economy than we are.

Further, as already noted in the author's publications on "Zircon", he not only does not "zero" "mobile airfields", moreover, it significantly increases their value in a future war.

In fact, there are a lot of conclusions (and a discussion on them will be very useful, including with the participation of "smart amateurs" with a "fresh look").

One of the elementary questions: what about our other airfields in Kamchatka, taking into account the possibility (and its high probability) of putting Elizovo out of action?

We also had Pushchino and Lenino, capable of receiving heavy regiments of the Naval Missile Carrier and Long-Range Aviation? Only here at the airfields of these between the surviving slabs of the covering sometimes birches are already growing ...

In fact, all of our stationary objects in the front-line zone are becoming targets of destruction. Moreover, the objective air defense capabilities deliberately exclude the possibility of reliably covering any significant number of them.

And this is not a distant “sometime later”, but a very specific “tomorrow”. Literally in 4-6 years.
Author:
77 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 25 May 2021 11: 12
    +15
    Hmm ... In the morning there was an article that hypersound is not a panacea ... Now - the opposite opinion.
    Hmm, how many people, so many opinions ...
    But for the description of the airbase in the Aleuts, thanks to the author!
    1. NDR-791
      NDR-791 25 May 2021 11: 26
      0
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      Hmm ... In the morning there was an article that hypersound is not a panacea ... Now - the opposite opinion.

      So in the morning it was about our hypersound, and then also about amersky. How many is the island in diameter? Is 100Kt enough?
      1. Machito
        Machito 25 May 2021 12: 25
        +6
        Zircon with nuclear warheads is quite capable of zeroing the American airbase in the Aleuts. But Klimov, as always, is not in vain sounding the alarm.
        1. antivirus
          antivirus 25 May 2021 12: 49
          -6
          no wonder the alarm sounds.


          - it is possible to clink with glasses ..................
          1. Machito
            Machito 25 May 2021 12: 53
            +9
            Maxim Klimov is well versed in naval matters. With glasses, I think he can handle it too. drinks
      2. bayard
        bayard 25 May 2021 13: 04
        +7
        In the absence of the Zircon in service at the moment and considering that it has not yet confirmed its ability to hit targets at a distance of 1000 km by testing, the Dagger complex on the MiG-31K will also do. The range will be enough for this, and it is available, and it will be cheaper.
        In fact, in the current situation, as many of the remaining MiG-31s ​​should be upgraded into carriers of the "Dagger" as possible and used in all the most threatened directions. This replacement MRBM is in great demand today both in the European direction, and in Kamchatka / Chukotka, and to cover the Far East, and to contain the former "partners" in the Mediterranean and Middle East directions.
        The best air defense weapon is a preemptive nuclear strike against enemy airfields.
        Every air defense officer will confirm this to you.
        Quote: NDR-791
        Is 100Kt enough?

        This power may need at least 2. And if they put in order and other runways and deploy any difference there, then maybe 3 pcs. will need. For fidelity. So that "nothing comes to life".
        1. Jacket in stock
          Jacket in stock 25 May 2021 16: 26
          -2
          Quote: bayard
          The best air defense weapon is a preemptive nuclear strike against enemy airfields.

          On the one hand, it seems to be yes.
          On the other hand, it is suicide, because the beginning of nuclear armageddon, where we will definitely not be able to win.
          1. bayard
            bayard 25 May 2021 16: 47
            +9
            This proverb is well known among air defense personnel (and not only). The point is that it is much more useful to reset enemy aircraft at its airfields. And preferably before it takes off to the base station or relocation.
            And further . If we have a threatened period and we know that the enemy has definitely decided on something, then it is wiser to strike first. In this case, the first to start will have an advantage - part of the enemy's forces will be destroyed by the first strike, and the response will be weakened a priori.
            But the decision about SUCH things is not for us to make. And there must be sufficient reason for this.
            In the case of local wars, an attack on enemy airfields is the best way to get rid of his air raids.
            In all other cases of confrontation between aviation and air defense, the initiative always belongs to aviation.
            And it is already possible to resolve the issue with this airbase today by aiming the MiG-31K link at it, relocating them closer to the theater of operations. Perhaps they are based in Chukotka (Kamchatka is too close to the enemy and from there you may not have time to react ... However, it is possible there, but you have to keep them in full operational readiness for takeoff at the first signal.
            In our air defense, the interceptor was raised in 1 minute. I think the MiG-31K can also be raised.
            1. Jacket in stock
              Jacket in stock 25 May 2021 17: 19
              +2
              Quote: bayard
              In the case of local wars, an attack on enemy airfields is the best way to get rid of his air raids.

              Like yes.
              But I don't really imagine a local conflict between Russia and the United States, and even with the use of nuclear weapons.
              And of course, there is nothing to argue about the constant duty of strike aircraft, except perhaps the price of the issue. Do we have so much money in our country?
              (do not offer to confiscate from some citizens who have them for sure, not for that 30 years ago the Soviet Union was killed)
              1. bayard
                bayard 25 May 2021 17: 58
                +9
                Quote: Jacket in stock
                But I don't really imagine a local conflict between Russia and the United States, and even with the use of nuclear weapons.

                This conflict, even if it happens, will not remain local. But the fact of the matter is that the best defense is the creation of an equal or superior threat. That is why I started talking about the relocation and re-targeting of a part (conditionally - a link) of the MiG-31K with "Daggers" under the belly. simply because they are already available, have sufficient range, can carry nuclear warheads, and can be easily relocated to any suitable airfield in the theater of operations.
                Quote: Jacket in stock
                And of course, there is nothing to argue about the constant duty of strike aircraft, except perhaps the price of the issue. Do we have so much money in our country?

                Money is not the main thing here, the main thing is the AVAILABILITY of such aircraft and missiles for them. They are, and they are already being deployed / deployed in Transbaikalia. It seems that they planned up to 20 pieces (but this is not certain). Detach 4 MiG-31Ks from their grouping to Kamchatka / Chukotka will not be a problem - a purely organizational issue.
                It would be nice to finally acquire an MRBM, placing some of them in Chukotka - there is a base for them, left from the late Union. The Pioneers planned to base there. And get from there all of Alaska, the Aleuts and the entire west coast of the United States, as well as all targets on the Japanese islands.
                As for the money, it IS, and you don't need to requisition it from anyone. The budget of the Russian Federation is chronically PROFITABLE! That is, income ALWAYS exceeds expenses. And some of this surplus is more than enough for ALL defense needs (something that is very much needed, but is not being done). The only question is the desire and the WILL of the authorities to do just that.
                If you do not hide from the problems in the bunker, then they can be completely solved by the AVAILABLE means.
            2. Barberry25
              Barberry25 25 May 2021 20: 22
              +1
              Well, actually, the first thing that happens during a threatened period is the dispersal of troops ..
          2. bk0010
            bk0010 25 May 2021 17: 14
            +3
            Quote: Jacket in stock
            And on the other hand, this is suicide, because the beginning of nuclear armageddon, where we definitely cannot win
            We will not be able to lose: we have a smaller population.
            1. Jacket in stock
              Jacket in stock 25 May 2021 17: 21
              +2
              Quote: bk0010
              We will not be able to lose: we have a smaller population.

              That's right, if they and we manage to kill 100 million each, then there will be another 250 million, and there are only 50 of us. And who won?
              1. bk0010
                bk0010 25 May 2021 17: 25
                -3
                Quote: Jacket in stock
                That's right, if they and we manage to kill 100 million each, then there will be another 250 million, and there are only 50 of us. And who won?
                We will destroy 50% of the population: we have 140 million people, the states have 300, Europe has 500 (we will burn only NATO Europe, we will cut the sturgeon by half - 250), and Japan - 150: 1 in our favor.
                1. Jacket in stock
                  Jacket in stock 25 May 2021 18: 52
                  +2
                  Quote: bk0010
                  1: 5 in our favor.

                  No, nifiga.
                  We must count not the killed, but the living.
                  And we will certainly lose, because we lost already at the start.
                  Therefore, to fight for us is suicide, and for them it is just damage. And the measure of acceptability depends on the circumstances, you can donate half of the "meat" on occasion.
                2. Barberry25
                  Barberry25 25 May 2021 20: 24
                  +3
                  laughing only there is one moment ... the threat of destruction of 50% of the population automatically turns off the war even at the stage of preparation
          3. isv000
            isv000 26 May 2021 13: 42
            0
            With a nuclear armageddon, no one can win ...
            1. Leeds
              Leeds 28 May 2021 09: 48
              0
              Quote: isv000
              With a nuclear armageddon, no one can win ...

              Maybe the one who destroys most of the missiles on the way to their territory. Over oceans and other allied states.
      3. Barberry25
        Barberry25 25 May 2021 20: 21
        0
        laughing Well, this is a topvar .. then everything that is Russian is always bad, and if American is the best ..
    2. Anachoret
      Anachoret 27 May 2021 14: 03
      -2
      the first news that follows from the article) the states have finally come up with a combat mission for their white elephants f22 somewhere in the north (so as not to write off ahead of time)
      and on airfields, you need to put them in order and actively let them into civilian circulation, so that in case of anything they can be used for a dual purpose) otherwise, hanging a bunch of spare runways on the MO balance sheet is all the money in the whistle))
  2. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 25 May 2021 11: 12
    +7
    Modern naval aviation is very vulnerable on the ground. And those who rely only on her in a naval war are at least short-sighted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  3. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 25 May 2021 11: 37
    +8
    You see ... there was once such an anecdote: a bear, a wolf, a fox, a hare and ... a crow are flying in a passenger plane! Here the crow got bored and she began to knock on the window with her beak! The hare became interested and asks: What are you doing, crow? Crow: I'm running out of boredom! Hare: Interestingly invented! I'm bored too ... let me and I "look out"! And he began to drum on the glass ... Well. then the wolf and the fox wanted the same thing! Finally, it became interesting for the bear too! He made his way to the window ... and how he cracked his paw out of all his urine on the glass! The porthole - to smithereens ... throws the animals out of the plane with an air stream! Lo and behold, they fall; and around them a crow is spinning, flapping its wings! Asks the animals: Can't you ... fly? Not. we do not know how, the animals answer ... Crow: And if you cringe? (please do not find fault with the size of the window and the bear ... this is an anecdote ... that is, a "fairy tale"! A fairy tale is a lie, but there is a hint in it ... a lesson for good fellows! "Those who wish" I can offer the door! )
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 25 May 2021 11: 46
      +3
      PS Well ... what's done is done! Now we need to get out! It seems that the SAM alone cannot get out! Now it is necessary to develop other means ... even "reanimation" of the old methods is possible.! It won't be cheap, of course; but it will have to be done!
  4. knn54
    knn54 25 May 2021 11: 38
    -7
    For SUCH purpose, and "POSEIDON" will do.
    1. bayard
      bayard 25 May 2021 13: 09
      -1
      We do not have Zircon or Poseidon in stock.
      There is a "Dagger" on the MiG-31K, and it can handle it.
    2. bk0010
      bk0010 25 May 2021 17: 16
      +2
      Quote: knn54
      For SUCH purpose, and "POSEIDON" will do.
      Well, yes, let's say he has a speed of 100 miles per hour, he will approach the goal in 10 hours.
  5. Bez 310
    Bez 310 25 May 2021 11: 47
    0
    Lenino.
    How much of this word...

    “In the office of the regiment commander, deputies, squadron commanders, and a senior navigator were suddenly gathered. There was also a regiment political officer who accidentally entered. Everyone looked at the commander inquiringly, only the political officer was picking his nose with inspiration.
    - In two weeks, as you know, we had Sakhalin according to plan.
    - And what, canceled? Here the people will be delighted!
    - Not happy, everything is much worse. Business trip according to plan, not Sakhalin, but Kamchatka.
    - The people will be delighted, well, they will definitely be delighted, it's not to live in the wilderness, but in Elizovo, in the city, near Peter ...
    - Stop interrupting me! I told you - everything is much worse!
    - Comrade commander! Yes, frighten us already, otherwise speak in riddles ...
    - I'm scaring. Kamchatka, but not Elizovo!
    - Yes, there are no more airfields for our aircraft.
    “I thought so too, but we're all wrong. The Motherland, in great secrecy from everyone, built a new airfield in the center of Kamchatka, and we were honored to receive it, fly around and equip it. In short, a week later the advance team and the flight control group fly out to Kamchatka, after they have examined everything, the regiment departs. Questions?
    - So where is this airfield located?
    - There is no exact information yet. The instructions for flight operations were written by the Kamchadals, now they are being approved. As soon as they are approved, they will tell us everything, but they say the place is deaf ... The navigators should study everything, bring everyone to the table, depict passing tests.
    - Well, there was no sadness ...
    - Yes, I almost forgot, this airfield is called Lenino.
    - Yes, we do not care ... as it is called, though Gadyukino.
    Then the political officer, peacefully examining the contents of his nostrils, threw up as if stung.
    - Who cares about it ...?
    Surprised by such an impulse, the commander frowned at the political officer.
    - What are you doing here? Well, what have you got there?
    The zampolit got up, buttoned and tugged at his jacket, poured water from a decanter into a glass, took a sip and cleared his throat loudly.
    - I will not allow this attitude to the most holy that we have. At a time when the entire Soviet people, not sparing their strengths, are building new airfields for us so that we can beat the enemy even better, some allow themselves to mock ...
    - Zampolit, let's make it short, state the very essence.
    - Yes, how can you ... I have no words ... The airfield is named with a holy name, the name of LENIN, but you don't give a fuck ...! Do not forget, you are not only commanders, but also communists! And your first task is to ensure that our stay at this airfield, at the airfield named after our great leader, is not overshadowed by the antics of your subordinates, and yours too. Demand will be heightened and control will be constant. I finished.
    - Well, thank God, that is, the Communist Party! Go make your subordinates happy. "
  6. Ka-52
    Ka-52 25 May 2021 11: 51
    +14
    We also had Pushchino and Lenino, capable of receiving heavy regiments of the Naval Missile Carrier and Long-Range Aviation? Only here at the airfields of these between the surviving slabs of the covering sometimes birches are already growing ...

    in Apache (Lenino) there were immediately problems with concrete. The soil is a swamp. According to the state of the runway, he was immediately transferred to operational. In the 80s, he still took the 16s.
    the threat of the US aviation group from Shemya is real. And the deployment of a strong air group (F-22 and P-8)

    It is highly doubtful whether the F-22 will be deployed on a permanent basis on this base, taking into account the requirements for its maintenance - Shemya is far from Eilson.
    1. Shopping Mall
      Shopping Mall 25 May 2021 14: 55
      +1
      Quote: Ka-52
      We also had Pushchino and Lenino, capable of receiving heavy regiments of the Naval Missile Carrier and Long-Range Aviation? Only here at the airfields of these between the surviving slabs of the covering sometimes birches are already growing ...

      in Apache (Lenino) there were immediately problems with concrete. The soil is a swamp. According to the state of the runway, he was immediately transferred to operational. In the 80s, he still took the 16s.
      the threat of the US aviation group from Shemya is real. And the deployment of a strong air group (F-22 and P-8)

      It is highly doubtful whether the F-22 will be deployed on a permanent basis on this base, taking into account the requirements for its maintenance - Shemya is far from Eilson.


      Good point - they have increased requirements for coating maintenance. There is an assumption that the talks about the withdrawal of the F-22 are going on precisely because the US Air Force simply bothered to restore it (coverage). The F-35 seems to have a new coating, but the F-22 and the B-2 have eternal hemorrhoids.
    2. jonht
      jonht 26 May 2021 01: 05
      0
      Slabs have been removed from Lenino for the second year, if not more, but it seems that they started to restore them ... But I was not in that area, so there were rumors.
  7. KCA
    KCA 25 May 2021 11: 58
    +2
    Why pull an elephant by the lower trunk and come up with options if immediately after the US left the INF Treaty, Putin publicly (shown on TV) ordered the development of mobile missile systems with short- and medium-range missiles?
    1. Machito
      Machito 25 May 2021 12: 29
      -1
      From development to putting on combat duty in specific positional areas, a lot of water will leak.
      1. KCA
        KCA 25 May 2021 12: 32
        +2
        If the development has not been carried out before, "Rubezh", for example, or something that really alarmed the Americans
  8. Thrifty
    Thrifty 25 May 2021 12: 01
    -1
    The main thing is that we urgently need to find a way to prevent the United States from gaining theoretically air supremacy. That is, new aircraft are needed, and the strengthening of the air defense-missile defense system as a whole. The fleet, unfortunately, we have been building for a terribly long time, our ships are not competitors to the destroyers and cruisers of the United States, therefore, as an alternative and possibly the deployment of coastal complexes of hypersonic missiles, so to speak, a land version of the same "Zircon", here I agree with the author.
  9. Gofman
    Gofman 25 May 2021 12: 19
    0
    Is it really better to adapt the Zircon anti-ship missile for the destruction of a ground object, if for such a purpose (the defeat of highly protected missile defense and air defense targets along different trajectories, which complicates the protection against defeat), complexes with the Iskander-M quasi-ballistic missile and Iskander cruise missile are specially designed -TO"? "Konstantin Sivkov believes that a salvo from the Iskander OTRK division is capable of destroying an entire US missile defense position area."
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 25 May 2021 12: 25
      +2
      Iskander-M lacks range (about 500 km is declared), and Iskander-K lacks surprise (subsonic missile).
      1. Thrifty
        Thrifty 25 May 2021 13: 35
        -1
        The squid is subsonic only up to a certain range, then the engine runs at full power, and the missile speed exceeds 3 speeds of sound, this is the first, in terms of range, we are talking about missile models that were created taking into account agreements on limiting the flight range of such missiles. The treaty has been canceled, the missiles will fly as long as needed, but not 500 kilometers, but much more.
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar 25 May 2021 14: 25
          +3
          Quote: Thrifty
          it is subsonic only up to a certain range, then the engine operates at full power, and the missile speed exceeds 3 speeds of sound, this is the first, in terms of range, we are talking about missile models that were created taking into account agreements on limiting the flight range of such missiles. The agreement has been canceled, the missiles will fly as long as needed, but not 500 kilometers, but much more.

          Where does this information come from? The combined mode (subsonic-supersonic) is officially available only for the 3M-54 (from the "Caliber" family) - this is an anti-ship missile system, and with not the longest range. Nothing of the kind has been announced for Iskander-K. Even the dimensions of the rocket hint at this (supersonic is very energy-consuming, a lot of fuel is needed).

          Iskander-M is a tactical missile system, which was originally designed for a range of 400-500 km. I strongly doubt that it can be so easily "pumped" up to 1000 km. This range has (sort of) "Dagger" - but this is due to air launch with a good initial speed.
          1. Thrifty
            Thrifty 25 May 2021 14: 49
            0
            Squid - a range of 500 kilometers is for the export version. And, this figure was "required" as long as the contract was in force. Information has already flashed that Iskander flew further than this figure, taking into account the dimensions of the rocket 1000 kilometers for him a real figure!
            1. Kalmar
              Kalmar 25 May 2021 14: 55
              +3
              Quote: Thrifty
              a range of 500 kilometers is for the export version

              No, the export version had a range of 270 km - within the maximum allowable for export of 300.

              Quote: Thrifty
              Information has already flashed that Iskander flew further than this figure.

              I am with some skepticism about the flickering information. Many domestic journalists are poorly versed in missiles; confusing Iskander-M with "-K" or 3M-14 or "Dagger" is not a problem for them at all.

              Quote: Thrifty
              taking into account the dimensions of the rocket, 1000 kilometers for him is a real figure!

              I do not know how you determine this by size. Well that is we can probably reduce the warhead, load more fuel, etc., but this is already a completely new rocket. I personally have not come across information about the creation of something like this.
    2. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 25 May 2021 13: 31
      +2
      Quote: Gofman
      Is it really better to adapt the Zircon anti-ship missile for the destruction of a ground object, if for such a purpose (the defeat of highly protected missile defense and air defense targets along different trajectories, which complicates the protection against defeat), complexes with the Iskander-M quasi-ballistic missile and Iskander cruise missile are specially designed -TO"? "Konstantin Sivkov believes that a salvo from the Iskander OTRK division is capable of destroying an entire US missile defense position area."



      Sivkov, lost and degrading ...
      Do not listen to him - there is more insanity than reason.

      What is the positional area?

      OTRK "Iskander" can destroy only the position of "Aegis Asher" in the Polish Redzikovo.

      If Sivkov considers this position to be "an entire US missile defense position area" - then one can only sympathize with the level of degradation of his consciousness ...

      Deveselu in Romania cannot be reached even from the Crimea.

      And even more so to the Alaska Delta Junction (where the GBI stands) ...
  10. Pavel57
    Pavel57 25 May 2021 12: 20
    +1
    The idea of ​​the low combat stability of modern SLBMs, taking into account the capabilities of detecting submarines and a preemptive strike on their bases, was once again confirmed.
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 25 May 2021 14: 56
      +1
      Quote: Pavel57
      The idea of ​​the low combat stability of modern SLBMs, taking into account the capabilities of detecting submarines and a preemptive strike on their bases, was once again confirmed.

      That is why about half of the SSBNs must be on alert at any given time. And the rest (ideally) are "smeared" as much as possible on different bases.
    2. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 26 May 2021 12: 03
      +1
      Quote: Pavel57
      The idea of ​​the low combat stability of modern SLBMs, taking into account the capabilities of detecting submarines and a preemptive strike on their bases, was once again confirmed.


      At the moment - the only high-precision, fastest, most powerful - i.e. A 100% guaranteed strike against submarine bases is an SLBM strike on a flat trajectory.
      The strike is made from a distance of 2000-2500 kilometers. And in 5-7 minutes - the SSBN / SSBN base with all its contents - is completely destroyed.
      Those. we get at the same time:
      1. It is the submarine bases that are one of the most vulnerable military strategic targets.
      2. It is the missiles from these very boats - the fastest, giving a 99% chance of preventing a retaliatory strike from the attacked base.
      Dilemma?
  11. Doccor18
    Doccor18 25 May 2021 13: 07
    +1
    Maxim, thank you for another serious article on naval topics.
    Further, as already noted in the author's publications on "Zircon", he not only does not "zero" "mobile airfields", moreover, it significantly increases their value in a future war.

    Yes, examples of the serious combat effectiveness of the "mobile airfield" have already been given a lot ... Only the counterarguments are the same: we cannot and it is expensive ...
    So the dispute between the "deaf and the blind" is futile.
  12. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 25 May 2021 13: 19
    0
    In light of the withdrawal from the MRBM treaty .... isn't it easier to place MRBM and IRBM in that area?
    1. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 25 May 2021 17: 14
      0
      Quote: Zaurbek
      is it not easier to place MRBM and KRMD in that area?

      Simpler.
      As soon as they are designed and manufactured.
      The author just proposes an option for a quick, as it seems to him, solution to the problem.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 25 May 2021 17: 24
        0
        So the CD already exists .... put universal ship launchers (like the United States in Romania and Poland). GPUs and Onyxes carry less charge and weigh more.
  13. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 25 May 2021 15: 37
    +2
    In other words, we get a situation of "frontal military-technical and economic competition" with the enemy - many times stronger in the economy than we are.

    And this is actually the main problem of our current military development - we will not provide the country with a high-quality level of security without a high-quality level of economy. Regardless of what we have some mind-blowing weapons, in the United States their counterparts will be made stupidly 5 times more - and all this will be based on a five-fold boost in other areas, that is, in the end, this is a quantitative and qualitative superiority, which is provided by a larger economy ... Sooner or later, in the conditions of a disproportionately greater availability of funds and scientific and technical potential (which also depends on funds), they will find the means to effectively combat our ICBMs, by analogy with how they found a completely effective way to combat and detect our submarines. What are we going to do then? Then it will really be too late to drink "Borjomi" - because our security is based not on "Zircons" but on stupid nuclear deterrence, which makes (at the moment) the seizure of our territory and the war with us unprofitable for reasons of benefit-damage, including ...
    It is high time for us to wake up and switch our minds from "RedAlert 2" to "Monopoly" - because in the 21st century all our imperial ambitions against the background of stupidly efficient economies are simply ridiculous - "rich boys" have money for many good and suitable toys without tearing navel, and we buy the penultimate iPhone on credit and try to walk with a gogol.
    Here the author mentions the deplorable state of military airfields in Kamchatka - so it will remain so, because all this must be maintained, modernized, people at these objects must be paid salary and conditions must be created - all this is money that has been methodically cheaper for 7 years already. This is where the main war is in fact, because there is no difference between the destruction of an airfield and the fact that it will not be stupidly opened because of leaky pockets.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 25 May 2021 17: 25
      +2
      To paraphrase ... what was done for Soviet money (OTRK, MRBD), by entering into incomprehensible contracts, was reset and thrown into a landfill. And the enemy had all this on the ships.
  14. Pavel57
    Pavel57 25 May 2021 16: 14
    +3
    Quote: Kalmar
    That is why about half of the SSBNs must be on alert at any given time. And the rest (ideally) are "smeared" as much as possible on different bases.

    It must be not the fact that there is. This is mentioned in the article. And those who went on duty are highly likely to be on target.
  15. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 25 May 2021 17: 08
    -4
    It would be funny if it were not so sad.
    The author proposes to get involved in the next arms race, although he immediately reminds us that we are in too different weight categories.
    Some commentators suggest not philosophizing, but just "bang", huh, and then the whole world to dust? Only, as has been written here more than once, if we and they kill 100 million each, then there will be only a few of us, and there are still 200 million of them, and who won?
    And why should they fight with us?
    They will take what they need anyway, how they did with Deripaska - "Russian Aluminum" is now not Russian at all. They will want it, and everything else will be taken away in the same way, both "Rosneft" and "people's property" and the Vnukovo-2 airport together with the number 1 squadron.
    And if they do not want to, they will wait until we come again ourselves and give it back.
    1. Gofman
      Gofman 25 May 2021 18: 09
      -1
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      It would be funny if it weren't so sad. ... if we and they kill 100 million each, then only a few of us will remain, and there will be another 200 million, and who won?
      Some kind of depressive spring post ... The one who lost the least won. Military losses for us and for them will be the same, due to the super-redundant destructive properties of nuclear weapons. And the loss in the level of well-being they will have oh-oh-oh - not to compare with ours. In every joke there is a grain of a joke, an anecdote as bae hints: "The new development of our military-industrial complex - the Syzran missile - will turn any western city into Syzran, which falls". Is the" golden billion "ready to win, having parted with its level of well-being? It is unlikely. But if it is ready, then we are all the more ashamed to shake at our level.
  16. bk0010
    bk0010 25 May 2021 17: 19
    0
    For such a purpose, there is no need to wait for Zircon; it is not a pity for her and a medium-range missile. We need to make a new Pioneer. Interestingly, it is possible now to make it on the basis of a step from Yars?
  17. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 25 May 2021 19: 29
    0
    it is extremely important to protect nuclear submarine bases in the north and in Kamchatka, instead of empty dreams of aircraft carriers, maximum funds should be spent on the development of hypersonic missiles, air defense of nuclear submarine bases and coastal naval aviation in the north and in Kamchatka
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 25 May 2021 19: 51
      0
      I read with interest the article of the respected Maxim Klimov, thank you for stating the obvious facts .... 1) the shoulder of coastal aviation exceeds 1000 km, 2) unsinkable ground airbases are necessary and important 3) we stop omnipotence, and reason soberly https://www.youtube. com / watch? v = c6tUq0IHVoI, in the first place, unlike a defenseless and vulnerable weather-limited aircraft carrier unnecessary for defense, a ground base has a number of advantages 1) the wide territories of Kamchatka of the Kola Peninsula for the deployment of air defense and missile defense, and secretly, and an advantage over the USA squeezed on a small island or a narrow strip of Norwegian suicide bombers. 2) unlike a defenseless and vulnerable, weather-limited aircraft carrier unnecessary for defense, a land base has significantly lower costs for air defense and deployment of strike missiles, incl. hypersonic, so the budget can provide such weapons 3) the advantage of nuclear submarines stealth, during an attack, SSBNs located in unknown places in the oceans can deliver nuclear strikes on the territory of the United States, in contrast to a defenseless and vulnerable weather-limited aircraft carrier, which is not needed for defense, tracked around the clock in real m time. 4) the aggressive actions of American aircraft carriers and small island bases can and should be monitored, American nuclear submarines are much more dangerous for us, but Thank God the Americans realize that it is more expensive and cowardly to attack the Russian Federation and China (like home-grown admirers = satraps of the United States and their aircraft carriers, supporters of aircraft carriers minus I'm cowardly despicable from around the corner) develop their aircraft carriers to get easy prey in the defenseless countries of Asia and Africa
    2. timokhin-aa
      26 May 2021 11: 44
      -1
      How will the submarines survive? You don't understand at all what they write to you, right?
  18. Barberry25
    Barberry25 25 May 2021 20: 20
    0
    Well, how would any objects in the front-line zone be destroyed, the question is in terms of time and energy expended .. about "in 4 years the Americans will have a hypersound" ... Well, we already have it and several other missiles with similar performance characteristics are on the way .. Here the fact is that the Americans will not go into trouble without a guarantee of victory with calculated casualties ... and go on a rampage with regard to Russia even after receiving as much as one type of hypersonic missiles ... so an idea ..
  19. Soldatov V.
    Soldatov V. 25 May 2021 20: 24
    -1
    The Erickson base is of no value. Good or bad, in the event of a war, Alaska and Kamchatka will destroy each other with different probable results, but Russia and America, as they say, will remain in their own interests. Strikes on the centers of ICBM countries can lead to victory. New Stirlitz and Dr. Sorge will report on plans enemy and we will have time to deliver a preemptive strike.
  20. Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 25 May 2021 21: 35
    +1
    It seems to me that Timokhin made a "cut" from Maxim's postulates and the result was eclecticism ... At the same time, AA does not always do it correctly. Therefore, it turns out what it turns out ...
    I will allow myself a few remarks (it is raining outside the window, there is nothing to do ...)
    according to our goals. And this is not only Vilyuchinsk and Elizovo in Kamchatka, but also all the northern bases. Immediately I recall the scandalous photo from Hajiyevo in 2015 with the "group expectation" of enemy warheads, most of our strategic APCR in the "puddle" of a small base.
    1. This is a photograph of "peacetime", when no plan has been introduced to disperse forces and withdraw them from under attack. Maxim, well, you are a submariner and you should know that the RPKSN leaves the base on its AB while preparing the complex and introduces the installation - and all this within 30 minutes ... And whoever is not on the move, pushing off from the pier dives directly into the base , since the depths in the North allowed ...
    2. The bases of submarine forces are objects of special importance, and are covered by air defense missile defense. And then there is a preemptive strike on missile launchers ... In addition, while NATO has no GZ RO in the North ...
    hypersonic targets go astray.
    Probably it is ... But this is just us declaiming, and NATO is somehow more modest in approaching this. But the GZ RO can deviate from the nearby explosion, which will significantly affect the accuracy at such speeds!
    we get a situation of "frontal military-technical and economic competition" with the enemy - many times stronger in the economy than we are.
    Well, while the Yankees are sweating, trying to catch up with us. It's their R&D funds ... And at the expense of the economy, everything can change very soon: the dollar will shake at no hour, again LGBT or BLM will goof the state democracy ... (Nasty ... at one linear distance: Texas - - straight! The rest - on-RIGHT!)
    by "Zircon"... it not only does not "nullify" the "mobile airfields", moreover, it significantly increases their value in a future war.
    A little bit wrong. The value of the AVU (AVMA) in a future war will increase due to the presence of the enemy's GZ anti-ship missiles, tk. it is aircraft carrier aviation that will become the main threat to their carriers ...
    all our stationary objects in the front-line zone become targets of destruction. Moreover, the objective air defense capabilities deliberately exclude the possibility of reliably covering any significant number of them.

    1.and stationary NATO facilities are also on the lists for missile strikes from sea areas. And not only GZ RO, but also KRBD - too.
    2. our air defense is still preferable, according to the "partners" ... Therefore, the best air defense is our tanks at NATO airfields and missile bases.
    Somehow, however.
    1. timokhin-aa
      26 May 2021 11: 43
      0
      What have I got to do with it? If Max is the author, then he wrote everything.

      1. This is a photograph of "peacetime", when no plan has been introduced to disperse forces and withdraw them from under attack.


      The enemy will try to milk complete surprise at all levels.
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 26 May 2021 21: 56
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        The enemy will try to milk complete surprise at all levels.

        AA, are you familiar with the operational readiness system? Or so, passed by ...
        If you know, then what is the conversation about?
        I am simply amazed reading such posts!
        1. timokhin-aa
          27 May 2021 12: 15
          0
          What does the operational readiness system have to do with it? If we do not oversleep, they will not attack in principle, but if they manage to strike from the peacetime regime, without visible preparation, then our system does not matter to them from the word "absolutely"
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 27 May 2021 12: 58
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            strike out of the peacetime regime, with no apparent preparation,

            Even in order to pour poison into the glass of the "partner", you need to make certain body movements, not to mention taking out a pistol, and even more so a dagger or stiletto ... yes
            First, the GRU, naval intelligence and other "cloak and dagger knights", analytical departments of power and political structures do not eat their bread for pretty eyes.
            Secondly, the general picture of the military-political situation, crisis situations - all this is calculated and predicted ... Conclusions - the alignment of forces according to the situation ...
            Third, our early warning system and its space echelon have already "broken"?
            Yes, the BS forces can "start", but it is not a fact that they will succeed 100%
            And then, you have to be, well, a sooooo "stubborn cretin" in order not to understand the consequences of such a step and to believe that at once you will be able to destroy 90% of the enemy's nuclear potential, and the remaining 10% you will be guaranteed to intercept your missile defense ... No.
            We do not hide the fact that we will strike at the "decision-making centers", and not at the launchers and locations of the NATO allied forces ... The priority of targets assigned to defeat has not yet been canceled ... and Cheyenne Mountain is in the first lines of the list!
            So, with the introduction of the military DANGER, there will be no one in the bases ... And there will not be many in the INCREASED ...
            Therefore, there is no need to pull the owl onto the square's globe!
            AHA.
  21. Bolo
    Bolo 26 May 2021 08: 30
    -1
    Or maybe Petrov and Bashirov laid a nuclear mine there long ago? This is an island, it will wash away the fuck into the ocean ...
  22. magdama
    magdama 26 May 2021 10: 06
    0
    But 4-6 years is not a joke at all. Time is compressed. At any moment, a war can start, even over a trifle, like landing a plane in Minsk.
    1. Gofman
      Gofman 26 May 2021 10: 17
      -2
      Quote: magdama
      At any moment, a war can start, even over a trifle, like landing a plane in Minsk.

      That's how it is ... The power of the Korean People's Army was able to scare away the enemy from its territory, deploying both Trump and his aircraft carriers in the opposite direction ... And we, then, even for such a penny question (compared to the North Korean nuclear problem) at any time will risk weighing? !!
      1. timokhin-aa
        26 May 2021 11: 41
        -1
        Enough of telling tales, the North Koreans did not frighten anyone, the United States and the South Caucasus will sweep them away in one offensive, just like in 1950. Then they were saved by the Chinese and partly by us, now there will be no one to save them. They are not touched simply because no one needs it.
        1. Gofman
          Gofman 26 May 2021 12: 08
          -2
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          just because nobody needs it.

          And stop North Korea's nuclear program - just "they don't need to"? And to adjust the aircraft carriers - on the contrary, "it was just necessary"? You express yourself directly in the style of ukrosaytov. There too: yes, the United States will tear your entire economy apart, they just don't need it .... Yes, your entire Black Sea Fleet will be sent to the bottom of your entire Black Sea Fleet in one salvo from the Mediterranean Sea, if they want to ... if they wanted ... Yes, it would be necessary for the United States - your Nord Stream would rust at the bottom (as the Ukrainian GTS will have in the future).
          1. timokhin-aa
            26 May 2021 17: 22
            +1
            Do you think that Trump tried to intimidate the DPRK with three aircraft carriers without an escort?

            There is a good RAND report on the DPRK's nuclear weapons, where it is proposed to come to terms with the DPRK's nuclear weapons, to warn Eun that any use of it will cause a nuclear response from the United States and the physical destruction of the political system of the DPRK, including Eun himself, to store nuclear bombs in the South Caucasus to clean up the DPRK, and, if necessary, wage a nuclear war with this country.

            Something like that will happen if things get out of hand.

            There, too: yes, the United States will tear your entire economy apart, they just don't need it .... Yes, your entire Black Sea Fleet will be sent to the bottom by a couple of US destroyers from the Mediterranean Sea if they want to ... if they wanted ... Yes, it would be necessary for the United States - your Nord Stream would rust at the bottom (as the Ukrainian GTS will have in the future).


            A very cheap demagogic trick.
            Putting out an extremely INSANE person in your face.
            1. Gofman
              Gofman 26 May 2021 17: 27
              -1
              No, demagoguery is yours "just need it"And"there just wasn’t necessary"actually disguising"just here I can, based on the strength and the situation, but there - I can’t, because it’s risky". In relation to small and weak countries, use force and threaten with force - always."it was necessary".
              Here you have accumulated enough military forces to sweep the DPRK, but you have to hold on to your sweep, because you are afraid of retaliation - it means that you do not have the opportunity to sweep the DPRK (in diplomatic language - you "it's not necessary")
              At the same time, you are not afraid of a nuclear response from Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya - it means that with the same military forces you have the opportunity to punish them, you go and do it (in diplomatic language - "it was necessary")
              1. timokhin-aa
                26 May 2021 17: 30
                +1
                Here you have accumulated enough military forces to sweep the DPRK, but you have to hold on to your sweep, because you are afraid of retaliation, which means that you do not have the opportunity to sweep the DPRK (in diplomatic language - you "don't need this").
                At the same time, you are not afraid of a nuclear response from Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya - it means that with the same military forces you have the opportunity to punish them, you go and do it (in diplomatic language - "it was necessary").


                It's just a matter of benefits / risks. Nobody needs the DPRK, and a war with it will be expensive, and even if they don't use nuclear weapons, it doesn't matter.
                Here is the answer.
  23. Herman 4223
    Herman 4223 26 May 2021 12: 34
    -1
    There is no acceptance against scrap if there is no other scrap. This means that if there is such a problem, then it is necessary to deploy a fighter aviation regiment somewhere nearby, and preferably a division. All the same, the protection of nuclear forces is worth it.
  24. Skipper
    Skipper 26 May 2021 21: 18
    0
    The author is another adept Americanophile. According to him, all Russian rubbish and can not do anything with the American "advanced" ... even Zircons, but the "advanced" American will kill everything Russian always and everywhere.
    An example from his speech.
    The author says that even the Zircons will not be able to destroy this US base, because the Russian base with Zircons will be destroyed by the best F-22s that have flown in, which in one place turned the entire air defense system together with the S-400 and other advanced air defense systems. That is, according to the author's understanding, Russian air defense systems are generally incapable of detecting and destroying F-22 and air-to-surface missile launchers flying in supersonic or subsonic mode.
  25. Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 27 May 2021 15: 24
    +1
    The most reliable solution to the voiced problem with a long-term perspective is the relocation of the SSBN base to the Eirinei Bay of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. The flight time of any aircrafts increases significantly, and for many it becomes unattainable. Possibility of creating an echeloned air defense-missile defense system. Dispersal of the forces of the fleet at another point that is limited to enemy reconnaissance. The vulnerability of the supply routes of the modern base in Kamchatka and the base on the "inland" Sea of ​​Okhotsk is incomparable. Close proximity to the SSBN "bastion" of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk.
  26. Protos
    Protos 27 May 2021 16: 37
    +1
    "MiG-31BM obviously will not be able to withstand the F-22A"
    Very controversial statement yes
    Especially paired with the S-400 division.
    1. agond
      agond 29 May 2021 22: 08
      0
      Quote: Scharnhorst
      The most reliable solution to the voiced problem with a long-term perspective is the transfer of the SSBN base to the Eirinei Bay of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk.

      Quite right, and then Kamchatka is a peninsula, but it will be more difficult for us to bring something there than for the Americans to their island Shemya