Military Review

Comparing US and Russian Missile Defense: Is there a real threat to the security of the Russian Federation?

61



Beginning with 23 in March 1983, when Ronald Reagan announced a strategic defense initiative (SOI, better known in the media as the Star Wars program), the world media and state officials began an active discussion on missile defense (PRO). The discussion periodically reached the level of hysteria. Mutual threats and disapproving statements, first by the leaderships of the USA and the USSR, and after the collapse of the USSR — the USA and the Russian Federation — were not rare. The subject of missile defense has again become aggravated in recent years, as the United States began to restore plans for the development of its missile defense system for some time. Especially noticeable irritation in the Russian Federation was caused by the desire of Washington to create a global missile defense system, with the deployment of radar and anti-missile systems in the countries of NATO (including in Eastern Europe). Also, the United States and Japan, which later joined them, began to actively strengthen sea-based missile defense systems, putting more and more destroyers and cruisers with Aegis systems on board.

In connection with the current situation, it is worthwhile to compare the capabilities of the US and Russian missile defense systems. Despite noticeably less publicity, Russia possesses missile defense systems that are not inferior, and in many ways superior to those of the United States. This is especially true of ground systems designed to combat intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). In fact, at the moment, the only one that has successfully passed many tests with such a system is equipped with Moscow PRO. It is represented by the A-135 system, consisting of the Don-2Н radar, with the ability to track targets up to 100, at distances up to 2000 km, and the 53Т6 Gazelle missiles. At the latter stands out separately. These rockets, weighing in 10 tons, have amazing speed characteristics - in just 3-4 seconds the rocket picks up the maximum speed, which according to different data ranges from 4 to 5,5 kilometers per second. The acceleration is so great that the human eye cannot trace the flight of this anti-missile. During start-up, overloads to 210G are achieved and, despite this, the entire sophisticated guidance system in the rocket continues to function. The target is intercepted at ranges up to 80 km and at altitudes up to 30 km, using tactical nuclear or fragmentation warheads.

A similar system was created in the USA. It was called "Safeguard" and was deployed at the Grand Forks base in 1975, however, due to a large number of technical problems, such as the flare of its own system radars by explosions of nuclear combat units of its own antimissiles, the project was closed already in 1976. After that, as already mentioned, in 1983, the development of a Star Wars missile defense system was announced. It was planned to place several echelons of combat satellites in orbit of the earth, each of which would carry a certain number of antimissiles, or be equipped with other means of combating missiles, such as combat lasers. However, as it turned out, all this noise was just a bluff in the cold war with the USSR. The goal was to force the USSR to spend enormous resources on the creation of new ICBMs and a similar missile defense system, although its creation is technologically impossible even now.

Now it is worth returning to the current realities. At the moment, the United States is developing and setting up a missile defense system with the principle of kinetic interception - that is, the destruction of a warhead with the help of an accurate missile attack, flying at great speed. Today, more than 30 EKV (Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle) missiles are deployed on the Grand Forks base, which are launched using a special three-stage rocket carrier GBI (Ground Based Interceptor). This missile defense system as a whole is called GMD - Ground-based Midcourse Defense. The exact characteristics of the EKV are unknown, but it is known that this anti-missile weighs about 70 kg and has an infrared guidance system - it flies to the warmed warhead of the enemy ICBM. On missile missile tests hit the target at an altitude of 250 km. However, not everything is so rosy - from 14, only 8 launches were successful. At the same time, it is not known in how many cases it was possible to destroy the warhead, and not just knock it off the trajectory (if the warhead has a nuclear weapon, be sure to completely destroy it, since the explosion is not allowed even at a great distance from the originally intended target). Also doubtful is the ability of this system to hit new Russian Topol-m ICBM warheads that can maneuver in the final leg of the flight. In this aspect, the kinetic interception is noticeably inferior to the traditional interception using a low-power nuclear explosion or a fragmentation explosion.

On the same principle of kinetic interception, the US naval missile defense system is also being built, which, for the sake of justice, is noticeably ahead of the sea-based missile defense system of the Russian Federation, which is represented by the C-300FM - Fort-M naval modification. This system is not able to cope with medium-range, long-range and intercontinental missiles. The United States is adopting more and more ships equipped with the Aegis system and SM-3 antimissiles. So far, there is a Block IA modification in service with the United States, and soon IB Block will arrive, who can hit missiles with a range of up to 3000 km. In the future, it is planned to put into service the Block IIA modification, which will be able to shoot down long-range missiles - up to 6000 km. And approximately by 2020, it is planned to create a Block IIB modification, which will be able to effectively deal with ICBMs. In general, the Aegis system seems to be a very formidable force, however, according to a report made by independent American military scientists in 2009, the system is currently not in the best condition. Of the 10 intercepted warheads, only 2 were destroyed, the rest were only knocked off course. This, with the official total probability of hitting 84%, makes the system very vulnerable in the case of nuclear warheads.

Now it is worth considering the immediate and long-term development prospects of the missile defense system of the RF In addition to the A-135 system, the C-400 mobile anti-aircraft missile system (SAM) is in service, for which the 40H6Е rocket will soon be put into service, with a range of 400 km and a height of damage up to 185 km - this system is not inferior in performance to the system PRO SM-3 Block IA-IB. In the foreseeable future (the dates are called up to 2017 of the year), the C-500 systems will go into service with the Russian Federation. These highly mobile systems will be able to deal with any types of missiles, including ICBMs in the final leg of the flight. The range of destruction, according to some data, will be about 600 km, while at the same time they will be able to fire at 10 targets, at speeds of up to 7 km / s (ICBM warhead speed). It can be assumed that a ship version of this system will also be created, which will allow the Americans to catch up on this aspect.

Also at the last stage of development is an updated Moscow missile defense system, which will replace the aging A-135. This is the A-235 Aircraft-M system. There is little data on the characteristics of the system, it is only known that the 53Т6 anti-missiles will be replaced with new ones with a more accurate guidance system and a reliable system of destruction of high-explosive fragmentation warheads, rather than small nuclear explosions.

In recent years, the United States often talked about creating a global missile defense system, including the deployment of its elements in Eastern Europe. Once there was an attempt to deploy a missile defense system radar and a number of antimissiles in Poland and the Czech Republic, but under pressure from the Russian Federation that threatened to deploy Iskander-M missiles in Kaliningrad, as well as as a result of a change in policy after the election of Barack Obama as US president . However, this does not mean that it will not be implemented in the future.

In light of this, it is worth analyzing whether the spread of the US strategic missile defense system to the security world of the Russian Federation and the possibility of irreparable damage to the enemy with a massive nuclear strike threaten. As noted above, the missile defense systems in the US are far from being as perfect as they like to say. And this is despite the fact that they are tested on the simplest warheads that do not have missile defense systems. In addition, the cost of anti-missile missiles is very high, and creating enough of them to seriously counter a massive strike is almost impossible. However, if we consider the deployment of missile defense elements outside the territory of their country and in more than one area of ​​positioning (as stipulated by the agreement signed by the United States and the USSR), as a political step and an opportunity to increase their influence, the Russian Federation will soon also be able to present surprises by posting , for example, C-500 in the CSTO countries.

In addition, in the Russian Federation in recent years there is a powerful strengthening of strategic missile forces. The armaments of the Topol-M and Yars ICBMs that are able to effectively overcome the missile defense system are already in service, and the sea-based Mace rocket is next in line. Until the end of 2013, the new Frontier ICBM will be put into service, the characteristics of which have not yet been disclosed. An interesting project of the Skif ICBM, which will be launched from the ocean or sea bottom, is also being developed. By 2018, a new heavy liquid ICBM should be developed, which will replace the outdated Р-36М, with the ominous nickname "Satan" (the rocket carries 8 nuclear warheads, the 1 is megaton each and is the most powerful in the world).

As a result, we see that the US missile defense system, which is quite strongly inflated by the media and politicians, in the foreseeable future will absolutely not be able to influence the possibility of nuclear deterrence. That is, neither for the Russian Federation, nor for the USA will there be real security threats. There will be no prerequisites for a global war, which is good news.
Author:
Originator:
http://regnum.ru/news/polit/1670223.html
61 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Nicholas C.
    Nicholas C. 14 June 2013 06: 31
    19
    No illusions and self-deception. There are always threats. And even more so, from the USA. And every day it is necessary to plow so that these threats do not materialize.
    1. Orel
      Orel 14 June 2013 06: 47
      +4
      As far as I understand the author of the article, the creation of a global US missile defense is technically impossible. It turns out that the US is forcing us to spend large sums on the development of new, more high-tech ICBMs. Well, if so, then let it be. The new ICBMs are only in our favor.
      1. MG42
        MG42 14 June 2013 07: 00
        14
        Russia has enough potential to break through the American missile defense, iskander in the Kaliningrad region. cover all amero missile defense in Poland ..
        The best defense = this is an attack ..
        map attached
        1. Renat
          Renat 14 June 2013 07: 46
          13
          All right, the best defense is attack. Another principle among amers is to push the possible front as far away from their borders as possible. What is Europe to them? So, the field of a possible battle and nothing more. And the Europeans are boasting for protection from Uncle Sam. Yes, my uncle wanted to spit on this continent.
          1. MG42
            MG42 14 June 2013 07: 54
            +9
            Quote: Renat
            Another principle among amers is to push the possible front as far away from their borders as possible.

            The Amers fought all wars, except for the civil one between the north and south, in foreign territories, however, this is not the main thing, but the fact that the ICBM is most vulnerable at the initial part of the flight trajectory, and when the warheads are divided, for example, the "voivode" is old relative to the "yars" and it goes under covering false targets and maneuvering warheads, you will shoot down the hell at the end of the flight path. soldier
            As for the "Iskander" = then he was just created to neutralize the pro, since his missile is difficult to intercept, almost unrealistic.
        2. pensioner
          pensioner 14 June 2013 12: 38
          +1
          Good afternoon man and machine gun! It seems to me that Poland in this ring looks especially nice ...
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 14 June 2013 08: 25
      +1
      Of course, I’m an ignoramus in pro, but as I understand it, if I launch my missile defense against YaB at a meeting with flying missiles, it will blow all American missiles flying to us laughing
      It's cool, of course, but it would be better if we put everything on the database that we never had to apply. Oh dreams recourse
      1. MG42
        MG42 14 June 2013 08: 44
        +6
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        Of course, I’m an ignoramus in pro, but as I understand it, if I launch my missile defense against YaB at a meeting with flying missiles, it will blow all American missiles flying to us

        It’s better not to do this .. an air nuclear explosion is fraught with extensive radioactive contamination to consider where it will explode and the wind rose ..
        below on the video about short range, but how many of them will be needed to intercept in the final section, for example miniteman III = there are three warheads
        Therefore, amers and pro move closer to the borders ..
        By the way, the "voivode" is designed to pass through the cloud of a nuclear explosion ..
        1. Arberes
          Arberes 14 June 2013 10: 08
          +3
          Here is the author stated. what is our missile defense. with the help of a small nuclear charge will destroy the warheads or blocks (as you like) of the enemy. I have no doubt!
          It’s just that the question begs itself: after a nuclear charge is blown up at an altitude of 10–20 km, a powerful electromagnetic pulse arises that puts all the electronics out of order. Or is the interceptor’s nuclear charge so small that this effect can be avoided?
          Who in the subject answer, I will be grateful. hi
          1. Mizhgan
            Mizhgan 14 June 2013 10: 15
            +1
            Quote: Arberes
            It’s just that the question begs itself: after a nuclear charge is blown up at an altitude of 10–20 km, a powerful electromagnetic pulse arises that puts all the electronics out of order.

            Household - yes, it will lead .... In military equipment, electronics is reliably protected ... This is not very difficult from a technical point of view ... Simple physics, no more. )
          2. MG42
            MG42 14 June 2013 10: 23
            +3
            Nothing will happen to her, the electronics are turned off for the time when the cloud of a nuclear explosion passes ..
            1. pensioner
              pensioner 14 June 2013 12: 42
              0
              But what about EMP? How to neutralize it? EMR - eddy currents in the product + powerful magnetic fields - heating - dog. How to deal with this?
              1. MG42
                MG42 14 June 2013 13: 27
                +2
                Quote: retired
                But what about EMP? How to neutralize it?

                You are not the first to worry about such a question ..
                The first targeted work in this area was the Miniteman, Poseidon and Polaris missile defense systems against electromagnetic radiation.
                According to American experts, these systems have almost absolute protection.

                http://forums.airbase.ru/2008/09/t27117--elektromagnitnyj-impuls-yadernogo-vzryv
                a.3426.html
                1. pensioner
                  pensioner 14 June 2013 14: 08
                  +1
                  Thank you.
        2. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 14 June 2013 10: 12
          +1
          Quote: MG42
          It’s better not to do this .. an air nuclear explosion is fraught with extensive radioactive contamination to consider where it will explode and the wind rose ..

          And if in space on a collision course?
          1. Arberes
            Arberes 14 June 2013 10: 22
            +1
            Quote: Alexander Romanov
            And if in space on a collision course?

            We cannot in space yet! We do not have such interceptors. Amer said that their new "standard" can work in near space? But how real is it ???
            Hello hi
          2. The comment was deleted.
      2. mogus
        mogus 14 June 2013 08: 50
        +1
        Nuclear weapons, in the modern world, as the last grenade. I myself will not give up and take away the enemies with me.
        Nowhere is there a 100% guarantee that one of the many warheads will not break through to the target ...
        We can detonate warheads over the enemy’s missile defense, so they can do over us ...
      3. leon-iv
        leon-iv 14 June 2013 09: 33
        +1
        no, it’s not going to demolish a very strong defense
        1. Alexander Romanov
          Alexander Romanov 14 June 2013 10: 13
          +1
          Quote: leon-iv
          no, it’s not going to demolish a very strong defense

          How not to demolish, but C 300 in your opinion?
          1. leon-iv
            leon-iv 14 June 2013 10: 39
            +2
            How not to demolish, but C 300 in your opinion?

            if near the epicenter then yes if km 2-3 then pass
            S-300 is not able to intercept ballistics and has never been able and will not be able to
            The S-300V (the most important thing in the letter B remember) is capable of intercepting ballistic missile and tactical nuclear weapons intercept the probability of this is not high.
    4. discard
      discard 14 June 2013 08: 51
      -3
      And we plow. Here the president said on June 13.06.2013, XNUMX that we will reduce all development programs except weapons and social programs.
      How wonderful it is to slow down our creeping development for the sake of the suspiciousness of citizens who are continuously intimidated by the American missile defense.
      As the buildup of modern weapons is becoming more expensive, there will certainly come a time to reduce social programs. This we have already passed.
  2. avant-garde
    avant-garde 14 June 2013 06: 41
    11
    Well, it turns out that not everything is as sad as some pessimists think. Well, as already mentioned above, you need to plow, plow and plow, in order to restore what we managed to profuc in the 90s!
  3. mogus
    mogus 14 June 2013 06: 51
    +2
    missile launch A 135 http://www.youtube.com/watch?hl=en&client=mv-google&gl=RU&rl=yes&v=H4gZ8CejbXs&f
    eature = related & nomobile = 1
  4. fenix57
    fenix57 14 June 2013 07: 00
    +3
    Well, like, do not strain ... Oh, I do not believe it! "Comparison of US and Russian missile defense: is there a real threat to the security of the Russian Federation?"- and what is doubters ... So it’s in vain ..
    "Once there was an attempt to deploy a missile defense radar and a number of interceptor missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic, but under pressure from the Russian Federation, which threatened to deploy Iskander-M missile systems in Kaliningrad .."- the question: why should the leadership "inform" a potential adversary about the deployment of ANYTHING? OSNV-2-so it seems like the wrong moment.
    "By 2018, a new heavy liquid ICBM should be developed ..."-a before, and the key word-"must"... God forbid, all the same, 2018. hi
  5. mogus
    mogus 14 June 2013 07: 05
    11

    Rocket launch A 135
    1. hommer
      hommer 14 June 2013 11: 40
      0
      Rocket launch A 135


      Impressive.
      But what is going on with our "friends" -U.S. Air Force officers responsible for launching ICBMs have been suspended for poor combat readiness.
      The reason for such an unprecedented in terms of staffing decision was a check of officers of the 91st missile wing deployed at the Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota, which showed that the military was completely unprepared to prepare and launch intercontinental ballistic missiles of the Minuteman-3 type in “We are in a critical situation,” said Unit Commander Lieutenant Colonel Jay Folds in an email for internal use, a copy of which was at the disposal of the Associated Press.


      The letter, in particular, states that the unit reigns in an atmosphere of indifference and mutual responsibility, that at least one case of gross violation of safety rules was observed during the handling of rocket armament.


      For the US Air Force, the case of the removal from service of 17 officers at once is unprecedented in mass. In total, the 91st missile wing includes 150 troops.
      The commander of the 91st rocket wing, Colonel Robert Wercher admitted that the command was disappointed with the results of the audit. “This is a problem, and we will solve it,” he said.
      http://vz.ru/news/2013/5/8/631852.html
  6. 094711601
    094711601 14 June 2013 07: 14
    +3
    Yes, they will burst soon from their Anglo-Saxon arrogance, not such empires disappeared! And they will hiccup, and will come round for everything that they do in the world! So many human lives on their conscience ...... Swelled from oil and drug dollars ... ... About, rockets, let them create, EVERYTHING IS EASY BROKEN!
  7. enot555
    enot555 14 June 2013 07: 31
    +6
    fun rockets float away
    meet them you Obama wait
    and although America is a little sorry
    the Japs have it ahead.
    maybe we offended someone in vain
    dropping a couple of extra megatons,
    see how fun the earth is boiling
    where the Pentagon was once))))
    the nuclear fungus stands swinging
    resting right in the sky
    NATO tanks are like candles melting here,
    to hell they let the factory ...
    am am am am am
  8. saved
    saved 14 June 2013 07: 32
    +1
    The current danger of an enemy attack on our country does not add up to only one nuclear component. So missile defense may not even live up to real launches. NF is only a deterrent to a possible strike. However, missile defense is essentially the same factor. So it’s better to have a shield than to fight with a sword alone.
  9. Alikovo
    Alikovo 14 June 2013 07: 33
    +3
    Satan still needs to be left, she was awl in the backside of the West, she can only be upgraded.
  10. Oberst_71
    Oberst_71 14 June 2013 07: 33
    +3
    forget about our vast expanses. Recall the Canadian direction. It is there that the shortest distance to the USA. Through the north pole. Place nuclear weapons there. Launch trains with nuclear missiles. Remove the capital from Moscow. Let it be the historical capital! As Kutuzov said! "Leaving Moscow, we will save the army, losing the army, we will lose both Moscow and Russia." Remove the state structure from Moscow and it will lose attractiveness as a goal. Stretch government agencies in Russia. And most likely the US missile defense will not be needed.
  11. Ivan79
    Ivan79 14 June 2013 07: 35
    +2
    Although the amer’s missile defense system is not so rosy, but as they say, do not underestimate the likely enemy. And keep your gunpowder always dry. Recent tests of a new solid rocket, proof of this.
  12. Tarpon
    Tarpon 14 June 2013 07: 49
    +1
    In the foreseeable future (the terms are called until 2017), the S-500 systems will go into service with the Russian Federation.

    Interesting system! If only done on time.
    These highly mobile systems will be able to combat any type of missile, including ICBMs at the final flight site. The destruction range, according to some reports, will be about 600 km, while at the same time they will be able to fire up to 10 targets, at a speed of up to 7 km / s (ICBM warhead speed).

    It is also important how many goals the system can detect and track at the same time.
    It can be assumed that a ship version of this system will also be created, which will allow the Americans to leave ahead in this aspect.

    It would be great.
  13. The comment was deleted.
  14. KazaK Bo
    KazaK Bo 14 June 2013 08: 11
    +1
    The prospect of missile defense reliability in a comprehensive solution to the problem. With the current means of technical reconnaissance, stationary objects of the starting positions of the A135 (235) system are quite obvious targets. In this regard, mobile complexes are very promising. Back in the S-300, the foundations of missile defense were laid ... but in the early versions they did not show themselves well ... Now these flaws are largely brought to mind. The S-400 contains more serious missile defense indicators ... and the S-500 promises to further increase combat capabilities. The maneuverability and relative autonomy of these air defense systems will make it possible to solve two problems - to increase the invulnerability of this type of defense and, on the other hand, to circumvent the stringent requirements of a missile defense agreement, from which Russia has not yet withdrawn.
    1. leon-iv
      leon-iv 14 June 2013 09: 29
      0
      What kind of missile defense capabilities are inherent in 400?
  15. cartridge
    cartridge 14 June 2013 08: 21
    +3
    No missile defense will save America. With any version of the war with Russia, its territory will be guaranteed to be destroyed and not once. The leadership of the United States and the Pentagon is well aware of this.
    As for Russia, nobody is going to look idly on the development of military technologies in the field of missile defense. Adequate answers are and will be.
    1. MG42
      MG42 14 June 2013 08: 59
      +3
      Amers now rely not on mine ICBMs, it is no secret that <minitmen III> are already living out their term, like our "voivode", they rely on submarines with nuclear missiles, it will be more difficult to cope with them ... the opposition is the same <mace> and mobile complexes "Yars".
      1. Arberes
        Arberes 14 June 2013 10: 29
        +1
        Quote: MG42
        they rely on submarines with nuclear missiles, it will be more difficult to cope with them .. the opposition is the same "mace" and mobile complexes "yars".

        I would also include the YASEN nuclear submarine in this complex of opposition.
        1. MG42
          MG42 14 June 2013 10: 35
          +5
          Quote: Arberes
          switched on the nuclear submarine "ASH".

          so we are talking about missiles actually to the <mace> you can add <blue>
          1. Arberes
            Arberes 14 June 2013 11: 43
            +1
            Quote: Arberes
            they rely on submarines with nuclear missiles, it will be more difficult to cope with them ..

            To make it easier to cope with them, for this, more multi-purpose "Ash" are needed!
            Quote: MG42
            you can add <blue>

            I absolutely agree with you, dear colleague hi drinks
            1. MG42
              MG42 14 June 2013 13: 07
              +3
              Quote: Arberes
              for this, more multi-purpose "Ash" are needed!

              Colleague, I just don’t see in the ash trees a project 885 missile armament of the mace and blue type .. for the blue 667BDRM "Dolphin", for the "mace" project 955 "Borey"
              1. Arberes
                Arberes 14 June 2013 18: 41
                +2
                Quote: MG42
                Colleague, I just don't see the project 885 missile armament of the "mace" type in the ash trees

                Why do these boats need a mace! They are primarily designed to detect, track and destroy NATO and US boats with ballistic missiles on board.
                This is what I am trying to convey to you. drinks
                1. MG42
                  MG42 14 June 2013 19: 53
                  +3
                  Quote: Arberes
                  They are primarily designed to detect, track and destroy NATO and US boats with ballistic missiles on board.

                  They (project 885) can also hit ground targets with 3M14 cruise missiles, surface-to-water missiles and onyx and 3M54 caliber, which are steeper than granite. Now a plus.
  16. Avenger711
    Avenger711 14 June 2013 08: 29
    +1
    Beating first is always easier.
    1. MG42
      MG42 14 June 2013 10: 45
      +2
      I agree. The result will be something like this >>
  17. LOCKS
    LOCKS 14 June 2013 09: 01
    0
    The fact that amers with missile defense is not going as smoothly as they say is certainly good. But difficulties exist for that to overcome them, and here the main thing is to keep abreast. What the slogan leads to catch up and overtake, we already know, but an adequate answer should be. And the fact that we are not screaming about our successes in this direction should not mean that we are not ready for this.
    1. fisherman
      fisherman 14 June 2013 19: 43
      0
      adequate and asymmetric response
    2. The comment was deleted.
  18. Rumata
    Rumata 14 June 2013 09: 07
    +1
    The author is a little disingenuous. When he talks about Aegis, cites data from 2009, a lot has changed in 4 years. On the other hand, the author writes about the "imminent arrival" of missiles for the S-400, as well as the newest S-500. At the same time, the S-300MF is almost called part of a missile defense system, which, in fact, it is not, since it cannot shoot down, something that may fly to Russia.

    Roughly speaking, what the US had before is compared with what Russia will have in the future =). Also, not a word what exactly closes the Russian missile defense, namely, part of the European part of the country and that’s all. There is a comparison of US missile defense with Moscow region missile defense.
    At the moment, neither Russia nor the United States can protect themselves from a nuclear strike, and if so, both countries will be destroyed. But as for me, the United States has taken a very smart step, strengthening the naval component of missile defense.

    But why the global missile defense of Russia, I don’t really understand, is it not better to rivet missiles smarter and let them soar spending resources and time .. Cover a couple of cities, as now Moscow and all ...
    1. leon-iv
      leon-iv 14 June 2013 09: 31
      0
      But why Russia’s missile defense system doesn’t really understand if it’s better to rivet rockets smarter and let them soar while spending resources and time ..

      why about Israel?
      1. Rumata
        Rumata 14 June 2013 10: 08
        +1
        Quote: leon-iv
        why about Israel?

        Israel has a very small territory, which is relatively easy to cover. Just imagine what expenses are needed to cover the whole territory of Russia
        1. leon-iv
          leon-iv 14 June 2013 10: 41
          +1
          Just imagine what expenses are needed to cover the whole territory of Russia

          And why the whole are blocked by key nodes and theater. damn reduction of the NSW there are other measures. When missile defense works in population cities, it will be at a minimum.
  19. vol46an
    vol46an 14 June 2013 09: 17
    +1
    More terrible than the American military threat is internal treason in the upper echelons of power.
  20. Svarog
    Svarog 14 June 2013 09: 20
    +4
    Here in this video, the start is best seen, at 10:30 see:
    1. MG42
      MG42 14 June 2013 17: 05
      +2
      Quote: Svarog
      at 10:30 see:

      There are a lot of lyrics on the video, the main thing is that they hit 10.33, although there is some kind of glitch at 10.38, pay attention on some intricate trajectory, on the contrary, approaching the place of the fragment fragmentation?
  21. Mikhail m
    Mikhail m 14 June 2013 09: 26
    0
    The US missile defense system, which is quite heavily inflated by media and politicians, in the foreseeable future will absolutely not be able to affect the possibility of nuclear deterrence

    Do amers have nowhere to go? Or are they just that? Something I doubt ...
    1. screw cutter
      screw cutter 14 June 2013 12: 06
      0
      Do amers have nowhere to go? Or are they just that? Something I doubt ... [/ quote]
      They print them.
  22. krez-74
    krez-74 14 June 2013 09: 26
    0
    In general, I am sure of this, all such analytics resembles how men find out who has a longer member ... History has repeatedly shown that it is not the one who is longer who is stronger, but the one who skillfully uses what he has!
    1. Mizhgan
      Mizhgan 14 June 2013 09: 47
      0
      Quote: krez-74
      In general, I am sure of this, all such analytics resembles how men find out who has a longer member ... History has repeatedly shown that it is not the one who is longer who is stronger, but the one who skillfully uses what he has!

      Let me disagree with you. If a woman does not want, then the skill is unlikely to help. Even with ten black belts in martial arts, you can hardly resist a man with a gun. But if you have a gun, that is, you are on a par, then skill will come in handy. And if you have an automatic weapon, and the grenade launcher is loaded, then the man with the gun will still think whether to raise the gun, or to sweep widely ... The main thing here is not to turn your back, but be always on the alert, as the gun can still shoot.
      Something like this.
      1. krez-74
        krez-74 14 June 2013 10: 12
        0
        And I do not agree with you ... If a woman does not want, then do not even try!
        As for the quantity and color of belts, and the presence of a gun, then here we must judge purely on the presence or absence of spirit! Yes, and getting around a fool is skill and wisdom (anyone can get involved). But with regard to more serious weapons, it is effective only when the opponent also has it. The effectiveness of the drone against a person on the donkey is close to zero (the USA in Afghanistan demonstrates this clearly).
        But at the expense of "not turning your back", then you are right!
  23. rudolff
    rudolff 14 June 2013 11: 13
    +4
    The article is crafty. Such conclusions would be valid only in one case, if the Americans and I "amicably" agreed to start a nuclear war on a specific day and hour. One side launches its own missiles and simultaneously tries to intercept the opposing side's missiles. But since it is guaranteed to intercept no more than a few percent of all warheads, and the remaining ones are guaranteed to destroy either side, and no one wants to die, this means that such a war is, in principle, impossible!
  24. Tektor
    Tektor 14 June 2013 11: 32
    +1
    I would suggest considering, in addition to the high-explosive fragmentation warhead for A-235 missiles, also a cunning kinetic one. The trick lies in the fact that at the final stage of rendezvous, the warhead releases "grenades" into the area of ​​the meeting points, which, flying up to the calculated point, turned into an intricate network: six arrows would be separated from the main central part due to rotation, to which the braided in a clever way rings made of steel (carbon) cables. The network forms the largest possible area to increase the likelihood of interception. Warhead - mortar, more precisely - net gun. For example, grenades - 40 - 80 caliber, and their number - from three pieces ... Such a warhead can become universal for all other interceptor missiles ... The probability of kinetic interception increases with the number of network interceptors.
  25. rudolff
    rudolff 14 June 2013 12: 12
    +2
    Everything is a little more complicated than this analyst is trying to present in his article. A real opportunity to win a nuclear conflict still has a clear advantage here, namely the United States. But only on condition that the first blow will be behind them. Using the strategy of "global strike" and massively using cruise missiles with tactical nuclear warheads in the first wave, they are almost guaranteed to destroy most of our nuclear potential. First of all, this concerns submarines (taking into account the current coefficient of combat stress at the same time at sea no more than one or two), strategic aviation, silo and mobile missiles in the European part of Russia, as well as early warning stations and missile defense and air defense facilities. The second wave of ballistic missiles will be aimed at destroying missile systems in the Trans-Urals and Siberia. If during this period of time between the first and second waves we still manage to launch a certain number of missiles into the territory of the United States (and not all missiles are aimed at them), then the global missile defense system will already start working. As a result, only a few warheads will reach their goal and there will be no guaranteed destruction. If they improve their technologies for hypersound, then their chances will be even higher, then air defense systems can then be ignored altogether.
    But this is all a theory. Honestly, I can hardly imagine the situation for the Americans to take such a step. There are no motives or even hypothetical benefits. Not so much we interfere with their lives.
  26. gregor6549
    gregor6549 14 June 2013 12: 38
    0
    Comparison of US and Russian missile defense: is there a real threat to the security of the Russian Federation? Not. Point
  27. Good fellow
    Good fellow 14 June 2013 13: 53
    0
    The question interests: in the event of war, satellites, like ground observation stations, will be disabled first of all. At what altitude do our military satellites operate in orbits and can our potential adversary reach it with their missile defense? That's how the article says up to 250 km in altitude, they can work on goals. Yes, and China, one year ago, reached a rocket to its satellite, increasing the amount of space debris in orbit.
    1. nersmail
      14 June 2013 14: 05
      +1
      Geostationary JCE-1 is not exactly reach. The height of the orbit of such 35 786 km above sea level
  28. Muxauk
    Muxauk 14 June 2013 14: 09
    0
    at the expense of star wars, I found a film on the Internet, it was told there, we launched a combat satellite into space, only an error occurred in the calculations and it fell, which basically makes it all possible, then the hunchback closed the project, the film was called something like a laser.
    in short, the conclusion that they made there is that we were able to defeat star wars, it’s a pity hunchback came to power, and not Stalin2, then the whole world would be on a point now
    1. nersmail
      14 June 2013 14: 18
      0
      It was a mock-up of an orbital platform for a combat laser. Skif-DM. But there was no real weapon on it. In addition, it is not entirely clear how to power a laser of the appropriate power. And also to present all the insanity of the figure that will have to be spent on the creation of a real-life network of such stations.
  29. soldier's grandson
    soldier's grandson 14 June 2013 14: 19
    +2
    in such a war there will be no winners
  30. Good fellow
    Good fellow 14 June 2013 14: 21
    +1
    Although this is what Wikipedia issued: On January 11, 2007, China successfully tested its own anti-satellite weapons: the FY-1C Fengyun meteorological satellite, located in polar orbit at an altitude of 865 km, was hit by a direct hit from an anti-satellite missile. They will definitely not reach the geostationary one. Although something suggests that if we "land" satellites from each other from orbit, then this is already a world war and there will be no time for satellites, most likely the near space will be saturated with other creations of human hands with nuclear stuffing ....
  31. srha
    srha 14 June 2013 15: 04
    0
    And why is there no analysis in the article of the most likely scenario of a strike - disarming? Why is there no analysis of the state-of-the-art concept of the US missile defense - the selection of missiles accidentally surviving after a disarming strike? Why is there no analysis of the time frame for decision making and its impact on survival? Why is there no quantitative comparison of the forces involved and the calculation of their collision? What kind of security can we talk about without analyzing this data?
  32. The comment was deleted.
  33. leon1204id
    leon1204id 2 September 2014 18: 56
    0
    As for the S-500, refinement is still in progress, and the SM-3 is already being mass-produced, already in the US Navy, they are baked like sausages. In the SM-5 project.