CSIS on the interception of hypersonic weapons

40
Features of the flow around a hypersonic object

On February 7, the American Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) published the report "Complex Air Defense: Countering the Hypersonic Missile Threat". As the name implies, it deals with issues of protection against modern and advanced hypersonic weapons. The authors of the report determined the degree of various threats, and also proposed ways to counter and combat them.

New principles of interception


Of greatest interest in the CSIS report is Section 4, Exploiting New Failure Modes. It proposes and discusses several fundamentally new ways to deal with hypersonic missiles or warheads. At the same time, minimal attention is paid to traditional air defense and missile defense systems.



The authors note that the interception of a hypersonic target by traditional methods is extremely difficult. So, to hit a target with a direct hit, an anti-missile with increased accuracy and speed is required, but its success is not guaranteed. In this regard, alternative methods of influencing the target and its destruction are proposed.

Trajectories of various weapons. Hypersonic systems are marked in red and green

A promising idea is the rejection of destruction by a direct hit and the transition to combat units that form a certain zone of continuous destruction. In this case, the anti-missile must use its warhead at the lead point, and the requirements for the accuracy of entering it are reduced. In addition, this method of defeat is able to compensate for the maneuvers of the target.

A zone of continuous destruction on the target's path can be created by a nuclear warhead or a conventional warhead with submunitions. In the latter case, even the smallest and lightest elements can be used to create a “dust wall” of the required density. It is possible to use several anti-missiles on one target - then several dangerous zones will appear on its way.

It is noted that non-nuclear methods of interception do not guarantee the instant destruction of the target. At the same time, when faced with a variety of damaging elements at hypersonic speed, the missile / warhead will receive various damage. They will lead to the destruction and destruction of the product, or, at least, will bring it from the calculated trajectory and disrupt the combat mission.

The problem of the passage of the warhead through areas with small particles

Directed Energy


According to CSIS, it is of interest to intercept using "weapons directed energy. Lasers and other systems of this class have the advantages of being relatively simple and cheap to use, do not encounter guidance problems, and so on. However, such weapons have insufficient power, can fire only in the line of sight, and their effectiveness is affected by the state of the atmosphere.

In general, combat lasers and other directed energy systems can be used in hypersonic missile defense. However, it will not be possible to build such a defense only on them. Directed energy weapons should be entrusted with work in the near zone - to finish off targets that have broken through other defense echelons.

As in the case of the "wall of dust", the laser can only deal damage. Further destruction of the target will occur due to high mechanical and thermal loads.

Modular anti-missile


CSIS also offers an interesting version of the missile defense system. Its basis should remain an anti-missile with high flight performance, receiving a modular combat load. It can carry combat stages of kinetic interception, incl. several, a fragmentation warhead or container with "dust", a reconnaissance module or a mobile directed energy emitter.

CSIS on the interception of hypersonic weapons
The head fairing of the product after flying through the rain area at a speed of 10M

Modular missiles with different loads can be on duty at the same time. In this case, the missile defense system will be able to use ammunition that most closely matches the detected target and is able to show the best efficiency. In addition, it becomes possible to relatively quickly create and place in positions new modifications of anti-missiles with a different payload.

However, this concept is not without drawbacks. First of all, it still has high requirements for the characteristics of the rocket. Regardless of the load, the anti-missile must ensure fast and accurate delivery of warheads to a given point in space. In addition, modular loads complicate the complex as a whole, and hence its mass production and deployment.

Not only interception


The report deals not only with the interception and destruction of hypersonic weapons. Section 5, "Reformulating the Mission," suggests other ways to counter and defend. The application of these ideas does not prevent the strike of a potential enemy, but reduces its effectiveness and reduces negative consequences.

Anti-missile and payload modules

First of all, CSIS draws attention to the complexity and high cost of hypersonic weapons and means of protection against them. This means that the enemy will not be able to attack all the desired targets, and the defending side will not be able to provide missile defense for the entire territory and objects. Therefore, it is necessary to understand what targets the enemy will choose - and ensure their protection. This also implies the need to track foreign progress in order to build an objective picture and understand the threats.

Passive protection methods are needed. Important objects should be hidden by dispersion, camouflage, decoys, etc. - to confuse preliminary reconnaissance and homing missiles. It makes sense to reconsider the principles of building military infrastructure in the direction of downsizing and increasing stability.

The importance of an integrated approach is noted. ABM and organizational measures should complement each other, closing weak spots. In addition, anti-missile systems should not exist on their own - they need to be included in the overall structures of the armed forces for full-fledged joint work.

Ideas for the future


At the moment, hypersonic missiles and warheads are extremely dangerous weapons. The interception and destruction of such means of attack using modern defense systems is extremely difficult or even impossible. However, it is obvious that hypersonic weapons are not fundamentally invulnerable - and sooner or later, appropriate air defense and missile defense systems must appear.

Maneuvering and changing kinetic energy

A recent CSIS report shows that defense against hypersonic weapons is entirely possible. At the same time, the desired level of missile defense effectiveness can be obtained only with the use of completely new ideas, decisions and principles. It is curious that some of these concepts and technologies have already been used or are being used in various projects, incl. in the field of missile defense. Their further development and adaptation to the specifics of hypersonic weapons will lead to the desired results.

Obviously, not only analysts from CSIS are dealing with issues of protection against hypersonic systems. Leading countries, while developing such weapons, are simultaneously working on advanced defense systems. At the same time, technologies for protecting weapons from defense means and overcoming missile defense systems should also be created. However, for obvious reasons, they prefer not to report about such developments.

When real means of defense against hypersonic weapons appear, what their appearance will be, and what principle of interception will be used is unknown. The report of the Center for Strategic and International Studies shows that the army and the developers of such systems have a fairly wide choice and can use a variety of solutions and principles, depending on the requirements, needs and wishes.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

40 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Eug
    +7
    21 February 2022 08: 28
    I liked the idea with the "cloud of dust" - even an insignificant increase in the density of the flight medium can lead to overshoot, braking and overheating of the warhead with all the ensuing consequences. But to "spray" this cloud on a section of the trajectory long enough to cause critical damage, as I understand it, is very difficult ...
    1. +7
      21 February 2022 08: 35
      I liked the dust cloud idea
      The idea is worth considering. It was because of the dust storm on Mars that our Mars-2 (or 3?) apparatus was lost in the early 70s. When he began to descend to Mars, he fell into a dust storm and burned out.
      1. -1
        22 February 2022 18: 10
        The public is wondering how much smart people from DARPA and other US military institutions are planning to throw money away.
        Will the States pull economically? The navel will not untie?
        1. 0
          April 12 2022 22: 25
          The thug who is given a loan simply
          for an outstretched fist
          It's not a problem to get more debt.
  2. +15
    21 February 2022 08: 30
    That's what I do? It was necessary to study at a university for five years, and then plow at work, if it is possible to develop a report like these from CSIS, the theses of which, in short, boil down to the following: to intercept hypersonic weapons, you need anti-missiles with a nuclear or fragmentation warhead, maybe a cloud of dust will help in the path of the warhead or shoot at it with a laser, and it would be nice to provide for a change in the warhead in the rocket, but in general it is necessary to disperse troops and objects. Captains Obvious. And after all, they got more dough for this than I will earn in my entire life. Abyss, yes.
  3. +2
    21 February 2022 08: 36
    When real means of defense against hypersonic weapons appear, what their appearance will be, and what principle of interception will be used is unknown.

    Long - a long article based on poor machine translation. As a result, the conclusion given in the quote is absolutely correct.
    I wonder who made it: the author or this American "office"? recourse
  4. +5
    21 February 2022 08: 44
    Quote: Eug
    I liked the idea with the "cloud of dust" - even an insignificant increase in the density of the flight medium can lead to overshoot, braking and overheating of the warhead with all the ensuing consequences. But to "spray" this cloud on a section of the trajectory long enough to cause critical damage, as I understand it, is very difficult ...

    It was already all. They tried using Lexan balloons, but nothing good came of it due to the inability to create a cloud of sufficient density and duration over time. In the atmosphere, more solid fillers will have to be used, which will narrow the time interval for the effective operation of the cloud. A cloud of metallic submunitions blinds its radars. It's the same with radiation. In short, nothing new.
  5. -3
    21 February 2022 08: 56
    American "analysts" do not understand the main idea of ​​​​Russian hypersonic weapons - flight to a target in the air at an altitude of no higher than 100 km, where hypersonic ammunition is protected by the atmosphere as such (from dust weapons and interceptors with an optical homing system) and the generated plasma cloud (from laser and high-frequency weapons).

    As for warheads of missiles flying along a ballistic trajectory outside the atmosphere - in the near future they will be protected by a coating of metamaterials with a negative reflection coefficient of electromagnetic waves, after which the warheads will become invisible in the optical and radio ranges.

    Our opponents have a chance to intercept hypersonic munitions in the starting and terminal sections of the trajectory. But the thrust-to-weight ratio of modern and even more promising missiles allows acceleration to hypersonic speeds within the atmosphere, and guided warheads and warheads of Iskanders, Daggers and Zircons perform anti-aircraft maneuvers after entering the atmosphere.

    So for the anti-missile defense of the opponents of the Russian Federation, only the good old thermonuclear charges remain, which illuminate their missile defense radars with an electromagnetic pulse with the very first shot - just at the time our warheads and warheads approach the targets bully
    1. +2
      21 February 2022 23: 26
      Ndaaa ... a victim of ignorance of physics at the school level ... poor fellow. Wolfych's level: We will turn on our S-1000 air defense system and then no one on the whole planet will take off without our permission !!!!!
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
  6. +2
    21 February 2022 08: 56
    The head fairing of the product after flying through the rain area at a speed of 10M

    And how did the rain hit the fairing through the plasma cloud?
    1. 0
      21 February 2022 11: 44
      Because this photo is evidence of the fake idea of ​​a plasma shell that does not allow detecting a warhead. Like it or not, the very tip still sticks out, and the plasma is formed a little behind on the body of the fairing. Therefore, the tip is excised with drops. As a result, the warhead is still detected by radars.
      1. +3
        21 February 2022 13: 13
        Quote: arkadiyssk
        Whatever one may say, the very tip still sticks out, and the plasma forms a little behind on the body of the fairing

        Not true. The object looks like this

        https://topwar.ru/110676-pobeda-nad-plazmoy-novyy-metod-dlya-svyazi-s-kosmicheskim-apparatom.html
        That's why the tip is excised with drops

        There temperatures are about 10 - 000 degrees C. During the descent of vehicles from space, the skin heats up to 30 degrees C. What are the drops of rain

  7. +5
    21 February 2022 09: 29
    A zone of continuous destruction on the target's path can be created by a nuclear warhead or a conventional warhead with submunitions. In the latter case, even the smallest and lightest elements can be used to create a “dust wall” of the required density.

    Our idea was stolen. Ours proposed against SDI to pour out a bucket of bolts in the path of the flight of US installations.
    1. +1
      21 February 2022 23: 39
      To understand: to evenly cover an area of ​​​​only ten by ten kilometers (this is very small in terms of space) with a density of one 10-gram nut per square meter, we need “only” 100 million nuts! All this will weigh exactly 1000 tons. This is no longer a bucket, but a freight train with nuts. And that's just for a small area of ​​space...)))
  8. +1
    21 February 2022 09: 55
    IMHO, everything is exaggerated. (a friend of Obama and Trump's agent asked to revive the military-industrial complex, friends from the Kremlin did, they scared plenty)

    Aren't modern aviation and missiles intercepted by a cloud of damaging elements ???
    Modern large air defense systems are all either hyper- or near-hyper-speed.

    Those. the only question is that it is not yet possible to catch up with the trail, but to meet it is easy. A hypersonic warhead will not be able to maneuver sharply - it will collapse from overloads, there is no stealth at such a speed, and the question of detonation on time on the way is just a matter of timing for electronics.

    Moreover, hypersonic warheads fit into a rocket several times less than conventional ones, GZv missiles are many times more difficult, and ordinary warheads - ours wrote - are also "indestructible" because. wobble/rotate chaotically when descending at the same hyper-speed.

    Those. to bring down towards - the question of edits in the program for calculating the lead. At oncoming hyper-speeds, even "dust", according to the article, will be effective.

    So far, no one has written about hyper-sound at the final stage (as about super-sound for anti-ship missiles).
    1. 0
      21 February 2022 12: 29
      Quote: Max1995
      Those. to bring down towards - the question of edits in the program for calculating the lead.

      Ага.
      When maneuvering a target, it is impossible to calculate the lead point.
      And yes, everything has been implemented for a long time, but at different speeds. There, it is possible to direct the anti-missile not at the lead point, but directly at the target, compensating for the target's maneuver due to the greater speed and maneuverability of the anti-missile.
      1. -1
        21 February 2022 13: 54
        Wait.
        This is not an easy ZR maneuvering sideways with 9g. And it’s not fighters that spin barrels at the parade - up to 700 km.h.
        This is a smooth ellipse a couple of thousand kilometers long - (As they boasted about the test trajectory on TV and in cartoons)

        "Directly on target"?? Oh well.
        Slow Boeings were shot down by fragments, without any "right on target."
        They only boasted of this, as successful experiments, at VO.
        Surely this is how you can shoot down slow large UAVs,
        But what for?
        1. 0
          21 February 2022 14: 17
          Quote: Max1995
          Slow Boeings were shot down by fragments, without any "right on target."

          Are you talking about the C75 in Vietnam in the sixties?
          So there was 150 kg of hexogen in the rocket for that, which didn’t work exactly on target.
          And the proximity fuse will not wait for a direct arrival
          However, the guidance there was at the point of "half lead".
          1. -2
            21 February 2022 23: 30
            I don’t know what was there once a long time ago in Vietnam, and the penultimate Boeing was shot down by striking elements from the warhead of the air defense system.

            The latter - did not look for whether it was the air defense system that hit, but that it was also stuffed with elements - they write.
            1. -1
              22 February 2022 05: 13
              Quote: Max1995
              the penultimate Boeing was shot down by striking elements from the warhead of the air defense system.

              Now I understand your idea.
              For Boeing, just "right on target" is not suitable. A fan of fragments against a large target is much more effective. There, even missiles are specially aimed at a point a few meters from the target, so that the area of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbthe "sieve" is larger.
  9. +1
    21 February 2022 09: 57
    Scrap tungsten has already been offered, I'll offer a cast-iron core as a fundamentally indestructible warhead. It’s stupid enough for this to fly straight at the target without bothering with evolution.
  10. +1
    21 February 2022 10: 27
    A zone of continuous destruction on the target's path can be created by a nuclear warhead or a conventional warhead with submunitions. In the latter case, even the smallest and lightest elements can be used to create a “dust wall” of the required density. It is possible to use several anti-missiles on one target - then several dangerous zones will appear on its way.

    I've been talking about the idea of ​​a "dusty cloud" for a year now on the forums here! bully In response, local forum "experts" pounced, some were brutally rude! But, it turns out the idea is quite realizable!
    https://topwar.ru/192354-jeksperty-ssha-amerikancy-sposobny-legko-preodolet-preimuschestvo-rf-i-kitaja-v-giperzvukovom-oruzhii.html#comment-id-12185800

    Here are some of the pictures that I drew for my comments on the topic:





    1. +2
      21 February 2022 11: 09
      Quote: pytar

      I've been blowing the trumpet here on the forums for a year now about the idea of ​​a "dusty cloud"!

      I recognized and recognize your "priority" on VO, and supported you in your previous comments ... and now I was going to refer to you after reading the first two comments on this article ... but you got ahead of me! If you remember, then the idea of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbusing " dust", or rather, small buckshot against space objects appeared during the period of "Star Wars" (SDI)! But then this idea "hovered in space"! Supporting your idea of ​​​​using "dust" (or buckshot), I suggested a slightly different idea ... it is still a higher priority for me!
      1. 0
        21 February 2022 11: 56
        If you remember, the idea of ​​using "dust", or rather, small buckshot against space objects, appeared during the period of "Star Wars" (SDI)!

        Everything is new, well forgotten old! bully

        Supporting your idea of ​​​​using "dust" (or buckshot), I suggested a slightly different idea ... it is still a higher priority for me!

        Wallpaper options have a place to be! Each has advantages and disadvantages.
  11. 0
    21 February 2022 10: 52
    Section 4 Exploiting New Failure Modes

    A little more precisely - "Using new methods of damage (incapacitation)".
  12. 0
    21 February 2022 12: 32
    About hitting a target with a laser that is designed to work at high temperatures ??!
    Funny.
  13. -1
    21 February 2022 12: 36
    About using the "wall of dust"
    Not so funny anymore, but there are very big BUTs:
    1- hanging such a wall in the lower layers of the atmosphere will not work. Stupidly blown away by the wind if the dust is light. If heavy, it will simply crumble under its own weight. Thus, the lifetime of the "wall" will be very short, which means that the accuracy in the time of formation of this "wall" should be very high.
    That is, the system must very accurately calculate the lead point both in place and in time.
    But the target is also maneuvering.
    And the probability of hitting a target with such a cloud is not too high, even if the hypersonic unit receives some damage, it will not have time to completely collapse and fall into the protected object, causing unacceptable damage.
    1. 0
      21 February 2022 13: 25
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      If heavy, it will simply crumble under its own weight.

      It will simply be heated by an aviation laser or ground; microwaves. An unevenly heated particle or fiber will have its own thrust and float in the air.
      The air itself can be swirled by the same heat.
      1. -2
        21 February 2022 13: 33
        Quote: ycuce234-san
        It will simply be heated by an aviation laser

        Very funny.
        Those. also the plane must have time to get into position !?
        1. 0
          21 February 2022 19: 18
          For a number of applications, such as covering aircraft carrier groups or troop concentrations, this will be a good solution. There are still planes in the air.
  14. 0
    21 February 2022 12: 52
    If the "wall" is hung far/high, then the lifetime of the cloud can be increased.
    But on the other hand, the time required for the anti-missile to reach the lead point is growing. Those. you will have to shoot strongly in advance, but the target is maneuvering. During the flight of the antimissile, the target can move away from the predicted meeting point for kilometers. This means that a huge sector of possible target trajectories will have to be closed, which will require a large number of anti-missiles.
  15. +1
    21 February 2022 14: 04
    A cloud of dust and small particles is a good idea, however, in different layers of the atmosphere and under different weather conditions, this will behave very differently, so the likelihood of these factors affecting the product can also be very different, not to mention that due to maneuvering (especially active) of such a single target and its significant speeds - such clouds would need to be created a lot and very quickly - or less, but more quickly. Therefore, this is the path to a numerical increase in missile defense - for each conditional hypersonic missile, more than 5 interceptors (under ideal conditions) will be needed, while their real number will be much larger, because they will need to saturate (and oversaturate) the most different regions of the country with them. A number of glider flight paths can be identified with greater or lesser certainty (taking into account the concentration of important targets on the line and a rough idea of ​​​​the areas of potential launch by the enemy (we are talking about silo-based ICBMs, first of all), however, there will be less predictable, but still probable trajectories In primary directions, perhaps the best option would be interceptors with nuclear warheads, in secondary directions, saturation with fragmentation interceptors.
  16. +1
    21 February 2022 17: 03
    And how they breathed about the kinetic interception of ICBM blocks, now there it is, the good old fragmentation warheads.
  17. +1
    21 February 2022 17: 06
    I've been blowing the trumpet here on the forums for a year now about the idea of ​​a "dusty cloud"!

    1. The idea is very old. At least the Germans thought in this way to protect themselves from the bombing. Then the cloud of drinking should have crushed the engines or hit the planes themselves with a volumetric explosion. Then nothing good came out for obvious reasons.
    2. Against hypersonic gliders, everything is much more complicated. It is also possible to create and maintain a cloud of particles at such a height against ordinary ballistic missiles, but they don’t do it because it is less effective than using a classic fragmentation warhead. It is an order of magnitude more difficult to use it against hypersonic blocks.
    3. A large and stable cloud of particles can be created in space by seeing these particles in an orbit of 300-400 km. high but this is only useful against satellites and will interfere with both its satellites and missiles.
  18. +2
    21 February 2022 20: 46
    Wow ... First, spread out, then disguise yourself, and then put around the missile defense system and release clouds of smoke and dust over the object ...
    Did you even read what you wrote? fool
  19. 0
    22 February 2022 14: 15
    Does the rocket maintain hypersonic speed when approaching the target?
  20. 0
    22 February 2022 17: 01
    The head fairing of the product after flying through the rain area at a speed of 10M

    If at 10 M it turns out what will happen from warheads of conventional ICBMs at 15 or 20 M. It is necessary to equip ICBM mines where there is a lot of rain.
  21. 0
    13 May 2022 08: 09
    Nothing new, just summarized everything, if only, if only!
  22. 0
    18 May 2022 10: 44
    However, the ideas are interesting. I would suggest another projectile with "shrapnel waves". It is fired towards a hypersonic munition (GPB). When approaching the affected area, several expelling charges are triggered, which throw several "waves" of damaging elements towards the GPB. Moreover, the expansion zone of each "wave" should be limited so that there are no wasted scattered elements, as in the explosion of fragmentation, rod, or "dust" warheads. The GPB consistently hits the "waves" of damaging elements, and if, by some miracle, it passed one or two waves, then it must be damaged by elements of other waves. There is one nuance here. It is desirable not only to hit the GPB, but also to change its trajectory, and do it far enough from the target, because the remaining fragments still have high kinetic energy. In addition, there may be GPB "blanks" that hit the target solely due to kinetic energy. It is practically useless to damage them, only the deviation of their trajectory will help
  23. 0
    18 May 2022 11: 14
    While writing the previous comment, other ideas were also visited. For some reason, it is the defeat of a hypersonic munition (GPB) that is being considered. In fact, the most important thing is that the GPB does not hit the target, and other options are possible. It is not necessary to cause damage to the GPB, but you can simply disrupt its flight along a given trajectory. The GPB is very sensitive to any anomaly, and it is enough to create one to throw it off its trajectory, disrupt hypersonic flight, or even cause G-forces that deform or destroy the GPB. That is, it is necessary to create either a turbulent cloud or an obstacle in the path of the GPB. When intercepted in space and the ionosphere, this is a nuclear explosion - possible only under very clear and unlikely conditions. The main intercept site is still in the atmosphere, especially since many GPBs will not go into space. What is possible to use? For example, a variant of a thermobaric charge, possibly using fragments of damaging elements, simultaneously disrupts the flight and defeats the GPB. Oddly enough, it is possible to use dense net ammo (multiple nets in series). Despite the high kinetic energy of the GPB, this will disrupt its normal flight. Fragments of the network will cause damage to the polished hull of the GPB and affect its aerodynamics. If GPBs use a jet engine, then such fragments can get into the air intake, disrupt the combustion process and damage the engine. If the GPB flies by inertia, then it will lose speed and change its trajectory. Even if the GPB can overcome an artificial obstacle, retain the ability to continue flying, then it will lose its main advantage - speed, and then it can be hit by traditional anti-aircraft weapons

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"