Military Review

State Department: missile defense system "can not launch any offensive missiles"

67
The European missile defense system cannot be used to launch Tomahawk-type offensive missiles, and therefore its deployment does not contradict the terms of the agreement with Moscow on the restriction of INF of RIA News statement by the representative of the State Department.


Missile defense facility in Romania

Earlier, Russia's Permanent Representative to NATO, Alexander Grushko, stated that “they cannot convince the declarative assurances that the US and NATO missile defense against Moscow are not directed”. He noted that "by deploying universal launchers MK-41 at Aegis Ashore objects capable of launching medium-range missiles, the United States is seriously undermining the INF Treaty."

The State Department responded as follows:
“The Aegis Ashore system has the ability to launch anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense interceptors, such as the SM-3, which are not subject to the INF Treaty. The system cannot launch any offensive missiles like Tomahawk cruise missiles. ”


"Thus, it (the missile defense system) fully complies with US obligations under the INF Treaty," the official said.

According to him, "Aegis Ashore does not have software, fire control systems, additional support equipment and other infrastructure necessary to launch ground-based cruise missiles."

"Aegis Ashore was not and will not be developed, tested or deployed to launch other missiles, except those that were designed and tested solely to intercept and counter objects not located on the surface of the Earth," the Department of State said in a statement.
Photos used:
US Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System Romania / Facebook
67 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Andrey K
    Andrey K 13 May 2016 10: 41
    +25
    State Department: missile defense system "cannot launch any offensive missiles" ...
    Oil fool
    Do you want to wind up the topic and hang "noodles", start to assert what everyone already knows request
    Nobody says missile defense is offensive request
    The conversation is about maintaining nuclear parity, the ability to shoot down the "response" negative
    The State Department once again "turned on the toggle switch" negative
    1. vkl.47
      vkl.47 13 May 2016 10: 44
      +7
      and in general it’s an inflatable base and fights with Somali pirates. Aphids
      1. Observer2014
        Observer2014 13 May 2016 10: 51
        +19
        State Department: missile defense system "can not launch any offensive missiles"
        That is why "Eskander" does not fly further than 500 km! "Poplar" does not fly at medium distances! And in general we are dark, stupid people in Russia. We love to sit and watch how they lie in our eyes laughing
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. bulvas
          bulvas 13 May 2016 11: 04
          +10
          The logic is simple:

          If on ships they use air-launched missiles that can launch both air defense / missile defense and cruise missiles, then the missile defense system can easily be reconfigured to launch cruise or any other medium and short-range missiles

          We, too, C-400 can be launched on ground targets, and there is another for the near / middle radius.

          So, all the arms limitation treaties rained down, now we will scare each other until they come running with peace initiatives

          Everything is as before, in the 70 / 80s

          The only difference is that now the weapon is mostly non-nuclear, high-precision.
          When they consider that both sides have enough missiles to destroy the enemy’s infrastructure N times, they will begin to agree

          The first to take the initiative will become a peacemaker and will receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

          Only from us initiatives will not be accepted, they will leave


          1. okunevich_rv
            okunevich_rv 13 May 2016 11: 32
            +8
            Once they get a clear advantage without an answer, they will not be stopped.
          2. opus
            opus 13 May 2016 13: 09
            +1
            Quote: bulvas
            We, too, C-400 can be launched on ground targets, and there is another for the near / middle radius.

            from our TPK SAM 98ZHNUMXЕ only ZURs (of different nomenclatures) can be launched.
            At maximum range (along the aeroballistic trajectory) to 500km. What is not a violation of the INF Treaty

            SAM 40H6 * can shoot at ground targets, but purely theoretically (KVO there will be under 100m)
            --------------------------
            Two big differences, as they say



            even if this Pu is not mobile, but stationary ...
        3. x.andvlad
          x.andvlad 13 May 2016 11: 25
          +6
          According to him, "Aegis Ashore does not have software, fire control systems, additional support equipment and other infrastructure necessary to launch ground-based cruise missiles."

          I especially liked the expense of software and OMS. Firstly, it is not possible to verify this, and secondly, I am sure that it is prepared and can be installed in a matter of minutes. Only that PU is universal, speaks for itself.
          When I served in the peacekeeping contingent in Yugoslavia, "colleagues" from NATO really liked our saying: "Buy yourself a chicken and fuck her brains", that is, "Buy yourself a chicken and fuck her brains".
          The State Department can once again recall this saying.
      2. godofwar6699
        godofwar6699 13 May 2016 11: 06
        -7
        Inside Aegis Ashore Romania ABM system
        1. Observer2014
          Observer2014 13 May 2016 11: 23
          +8
          "godofwar6699" - Well, what's on the video? a man in camouflage sits at the control panel of the building. Monitors heating systems, heat supply. Water treatment of cold, hot water. Monitors the operation of chillers. laughing You have not seen my remote control at work! laughingSo the video remote control can twist suckers laughing
        2. opus
          opus 13 May 2016 12: 53
          +6
          Quote: godofwar6699
          Inside Aegis Ashore Romania ABM system

          There is only one way out.
          1. The same as the USA to "score" on the RIAC.
          2. Do not try to punish the Romanians / Poland by deploying INF Treaty in Europe. They will have enough portable nuclear landmines delivered in the usual way (The Fourth Protocol) + PGRK "Speed-2" with 3 separating parts of the individual guidance (the main option); anti-missile defense means (used the head part of the BRNS 15Ж53) special non-nuclear warhead for the destruction of ground launchers
          or "Agat-1"

          3. In Chukotka, in the Anadyr region, restore / continue / create special. underground structure "Portal". There PGRK "Speed-2"

          The threat of lightning destruction is: the Beamus radar warning system Clear missile warning system (SPRN), located in Alaska, the Cobra Dane SPRN radar station on Shemiya Island, the Parks radar SPRN radar station in North Dakota - virtually all radar stations that control in the USA, a northwest missile hazardous direction. To this it should be added that the detection of ballistic missile launches from high-latitude Arctic regions using the satellites of the American space system Imeus located in a geostationary orbit is difficult.

          and 15P159 "Courier-2", rocket 15Zh59:
          All USA within reach within 15-20 minutes.
          Maybe it's enough to have already hatched the zenki and salivating to look at "the best state in the world"?
          Achtung video does not contain censored vocabulary (but ce is not me, ce is professor and tiputat of the State Duma Genosse Zhirinovsky, but he says out loud what 98% thinks about himself)



          Quote: Observer2014
          Well, and what's on the video?

          The essence of the video: we got on hand at our side SLCM BGM-109 Tomahawk





          and covered SM-3 SAM


          1. Operator
            Operator 13 May 2016 13: 45
            0
            Why talk about what we no longer have - the Velocity-2 and Courier-2 medium-range ballistic missiles?

            In terms of confrontation with the American Tomahawk missile raid station deployed at military bases in Romania, Poland and Germany (command center in Ramstein), only Iskander-M and Iskander-K missile launchers located in the western regions of Russia and KRSD are relevant Caliber "3M54, deployed on submarines and RTOs in the waters of the Barents, Baltic and Black Seas.

            Russian medium-range ballistic missiles like the Soviet "Pioneer", "Speed" or "Courier" are only bright, but the future. In this question, I put on Makeev Design Bureau.
      3. oleg-gr
        oleg-gr 13 May 2016 11: 27
        +5
        A deceitful organization called the US Department of State can say anything. You cannot believe a single word of theirs. They always turn out to be "misunderstood".
    2. RUSIVAN
      RUSIVAN 13 May 2016 10: 51
      +4
      The USA has a toggle switch always in one position, and most importantly, they probably believe that WE believe their words ...
      1. sub307
        sub307 13 May 2016 11: 19
        +6
        RUSIVAN: "... they probably believe that WE believe their words ...".
        Rather, they know that WE know that they are cunning as usual, but they continue to "poison" bullshit for European housewives ..., public opinion, so they say, try to provide for themselves.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Vadim237
        Vadim237 13 May 2016 13: 20
        +1
        Now we know that they know that we know that they know.
    3. Corsair
      Corsair 13 May 2016 11: 05
      +2
      Quote: Andrey K
      The conversation is about maintaining nuclear parity, the ability to shoot down the "response"

      No, you are mistaken, the conversation is just about the fact that universal installations allow you to launch not only missiles, but also missiles. At the same time, the officially declared number of launchers seems to have remained in the same quantity and at the same distances, but in fact their number has increased and the location (of course with the coverage area) has changed significantly. hi
    4. iliya87
      iliya87 13 May 2016 11: 18
      +2
      The abbreviation ABM means a complex and that it will not include land-to-ground guidance systems by default, it does not mean that after the construction of the necessary infrastructure, this complex cannot be used in offensive operations. Practice shows that connecting the appropriate systems and replacing launch missiles with earth will take the earth from 15 minutes to 2 hours, depending on different conditions.
      1. opus
        opus 13 May 2016 13: 18
        +1
        Quote: iliya87
        by default ground guidance systems will not be included land does not mean that after the construction of the necessary infrastructure

        There is no "guidance complex" for KRBD

        Only a geographical starting point and target point + a choice of variations on the approach route are required.
        ANN (on VOG) + Noise immunity NAVSTAR + TERCOM + two-way satellite communication (VHF) with carrier
        or

        BINS LN-35 (on KLG) + TERCOM AN / DPW-23
        Digital maps of the area are known.
        The launch point is stationary, approach routes are limited (not a ship); all this is introduced into the head of the RGM / UGM-109 / D / E CRBD directly at the factory.
        Just click the button.
        and Aegis CIUS is an integrated network of means of illuminating the situation and means of destruction, such as missiles, rocket launchers, electronic warfare equipment, computer control systems and decision support
    5. max702
      max702 13 May 2016 11: 38
      +1
      Quote: Andrey K
      Nobody says missile defense is offensive

      Here you are absolutely wrong! All this is boiling and organized to circumvent the INF Treaty! Shooting down our missiles is an extremely difficult and hardly feasible business, and everyone understands this very well, but having equipped these installations with attack missiles and with their help destroy our launchers (minimum flight time) is quite real! Do not forget when the decision was made to deploy this missile defense system and in what state was our country? Nobody expected that the reaction would be so harsh, they thought they were purring, and since then in Russia it was sheer bedlam, then everything would be released on the brakes ... thereby the United States received another tool to destroy the MAIN threat to itself, the bourgeoisie have not bad analysts and one basket is not folded, that's why I work from different directions ..
    6. CAMS
      CAMS 13 May 2016 11: 42
      +1
      it’s not that it can’t. The fact is that the ABM contract was violated !!! that's where the salt is! who violated and when? !!! and this fact does not even rise in the media !!! even in ours
    7. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 13 May 2016 11: 43
      +4
      Quote: Andrey K
      State Department: missile defense system "cannot launch any offensive missiles" ...
      Oil fool
      Do you want to wind up the topic and hang "noodles", start to assert what everyone already knows request
      Nobody says missile defense is offensive request
      The conversation is about maintaining nuclear parity, the ability to shoot down the "response" negative
      The State Department once again "turned on the toggle switch" negative

      You are not familiar with the characteristics of modern American destroyers. The same cells can contain both the Aegis SM-3 missiles and Tomahawk missiles (2 PU Aegis missiles on the 41 (bow) and 32 (stern) cells, from 64 to Tomahawk 8 missiles). The State Department is simply lying insolent and does not blush.
      1. Andrey K
        Andrey K 13 May 2016 12: 31
        +6
        Quote: Алексей_К

        You are not familiar with the characteristics of modern American destroyers. The same cells can contain both the Aegis SM-3 missiles and Tomahawk missiles (2 PU Aegis missiles on the 41 (bow) and 32 (stern) cells, from 64 to Tomahawk 8 missiles). The State Department is simply lying insolent and does not blush.

        I am familiar with the performance characteristics of destroyers with Aegis on board hi
        Just about the fact that: "The State Department is just lying insolently and does not blush" and wrote, just formulated it differently hi
    8. vodolaz
      vodolaz 13 May 2016 12: 09
      0
      Well, the State Department in its repertoire. Even if this is so, then what prevents to redo this system then? And the Romanians are generally very short-sighted comrades. They don’t think it seems that now something will be aimed at them.
    9. opus
      opus 13 May 2016 12: 30
      +2
      Quote: Andrey K
      Nobody says missile defense is offensive
      The conversation is about maintaining nuclear parity, the ability to shoot down the "response"


      As already written.
      it's not about that:


      And HERE ABOUT THIS:

      De jure and soon de facto the Americans withdrew from the INF Treaty.


      there is a difference like this:

      Or so (but from the ground, from Romania)

      ?
      The essence is the same:
      1. opus
        opus 13 May 2016 12: 35
        +3
        Tales that the Aegis Ashore Ballistic Missile Defense BIUS software allegedly cannot launch from the ground CBBM BGM-109 Tomahawk (with the W80 warhead (5-200 ct) or W84 (5-150 ct). Yes, even WDU-36 ct. kg (PBXN-340 Type 107) or penetrating WDU-2 / B) at a distance of up to 43 km ... 1250km.
        These are fairy tales, and for the fool 4. This is the psaki level.
        Mk 41 (Mark 41) - UPUVP for launching missiles: "Standard" SM-2, SM-3 and SM-6, ASROC, Sea Sparrow, ESSM and BGM-109 Tomahawk.
        It doesn’t matter if it is on the earth (on earth it is even simpler) or on a ship.
        For the Aegis Ashore BMD software, this is even "lighter." The launcher coordinates do not change, the RCD routes are fixed, the time for entering the flight task is not required (everything is in memory), the launch is instant.
        but we can’t control PU, software, or the presence of a rocket engine with nuclear warheads on the territory of Poland, Romania.
        Even if they don’t bring directly to Poland, Romania, the BGM-109 Tomahawk ... they will draw it there on an 3-D printer. Raytheon is already mastering this technology


    10. avdkrd
      avdkrd 13 May 2016 15: 38
      0
      Quote: Andrey K
      State Department: missile defense system "cannot launch any offensive missiles" ...
      Oil
      Do you want to wind up the topic and hang "noodles", start to assert what everyone already knows
      Nobody says missile defense is offensive

      On the contrary, from the very beginning it was clear that the anti-missile has a potential equivalent to a medium-range missile. GBI is based on the Minuteman and is originally capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. Even anti-aircraft missiles can be used against ground targets, the Americans, what specifically "cut off" this ability in their anti-missiles? The American statement is not a "well-known statement" but a blatant lie. There is an opinion that, in general, ABM is only a screen for the deployment of first strike missiles, since the capabilities of ABM are negligible in comparison with the price, and some, and the Americans, know how to count money. But as a weapon of the first strike, the missile defense fully meets the price-quality criterion.
  2. old pioneer
    old pioneer 13 May 2016 10: 48
    +1
    According to him, "Aegis Ashore does not have software, fire control systems, additional support equipment or other infrastructure."Well this is obvious wassat
  3. NordUral
    NordUral 13 May 2016 10: 48
    +6
    Such a trifle
    Lying as you write, my friend. http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2013-06-21/8_pro.html
    1. CAH4OYC
      CAH4OYC 13 May 2016 11: 12
      0
      Lying as you write, my friend

      As far as I understand, this is a ship? The agreement provides only for ground-based missiles, but FSU on water)))
      1. dckx
        dckx 13 May 2016 11: 32
        +1
        So everything correctly shows that the PU data are used to launch the Kyrgyz Republic, from which there is confidence that the PU deployed in Europe are not capable of this. Well, of course, our military specialists will be allowed to control it ....
      2. opus
        opus 13 May 2016 13: 10
        +1
        Quote: CAH4OYC
        The contract provides only ground-based missiles, and on the water FSUs)))

        place the MK41 on the ground.




        will there be a difference if the launch is not from the ship

        And from the earth?
        It will be: from the ground it’s more accurate and the reaction time is not 15-20 minutes, but 1 minutes
  4. Red_Hamer
    Red_Hamer 13 May 2016 10: 48
    +4
    ABM “cannot launch any offensive missiles”
    laughing made fun of
  5. Wedmak
    Wedmak 13 May 2016 10: 49
    +2
    There is no faith in the Americans. It can’t, yeah. Meanwhile, universal launch cells are installed. And what document can guarantee that in one and a half to two hours they will not fill in a new program and insert a tomahawk launch control module?
  6. Mercenary
    Mercenary 13 May 2016 10: 50
    +5
    What a lovely Yankee people and we blame them ...
    Question; If missile defense missiles are capable of destroying missiles at the booster stage, what prevents them from being destroyed on the launch pad?
    And what is the difference between missile defense with a striking warhead from the rest?
    1. Corsair
      Corsair 13 May 2016 11: 11
      0
      Quote: Mercenary
      Question; If missile defense missiles are capable of destroying missiles at the booster stage, what prevents them from being destroyed on the launch pad?

      Radars need a certain height because the earth is round, the further the radar, the greater the angle at which it will detect an object. It makes no sense to hit missile defense against hospitals (mines), and even with nuclear warheads it’s not a fact that you can take it, mobile missiles are difficult to detect, like missile launches themselves, until they reach a certain height.
  7. Vadim237
    Vadim237 13 May 2016 10: 53
    +1
    Russia is full of medium-range ballistic missile projects with multiple warheads - if we can get out of the INF Treaty and set up serial production of these missiles.
  8. Arkan
    Arkan 13 May 2016 10: 55
    +2
    There is no faith in American statements. The situation in the European theater is complicated, which will require adequate solutions.
  9. Lopatov
    Lopatov 13 May 2016 10: 55
    +7
    Lies.
    Does the State Department consider all idiots?

    The universal launcher Mk-41 can launch cruise missiles. And therefore, this is a direct violation of the INF Treaty.

    Article VII:
    7. If the launcher was tested to launch the BRNB or KRNB, then all launchers of this type are considered as tested to launch the BRNB or KRNB.
    8. If a launcher has been tested to launch any type of BRNB or KRNB or used to launch them, then all launchers of this type are considered as launchers of this type of BRNB or KRNB.


    In general, it’s original ... It is loudly accusing Russia of alleged violations, and at the same time so obviously violating the Treaty in reality.
    1. Operator
      Operator 13 May 2016 12: 44
      -1
      How do paragraphs 7 and 8 of Article VII of the INF Treaty correspond to the launchers of the Iskander-K mobile missile system?
  10. old pioneer
    old pioneer 13 May 2016 10: 58
    +3
    Mother Russia always found an answer to the adversaries: "The general situation shows more and more clearly that the colossus Russia, which consciously prepared for war, despite all the difficulties inherent in countries with a totalitarian regime, was underestimated by us. This statement can be extended to all economic and the organizational side, on means of communication and, in particular, on the purely military capabilities of the Russians {458}. By the beginning of the war we had about 200 enemy divisions against us. Now we have already 360 enemy divisions {459}. These divisions, of course, are not as armed and not as staffed as ours, and their command is tactically much weaker than ours, but, be that as it may, there are these divisions. And even if we defeat a dozen such divisions, the Russians will form a new dozen. "
    August 11, 1941 - the 51st day of the war ...
    militera.lib.ru/db/halder/1941_08.html
  11. Air defense Valga
    Air defense Valga 13 May 2016 10: 58
    +1
    I still don’t understand what, our people demand from a charred legal guarantee that the missile defense system will not be aimed at Russia — he kicks ... what is the reason for him to kick, and should we insist? It is clear to everyone that any agreement from the United States is not worth the paper on which it is written and will fly into the oven at the earliest opportunity, and in response to the signing of this bullshit letter, we will have to take real, disadvantageous steps for us to reduce the presence of strike complexes in strategic areas. Please explain who understands.
  12. NUR
    NUR 13 May 2016 11: 00
    +2
    Take a word. All of Europe believes and Russia does not. Gorbachev believed that NATO would not expand eastward.
  13. MiRvSeMvDoM
    MiRvSeMvDoM 13 May 2016 11: 00
    +1
    How many bandit lodges are in their mouths. For decades we have learned to "trust" you gentlemen. You can hang your rotten noodles to the popuas ...
    1. MiRvSeMvDoM
      MiRvSeMvDoM 13 May 2016 11: 59
      0
      "LIES" of the Lord. sorry for my non-russian hi
  14. Altona
    Altona 13 May 2016 11: 03
    0
    Zvizdet-not bags tossing and turning. The official contract in the studio, for signature!
  15. HollyGremlin
    HollyGremlin 13 May 2016 11: 03
    +1
    As always, it is necessary to answer asymmetrically - to withdraw from the agreement on the prohibition of bottom-based weapons and place charges off the coast of the United States - this is a guarantee of a retaliatory strike, against which it is difficult to imagine protection.
  16. bad
    bad 13 May 2016 11: 03
    +2
    "Aegis Ashore was not and will not be developed, tested or deployed to launch other missiles, except those that were designed and tested solely to intercept and counter objects not located on the surface of the Earth," the Department of State said in a statement.
  17. Volksib
    Volksib 13 May 2016 11: 17
    +1
    We are doing one thing well, we are saying another, but we are thinking completely different. In Russia, there are clearly no fools in the military-political leadership. Our S-400s are also just defensive. Russia is forming new divisions in the western direction, a powerful tank fist is being created. The mission of heavy divisions breaking through the enemy’s defense. And army brigades, which by the way are also being actively formed and no one is abandoning them, are developing a breakthrough. And acting as mobile reserves. Our guys will obviously not roll the cotton wool anymore. So pi ... oh pi ... bagasse and threats are counteracted and quite effective. A new infrastructure is being created in the Kuril Islands, they will install the Bastion and Bal systems. By the way, on the islands on which the Japanese are crying. What does this mean that the Sea of ​​Okhotsk is becoming protected by Russia's safe inland sea. types without fear of any anti-submarine forces. Well and finish off from the pier in Vilyuchinsk finish. Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, Donbass, Syria all these opera tions prove determination in making decisions when they touch upon the living. Well, to compare the morale of our armed forces and geyrope troops .....
  18. ovod84
    ovod84 13 May 2016 11: 17
    +2
    The Germans also told us that this is not against you, this is against the British. A well-known saying says Trust, but check.
  19. silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 13 May 2016 11: 18
    +1
    A system that really restricts ... or threatens to restrict the use of Russia's strategic potential deployed near our borders is a threat and a gesture of aggressive intentions on the part of potential "friends"
    We have the right to respond adequately ... by adding target designation for the destruction of strategically significant goals in the first (and possibly in the primary) strike ...
  20. The comment was deleted.
  21. Panichev
    Panichev 13 May 2016 11: 25
    +2
    “Aegis Ashore does not have software, fire control systems, additional support equipment or other infrastructure necessary to launch ground-based cruise missiles

    Especially the lack of software - a cool excuse!)
  22. Romin
    Romin 13 May 2016 11: 42
    0
    Since it has already been decided to establish a base in Poland.
    I still do not understand our mumble about the Escanders in the Kaliningrad region.
    The West understands only a clear open message, about which they have repeatedly said: "if they talk to us harshly, that is, understanding of serious intentions ..."
    But this favorite "bird" language of our leaders at this stage does not bring peace to our country on the western frontier.
    As they say, it was necessary yesterday to clearly state our position that any base is taken for escort, as a target for a preventive nuclear strike + destruction of infrastructure sites, energy and material support of missile defense facilities, t, e not only the base's location, but also the port , railway junctions and stations, airports and automobile junctions, power plants, etc. through which all necessary bases are provided, and at least a bakery in Warsaw.
    Believe me, this is no longer ridiculous for the people and state that agreed to place such a pro base on their territory! In a conflict, this can result in up to 50% loss of population and a complete loss of infrastructure in a country like Poland or Romania!
    And we, as always ... Language in jo ,, e
    We clap our ears and demand legal confessions that are not against us.
    We must act! Dear Putin!
    And then later, as if by millions of our lives, you would not have to pay for such a mediocre foreign policy mumble!
    With a good opportunity, all these bros: Poles, Romanians, Hungarians ... They will cut us no worse than the Ottoman .. Fortunately, there is no need to go far, as a keepsake documentary evidence of World War II.
    And as for universal cells, I have long been asserting that you can put a lot of things in there ... Like changing your head on the interceptor (which is ice time to St. Petersburg for 5 minutes, you won’t have time to pick up children from the kindergarten ...!) And if officially anywhere they don’t write about the fact that heads can be replaced, no one is insured that they secretly worked out such technology and tested ..
    It is necessary to act and end with companionship. In our foreign ministry, the "Lay's" policy and preventive measures tend to zero!
    And I want to add, we did not have drones either! Some crafts level 80-90x. Nothing serious! Nothing shock! No satellite system! Only radio control! In general, no system was created! Glory to the cutters!
    Amers x-47 - 2 sides the 3rd year fly in orbit. Our half do not know what he is doing there! And do not even think to move in this direction!
    What can I say ... Already the Chinese anti-satellite systems have done and tested, with a satellite missile defeat.
    And we? We are all proud of the developments of the USSR! Yes, it was cool, but already ... everyone went ahead!
    And we do not even hurt the development of outer space! What will we shoot down satellites with? Hats?
    Sorry;) there will not be enough hats!
  23. Romin
    Romin 13 May 2016 11: 43
    0
    Every year we are lagging behind monstrously more and more in technology, as they spit on the computer industry, everything dried up after 30 years!
    Stop crying about Gorbachev and Yeltsin, yes they are full of torment ... and traitors.
    But now is 2016
    Putin has been in power for 16 years!
    Where? Where? Result!
    I don’t give a damn about the dog and her puppies (retriever is a black little sissy), I am interested in what Chubais does in Rosnano!
    What does Shuvalov, pet..x collapsed aircraft industry in the government.
    What is Medvedev doing? Lecturer at Skolkovo! What is all for na ... x ...!
    When we will be appointed according to professionalism and with an assessment of the result, and not according to nepotism !!!!
    What it was and is with Serdyukov !!!!
    Cooperative "Ozerki"!
    And hyper bonuses for managers in state-owned companies and salaries of 25 thousand are what ???
    With what is happening with us now, we will remain second-rate, technologically, a regional power! And only the presence of nuclear weapons still saves us.
    As soon as our friends approach the possibility of neutralizing, and they, according to the plan, will realize this goal, then ... And why do 140 million such large territories? Yes, and 35 is enough ...
    And the saddest thing is Putin goes in a circle and repeats the mistakes of the previous ones; one must be able to boldly acknowledge mistakes and make tough, personnel, and foreign policy decisions. And psychologists have long noticed his weaknesses, unfortunately not only ours. Therefore, even the weakling Obama and the woman Merkel more firmly and decisively defend their position. And I want to see, just the opposite!
    1. BOB044
      BOB044 13 May 2016 11: 55
      +1
      We are now from your conclusions Romin RU, everyone will shoot. Or maybe you will visit a doctor. hi
      1. Romin
        Romin 13 May 2016 16: 39
        0
        Dear, forgive me heartily, but why poke;)?
        Since I am anxious about the health and future of fellow citizens, perhaps you should undergo an annual medical examination in order to meet the period of survival in good health, so by the way, Mr. Medvedev indicated age after 60.
        And the conclusions, any sane person, draws himself and has every right to do so.
        And if you share your thoughts, then we can discuss about the content.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 13 May 2016 13: 29
      -1
      Putin is doing everything right, "Even the weakling Obama and the woman Merkel are more firmly and decisively defending their positions" - you probably dreamed about it.
  24. AlexTires
    AlexTires 13 May 2016 12: 13
    0
    State Department: missile defense system "can not launch any offensive missiles"

    It would be better to immediately write that the missile defense system cannot launch any missiles at all ”... yes
  25. lopvlad
    lopvlad 13 May 2016 12: 16
    +3
    The system cannot launch any offensive missiles like the Tomahawk cruise missiles. ”

    They consider everyone to be idiots. They install the unified naval superstructure of the Aegis Ashore radar with the unified launcher Mark 41 with which you can launch just how many (SM-1, SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, ASROC, Sparrow, ESSM, and Tomahawk).

    Based on this list, even a dumb one will be able to understand that this is a ground element for the implementation of BSU and the topic of missile defense is for cover.
    According to official figures, the SM-3 missiles for the implementation of missile defense have released no more than 150 pieces (indicating that 135 cost from 12-24 million per unit) and the SM-6 does not yet exist at all. The effectiveness of these missiles in terms of intercepting modern Russian nuclear missiles is stupidly unknown .

    Another thing is the Tomahawk missile (a multi-purpose high-precision subsonic cruise missile of long range, strategic and tactical purpose. It flies at extremely low altitudes with an envelope of the terrain.) Of which more than 7302 pieces are fired.
    The effectiveness of the combat use of these missiles has been proven and the cost of one missile is only 1,45 million dollars.
    The adversaries are preparing an attack on Russia.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 13 May 2016 13: 25
      0
      And to the Tomahawks, add a few thousand AGM-158 JASSM air-launched cruise missiles with a launch range of 900 kilometers.
  26. sergzub
    sergzub 13 May 2016 12: 17
    +1
    It’s impossible to launch tomahawks today, but in a few years it’s already possible
    1. lopvlad
      lopvlad 13 May 2016 12: 52
      +1
      Quote: sergzub
      This tomahawks cannot be run today


      today it is already possible in Romania. To launch, only deliver missiles and that’s all.
  27. 96423lom
    96423lom 13 May 2016 12: 20
    +1
    If Putin had made a mistake at least once, then not "Armata" would have walked around Red Square, but "Abrams". In 99, when Borya was leaving, the Americans simply did not catch the mouse because of the exclusivity. And breaking everything to smithereens and in half is enough, we ate in the 20th century.
  28. Sars
    Sars 13 May 2016 12: 24
    -1
    Quote: BOB044
    What does Shuvalov do

    Quote: BOB044
    What is Medvedev doing?

    Quote: Romin
    Putin

    Quote: Romin
    what does chubais do

    I think they are laughing at us, They made such a country!
  29. Winnie76
    Winnie76 13 May 2016 13: 39
    +1
    Maybe it’s time for us to set our UKKS in Cuba too.
  30. nikoma2015
    nikoma2015 13 May 2016 15: 29
    +1
    The guard, Mr. Kaltenbruner or Stoltenberg (right?) Russia is approaching the NATO border. Are you sleeping well? In fact, people without brains always sleep well.
  31. Phosgene
    Phosgene 13 May 2016 17: 11
    +1
    Again, Washington’s lying fables. It has long been known that Tomahawk cruise missiles, including those with nuclear warheads, can be launched from these installations.
  32. Ros 56
    Ros 56 16 May 2016 08: 30
    0
    Oh, these storytellers, it will not be enough. He is the State Department and in Africa the State Department, tryndet, do not toss the bags.
  33. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 16 May 2016 16: 28
    0
    No comments
  34. BEECH 1972
    BEECH 1972 16 May 2016 21: 34
    0
    One has only to remember everything that they told us from the 1990s to the present and then their empty speeches, you can not even listen. And to any of their statements or promises, set up an answering machine to answer the program, according to the simplest algorithm - "Yes" - "No" - "Fuck you, goodbye!"