Hypersonic "Vanguard" and missile defense. Development prospects

94

Two years ago, in the last days of 2019, the first Avangard missile systems with the eponymous hypersonic gliding warhead took up combat duty. Due to the highest flight characteristics, the latter is capable of breaking through any existing and future anti-missile and air defense. However, work is already underway to further improve these capabilities.

With a vision for the future


On December 17, the Day of Strategic Missile Forces, the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper published an interview with the commander-in-chief of the Strategic Missile Forces, Colonel-General Sergei Karakaev. The topic of the conversation was the current state of affairs in the missile forces and the prospects for their development. Among other things, they touched upon the issue of modern and future hypersonic weapons. We also considered the topic of anti-missile defense of a potential adversary and its impact on our projects.



The Avangard complex was also considered in this context. According to General Karakaev, at present, his hypersonic warhead is simply inaccessible to existing and developed missile defense systems. The speed of more than 20 M and the ability to perform maneuvers allows him to bypass the zones of action of the defense, and the enemy does not have the ability to predict the target of the attack. Accordingly, Avangard has an almost XNUMX% chance of breaking through any missile defense system.


At the same time, the commander noted that the development of anti-missile systems is also showing high rates. The necessary research is being carried out abroad, and the search for technologies for the destruction of hypersonic targets continues. Thus, the United States will make every effort to successfully complete such projects, which will allow them to reduce the potential of the Russian strategic nuclear forces.

The Russian Strategic Missile Forces intend to maintain and improve their missile defense capability. For this, research organizations and the military-industrial complex as a whole are developing new defense breakthrough systems. Some of these samples are created specifically for hypersonic warheads. At the same time, for obvious reasons, the commander-in-chief of the Strategic Missile Forces did not give any details.

Actual protection


The issues of overcoming antimissile defense became urgent again 20 years ago - after the US withdrawn from the ABM Treaty. The American side unilaterally regained the right to deploy missile defense systems in any areas and in any quantity. Subsequent military construction on land and at sea, incl. near the Russian borders led to the creation of a fairly large and powerful missile defense system.


American defense projects, despite their declared goals, posed an obvious danger to Russia's strategic nuclear forces, primarily to their ground component. In this regard, the Russian army and industry took the necessary measures. Began equipping the existing missile systems with missile defense breakthroughs, and in parallel, the development of fundamentally new strike systems was carried out.

According to open data, over the years, all Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles involved in combat duty have been equipped with missile defense breakthroughs. It is known that the complex of such means includes active and passive jamming devices, as well as decoys imitating real warheads.

With the help of interference, it is difficult to detect and track flying targets, and simulators of warheads must divert the missile defense weapons onto themselves, ensuring the safe passage of real warheads. Thus, a massive nuclear missile strike is guaranteed to overload even a well-developed and numerous missile defense system.


The Avangard missile system was built using fundamentally new technical solutions, which, among other things, gives it special capabilities in the context of a missile defense breakthrough. In his case, overcoming the defense is ensured not by overloading, but by means of high flight performance. According to various estimates, this makes interception impossible or unacceptably difficult.

The hypersonic warhead in flight develops high speed, which dramatically reduces the time to detect an attack and react to it. In this case, even the relative simplicity of detecting such an aircraft surrounded by a plasma envelope will not help the enemy. Aiming at such a target is sharply difficult due to its ability to maneuver. In addition, the flight can be carried out along the most difficult trajectory, incl. bypassing potentially dangerous areas.

Ways of development


According to the commander-in-chief of the Strategic Missile Forces, Russian science and industry are ready to develop new missile defense breakthroughs for hypersonic missile systems. What they will be, when they will appear and how they will be used is unknown. It can be assumed that in the future they will be introduced in completely new weapons projects, and also used in the modernization of the Avangard.


An obvious way to increase the potential of missile defense systems is to further improve flight and maneuverable characteristics. The modern Avangard block flies at a speed of about 20 M, and this makes it practically unattainable for the current missile defense system. An additional increase in speed in the main leg of flight by several kilometers per second will become an even more difficult challenge for detection and interception equipment. Maintaining or improving maneuverability at these speeds will increase the likelihood of a breakout. In addition, it should be borne in mind that the flight range directly depends on the maximum speed of the gliding unit - an equally important parameter.

Probably, the hypersonic complex can be equipped with "traditional" breakthrough means. Together with a real warhead, sources of interference and even decoys should be launched to the target. Due to the superiority in flight characteristics, the warhead will quickly stand out against the background of such means, but the enemy will still lose valuable reaction time.

It is quite possible that research and design organizations are working out not only these, but also other methods of countering and breaking through the enemy's anti-missile defense. However, one should not expect that in the near future they will begin to reveal their plans and successes in this area.


Defense and attack


The current state of Russia's strategic nuclear forces, incl. their ground components, on the whole, are conducive to optimism - both in general and in the context of means of overcoming missile defense. "Traditional" ICBMs carry the necessary systems and are able to solve the assigned combat mission, although they will suffer some losses from the enemy's missile defense. Hypersonic "Vanguards", in turn, should show an almost one hundred percent probability of overcoming a modern missile defense system.

Taking into account the latest trends in the development of foreign weapons and defense systems, it can be assumed that the current balance of forces will remain at least for the next several years. Only in the second half of the decade - if not later - the most developed foreign countries will be able to put their first missile defense systems on duty, in theory capable of counteracting strategic hypersonic arms.

By this time, Russian scientists and engineers can complete their current work. Thanks to this, our missile systems will receive new means of overcoming missile defense, and with them special combat capabilities. Leadership will return to Russian strike systems, while foreign defenses will return to a catch-up position.

For all its complexity, such an "arms race" will allow our Strategic Missile Forces to retain the necessary advantages and capabilities. At the same time, for a long time they will be able to remain a highly effective military-political instrument that keeps foreign hotheads from rash decisions.
94 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    21 December 2021 18: 13
    Defense and attack
    ... It is clear that this is the only way so far!
    If the attack, as well as the retaliatory strike, does not endure, without catastrophic consequences, NOBODY ... then they hope, for just protection, is not necessary.
    It is possible to reduce the damage, to reflect everything, while no one can.
    1. +1
      21 December 2021 19: 54
      If an attack, like a retaliatory strike, does not endure, without catastrophic consequences, NOBODY

      Well, the consequences are, well, "catastrophic." Only this is not the end of the war, but the very beginning. And even by the standards of 1979, before all the reductions, the war after the first exchange lasted for at least several months. Until the loss of control of enemy troops in Europe. This made the war meaningless for the United States - they were losing Europe without gaining anything.
      It's not like that now. We will not be able to reach Biscay. There are not enough resources. This means that somewhere in the inflamed brain of the commanders-in-chief in the United States, a plan is quite realistic, even at the cost of those very 110 million "friends" to defeat the Russian Federation. Bring her government to the point of losing control and control over the country. Now we are losing everything without gaining anything.
      Much has changed, unfortunately for the whole world.
      1. +1
        21 December 2021 20: 09
        If you don't check, you won't find out ... but it's better not to check, leave room for arguments and fantasies.
    2. UFO
      -2
      22 December 2021 21: 45
      Treaties cannot stop a distraught bull. It is also foolish to attack him head-on to mutual destruction. But Achilles hit the monster with a mountain of muscles due to the speed with which he managed to get to his neck. The speed of hypersound is our other advantage. Enough three zircons from submarines at two control centers in the United States and one in Europe with a flight time of 3-5 minutes. with the simultaneous destruction of communication satellites, the entire military armada will turn into an uncontrollable heap of iron.
  2. -16
    21 December 2021 18: 16
    Cyril, Vanguard not only flies quickly, but can also maneuver intensively throughout the flight path, so it cannot be shot down, at least now.
    1. +4
      21 December 2021 18: 29
      It is necessary to read! Ryabov mentioned it twice.
    2. +1
      21 December 2021 20: 20
      Two years ago, Petrel and Poseidon were also announced, almost invincible. What's up with them?
      1. -3
        21 December 2021 22: 24
        On development stage.
  3. 0
    21 December 2021 18: 18
    But instead of ONE "Vanguard" to throw 10 warheads on the same missile, will they shoot down a lot? And besides, false targets are thrown. I think the probability is close to zero. And the damage will be much greater, and it will be cheaper for us. Proven technology. this "Vanguard" hi
    1. +5
      21 December 2021 21: 26
      There is also a psychological moment here .. Let's say we have a non-knocked-down wunderwaffle. Yes - it's expensive and there are very few of them, but it is there. And now - all this wealth is flying to the citadel of democracy. Can mattress toppers even afford not to try to bring down the Vanguard, for it is useless? I don’t think .. They just have to work on it, otherwise their survivors will not understand. Plus, it is clearly targeting very painful targets. This means that they will inevitably try to shoot down. All there is. Even knowing that nothing will come of it. And their interceptors are not sacks either. So there is still some benefit?
      1. -3
        21 December 2021 21: 55
        Vunderwaffle "Vanguard" is calmly confused by the technologies of the 60s of the last century, namely by an anti-missile with a nuclear warhead. Harsh, yes, but it's better than not intercepting.
        1. 0
          21 December 2021 22: 25
          Quote: Beringovsky
          calmly strays

          Have you personally checked?)
          1. +1
            21 December 2021 22: 55
            Actually, such a system was created in the late 60s, A 35 was called. A 2-3 megaton warhead hit the warhead with a neutron flux, causing a pop effect. The radius of damage is 200-300m. The Americans also had a similar missile defense system, Safeguard, in my opinion. Only with a neutron warhead, it is much more effective. Later, we also replaced it with this one.
            Destroying a warhead with a direct hit from a blank is still a task, but with the use of special warheads, everything is much easier. Try to dodge.
            1. -5
              21 December 2021 23: 00
              So these are the affairs of the past years. Safeguard didn't last long for a variety of reasons. Both in political and economic terms. It is impossible to distribute such a system across the country because of the cost, not to mention other consequences and side effects. At the same time, the Vanguard is too fast and maneuverable to predict where to launch an anti-missile from Yabch.
              1. +2
                21 December 2021 23: 05
                If you know about the safeguard, why are you fooling around?
                It is impossible to distribute such a system across the country because of the cost, not to mention other consequences and side effects.

                Why? What's in the way? We have as many vanguards ... 4, the flight range is not suborbital, which means they will fly along a known trajectory, plus or minus. What prevents to put a dozen interceptor missiles there?
                1. -3
                  21 December 2021 23: 09
                  I am not fooling, but asking leading questions so that you understand that

                  A) There are no such systems now
                  B) The effectiveness against modern forces of the Strategic Missile Forces cannot be confirmed even theoretically today.
                  1. +1
                    21 December 2021 23: 25
                    A) Such systems can be made, it is much simpler than hypersound. There would be money, but the United States has it.
                    B) How is the effectiveness of means of overcoming missile defense
        2. -2
          21 December 2021 22: 26
          Quote: Beringovsky
          Vunderwaffle "Vanguard" is calmly confused by the technologies of the 60s of the last century, namely by an anti-missile with a nuclear warhead. Harsh, yes, but it's better than not intercepting

          How quickly can a nuclear anti-missile missile be prepared? Those. Will the enemy have time, from the moment the Vanguard's launch is detected, to make a decision to intercept with another nuclear bomb, aim and launch? And so that the interception does not destroy any of your city?
          1. +1
            21 December 2021 22: 58
            Why cook it? She is always ready as a pioneer if she is on alert. And she will definitely not destroy her city, the system of self-destruction will work.
        3. 0
          21 December 2021 22: 38
          Are you sure the staff members have nuclear interceptors on alert? In addition, I'm not sure if this is a good concept .. For the very first nuclear atmospheric explosion will tightly block the detection radars, which means that the next conventional warheads will definitely not be intercepted .. However, most likely the attack will begin with a similar explosion of the leading warhead, so what .. Or do you suggest using nuclear interceptors to nail the squares stupidly, maybe someone will be shot down?
          1. +1
            21 December 2021 23: 18
            No, probably not worth it. But they can make them, if necessary, without question. And their production capabilities are an order of magnitude greater than ours.
            As for the rest, I am not a fan of all sorts of false theories.
            1. -1
              21 December 2021 23: 40
              And their production capabilities are an order of magnitude greater than ours.

              Why would it be more and at times? Do not confuse the production of iPhones and nuclear warheads.
              1. +2
                21 December 2021 23: 51
                Stepan, are you interested in anything besides iPhones? Try it, learn a lot.
                Let's say how much they produce aviation equipment. And then compare what the difference is.
                1. -3
                  23 December 2021 17: 57
                  Let's say how much they produce aviation equipment. And then compare what is the difference

                  Why compare everything all the time? So we have too different conditions, both starting and existing. We have not been printing dollars for 70 years, and we could not buy everyone and everything, we have to earn money under the conditions of restrictions, sanctions, and opposition to any of our development. Right now, how excited your friends were about import substitution in Russia and the development of microelectronics, they didn't like it. And as soon as the MC-21 aircraft was brought closer to certification, sanctions and a ban on the import of necessary components immediately flew in, then a ban on the import of electronics. Is this competition fair? What do you equal?
      2. +5
        22 December 2021 13: 47
        Quote: paul3390
        There is also a psychological moment here .. Let's say we have a non-knocked-down wunderwaffle. Yes - it's expensive and there are very few of them, but it is there. And now - all this wealth is flying to the citadel of democracy. Can mattress toppers even afford not to try to bring down the Vanguard, for it is useless? I don’t think .. They just have to work on it, otherwise their survivors will not understand. Plus, it is clearly targeting very painful targets. This means that they will inevitably try to shoot down. All there is. Even knowing that nothing will come of it. And their interceptors are not sacks either. So there is still some benefit?

        America is very decentralized.
        As for settlements, industrial centers, government bodies.

        2-3 dozen unbreakable Vanguards will not cause irreparable damage to her.
        1. -2
          23 December 2021 17: 58
          2-3 dozen unbreakable Vanguards will not cause irreparable damage to her.
          Well, yes, in a single corner of Nevada, no one will have a clue that America no longer exists in its usual form.
    2. -1
      21 December 2021 23: 34
      So it is, so, but not quite ...
      There is no exact data on the flight time of the usual block and the Vanguard, but there is a difference in speeds and here it is already possible to estimate that the Vanguard flies about 2,5 times faster, and therefore will also reach its goal faster. So, if the classic BG flies from us to the FSA, roughly, about 30 minutes, then the same Vanguard is about 15 ...
      And this is already critical for decision making. hi
      1. +1
        22 December 2021 03: 40
        American bureaucracy to help us. wink
      2. +6
        22 December 2021 13: 54
        Quote: jonht
        So it is, so, but not quite ...
        There is no exact data on the flight time of the usual block and the Vanguard, but there is a difference in speeds and here it is already possible to estimate that the Vanguard flies about 2,5 times faster, and therefore will also reach its goal faster. So, if the classic BG flies from us to the FSA, roughly, about 30 minutes, then the same Vanguard is about 15 ...
        And this is already critical for decision making. hi


        Vanguard flies more slowly than conventional ballistic missiles with any monoblock or multi-unit ballistic warhead.
        Slower.
        Don't be fooled by 20M. This is the standard first space speed.

        The vanguard reduces its speed on the approach area in the same way as any MIRV and even more
        1. +3
          22 December 2021 14: 42
          "Vanguard flies slower than conventional BR" ///
          ---
          This is clear. Flight in the atmosphere will always be slower than flight in space: the forces of friction against the air slow down the apparatus.
          Second: in addition to the accursed frictional force, there is also the accursed inertial force. Which at speeds of 15-20 Max makes impossible not only intensive maneuvering, but also easy maneuvering is problematic.
          The turning radius will be hundreds or thousands of kilometers.
          Third: when approaching the target, the apparatus must descend into the dense layers of the atmosphere, which means it must slow down.
          Otherwise, it will burn. In contrast to the cones of conventional nuclear warheads, falling vertically and very accurately, the Vanguard glider is flattened and heating will be from below.

          But as a psychological weapon, the Vanguard is effective.
          1. +2
            22 December 2021 14: 49
            Quote: voyaka uh
            But as a psychological weapon

            Rather like a sofa
          2. -2
            23 December 2021 08: 12
            Look at how the spent satellites go out of orbit and you will understand that the BB go to a vertical dive very close to the ground, and not vertically from orbit, and the correction is carried out almost at the ground, when the BB speed is already above the sound one. How to target our hypersound, our main secret, so torment yourself and look for solutions ... hi
            1. +1
              23 December 2021 10: 54
              "the correction is carried out almost at the ground, when the speed of the BB is already super sonic" ///
              ---
              Astro correction is carried out to entry of warheads into the dense layers of the atmosphere. And gives a deviation of about 300-500 m for an ICBM warhead.
              Only Iskander has a correction near the ground with the help of a radar in his head, which works for several seconds. This reduces the deflection to 50 m.
              1. -3
                23 December 2021 11: 08
                You forgot about another type, cartographic, like pigeon vision on optical and radar, the principle of determining the location of the target.
                By the way, the first guidance systems worked like that, now the same axes fly to the target with a topographic reference. And if a way is found to send and receive a signal through the flame cloud, this method will be optimal.
                1. +2
                  23 December 2021 11: 44
                  This works with CD and does not work with BR.
                  If optics worked on the BR, then the CD would disappear as a class of weapons. Since BRs fly much faster.
                  1. -3
                    23 December 2021 12: 24
                    These are not just different classes, they have different goals and objectives, and the price too.
                    And on the BR, at least on our first ones, there was definitely such a system, I read an article about it, it was interesting, a pure optical-mechanical guidance system based on a photo of an object. They also beat those without electronic logic circuits. hi
          3. -3
            23 December 2021 18: 01
            The turning radius will be hundreds or thousands of kilometers.
            Third: when approaching the target, the apparatus must descend into the dense layers of the atmosphere, which means it must slow down.
            Otherwise, it will burn. Unlike the cones of conventional nuclear warheads, falling vertically and very accurately, the Vanguard glider is flattened and heating will be from below

            It is good to argue, having absolutely no idea of ​​how everything works and how much it differs from a conventional ballistic missile, the flight of which can still be talked about.
        2. 0
          23 December 2021 08: 05
          if you exaggerate, then yes, but in fact?
          Let's watch:
          1 point, for the launch of any body into orbit, the first space is needed, that is, 7,2 km / s. ordinary BB and Vanguard have this speed, I think there is nothing to argue about ...
          2 point, slower .... So the flight trajectory of the BB is a parabola, sometimes a flat (flat) trajectory with a gradual decrease, I think there is nothing to argue about. At the same time, in the final section of the BB, they cover a greater distance in the dense layers of the atmosphere (the trajectory is such a parabola), but what is known about the Vanguard? This object uses the atmosphere to bounce like "pancakes" (rounded flat stones thrown along the surface of the water) and has a broken non-parabolic trajectory, which already complicates pointing and calculating the trajectory, in contrast to the BB. Having searched Nete for information, but there is none, I can assume that for convergence (avoiding the effect of a rebound from the atmosphere) they use not a gentle convergence, but a vertical dive, which does not give the same effect of braking in the atmosphere (there is no flat trajectory and the distance is close to minimum). We will add here a specially calculated shape (these are BBs that look like cones) to reduce resistance and new materials that are resistant to extremely high temperatures. And the time that BB and Vanguard will spend on the decline will, I think, be very different.
          So on point 3, with the fact that the Vanguard will lower the speed more strongly, I completely disagree with you, but you can't fool physics, but it's not worth not taking into account the changes in materials science and approaches to managing and using a new shape instead of the classic cone.
          1. +1
            23 December 2021 10: 08
            "This object uses the atmosphere to bounce like" pancakes "(rounded flat stones thrown along the surface of the water)" ///
            ----
            Pancakes, you say?
            Bounces, you say? smile
            And how much does the pancake lose in speed after each bounce?
            There is a calculation: one bounce - 20% of the speed, at least.
            Two or three bounces and from 20 MAX there is little that will remain.
            And the Vanguard slows down with its rebounds to a speed that is quite acceptable before being intercepted by missile defense missiles.
            1. -2
              23 December 2021 10: 22
              Aaaa, so, according to you, in 3-4 times, it may spend less all the energy ...
              I think you are greatly mistaken ...
      3. 0
        24 December 2021 17: 36
        2,5 times faster than WHAT ??? The same Vanguard is thrown by a conventional ICBM. So a regular YAB flies FASTER, since the Vanguard BRAKES because of its wings. The only advantage is that the trajectory of an ordinary block is predictable. And as they say, you can hit (with difficulty ) Of the advantages YAB is cheaper than Vanguards, more can be "shoved" into ICBMs, the speed is GREAT. hi
  4. +10
    21 December 2021 18: 30
    Note that there are also disadvantages:
    1. The hitting accuracy is less, since the onboard locators will not see the target and will not be able to aim at it. After all, the Vanguard will be surrounded by plasma, and the signal does not pass through it. In addition, the block maneuvers, which means that it will not work to predict the trajectory and where it will fall - God knows.
    2. The unit itself will be very clearly visible to the missile defense radars, so it is easier to shoot it down on a head-on course.
    3. Now the Vanguard is armed with UR-100N missiles, which had a warhead for 6 charges, and the Vanguard is one nuclear charge, therefore the number of targets to defeat is reduced by 6 times.
    1. +2
      21 December 2021 18: 46
      Damn, sorry for the plagiarism. I just thought about item 3 for a long time, and first wrote a comment, and only then began to read: what others think about this.
    2. 0
      21 December 2021 22: 03
      Actually, the Americans shot down a target in space, where the plasma came from.
    3. -7
      21 December 2021 22: 27
      Quote: Fan-Fan
      After all, the Vanguard will be surrounded by plasma, and the signal does not pass through it. In addition, the block maneuvers, which means that it will not work to predict the trajectory and where it will fall - God knows.

      And how do you think it is managed? wink Actually, the problem of shielding signals by plasma has been solved - this has already been discussed officially. This, in principle, is the main, albeit implicit, know-how of this product.
      1. +2
        22 December 2021 13: 56
        Quote: El Chuvachino
        Quote: Fan-Fan
        After all, the Vanguard will be surrounded by plasma, and the signal does not pass through it. In addition, the block maneuvers, which means that it will not work to predict the trajectory and where it will fall - God knows.

        And how do you think it is managed? wink Actually, the problem of shielding signals by plasma has been solved - this has already been discussed officially. This, in principle, is the main, albeit implicit, know-how of this product.

        It was resolved only for its anti-missiles.
        At a distance of up to 100 km ...
        Further - it is unrealistic.
        1. -2
          22 December 2021 16: 42
          Again. The problem of plasma impassability was solved in the Vanguard, this was officially announced by the Supreme Commander.
          1. 0
            22 December 2021 17: 37
            Quote: El Chuvachino
            Again. The problem of plasma impassability was solved in the Vanguard, this was officially announced by the Supreme Commander.

            To believe in the commander-in-chief - not to respect yourself!
            We believe for 20 years!
            Since we were sausage in 2008 and 2014 in other countries it was called the Great Depression, and in our New Year's greetings, the Supreme spoke about difficulties ...
            In a week we will see the next difficulties and problems ...
            Nothing changes.
            He may not be a liar, himself personally, but faith in his words is zero point, zero tenths
            1. -2
              22 December 2021 22: 25
              These are just your value judgments.
      2. +4
        23 December 2021 10: 11
        "And how do you think it is managed?" ///
        ----
        Controlled in plasma ...
        Let's say, although it's hard to believe.
        But who controls it? Where does the control signal come from?
        Glonass? Or plasma astronavigation?
        1. -1
          23 December 2021 14: 42
          From satellites, yes, at the very beginning it was hinted at during the presentation.
  5. +14
    21 December 2021 18: 32
    TITLE: Hypersonic "Vanguard" and missile defense. Development prospects
    CONTENTS: There are prospects! I swear by my mother!
    1. -6
      21 December 2021 18: 49
      Nobody swears. Russia is simply laying out an ultimatum to the United States. Next - analytics
      1. +9
        21 December 2021 20: 50
        Quote: Dreamshake
        Next - analytics
        ... analytics ?! ... Ryabov ?! ... ahhh, - kidding !!! wink
  6. +7
    21 December 2021 18: 44
    Here is the thought. Previously, it was considered easier: the more bb you can throw, the better. Well, let's assume they are all +/- the same power to keep things simple. For example, we can run 500 bb on them. Again, for the sake of simplicity, we will not now subtract those bb that will not reach for technical reasons. They have 40 GBI, which, at best, will intercept 20 bb. Total accept / sign for 480 bb. Let's say we change the rgch in from 6 bb to 1 super-vanguard, which we do not destroy the missile defense. We take 30 ur-100, which previously carried 180 bb, and put 30 vanguards on them. In total, the new owners of our peaceful atom will receive 500-180 + 30 = 350 bb. This despite the fact that they were maniacally spending gbi on the vanguards (which cannot be brought down), instead of wasting them on non-maneuvering bb. What's the catch?
    1. +9
      21 December 2021 19: 00
      If you knew how many and what different false targets are crammed together with 6 bb, you would be even more disappointed.
      1. +8
        21 December 2021 19: 07
        I guess a little. And about dipole reflectors, about light and about heavy false targets. And about the ability to undermine the stage of breeding for the formation of additional debris. I didn’t write so as not to complicate it. Even without this, the question of the logic of replacing 6 ordinary bb with 1 conditionally indestructible remains relevant.
    2. +2
      21 December 2021 19: 13
      START III provides for a certain maximum number of deployed nuclear warheads. So let there be more unbreakable ones.
      1. +6
        21 December 2021 19: 23
        Quote: Prjanik
        START III provides for a certain maximum number of deployed nuclear warheads. So let there be more unbreakable ones.

        As long as START-3 exists, it may not be extended next time.
        1. 0
          21 December 2021 20: 11
          Well, you can guess what will happen, but something needs to be done and adjusted today.
        2. -6
          21 December 2021 22: 28
          As soon as possible. We have all the options for development.
      2. +6
        21 December 2021 19: 30
        START-3 will order a long life in 4 years. In addition, the Americans do not really observe it even now:
        The Russian Foreign Ministry also drew attention to the fact that the U.S. declared figure of 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers of ICBMs, deployed and non-deployed launchers of SLBMs, deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers was achieved not only thanks to real reductions in American 56 Trident-II SLBM launchers and 41 B-52N heavy bombers are under the Treaty.
        "Their re-equipment was carried out in such a way that the Russian side cannot confirm that these strategic offensive weapons have been rendered unsuitable for the use of nuclear weapons, as provided for in paragraph 3 of Section I of Chapter III of the Protocol to the Treaty," the ministry added.
        In addition, as noted in the Russian diplomatic service, the United States has renamed four silo launchers intended for training in the category of "training mines" not provided for by START and refuses to include them under the treaty as non-deployed silo launchers of ICBMs. "Thus, the figure allowed in accordance with subparagraph c of paragraph 1 of Article II of the Treaty is exceeded by the United States by 101 units," the ministry concluded.
        1. -5
          21 December 2021 20: 16
          Let's say there will be no START-3, we are better off. The warheads will not go anywhere and rocket carriers can be made for anything, the Sarmatians will soon be the same. If anything, the first non-intercepted Vanguards by atmospheric explosions will knock everything out, followed by the usual ones working on the ground.
          1. +5
            21 December 2021 23: 21
            It is simply expensive to "endow" the required number of carriers, the Union broke down on this, and the current economy of that, alas, is no match. It turns out that for equal damage it is necessary to stamp 180 missiles instead of 30. With such a number of "guns" there will not be even palm oil.
            1. -3
              21 December 2021 23: 47
              We will make new Sarmatians anyway, and specifically for the Vanguard, the UR-100N, replaced by Yars, are simply removed and upgraded to the UR-100N UTTH. And you don't need a lot of them, a dozen is enough to blind the enemy with air explosions and neutralize his missile defense, well, let there be a couple of dozen in reserve.
              1. +4
                22 December 2021 12: 35
                "We will make new Sarmatians anyway" - we will. The question is how to equip them: 10-15 conventional bb, or 2-3 avant-garde.
                "specifically for the Vanguard, the UR-100N replaced by Yars are simply removed and upgraded to the UR-100N UTTH" - the avant-garde carriers are now ur-100n utth. But this is before the adoption of the Sarmatian, then the avant-garde for the Sarmatian will be one of the standard equipment options. As for acres: no modernization of ur-100n to ur-100n utth is being carried out. These are 30 ur-100n utth, which were received from Ukraine as payment for gas. In Ukraine, they were stored in an unfilled state, so a decision was made about the possibility of extending the resource and placing it on the database. And yars is primarily a replacement for poplars.
                "And you don't need a lot of them, a dozen is enough to blind the enemy with air explosions" - to deliver 10k of vanguards, 10k of ur-100 are needed. 2-3 ur-100, equipped with a standard rgch in with 6 bb, will also solve this problem. Or blinding the enemy missile defense, if they will not be shot down. Or by "withdrawing" the ammunition load of gbi, with which they will try to shoot down.
                1. -2
                  23 December 2021 01: 15
                  The whole difference is that the Vanguards are guaranteed not to intercept, and the Americans will try to do it by everyone, including the Standards.
        2. +7
          21 December 2021 20: 40
          Yeah! It remains for us to declare the 13th Orenburg (Dombarovskaya) missile division "training" and deregister it from START III. bully
    3. -2
      21 December 2021 22: 11
      What's the catch?

      Just trivial old ladies. Although, perhaps, they are no longer pensioners)) ...
    4. +6
      21 December 2021 23: 38
      40 GBI missile defense charges work a little differently than you imagined. It will not work out of our 500 blocks to subtract only 20. You will have to subtract a lot more, because You do not know what targets they will defend, but from the need to guarantee destruction, you will have to 2-3 times increase the number of missiles for especially important targets (bases, energy and industrial infrastructure). And you have only 500 missiles. And now it turns out that because of 40 GBI you simply do not have free charges for civilian purposes. As a result, missile defense works - they destroy you (military industrial and civilian targets), but you do not. They are calm for their families, and you understand that everything will burn out, both you and the children. That's the point of having 40 interceptors hitting targets with a 50% probability.
      1. +2
        22 December 2021 12: 58
        Good comment, thank you. I had to think. In general, this topic is secret, I am not a specialized specialist, so I will try to present my amateurish fantasies based on what I found in open sources.
        A massive nuclear missile strike, as I understand it, can be carried out according to different scenarios. Starting from a limited strike on sparsely populated areas, ending with the dispatch of all available resources of the Ryan to cause maximum damage to the economy and the population. The same blow can be struck both first and second. When striking the second, it can be both oncoming and counter-oncoming. The moment of calculating and entering the PP is also important. In short, all this variety of factors leads to the fact that there is a large number of options for the development of "nuclear war", as we will call it. No one will be able to say for sure how it will go (I hope it will not happen at all), but you can say for sure: that something within the framework of this hypothetical conflict will not go according to plan. Something will be sunk, blown up, shot down, will not get in touch, will not take off, go off the trajectory, etc. Nevertheless, it should be assumed that there are no fools in the General Staff and are considering the following options:
        1. +1
          22 December 2021 21: 22
          It is impossible to use all means of destruction at the beginning of the conflict. It is necessary to leave a margin that will come in handy in negotiations. Any war ends with negotiations or the surrender of one side. And if we spend everything, then no one will go to negotiations with us, we will only be left with surrender.
      2. 0
        22 December 2021 13: 18
        For example, the Supreme Command makes a decision that "the whole world is in dust, after us - even a flood." No, he wasn’t crazy, he was just told that the sprn was found flying at us 1000 bb. And he has little choice: not to answer, to answer limitedly, or "we do not need a world in which there will be no Russia." Naturally, the algorithm of actions that will be launched by this option is prescribed in advance. Higher VLOOKUP simply will not have time for detailed thinking. 5-10 minutes and about the same number of options to choose from. How can the general manager implement the plan in this scenario as efficiently as possible? For example, just ignore the gbi loss. A few bb are aimed at large cities anyway. Well, ok, you can defend Washington with New York (using up your interceptors), but the rest of the country will lie in ruins. A day after the beginning of the Ryan, the world will be completely different. And those who will survive will decide the issues of that world, proceeding from the opportunities that remain. In the end: not all sbc and xiao are deployed, there is tiao. In short: the war will show the plan.
        You can do a little more cunning. Having planned additional reconnaissance and the 1nd strike after the 2st strike on the enemy. We'll have to somehow reserve and try to save some of the media, and hope that the additional exploration will somehow be able to produce.
  7. WWI
    -9
    21 December 2021 19: 26
    According to the photo, it looks like the missiles are being delivered to Belarus to the saved mines for evil to enemies and foes.
    1. 0
      21 December 2021 19: 39
      IBD in Belarus is some kind of nonsense.
      1. WWI
        -6
        21 December 2021 19: 59
        Sounds like the truth. Sleep will be calmer when there is a gun under the pillow.
  8. +4
    21 December 2021 19: 42
    How do the Americans act in such a case? First of all, relying on their own advantages, as they are for the most part. This is all that is happening for us, the "race" for them, the game looks different ..
    For example, we have a super-hellish missile club "Vanguard", invulnerable in the area of ​​the blues. This is an expensive and technologically extremely complex product, re-equipping the Strategic Missile Forces array with which it will take time and money, if we are talking about non-homeopathic quantities. Americans have a choice of actions that is meant to be military and non-military. Given the scale of their influence and the means available to them, they will develop both directions.
    Military - given the extreme difficulty of intercepting the Vanguard itself in the final sector and the fact that at such speeds intercepting a maneuvering object, taking into account the available time intervals and means of a modern missile defense approach (radar interceptors, etc.), I believe that it is quite unpromising to develop a classic ground-to-air "to intercept such a target. The requirements for speed and maneuverability on takeoff and when planning down are somewhat different things from the point of view of design, a surface-to-air missile capable of fighting the Avangard BB will be no less than a rocket launched from the Avangard itself, if at all create. Despite the fact that its effectiveness to hit the latter will obviously be inferior to its effectiveness to hit a given target, because the antimissile adapts (successfully or not) to the target, and not vice versa. That is, an interceptor on a downward trajectory is a dead end.
    The Americans will have a choice - to build up their own capabilities for BGU, including hypersonic ones (in order to knock out as many of our weapons as possible and as quickly as possible), reconnaissance capabilities, including means of continuous monitoring and AI analytics (with the aim of early detection of maneuvers our PGRK and activities to modernize mine installations), the means of intercepting missiles on the accelerating trajectory (including hypersonic interceptors for this task), orbital interceptors (the development of "diamond pebbles" or space shuttle-type vehicles armed with interceptors - or some variations of ground-stratosphere interceptors operating on the maneuvering unit at the stage of the warhead delivery). Finally, for work on the Avangard itself, in the event of radical progress, they can also connect LO, a much more efficient option, because the cooling capabilities of ground-based aircraft are much stronger than the cooling capabilities of the Avangard, and any thermal protection, as you know, has its limits ...
    Actually "Vanguard" is a massive warhead - its delivery does not imply several "Vanguards" on the carrier, there will be a maximum of two on very large promising missiles. Considering that large missiles are several times more expensive and heavier (the law of the square-cube at least), the option of using a ground-based aircraft against the "Vanguard" seems to be quite an effective means, because the hypersonic unit itself is likely to be a small-scale product.

    With reconnaissance means, the Americans will have an idea of ​​how much ~ A was produced and delivered - and where it was delivered (taking into account the dimensions at least) - these objects, respectively. will have the highest priority in elimination.

    Non-military - sanctions pressure in general and specifically on industries and chains of producers associated with A. Regular demonstration of real and mythical successes in technologies that provide interception at different stages. Analysis of the most vulnerable areas of its own (and allied) missile defense and issuance of recommendations for strengthening these areas. Strengthening logistics under the BSU, improving the coordination of BSU with allies.

    To summarize, Avangard is the first swallow of a new capital arms race, which our economy cannot handle and which we are likely to lose. The expectation that a potential adversary will attempt a frontal solution to this problem is a failure, because the adversary is accustomed to acting very flexibly in solving such problems. Given the size of our economy and the fact that the availability of nuclear missile technologies has expanded in the world over the past 40 years, the United States will most likely choose the combination of an attack-defensive configuration as 7 to 3, which in the foreseeable future will inexorably push the world towards nuclear war.
    1. +6
      21 December 2021 22: 37
      Interesting reasoning. Much more weighty in the essence of the article itself. I put "+". But, as they say, to our rams. So:
      This is for us all that is happening "race" for them the party looks different ...
      Well, yes ... They "do not chase", they just catch up, while robustly straining their brains, science, technology ... investing in them is not childish.
      we have a super-hellish Vanguard rocket club, invulnerable in the blablab area. This is an expensive and technologically extremely complex product, the re-equipment of which of the Strategic Missile Forces array will require time and money, if we are talking about non-homeopathic quantities.
      1. You are in vain about "blah-blah-blah", because this is the essence! The breeding area of ​​the BB is located far from the missile defense areas, which excludes all ground assets from the "hunt" for them. Further, the Vanguard (for short - A.) goes according to the program, or under the control of the AI ​​board. That excludes missile defense interceptors operating on the "hit that keel" principle from the game. Remains a neutron BZ on SM-3b or GBI. However, we do not know how effective their "pop" is.
      2. About quantity A. We do not know exactly what the intended purpose of this product is. Most likely - points of strategic control of the Armed Forces, the country. And maybe energy facilities, arsenals of nuclear weapons or something else. It is not known for certain, but these are the "nerve centers" of the States, the disabling of which will lead to the paralysis of the entire US defense system. Sic!
      3. About dearness. I.V. Stalin (at one time) remarked to the remark of one party functionary about the high prices of the T-34: "And who gave you the right to count people's money when it comes to the country's defense capability !?"
      they will develop both directions. Military...
      A few words about "military" means. 1) Anti-missile ... not an option - I agree. 2) Increasing the funds of the State Health Service of the Belarusian State University ... Most likely it will be so. 3) Defeat on OUT. But the R-28 will go through the poles or through the Gobi. There is no American missile defense system. Therefore, no. 4) Space assets are a new front in the arms race. Interception at the stage of BB breeding - we need KS platforms, which we will "take care of". 5) Laser weapons - in space - yes; ground - no. On the descending plane, 14Yu71 goes in a plasma cocoon, which will absorb the energy of the LR shot.
      Avangard is the first swallow of a new capital arms race, which our economy cannot handle and which we are likely to lose.
      The GZO race began not today, but at least 20 years ago. We have no right to lose the Cold War again. Therefore - WE WILL WIN IT !!!
      1. +3
        22 December 2021 00: 40
        Let me have a little discussion!)
        1) As for "this is not a race" - I think that for the Americans the game looks different. It's part of their Big Game that makes them tense up to move on to the next stage. Each time the enemy contributes to the consolidation of the conditional "West" and its rapprochement with the US positions, allowing the US to systematically expand its influence and architecture of the world order. Leaving the "race" for them or for some other goals to others (opponents), the United States itself is moving like a tank towards one quite obvious goal - using both the weaknesses of its opponents and their strength, simply using it in different ways. Stuck in a protracted peace period due to isolationism within and resistance among the allies, the United States needs a shake-up - both for internal consolidation and for checking external "clocks" - another "racer" gives such a shake-up, stimulating the military-industrial complex and internal hard line in the United States ... They jump to the next step onto which they cannot crawl normally. All the costs of this "jumping" they, by virtue of natural entrepreneurship, more than compensate further outside - through access to the markets of the "protected", the sale of weapons to various small fry, popularization of their way of life, etc. All that America does is some kind of concept to transform them into the face of One Humanity. No matter how pretentious it may sound))
        2) I deliberately bumped into long arguments about how they can stop it. What they do not stop - they will be able to keep within a certain controlled range. Knowing that our silos with A will be as distant as possible from their missile defense facilities, they can outline a certain area within which the vast majority of launches will take place "if something happens." They will already work with this area by other means - orbital interceptors, for example. The same "x-37" is conventionally put on the eve in a number of several pieces into the required orbits and works with anti-missiles along our stages on the accelerating trajectory. After all, there will be no hypersonic speeds, there will be no maneuvers - the very minimum will be required from the anti-missile. This is just an example of counter actions.
        3) I proceed from the fact that as progress in missile defense (which the author himself noted as inevitable), we will need massive replacement within the Strategic Missile Forces with both new missiles and new ways to overcome missile defense. One of these solutions will be the transition (albeit partial) to hypersonic gliders as warheads. It doesn't have to be A. It’s just a rather large product, making a hypersonic maneuvering warhead taking into account all the requirements for distance, temperature, accuracy, etc. in the dimensions of a "small skinny rocket" will not work well. If we are talking about the ICBR. And each such rocket is a fucking cloud of fuel, electronics, expensive engines, and so on, so on. Of course, I'm not Baba Vanga, but logically, strengthening the enemy's missile defense potential will devalue some part of our arsenals, and a quantitative increase in the most successful samples is the most economical way out of the situation.
        4) About money - it's very nice to talk like that within the com-admin system. When there is enough for everyone, both shot and cartridges, and in the courtyard there is the old XX century without the UN, YouTube and the Internet. In fact, if the economy of the state begins to sink under the sanctions, a quiet seething begins, if at the same time the state is militarized, then the seething increases, somewhere on the ground it feels that it smells fried and begins to steal more brazenly, the authorities become nervous and begin to nightmare people, people become more nervous, massive psychosis begins ..tadaaam! 1917! Tadaam! 1991 year. Well, or at least Novocherkassk 2.0. And there there will be no time for weapons, the main mantra will be control over events. If they do not press it, there will be anarchy and separatism, if they press it, there will be separatist and revolution. So it's better to be careful with money in the 21st century ..
        5) Where the Americans do not have a ground-based missile defense system, they suddenly have the largest fleet in the world (although numerically, the Chinese one is already larger, I don't really follow) with a pretty good missile defense system (which they are trying to make even better). What they will undoubtedly take into account in planning. They are quite capable of a new arms race because ALL of their opponents are using ONE and the same means - missiles with nuclear weapons, an underwater component, some kind of fleet, some kind of strategists. All this, with the exception of missiles, weakly scares the United States located on the other side of the globe, frightening the neighbors of these countries, which are participating in American defense initiatives, and investing in a common pot with the United States. The United States in this structure, by any of its defensive or offensive actions, helps to defend its territory, but these very opponents of the United States contribute to the fact that they interfere and nightmare each other and their neighbors, who are involved in deterrence. For this reason, the United States is not afraid of the arms race - they have a good budget, a substantial part of the economy works for R&D, the population eats, God forbid, and if they tighten their belts a little, they will not be strained. At the moment, the United States has technologies for cheap and mass withdrawal of launch vehicles, superheavy and recoverable stages, technologies of reusable aircraft-type spacecraft, finally, the world has already chewed the US withdrawal from international treaties, they are chewing and withdrawal from the space treaty, especially since Trump has already announced Lunar resources the property of those who are the first to begin their development.
        6) I'm not an expert in plasma physics, you know better. Considering the speed (20M, although I hardly believe it), any changes in the environment, such as local plasma overheating, can contribute to the destruction of the product - thermal, mechanical. Most likely, the ground method of counteraction will rely on energy weapons - and whether it will be some kind of HAARP or an LR focus - it's hard for me to judge.
        7) I do not advise you to indulge in faith - this is very reminiscent of the belief in the Vanderwaffe of one proud but repeatedly beaten people. It didn't work for them a second time. I here consistently defend one point of view - we DO NOT defeat the United States by military means, we need to play for a long time on the economic, diplomatic, architectural and cultural front.
        1. -3
          22 December 2021 10: 59
          In short - for each HAARP there are "Khibiny" laughing
        2. +5
          22 December 2021 13: 36
          Thanks for the 2 comments, which are more interesting and informative than the article itself. Try to publish on VO, you may succeed.
    2. +2
      22 December 2021 03: 06
      With reconnaissance means, the Americans will have an idea of ​​how much ~ A was produced and delivered - and where it was delivered (taking into account the dimensions at least) - these objects, respectively. will have the highest priority in elimination.


      For some reason, everyone stubbornly ignores the moment of espionage.
      Even in the closed and ideological USSR, without the Internet and developed telephony, there were large spies leaking all the information.
      One Tolkachev is worth something.
      In the opposite direction, it also works - the nuclear bomb was successfully leaked to us.
      Everything that one country invents in a couple of years will be known to another. And if the industry works normally, then it will be embodied in metal.
      If the Avangard has real declared characteristics and new technologies are discovered, then they have long been known and studied in the USA.
  9. -6
    21 December 2021 19: 45
    Why complicate things? An explosion of 2-5 megatons over the North Pole, at an altitude of 350-450 km. All communications, satellites, ZGRLS are covered. Missile defense even the best and generally perfect stops working.
    1. +1
      21 December 2021 22: 48
      Yes, you fuckers, that's all you dream about. The world is not black and white !!
  10. +4
    21 December 2021 20: 58
    Something tells me to call (Chelyabinsk meteorite) a test of these toys.
  11. 0
    21 December 2021 22: 45
    Enchanting nonsense! How about those same rpksn?
  12. +2
    22 December 2021 01: 51
    Quote: dauria
    A lot has changed

    Yes, modern Russia falls short of even the RSFSR in terms of its economic potential.
    Therefore, the Americans and "combed Honduras."
    But the most unpleasant thing for our Great Motherland is that the Americans can afford it, and with much smaller losses.
    Missile defense radars in Poland and Romania, SMIII interceptors, on the ground and ABM frigates near our borders greatly underestimate our "nuclear response".
    In addition, the children of the elite in Princetons, Cambridge and Yellah connect our Ministry of Defense with the Strategic Missile Forces hand and foot.
    There will be no answer to the adversary while the "dear" ghouls are selling our Fatherland.
  13. -3
    22 December 2021 04: 31
    Quote: Beringovsky
    No, probably not worth it. But they can make them, if necessary, without question. And their production capabilities are an order of magnitude greater than ours.
    As for the rest, I am not a fan of all sorts of false theories.

    No. Can not.
    In theory, of course they can.
    But I can't immediately issue dozens on duty.
    And it won't work, it's like waves of bombers that roll over one after another, the first one will hold then you will be methodically smashed to pieces.
  14. +1
    22 December 2021 14: 08
    According to General Karakaev, at present, his (Vanguard's) hypersonic warhead is simply inaccessible to existing and developed missile defense systems. The speed of more than 20 M and the ability to perform maneuvers allows him to bypass the zones of action of the defense, and the enemy does not have the ability to predict the target of the attack. Accordingly, Avangard has an almost XNUMX% chance of breaking through any missile defense system.

    In fact, the effectiveness of the Vanguard depends not only on its combat capabilities, but also on the correspondence of the number of equipped (ready for use) ammunition to the number of targets that need to be hit. For example, it is quite possible that the Su-57 fighter has excellent combat characteristics. But given its small numbers, its current combat effectiveness is extremely low. Therefore, to assess the effectiveness of the Vanguard, it would be interesting to know the number of products ready for launch.
    1. +2
      23 December 2021 15: 16
      "It would be interesting to know the number of products ready for launch." ///
      ---
      It's not a secret. Vanguards - 6 pieces.
  15. 0
    22 December 2021 15: 17
    Quote: Beringovsky
    Actually, such a system was created in the late 60s, A 35 was called. A 2-3 megaton warhead hit the warhead with a neutron flux, causing a pop effect. The radius of damage is 200-300m. The Americans also had a similar missile defense system, Safeguard, in my opinion. Only with a neutron warhead, it is much more effective. Later, we also replaced it with this one.
    Destroying a warhead with a direct hit from a blank is still a task, but with the use of special warheads, everything is much easier. Try to dodge.

    There is also protection against neutrons. It is able to significantly reduce the radius of destruction of the warhead.
    Exploding 2-3 megatons does not add to the health of missile defense detection systems in any way.
    Finally, an ICBM warhead, and in a non-nuclear version, remains a very unpleasant thing. Especially if you give it an additional final speed. At 7,5 km / s final speed, the energy of the kinetic impact of an inert warhead of 1 ton will be equal to 9 tons of TNT. A hundred of such warheads would create a lot of destruction even without nuclear warheads. And if the accuracy is 20-30 meters, then you can do without nuclear charges.
  16. +1
    22 December 2021 15: 36
    Quote: arkadiyssk
    40 GBI missile defense charges work a little differently than you imagined. It will not work out of our 500 blocks to subtract only 20. You will have to subtract a lot more, because You do not know what targets they will defend, but from the need to guarantee destruction, you will have to 2-3 times increase the number of missiles for especially important targets (bases, energy and industrial infrastructure). And you have only 500 missiles. And now it turns out that because of 40 GBI you simply do not have free charges for civilian purposes. As a result, missile defense works - they destroy you (military industrial and civilian targets), but you do not. They are calm for their families, and you understand that everything will burn out, both you and the children. That's the point of having 40 interceptors hitting targets with a 50% probability.

    40 GBI also works a little differently. If they knock down with a probability of 50%, then to protect important objects with a probability of more than 90%, they will have to use 3-4 interceptors per warhead. Thus, 40 GBI is enough to intercept about 10 warheads.
  17. 0
    27 December 2021 13: 28
    Babakhnem and whoever remains, will go looking for chervats with a digger stick.
  18. DPF
    0
    5 January 2022 12: 09
    The issues of overcoming anti-missile defense again became relevant 20 years ago - after the US withdrawn from the ABM Treaty.
    These questions arose much earlier. Therefore, Soviet missile systems carried powerful means of overcoming missile defense.

    The hypersonic warhead in flight develops high speed, which dramatically reduces the time for detecting an attack and reacting to it.

    The speed of the hypersonic units is the same as that of other warheads. It's just that their flight altitude is less. Therefore, due to the radio horizon, they appear later. Therefore, there is little time left for detection, decision-making, taking on escort and destruction.