Los Angeles Times on the status of US missile defense

45
23 June The United States conducted another test launch as part of the creation of its GMD (Ground-based Midcourse Defense system) ground-based defense system (MTS) to intercept in the middle of the trajectory. It is reported that the GBI interceptor missile (Ground-Based Interceptor - Ground-Based Interceptor) successfully detected the training target and destroyed it. It was the first successful test interception from 2008 of the year. After six years of work on fine-tuning the systems, Boeing’s specialists again managed to intercept the conditional target. This test launch can be considered an achievement of the American defense industry, but it was preceded by several failures. Moreover, the US missile defense program throughout its existence regularly encounters various difficulties and criticisms. First of all, the high cost of the program and the absence of any serious results a decade after its launch are attacked by opponents.



A few days before the last successful test, 15 June, the American edition of the Los Angeles Times published an article by journalist David Willman with a loud headline $ 40-billion missile defense system proves unreliable ("The missile defense system worth 40 billion dollars showed its unreliability"). As the name implies, the author of the publication summed up the interim results of the many years of work of several large companies, and these results cannot be considered positive even in the light of the tests that took place eight days after the article was published.

At the beginning of his review of the situation, D. Willman recalled the previous tests of the American missile defense system. He recalled how the 31 of January 2010, a GBI interceptor rocket, belching flames, roared off Vanderberg base (California) and headed towards a conventional target. The testers were aware of the exact time of launch of the target rocket, its speed, flight path and other parameters. Based on this data, the interceptor flight path was developed. Within a few minutes of the anti-missile, it accelerated to a speed of 4 miles per second and headed for the target. The anti-missile did not hit the target. Tests worth about 200 million dollars failed.

Through 11 months, the ABM Agency conducted new tests that also did not end with the destruction of a conditional target. The next unsuccessful launch of an experienced interceptor missile took place on July 5 2013.

The GMD ABM Development Program is being developed to protect the US from threats from "rogue states" such as Iran or the DPRK. However, the LA Times journalist sums up, after 10 years after the launch and investment of 40 billion dollars, the United States still cannot rely on its new anti-missile shield, which is not yet able to work effectively even in the face of tests with a predetermined scenario. Thus, in recent years, the Missile Defense Agency has conducted 16 anti-missile tests, half of which ended with the successful interception of a training target.

According to D. Willman, despite all the promises of contractors about the shortcomings being corrected, the effectiveness of the GMD complex only decreases when compared with the 1999-2004 tests. After the introduction of the missile defense system in operation in the 2004 year, eight tests were conducted, but only in three anti-missile missiles completed the task. The last successful interception (as of the moment of publication of the article in the LA Times) was 5 December 2008 of the year.

The active deployment of the components of the GMD system was launched in 2002 year after the relevant order of US President George W. Bush. Such a rush affected the efficiency of the system. D. Willman refers to an unnamed high-ranking military official who worked under presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. This Pentagon officer claims that the existing missile defense system is still unreliable, and in fact, a prototype of the complex was put into operation in 2004. This was done solely for political reasons. At that moment, the specialists did not know what needs to be finalized or changed, and their only task was to build the elements of the system.



The LA Times article also contains the words of another specialist. A staff member at the Livermore National Laboratory, Dean A. Wilkening, speaking at a recent conference, called the GMD system a prototype and noted that her condition is worse than everyone could hope for. In addition, Wilkening warned everyone about the possible consequences: if the GMD system in its current state is planned to be used in practice, then one should not be surprised if the unfortunate outcome will exceed all negative expectations. In another speech, Dean A. Wilkening described the test results in one word: “terrible” (abysmal).

Apparently, in their previous statements, US officials seriously overestimated the capabilities of the missile defense system. So, at meetings in Congress, representatives of the Pentagon regularly said that no more than three antimissiles would be required to defeat one enemy warhead. In 2003, Deputy Defense Secretary Edward S. Aldridge Jr. argued that the effectiveness of the GMD system would reach 90%. In 2007, the head of the United States Northern Command, Admiral of the Navy, Timothy J. Keating, spoke in the Senate. He spoke with great confidence about the high effectiveness of the antimissile system.

However, now the author of the publication $ 40-billion missile defense system proves unreliable does not agree with the forecasts of officials. He believes that the test results do not allow to speak about the high efficiency of the built missile defense system. In accordance with the available forecasts, to hit one enemy warhead, GMD calculations will have to be launched before the GBN 4-5 missiles. The system currently has 30 interceptor missiles (4 in Vanderberg and 26 in Fort Greeley, Alaska). This means that only a few enemy missiles are capable of overloading the GMD complex, forcing it to expend all antimissiles on duty, and literally pierce the antimissile shield. The likelihood of a defense breakthrough increases if an enemy rocket carries false targets that can divert anti-missiles.

Despite the existing problems, influential forces continue to insist on the construction of new facilities, including launching pits for interceptor missiles. Several leading US companies are interested in multi-billion dollar contracts. So, Boeing develops and builds missile defense facilities, and Raytheon produces kinetic interceptors for antimissiles. Several thousand jobs in five states directly or indirectly depend on the GMD program.

D. Willman recalls that initially the administration of the current President B. Obama spoke about maintaining the number of anti-missile systems at the current level. However, it is now proposed to increase the number of GBI missiles on duty. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel proposes to deploy additional 2017 interceptors by 14.

The LA Times journalist was unable to get a comment from the Missile Defense Agency, so he had to quote the press service of this organization. Currently, the Agency, according to official information, is testing various systems and is working to improve the reliability of the entire complex. The head of the ABM Agency, Vice-Admiral James D. Siring recently spoke at the Senate Subcommittee and said that the reasons for the last two unsuccessful launches have already been identified. The detected deficiencies of the systems will be corrected by the end of the year.

The author of the article “The missile defense system worth 40 billions of dollars showed its insecurity” recalled some of the features of the GMD project. North Korean or Iranian ballistic missiles must fly to targets in the United States along the shortest route - with the intersection of the Arctic Circle. They are proposed to destroy approximately in the middle of the route, because of which the term Midcourse is present in the name of the system. Such an interception of a ballistic missile is an extremely difficult task, which can be compared with an attempt to hit one bullet into another.

The “bullet” of the GBI rocket is the EKV (Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle) module of one and a half meters length and a weight of 68 kg. The EKV module is launched by a rocket into the transatmospheric space, where it is independently guided to the attacked warhead and hits it by direct collision. The kinetic EKV interceptor has about a thousand details in its composition and the failure of each of them can disrupt the entire interception costing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.

D. Willman recalls that the main concept in the defense and aerospace industries previously was the idea of ​​Fly, then buy (“Fly, then buy”), in accordance with which customers had to wait for the completion of the tests. In the case of the GMD system, the US leadership decided to use the opposite principle: “Buy, then fly.” Moreover, at the beginning of the two thousandth years, the then American Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld released the ABM Agency from all standard procurement and tendering procedures. The agency was able to quickly purchase all the necessary and carry out the necessary work.

At the time of the official launch of the PRO system, the EKV modules of the GBI interceptor missiles were not ready for testing. The first test run using the experienced EKV occurred only in September 2006 of the year - i.e. two years after the start of the deployment of the GMD system. Another problem associated with transatmospheric interceptors is the approach to production. Because of the manual assembly, the EKV modules are different, and the correction of one such product from the test results does not solve problems with others. An increase in production rates will only worsen this situation.

According to D. Willman, about a third of the EKV modules of the GBI missiles (the exact number is unknown) currently on duty belong to a modification that failed the tests in the 2010 year. At the same time, according to the information of unnamed specialists related to the project, they still cannot intercept the targets. Finally, determining the causes of failure is difficult because experienced interceptors burn in the atmosphere or fall into the ocean. Some problems may be related to malfunctions of the control systems of the EKV module, which, in turn, are caused by vibrations during the flight of an interceptor missile.

The elimination of existing deficiencies may take several years, although there are already some successes. According to the Missile Defense Agency, in January 2013, a GBI rocket test was launched, during which no disturbing vibrations were observed. However, experts still have to admit that the manual assembly of EKV modules does not allow us to consider a single test as confirmation of the effectiveness of all antimissiles, including under conditions of real interception.

Over the past few years, various components of the GMD anti-missile complex have shown their capabilities, as well as demonstrated the existing shortcomings. This year marks 10 years since the official launch of the GBI system and missiles. Nevertheless, even now, after investing about 40 billions of dollars, the anti-missile system does not meet the requirements of the customer and is almost incapable of performing its task in terms of actual use against enemy ballistic missiles.

This means that the Pentagon and the Missile Defense Agency will have to continue work on fine-tuning and improving the GMD system, and Congress will have to add new items to the budget for the development of the project. Thus, it can be assumed that David Willman’s article “The missile defense system worth 40 billion dollars showed its unreliability” will not be the last publication describing the problems of the Agency on missile defense and its projects.


Based on:
http://latimes.com/nation/la-na-missile-defense-20140615-story.html
http://inopressa.ru/
http://ria.ru/
Our news channels

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

45 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +7
    26 2014 June
    For every tricky missile defense there are rockets with a screw.
    1. +17
      26 2014 June
      Quote: Stiletto
      For every tricky missile defense there are rockets with a screw.

      A small remark. To shoot "bullet in a bullet" at a maneuvering BB, at a mutual approach speed of 10-12 km / s, is a super task for mechonic interception systems. The communication cycle (according to the signal transit time) will not allow if the control center is from the Earth. We took out the SU to the kinetic block. There is not enough speed and energy to practice the maneuver when changing target parameters. Exit? a) combat laser, b) 2 buckets of steel balls of directional explosion. BUT! heat-resistant (armored) carrots, conical. You can miss or not "PROBE". Then, at a consumption of 4-5 missile defense system for one BB? this is a shot at the sparrows from the TsAR-cannon! (at cost).
      False targets. They are difficult to select. Time is running out. Carrots may be outside the catchment area. Therefore, the Americans are trying to bring down the carrier until the BB is diluted. (Aegis! on the upward path of the ICBM). We are switching to TT ICBMs - the AUT is shorter, the Americans are not in time again. Around bad luck, however.
      Ours went the right way: creating a MIRV is easier and cheaper than creating 100% missile defense! Americans will go broke on their bullet to bullet idea. It will turn out "Bullet - Dula!" IMHO.
      1. +5
        26 2014 June
        "We brought the SU to the kinetic block. There is not enough speed and energy
        to practice the maneuver when changing target parameters "////

        Have you seen what this kinetic block looks like? There are many pictures on the net.
        Such a little "freak" about 100 weight with his motor,
        nozzles in all directions and their GOS. He is very maneuverable. A much more maneuverable warhead.
        Only it needs to be delivered ballistic. trajectories to the correct design point,
        and then he attacks himself, like a kind of space MANPADS.
        The truth is: 1) very expensive 2) not possible for any trajectory.
        The mass launch of missiles in this way cannot be intercepted. But elements of this missile defense system - really not very effective - will be used for future systems.
        1. wanderer_032
          +3
          26 2014 June
          Quote: voyaka uh
          But elements of this missile defense system - really not very effective - will be used for future systems.


          It is amazing how they got everyone, the USA around the world.
          If on their territory, a good half of the countries of the world with nuclear weapons are ready to launch all of this across America.
          And after that the Americans begin to teach life to everyone.
        2. +5
          26 2014 June
          Quote: voyaka uh
          He is very maneuverable. A much more maneuverable warhead.
          And I do not deny it. Only correcting pulses are limited to 3 (!) Inclusions. Tell me, is it enough for much?
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Only it needs to be delivered ballistic. trajectories to the correct design point
          Well, what if this point is constantly changing without falling into a normal ballistic trajectory? There is a correction and removal of the product, then what?
          Quote: voyaka uh
          and then he attacks himself, like a kind of space MANPADS.
          So for this, there are elements of combat equipment to clog both IR and UV channels. I note that this kid needs to think, well, very "smartly": the speed of convergence is very high, and the VNTs area increases with each maneuver.
          Therefore you are right
          Quote: voyaka uh
          this is not possible for any trajectory.
          Do you think at this level the missilemen are fighting "who will fight"? Nope, mathematicians and cybernetics are fighting. For a missile defense breakthrough, countermeasures (present and future) are modeled, taking into account the enemy's weapons.
          By the way, we have a similar missile in aviation, the K-77 is called. If not difficult, take a look.
          And a little detail. I don’t have the habit of talking about what I don’t know. True, time flies very quickly, and there are less and less of those who did this professionally and could briefly share a grain of truth. Cadet Brotherhood - called.
          Sincerely.
        3. +1
          26 2014 June
          Quote: voyaka uh
          He is very maneuverable. A much more maneuverable warhead.

          One clarification. This would be true if the warhead and missile defense were launched simultaneously and ... flew in parallel! That is, you need a solid section of the trajectory, which they will go head to head, then the kinetic block would have a chance to show agility. And your opponent is more likely right - the performance is not enough and, apparently, it will never be enough.
          It is necessary to change the principle of reflection of the rocket, the method itself should be chosen different. But this is completely unrealistic. Apparently, there is simply no one to do something like this - in the decision-making chain at the top, the Americans do not have a single engineer.
          1. +1
            27 2014 June
            Approximately 50% of the interception tests were successful.
            Not thick, but not empty. The first missile missiles had the same
            performance. And what did you do? Fired two rockets at
            one plane. Same here: on a single ICBM launched from the Far
            East across the Pacific across California, from Alaska will shoot two
            interceptors.
            With the interception of medium-range missiles, the Aegis system is
            it's better. There 70-80% of test success.
            Russian missiles launched through the North Pole,
            the battery from Alaska cannot intercept - it does not have time.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. +1
              27 2014 June
              Quote: voyaka uh
              Fired two rockets at
              one plane.

              It is proposed to destroy them approximately in the middle of the route, which is why the name Midcourse is present in the name of the system.

              There is no atmosphere, and far away - no selection.
              A hundred inflatable rocket simulators jump out of each - and wassat
        4. +1
          27 2014 June
          The number of deployed missile defense in the event of the consumption of 4 missile defense per missile or a false target can only be effective in the event of an attack from Iran. Well type 5 rockets.
          Talking about intercepting 100 or 50 missiles is not necessary. Question. Does it need the USA? Do they seriously believe that Iran or North Korea will strike at them?
          1. +1
            27 2014 June
            Alas, a single nuclear strike by an outsider,
            who believes (erroneously) that this will increase his imaginary rating or
            status is real. And the consequences of even one explosion in the center of a big city are terrible.
            You would take risks if a crazy mad lord-enemy of Russia
            vowed to incinerate Moscow?
            And the leaders of Iran and S. Korea make such public statements quite often.
            Bluff? But distinguishing a bluff from a real threat is not easy when the bomb is made.
      2. 0
        26 2014 June
        By the way, according to my opinion, there is nowhere to put chopped paper in the stripes, they would have fed the Negroes better. Anyway, it happens that it rattles so that you don’t hide.
      3. 0
        26 2014 June
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        It will turn out "Bullet - Dula!" IMHO.


        I agree. But they will continue to spin, as if in a frying pan. They really want to bomb everyone themselves, but the "otvetki" are afraid like the devil of incense. hi
      4. 0
        26 2014 June
        They are fighting for Ukraine, Poland, and our other "former friends" in order to put their missile defense miracle there. The task is to shoot down the launching ICBMs to the separation of "combat equipment". But with such a performance in the execution of a combat mission, their GBI will amaze only from a donkey's ears. Poplars and YARS will definitely wave them with deflectors ...
    2. +2
      26 2014 June
      Especially when these anti-missiles are collected by the krivoruky American welder Uncle Vasya laughing who swelled all welding electrodes (in the first photo, the quality of welding of the rocket fairing was striking)
    3. +3
      26 2014 June
      Quote: Stiletto
      For every tricky missile defense there are rockets with a screw.


      Yeah, SOI was so frightening us at one time that now Americans will scratch their turnips for a long time how to shoot down our missiles)))) The Union certainly could not stand the economic race and fell apart, but now we can’t get into our missiles!
    4. striker
      0
      26 2014 June
      Iskander, they definitely will not hit
      1. Matroskin 18
        +1
        28 2014 June
        The testers were aware of the exact launch time of the target rocket, its speed, flight path and other parameters.

        If I know this, then I will knock down this target missile with a rusty chopper!
      2. The comment was deleted.
  2. +3
    26 2014 June
    The Americans decided to bite off more than they can swallow. The kinetic interception of warheads flying at space speeds seems too tough for them. I don’t understand what it was worth stuffing into the interceptor warhead with ready-to-use striking elements, as is done in anti-aircraft missiles?
    A bucket of nuts fired by a directed explosion at a warhead will make it more likely to hit warheads. And then just leave a sieve from it.
  3. +3
    26 2014 June
    continue to cut the shura. As I understand it, in order to finally solve this issue, we just need to build a lunar base and, if necessary, correct the flights of asteroids, so that the meteorites move where necessary and, by the way, I think our RD 180 engines will come in handy for this
  4. +3
    26 2014 June
    Good news at the end of the day.
    1. +1
      26 2014 June
      Quote: GHOST_AAA
      Good news at the end of the day.

      From the night shift?
      In fact: I liked the article! It is for brains, not for emotions. And then, you rarely hear the truth from behind a puddle.
      I have only one question: where do they rock the boat if there is no protection? Or are they adventurously hoping for Moscow State University? So all modern RPKSNy and PGRK they still cannot track and destroy. And will there be new BZHRK? CRBD? We would have sat still, maybe we would have touched. (Don't touch it - it won't stink!) No, every barrel has a plug! crawl into all the holes, "democracy" is established, mlyn!
      And when the dollar collapses, what will you do, wretched? Or do you want to get out of the crisis of the system crisis again? Well, well, play out!
      1. +1
        26 2014 June
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        And when the dollar collapses, what will you do, wretched?

        Duc, they have a printing press! Isho will be printed. But, what will they do with them?
  5. +4
    26 2014 June
    "-The testers knew the exact time of launching the target missile, its speed, flight trajectory and other parameters. Based on these data, the interceptor flight path was developed."

    THIS IS A TEST !!! Yeah, they are being driven there.

    Very realistic.
    1. +1
      26 2014 June
      As I understand it, they hope that in the event of a nuclear war, Russia itself will tell them how many missiles were fired and along which trajectories they fly! Fun, you won’t say anything!
      1. +2
        26 2014 June
        All the same, they won’t have enough missiles to bring everything down. Two Governors and their missiles are over ...
    2. +1
      26 2014 June
      "-The testers knew the exact time of launching the target missile, its speed, flight trajectory and other parameters. Based on these data, the interceptor flight path was developed."
      I won’t be surprised if the target itself maneuvered to help anti-missile
  6. +2
    26 2014 June
    Americans have a lot of visits, you can see a lot of Hollywood movies. Recall the same SDI or combat lasers.
    Only in the film you can shoot a beautiful picture, but reality is a lot of painstaking work.
    IMHO. While America sits on credit around the neck of the whole world, it can afford to throw money down the drain.
  7. Evil Pole
    +5
    26 2014 June
    So, a foil was wrapped around a warhead on a rocket, it remained for the State Department to wrap the same caps on their heads. And then it’s out there, polite green men are scanning everything laughing
  8. potap48a
    +3
    26 2014 June
    stamp out their missiles. if one costs 200-300 lyam with a mine and launcher, then they need a thousand pieces to intercept at least 300 warheads of their bespontovye minuten of 1960s release. There will probably be awesome problems with our missiles. In total, you need 300 lard greens for all this bespontovy pro. not pulled.
    1. +1
      26 2014 June
      I think that a thousand is not enough! If we estimate that one Topol-M carries several false targets, well, let's say ten, then to defeat these ten targets, since it is impossible to recognize whether it is combat or not, we need 40-50 interceptors ...! To defeat ten Topols, 500 interceptor missiles will already be needed, and this is by conservative estimates! And we have more than a hundred Topols and Yars, not counting Satan, Mace and other troubles! Conclusion, the American missile defense system, this is yet another taxpayer swindle in order to cut the dough!
  9. +2
    26 2014 June
    and we named them Khibiny from Nicaragua or Cuba or from Venezuela
  10. +6
    26 2014 June
    Guys, everything is simple, there is the same "sawing" ...
  11. Stypor23
    +1
    26 2014 June
    Pentagon LAT-HORN
  12. +1
    26 2014 June
    Well, this is a political move and it is needed only for one thing, to poke anti-missile mines near the borders of Russia. And since it is made on the basis of the same Tridents or Minutemans (I don't know for sure) capable of carrying nuclear warheads, then their purpose becomes obvious. "Delivering a preemptive strike depriving Russia of the opportunity to strike back" And what it can do there or not is so important.
    1. 0
      26 2014 June
      The fact is that even if all living things are destroyed in Russia, including the president, the Perimeter system will work, this is a guaranteed retaliatory strike. Only we and the Americans have such systems, it is for this reason that a nuclear war has not yet begun!
      1. 0
        26 2014 June
        perimeter only gives the go-ahead to launch, if the General Staff is incapacitated and the war is already underway. He does not make any independent launches.
  13. 0
    26 2014 June
    Let them do this garbage, spend time and resources. There is nothing for the cat to do, you yourself know what licks.
  14. Owl
    0
    26 2014 June
    but do you have the feeling that all this is disinformation for hanging noodles on your ears?
  15. 0
    26 2014 June
    For now, Pro is a fail. Let's see what will happen next.
  16. 0
    26 2014 June
    Interestingly, and if 100 Topol with Yars flies - then what's the point of their missile defense? Truly cut \ rollback.
  17. Sashko07
    +1
    26 2014 June
    but cannot fly (s) laughing
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. +2
    26 2014 June
    North Korean or Iranian ballistic missiles must fly to targets in the United States on the shortest route - with the intersection of the Arctic Circle. It is proposed to destroy them approximately in the middle of the route, which is why the name Midcourse is present in the name of the system. Intercepting a ballistic missile like this is an extremely difficult task that can be compared to trying to get one bullet into another.

    In the 80s, Reagan launched SDI, a strategic defense initiative dubbed the "Star Wars" program. Then an integrated approach was assumed - early detection of launches, destruction of targets in the active area, i.e. when rocket engines of the first and second stages are running, the destruction of targets in space with nuclear-pumped combat X-ray lasers and chemical lasers and anti-missiles. The issues of using ground-based lasers with mirrors in orbit, beam weapons, atomic buckshot (nuclear explosions in space to disperse destructive elements), railguns - electromagnetic rail accelerators, miniature interceptor satellites, hitting targets with a kinetic impact in a direct collision - were worked out.
    At the same time, ours found very simple and rather cheap methods of counteraction in comparison with SDI: at the start - it was proposed to smoke the mines and launchers in a "special period" to make it difficult to detect preparations for the launch in the daytime; in the active section - the addition of additives to the fuel simulating the "stall" of the torch (the brightness of the torch is different in the burning time), which makes it difficult to aim the laser; the use of a large number of false targets (at that time we had the Dnepropetrovsk "Yuzhmash", missiles could be produced in large series - like cars); the use of MIRVs and actively maneuvering warheads in the passive phase, the launch of aluminum foil clouds in orbit to hinder the operation of detection systems. Add to this the infliction of nuclear - and non-nuclear, such as the notorious wagon with nuts in orbit - strikes primarily against missile defense components both in space and on the ground - SDI simply did not have a chance even if it was successful in execution.
    But there was no success. Having abandoned nuclear interceptors - the use of the first charge for these purposes created gigantic interference or even led to the failure of the entire detection system in a certain area - the United States was never able to solve the problem of ensuring an effective missile defense system. The cost of such a missile defense system was tens or hundreds of times higher than the cost of the strategic nuclear forces of the USSR - even the United States could not afford it. And if we take into account the impossibility of pre-basing in orbit satellites with nuclear-pumped combat X-ray lasers - prohibited by the agreement, planned to be launched from submarines - SDI quietly ceased to exist.
    What now? Of all the SDI components, only anti-missiles remained. But several dozen interceptor missiles cannot be recognized not only as effective, but generally as a MEANS for destroying Russian warheads, especially in the middle of the route, where oncoming speeds can reach 20 km / s. Of course, the number of interceptor missiles can increase, and their effectiveness can be increased. But then Russia will simply need to withdraw from the SALT treaties and, along with equipped nuclear warheads, build cheaper non-nuclear missiles to "collapse" the American missile defense system. We have learned to do rocket engines better than in the USA.
    Plus, I’m interested in learning about US missile defense.
    1. 0
      30 2014 June
      Thank you for the detailed, well-reasoned, in a word, good answer! Recently on youtub in a discussion I wanted to cook up something like that, but I found that my memory is not too strong and many of the arguments you gave came to my mind too general, without specifics, which means they would look frivolous. Thanks.
  20. +1
    26 2014 June
    The usual budget cut.
  21. +1
    26 2014 June
    No, it’s not ordinary here! The complexity and scale of the tasks require increased and fairly long funding. Nobody will be able to finish such developments quickly, just like cutting a chicken carrying golden testicles.
  22. MSA
    MSA
    0
    26 2014 June
    All this is another American cartoon to justify the money spent.
  23. 0
    26 2014 June
    even though the American missile defense cannot repel a massive strike, but the wide possibilities of intercepting a single target are also very, very many. This is immunity against small states. I would not say that missile defense programs are useless.
  24. +2
    26 2014 June
    Russian and American nuclear missiles fly to meet each other. Meet.
    -Hi!
    American
    -Hello!
    Russian
    - Well, let's drink, girlfriend?
    -OK!
    We drank one, two, three. The American is in porridge, the Russian hugs her gently and speaks
    - Well, got drunk, girlfriend, let me take you to your house, otherwise you’ll get lost!
  25. -1
    26 2014 June
    Lord patriots, here explain to me. The fact that the US missile defense system is not able to repel an attack from Russia or China is as clear as a day, BUT! The United States is talking about this, their missile defense against countries such as the DPRK and Iran, where the authorities are insane and from which you can expect anything, but more than two or three ICBMs are not able to collect.
    So what the hell are you all whining about deploying missile defense in Europe? Why is Putin rushing about the American missile defense? Does he not know the capabilities of the Strategic Missile Forces?
    1. 0
      26 2014 June
      Quote: Nayhas
      Lord patriots, here explain to me. The fact that the US missile defense system is not able to repel an attack from Russia or China is as clear as a day, BUT! The United States is talking about this, their missile defense against countries such as the DPRK and Iran, where the authorities are insane and from which you can expect anything, but more than two or three ICBMs are not able to collect.
      So what the hell are you all whining about deploying missile defense in Europe? Why is Putin rushing about the American missile defense? Does he not know the capabilities of the Strategic Missile Forces?

      Because now it’s useless, but after several generations of missiles, the pro may not be completely useless, and they are increasing quantitatively.
      1. 0
        27 2014 June
        Quote: fox21h
        Because now it’s useless, but after several generations of missiles, the pro may not be completely useless, and they are increasing quantitatively.

        I heard this many times. What is the logic? Now missile defense in Europe is a useless thing against Russia, you realize this, but are afraid that over time it will become effective. But now it is not effective and there is no sense from it! Why be afraid? That the object itself exists? You may not quite understand, but missile defense in Europe is designed to destroy ballistic missile warheads falling on Europe. But are we not going to attack Europe with our ICBMs? Or do you want? Not a single interceptor missile located in Romania, for example, is capable of intercepting an ICBM taking off from the Krasnoyarsk Territory, just compare the range of the interceptor missile and the distance from Krasnoyarsk to Bucharest.
        If in the distant future (which you are afraid of) designers in the USA and create a rocket capable of doing this, then for their safety they will place them in Canada, and not in Romania ...
        If the ABM system should bother us, it’s located in the USA and Canada ...
    2. 0
      27 2014 June
      "KP": - And what kind of threat in this case are Russia with fixed and mobile US missile defense systems in Europe?

      A. A.: - The USA brazenly crawls with its bases and missile defense facilities into Eastern Europe, into the seas and oceans washing our shores. They are bringing their missile defense infrastructure closer to our borders. With this opportunity delivering an advanced nuclear strike against Russia from the American missile defense bases in Eastern Europe, from URO ships (guided missile weapons) from the waters of the Baltic and Black Seas rises sharply.

      The Americans initially, even for their earliest anti-aircraft missiles, provided for the possibility of using them not only for air targets.

      Quote: Nayhas
      about the deployment of missile defense in Europe? Why is Putin rushing about the American missile defense? Does he not know the capabilities of the Strategic Missile Forces?

      Putin: US missile defense only by name is a defensive system
      Posted on: 12 Dec 2013
      1. -2
        27 2014 June
        Quote: Andriuha077
        The United States brazenly crawls with its bases and missile defense facilities into Eastern Europe, into the seas and oceans washing our shores. They are bringing their missile defense infrastructure closer to our borders. At the same time, the possibility of delivering an advanced nuclear strike against Russia from the American missile defense bases in Eastern Europe, from URA (guided missile weapons) ships from the Baltic and Black Seas, is sharply increasing.

        So what? How they will prevent the launch of ICBMs for example from the Novosibirsk region. or from the Krasnoyarsk Territory through the North Pole to the United States? Yes, even if they fill the whole Black Sea with the Berks and Ticonderogs, what would be the use of them in this case? NI-KA-KO-GO!
        WHY does the US launch a nuclear strike on Russian territory? Destroy humanity? Or do you think that the radioactive "guano" that will cover the territory of Russia will respect the borders of the Russian Federation without precipitation in the same USA, turning them into a "paradise glowing with isotopes"? Not to mention Europe ...
        Anyone who claims that the US missile defense system poses a threat to us is either a moron or a scam. There can be no other.
        1. +1
          27 2014 June
          Quote: Nayhas
          Anyone who claims that the US missile defense system poses a threat to us is either a moron or a scam. There can be no other.

          Are you talking about this presidential video? Hardly said, of course.

          Some have not even heard of "high-precision weapons" that coincide with the size of missile defense missiles by accident.
          "Bullet to the bullet" - that does not work, everyone has known for a long time, and this is just a reason for posting.
        2. +1
          30 2014 June
          Nice person, with any construction, most of the hassle is infrastructure. Make connections for water, electricity, sewerage, gas, arrange the foundation, walls, roofing, interior decoration, wiring and pipes, plaster, waterproofing ... When everything is ready, changing furniture is much easier. That's all the logic. Capital construction, and the organization of a military base is precisely capital construction, it is not only expensive, but also tricky: you even crack, but your concrete will not settle and harden in two hours for any money, or this money will be so "any" ! .. So the point is not in missile defense or non-missile defense, but in the creation of ROCKET BASES at our side. Comrade General, if this is not clear to you, it means that you simply don’t see what is under your nose. There is no need for global statements if you are not very clear about the issue of capital construction in the volume of a barn with a cellar and an attic ... Build a normal barn, then talk about cuts ...
          I especially did not like your "final chord" for its rudeness and categoricalness:
          Anyone who claims that the US missile defense system poses a threat to us is either a moron or a scam. There can be no other.
  26. +1
    27 2014 June
    Quote: Nayhas
    Lord patriots, here explain to me. The fact that the US missile defense system is not able to repel an attack from Russia or China is as clear as a day, BUT! The United States is talking about this, their missile defense against countries such as the DPRK and Iran, where the authorities are insane and from which you can expect anything, but more than two or three ICBMs are not able to collect.
    So what the hell are you all whining about deploying missile defense in Europe? Why is Putin rushing about the American missile defense? Does he not know the capabilities of the Strategic Missile Forces?

    Dear Nayas, what does the DPRK and IRAN have to do with it? The fact is that our so-called. "partners" are trying to shake the world security system, including by involving in their adventures stupid Russophobic rulers of some countries, I will not mention which ones! The Czechs have refused and are sleeping peacefully! But in general, all these interceptors just cut the dough. But here's the thing, in connection with the rapidly falling intellectual level of Western rulers, I am afraid that such under-projects create false illusions of invulnerability for them! Where is the guarantee that some idiot will not press the BUTTON thinking that he will not get anything for it? After all, then we will burn ALL!
  27. Florist
    0
    July 30 2014
    Quote: Nayhas
    Quote: Andriuha077
    The United States brazenly crawls with its bases and missile defense facilities into Eastern Europe, into the seas and oceans washing our shores. They are bringing their missile defense infrastructure closer to our borders. At the same time, the possibility of delivering an advanced nuclear strike against Russia from the American missile defense bases in Eastern Europe, from URA (guided missile weapons) ships from the Baltic and Black Seas, is sharply increasing.

    So what? How they will prevent the launch of ICBMs for example from the Novosibirsk region. or from the Krasnoyarsk Territory through the North Pole to the United States? Yes, even if they fill the whole Black Sea with the Berks and Ticonderogs, what would be the use of them in this case? NI-KA-KO-GO!
    WHY does the US launch a nuclear strike on Russian territory? Destroy humanity? Or do you think that the radioactive "guano" that will cover the territory of Russia will respect the borders of the Russian Federation without precipitation in the same USA, turning them into a "paradise glowing with isotopes"? Not to mention Europe ...
    Anyone who claims that the US missile defense system poses a threat to us is either a moron or a scam. There can be no other.

    The Western world is cynical and programmatic. It makes no sense to turn the territory into an uninhabited hell. It is not profitable. Not interested. there is nothing to sell and nothing to buy))
    Although of course everything is possible
  28. 0
    August 29 2014
    And why are such difficulties generally needed? To make a head in which a dofiga of centimeter balls and depleted uranium with a diameter of 1 cm, and to blow it up in the opposite direction, so that a continuous cloud was harder to knock down both heads and false targets or what?

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

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