“BOREAN” - SEPARATELY, “BULAVA” - SEPARATELY
In the first place, the magazine and its author put our strategic nuclear submarines “Borey” (project 955), which are armed with 16 ballistic missiles (BR) and are, according to Dave Majumdar, “the basis of Russian combat effectiveness in the issue of nuclear deterrence” . On the second line of his list are the intercontinental sea-based BR of the P-30 "Bulava-30", which, by the way, are armed with Borey-type submarines.
“This is an effective weapon that can hit a target at a range of 11 thousand km,” writes Majumdar. “Each Bulava carries up to 10 nuclear warheads, whereas usually ballistic missiles are equipped with only six warheads.”
Let us leave the statement about the six warheads on ballistic missiles, apparently, sea-based, if we are talking about them, on the conscience of the author. The fact is that liquid missiles of such Russian nuclear submarines, which, before entering the Borey-type SSBN, form the basis of naval strategic deterrence in our country today, such as the 667BDR (Kalmar) project and the 667BDRM (Dolphin) project , namely P-29P, P-29RL and P-29K can carry from one warhead (P-29RL) to three (P-29Р) and seven (P-29К). Not to mention the fact that the R-29RM missile, which is armed with the 667BDRM project cruisers, is capable of delivering four or ten nuclear warheads to the target.
But back to the rating of "American horror stories." The third place among them is National Interest and its author are assigned to multi-purpose atomic submarines of the “Ash” type (885 project) armed with anti-ship cruise missiles. The project is so good, Mr. Majumdar writes, that Rear-Admiral Dave Johnson, head of the American program for the development of submarines, keeps the model of the leading ship, Severodvinsk, in his office. In the fourth place among America’s domestic threats, in the opinion of the author of the magazine, is “the Russian arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons not falling under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).”
“Although Russia's stocks of non-strategic nuclear weapons are not as large as they were in the USSR, there are about 2 thousand tactical nuclear weapons in Russia's arsenal,” National Interest magazine reports. - The delivery of nuclear warheads to their targets can be provided by such operational tactical missile systems (OTRK) as the Iskander.
The top of the American magazine 5 is closed by the Russian "solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missiles of mobile and mine-based with a split head of the PC-24" Yars ", which can carry up to four nuclear warheads of individual guidance." The author also mentions the Sarmat ballistic missile, which is being developed “as a means of overcoming the missile defense system and should replace the intercontinental ballistic missile ICBM Р-36М2“ Voivod ”, also known as“ Satan ”, on combat duty.
Mr. Majumdar did not lead the tactical and technical characteristics of the Sarmat (they indicated that the missile would presumably be fluid and could carry up to 15 combat units). Maybe because it is not yet in service and very little is known about its combat capabilities. Although the fact that it will be able to carry 10 nuclear warheads of individual guidance, and the range of its launch will be more than 11 thousand. Km, in the domestic press already sounded. As well as the locations of the proposed deployment of missiles. These are the surroundings of the village Dombarovsky in the Orenburg region and the city of Uzhur of the Krasnoyarsk Territory. That is, those areas where the latest P-36М2 “Voyevoda” missiles are located today. In addition, all Russian strategic missiles, both sea and land, have the means to overcome the missile defense system. Including the operational-tactical complex "Iskander-M". For some reason, the author of National Interest does not mention this.
But let us leave for the time being the next “List of Majumdar”. The fact is that a few weeks earlier, National Interest magazine and Dave Majumdar published another rating of Russian weapons that the Pentagon should be wary of. Among them were the Su-35 multipurpose fighter, the non-nuclear Amur submarine, the main T-90C tank, the supersonic anti-ship missile P-800 Onyx, on the basis of which the Russian-Indian multi-purpose cruise missile BrahMos was created, which can be used against surface and coastal targets, both from ships and submarines, and from ground-based launchers, and in perspective from aircraft. And closed the top five of the "chosen" anti-ship combined-cycle peroxide-hydrogen torpedo "53-65", created in Soviet times.
To argue with the author of an American magazine, which is described as a specialist in military subjects, and even more so to refute him about the weapons he has chosen, is pointless. One can only thank for the free advertising of domestic military equipment, which is really well sold on the international market. Tanks T-90S, for example, in the amount of more than 250 units, India purchased from Russia. And buys more. In addition, she produces them under her Russian license. Including from car kits delivered from Uralvagonzavod. T-90S was also acquired by Algeria, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uganda and several other countries of the world. How does he attract them?
According to National Interest, with relatively similar tactical and technical characteristics of the T-90 is much cheaper than Western tanks Leopard 2 and M1M2 Abrams. In the Russian tank, modern fire control systems, surveillance, communications and navigation are combined with effective protection systems. We will add only one detail: the gun on the T-90С is a smooth-bore gun, caliber in 125 mm, it charges automatically. It can shoot both traditional for tanks shells - armor-piercing, sub-caliber, high-explosive and cumulative fragmentation - and rocket, guided by the laser beam missiles "Reflex". The "American" - loading 105-mm guns - manual, that is, in the crew, in contrast to the Russian combat vehicle, not three people, but four. ATGM (anti-tank guided missiles), he, as, indeed, the "German", can not shoot. We will keep silent about other characteristics - mobility, maneuverability on the battlefield, off-road speed, effective firing range and other combat qualities. They require a separate conversation.
At the same time, one cannot keep silent about the tactics of using tanks, as the strike fire force of any army, its ground forces. What the American magazine does not write about. Maybe because it was not part of the task of the article he published. But still. The fact is that comparing different tanks, like other military equipment, as they say, in its pure form, in a kind of statics, like at international weapons shows, in my opinion, for military specialists is not entirely correct. Comparison of speed, security, firepower and other good for directories and directories. The ability to overcome off-road landfills and win tank duels is best checked, for example, at an event such as “Tank Biathlon” (the Germans and Americans, by the way, refused to participate in it last year, citing sanctions, although they had previously promised to send their cars and crews. In Russia they consider their “excuse” untenable. It was necessary to admit honestly - they were afraid to lose).
But on the battlefield, any tank that ours, which is not ours, requires serious support. In the form of a helicopter flying above it or a drone, it is possible on the ground as a tank support combat vehicle. Overview, as well as the ability to observe the battlefield, the tank commander, gunner and driver-mechanic are quite limited. They need "extra ears and eyes" that other means of warfare have. The same UAV or "turntables." Otherwise, not only a mine, but an enemy soldier, or even a terrorist, hidden under a bush or behind a stone with a grenade launcher in his hands, could be a mortal danger for a tank. It happened during the second Lebanon war (2006 year) of Israel, when the Hezbollah fighters burned down quite a lot of well-defended, considered to be invulnerable Merkava tanks, for some reason not supported by helicopters at that time.
And therefore, today, Russian designers and tank builders are creating not just a new tank, which in terms of their tactical and technical characteristics should surpass the T-90 and the best tanks of the most advanced militarily countries in the world, but a new Armata tracked platform. At its base will appear not only the tank itself with a powerful engine, an armored capsule for the crew, a new control system for a combat vehicle and fire weapons, a communication and navigation system, an aiming and computing system, an onboard information-control system and other combat support systems. But there will also be a tank support combat vehicle, an engine clearing vehicle, a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, and other equipment. It will become indispensable in a modern integrated, multi-functional battle next to the tank itself, integrated into the network system with drones, self-propelled artillery installations, aviation cover and support. It is possible, and with information support for spacecraft.
Armata is still a secret project. For the first time this car, apparently, should appear in public in March of this year, when preparations for the anniversary parade in honor of the 70 anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War, and then at the Alabino range, will begin. But 9 May in Red Square, as promised by the leaders of the defense industry and the Ministry of Defense, will become the star of the solemn passage of troops and military equipment, as well as other strike systems, about which National Interest has not written yet, but which Washington should keep in mind and Brussels, and other centers of power.
But back to the other types of military equipment, which tell the publication of the American magazine. His admiration for a multi-purpose, capable of working by air, ground and surface targets with the Su-35 fighter (NATO-class Flanker-E +) manufactured by Sukhoi has the right to exist. The plane, as Dave Majumdar writes, is a modernized version of the Soviet Su-27, although this comparison, in my opinion, is not very correct. From the Su-27 "thirty-fifth" took only a glider, and then in a highly improved form. The nozzles of its engines have the ability to change their design, deviate up and down or right and left, which allows the aircraft to practically “dance” in one place, move away from the enemy’s missile strike and perform other aerial acrobatics. Which, by the way, cannot be done by any American fighter. Even the ultramodern F-22 and F-35. National Interest notes that the Su-35 is very fast, able to rise to great heights and has a huge combat load. One of the main advantages of the Russian fighter is the combination of enhanced capabilities for intercepting high-altitude targets with lightning speed and a unique engine with increased thrust, according to the publication. Such characteristics in combination with the most modern avionics make the Su-35 an extremely dangerous enemy for American fighters, the magazine concludes.
Russian tanks have been holding the palm for many decades and surpass their foreign counterparts. Photos from the official website of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
From our side, we add that in the "thirty-fifth" technologies of the fifth generation were used, providing superiority over fighters of a similar class. Distinctive features of the aircraft are a new complex of integrated on-board electronic equipment based on a digital information control system, a new radar station with a phased antenna array and a large range of airborne targets, as well as an increased number of simultaneously followed and fired targets (tracking 30 and attack eight airborne targets, as well as tracking four and attacking two ground targets). And he also carries on his suspensions the broadest complex of weapons capable of reaching the enemy at extreme ranges.
Yet again. Su-35 does not necessarily have to fight one on one with the enemy or in a link two against three, three against five and so on. But he will necessarily interact with command posts located on the ground and in the air (the A-50U long-range radar detection and guidance aircraft or the A-100 being created now), it is possible with the spacecraft, receiving the necessary information through it. He himself can become a command post that distributes targets to the fighters of his group, cover or support in battle the front attack aircraft Su-34 or fighter-interceptors MiG-31, long-range bombers of the Tu-22M family. The range of its tasks and capabilities is very wide. It is not by chance that this fighter is called the forerunner of a promising aviation front-line aviation complex (PAK FA) T-50, its elder brother. All that can "thirty-fifth", will be able to and T-50, and still everything that can not and will not be able to know the Pentagon. It will be the carrier of the most modern missile weapons and electronic warfare systems.
Americans still remember with horror how in April last year an unarmed, rather old Russian front bomber Su-24 spun around the destroyer Donald Cook, uninvited into the Black Sea, armed with the Aegis anti-missile system with SM-2 anti-missile missile systems with missile missile missile systems. Tomahawk radius of action. Then he turned on his system of electronic warfare (electronic warfare) "Khibiny". On the destroyer immediately turned off all the control systems of the ship and its weapons. Aegis became blind and deaf, rockets too. They say the panic began on the ship. Then, 27 members of his crew seemed to have written reports that they could not and did not want to serve on a watercraft that could not protect their lives (according to the principle “If the attack were a missile”). But this is so or not, and the American sailors had to think about whether it was worth brewing porridge with a country like Russia. And the National Interest magazine, it seems, also recommended it to them and not only to them.
Even Dave Majumdar, as we mentioned, wrote about the Amur diesel submarine of Russia (1650 project) armed with torpedoes, rocket-torpedoes, cruise missiles and mines. He recalled the P-800 Onyx supersonic anti-ship missile, on the basis of which the Russian-Indian BrahMos was created, the old vapor-gas peroxide-hydrogen torpedo for 533 mm caliber vehicles, which, once in the wake of a frigate, a destroyer and even an aircraft carrier, will not lag behind him until he strikes a blow to the most unprotected place in the body. And there are still supersonic anti-ship missiles "Mosquito" and "Granit", from which our sworn partners, as the sailors call them, have no protection.
But let's interrupt our story about the Russian military equipment, which was noticed by the American National Interest magazine and its author Dave Majumdar. Let us ask ourselves an obvious and simple question: why is it that they suddenly began to write about our weapons in such detail?
WHO IS PROFITABLE
Dave Majumdar for a long time, almost 10 years, specializes in covering various, including Soviet and Russian weapons. He writes for the United States Naval Institute, American editions of Aviation Week, Daily Beast and others. Previously analyzed national security issues at Flight International, Defense News and the C4ISR Journal. Madjumdar was engaged in strategic research at the University of Calgary, and is currently studying stories naval forces. His numerous articles on Russian armaments translated into Russian can easily be found on the Internet. Including the promising Russian heavy platform, on the basis of which the Armata tank is being created. Recall, in the author's opinion, the Armat will surpass the best tanks of the most militarily advanced countries in the world.
There is in the world wide web an article by Mr. Majumdar about the fifth-generation Russian fighter T-50 PAK FA (a promising front-line aviation complex). And again he writes that the famous American F-22 fighter aircraft, which was created exclusively for the Pentagon, and the F-35 fighter aircraft, which the United States is ready to export, also surpasses the domestic aircraft in some of its tactical and technical characteristics. some of Washington’s allies in NATO and from other countries have invested. In particular, Australia. You can read in the journal Nixon Center, which collaborates with Dave Majumdar, and material about the "myths around US strategic nuclear weapons."
Its authors argue, in particular, that it turned out to be useless for the United States, to say the least. It could not be used against ISIS troops in Syria and Iraq, against the epidemic of Ebola, against the rebels in Afghanistan and in the Ukrainian armed conflict. "Since the end of the Cold War, the value of nuclear arsenals has decreased markedly," the news agencies quoted in an article from the magazine. And further. They expose the myth that at the moment the possibility of using US nuclear weapons is even greater than during the Cold War period. The publication cites the words of the former head of US Strategic Command, Lieutenant General James Kowalski, that the likelihood of a Russian nuclear strike on America is so small that it is not even worth discussing. This is also indicated by the size of the arsenals themselves. “If during the Cold War years, the United States and the Soviet Union had 30 thousand and 45 thousand nuclear weapons, respectively, now there are approximately 5 thousand warheads on each side, and“ in the US, the reduction of the arsenal to 900 or even to 311 units is discussed ” - notes the publication. Strange numbers, because, according to the US Department of State, published at the end of last year, Russia and the United States were listed on approximately 1500 – 1700 nuclear warheads. Anyway.
Denied by the authors of the Nixon Center and the assertion that the cost of nuclear weapons is not so high. Only in the next three years, they write, the US will spend about 1 trillion dollars on its modernization. At the same time, separate funds for the production of new nuclear missiles are being asked by the Navy and Air Force.
Let's stop on this. Let us think about why the National Interest magazine and its authors, among them Dave Majumdar, one of the most active, are so persistently publishing materials about nuclear weapons, which, according to their own words, lose their meaning? And why at the same time they are trying to scare their readers with the increased power of Russia and the high efficiency of its military equipment? Both conventional types of weapons, and nuclear. Is the American military industrial complex so dilapidated that it cannot create something that surpasses its Russian counterparts in its tactical and technical characteristics?
Of course not. With overseas MIC everything is in order. He even supplies weapons and military equipment to more than two times more than Russia does. Some arms markets, including European ones, are tightly closed for our defense industry. And the United States is already aggressively trying to occupy even those niches that once belonged unconditionally to Russian firms. Including in India. In addition, it is clear that the budget in 500 more than billions of dollars a year, approved by the Congress in 2015 for the Pentagon, can be ordered, purchased and put into the army and fleet much more ships, tanks, missiles, combat support systems and other things military property than the ruble equivalent of those 50 – 60 billion dollars allocated to the Russian military department.
But the trouble - and 500 billion "green" Pentagon and the US military-industrial complex is not enough. US President Barack Obama has already proposed to allocate billion dollars to 2016 for the future 561 for military needs. But the appetites of local lobbyists are much wider. And therefore it is necessary to frighten the population and the US elite with the superiority of Russian weapons, including nuclear ones. Publications in such a serious and authoritative edition of the Nixon’s political science center as National Interest are perfectly suited for this. No one will suspect whose mill is being flooded with a supposedly independent public institution.
Nevertheless, for one thing, why the authors of the journal diminish the importance of nuclear weapons for the United States, it’s still worth paying attention. If in Russia it is a strategic deterrent force, as evidenced by the position of the Military Doctrine. In the USA, nuclear weapons are viewed as a force forcing the enemy to surrender to the winner. Indeed, in all the wars that the Pentagon has waged in recent decades, and these were wars of aggression, no matter what anyone said in Washington about this - Vietnam, Somalia, Yugoslavia, twice Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, now Syria and ISIS Even Ukraine, where by and large the Americans are fighting not only with their private mercenary armies, but also through the Armed Forces of Nezalezhnaya, they did not have to use nuclear weapons. Although in Vietnam it almost got to this point.
Does this mean that the US is ready to give it up? Of course not. Today it is obvious that nuclear weapons are a guarantee of security and a sign of a great power. Even the DPRK, which either has it or does not have an atomic bomb, feels safe because it is blackmailing all its neighbors and the United States with such a bomb. Let the "dirty", albeit implicit. But no one risks contacting Pyongyang. Saddam didn’t have such a bomb, Gaddafi didn’t, and what became of them, no one needs to be reminded.
The power of those in the United States, of course, really wants to convince everyone and everything that nuclear weapons have lost their meaning today. Barack Obama received his Nobel Prize, by the way, on the call to abandon nuclear weapons. In those conditions when the Pentagon has a multiple advantage over any armies of the world in conventional weapons, one can say that “nuclear weapons have lost their meaning,” “they cannot be used in the fight against terrorists,” and “against Ebola - even more so ...”
True, such publications, like talking about the advantages of Russian weapons, cannot be misled by any serious people. Especially in our country, where the price of American spells is well known. We, as President Vladimir Putin has stated more than once, are not going to get involved in an arms race. We will have the necessary, but sufficient means to reliably protect our independence and the independence of our allies.
Dizziness from the success of the rearmament of the army and fleet neither in the Russian Ministry of Defense, nor in the defense industry. And although last year the State Defense order was 95% fulfilled by the domestic defense industry and there are difficulties with the supply of new military equipment due to the lack of some components due to sanctions (700 components are missing for 200 types of equipment), there is confidence that by 2020, domestic troops will be updated by 70%, it is not dying away. This means that new weapons will appear in the combat formation, which will not leave indifferent even our overseas partners. And here, besides the good, as my father said, there will be no harm.
And to those who are across the ocean as cool as National Interest magazine and its author, military analyst Dave Majumdar, advertise our really excellent weapon, special thanks. Moreover, our gunsmiths are not worth a dime.