New twist missile epic. The development of a new sea-based missile defense system has begun.

18
New twist missile epic. The development of a new sea-based missile defense system has begun.Year after year Russia has been trying to get a clear answer to its questions on the North Atlantic missile defense system. But the United States and European countries involved in this project still prefer excuses on the Iranian or, even worse, North Korean threat (a good answer is where is the DPRK and where is Europe). So Russia has every reason to believe that missile defense systems in Europe can be built against it as well.

The most obvious way out is to negotiate. However, this method seems to be at a standstill and will do nothing. September 13 at the Russian Foreign Ministry stated again: negotiations with the United States and NATO do not give any results. Develop missiles capable of overcoming potential adversary protection systems? This is a matter of course. But missile defense in Europe can be answered “symmetrically”, which Russia will do.

Not so long ago - in 2007, in the USA, the new version of the Aegis Combat System ship complex was tested. The main innovation in its composition is the Standard-3 rocket RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 (SM-3). It can hit targets both at “standard” altitudes and in the transatmospheric space. The updated Aegis system was first tested in practice on February 21 2008, when the cruiser CG-70 Lake Erie was ordered to destroy the emergency satellite USA-193. Despite the satellite flight parameters (altitude of 247 km orbit and speed over 27000 km / h), the very first missile successfully hit the target and confirmed the effectiveness of the ship's missile defense systems.

It must be admitted that the development of the SM-3 rocket was accompanied by a mass of disputes about the advisability of installing strategic missile defense missiles on ships. But in the end, the supporters of the ship's missile defense were able to convince the US military authorities that the ship has more mobility than ground complexes and therefore, among other things, has a better chance of surviving in war and fulfilling its mission.

Earlier, the Russian side had already announced that in response to the deployment of a Euro-Atlantic missile defense system in Eastern Europe, it would have to (especially emphasized the necessity of such a step) to deploy Iskander-M operational-tactical missile systems in the Kaliningrad region. Yes, and Transnistria has shown willingness to host the "Iskander", which will allow "block" not only almost the entire territory of Poland, but also Romania, and part of the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

Now it is announced that Russia intends to expand the range of its anti-missile systems. On September 22, the Euro-Atlantic Missile Defense System: a View from Russia and Ukraine was held in a video conference where Vladimir Kozin, Deputy Head of the Press and Information Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry, said: the country has begun developing a new sea-based ABM system. Kozin added that all the nuances of international law have already been verified and the system will not contradict them in anything.

Probably, the success of the last generation Aegis system pushed this decision of the Russian military. In addition, Washington has already talked about its plans to deploy its missile defense ships in the Mediterranean or even in the Black Sea. Also consider the option of patrolling several northern seas. Perhaps it is enough just to look at the map of the world and already there will be doubts: will the missiles be used precisely against Iran or the DPRK? Moreover, these countries so far have no intercontinental missiles that could constitute a serious threat even to Europe. But already there are means to counter these missiles. Of course, there are many doubts about the truth of the statements of the creators of the Euro-Atlantic missile defense, and some political scientists even predict a new arms race, only this time exclusively in the area of ​​missiles and missile defense.

Kozin substantiated the need to create a sea-based missile defense system, among other things, by the fact that all negotiations regarding the Euro-Atlantic system lead nowhere. There were even proposals for Russia's participation in this program, but they remained proposals. Moreover, Russia still has not received even guarantees about the possible use of the system against it. And this, at least, is suspicious. In this case, Kozin says, until we have received all the information we need about the purpose, composition and prospects of the Euro-Atlantic missile defense, Russia will be forced to build its defense at its discretion. Even if her plans are not consistent with strangers. And you still have to build your system.
What is abroad?

In the former socialist bloc, one agreement after another is signed. In September of this year, Poland first agreed with the United States on the installation of interceptor missiles on its territory. A few days later, Romania signed an agreement with America. It will be based not only missiles, but also a radar detection, and the control center of the Eastern European sector of the Euro-Atlantic missile defense. Fully building systems in Poland and Romania should be completed by the end of the decade. At the same time, as already mentioned, both Polish and Romanian objects can get into the “zone of responsibility” of “Iskander” located near Kaliningrad or in Transnistria. But, fortunately, the Poles and Romanians, while Russian missiles are not aimed at objects of the respective countries.

For several years, the United States has been negotiating with Turkey to deploy radars and missiles on its territory. True, these negotiations are very slow and unproductive. They are hampered by a number of politicians who believe that it is not worth helping the US to create a threat to friendly Muslim countries, for example, Iran. Also, the Turkish side is concerned about the possible transfer of data from their facilities to unfriendly states, first of all, to Israel. So in the next year and a half, negotiations between Turkey and the United States are unlikely to lead to any positive result for the latter. Russia is quite satisfied with this: the radar station, which is planned to be installed in Turkey, may well be observed not only for “unreliable countries”, but also for the North Caucasus region of Russia itself.
Our news channels

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

18 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -4
    October 6 2011
    Insanity around missile defense begins to take on new heights.
  2. 0
    October 6 2011
    A sad sight.
    Against this background, the Russian Federation cannot supply the S-500 in any way.
    It is not clear where our military leadership is looking?
    Got it ...
  3. +1
    October 6 2011
    Not only sea, but also land mobile and stationary (in mines).
    And also, the KR STELS (1-3 tkm) and the BR with a radius of 1,2-1,5 t km, several new powerful radars in the depths of the country ..
    And anti-satellite air.
    In no case, you can not give odds to the United States, it will be disastrous for our country and its citizens.
  4. Max
    Max
    -5
    October 6 2011
    Especially when you consider the quality leap of the United States in the field of aviation and rocket science. For them, the S-200 is no longer a threat, as the war in Libya showed. Let's take a look at the S-300 with the turmoil in Iran or Syria. Perhaps already there they will defeat air defense without losses. It is hoped that the performance characteristics of the Triumphs are actually the same as on paper and in conversations. Otherwise .. Ivan, you will be right.
    1. Splin
      +1
      October 6 2011
      C-200 powerful and good rocket. When used correctly, long lines are protected. It’s just that the Libyan military did not have practice and ways to play electronic warfare. And the 300th complexes defend only medium and small distances. In Triumphs, everything is put together and pretty good.
      1. svvaulsh
        -1
        October 6 2011
        Reinforce the arguments with the petals altitude-range, or altitude-speed of the target, 200 and 300 in the teaching staff and the military staff and you will understand that you are mistaken.
        1. Splin
          +3
          October 6 2011
          To answer a question to me, the gunner had to call anti-aircraft gunners. if I already knew about the goal refinement (we worked on the SNAR and Zoo simulators), then the ratio of speed and height was not known to me. And just did not know about the back and front hemisphere. I know that the S-200 is a good complex. Our work hundreds of times on simulators. After all, the most important thing in highlighting the target with radar. Yes, the rocket itself is not super, outdated, but you can miss the S-300 without experience.
          1. svvaulsh
            0
            October 6 2011
            In general, in all respects, with the exception of range (here approximately the missiles are equal). The S-200 is inferior to the S-300. The main role of 200 was given to the fight against group goals (when installing a special charge).
            1. Splin
              0
              October 6 2011
              With proper application, it is also dangerous. Of course it is much worse, but it would also be dangerous if the Libyan military used it correctly.
              1. Max
                Max
                0
                October 6 2011
                Perhaps it’s not even the experience of the Libyans. How about the equipment of a reconnaissance aircraft, which without entering the air defense coverage area determines the location of the combat crew. Then it’s up to the cruise missile, the latest developments. Which starts from the sea and destroys the complex, which marks it too late (if at all). Another thing is 300-ka, these are completely different technologies in principle, especially if upgraded.
          2. 0
            October 9 2011
            NATO has developed tactics to combat the S-200.
            In Libya, special air groups were used to fight.
            If there is evidence of NATO’s struggle with the S-200, it would be interesting to know.
            Unfortunately, I do not have data on the maneuverability of the missile, perhaps special anti-ballistic maneuvers were used.
            For example, against Cuba it is very difficult to maneuver, he intercepts the target at 8g. What is the chance of a plane using the 9g maneuver against the S-200?
            1. Stealth
              0
              December 3 2011
              The main reasons for the success of NATO aviation:
              -Inexperience and very low training of Libyan anti-aircraft gunners
              Significant numerical superiority
              -Lack of modern-day short-range air defense systems for the Libyans to cover the same S-200s (which were too few, and even in the oldest S-200A version)
              -Lack of the Libyans' integrated air defense system, including high-power radars operating in different ranges and modern radio intelligence systems and electronic warfare systems.

              Most of the long-range air defense systems in Libya were destroyed in the very first days by massive Tamagavk strikes, which the Libyans could not resist due to the lack of modern short-range air defense systems and poor training of operators (the S-200, by the way, a rather complex complex to master, the Arabs cannot see in the teeth (or rather, not in the brains) was).
  5. 0
    October 6 2011
    The United States does not intend to give up its leading position in the world to anyone. Recent events only confirm this. American efforts are primarily directed against developing China. Hence - the desire to block China by states with governments loyal to the United States. Russia cooperates with China and our views coincide on many political issues. Therefore, the United States will deploy its air defense systems in Poland and Romania and Turkey. And their ships with strike systems will now be frequent guests in the Black and Baltic Seas .... Well, the Americans love and are used to negotiating from a position of strength. And what to hide, it works: "there is no reception against the scrap. Especially when you have no other scrap."
  6. Splin
    0
    October 6 2011
    To put the Iskanders in Bender. we must first recognize Transnistria. as a state. And for this we need an armed prince. Moldova is not capable of this, and does not dare, knowing about the Russian army. Iskander is an offensive weapon and it is not so easy to circumvent international law.
  7. Sergh
    +1
    October 6 2011
    Well, about this satellite USA-193, the Americans themselves said that the satellite was shot down at the entrance to the atmosphere, with great braking and talking about its generation at a speed of 27000 km / h, it would be just stupid. Although the conversation here is quite controversial as well. next time the tests failed and no data yet.
  8. Max
    Max
    +2
    October 6 2011
    DO NOT forget that the satellite cannot change the flight path, unlike a carrier or a warhead. These tests, just like the arguments, are nonsense. In the 60s, when rockets flew strictly in a parabola, such a missile defense system might have gone through.
    1. 0
      October 6 2011
      It should be borne in mind that they continue to work on the topic. Those. Sooner or later, a normal anti-missile will appear.
      1. WADIM
        0
        January 9 2012
        is not a fact...
        How much is it?
        And ours that will stand still?
  9. mind1954
    +3
    October 7 2011
    Now, despite our vast territory, in all its
    borders land and sea, we can wait for "guests"
    with a very short flight time. Opponent can
    practically get only from its territory,
    Around our borders, a missile defense loop is being tightened.
    It turns out: we will intercept their "goodies" over our
    territory, and they will intercept ours too
    our territory.
    Here, opponents can create approximately similar conditions,
    if you only surround them with a nuclear submarine ring and the closer, the better.
    And this is possible only with the cover of the surface fleet!
    It was so in the USSR! An anti-submarine fleet was created
    to cover their submarines and against their submarines, and at the same time aircraft carriers, etc.
    But since, after all, they came to the construction of aircraft carriers, then practice
    showed that the anti-submarine fleet must be covered from the air!

    PS Was invited a few years ago to an organization engaged in
    sharp metal. Cut with excitement in the north. I ask: And who is this
    pays for everything? How who, Americans, joyfully respond. Little of,
    paid for sending to Kazakhstan all cut.
    And then the Iskander, and the missile defense too.
    AGAINST CROWBAR IS ONLY A CROWBAR and not on the threshold of his house,
    and on the doorstep of the opponent’s house.
  10. strictly prohibited
    0
    October 7 2011
    we have about a 235
  11. Max
    Max
    0
    October 7 2011
    What do you think? http://nk.org.ua/news/view/6144/ Sounds confident ...
  12. Artemka
    +2
    November 28, 2011
    That's why 20 trillion were allocated to the defense industry. rubles.
  13. dred
    +1
    December 1 2011
    more needs to be cut out.
  14. Artemka
    0
    December 1 2011
    Yes, perhaps this is enough, they would not steal.
    1. WADIM
      +1
      January 9 2012
      I think they will answer ... If they steal ...

"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"