Instant global impact. Implementation of the "Instant Global Strike" program in the United States. Ballistic tactical missiles

Moscow is in the midst of a budget crunch. Not only the prospects for defense spending are being decided - the rearmament program until 2025 is to be approved soon. The situation is fateful: all summer at various meetings, Vladimir Putin promised to significantly reduce defense spending within the framework of a super-tight budget. It seemed to many that the "party of war" was defeated, but that was not the case. The General Staff has a sure way: to repeatedly inflate external (American) threats or invent non-existent ones.

For 35 years now, the most violent military-state tantrums have been associated with the promising American missile defense system, with SDI or Ronald Reagan's "star wars". Also along the perimeter of the borders, enemies secretly form shock groups. In 2017, the Ministry of Defense is conducting military exercises in Taimyr, building a base on Wrangel Island, where only polar bears lived before, and is also deploying a coastal defense division in Chukotka. And all this happiness is due to the reduction of education, medicine, real pensions and social benefits.

Wrangel Island. Photo: Georgy Nadezhdin / TASS

A powerful delegation of generals was assembled at the General Staff to tell the UN on October 12 about the harmfulness of the Pentagon, but the Americans, since the consular department in Moscow is actually not working due to the mass dismissal of employees as a result of Russian sanctions or "retaliatory measures." For the General Staff, someone Alexander Yemelyanov, who was urgently appointed as a “representative of the Defense Ministry”, spoke out in New York about the growing deployment of the American missile defense system and about a new threat - Prompt Global Strike.

The correct translation of PGS is “quick global impact", but Russian propaganda and officials repeat -" instant hit because it sounds scarier.

The idea of ​​PGS was born about 15 years ago at the height of the global war on terror after 9/11 and initially had nothing to do with the Russian Federation. It was assumed that if it were suddenly possible to find out that terrorist leaders had gathered somewhere for a meeting, then it would be possible to deliver a high-precision non-nuclear strike anywhere in the world within an hour (until they dispersed).

Of course, PGS weapons can potentially be used to destroy Russian targets, but American weapons that can reach any target on the territory of the Russian Federation in less than an hour, and have already existed for 50 years, are sea and land-based missiles (ICBMs) and all sorts of cruise missiles . The General Staff claims that by 2020 the US will start deploying PGS systems, which will “destroy the existing balance of power,” but this seems extremely doubtful. The idea of ​​PGS turned out to be of little demand. In many ways, this is an empty horror story like Reagan's SDI.

It is cheaper and more effective to exterminate terrorist leaders with slow-moving but stealthy drones, rather than fancy hypersonic projectiles.

So far, hypersonic "gliders" launched by ICBMs have been successfully tested in the Russian Federation and the United States. However, the launch of ICBMs is easy to detect, and their number in the United States and Russia is also limited by the START-3 treaty. If a nuclear warhead is replaced with a non-nuclear warhead on an authorized ICBM, then this cannot “destroy” any balance. All sorts of hypersonic drones and orbital "bombers" are being developed in the United States and Russia, but the work is difficult, there are no combat-ready products, and it is not known when they will appear.

America, of course, is much richer, stronger and technologically (together with allies) is superior to Russia in almost everything, but nothing seriously threatens the regime of mutual nuclear deterrence in the foreseeable future. Yemelyanov recounted the well-known General Staff story about how the Americans are deploying hundreds of THAAD and Standard-3 anti-missiles and that by 2022 there will be up to a thousand of them, and then their number will “exceed the number of warheads on Russian ICBMs.” But all American interceptor missiles, except for 30 GBI in Alaska and California, can only shoot down intermediate and shorter-range missiles, and Russia does not have them or should not have them under the 1987 INF Treaty. The obsolete GBI may try to shoot down a primitive single North Korean ICBM, but against the Russian nuclear capability they are basically useless. The American missile defense architecture is now being built almost exclusively against the DPRK and a little Iran.

Someday, maybe in 20 years, there will be a practical opportunity to build a defense against ICBMs with MIRVs and with "planning" warheads. Or maybe it won't show up.

But military department requires trillions now - to counter non-existent or deliberately inflated threats in an impoverished country with crumbling infrastructure, healthcare, science and education. Well, just like it was in the eighties,

when the country's resources were mediocrely squandered on all sorts of weapons, countering the fictitious SDI and local wars (Afghan).

Amendments to the budget and the expansion of "closed" items have already canceled the promised cuts in defense and security spending. But it is clear - the enemy is at the gate. The Ministry of Defense managed to see in Poland the ghost of an entire American mechanized division and the preparation of "aggression" when there is one US brigade, which is now undergoing rotation.

Foreword

The topic of a global attack on the Russian Federation will be covered by the author in a series of five parts over two weeks (each topic after 2-3 days). Instead of the word "quick", media articles also use the terms "instantaneous", "lightning fast" and "sudden".

In the messages, when expressing his opinion, the author will use the term “sudden global impact” (SGA) or mark “ MA:» (author's opinion). When quoting the text, the author took the liberty of slightly distorting certain terms (for example, “nuclear warhead” or “nuclear warhead” is changed to “nuclear ammunition”, etc.) in order to reduce the abbreviations used in the text. When discussing messages on the forum, the author reserves the right not to respond to any comments and questions. There are questions - ask in a personal. If more than 20 members of the forum support the same question in messages, I will answer. The opinion of the author may differ from the opinion of other people from the site. Therefore, I apologize in advance to them and undertake to read your comments, which will be posted within 7 days.

Plans for US nuclear strikes on the USSR and Russia. Unilateral initiatives to reduce stockpiles of nuclear

From the 80s until the collapse of the USSR at the end of 1991, there were many plans for US nuclear strikes on the territory of the USSR, which provided for the conduct of a nuclear war within 3-6 months.

September 27, 1991 of the year US President D. Bush(senior) announced that the US is unilaterally committed to:
- liquidate nuclear weapon(nuclear weapons) short-range ground-based (artillery shells, short-range ballistic missile (BR) warheads):
- remove tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) from surface ships, attack submarines (meaning multi-purpose submarines), land-based naval aviation. Most land- and sea-based nuclear weapons (NWs) will be dismantled and destroyed, while the rest will be stored at central storage facilities;
- strategic bombers (SB) are taken out of combat duty;
- the development of mobile-based MX ICBMs is terminated;
- the program to create a short-range nuclear missile for the Security Council is cancelled;
- streamline the control of strategic nuclear forces (SNF) (the operational commands of the nuclear forces of the Navy and Air Force are reduced to the US strategic command under the command of one commander with the participation of both types of armed forces).

October 5, 1991 year, a counter statement was made by the head USSR M.Gorbachev:
- all nuclear artillery munitions and nuclear warheads of tactical missiles are eliminated;
- withdrawn from the troops and concentrated on the central bases of nuclear warheads of anti-aircraft missiles, some of them are liquidated;
- all nuclear mines are eliminated;
- all tactical nuclear weapons are removed from surface ships and multi-purpose submarines. These weapons, as well as ground-based naval aviation nuclear weapons, are being stored in centralized storage areas, and part of them are being liquidated;
- Security forces are taken out of combat duty, and their nuclear weapons are placed in military depots;
- the development of a modified short-range nuclear missile for the Security Council is stopped;
- the development of small-sized ICBMs is being stopped;
- the number of launchers (PU) of railway-based ICBMs is not increased in excess of the existing ones, and these missiles will not be modernized. All rail-based ICBMs will be located in places of permanent deployment;
- removed from combat duty 503 ICBMs. 3 SSBNs with 48 launchers of SLBMs are being decommissioned (in addition to the previously withdrawn 3 SSBNs with 44 launchers);
- a deeper reduction of strategic offensive weapons (START) is being carried out than is provided for by the Treaty (by the end of the seven-year period of reductions, the number of nuclear warheads in strategic offensive arms will not be 6,000 units, as established by the Treaty, but 5,000 units;
- in order to increase the reliability of control over nuclear weapons, all strategic nuclear forces are united under a single operational control. Strategic defensive systems are included in a single type of armed forces.

Since at the end of 1991 the USSR broke up into many independent states, on January 29, 1992 a statement was made President of the Russian Federation B. Yeltsin:
- about 600 land-based and sea-based strategic ballistic missiles were taken off combat duty;
- 130 silo launchers of ICBMs have been liquidated or are being prepared for liquidation;
- prepared for the dismantling of launchers of 6 nuclear submarines;
- programs for the development or modernization of several types of strategic offensive weapons have been discontinued;
- the production of SB Tu-160 and Tu-95MS is stopped;
- the production of long-range air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) of existing types is stopped;
- the production of existing types of sea-launched nuclear cruise missiles (SLCMs) is being stopped. New types of such missiles will not be created;
- halved and will further reduce the number of SSBNs on combat patrols;
- the production of nuclear warheads for ground-based tactical missiles, as well as the production of nuclear artillery shells and nuclear mines, was stopped. Stocks of such nuclear warheads will be eliminated;
- a third of sea-based tactical nuclear weapons and half of nuclear warheads for anti-aircraft missiles will be eliminated;
- stocks of aviation tactical nuclear warheads will be reduced by half.

The last of the plans for US nuclear strikes on Russia (the successor of the USSR) was the "Unified Comprehensive Plan for the Conduct of Military Operations" SIOP-92 (the number of objects to destroy nuclear weapons up to 4000, which were mainly located on the territory of the Russian Federation) and SIOP-97 (the number of objects to destroy nuclear weapons up to 2500, mainly in the territory of the Russian Federation). It should be noted that several nuclear warheads can be assigned to hit one target.

In 1999, a new SIOP-00 plan was developed (the number of objects to destroy nuclear weapons is up to 3,000, of which 2,000 are on the territory of the Russian Federation). It can be seen from the above data that after the collapse of the USSR, Russia began to be considered the most dangerous potential adversary of the United States. At the same time, the number of targets on its territory by 1999 decreased by 2 times. The military-political leadership of the United States began to pay closer attention to other countries, in particular to the People's Republic of China.

The birth of the concept of a rapid global strike

The idea of ​​a global strike (a fast, high-precision strike from the United States within 90 minutes) on especially important targets came up with Air Force specialists in 1996. They assumed that by 2025 the United States would have long-range conventional and non-nuclear guided ballistic missiles. In 1999, Air Force specialists also considered the option of a sudden massive nuclear strike (SNA) against the Russian Federation. According to their estimates, SB, mobile ICBM complexes, rail-based missile systems, SSBNs at naval bases, up to 90% of silo-based ICBMs and one of the two SSBNs on combat patrol were completely destroyed at the points of permanent deployment. In a retaliatory strike, less than 5% of the nuclear warheads that Russia had hit the US territory. Based on the results of the assessments, it was suggested that with the strengthening of missile defense, it is possible to reduce the number of nuclear warheads that hit targets in the United States to less than 1%.

During the inter-ethnic military conflict on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Security Council imposed an embargo on the supply of weapons to the warring parties. European countries (including NATO members) were especially in favor of this - they did not need a conflict in Europe. The Americans announced the continuation of the supply of weapons and equipment unilaterally (on the Internet, the mention of these events was removed. Only the newspapers remained). European countries remained silent in response. Since that time, the process of "crushing Europe under the United States" began (or continued).

During air strikes on the territory of Serbia (Yugoslavia), the practice of destroying the country (and changing the regime) with air strikes and bringing NATO troops into Kosovo was tested. But this was possible only due to the international isolation of the country. Europe finally became a vassal of the United States.

By the end of 1999, the American military-political leadership recognized "... The existing SIOP-00 plan is unbalanced and does not meet the new military-political conditions." In the early 2000s The US Department of Defense, in accordance with the instructions of the President, has updated plans for nuclear strikes. After President George W. Bush (junior) came to power, the plans for building missile defense were revised. The project of creating a layered system began to be considered, the key requirement for which was the ability to intercept ballistic missiles of any range in all parts of the trajectory. The creation of such a system was contrary to the provisions of the ABM Treaty.

In 2001, under the global strike, Air Force specialists, when conducting command and staff exercises (KShU), still meant “breaking through corridors” in air defense zones to hit important targets on enemy territory. After the terrorist attacks on US soil in September 2001, the Defense Ministry announced its intention to create a new conglomerate of offensive strike systems: strategic nuclear forces, conventional strike forces, and information operations forces. In 2002, the task of global strike was included in the responsibility of the Joint Strategic Command (USC). In June 2002, the US unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty.

The first updated national nuclear war plan was OPLAN-8044, which came into force in 2004. It included many options suitable for use in a wide range of scenarios for the development of the military-political situation. In terms of OPLAN-8044, the strikes were smaller in scale, but the possibility of delivering MNWs remained.

MNW can be applied suddenly without additional deployment of strategic offensive weapons, the composition of which corresponds to START-3, which ensures stealth and prompt preparation of the strike. MNW can be applied after additional deployment using the "return potential" of nuclear warheads and backup carriers, which provides an increase in strike power. The choice between these options is determined by the conditions of the situation and depends on the time required for the direct preparation of a nuclear strike and the additional deployment of strategic offensive arms.

Below is an assessment of the need for US strategic offensive forces in nuclear warheads based on declassified plans for nuclear strikes against the Russian Federation. The objects of destruction of NNUs are silo launchers of ICBMs, permanent deployment points (RPD) of mobile-based ICBMs, basing points for fleet forces, air bases, storage points for nuclear warheads, enterprises of the nuclear weapons complex, control and communication points.

For each silo with ICBMs, two warheads are assigned for ground detonation Mk21 and one Mk5. It is believed that the shelling of one object by different types of nuclear warhead delivery vehicles provides a higher guarantee of hitting the target compared to other options. In the RFP for mobile-based ICBMs, targets are structures for self-propelled launchers and other fixed objects. Location of dispersed self-propelled units at the moment of impact is not known for certain, their defeat is considered almost impossible. For each RPM, two Mk4A warheads are assigned for ground detonation, which makes it possible to destroy non-dispersed launchers, as well as administrative and technical buildings and structures.

Several levels of destruction of the bases of the fleet forces are considered: from strikes against the infrastructure of the SSBNs to the destruction of objects that can be used by the fleets. Several nuclear warheads can be assigned to destroy each object. A similar approach is implemented when planning strikes against targets military aviation. The minimum level is considered to be the defeat of SBA air bases. The build-up of defeat involves strikes against other airfields, as well as targets related to the functioning of aviation. From one to three nuclear warheads are assigned to an object.

The objects of the class "nuclear warhead storage facilities" include storage bases of the "national level". For each, given their high security, 8 nuclear warheads are assigned for ground detonation. This creates radioactive contamination of the area, excluding for a long time any activity on the territory of the facility, including rescue and evacuation work.

The number of enterprises of the nuclear weapons complex includes federal nuclear centers, plants for the production of nuclear warheads, their components, as well as plants for the production of nuclear materials. 1-5 nuclear warheads are assigned to an object.

The list of control and communication points includes points of higher state and military control, elements of control systems for strategic nuclear forces and forces general purpose, control and monitoring of space objects, as well as elements of the telecommunications system. Their main affected elements are considered to be radio transmitting, radio receiving and radar stations, antenna devices and other objects with low resistance to damaging factors nuclear explosion. In this regard, one nuclear warhead is assigned to destroy each object.

As a result of a sudden MNW, it is expected:
- the defeat of about 93% of silos with ICBMs;
- destruction of mobile ICBMs located in the PPD;
- destruction of the SSBNs located in the bases and the fleet's basing infrastructure;
- destruction of carrier aircraft at airfields and aviation-based infrastructure;
- destruction of all storage points with stockpiles of nuclear warheads in them;
- destruction of the infrastructure for the development and production of nuclear warheads;
- disabling the system of higher state and military administration.

In 2005, the Space Operations and Global Strike Command appeared as part of the USC - a structure that clearly defined the regional focus of the strike and separated it from strategic nuclear operations, as well as from large-scale operations without the use of nuclear weapons.

The question of revising the existing military doctrine was on the agenda. New concept implies the achievement by the United States of global military superiority by expanding the arsenal of its armed forces through the creation of super-efficient conventional weapons capable of inflicting lightning strikes on threat sources.

In November 2006, at the NATO summit, for the first time, a proposal was made to extend Article 5 of the Joint Defense Treaty to international energy policy. NATO in this case will have to provide assistance to any member of the alliance whose energy reserves are exposed to an external threat.

In 2007, a doctrine was adopted according to which, in the event of a threat of an attack on the United States, on American facilities or on its citizens abroad, the Armed Forces must be capable of delivering a high-powered and accurate strike anywhere in the world within 60 minutes in order to neutralize such actions.

In accordance with the doctrine, the Plan of Strategic Deterrence and Global Strike was developed in 2009. OPLAN-8010". Compared to OPLAN-8044, it contains "more flexible options for guaranteeing the security of US allies, deterring and, if necessary, defeating the enemy in a wide range of emergency circumstances."

The number of nuclear warheads used in various options strikes ranges from a few so-called "adaptive nuclear strikes" to more than a thousand in MNU. OPLAN-8010 also includes non-nuclear strike options that do not overlap with nuclear strike plans. Thus, despite a certain increase in the role of conventional high-precision weapons in the US military policy, nuclear weapons continued to be regarded not only as a tool for deterring adversaries, but also as a means of decisively defeating them.

In 2009, a report to the US Congress Committee noted: “... the Russian Federation intends to modernize its basic platforms for the delivery of nuclear warheads, but does not have the technical resources and scientific potential for this. Currently, only 3 SB Tu-160s out of 15 are operational. By 2019, there will not be a single flying copy due to the lack of spare parts. After 2019, only about 50 SB Tu-95s will remain in service. Of the 8 SSBNs, 4 can go to sea. After 2019, it is possible to commission 2 more submarines, bringing the total number to 5-7 operational ones (when on combat duty, no more than 2-3). Most of the ICBMs will be withdrawn from service in 2017-2019 due to the excess of the warranty period by 2.5-3 times. It is possible that up to 40 ICBMs may be put into service until 2019.”

MA: In the eyes of the American military-financial-political elite, Russia has slowly degraded. True, she recovered a little after the collapse of the USSR and the 1998 crisis. In the conditions of that time (despite the crisis of 2008), degradation did not occur as quickly as the foreign elite would like.

In 2010, the US Air Force Global Strike Command was created with the inclusion of all ICBMs, B-52H and B-2A bombers (since 2015 and B-1B SB). The mission of Global Strike Command was reported to be "nuclear and conventional strike, a key component of strategic deterrence."

In April 2010, President B. Obama spoke about the revision of the US national security doctrine: "... The threat of nuclear war has decreased to a minimum ... The main threat is nuclear terrorism ...". They also spoke about the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and missile technologies. Russia was not mentioned in the list of US national security threats.

In 2010, the new Strategic Concept “Active Engagement, Modern NATO Defense” emphasized the threats posed by energy and resource interruptions due to dependence on foreign energy suppliers (the previous NATO concept dates back to 1999).

AI: Predator lay in ambush (Russian fears should be lulled by United States Doctrine, but there is a hook in NATO doctrine to apply military force).

The START-3 Treaty entered into force (we will consider the provisions of the Treaty in the second communication).
A problem has appeared that makes the use of BR in conventional equipment during a fast global strike very problematic. The START-3 treaty limits the total number of deployed ballistic missiles and makes no distinction between nuclear or conventional ones. The United States can equip land-based and sea-based ballistic missiles with conventional warheads only through a corresponding reduction in the number of deployed nuclear-armed missiles. This approach did not suit the military-political leadership of the United States, and Russia did not go towards the United States.

In February 2011, US President Barack Obama informed the Senate that the administration's next goal would be to start negotiations with the Russian Federation on limiting TNW stockpiles.

At the end of 2012, information was disseminated in the media about the conduct by the US military of a computer game (CCG) to practice the skills of delivering massive strikes with high-precision conventional weapons on a fictional country in order to cause unacceptable damage to it and force it to accept political conditions dictated by the United States. The purpose of these exercises was to develop the concept of the so-called rapid global strike, according to which it is supposed to defeat the most important military, political and economic targets of the enemy using existing and promising models. precision weapons. It was assumed that as a result of such actions, the victim country would lose the opportunity to strike back at the aggressor, and the destruction of key objects of its economy would lead to the collapse of the entire state system. It was indicated that the goal set during the KShU was achieved. The analysis of the exercises showed that as a result of an attack on a fairly large and highly developed country with the consumption of 3,500-4,000 units of conventional high-precision weapons within six hours, it will suffer unacceptable destruction of infrastructure and lose the ability to resist. This "leakage" of information is not accidental and unauthorized. The United States has unambiguously shown the whole world that a qualitatively new type of strategic weapon is emerging, which makes it possible to solve tasks that were previously assigned exclusively to nuclear forces. In fact, the Americans made an attempt to implement the concept of "contactless war". At a qualitatively new technical level, they are striving to do what they failed to do in the 20th century: to achieve political goals in a major military conflict only by air strikes.

On May 3, 2012, the head of the General Staff of the Russian Federation, N. Makarov, noted: “Given the destabilizing nature of the American missile defense system, i.e. creating the illusion of the possibility of delivering a massive destructive strike with complete impunity, a decision can be made on the preemptive deployment of strike weapons by the Russian Federation if the situation becomes threatening.

In 2012, a report to the US Congress said: "... We are talking about the planned reforms in the RF Armed Forces and large-scale rearmament ... About plans for the development and supply of weapons until 2020, mainly in the interests of strategic nuclear forces." The experts concluded that after 2020, in the event of a war [with Russia], it will cause unacceptable damage to the United States even if the PRC does not enter the war.

The exercises of the RF Armed Forces in February 2013 became the largest in 20 years and demonstrated an increase in the level of combat readiness of strategic nuclear forces, units of the 12th Main Directorate of the Ministry of Defense (during transportation and work with nuclear weapons). The Americans did not expect this and were stunned by the scale of the transportation of nuclear warheads and the level of training of personnel. The commander of the Strategic Missile Forces, N. Solovtsev, noted: “The level of combat readiness of missiles is at least 96%. The launch is possible in a few tens of seconds ... ”The experts specified that the readiness of mobile ICBM complexes is somewhat lower.

On March 8, 2013, the US media again mentions the concept of a rapid global strike: “... With the end of the deployment of forces and the receipt of a report on the destruction of SSBNs and nuclear submarines of the Russian Federation at sea, aviation and surface ships are transferred to full readiness. The stage of launching a missile strike begins, in which 3,504 cruise missiles are launched at strategic targets on the territory of the Russian Federation from sea carriers alone. The expected success of launches is 90%.

MA: Probably, it means hitting targets, not a safe launch of missiles. According to the experience of a missile strike in Syria, this percentage is incommensurably lower))) Also, the Americans believe that they will be able to destroy up to 90% of China's nuclear potential at the VSU. Probably, the Americans are trying to intimidate the enemy, disorientate him, and force him to give up any action. Ideally, the United States tries to force the enemy to capitulate without even engaging in a real fight with him.

In June 2013, Directive No. 24 "Strategy for the use of US nuclear weapons" is issued. The document expresses serious concern in connection with the modernization of existing and the development of advanced strategic offensive arms being carried out in Russia. A group of American experts calculated the minimum number of nuclear warheads of ICBMs and SLBMs with which Russia can hit US territory in a retaliatory strike: if the Russian Federation strikes at American cities, then after the strike by 37 warheads up to 115 million people (the number of deaths after some time was not estimated). This is due to the fact that 80% of the American population lives on the east and west coasts. Therefore, Russian missiles can destroy all life on these densely populated coastal strips. Russia's population, on the other hand, is only half that of the US, but it is scattered over a vast territory, so that in many areas of residence people can survive both the first and the second nuclear strikes.
MA: Interesting question: the experts suggest we destroy more population not to feed them or not?

On June 28, 2013, D. ROGOZIN noted: “... The United States can destroy up to 80-90% of our nuclear potential in a few hours ... Such a threat can only be countered by creating “autonomous weapons” that do not depend on modern telecommunications technologies.”
MA: Over the past year and a half, a lot of information has appeared on drones for various purposes, which are being tested for the needs of the RF Armed Forces.

March 2014. The USC's first task is to "keep ready and put into action the country's strategic (nuclear) deterrence war plan. Strategic deterrence by deterrence includes not only the combat duty of strategic nuclear forces, the performance of demonstrative operations for strategic deterrence by deterrence, the development and maintenance of plans for nuclear operations, but also the commissioning of these plans using strategic nuclear forces for selective, main attack or emergency response options in nuclear war.

In June 2014, the US DoD conducted a CSA on a military conflict between Russia and NATO using conventional weapons. The results were depressing. Even if all available NATO troops (including the US) stationed in Europe are transferred to the Baltic (including the 82nd Airborne Division, which should be ready to act within 24 hours), NATO will lose in the conflict. “We simply do not have such forces in Europe. Then it’s also the fact that the Russians have the best surface-to-air missiles in the world, and they are not afraid to use heavy artillery, ”explained one of the US Army generals. Russia's victory was not the only one. The Americans conducted the exercises several times, with various scenarios favorable to NATO. But always with the same conclusion. The Russians were invincible.
MA: Perhaps it was a "horror story" deliberately dropped in the media in order to increase the number of NATO troops in Europe (including the Baltics).

In November 2014, a new KShU "Bear Spear" ("Rogatin on a bear") is held, the legend of which was the testing of the concept of a Rapid Global Strike. According to US military estimates, these exercises were among the largest in the 2000s. Let's consider them in more detail.

According to the scenario of the exercises, the events developed as follows. There is a certain Eurasian state called "Usira", which is located on the territory of Russia. This state refuses to supply energy carriers to the European Union, using them for political blackmail. The Usira Navy blocked the NATO fleet, which went out to military aid"third state" in the disputed area.
MA: Where was the NATO fleet blocked? If desired, NATO can find such an area in the Black or Baltic Sea, or in the waters of the Northern Sea Route.

Massive anti-Usyrian protests take place in the Northern State (MA: this is probably the Baltics with massive, maximally tough measures against the Russian-speaking population).

Usira threatens to use military force to protect these citizens. NATO troops are forced to move to more active operations. The United States inflicts a massive strike on Usira with high-precision missiles at the enemy's stationary missile silos, partly at the locations of mobile rocket launchers and on military control centers, including spaced classified and buried command posts strategic and conventional aircraft. Penetrating warheads of the KR (in conventional equipment), B61-11 anti-bunker bombs and a minimum number of other low-yield nuclear warheads are used.

However, during the simulation of the attack with the most realistic conditions, the US received unacceptable damage due to three main reasons.

The first of these was the undercover work of the enemy in the United States, during which he became aware of the possibility of such an operation. However, the agents (MA: it was considered so according to the scenario) did not know either the reasons that prompted its start, or the exact number and type of weapons involved. The enemy, despite the lack of information, was able to prepare missile defense and air defense systems, mobilization and evacuation resources, protective structures and strategic nuclear forces.

The second reason was the existence of a system inaccessible to destruction by anti-bunker weapons (including carriers of nuclear warheads) and special forces. After a high-precision strike, the system launched command missiles (the so-called "Dead Hand" system), which transmitted commands for use to the remaining strategic nuclear forces (about 30% of the initial composition). The use by the enemy of nuclear missile weapons with current characteristics, according to US analysts, made it possible to break through the missile defense system and destroy infrastructure and military installations, as well as about 100 million US civilians. As a centralized state, the United States would cease to exist, losing 4/5 of all civilian and industrial infrastructure. It was worse only in Europe, where the level of destruction reached 90% (MA: After some time, people in Europe may remain only in parts of Spain and Portugal).

The main role was played by the Russian submarine fleet, despite the destruction of its significant part in the open ocean (about 1/3). The most destructive were the volleys of the enemy SSBNs, incl. produced from the North Pole and near US territories. Damage to mobile complexes of the Strategic Missile Forces amounted to about 10%.

The third reason was the use by the enemy of special groups and means, which made it possible, ten minutes after the start of the operation, to attack and disrupt the work of public, state and special computer systems that control the transport, financial and energy activities of the United States.

The review notes that the analyzed tactics and strategy of the attack eventually led to a massive nuclear-missile exchange between Usira and the United States, as a result of which both states received unacceptable damage. Total deaths during the year as a result of the operation and retaliation exceeded 400 million people. According to unofficial data in nuclear war China was involved, against which the United States launched a debilitating preventive nuclear strike. The number of people who died in China has not been estimated.

In a rapid global strike, the United States plans to use advanced Kh-51A hypersonic missiles. Tests of this rocket are not finished. Therefore, the appearance of hypersonic missiles in service can not be expected soon. Thus, in the medium term, the US Army will not receive in sufficient quantities any fundamentally new weapon systems to achieve an operationally significant effect within the framework of the VGU concept. Therefore, in the near future, the United States, when planning a VSU, can rely on SLCMs, ALCMs, and strategic, tactical, and carrier-based aviation.

US National Military Strategy 2015: "Some countries are trying to violate key provisions of international law ... which poses a threat to US national security." In the list of "some countries" there is our country - the Russian Federation. At the same time, the document notes that the probability of unleashing a large-scale war with the use of nuclear weapons and the participation of the United States is insignificant. Russia and the US are no longer adversaries.

On June 16, 2015, Supreme Commander-in-Chief V.V. Putin in his report on the volume of supplied military equipment in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation said: “... So, this year the composition nuclear forces will replenish more than 40 new ICBMs ... ".
(MA: We are talking about the planned replacement of ICBMs whose warranty period was expiring. Previously, about 20-30 ICBMs were produced per year.)

In response to these words, the Commander-in-Chief of NATO Forces in Europe, F. Breedlove, stated: “... Russia behaves like an irresponsible nuclear power. Rhetoric fueling nuclear tensions is not responsible behavior, and we call on nuclear powers to handle this type of weapon more responsibly.”
(MA: And these words were said after the “Rogatin to the Bear” exercise, which showed that Russia’s powerful strategic nuclear forces can deter an aggressor. They would very much like us to produce tanks, aircraft and other conventional weapons instead of missiles).

On September 20, 2015, the US DoD report stated: “The new plan for the war with Russia is divided into two parts. One provides for a scenario of actions in the event of an attack by the Russian Federation on one of the NATO member countries. The second involves an attack Russian army outside the alliance countries. Both versions focus on the possibility of a Russian invasion of the Baltic states as the most likely front of a potential armed conflict.
(MA: The Americans identified sacrificial small horned animals to start a military conflict).

November 18, 2016 Vladimir Putin: “Our task is to effectively neutralize any military threats to Russia's security. Including those related to the creation of a strategic missile defense system, the implementation of the concept of a global strike and the conduct of information wars. From February 7 to February 17, the US Strategic Command conducted the Global Lightning 17 KShU, which became the largest in recent years. During the exercises, the military worked out a scenario with the escalation of a local conflict on European territory into global war. A mock adversary is an unnamed nuclear power against which the United States deployed its strategic forces.

(MA: Only one country meets these conditions - the Russian Federation). The Pentagon had a goal to work out the actions of its forces and their interaction with allies in the event of a conflict with a nuclear power in the European theater of operations. In parallel, the Austere Challenge 17 KShU was held, according to the scenario of which the Europeans defended themselves from external aggression with the help of conventional weapons.

The exercises "Global Lightning 17" worked out the scenario when conventional weapons failed to stop the enemy and nuclear weapons were launched. The US military, together with colleagues from Australia, Canada, Denmark and the UK, used different options for events: they launched a retaliatory nuclear strike and disarmed the aggressor with a preventive nuclear strike. The essence did not change - the conflict in Europe grew into a global war of nuclear powers. Three countries were drawn into the Global Nuclear War against the United States: Russia, China and Iran. According to the announced results of the exercises, the US won the war. At the same time, the command of space operations was trained, which worked out the repulsion of attacks on the space systems of the United States and allies.
MA: Winning a nuclear war against Russia, China and Iran at the same time is an interesting question... There is something in it... Perhaps they found some solution to play off Russia and China? There are currently three great powers: the United States, China and the Russian Federation. A nuclear war of any two among themselves (without the participation of a third country) should lead to a significant strengthening of the third country, which will win in the third World War. Therefore, the Russian Federation and the PRC, realizing this, will NEVER fight each other as long as the United States exists (unless the Americans carry out some large-scale provocation through third circles. I think that the leadership of the Russian Federation and the PRC will have enough wisdom in any development of events not to succumb to it). It is possible that the United States will simultaneously start a sudden nuclear war (including VSU) with both the Russian Federation and the PRC.

US Air Force Chief of Staff D. Goldfin said at a meeting with reporters: “I expect that we will have a revision of the nuclear doctrine ... I really believe that we will have a discussion on nuclear warfare on all components of the nuclear triad, their power and the required number, and not just by means of delivery.
MA: Probably, there were few carriers and nuclear warheads for the war against the Russian Federation, China and Iran.

On April 27, 2017, a representative of the General Staff of the Russian Federation announced that the United States was preparing for a sudden nuclear strike on Russia. American missile defense bases in Europe and anti-missile ships near Russian territory "create a powerful hidden component" for a possible nuclear missile strike. Today, such developments are underway, systems are being created that, according to the Pentagon, will make it possible to launch an instant global strike with high accuracy from orbit, destroying our control centers. Therefore, Russia will take measures to protect itself from the impact of both instant global strike and missile defense systems ... The enemy intends to disable a significant part of Russian strategic nuclear forces. And if Russia, with the remnants of its nuclear potential, decides to retaliate, then the Americans hope to intercept the missiles at the launch and in orbit, thereby neutralizing the attack on America.”
Let our opponents not forget that in accordance with the military doctrine of the Russian Federation reserves the right apply nuclear weapons… in case of aggression against the Russian Federation using conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened.

When asked by a journalist about the time required to destroy the United States, Vladimir Putin replied: “... If desired, Russia is capable of destroying the United States in thirty minutes. And even less."
MA: The United States, on numerous scenarios of rapid global strikes and MNUs, is carefully working out the plans of the VSU for the territory of the Russian Federation, China and Iran. The main task: to destroy the potential of these countries. In a retaliatory strike, the destruction of the infrastructure and population of Europe (including the UK) is possible. It is strange that neither the military-political circles of the United States, nor the EU, nor the governments are worried about this. European countries, nor the international community)))

Videoconferencing of Russia

The developed US plans for global strikes of the Kyrgyz Republic on strategic objects of the Russian Federation (not excluding the transition to MNU) and their regular refinement based on the results of the CSA should set certain tasks for the Russian Aerospace Forces.

The Russian Aerospace Forces includes the Air Force troops, the Air Defense and Missile Defense troops, and the Space Forces.

The number of fighters and interceptors in the Air Force at the beginning of 2017 was: 60 Su-27/UB, 61 Su-27SM2/SM3, over 84 Su-30SM/SM2, over 60 Su-35S, 154 MiG-29S/SMT/M2 /UBT, up to 150 MiG-31/B/BS/BM/BSM.

Most Effective aviation complexes in the fight against the Security Council and the Kyrgyz Republic, operational-tactical aircraft of the MiG-31 type are used. Modernization of MiG-31 aircraft is carried out by NAZ Sokol. Under the agreements with the Defense Ministry, 113 aircraft are to be upgraded by 2019 (by the beginning of 2017, 97 were upgraded, of which one was lost).

The VKS consists of the following structural associations:
- 4 Red Banner Army of the Air Force and Air Defense of the Southern Military District (51 air defense divisions (Rostov-on-Don), 31 air defense divisions (Sevastopol), 1 guards mixed air division (Krymsk), 4 mixed air division (Marinovka), 27 mixed air division (Marinovka) and other parts)
- 6th Leningrad Red Banner Air Force and Air Defense Army (2nd Red Banner Air Defense Division (St. Petersburg), 32nd Air Defense Division (Rzhev), 105th Guards Mixed Air Division (31 MiG-31 aircraft) and other units);
- 11th Red Banner Air Force and Air Defense Army (25th Air Defense Division (Komsomolsk-on-Amur), 26th Air Defense Division (Chita), 93rd Air Defense Division (Vladivostok, Nakhodka), 303rd Guards Mixed Air Division (20 MiG-31B / BS aircraft) and others parts);
- 14th Red Banner Army of the Air Force and Air Defense (76th Air Defense Division (Samara), 41st Air Defense Division (Novosibirsk), and other units (56 MiG-31B/BS/BM/BSM);
- 45 Air Force and Air Defense Army (1 Air Defense Division (Kola Peninsula), 100 separate naval aviation regiment, 98 mixed aviation regiment (20 MiG-31BM aircraft) and other units).

Air defense systems are also part of the coastal defense division of the Russian Navy (Kamchatsky Peninsula). It should be noted that, as of 2016, the naval aviation had 32 MiG-31B/BS/BM aircraft. In 2016, the air defense of the Russian Federation had 125 divisions of the S-300 type (1500 launchers). For 2017, the air defense of the Russian Federation included 38 S-400 divisions (304 launchers). Another 8 divisions are expected to be delivered this year.

As part of the 45th Air Force and Air Defense Army, a new air defense division will be formed in 2018. The new connection will cover the border from Novaya Zemlya to Chukotka. The anti-aircraft missile and radio regiments of the division will be able to detect (MA: to a greater extent - to detect the enemy and cover only certain areas) and destroy aircraft, missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles. After the regiments of the new division take up combat duty, a continuous radar field will be created around the border of our country. (MA: The aviation component will probably be strengthened in this area).

Grouping intensifies Russian troops and air defense systems in the zone of the Kuril Islands. According to the commander of the Eastern Military District S. Surovikin: “The task is to deploy a group on the islands of the Kuril chain. It is connected with the need to ensure the security of the air, surface and underwater spheres. The troops of the district must create a fire shield to cover the Eastern strategic direction. The group is located on the islands ground forces, the Bal and Bastion complexes are located, there are electronic warfare, Buk and Tor-M2U air defense systems. We cannot exclude the possibility of the appearance of S-300 systems in the near future (MA: someday, maybe S-400?). In accordance with the statement of the Defense Ministry S. Shoigu - Pacific Fleet, it is necessary to study the possibility of a promising basing of ships on the islands. Earlier it was said about the intention to place a submarine base (of course, diesel) on the islands.

Certain tasks of detecting enemy aircraft can also be solved by long-range radar detection stations from the Russian missile attack warning system. The following early warning radar stations are currently in operation:
- "Voronezh-M" - Lekhtusi (Leningrad region) - covers the range from Morocco to Svalbard;
- "Voronezh-DM" - Armavir - covers the range from Southern Europe to the North coast of Africa;
- "Voronezh-DM" - Pioneer (Kaliningrad region) - covers the whole of Europe (including the UK);
- "Voronezh-M" - Usolye-Sibirskoye (Irkutsk region) - covers the territory from the West Bank of the USA to India;
- "Voronezh-DM" - Yeniseysk - covers the northeast direction;
- "Voronezh-DM" - Barnaul - covers the southeast direction.
(MA: Deployed air defense systems (ABM) on the territory of the Russian Federation, combat patrols of Air Force aircraft (during a threatened period) solve the main tasks, but, among others, provide protection for these stations. Until stations are hit, aircraft potential adversary it will be problematic to take part in VSU.)

The joint air defense system of the CIS member states includes: Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
The Air Force and Air Defense Forces of the Republic of Belarus are armed with two divisions: S-400 and 16 S-300 divisions. There are complexes "Buk" and "Tor-M2E". Fighter aviation is represented by 20 modern MiG-29 aircraft. The possibility of purchasing new fighters of the Su-30 type is being considered.
The Air Defense Forces of the Republic of Kazakhstan are based on 25 S-300 divisions. There are S-200 and S-125 divisions, several dozen MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters of various modifications, 6 Su-30SM and 25 MiG-31/BM.
The sky of Tajikistan is covered by the S-125 and S-75 systems.
Kyrgyzstan is armed with the S-125 and S-75 systems. The Air Force has 20 MiG-21 fighters. On the territory of Kyrgyzstan, the Russian 999 Kant airbase is deployed, on which Su-25 attack aircraft are based. As part of the exercises, Su-24 aircraft were deployed to the base (if necessary, fighter jets can also be deployed).
The Uzbek Air Force is armed with MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters.
The Armenian Air Force is armed with five battalions of S-300PS and Buk-M2 air defense systems. The 102nd Russian military base (Gyumri) is located on the territory of Armenia. It houses the 988th anti-aircraft missile regiment, equipped with the S-300V complex. MiG-29 type fighters are based at the base.
The 7th Russian military base is located on the territory of Abkhazia, which is covered by the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system.

The Syrian Arab Republic hosts a Russian airbase (Khmeinim) and a logistics center (Tartus). Both objects are covered by air defense systems (S-400 and S-300) of the Russian Aerospace Forces. To strengthen the air defense, the number of air defense systems of the Russian Aerospace Forces can be increased and 6 S-300 divisions can be delivered under the 2010 Treaty. A joint air defense system of the SAR, parts of the Russian Aerospace Forces and surface ships of the Russian Navy (if any) has been created.

US NORAD system

The NORAD system includes ground surveillance systems, a warning system, balloon posts, over-the-horizon radars, AWACS aircraft. There are missile defense areas in Alaska and California (possibly, a new missile defense area will be created on the US East Coast). For 2016, 7 batteries (3 launchers each) of the THAAD system were deployed. Air defense is provided by the US F-15, F-16, F-22 and Canadian CF-18 aircraft.

The continental United States has:
- the National Guard has 21 anti-aircraft missile divisions (about 480 Patriot launchers, 700 Avenger launchers);
- the army has two THAAD air defense regiments;
- in the Washington area - one NASAMS division (3 launchers).

Covering the continental part of the United States is also planned to be carried out using surface ships equipped with a missile defense system.
It should be noted that the feature of the missile defense interceptor guidance and control system has, shall we say, a design defect. But we will talk about this in one of the following articles.

Mk41 installations can be used both for launching anti-aircraft guided missiles of the Standard family, and for firing Tomahawk cruise missiles. The Russian military-political leadership and many military experts have recently expressed great concern about the American concept. Its essence is that the United States seeks to be able to launch a non-nuclear strike on any point on Earth using hypersonic aircraft within half an hour.

In particular, such a blow could theoretically be inflicted on the Russian strategic nuclear forces (SNF). That is, the United States will disarm Russia without arranging nuclear disaster, wherein nuclear arsenal the United States itself will remain intact. If a small number of Russian ICBMs and SLBMs survive, they will be easily destroyed by the American missile defense system.

Success must be complete

The author of this article in 2008-2011 repeatedly wrote about the threat of a disarming non-nuclear strike by the United States against our strategic nuclear forces. At the same time, it was said that such a strike would be carried out with the help of Tomahawk SLCMs and ALCMs, as well as with the help of B-2 bombers built using stealth technology.

The fact is that a disarming strike cannot be partially successful. It is impossible to destroy, for example, 20% of Russian strategic nuclear forces, evaluate the results of the strike, and in a few days deliver new blow, since the surviving 80% of the strategic nuclear forces immediately (within a maximum of an hour) after the first american strike they will go to the USA “under their own power”, after which mutually assured destruction of the USA and Russia will happen, and at the same time, apparently, of the entire human civilization.

Therefore, there can be only one disarming strike, ensuring the destruction of 100% of Russian strategic nuclear forces, and almost simultaneously. And this is possible only with the absolute surprise of the strike, that is, Russia should learn about the very fact of the strike at the moment when the first American missiles begin to hit Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), strategic submarines (RPK SN) and strategic bombers.

Such surprise can only be ensured by those means of aerospace attack (AAS), which are extremely difficult to detect, namely SLCMs, ALCMs and V-2. Their common drawback is the subsonic flight speed, which is why, for example, the Tomahawk flies to its maximum range for two hours. And the detection of even one cruise missile or one bomber immediately destroys surprise. But in the context of a sharp reduction in the number of Russian ICBMs and RPK CHs and a very significant weakening of the air defense grouping, a strike became real, at least with the trends that developed 10 years ago.

Now, however, the situation has changed significantly. The number of ICBMs and SLBMs in Russia as a whole remains stable, as, on the other hand, the number of SLCMs, ALCMs and V-2s that the US Navy and Air Force can actually use. But the air defense grouping of the Russian Federation has greatly increased due to the adoption of several types of new radars for radio engineering troops (RTV), anti-aircraft missile systems (ZRS) for anti-aircraft missile troops (ZRV), fighters and Su-30SM / M2, modernization of interceptors in aviation , as well as by strengthening the missile attack warning system (EWS) by putting into operation. Under these conditions, for the United States, a disarming strike with the help of cruise missiles and B-2 is beyond the bounds of the possible. And a “quick global strike” can by no means be a substitute for this option.

Anti-aircraft missile systems The S-400 and other modern air defense and missile defense systems are capable of disrupting any "global strike".

The very hypersonic aircraft that should provide this strike simply do not yet exist (at least in mass production and in service). But even when (and if) they appear, their carriers will be traditional ICBMs and SLBMs, or (for the Kh-51 missile) B-52 bombers. That is, in order to deliver a "quick global strike", the Americans will first have to remove nuclear warheads from ICBMs and SLBMs and install instead of them hypersonic vehicles(this in itself cannot be done quickly and discreetly). And then you need to make a massive launch of these ICBMs and SLBMs across Russia. Despite the fact that our entire early warning system (both the new Voronezh and the old Daryals, as well as satellites in geostationary orbit) are “sharpened” to detect this massive launch. Therefore, its suddenness is absolutely excluded. In Russia, this will, of course, be perceived as a nuclear strike, after which a command will be sent to use all Russian strategic nuclear forces against the United States.

The result is no longer mutually assured destruction, but unilateral US suicide. After all, in this case they will deliver a non-nuclear strike, and Russia will respond with a nuclear one. Even if the Americans manage to destroy some part of the Russian strategic nuclear forces, the majority of ICBMs and SLBMs are guaranteed to reach the United States, after which this country is just as guaranteed to cease to exist. Neighboring Canada and Mexico will be hit hard. The rest of civilization, including Russia, will have a hard time, but it will not perish. Moreover, the United States will not have “spare” ICBMs and SLBMs, and even if they remain, there will be no one and nowhere to install them. Accordingly, the Russian “fear” of a “rapid global strike” seems to fall under the realm of propaganda.

Take on a fright

The same can be said about the American missile defense system. They have been intimidating us with it for almost a decade and a half, but the United States has not created anything real, America is even further from a full-fledged missile defense system than before a “quick global strike”. The only real component of the missile defense system is a naval system with the Standard missile system of several modifications, but they are not designed to destroy ICBMs and SLBMs. In particular, the missile defense system with Mk41 ship-based air defense systems, which has already been installed in Romania and will be installed in Poland, theoretically cannot create any problems even for the most Western missile divisions Russian Strategic Missile Forces, since no one has yet succeeded in repealing the laws of physics.

The only Russian claim to the American missile defense system in Europe, which could be considered rational, is that in the Mk41 UVP, instead of "Standards", "Tomahawks" could theoretically be installed, for which in this case the flight time to targets in Russia would be sharply reduced . But even this threat today is actually fictitious. In the ground version of the Mk41, there are only 24 cells. It's just too little. In addition, from the Mk41, which has not yet been installed in Poland, Tomahawks will have to start "under the nose" of the Russian air defense group in the Kaliningrad region, including one of the Voronezh-type radars. Therefore, surprise becomes impossible, and the destruction of the discovered Tomahawks is not a problem. It is too far from Romania to any objects of the Russian strategic nuclear forces, moreover, the missiles would have to fly past the already saturated various means Air defense of the Crimea.

U.S. officials, both politicians and military, have repeatedly stated that both “rapid global strike” and missile defense are designed against terrorist groups that can gain access to ballistic missiles and / or WMD, or against countries with large but archaic in organizational and technical terms, armies (such as Iran or North Korea). It is difficult to believe in these statements due to, to put it mildly, the dubiousness of such “threats” and the obvious inadequacy of such a response to them. This is partly why so many conspiracy theories appear in Russia about the direction of all this against us.

Nevertheless, based on the practical actions of the United States, we have to admit that Washington really was guided by such a strange set of threats (at least, this was the case until 2014). Russia in the United States, apparently, was considered completely paralyzed in the political and economic spheres, and the RF Armed Forces - doomed to degradation to the level of those same Iran and North Korea, if not lower. Therefore, in fact, no one was preparing to fight with her in the Pentagon.

Mercenaries let down the Pentagon

The author of this article strongly disagrees with the widespread opinion that "Americans do not know how to fight." The American army has always been one of the best in the world, it could fight and win wars of any complexity and intensity. But in the last two or three decades, the transition to a mercenary recruitment principle and an orientation towards a war with a deliberately "underestimated" enemy have actually noticeably disfigured the US Armed Forces. They believed in the concept of "high-tech non-contact war", in which the enemy will allow himself to be beaten without a murmur and with impunity. And they began to lose the ability to wage a real war.

Directed against whom it is unclear, while the very expensive "rapid global strike" and missile defense based on "Aegis" are far from the worst options. For example, as part of the creation of this very missile defense system, for almost 10 years, the US Air Force tested the YAL-1 - a laser on a Boeing 747 aircraft, designed to shoot down ballistic missiles in the active part of the trajectory. This concept turned out to be the height of absurdity, both technically and tactically. Since there are more smart people in the USA than it is customary to think in Russia, they nevertheless realized this absurdity. In 2014, the laser plane was sent for scrap, having managed to absorb at least 5 billion Pentagon dollars.

With the flying "laser gunboat" YAL-1, the US military did not work out almost immediately.

Ten times more money was "eaten" by the program for the construction of armored vehicles of the MRAP class (mine resistant ambush protected) of several types. These machines with enhanced mine protection were intended for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they were produced almost 30 thousand. units). At the same time, Americans are now rapidly getting rid of MRAPs, distributing them to everyone right and left, most often for free. It became clear that even for a very limited classical war, these machines are completely unsuitable.

In the ongoing wars in the Middle East today, the armed forces of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the Kurdish formations have already lost more than 300 American-made MRAPs. In the same wars, the same armies lost half as many American armored personnel carriers M-113, with almost the same number of them in the troops. M-113 was created half a century (!) Earlier than MRAPs, and even the Americans themselves do not consider it a masterpiece. But it was created for a classic war, so it turned out to be much more stable than newfangled crafts.

However, the main combat vehicle ground forces The USA is not any of the MRAPs and not the M-113, but . The brigades of the same name are equipped with the same vehicles, which the American command still considers a very successful compromise between the mobility of light (airborne and air assault) and the combat power of heavy (tank and mechanized) formations. At the same time, however, the Stryker is an ordinary armored personnel carrier (created on the basis of the Swiss Pirana). It is, of course, better than MRARs and M-113, but this car can be shot into the side even from a heavy machine gun.

APC "Stryker"

The Stryker brigades have no heavier armored vehicles. And if on the battlefield such a brigade meets, for example, with the tank brigade of the Korean people's army, equipped with ancient T-62s, the North Koreans of the Americans, in football slang, "will take out in one gate." Moreover, the Stryker brigade has no air defense of its own at all. As a result, it is not clear what kind of enemy it is designed for a war with? About 90 Strykers were lost in Iraq and Afghanistan, although the enemy had no tanks, no artillery, no aircraft. In 2014, it was on the Strykers that the Americans staged a clownery in Eastern Europe, portraying their readiness to “repel Russian aggression.” Unfortunately, our propaganda even responded to this ridicule with a ritual shameful hysteria in the spirit of “NATO troops are approaching Russian borders.”

Miscalculations in air defense and navy

However, the lack of air defense in the Stryker brigades should not be surprised, this is a problem for the American army as a whole.

Is it possible to imagine that the Russian ground air defense is armed only with the S-300 and S-400 air defense systems and the Igla MANPADS? And there is nothing in between - "Bukov", "Torov", "Tungusok", "Shell", not even "Osa" and "Strela-10". This assumption is so stupid it's not even funny. Meanwhile, American ground-based air defense is designed just like that. It has Patriot and THAAD air defense systems (in much smaller quantities than we have S-300 and S-400), as well as Stinger MANPADS (either in the original portable version or on the Hammer chassis called " Avenger"). There is nothing else, and not even planned.

Moreover, THAAD can only solve missile defense tasks (shoot down operational-tactical missiles and medium-range ballistic missiles), it is not even theoretically capable of fighting aerodynamic targets. And the Patriots remained almost exclusively in the PAC3 variant, also focused on missile defense.

"Anti-aircraft" versions of PAC1 and PAC2 are mostly converted to PAC3 or sold abroad. As a result, in fact, only Stingers remain to fight aircraft and helicopters with a reach of about 8 km in range and about 4 km in height. That is, the American command does not consider the possibility that the troops may come under attack by enemy aircraft. Or he believes that they will certainly cope with this aircraft american fighters. Only after all, fighters, unlike ground-based air defense, depend on weather conditions, on the availability of airfields and fuel and lubricants on them. Moreover, it cannot be ruled out that enemy fighters will turn out to be no worse than American ones in quality and there will be no fewer of them. But, apparently, just this option has long been ruled out in the Pentagon. Which is not very reasonable, to say the least.

Trimaran "Independence"

The orientation to the war is unclear with whom even the US Navy, which received (littoral combat ship, coastal action ship), was affected. As expected, a competition was organized for the best option a similar ship, on which the Freedom built according to the traditional scheme and the futuristic trimaran Independence were put up. Friendship (that is, lobbyists from the military-industrial complex) won this competition, both ships were put into service (it was previously believed that this was possible only in the USSR). However, the choice was actually very difficult: both Freedom and Independence have very weak weapons at a very high price.

As in the cases described above with the "rapid global strike" or "Strikers", it is completely unclear what purpose these ships are intended for and against whom they should fight. More or less, they are suitable for the role of patrol ships, but "normal" patrol ships, built mainly in Europe, are not even several times, but orders of magnitude cheaper than both LCS options.

It is necessary to study foreign experience

In this article, one should not look for gloating, or even more so for hatred. The US Armed Forces remain the most powerful military machine, with an understanding of the situation and political will, they may well “bounce back”. In this they are fundamentally different from the European armies, which turned into soap bubbles, and this process has become irreversible. The matter is completely different.

For the normal development of any sphere, the most thorough study is necessary. foreign experience, both positive and negative. For the military sphere, this is doubly important, because the country's Armed Forces exist to counter external threats, primarily foreign Armed Forces. Accordingly, the development of foreign aircraft provides the most important food for thought when organizing military construction in the Russian Federation.

Surprising as it may sound, now the RF Armed Forces are close to ideal. They have ceased to be an army of the "Soviet-Asian type", crushing the enemy with masses, regardless of losses, but they have not turned into a European-type soap bubble, which is an army only in name. And it is extremely important, having gone from one extreme, not to reach the other (and Russia, unfortunately, loves extremes very much).

Until recently, such an ideal was, of course, the Israeli Armed Forces. With an extremely reverent attitude to the life of each soldier, the IDF was able to wage an arbitrarily brutal contact ground war, including with a numerically superior enemy. But the Israelis were too carried away by American "high-tech contactless" concepts, which is why Israeli army began to noticeably deteriorate. This was evidenced by the formally won, but in fact extremely unsuccessful war in Lebanon against Hezbollah in the summer of 2006.

In Russia, many sincerely hate America, especially since this hatred is constantly fueled official propaganda. At the same time, for the majority of Russians, including very many haters and propagandists, the same America remains an absolute ideal that must be copied completely and in all aspects, including mistakes and outright stupidity.

I recall the story that took place in the late 40s, when in the USSR under the name Tu-4 they copied the American "Superfortress" B-29, which flew to the Far East in 1944 after the bombing of Japan. Tupolev, who had been ordered by Stalin to supervise the copying, said he could make the aircraft better. To which Stalin replied with an epoch-making phrase: “Better not. Do the same." As a result, even the ashtray and the Coke bottle nest in the dashboard were copied (although Soviet pilots it was forbidden to smoke in flight, and they had no idea about Coca-Cola in the country), as well as an accidental hole (apparently from a Japanese bullet) in the wing.

Unfortunately, there is a danger that the leadership of our Armed Forces may also believe in a “high-tech non-contact war” against some resigned, dumb enemy, that “the war is now completely different”, that “there will never be tank battles”, etc. . and so on. Despite the fact that our budget is much less than the American one, therefore we cannot afford the luxury of throwing out billions on useless crafts such as MRAP armored vehicles and LCS ships.

It must be clearly and clearly understood that the fight against terrorism is not only not the only one, but also very far from being the main task Sun. The army and navy must, organizationally, technologically and psychologically, prepare, first of all, for full-scale wars with two of the strongest potential adversaries - with the US Armed Forces and with the renewed PLA. The more prepared we are for these wars, the less likely we will ever have to fight them.

/Alexander Khramchikhin, Deputy Director of the Institute for Political and Military Analysis, nvo.ng.ru/

The Pentagon is building promising complexes instant global impact. This was announced on Thursday, October 12 Representative of the Russian Ministry of Defense Alexander Yemelyanov. He noted that "in terms of non-nuclear equipment, these complexes should solve the same tasks that are currently assigned to strategic nuclear forces."

“The relationship between plans to deploy a missile defense system and the creation of instant global strike means is obvious. When delivering a “disarming” strike against Russian and Chinese strategic nuclear forces, the effectiveness of the American missile defense system significantly increases,” Yemelyanov said on the sidelines of the first committee of the UN General Assembly.

He stressed that "the creation of instant global strike means is another factor that confirms Washington's desire to destroy the existing balance of power and ensure global strategic dominance."

Previously First Deputy Chief of the Main Operational Directorate of the General Staff of Russia, Lieutenant-General Viktor Poznikhir clarified that "the arrival of the first complexes in the US armed forces is planned in 2020." He also expressed the opinion that "the build-up of the American missile defense potential stimulates the arms race", thereby forcing other states "to take retaliatory military and military-technical measures."

As the representative of the General Staff noted at the time, Russia, China and the United States need to negotiate through negotiations to resolve the problems associated with the deployment of the American missile defense system, especially since there is experience in reaching agreements with the United States in a difficult political situation.

As a reminder: Prompt Global Strike (PGS) systems are non-nuclear high-precision systems that allow 60 minutes from the moment the decision is made to strike at any target on globe.

The goals of such complexes are mobile and stationary launchers of ballistic missiles, command posts, and nuclear facilities. To date, three types of PGS tools are known.

The first type is conventional intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) equipped with high-precision non-nuclear warheads, including individually targetable clusters. The second is strategic hypersonic cruise missiles.

Finally, the third type includes the so-called kinetic weapons - heavy refractory tungsten rods 5-10 meters long ("rods of God"), which are dropped from space orbit with high accuracy. Such a projectile fired from space, reaching the Earth's surface at the right point, gives at the point of impact a release of energy equivalent to an explosion of about 12 tons of TNT. So far, such an option is allegedly in the United States at the stage of preliminary design.

And the question arises: how can Russia respond to the emergence of instant global strike complexes in the Americans, in addition to diplomatic attempts to reason with the United States?

“The ultimate goal, which should be solved by PGS systems, is to strike at any point on the planet in no more than an hour,” says Retired Colonel, Member Expert Council Board of the Military-Industrial Commission of the Russian Federation Viktor Murakhovsky. - At the same time, I would not consider conventional ICBMs in non-nuclear equipment as a means of PGS at all. Such missiles are subject to the restrictions of the START-3 treaty, in addition, it is impossible to distinguish between a missile in nuclear and conventional equipment with existing technical means.

Therefore, when the Pentagon talks about instant global strike systems, we are talking about hypersound. True, how far the Americans have advanced in this direction is not yet entirely clear.

Known, for example, is the American Boeing x-37b, an experimental orbital aircraft designed to test future technologies. Officially, the US Air Force says that the tasks of the x-37b are reusable spacecraft technologies. In fact, such a "space plane" just allows you to solve the problem of reaching any point on the planet within an hour.

Plus, by 2020, Lockheed Martin promises to create a working version of the SR-72, a promising hypersonic drone that will be able to fly at speeds up to six Mach numbers (up to 6.9 thousand kilometers per hour). Hypersonic aircraft armed with hypersonic missiles will also be able to reach their destination and strike the target in less than one hour.

Another element of PGS is missile defense systems, which, due to military strategy, are inextricably linked with instant global strike systems. The shock and defensive systems, I note, smoothly flow into each other, primarily in organizational and military terms.

"SP": - What place is given to kinetic weapons in PGS?

- At hypersonic speeds, explosives in the warhead are simply not needed. Since the mutual velocity of the collision with the target exceeds 10 km / s, the substance is almost instantly converted into pure energy.

On this principle, American missile defense systems of the GBI type (Ground-Based Interceptor - “ground-based interceptor”) and mobile THAAD system(Terminal High Altitude Area Defense), which is a theater missile defense system.

GBI, in theory, can intercept warheads of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) - targets moving along a ballistic trajectory at speeds up to 7 km / s. Moreover, to do this at the border of the atmosphere with space - at an altitude of 120-200 km.

THAAD works on ballistic targets that have a flight speed of 3-3.5 km / s (in the latest versions - up to 5 km / s). These are operational-tactical missiles, the so-called intermediate range.

So, the warhead of the missile defense systems of these missile defense systems is really a metal rod.

Impact systems can be equipped in exactly the same way - that is, hypersonic vehicles. They will be able to attack from the lower space or upper layers atmosphere, dropping not a bomb on the target, but, in fact, a metal blank. This blank at a speed of Mach 6-8 will crash into the target, and the effect will be the same as from the detonation of a large-caliber bomb.

"SP": - What can Russia oppose to these systems?

“We are already taking these threats into account today by deploying a complex of countermeasure systems. First of all, a missile attack warning system (SPRN), which includes both ground and space echelons.

Plus, we are improving weapons, and above all, the S-500 universal anti-aircraft and anti-missile system. He will be able to work on hypersonic targets, and on targets in near space, and on ballistic targets.

Finally, in Russia, work is underway to create perspective system PRO on the topic "Nudol". True, apart from the title of the topic and the fact that it refers to missile defense, nothing more can be said about it.

In 2020 american army will receive the first PGS complexes

The Pentagon has begun to create promising systems of instantaneous global strike. This was announced on Thursday, October 12 Representative of the Russian Ministry of Defense Alexander Yemelyanov. He noted that "in terms of non-nuclear equipment, these complexes should solve the same tasks that are currently assigned to strategic nuclear forces."

“The relationship between plans to deploy a missile defense system and the creation of instant global strike means is obvious. Inflicting a "disarming" strike on the objects of Russian and Chinese strategic nuclear forces significantly increases the effectiveness of the American missile defense system," Yemelyanov said on the sidelines of the first committee of the UN General Assembly.

He stressed that "the creation of instant global strike means is another factor that confirms Washington's desire to destroy the existing balance of power and ensure global strategic dominance."

Previously First Deputy Chief of the Main Operational Directorate of the General Staff of Russia, Lieutenant-General Viktor Poznikhir clarified that "the arrival of the first complexes in the US armed forces is planned in 2020." He also expressed the opinion that "the build-up of the American missile defense potential stimulates the arms race", thereby forcing other states "to take retaliatory military and military-technical measures."

As the representative of the General Staff noted at the time, Russia, China and the United States need to negotiate through negotiations to resolve the problems associated with the deployment of the American missile defense system, especially since there is experience in reaching agreements with the United States in a difficult political situation.

Recall: Prompt Global Strike (PGS) systems are non-nuclear high-precision systems that allow 60 minutes from the moment the decision is made to strike at any target on the globe.

The goals of such complexes are mobile and stationary launchers of ballistic missiles, command posts, and nuclear facilities. To date, three types of PGS tools are known.

The first type is conventional intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) equipped with high-precision non-nuclear warheads, including individually targetable cluster warheads. The second is strategic hypersonic cruise missiles.

Finally, the third type includes the so-called kinetic weapons - heavy refractory tungsten rods 5–10 meters long (“God's rods”), which are dropped from space orbit with high accuracy. Such a projectile fired from space, reaching the Earth's surface at the right point, gives at the point of impact a release of energy equivalent to an explosion of about 12 tons of TNT. So far, such an option is allegedly in the United States at the stage of preliminary design.

And the question arises: how can Russia respond to the emergence of instant global strike complexes in the Americans, in addition to diplomatic attempts to reason with the United States?

The ultimate goal, which should be solved by PGS systems, is to strike at any point on the planet in no more than an hour, says retired colonel, member of the Expert Council of the Board of the Military-Industrial Commission of the Russian Federation Viktor Murakhovsky. - At the same time, I would not consider conventional ICBMs in non-nuclear equipment as a means of PGS at all. Such missiles are subject to the restrictions of the START-3 treaty, in addition, it is impossible to distinguish between a missile in nuclear and conventional equipment with existing technical means.

Therefore, when the Pentagon talks about instant global strike systems, we are talking about hypersound. True, how far the Americans have advanced in this direction is not yet entirely clear.

Known, for example, is the American Boeing x-37b, an experimental orbital aircraft designed to test future technologies. Officially, the US Air Force says that the tasks of the x-37b are reusable spacecraft technologies. In fact, such a "space plane" just allows you to solve the problem of reaching any point on the planet within an hour.

Plus, by 2020, Lockheed Martin promises to create a working version of the SR-72, a promising hypersonic drone that will be able to fly at speeds up to six Mach numbers (up to 6.9 thousand kilometers per hour). Hypersonic aircraft armed with hypersonic missiles will also be able to reach their destination and strike the target in less than one hour.

Another element of PGS is missile defense systems, which, by virtue of military strategy, are inextricably linked with instant global strike systems. The shock and defensive systems, I note, smoothly flow into each other, primarily in organizational and military terms.

"SP": - What place is assigned to kinetic weapons in PGS?

At hypersonic speeds, explosives in the warhead are simply not needed. Since the mutual velocity of the collision with the target exceeds 10 km / s, the substance is almost instantly converted into pure energy.

American GBI (Ground-Based Interceptor) missile defense systems and the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) mobile system, which is a theater missile defense system, are already operating on this principle.

GBI in theory can intercept warheads of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) - targets moving along a ballistic trajectory at speeds up to 7 km / s. Moreover, to do this at the border of the atmosphere with space - at an altitude of 120-200 km.

THAAD works on ballistic targets that have a flight speed of 3-3.5 km / s (in the latest versions - up to 5 km / s). These are operational-tactical missiles, the so-called intermediate range.

So, the warhead of the missile defense systems of these missile defense systems is really a metal rod.

Impact systems can be equipped in exactly the same way - that is, hypersonic vehicles. They will be able to attack from lower space or the upper atmosphere, dropping not a bomb on the target, but, in fact, a metal bar. This blank at a speed of Mach 6-8 will crash into the target, and the effect will be the same as from the detonation of a large-caliber bomb.

"SP": - What can Russia oppose to these systems?

We are already taking these threats into account by deploying a complex of countermeasure systems. First of all - the missile attack warning system (SPRN), which includes both ground and space echelons.

Plus, we are improving weapons, and above all, the S-500 universal anti-aircraft and anti-missile system. He will be able to work on hypersonic targets, and on targets in near space, and on ballistic targets.

Finally, in Russia, work is underway to create a promising missile defense system on the Nudol theme. True, apart from the title of the topic and the fact that it refers to missile defense, nothing more can be said about it.

Andrey Polunin

Subscribe to us