Military Review

US missile defense and nuclear deterrence

26
According to popular opinion, the Third World War has not yet begun due to the presence of nuclear weapons. The conflict of such powers can escalate into a full-scale nuclear war, which will have quite understandable consequences for both sides and a number of other states, including neutral ones. Perhaps a number of consequences of a major conflict with the massive use of nuclear weapons at one time was exaggerated: for example, the concept of the so-called. nuclear winter sometimes raises questions and doubts. However, after the American bombing of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there was not a single case of the combat use of nuclear or thermonuclear weapons. At the same time, it is worth noting that the concept of nuclear deterrence and guaranteed mutual destruction was formed only a few years after those events.

US missile defense and nuclear deterrence


Until a certain time, all ensuring nuclear deterrence was reduced to a banal increase in the number of weapons. However, this method of ensuring parity has two characteristic drawbacks. First, the production of large numbers of nuclear warheads and their delivery vehicles is a complex and expensive process. Secondly, a large number of missiles and bombers with nuclear warheads does not guarantee protection against enemy weapons. In other words, even if the entire nuclear potential of one country is fired at the territory of another, this will not protect it from a retaliatory strike of one or another power. In this case, the only way to somehow defend against a retaliatory strike is a massive attack of missile and aviation enemy bases, as well as the destruction of submarines with strategic missiles. Obviously, this approach to self-defense directly borders on the first problem of nuclear deterrence described above by increasing the number of nuclear weapons. In fact, the inevitability of a retaliatory strike became the very essence of the concept of containment. However, in this case, none of the countries with nuclear weapons can no longer use them as a universal political argument, which is a guarantee of the fulfillment of any ultimatum conditions. Naturally, any country wants to get such a serious argument.

Strategic missile defense was to be the means of providing protection against retaliation. The creation of such systems began soon after the appearance of the first intercontinental missiles. Quite quickly, anti-missile systems reached the level at which they began to threaten the international nuclear balance. As a result, without taking into account the relatively low level of perfection of the existing and future missile defense systems, in 1972, the USSR and the USA signed an agreement on the limitations of missile defense. Two years later, the additional protocol defined the final terms of the agreement. Both countries now had the right to only one region, covered from a nuclear missile strike. By the decision of the leaders of the countries, areas of missile defense were created around the Soviet capital and around the American military base Grand Forks. At the end of the last century, the US government initiated several research and design programs, the purpose of which was to build a large-scale strategic missile defense system. A little later, in December 2001, the United States announced its withdrawal from the treaty, after which work on the creation of a missile defense system was fully developed. This fact has caused long disputes and trials.

At the moment, besides strategic missile defense systems, only anti-submarine defense has certain chances to change the balance of nuclear weapons. The reasons for the high potential of anti-submarine defense lie in the structure of nuclear forces. For example, about half of the nuclear warheads deployed by the United States are based on strategic nuclear submarines. In the Russian nuclear triad, submarines also occupy an important position, but the main part of the combat units are "assigned" to strategic missile forces. Here we get a rather interesting situation: to reduce the combat potential of the US nuclear forces, anti-submarine weapons must be developed. For the same actions against Russia, in turn, anti-missile systems are required. In the context of the search and destruction of enemy submarines, it is worth remembering the recent news about the competition to create a new anti-submarine aircraft, which should replace the outdated IL-38 and Tu-142. At the same time, the fight against ballistic missiles based on submarines can be carried out by “standard” methods - land-based and sea-based antimissiles.

In this case, the development by the Americans of a certain unified missile defense system, which can be manufactured in the ground version, and installed on ships, looks like a logical decision. However, the further development of the US missile defense system is still incomprehensible. Thus, in early September, the National Research Council at the National Academy of Sciences of the United States presented to Congress a report on the prospects for an anti-missile defense. In this report, several general concepts of a prospective strategic missile defense system were considered. In particular, an analysis of various methods of attacking enemy missiles. As a result, it turned out that both the main ways of destroying enemy delivery systems and warheads have both advantages and disadvantages. The simplest, as it seems, interception of a ballistic missile in the initial part of the flight requires a short reaction time of anti-missile systems and is rather complicated due to the need for a relatively small distance between the launch point of the ballistic missile and the launch point of the interceptor missile. The defeat of the combat unit on the end sections of the trajectory, in turn, does not require such a rapid response, but needs a quick and accurate targeting of the anti-missile at the target. At the same time, the experts of the National Research Council did not give any recommendations. The final decision was left to the Pentagon, but he has not yet specified his plans.

Thus, while it is possible to speak precisely about only one direction of development of the American strategic missile defense system - the political one. In recent years, the United States administration has been constantly negotiating and signing agreements on cooperation in the field of missile defense with foreign countries, primarily European ones. In addition, since 2010, the Yokota command post, shared by the Japanese and the Americans, has been operating in Japan. Together with the command post, Japan has several over-the-horizon radars. The military leadership of the Land of the Rising Sun stresses the need for protection against North Korea’s missiles, but the facts suggest otherwise. Most of the stations are directed to Russia and China, and their range allows them to observe the space almost to the Barents Sea. Obviously, with such opportunities you can monitor not only North Korea. Japan also has a certain number of American SM-2 antimissiles and, under certain conditions, can produce attacks of a number of missiles, including successful ones.

As we see, the United States simultaneously with the creation of new detection systems and anti-missile systems are conducting political activities, the task of which is to expand the network of anti-missile weapons. In addition, a large number of anti-missile systems, distributed over a large area, allows to some extent compensate for the insufficient characteristics of existing missile defense systems. It is quite obvious that the existing US antimissiles will not be able to ensure the assured defeat of all enemy ballistic missiles. For this reason, it is necessary to find alternative ways to ensure the maximum likelihood of a successful attack, for example, dispersing antimissiles over a large area. Another obvious fact of the further development of American missile defense is the concept of the destruction of enemy missiles in the initial segments of the flight. First, a large number of destroyers scattered across the oceans with the appropriate equipment and weapons will be useful for this. Secondly, only this method of protection against missiles makes it relatively easy to avoid a strike on its territory. Moreover, in the event that an enemy uses maneuvering warheads, early interception is the only reliable way to protect its territory.

However, the scattering of anti-missile missiles by area has one unpleasant feature. Existing launch detection systems do not allow to record missile launches from submarines with proper quality. This requires the involvement of considerable satellite constellation, etc. Thus, in order to avoid a retaliatory strike by missiles mounted on submarines, the United States must also have in its missile defense system tracking systems for submarine rocket carriers. Recently, the Pentagon’s Advanced Development Agency, DARPA, announced the AAA program - Assured Arctic Awareness (Arctic Awareness Awareness), which aims to create a tracking network in the Arctic Ocean. Unlike previous tracking systems for submarines, AAA involves placing sensors and system equipment right in the Arctic ice. Already there are positive aspects of this approach to tracking systems. Due to the relatively simple installation, the magnetic and hydroacoustic sensors AAA will have a relatively simple design, and the transfer of the collected information will be greatly simplified due to the location of the equipment above the water surface. In addition, it is much cheaper and more convenient to produce and operate such automatic equipment, including in large quantities, than to regularly send submarines-hunters to the bases of a likely enemy.

Total, no one doubts the US intentions to complete the construction of its strategic missile defense system. One of the goals of this system, as already mentioned, is to reduce the likelihood of destruction by a likely opponent of objects in the territory of the States and their allies. However, a hypothetical ideal or near-perfect missile defense system, at least, severely hits strategic nuclear deterrence. Accordingly, some means are required to maintain the current state of affairs. The easiest way to maintain balance concerns disabling missile defense systems. A few years ago, the Russian leadership transparently hinted to European countries that if they agreed to host elements of the American missile defense system, Russia would have to send its missiles to their territory. As subsequent events showed, these hints did not find understanding in Eastern European countries. Nevertheless, the new operational-tactical missile systems "Iskander", which appeared in the statements about the re-targeting, first of all went to serve in the western regions of Russia. Coincidence? Hardly.

The second way to protect Russian nuclear forces from US missile defense systems can be called "active resistance". To this end, it is necessary to continue work on missile warheads with combat units for individual guidance. In addition, maneuvering warheads should be improved. All these measures will have two positive consequences. The first of these is the difficulty of countering a missile strike with a split head. The second relates to interception technology. Since the "catching" of warheads one by one is a very difficult task, a missile with a similar payload must be shot down during the first phases of the flight. However, in the case of Russian intercontinental missiles, this, among other things, requires long-range antimissiles, to be defeated before leaving the space above the country’s territory. As for the Arctic submarine search system, you still need to wait for its creation. Basing on drifting ice floes, and even in areas with a specific natural electromagnetic environment, will “provide” American engineers with a multitude of problems and tasks, the solution of which may eventually become even more costly than the usual covering of the bottom of the water area with tracking systems. But even if AAA is created, it will remain exposed to electronic countermeasures.

In general, now Russia, using and developing the existing developments, is fully capable, if not negated, then, at least, significantly reduce the real capabilities of the American anti-missile defense system. In addition, since the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, rumors about the plans of the Russian leadership to create a missile defense system throughout the country regularly appeared, which, however, have not yet received official confirmation. Perhaps promising anti-aircraft complexes C-500 and further representatives of this line will have the opportunity to work on high-speed ballistic targets. However, at the moment, Russian actions are talking about focusing on how to counter missile defense, based on its breakthrough. Of course, a defense breakthrough is the most logical and simplest way to ensure a guaranteed retaliatory strike. However, for this it is necessary to protect your objects from the first attack of the enemy. Anyway, the further development of nuclear forces and means of defense against them will entail a number of changes in the face of international politics and diplomacy, as well as an impact on nuclear deterrence. If the potential adversary has missile defense systems, in order to guarantee non-aggression, it will be necessary to develop its own nuclear forces, which in the end may lead to a new spiral of the arms race and the next tensions of the international situation.


On the materials of the sites:
http://odnako.org/
http://lenta.ru/
http://itar-tass.com/
http://nap.edu/
http://kapyar.ru/
http://militaryparitet.com/
Author:
26 comments
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Sakhalininsk
    Sakhalininsk 4 October 2012 10: 11
    +26
    In fact, the article is more than correct. Russia is now guaranteed to be able to turn any state, including the United States, into a branch of hell. The latter, given the mentality of their own people, are now building fighters with windmills. All modern American developments on missile defense will easily pass even Soviet means of delivery of special ammunition. The current construction of the new soybean is yet another scam on the stupid overstrain of economies by wasted military spending.
    Building a missile defense system on a global scale is now pointless. We need to develop the means of delivery of the Kuzkin mother to the overseas consumer, it is cheaper and more reliable.
    1. omsbon
      omsbon 4 October 2012 11: 32
      +9
      Quote: Sakhalininets

      We need to develop the means of delivery of the Kuzkin mother to the overseas consumer, it is cheaper and more reliable.

      Brilliant phrase. Delighted !!!
    2. Andrey77
      Andrey77 5 October 2012 14: 31
      0
      The current construction of the new soybean is yet another scam on the stupid overstrain of economies by wasted military spending.

      You want to say that 2x2 = 4? I agree.
    3. Nuralmaz
      Nuralmaz 8 October 2012 21: 35
      -1
      I agree to all 100
    4. qwerty_zxc
      qwerty_zxc 31 October 2012 14: 13
      0
      Quote: Sakhalininets
      Russia is now guaranteed to be able to turn any state, including the United States, into a branch of hell. The latter, given the mentality of their own people, are now building fighters with windmills. All modern American missile defense developments will easily pass even Soviet special ammunition delivery vehicles

      moronic - brainless and merciless
  2. Foamas
    Foamas 4 October 2012 10: 17
    +4
    to reduce the combat potential of the US nuclear forces, anti-submarine weapons must be developed, in the context of the search for and destruction of enemy submarines, it is worth recalling the recent news about the competition for the creation of a new anti-submarine aircraft, which should replace the obsolete IL-38 and Tu-142.

    In the context of this phrase, it’s probably worthwhile to understand that the author of the article considers the search and destruction of US PLASB by patrol aircraft from air bases in Russia to be real ???
    This is impossible given the location of the combat patrol areas of American boats, the task of the new aircraft is to protect its missile carriers from the enemy in the areas of their combat duty (Barents, Kara, and Sea of ​​Okhotsk).
  3. Patriot
    Patriot 4 October 2012 10: 34
    0
    Quote: Sakhalininets
    Sakhalinets (2)
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, All the modern American developments on missile defense will easily pass even the Soviet means of delivery of special ammunition. ,,,,,,,,,,,.


    A very interesting, but it seems too optimistic statement to me. Where did you get such information? What makes you think that the Aegis system will not be able to intercept our ICBMs ??? Did the Americans really say?
    1. Bronis
      Bronis 4 October 2012 11: 45
      +8
      Any judgments on intercept / not intercept are relative. Most likely, some of the missiles and (or) warheads can be intercepted, but some are not. Arguing.
      1. The number of kinetic interceptors. Sm-3 is now about 100 units. The Russian Federation has more nuclear weapons carriers: only the Strategic Missile Forces - R-36M2 UTTH - about 50 units, UR-100 - about 70 units, Topol - about 150 units, Topol-M and Yars - about 70 units. + "Squids" and "Dolphins" (7-9x16 ICBMs)
      2. Peculiarities of interceptor deployment - there are now about 25 Arleigh Burke destroyers. + are planning in Europe. The "European" missiles will most likely not be able to defend the United States - they have no opposite courses, they will have to "catch up". Europe is more an element of an early warning system. and missiles there are self-defense.
      The Berks need to be based closer to the Arctic, the farther - the less likely they are to be intercepted: the separation of the WGM and the missile defense system will dramatically increase the number of targets. Too close - also not gut. With some submarine fleet we have both trouble and confusion at a critical moment, he can arrange with a high degree of probability. + it’s difficult with the underwater element of strategic nuclear forces - it is not in vain that they want to fight mainly with anti-aircraft defense systems.
      3. The presence of the concept of a "Rapid Global Strike" - a preventive defeat of strategic nuclear forces by non-strategic forces. In other words, the maximum weakening or prevention of a retaliatory oncoming strike. If Aegis could destroy everything, there wouldn't be much point in this venture.
      Conclusion - "Aegis," at the moment, is not a panacea and, with a high degree of probability, in the near future it will not be.
      1. Sakhalininsk
        Sakhalininsk 4 October 2012 17: 20
        0
        You got ahead of me.
        1. Bronis
          Bronis 4 October 2012 18: 54
          +1
          Well, sorry ...
      2. Foamas
        Foamas 4 October 2012 19: 31
        0
        just to clarify
        click here for exact information from the data exchange protocols under START-3
        (data as of September 1, 2012)
        http://www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/198582.htm
      3. merkel1961
        merkel1961 4 October 2012 20: 48
        0
        I think in a similar way, the Shtatovs will do more than they can.
      4. postman
        postman 4 October 2012 21: 25
        -1
        Quote: Bronis
        1. The number of kinetic interceptors. Sm-3 is now about 100 units.

        FY 2012: SM-3 Block I = 113, SM-3 Block II = 91, SM-3 Block IB = 16, total 303 (purchased, including test) "carriers": (Aegis 3.6I version) -24, (Aegis 4.0I version) -4, (Aegis 5.0I version) -1; total =29
        FY 2018: 483 + 369 (mostly SM-3 Block IB and 31 Block IIA), 32 "carriers" (30% Aegis 5.0I version and one 5.1.v)
        THAAD -24PR, by the end of 2012- 36 units,
        August 15, 2012: $ 150 million 12-pound MDA contract
        plan to 2020: 1422 OL
        Quote: Bronis
        Russia has more nuclear weapons

        The United States, as of September 1, had a total of 806 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), the number of such weapons in Russia was 491. The United States had 1722 nuclear warheads on deployed ICBMs, Russia had 1499 nuclear warheads on the same carriers.
        The United States had a total of 1034 deployed and non-deployed carriers for ICBMs, deployed and non-deployed carriers for ballistic missiles on submarines, and deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers. In Russia, as of September 1, 2012, there were 884 such carriers.

        According to the agreement, the parties are obliged to reduce the number of nuclear warheads to 1500-1675, and their carriers - to 500-1100 units.
        2.
        Quote: Bronis
        Features of placing interceptors

        It is called Euro-missile defense, the task of protecting Europe and England, which he writes about (convinces MDA (12-MDA-6723))
        3.
        Quote: Bronis
        If Aegis could destroy everything, there wouldn't be much point in this venture.
        if Aegis could intercept everything and always, in this (it would be the very meaning) ALREADY STANDING QUEUED for her.

        Quote: Bronis
        and, with a high degree of probability, in the near future this will not be.
        , with a high degree of probability this will be able to solve Aegis 5.I version with the SM-3 Block IIA PR
        1. Bronis
          Bronis 5 October 2012 19: 20
          0
          Quote: Postman
          plan to 2020: 1422 OL
          - while this is only a plan, not a reality. I fully admit that they will deliver as many interceptors, but I found more modest numbers, somewhere about two times more modest. I will rummage through bookmarks, I can find. In any case, let's live to 20 th ...
          Quote: Postman
          Itata: Bronis
          Russia has more nuclear weapons
          - Perhaps he didn’t put it quite accurately - the Russian Federation has more carriers than the US missile defense.
          Quote: Postman
          If Aegis could destroy everything, there wouldn't be much point in this venture.
          By "venture" I did not mean Aegis, but Assured Arctic Awareness - a means of tracking our nuclear submarines (strategic, primarily) in the Arctic, tobish a promising submarine.
          Quote: Postman
          with a high degree of probability this can be solved by Aegis 5.I version with the SM-3 Block IIA PR
          Maybe yes, maybe not. In any case, the question will be only in the oversaturation of its capabilities: the number of ICBMs and the quality of the means of overcoming missile defense on them. Work is also underway. As I said, everything is very relative. But for the reliable defense of the United States, Aegis must have capabilities that are many times greater than the enemy's nuclear potential, again - both in quantity and quality. After all, even 5-10 warheads that have broken through can cause such damage for which the United States is not yet ready. Accordingly, the risk of this for the United States is unacceptable.
          1. postman
            postman 5 October 2012 20: 39
            0
            Quote: Bronis
            - while this is only a plan, not reality

            Quote: Bronis
            I will rummage through bookmarks, I can find.

            Why "dig", here is the report (was, is, will be)
            Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress Ronald O'Rourke Specialist in Naval Affairs August 10, 2012

            Quote: Bronis
            perhaps he didn’t put it exactly - the Russian Federation has more carriers than the US missile defense.

            Compare the cost of pH and PR, WHAT IS MORE? WHAT IS CHEAPER TO PRODUCE?
            SM-3 Block IA, the cost of one missile is composedt $ 9,5-10 million
            Give the cost of 1 "Topol-M"? And what about the material consumption of production? WHAT'S THE COST OF CONTENT? And what about the cost of combat watch? What about the cost of disposal? And MTO?
            ? Who will win? A sword or shield?

            Quote: Bronis
            Assured Arctic Awareness
            - ???? What does she (AAA) have to do with PLO?
            AAA is ecology, economic feasibility, security (anti-terrorism). the problem arose: the Berengov Strait now runs more than 1000 ships, and there were up to 100. that's all. + indigenous peoples, with places of traditional fishing for whales, seals, etc. Shell made a loop for them 400 miles.
            PLO they have enough GIS line and "free" patrol from Nord Cap on SSN-744 + ACTUV submarines (accepted) + did not abandon passive submarine tracking lines (deployment on civilian ships)

            Quote: Bronis
            But for the reliable protection of the United States, Aegis must have capabilities that are many times greater than the enemy's nuclear potential, again - and the number

            According to the number I wrote above, elementary, SM-3 is much cheaper than any ICBM, if not two.
            The quality is a completely different product, technology.
            ICBMs - reached a peak, while PR and BIUS, on the contrary, went through a technological dead end.

            Quote: Bronis
            5 to 10 warheads burst through can cause such damage
            . This fits into their concept of acceptable damage.
  4. Gavril
    Gavril 4 October 2012 11: 03
    +2
    It’s necessary to build a bomb in your home that can smash the whole planet to hell, and hold your finger at the button ... That's it, forge Americans, no missile defense can save you, because there’s nothing to fly, the bomb will explode on our territory and we’ll die
    1. Bronis
      Bronis 4 October 2012 11: 53
      +6
      Such an idea was ... There was also an idea such a Kuzkin mother on a cargo ship and closer to the American east coast. But they came to the conclusion that this is even more dangerous than nuclear war. And that's why
      1. What if it explodes by accident? it's not 1 ICBM will explode ...
      2. There is no certainty that the enemy will suffer as well as we. for us - guaranteed suicide, for him - not a fact. And if the ship drowns, it’s also necessary to get it ...
      3. "International Community". If you have created such an "Uber device" - it means exactly the "evil empire" - wants to kill everyone.
      But there may not be a nuclear war ...
    2. Kshatriy
      Kshatriy 4 October 2012 12: 57
      0
      Quote: Gavril
      It’s necessary to build a bomb in your home that can smash the whole planet to hell, and hold your finger at the button ... That's it, forge Americans, no missile defense can save you, because there’s nothing to fly, the bomb will explode on our territory and we’ll die

      This idea was put forward by Academician Sakharov, but rejected by the Politburo .... True, he proposed laying a hydrogen bomb in the world's oceans to a depth unattainable by man, and declaring to all mankind the futility of a further nuclear arms race. For: "... as one scientist said - soon there will be a trend for everyone ..... "But politicians thought that this would lead to stagnation of scientific and technical developments in the field of nuclear physics .......
    3. Glenn witcher
      4 October 2012 13: 55
      +1
      Doctor Merkuurdigelibe Strangelove approves. The main thing is to have time to announce such a device before General R.’s antics. wink
  5. Horla
    Horla 4 October 2012 12: 00
    +2
    In addition to the military-technical component of our Armed Forces, we must take into account the moral character of the political and military leadership. Considering the speed with which our industry, science, Armed Forces were ruined, how the latest missile systems were destroyed (Oka, railway complexes, etc.) ,,] combat-ready ships of the main classes, aviation, is our main problem here. Until the 20th year, 8 years are left. How many years has a destroyer-cruiser class ship been built in our country? Correctly, the entire industry should already work in three shifts. Normal money has been allocated for the development of the defense industry. But how will they be spent? Corvettes and one submarine do not scare Americans, one hope that they will die of laughter looking at us. Can our senior officials and generals count on this?
  6. Manager
    Manager 4 October 2012 12: 59
    +2
    It is enough to be men, and to place something secret from the USA in Cuba and with Uga Chavez as a guest. This is the best guarantor.
    1. gregor6549
      gregor6549 4 October 2012 13: 52
      +2
      It was already, remember the Caribbean crisis. And hopes of placing "something" more serious than a Kalashnikov assault rifle near the United States' side in secret under current reconnaissance. technologies and the intelligence network of the States in Latin America is nothing more than an illusion, and not an adult man, but a primary school student of a very high school
      1. Manager
        Manager 4 October 2012 14: 38
        0
        Quote: gregor6549

        It was already, remember the Caribbean crisis. And hopes of placing "something" more serious than a Kalashnikov assault rifle near the United States' side in secret under current reconnaissance. technologies and the intelligence network of the States in Latin America is nothing more than an illusion, and not an adult man, but a primary school student of a very high school


        Nude! Nude!
      2. Ratibor12
        Ratibor12 4 October 2012 19: 50
        +2
        Quote: gregor6549
        It was already, remember the Caribbean crisis. And hopes of placing "something" more serious than a Kalashnikov assault rifle near the United States' side in secret under current reconnaissance. technologies and the intelligence network of the States in Latin America is nothing more than an illusion, and not an adult man, but a primary school student of a very high school


        To repeat "Anadyr" one must become the Soviet Union again.
  7. gregor6549
    gregor6549 4 October 2012 13: 04
    +4
    The entire experience in the development of air defense systems and then missile defense as well as numerous theoretical studies in this area showed that 100% protection against aerospace weapons was not, is not and cannot be. Those. in the context of a full-scale nuclear war between countries such as Russia and the United States, all these Aegis and other missile defense systems are no more than a bluff and are good at various mask shows. .
    Therefore, the post-war world did not rest on the parity of protective measures, but on the parity of the means of attack. All games with air defense and missile defense systems were and are in fact nothing more than a very effective means of extorting real money from taxpayer pockets, either state or Russian, under unrealistic projects and promises to protect their citizens from adversary.
    It is not for nothing that the strategy of a preemptive strike lay at the heart of the USSR's military doctrine for many years. The stake on this strategy especially increased in the post-war years after the lessons learned in the initial period of the Second World War and was replaced only in the last years of the existence of the USSR by the strategy of the so-called. defense sufficiency. So both Aegis and Boeings with laser "pukals" and everything else, if applicable, is only on a very limited scale and against very limited countries that have some kind of nuclear weapons. Although with them it is still a big question. And with the current nuclear missile potential of the United States and Russia, even if someone deserves to hit first, he will still get a counter brick from behind the fence .. After that there will be no one to argue and there is no need to argue.
    1. gregor6549
      gregor6549 4 October 2012 14: 06
      +3
      And further. All assessments of the effectiveness of air defense / missile defense systems are based on the theory of probability, which in turn uses the theory of large numbers. Those. to obtain a certain probabilistic assessment, it is necessary to carry out a very large number of tests of missile defense systems in a very wide range of their combat use. Considering the cost of all these systems and tests, as well as the fundamental impossibility of simulating all possible conditions during the testing process, it is unrealistic to obtain these statistics. And computer simulation in terms of assessing the probabilistic characteristics of the effectiveness of missile defense also has a lot of limitations and is very far from real life. Therefore, all these simulations and tests really boil down to a conclusion like "we may be able to protect, maybe not, but in general it is unlikely, although it may be worth a try"
    2. Ascetic
      Ascetic 4 October 2012 14: 19
      +2
      Quote: gregor6549
      The entire experience of developing air defense systems and then missile defense systems as well as numerous theoretical studies in this area showed that there was no, no, and cannot be 100% defense against aerospace weapons. Those. in the context of a full-scale nuclear war between countries such as Russia and the United States, all these Aegis and other missile defense systems are no more than a bluff and are good at various mask shows.


      American missile defense is primarily designed for a small group of targets. It is quite imperfect and is built on the assumption that American diplomacy will reduce the missile threat from Russia to a certain meager, which, in principle, can then be blocked by the existing missile defense system.
      If there will be a lot of these Russian missiles, as much as there is at the moment, and we will not reduce our arsenal (and we will not), and even more so if the number of warheads on these missiles increases (but it is already actually increasing) , then the entire American missile defense in this case will be extremely ineffective simply by oversaturation principle.
      The American missile defense system, like any device, has a certain maximum load. If this load is exceeded, then everything is turned off. For example, at the time of big holidays, on New Year's Eve, everyone knows the effect when it is impossible to get through. The American missile defense system is designed for a certain maximum number of missiles. When it is overloaded, it will intercept these missiles, but it will not be able to process the rest, and they will reach the target.
      If we keep our old missiles, they will be effective, true, because, firstly, they are quite perfect, secondly, they can be upgraded, and thirdly, these missiles really are a big "headache" for the United States.
      1. gregor6549
        gregor6549 4 October 2012 18: 22
        +1
        It is difficult to say what is meant by the word "new" or "old". Any equipment, including rocketry, has its own resource, and if the resource is exhausted, then the equipment must be changed to the same, but fresh, or to a new one. In each specific case, the decision should be made on the basis of the country's real economic capabilities, the capabilities of the military-industrial complex, the compliance of the technical performance with the tasks that they must solve and the means of counteraction that exist or may appear in the forecast period. Those. the task of churning out new and new models of missiles without the presence of serious justifications is both high-cost and pointless. Again, in no case should the situation be brought to the same level as with short- and medium-range missiles. Those. the possibility of inflicting irreparable damage to a potential adversary in the "worst case scenario" (if necessary, retaliation) and no more must be guaranteed.
        And this will be more than enough so that the enemy does not run into such a blow, not to mention the first blow. And do not rush to extremes. First, stand, sorry, making cancer with these missiles and then destroy them in the same position., As it was already more than once.
  8. Ascetic
    Ascetic 4 October 2012 14: 40
    +2
    Now in the press there is a lot of talk about the "Breakthrough" or "Inevitability" projects. Of course, there is a lot of "rubbish" and disinformation, but in reality the implementation of this project will completely neutralize the amerovskoy missile defense system. Now R&D is underway on this topic, the highest minds decide to entrust product Krasmash or negotiate with our unpredictable brothers about attracting already proven Yuzhmash technologies, the brothers seem not to mind so far, so we will
    probably work.
    A similar project (if not now) has been developed since the mid-80s of the last century by Utkin, Nadiradze (after the death of Solomon), Efremov. By December 1990 a prototype was made at Yuzhmash and on December 27 a test launch was planned from the Plesetsk cosmodrome, which was never carried out for all well-known political reasons and the project was accordingly abandoned.
    Well, better late than never, especially since since 2004 we have been armed with "winged" BB for ICBMs (now they are being put on "Yars"). The production time for such a class of super-heavy missiles (this one will be able to carry various gifts to Santa Claus up to 5 tons) is about 7 years, with the most pessimistic estimates, just by 2020 the set will change the Voevoda.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. I think so
        I think so 4 October 2012 23: 47
        -1
        Solomon for some time is not an authoritative person. He is a first-rate chatterbox, but the developer, and even less so the strategist, is empty. It is enough to say that it was he who dragged the country into the senseless development of solid-fuel rockets and even mobile ones. These missiles are significantly inferior to both US counterparts and Soviet liquid-fuel missiles in all (!) Parameters.
    2. postman
      postman 4 October 2012 20: 31
      0
      Quote: Ascetic
      all the more so since 2004 we have been armed with "winged" BB for ICBMs (now they are being put on "Yars").

      ?
      Where does "Drovishki" (information) come from?
      tape.ru?
      BB of the second level of resistance, the defeat of the target is carried out with high accuracy - the CVO of the new complex is estimated as not exceeding a value of 150 m.
      there are no "wings".
      Do you have any idea of ​​the technical complexity of solving the problem of "winged" BB, in an ICBM (BGRK RS-24), which does not have significant external differences from the BGRK "Topol-M", but with a reduced firing range (compared with Topol-M) by 1000 km ( due to an increase in the cast mass)
      1. Ascetic
        Ascetic 5 October 2012 18: 54
        +3
        Quote: Postman
        Do you have any idea of ​​the technical complexity of solving the problem of "winged" BB, in an ICBM (BGRK RS-24), which does not have significant external differences from the BGRK "Topol-M", but with a reduced firing range (compared with Topol-M) by 1000 km ( due to an increase in the cast mass)


        I represent for the Topol-M ICBM, which has a large stock of volume and discharged mass in comparison with a single combat unit individual guidance performs the functions of a maneuvering warhead hypersonic cruise missile,(waveguide) that is, an ICBM throws a missile launcher into the target area, for its subsequent attack on a difficult to intercept low-altitude profile, and the cruise missile leaves the fairing of the ICBM after reducing speed to aerodynamically acceptable values
        when traction ramjet hypersonic Raman start working in the oncoming flow).
        This BB was tested in 2004. In service since 2005
        Mace and YaRS (first) equipped maneuvering BB which were previously banned by the START Treaty, and after the US withdrew from the ABM Treaty, work in this direction was resumed in Russia
        On the final (usually already atmospheric) flight section, such a combat unit is capable of maneuvering, deviating from the ballistic trajectory. To be able to maneuver, the warhead is additionally equipped with controls and its own control system. Deviation of the combat unit is carried out through the use of transverse control engines or aerodynamic control means - rudders, biconical body capable of bending etc. To increase accuracy in a maneuvering combat unit, a homing system can be used.

        You have in the picture the platform RGCh Minutmen-3
        This type of block is called RGCH IN. With this scheme, a special rocket design was used breeding stage. It consisted of a control and guidance system and was equipped with its own marching and steering engines. The main task of the breeding stage is the removal of warheads to their trajectories. The simplest breeding option is the situation when all the goals of the blocks lie on one straight line and then they just need to be given different speeds. After separating the last marching stage of the ballistic missile, the maneuvering dilution step enters the trajectory of the first warhead and separates it. Then it maneuvers, accelerates, orientates and shoots the second block. This operation is repeated for all warheads.

        My webpage
        1. Ascetic
          Ascetic 5 October 2012 19: 06
          +2
          The building of the platform for breeding warheads of the 15Zh55M "Yars" ICBMs in the workshop of the Votkinsk Machine-Building Plant. Shown in the media on 21.03.2011/XNUMX/XNUMX
        2. postman
          postman 5 October 2012 21: 38
          0
          Quote: Ascetic
          for Topol-M ICBMs, which have a large stock of volume and cast mass
          the difference is 200kg, there is no more. The volume is unchanged.
          Quote: Ascetic
          that is, an ICBM throws a missile launcher into the target area, for its subsequent attack on a low-altitude profile difficult to intercept


          This is no longer an ICBM, but something similar to Agni or DF, of medium range, practically without leaving our atmosphere, and the speeds there are different ...
          Quote: Ascetic
          performs hypersonic cruise missile, (wave-breaker)

          He (the wavebreaker) was not seen by anyone except the journalist.
          We saw and have objective data of the WaveRider X-51A (and it took only 16 seconds to complete it), but there are only rumors about the "mythical" wave flight from Topol-M.
          I note 51A weighs 1600 kg (1100 kg of fuel), with a length of 8 meters. and 16 seconds .... We don’t have this technology yet, much less
          Quote: Ascetic
          In service since 2005
          , no matter where he doesn’t go. Journalists carry nonsense.
          Type of fuel scramjet? Weight? What is left over from 1200 kg in the barley? gram 100?
          General Baluevsky's "unpredictable weapon"?
          Quote: Ascetic
          Mace and YaRS (first) equipped with maneuvering BB

          Russian officials said that such blocks will equipped with Bulava and RS-24 missiles.

          Quote: Ascetic
          previously banned by the START Treaty,

          How?
          START-I: restrictions on nuclear weapons, prohibition of BRVZ, PR, PPU Bi KR
          START-2: prohibits (forbidden) RGH, but not MaRV and moreover not MaRV with HSCM


          Quote: Ascetic
          To be able to maneuver, the combat unit is additionally equipped with controls and its own control system

          It has nothing to do with MaRV with HSCM.

          Quote: Ascetic
          You have in the picture the platform RGCh Minutmen-3

          of course, and the training layout

          Where will I get from Yars or Poplar-M? This does not change the essence, the principle is the same.

          Quote: Ascetic
          This type of block is called RGCH IN

          I did not deny this
          1. Ascetic
            Ascetic 5 October 2012 22: 48
            +2
            Quote: Postman
            Where will I get from Yars or Poplar-M? This does not change the essence, the principle is the same.


            The head part is detachable monoblock thermonuclear. It is possible to equip with a multiple warhead with individual targeting warheads with a capacity of 150 kt, unified with the R-30 Bulava warheads, numbering from 3 to 6. In addition, the 15Zh65 missile of the Topol-M complex can be equipped with a maneuvering head.
            My webpage

            As you can see, the principle is not quite the same, I agree with YRS that are similar to the breeding stage, and then they will already change in new series to the technology tested in May this year "Vanguard".... In Topol-M, the warhead is unified, if you wish, you can shove a CD like the Mosquito (of course not the 9m anti-ship missile of the variant) with YABZ or a planning CAV, which is most likely at the moment.
            By the way, "Vanguard is the same YARS only on it there is no breeding stage, hypersonic maneuvering BBs with their own engines. Approximately as in the figure below. Even the old Poplar could carry 3 MIRVs, but we were on duty with a monoblock, periodically the Americans, according to the agreement, came to check the absence ts There was such a warning signal "Scarlet veil" on it, we had to remove from the APU BG to roll it out halfway out of the "Crown", leaving only the head and covering everything else with a tarpaulin screen and all this in 30 minutes if you are late for an international scandal ..

            Quote: Postman
            Russian officials said that Bulava and RS-24 missiles would be equipped with such blocks.


            mace not really ICBMs
            Mace warheads this is "aircraft with maneuvering warheads". Something like the Boeing X-51 only flies faster, further and without problems (Cold-2 project) That is why the Bulava have a flat trajectory and do not go beyond the atmosphere - when the carrier speed reaches 6 max, the blocks are separated at an altitude of 50-60 km and their scramjet are activated, accelerating to 10-11 max. Then they fly on a flight program with the ability to enter the target from different angles. Therefore, the SM-3 is powerless against these blocks, since kinetic interceptors can be aimed at targets only in a sufficiently deep vacuum (the reasons are clear, I hope?). Plus, due to the flat trajectory and the absence of the need to fly along a ballistic trajectory, the path traveled by the blocks is reduced by ~ 1,5 times, which means that light and heat will come to the house of an ordinary American much faster. And since the flight takes place in the atmosphere, it is well controlled by aerodynamic surfaces, which complicates the interception of such a unit by orders of magnitude. In fact, only A-235 can intercept these targets now, and in the future, developed missile interceptors for the S-500, unified with this system
            1. Ascetic
              Ascetic 5 October 2012 23: 03
              +2
              video of our hypersonic warheads at the Kura training ground. Pay attention to their brightness. This is caused by severe friction of the body against the air.



              In short, in conclusion, I can say that for BB and LA with the scramjet. our work has only recently thawed. But we will not find out about this for a long time, and again not from ours, but from astonished Americans. what
              1. postman
                postman 6 October 2012 00: 16
                +1


                True, something similar?
                And if you look for the videos of Minuteman -3, there is even cooler 16M (if I'm not mistaken at an altitude of 30).
                nor any "hypersonic maneuvering BB"
            2. postman
              postman 6 October 2012 00: 07
              0
              Quote: Ascetic
              Warhead detachable monoblock thermonuclear

              MIRV (3X)
              Quote: Ascetic
              if desired, you can shove the CR like

              DO NOT INSERT, DIMENSION DOES NOT ALLOW, FOR SCREW NEEDING LENGTH
              (air intake: compression, braking, racing, MIXING (Fuel and OXIDANT) combustion, nozzle). Due to the speed (C / sound) of the flow (gas), a channel length is required for the combustion process. WHERE TO TAKE IT IN A warhead with dimensions Poplar? Most likely it was about this:

              Quote: Ascetic
              the mace is not exactly ICBM

              not less than 8 thousand km? What is this? This is not Iskander with its semiballistic trajectory.
              Quote: Ascetic
              Something like a Boeing X-51
              , while he is the only real and "Cold-2", "Needle" and others like them ..... At best, at the stage of calculation.
              GPVRD- you can’t work out at the stand.
              Quote: Ascetic
              Separate at an altitude of 50-60 km and turn on their scramjet accelerating to 10-11 Mach.
              newspapers .. zhurnalyugi.
              HOW MANY fly did not think? 15-30 minutes?
              at 10M = 5000-6000K, to remind what heat protection was on the Shuttle, Buran? Weight? how much time is in braking (task to BRAKE, slow down). 1200kg is not enough even for thermal protection, it is better not to remember about ablation, the icicle melted will arrive.
              Quote: Ascetic
              having the opportunity to approach the target from different angles.

              In azimuth or what? Is there enough kinetics in reserve, for such a maneuver?
              Quote: Ascetic
              Therefore, the SM-3 is powerless against these blocks, since kinetic interceptors can be aimed at targets only in a sufficiently deep vacuum (the reasons are clear, I hope?)

              not understandable, LEAP detects a target beyond 300km in the atmosphere or through the airspace.
              SM-3 on the drum: deep vacuum or not.
              What is SM-3 (RIM-161) / 270 km /? This is RIM-156 (ceiling 33km) + enlarged MK72 + MK 136. MK-136 in 30 seconds will throw MK-142 200 km from the surface or at an altitude of 50 km it will deliver 500 km from the launch point.
              From 30 to 270 km, the Mk 142 will confidently intercept the target.
              You are confusing with the Exoguard atmospheric atmosphere.
              Quote: Ascetic
              due to the flat trajectory and the absence of the need to fly along a ballistic trajectory, the path traveled by the blocks is reduced by ~ 1,5 times

              ??? At a distance of 7000 km or more, the speed of delivery of "light and heat" is equal to the ballistic trajectory.
              1. postman
                postman 6 October 2012 00: 07
                +1
                Quote: Ascetic
                And since the flight takes place in the atmosphere, it is well controlled by aerodynamic surfaces
                and??? it slows down, the speed drops, you need a tank and a small cart to maintain this speed ..
                Quote: Ascetic
                capable of intercepting now only the A-235

                Which one? 53T6M? (40 km, The only start-up and "development of draft designs for fiberglass launch nozzles is underway")
                She is not able to intercept anything, because she is not there, has not been born yet, in the process stage.
                And I doubt that we can create something close to 5 kg howling DACS.
                In any case, there is no question of kinetic damage.
  9. The comment was deleted.
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 5 October 2012 14: 36
      +1
      Academician Solomonov - performer of TK. Like the soldier, what they ordered is what he does. Any questions?
  10. sapulid
    sapulid 5 October 2012 14: 51
    0
    You know, he lived in this world for a long time. saw the USSR, then "drunken years" with the sale of state secrets for the bubble by our "alcohol". I remember 2000 in Belgium, when a Belgian bum laughed at the sunken Kursk boat and at the flaming TV center. Has anything changed since then? Maybe 90s reciters get you?
    Life is changing. Lagging in one direction, it is necessary to create the cheapest and most effective anti-de-activation tools.
    Imagine a near-Earth orbit clogging, for example, with steel balls. What is the percentage of traversal of this belt by enemy missiles?
    The answer to the withdrawal from the ABM must be felt now, otherwise, all Iskanders will turn out to be an afterword of our destruction, which will not bring us any benefit if we die.
    Sorry, but, to revive, have not yet learned. ME, it will be easier to survive 20 years without any satellite support than to live with the thought that my children can be killed for nothing, only out of the desire of the strongest ..
  11. ramzes1776
    ramzes1776 5 October 2012 18: 49
    0
    They have all GPS navigation for missile defense and not only tied to the satellite constellation. If you deprive them of "eyes and ears" before a retaliatory strike, then the entire missile defense system turns into a heap of scrap metal! And also how such systems as Aegis and Aegis can intercept missiles deployed in deep in the territory of Russia?
  12. ramzes1776
    ramzes1776 5 October 2012 19: 20
    0
    From M. Kalashnikov's book "The Wrath of the Orcs"
    "Simultaneously with the work on the RLV program, NASA is conducting design research on promising engines that will make it possible to create heavy hypersonic aircraft by 2025-2035. The Yankees prefer combined propulsion systems that can operate at all stages of flight: from the moment of launch to reaching hypersonic speeds and entry into a near-earth orbit. These installations primarily include the RBCC (Rocket-Based Combined Cycle) ramjet engines, capable of operating both in the mode of a conventional liquid-propellant rocket engine and according to the scheme of a ramjet engine. completely unique rocket-turbine engines TVSS (Turbine-Based Combined Cycle), which can work both as a typical rocket engine, and as a gas turbine engine, similar to those on combat fighters.

    Can you imagine what it smells like? With such an engine, the American apparatus will be able to fly with equal success both in the air and in space. This means that the American attacking vehicles can gracefully jump into space, avoiding any attempts to shoot them down, and just as easily dive back, hitting any target in the air, on land and at sea. Even the most secure. A dive - and you appear directly over the Krasnoyarsk missile bases. Dive - and you are over Moscow. Once - and you hit any ship in the ocean with an almost sheer rocket strike. "
    Who is thinking about this? Fiction?
    1. Ascetic
      Ascetic 5 October 2012 20: 43
      +2
      September 21 ended with great advice on a new heavy missile (intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), liquid, hypersonic warhead that will be able to overcome the American missile defense system). . The new missile will have to replace the world's heaviest ballistic missile R-36M2 "Voivoda", known in the West as SS-18 "Satan"
      According to information for 2012, the Strategic Missile Forces contain 388 deployed strategic carriers with 1290 warheads on them. At the same time, the Strategic Missile Forces are still armed with 58 R-36M Voyevoda missiles (580 charges) and 70 UR-100N UTTH missiles (420 charges). That is, the vast majority of Russian nuclear weapons are deployed on missiles whose life will expire in the very near future.
      1. Ascetic
        Ascetic 5 October 2012 20: 54
        +2
        In this matter, we apparently focused on the following concept of the use of ILI for ICBMs.
        combining a typical ICBM (developed by MIT OJSC) with a new hypersonic maneuvering warhead (GMBB) based on a high-speed missile launcher with remote control based on an air defense engine or a gas engine, it is possible to achieve a reliable breakthrough of the existing and planned missile defense echelon.
        In simple terms, a missile defense system throws TFR onto enemy territory at a point that is outside the missile defense area, and then TFR, on a given flight path, outside the radar visibility range, reaches the target and destroys it. The flight time of high-speed SKR (Mn = 4,0-4,5) to the target at a distance of 500 km will be from 7 to 10 minutes, depending on the chosen trajectory. (Modern MBBs can only perform evasion maneuvers to effectively counter missile defense systems).
        firstly: declared effective range of modern missile defense systems about 500 km;
        Secondly: these missile defense systems respond only to targets that pose a potential threat to the protected object and, therefore, if the expected estimated point of fall of the BB is outside their area of ​​responsibility and range, the missile defense system does not respond to such BBs
        From this we can conclude that if the ballistic missile defense will be made in the form of hypersonic rocket launchers with a flight range of more than 500 km, and the calculated (by ballistic trajectory) point of impact of such a ballistic missile defense will be outside the "zone of responsibility" of the missile defense system, then no missile defense system for such a purpose will not respond. Therefore, when the missile defense system, after some time "sees" the TFR, it will not be able to effectively intercept it.
        Strange as it may seem, the weakest link is the issue of creating an SPVRD optimally integrated with TFR. And if the creation of SLE with a flight speed of Mn = 4,5-5,0 is a purely technical task with minimal technical risks (both design bureaus and teams and technologies that have experience in creating such CRs as Mosquito, Onyx, X- 31), the creation of the SPVRD proper has a number of problems, the main of which is the lack of a specialized motor design bureau. (The only specialized design bureau was liquidated in 1993, and Levanov I.B., a student of M. M. Bondaryuk (ГК ОКБ-2003) died in 670. There were no official successors in this direction after him
        On September 19, 2012, at a retreat of the military-industrial commission in Tula, Dmitry Rogozin announced plans to create holding company responsible for the development of hypersonic technologies... the holding will unite the main Russian developers of this type of weapon: the corporation "Tactical missile weapons "(KTRV) and NPO Mashinostroeniya (NPOmash).
        Development today hypersonic aircraft in Russia are developing in the following areas:
        - Maneuvering warheads for intercontinental land and sea-based ballistic missiles
        The Zircon anti-ship missile system developed by NPOmash, with a hypersonic missile.
        An airborne-based missile system, so far an unknown name, with a missile whose speed should exceed the speed of sound by 12-13 times, developed by KTRV.
        1. Ascetic
          Ascetic 5 October 2012 21: 20
          +2
          Moreover, the work is now more than relevant - the creation of hypersonic devices in the framework of the program Prompt Global Strike - Instant Global Strike - It is also actively being conducted in the USA, which set themselves the goal of creating a high-precision non-nuclear weapon system that allows them to hit anywhere on the planet for an hour.
          November 17, 2011 the device AHW (Advanced Hypersonic Weapon) was launched from the Hawaiian Islands and flew about 3800 km to the Kwajalein Atoll. The Pentagon does not report the speed of AHW, but it was hypersonic and at least five times the speed of sound
          AHW, in fact, is a high-precision guided warhead, which is launched using a 16-ton modified three-stage launch vehicle.
          The exact figures of the maximum elevation of the trajectory are unknown, apparently it is less than that of nuclear ICBMs, at least several times, i.e. height not more than 200-300 km. This can significantly reduce the time of approach to the target, and gives other nuclear powers the opportunity to understand that a missile with a non-nuclear warhead has been launched. With a maximum range of 6 thousand km, AHW reaches the target in just 35 minutes and hits it with an accuracy of 10 m. Apparently, the guidance is provided by an inertial navigation system with GPS correction and, possibly, with a passive sensor in the terminal portion of the flight. The target is destroyed as a result of the kinetic effects of a warhead flying at high hypersonic speed.
          The appearance of the AHW can only be judged by the computer drawing provided by the Pentagon.
          The AHW program is not particularly advertised by the Pentagon, primarily because this hypersonic ammunition is almost ready for use and will surely become the main non-nuclear weapon of the United States for delivering the first strike on the most important enemy targets. Due to the high speed and short approach time, AHW is almost impossible to shoot down with modern air defense systems. The new weapon will allow the Pentagon to destroy virtually any target anywhere in the world within two hours of receiving the order
  13. Ascetic
    Ascetic 5 October 2012 21: 30
    +2
    We should improve our own means of destruction. And not only nuclear, but also those that can be used against elements of the American missile defense system, and as an additional offensive force that allows maintaining a strategic balance. If the Americans consider hypersonic weapons as a way, if not to replace, then significantly supplement the capabilities of nuclear forces, then we should pay special attention to it. It does not fall within the limitations of international agreements. But the effectiveness of hypersonic systems allows us to consider them as an additional factor of strategic deterrence, which allows us to maintain the potential of a retaliatory strike. In the event of attempts to stop a retaliatory missile strike by intercepting, or preemptively destroying ICBMs, we will have another way not to leave the aggressor unanswered. Moreover, the product is not inferior in effectiveness and quite universal in terms of carriers - it can be placed both on aircraft and on sea carriers. They are not limited to the INF Treaty, which prohibits only medium- and short-range ground systems. They make it possible to have enough carriers in combat readiness to make the enemy not even think about their preventive destruction.
    This weapon will make senseless attempts to tune the missile defense system to destroy the ICBMs in the upper stage. And the combination of hypersonic acceleration with a maneuvering warhead will bury all missile defense capabilities, intercepting on the middle and final section of the trajectory. Our scientific and technical groundwork in this direction is still superior to the American one, which is still at the beginning of a long journey. It remains to develop it and not to lag. The first stage in the creation of such weapons, we have already passed
    Today we have (unlike the Americans) operating models of maneuvering ICBM warheads. They were tested back in 2004, when, following the results of the Safety-2004 exercises, Vladimir Putin said that “the latest technical systems will be put into the arsenal of the Russian army, which will be able to hit targets at intercontinental depth with hypersonic speed and high accuracy, with the ability to deep maneuver both in height and course. ” They can be put into orbit, like conventional warheads, using ICBMs. But intercepting them is practically impossible technically by any, even the most promising missile defense system. Counteraction to them is possible only if they are not allowed to separate from the booster carrier and enter an independent trajectory, that is, again, interception at the initial site or a preventive disarming strike on launchers.
    Now the decision has been made on the second stage (hypersonic acceleration).
  14. Bergen
    Bergen 28 December 2013 13: 23
    0
    Missile defense and methods of dealing with it, of course, is a fascinating and intricate topic. The most important thing is very costly, and with a traditional American sweep, you can generally fly into the pipe. So it is necessary to continue to maintain this wonderful attitude in the "American partners". For obvious reasons, the public comment does not mention really simple, cheap and 100% effective methods that can nullify all efforts to create a missile defense system. It is known that back in the Soviet years, a variant of laying nuclear containers on the territory of a "potential partner" was developed by the sabotage special forces of the GRU (pay attention even to the standard special compartment at the bottom of the taxiway of a GRU fighter, it is specially designed for a small cylinder), the power is certainly not compare with YARS or Bulava, but 2 Hiroshima can be arranged easily. In a short time, you can mine the whole of America in this way. I read that the North Korean special forces are using similar tactics, and are constantly laying such cylinders in South Korea and Japan, apparently for the final implementation of Juche's ideas in life))). Particularly interesting, in this context, seem Russia's actions to collect and dispose of radioactive waste from all over the world on Novaya Zemlya, you can bypass all missile defense systems, arrange such a nuclear nightmare for the whole world, simply by detonating this "dirty bomb" in the event of a real threat, which will make planet Earth uninhabited for the next million years. All these, of course, are dirty methods, but isn't the swinish attempt by our overseas friend to violate the treaty of 72nd something similar? All goodness and peace!