This spring, events occurred in the United States that in the foreseeable future could turn the current ideas about how to wage war. On May 1, successful tests of the X-51A hypersonic missile passed, which, after launching from the bomber, developed the speed in Mach 5,1 and over the course of 6 minutes of flight overcame the distance in 426 kilometers. May 14 from the atomic aircraft carrier "George Bush" for the first time flew into the air strike drone X-47B, which in the course of the test made several landings on the deck of the ship. The fact that even 20-30 years ago seemed to be tasks in the field of science fiction, today it is becoming a high-tech reality. Does it have a place for Russia, and are we able to respond to the challenges of our time?
Despite the fact that the era of the Cold War is a thing of the past, it is criminal to underestimate the military threats to Russia's security. Recall how long the liberal "good uncles" have convinced us that, thanks to the expansion of the West to the east, there is a world without borders, in which national sovereignty becomes an outdated concept. And it turned out to be an ordinary lie.
In fact, there is no dying off of sovereignty, but a narrowing of the circle of players who are capable of possessing it. At one time, President Putin said that sovereignty in the modern world is an exclusive thing. Indeed, there is a certain threshold of real sovereignty related to the country's capabilities in the economic, scientific, technical, military, and cultural spheres, a threshold that only a relatively small part of states in the modern world can take. But if some states have the opportunity to “save” on sovereignty, existing under someone’s “strategic umbrella”, then Russia simply does not have such an opportunity. The geographical position, the amount of controlled resources, and finally, the historical experience of our country itself is such that it must be independent and strong, or it will not exist at all. This thought is very succinctly expressed in the article: “weakness is a provocation”, “we should not introduce anyone with our weakness into temptation”.
It is obvious that in the 21st century, when access to natural resources is reduced, there will be a sharp increase in competition in the world. This is already happening before our eyes. Western civilization does not intend to abandon the high level of consumption, which means that it will build up tools to draw these resources from other countries. As history shows, the most effective of them are advanced military technologies, and developments that have previously been assigned a secondary role are increasingly coming to the fore. This, for example, concerns cyber weapons. If earlier all military developments in this area concerned only the security of computer systems and communications, now information technologies are considered as weapon first strike.
In the event of a conflict with any state, a possible first attack is made through information networks, during which critical infrastructure facilities of the state are destroyed, the system of political and military control is disrupted, machines with electromotive devices based on imported electronic components are turned off. When the victim state of aggression becomes almost paralyzed, it is struck with classical military means. Tellingly, Moscow has repeatedly raised the issue of deeper joint participation in cybersecurity projects within the framework of the RF-NATO Council, but the Atlantic partners each time refused us.
Of course, Russia does not intend to participate in the new military technology race as an outside observer. “Responding to the threats and challenges of today only means condemning ourselves to the eternal role of lagging behind. We must by all means ensure technical, technological, and organizational superiority over any potential adversary,” said Russian President Vladimir Putin in his article “To Be Strong: National Warranties security for Russia. "
It is no coincidence that one of the first decrees of Vladimir Putin during his third presidential term was the basic Decree No. 603 from 7 in May 2012 of the year “On the implementation of plans for the construction and development of the Armed Forces and the modernization of the military-industrial complex”. The government has developed a detailed program for the implementation of this decree, and the work is proceeding in accordance with the established deadlines. So, in 2012, almost 500 defense companies were covered by technical re-equipment, of which new capacities were already put into operation at 35. The mechanisms of public-private partnership are being improved, within the framework of this work a concept has been developed for the use of PPP mechanisms in the military-industrial complex. The concept will simplify the current procedure for creating new military production facilities, as well as attract private investment in the defense industry. It is also planned to expand the information exchange of private investors and defense organizations, including through the GAS GOZ system that we are implementing.
As for the defense industry complex, over the past year the growth rates in a number of industries working for the defense industry were significantly higher than the average for the economy. An increase in production volumes in 2012 compared to 2011 is observed in radio-electronic (by 11,7%), rocket and space (by 10,8%), aviation industry (10,6%), the production of ammunition and special chemicals (7,4%), conventional weapons (5,4%). Statistics show that the lion's share of this growth was ensured precisely due to the supply of military products to the domestic market and (to a lesser extent) to export. These data make the thesis of Vladimir Putin's article on the defense industry complex as a locomotive of economic growth quite illustrative.
Much has been done by us to solve one of the most painful problems of the defense complex - the shortage of qualified personnel. In 2012, the list of 120 of the most sought-after professions in the industry was formed, and it will become the basis for the formation of modern professional and educational standards.
The process of integration of defense enterprises in the framework of large modern corporations and concerns continues. Yesterday’s decree of V.Putin essentially started the process of consolidation of the rocket and space industry.
A lot has been done, and this inspires some optimism regarding the prospects for the implementation of an unprecedented state-of-the-art weapons program, according to which, by 2020, the share of modern weapons should increase to 70 percent. But have we all taken into account, are we ready and ready for all the challenges?
In order to understand what forces and means of armed struggle are necessary for Russia, it is necessary to soberly assess the nature of military threats to the country's security, albeit hypothetical ones. What war can we expect in the future? Who is he - this notorious "likely opponent"?
Scenario one: contactless war with an adversary at a higher technological level
We will be realistic - in the near future, Russia will hardly succeed in catching up and overtaking the leading powers in terms of the technological level of development. The Russian economy is 10 less than the US one. Yes, and the scientific potential of the country was actually destroyed after the collapse of the USSR. Today, the lag in a number of critical basic technologies from the leading countries of the West is decades. What can we oppose to such a high-tech adversary? The answer seems obvious - the main guarantee of Russia's security is the forces of strategic nuclear deterrence. And Russia, according to the military doctrine, is ready to use nuclear weapons, including in repelling aggression with the use of conventional weapons. But is it enough in today's realities only a nuclear shield?
For more than 10 for years, the concept of a "lightning global strike" has been explored in the USA. It is she who plays the role of the most important component of the American military strategy. The concept provides for striking non-nuclear weapons on any part of the planet for 1 hours. In fact, for the first time in 50 years, American strategists had a vision of how to defeat another nuclear power with “little blood”, while avoiding unacceptable damage from the enemy’s response.
At the end of 2012, the Pentagon conducted a computer game, the results of which showed that as a result of striking a "large and highly developed country" with 3500-4000 units of precision weapons, its infrastructure would be almost completely destroyed during 6 hours, and the state would lose its ability to resist. Obviously, if such a blow is delivered to Russia, then the main objectives of the aggressor will be the forces of strategic nuclear deterrence. According to estimates in the United States, as a result of such a strike, 80-90% of our nuclear potential can be destroyed. At the same time losses among the civilian population will be minimal. Western experts believe that although Russia will still have the opportunity to strike back a nuclear attack on the aggressor, the military-political leadership of our country is unlikely to do this: after all, the remaining means, which the global missile defense will try to intercept, are already we will not be able to inflict unacceptable damage to the enemy, but in the event of a nuclear retaliatory strike we will suffer enormous losses. It should be added that in the unanimous opinion of Western experts, such an attack will be accompanied by a powerful information and propaganda effect on the population of the victim country.
What can we do to counter this threat if it is really directed against us? This should be an asymmetric response, using fundamentally new types of weapons. These weapons should not rely on existing telecommunications systems that can be disabled in minutes. It should be an autonomous, self-sufficient weapon that can independently solve its tasks.
Scenario two: contact war with an adversary that is on a technological level equal to us
Since the collapse of the USSR, the strength of the Armed Forces has decreased by more than 4 times. Thousands of kilometers of the border remained uncovered. The country's leadership today is counting on our rapid reaction forces, i.e. on the operational potential of the airborne forces and the mobility of troops. As a result, we were able to quickly form sufficiently powerful army groups of troops deployed from other regions of the country in a threatened direction. But will they be able to effectively resist the enemy, who had previously created a numerical superiority in the conflict zone?
Today, there are alternative classical military theory views on how to counter this threat. A war with such an aggressor must be waged non-contact with them - with a weapon that has a large radius of action, and this weapon must not only strike at enemy personnel and equipment, but also hamper its logistic support.
Scenario Three: Local Wars
The largest local conflict of our time - the war in Afghanistan, has become a cold shower for the Soviet military leadership. The war, which according to the original plans was supposed to end in a few months, stretched over a decade. One of the main reasons for the escalation of the conflict and its escalation into a grueling guerrilla war was the fact that the army’s weapons did not have weapons capable of causing a targeted, targeted effect on the enemy. The army, prepared for large-scale combat operations, was forced to work, as they say, "by area" - using multiple launch rocket systems, heavy artillery, long-range aviation. We remember cases when, on the basis of erroneous intelligence, the command decided to destroy entire villages. All this led to high losses among the civilian population and the rapid growth of supporters of the armed opposition. In general, by the middle of the 80s, a paradoxical situation developed in Afghanistan: the most effective forces were operating against the Mujahideen, using essentially the same tactics and armament as their adversary. There was only one difference - behind our troops was a huge country with a powerful military-industrial complex and military science, which, as it turned out, could not foresee and adequately respond to the Afghan challenge. We encountered similar problems later in the North Caucasus.
In the course of reforming the army, the experience of its participation in local conflicts was, of course, taken into account, both in organizational and technical terms. For example, light armored vehicles with enhanced mine protection, unmanned vehicles, and so on began to enter service. But the problem of the disproportionality of the applied force to the level of the tasks facing the army in the course of local conflicts is still not resolved. The reality is that today, like 30 years ago, we have only those tools that, if applied, bring the conflict into a more difficult phase. We also need a weapon that will allow a soldier to be removed from a direct clash; weapons capable of hitting only those targets that really pose a danger to us.
Scenario Four: Countering Terrorism, including State
The tasks of combating terrorism, if they are not included in the spectrum of purely military tasks, are no less relevant - after all, the level of terrorist threat today is comparable to the military one. Terror does not remain aloof from progress. In the hands of criminals are all new tools, which leads to the emergence of new global threats. Terrorists are adopting information technology. The goals of cyber attacks can be both gaining access to state and personal secrets, as well as direct attacks to destroy the administrative elite and infrastructure of states.
At the same time, the fight against terrorism in Russia today basically comes down to operational-search measures, which are not always coordinated by the special services and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Information technologies are used only as auxiliary mechanisms. Meanwhile, in a number of states, highly intelligent information systems are being developed that can bring the effectiveness of countering terrorism to a qualitatively new level. In such systems, information flows from border crossings, transport, and outdoor video surveillance cameras will be integrated. However, the developers of such total control systems face serious problems - the current level of computer technology does not yet allow processing such powerful information flows. The task can be solved by creating an extraordinary information system, the outlines of which are already being worked out in Russia.
Scenario Five: Confrontation in the Arctic
The active development of the Arctic shelf will inevitably lead to a conflict of interest between the countries making their claims to its resources. It is possible that the confrontation will go beyond the diplomatic. It is likely that Russian oil and gas production facilities may become targets for sabotage by competing countries. It should be understood that the perpetrators of such sabotage may not be clearly associated with the client countries. To strike back and determine the scale of the use of force, it is necessary not only to fix the executors, but also to identify their customers. This requires modern monitoring tools that can work effectively in air and water environments. In the meantime, in full, we do not have such means.
The revitalization of the Northern Sea Route will also not add calm to the Arctic. NATO has long discussed plans to strengthen the naval grouping in the Arctic under the pretext of ensuring the protection of commercial shipping.
Analysis of the above threats pushes disappointing conclusions. Neither the classical military theory, nor the modern practice of the armed forces have clear and unequivocal answers on their countering. In addition, the means, methods and forms of armed struggle, which the modern army is focused on, are not universal for all types of threats. It is obvious that in the near future to solve this and similar non-trivial tasks we need to make a technological breakthrough, which in its scale can be comparable with a nuclear project or with the Soviet space program.
It is obvious that the search for solutions for such non-trivial tasks should be carried out in close cooperation of the military, designers, and technologists. Organizationally, it should involve the Ministry of Defense, research institutions of law enforcement agencies, the Academy of Sciences. The concentration of scientific potential is the only way to eliminate Russia's lag in the field of defense technologies.
The functions of coordination, development and production of the newest types of weapons by defense enterprises should be concentrated in their hands by the Military-Industrial Commission (MIC) under the Government of the Russian Federation. The situation when the defense industrial complex worked without such systemic coordination on the part of the Military Industrial Commission, cannot be called anything but “disorder and vacillation”. Numerous institutions tried to self-realize without taking into account what the country and its Armed Forces really need. A clear contractual policy in the field of prospective studies and conceptual forecasting issues could not be formed by the main customer of the defense industry, the Ministry of Defense, which was given these functions after the collapse of the USSR. In fact, since the beginning of the 90-s, the leaders of the branches of the Armed Forces, who naturally promoted the profile of their own design bureaus, began to make decisions on the creation of new weapons. As a result, we have received many types, small families and duplication of weapons systems.
In the Soviet Union, there was a clear system of interaction between the Ministry of Defense and the defense-industrial complex in the development of new weapon systems based on targeted program planning. This system made it possible to solve not only the tasks of today, but also to look into the future on the basis of forecasts of the development of weapons and military equipment of a potential enemy. The main task of the Military-Industrial Commission is to reanimate this system, naturally, taking into account the realities of today.
Another priority of the military industrial complex today is the creation of an effective system of interaction between the military and civilian sectors of the economy in the interests of the defense complex. It is clear that the development of the DIC only at the expense of budget funds is impossible. New breakthrough dual-use technologies, which, I hope, we will see in the coming years, can attract investment in the industry.
The work of the Military Industrial Commission is critically important for our country. The result of it should be not only the timely and stable supply to the troops of everything necessary for their rearmament, but also the new industrialization of Russia.
We assign a special role in the creation and promotion of advanced developments to the recently established Fund for Promising Research, which should form a modern platform for critically needed new technologies and solutions. In the near future, the Foundation will prepare a three-year prospective work plan. From the second half of 2013, he will begin substantive work on specific projects. Of course, many of them can be perceived by the public and the scientific community as too bold. We are aware that some of the projects of the Foundation will be located in a zone of high and extremely high risk, or will be focused on a very distant future, but, as Alexander the Great said, “nothing is impossible for someone who is trying to do.”
Supporting the spirit and letter of those ideas that Vladimir Putin set out in his election article, “To Be Strong: National Security Guarantees for Russia”, we understand that we are waiting for the titanic work to restore the intellectual and physical power of our Motherland. And we are ready for such work.
PS And please do not read the reports on this report in Forbes and in inv.
Because all that they saw in this report is that Russia is lagging behind the leading countries of the world in a number of technologies, which it carried in the headlines.
And that the United States will easily win Russia in a nuclear war.