Military Review

Hudson Institute USA: If a missile defense system cannot protect, then is such a system necessary?

35

An American think tank called the Hudson Institute (Hudson Institute) discussed the issue of missile defense. The experts of this community, including representatives of the military sphere, are worried about the situation in which the Pentagon is making multibillion-dollar investments in the missile defense system, and the effectiveness of this system has not yet been proven by anyone. Moreover, there are a number of examples of how elements of the US missile defense system showed unsatisfactory results when attempting to intercept missiles.


During the conference on space and missile defense, which (conference) was organized by the Hudson Institute, the following thesis was made:

If a missile defense system cannot protect, then is such a system needed? This is something that Pentagon planners need to think about, including considering new ways to deploy limited funds. But this also carries with it new risks.

It is noted that with the advent of high-precision and high-speed weapons (referring to hypersonic missile units) there are doubts that the missile defense system being built by the United States can be used with great efficiency. Speakers pointed out that the US Army is unlikely to be able to regain its advantage by using "slightly better interceptor missiles and radars" in the missile defense system.

During the conference, the topic of the appearance of hypersonic weapons in Russia and China was raised. From the report:

The parameters of the combat use of this weapon are such that today we simply have nothing to oppose to them.

Commenting on the situation, representatives of the Hudson Institute complain that the Pentagon has spent a lot of money on the proliferation of missile defense elements, including positional areas in Romania and Poland, and today all these investments are "close to zero" in their effectiveness.

The authors of the report say they understand "the unattainability of 100 percent protection against missiles." At the same time, they call on the US Department of Defense to reconsider its approach to building a missile defense system.

From the materials of the conference:

Pentagon leaders need to invest more effectively in missile defense and make decisions about positioning areas.

As one of such areas, it is proposed to strengthen Okinawa, the Japanese prefecture, where several US military bases are located.

From the report:

You may have to spend every dollar allocated not on buying a new Patriot battery, but on updating the runways of airfields, because aviation component is extremely important in matters of missile defense.

The authors of the report also call on the Pentagon to take measures to neutralize electronic countermeasures, which are becoming more effective when used by the enemy.

From the materials of the Hudson Institute conference:

The architecture of anti-aircraft and missile defense could combine the integrated combat system Aegis Combat System as a command and control unit with disparate stationary and mobile radars, electronic warfare systems and mobile missile launchers to harmonize the capabilities of air defense and missile defense, taking into account the tactics and needs of a potential adversary. This needs to be linked to various guarded objects.
35 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Victor_B
    Victor_B 11 August 2021 06: 40
    +5
    Commenting on the situation, representatives of the Hudson Institute complain that the Pentagon has spent a lot of money on the proliferation of missile defense elements, including positional areas in Romania and Poland, and today all these investments are "close to zero" in their effectiveness.
    So the saw will rust!
    Such a sweet cake will not be passed by!
    Much more money is sawing here than even for the entire Penguin program!
    1. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee 11 August 2021 06: 50
      +2
      If the missile defense system cannot protect, then is such a system needed
      Keep a loaded Colt M1911 close at hand, you may have time to shoot yourself ...
      1. Sanichsan
        Sanichsan 11 August 2021 19: 33
        +1
        Quote from Uncle Lee
        Keep a charged Colt M1911 close at hand

        there is a budget option! enough windows. and then, if anything, with a cry "Russians are coming !!!" can you leap wassat one American secretary of defense did ok good
        1. Uncle lee
          Uncle lee 12 August 2021 01: 34
          0
          Quote: SanichSan
          a budget option!

          Everything should be beautiful for gentlemen feel
    2. Popandos
      Popandos 11 August 2021 07: 12
      +2
      So the saw will rust!

      So here it is possible they begin to sharpen new saws, for new mega projects.
      For example, clouds of nano drones controlled by super AI, disassembling enemy missiles even before the start, or a stretched mesh of nanorows over the states suspended from satellites, or .....
      In short, there is an unplowed field for people with imagination.
      1. Sanichsan
        Sanichsan 11 August 2021 19: 38
        +1
        Quote: Popandos
        So here it is possible they begin to sharpen new saws, for new mega projects.

        Maybe yes. Yes
        Quote: Popandos
        For example, clouds of nano drones controlled by super AI, disassembling enemy missiles even before the start, or a stretched mesh of nanorows over the states suspended from satellites, or .....
        In short, there is an unplowed field for people with imagination.

        no fantasy! over there they propose to hang missile defense on planes. Well, you remember, the very planes that saved the United States from the Boeing on September 11th. well, almost saved ... well, ok, not saved at all No.
        but you're right, the saw is excellent and the project is gorgeous! for the USA bully
    3. knn54
      knn54 11 August 2021 07: 13
      0
      --Pentagon planners need to think about this,
      Otherwise (without the Hudson hawks) the Pentagon doesn't know what to do.
    4. Real Pilot
      Real Pilot 11 August 2021 16: 28
      0
      Or it can be radically ...
      Doesn't work - dispose of!
      Well, allocate more money for this task. wink
  2. Vladimir61
    Vladimir61 11 August 2021 06: 53
    +2
    If a missile defense system cannot protect, then is such a system needed? Pentagon planners need to think about this.
    Yes, there planners are cooler than our "sawmills", only the principle of enrichment is different. Ours are directly dragged from the budget and can get a deadline, but they have, in fact, a legal push for products, for a certain fee, for the bustling generals and senators.
  3. Al_lexx
    Al_lexx 11 August 2021 06: 54
    +7
    The authors of the report say they understand "the unattainability of 100% protection against missiles."

    Not a single missile defense system provides 100% protection against ICBM warheads. It only reduces the likelihood of hitting the target by the first and second waves of attack and increases the ability to deliver a retaliatory strike. The third wave permanently reaches its goal, as evidenced by the total number of carriers and warheads of the main participants in the nuclear confrontation.

    In general, the article is not so much about the fact that the US missile defense system is full of holes, but about the disputes in the Pentagon, who and how much to cut the bobble from the budget pie.
    1. Doccor18
      Doccor18 11 August 2021 07: 08
      +2
      Quote: Al_lexx
      In general, the article is not so much about the fact that the US missile defense system is full of holes, but about the disputes in the Pentagon, who and how much to cut the bobble from the budget pie.

      Absolutely agree!
    2. Egoza
      Egoza 11 August 2021 07: 18
      +2
      Quote: Al_lexx
      to whom and how much to cut a bobble from a budget pie.

      And if the general or his family members are shareholders of a "certain company" that is involved in the production, then it is clear to whom and how much
      1. Al_lexx
        Al_lexx 11 August 2021 08: 45
        +1
        Quote: Egoza

        And if the general or his family members are shareholders of a "certain company" that is involved in the production, then it is clear to whom and how much

        This is understandable to the stupid thorny forest animal. The article is not about this, but about the graters between different departments of the same ministry.
        Iatakudmayu ..
        1. Sanichsan
          Sanichsan 11 August 2021 19: 46
          0
          Quote: Al_lexx
          The article is not about this, but about the graters between different departments of the same ministry.
          Iatakudmayu ..

          let's call a spade a spade. drank the military budget Yes
          1. Al_lexx
            Al_lexx 12 August 2021 01: 28
            +1
            Quote: SanichSan
            let's call a spade a spade. drank the military budget

            I tell you about the bestial nature of the communist international, and you tell me about the correctness of the Marxist-Leninist theory .. laughing

            ...
            I have already said that it is a no brainer that they are sawing (like everyone else everywhere). The question is who exactly is dragging the blanket over and how is it arguing.
    3. Sanichsan
      Sanichsan 11 August 2021 19: 44
      0
      Quote: Al_lexx
      Not a single missile defense system provides 100% protection against ICBM warheads. It only reduces the likelihood of hitting the target by the first and second waves of attack and increases the ability to deliver a retaliatory strike. The third wave permanently reaches its goal, as evidenced by the total number of carriers and warheads of the main participants in the nuclear confrontation.

      well so! you have written everything you need to analyze. the Russian Federation has a missile defense system and the first wave will not be effective, but the United States does not have a missile defense system, but if the first wave arrives from the Russian Federation, and in view of the absence of an anti-missile defense system, it will be quite effective, and who will launch the second and third from the United States after that? demolished everything. bully
      1. Al_lexx
        Al_lexx 12 August 2021 01: 26
        0
        Quote: SanichSan
        but the United States has no missile defense

        Who told you that? If you are talking about what is being mounted in Eastern Europe, then we are not talking about this. Rather, we are talking about this, in the context of the article, but this does not mean that they have nothing besides this. There is a missile defense system on the territory of the USA. Covers mines and ICBM command posts. There is an early warning system and an analogue of a "dead hand", but not as our automated command-staff missile, but as a computer deep in the mountains, with protected / buried communication channels (in a sense, worse, but they are also farther from us than we are from NATO).
        1. Sanichsan
          Sanichsan 12 August 2021 12: 15
          0
          Quote: Al_lexx
          Who told you that?

          what do you mean who? everyone said, well, probably except for the Africans because they are not up to the American missile defense. even the Americans themselves say that they have no missile defense, and both analysts and the military.
          Quote: Al_lexx
          There is a missile defense system on the territory of the USA.

          right. and about this ABM has already been written a lot. they have difficulties with the defeat of a training ballistic missile in their exercises. it came to a booth, when they reported about successful exercises having fallen into a barrel on a parachute and proudly posted a video of this shame.

          Let me remind you that the United States is considering only one option for a nuclear war - a disarming nuclear strike. no first second and even more so third ox. only one blow after which the enemy will not be able to respond. moreover, they cannot implement this concept even against the DPRK, not to mention the Russian Federation and the PRC. in the US they have no illusions that they cannot defend themselves against a retaliatory strike even from the DPRK.
          1. Al_lexx
            Al_lexx 12 August 2021 20: 07
            0
            Quote: SanichSan
            The United States is considering only one option for a nuclear war - a disarming nuclear strike. no first second and even more so third ox. only one blow after which the enemy will not be able to respond

            Sorry, but you are completely out of the topic of the strategy and tactics of the global nuclear confrontation.
            Precisely because our capital is covered by missile defense systems, they will hammer into it in several waves. Yes, and in the mines, too, since they are protected by anti-missiles, although not so tightly. The first two waves go to zero the missile defense shield. The third is to defeat. Follow-up on finishing. Talk about a nuclear war going on for a couple of hours is complete nonsense. Opponents will hammer each other for several days until they have shot all the ammunition. And the ammunition is very serious.

            Next.
            Most interceptors are equipped with special warheads. Therefore, it makes no sense to release all carriers in one wave, since it will look like a herd of rams under a machine gun. Even during my service in air defense, the S-75 complex was equipped with missiles with special warheads, the radius of 100% of which was about 5 km (intended specifically against massive attacks).
            However, if you have a clear "but talk", then I have nothing against it. And even if he had ..))
  4. tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 11 August 2021 07: 07
    -1
    Finally, they are beginning to indirectly admit that the missile defense system in Poland and Romania is not a missile defense system, but a means of the first disarming strike on the European part of Russia.
  5. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 11 August 2021 07: 15
    +2
    You may have to spend every dollar allocated not on buying a new Patriot battery, but on updating the runways of airfields, because the aviation component is extremely important in matters of missile defense.

    Long laughed ...
    Otherwise, yes, it looks like an insult that the money is not given to them.
  6. Tusv
    Tusv 11 August 2021 07: 39
    +1
    How were you motivated to withdraw from the ABM Treaty? To protect against Iranian missiles. Does the American missile defense system protect against Iranian missiles? How to drink. And what a noah. Everything works as ordered
  7. rocket757
    rocket757 11 August 2021 07: 44
    +1
    Hudson Institute USA: If a missile defense system cannot protect, then is such a system necessary?
    All this is from the evil one ...
    It's just that missile defense is in isolation from everything else ... a very expensive "undertaking", well, so no one considers it separately, among specialists, at least.
    And sofa strategists can count, connect-disconnect, whatever and whatever.
  8. marchcat
    marchcat 11 August 2021 07: 45
    +1
    The Pentagon has spent a lot of money on the proliferation of missile defense elements, including positional areas in Romania and Poland
    And in Romania and Poland are the elements of missile defense exactly located ???? The Americans will not waste money just like that, it is clear that these countries have a different mission.
  9. gloomy
    gloomy 11 August 2021 07: 58
    0
    I read and do not leave the feeling that the experts are preparing for the last war. Robots, in weapons systems, oh, how much has changed.
  10. orionvitt
    orionvitt 11 August 2021 08: 05
    +2
    And here is "protection", even if young children know that missile defense systems in Poland and Romania were built primarily for the possibility of a first strike. For whom, guess three times. If earlier they sculpted a humpback that this is protection from Iran (already ridiculous laughing ), but now they somehow do not even conceal that they are against Russia. Moreover, it is not from Russia, but precisely against.
    1. Alexander 3
      Alexander 3 11 August 2021 08: 24
      +1
      Against Russia, Poland and Romania may pay the United States even more money for useless toys. Any manifestations of dislike for Russia must pay the United States.
      1. Azimuth
        Azimuth 11 August 2021 08: 45
        -2
        The time is not far off when there will be talks in the United States about disarmament and the signing of a couple of tripartite treaties. Because begin to lag behind and the budget is not rubber.
  11. APASUS
    APASUS 11 August 2021 09: 08
    0
    The power of the United States rests with one foot on the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex. Sawing the attendants also makes a certain sense.
  12. Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 11 August 2021 09: 16
    0
    Penguins appear immediately, screaming "Banzai!" throwing under the BB. (Irony)
  13. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 11 August 2021 09: 52
    +1
    If the missile defense system cannot protect, then is such a system needed
    Even if there is zero benefit from this system, it will still be advertised and sold. For companies in the American military-industrial complex, the main thing is profit, and the rest is secondary. And the fact that they think about their capabilities is so good - there are fewer people who want to strike a preemptive strike against Russia.
  14. Gunther
    Gunther 11 August 2021 10: 15
    0
    Quote: Hudson Institute USA
    An air and missile defense architecture could combine an integrated combat
    the Aegis Combat System as a command and control unit ....

    In fact, the US Army is the most advanced in terms of creating a unified control system using "digital" technologies, this is both the Convergence Project and the US Army's Command of the Future (AFC).
    the global combat commissioning of a mattress system that will combine the means of receiving, storing and processing data on the one hand and means of influencing the enemy on the other, will allow them to successfully spread rot against a less technologically advanced adversary.
    Therefore, one of the tasks of our Army, in my opinion, is the creation of an integrated system for the destruction of digital means of transmitting information of the enemy - from their hacking (so-called hackers, etc.) to modern analogues of weapons using an electromagnetic pulse (EMP).
    1. Sanichsan
      Sanichsan 11 August 2021 19: 56
      0
      Quote: Gunter
      In fact, the US Army is the most advanced in terms of creating a unified control system using "digital" technologies, this is both the Convergence Project and the US Army's Command of the Future (AFC).

      I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the Millennium Challenge exercises. soldier
      Quote: Gunter
      Therefore, one of the tasks of our Army, in my opinion, is the creation of an integrated system for the destruction of digital means of transmitting information of the enemy - from their hacking (so-called hackers, etc.) to modern analogues of weapons using an electromagnetic pulse (EMP).

      the fact that in this area the Russian Federation is ahead of the United States is recognized even in the United States request there is no need to stop. but actually we do not stop.
  15. Pavel57
    Pavel57 11 August 2021 16: 56
    0
    Rather, the criticism comes from those who want to cut missile defense money, not involved in this process.
    1. Al_lexx
      Al_lexx 12 August 2021 01: 38
      0
      Quote: Pavel57
      Rather, the criticism comes from those who want to cut missile defense money, who are not involved in this process.

      Exactly. And there is a sense in such criticism, in the context of airfields / infrastructure in Eastern Europe, instead of a useless missile defense system, which is instantly covered by Iskanders, Daggers, etc. is essentially a dual purpose object.
      It is possible to develop the thought of the American general in another way. Which is better, stationary launchers or aircraft, which can always be quickly relocated, with the same striking power? Those. in fact, aviation undoubtedly has a better chance of surviving in a global conflict than stationary launchers located on the same territory.