Instant global strike. Why Americans won't destroy Russia

For all “well-wishers” of Russia who are concerned about the country’s nuclear weapons, there are two news. One is good, the other is not so good. Good news: in 2018, the intercontinental ballistic missile R-36M “Voevoda” (or “Satan” according to NATO classification) is still planned to be removed from service.

The bad news: the “Satan” will be replaced by a technologically different and fundamentally different intercontinental ballistic missile RS-28 “Sarmat”, the warheads of which, in fact, will make any missile defense system meaningless.

About the departing and the coming

At one time, the Tsar Rocket R-36M caused a lot of noise. Experts admit that even though modern means of aerial interception of targets such as ICBMs are developing by leaps and bounds, what is contained in a two-hundred-ton missile is still sufficient to this day. However, the missile defense system, which is rapidly being built up by our good Western “friends,” makes us think about when the capabilities of “Satan” will be exhausted, because, as we know, eternity does not exist in this world.

In this sense, the Sarmat is not just a successor missile to the Voevoda, but to some extent will determine the direction in which nuclear deterrents will develop throughout the world. By and large, with the start of work on the Sarmat ICBM, several problems are being solved at once, among which the warhead of the missile, or rather its mass, is not decisive.

Contrary to the approach of the developers of the Yuzhnoye Design Bureau and Academician Yangel personally, who created a rocket capable of wiping out areas the size of Texas from the face of the earth, the creation of the RS-28 requires, first of all, to master higher speed indicators, thanks to which it will be possible to overcome any existing (and being developed in replacement) of any country's missile defense system.

4202

It is most correct in stories about “products” to start with the carriers of warheads. There are enough significant differences between the Sarmat and the Voevoda, and first of all this is the launch weight of the rocket. According to various estimates, a liquid-propelled intercontinental ballistic missile ready for operation will have a mass of 110 tons instead of the Voyevoda’s slightly more than 200 tons. However, what is interesting is not only and not so much the design of the rocket that launches the warheads into the separation area, but rather the capabilities of the warheads themselves and their purpose.

Experts note that trends in improving nuclear deterrent forces (or in the case of particularly democratic countries, nuclear as well as non-nuclear attack) will lead to the fact that the program, once called PGS, or Promt Global Strike (global lightning strike), has a high chance of life as part of the Strategic Missile Forces of the Russian Federation. Despite the fact that “product 4202” is a closely guarded secret, experts still undertake to speculate on how exactly hypersound can be used in the design of warheads of a new ICBM.

Controlled hypersound is even conceptually a very difficult task, not to mention bringing a finished hypersonic product to a test launch. There are plenty of features associated with the use of hypersonic warheads as ready-to-use weapons. The fact is that the combat units of modern, that is, currently carrying combat duty Intercontinental ballistic missiles usually “fall” from orbit at speeds close to hypersonic—about seven kilometers per second. At this speed, for example, the ISS moves in Earth’s orbit.

When entering the atmosphere, the speed of the warhead is reduced to approximately three times the speed of sound and is subjected to serious heating - up to one and a half thousand degrees. With the help of special thermal protection and speed reduction, the warheads can maneuver: each warhead is turned into a small missile with its own fuel supply, high-performance engine and guidance system. In the case of “product 4202,” experts talk about maneuvering warheads at speeds of six to ten thousand kilometers per hour. Ten speeds of sound.

In order to aim at a target and perform energetic maneuvers at such speeds, the usual controls are no longer suitable.

“If in space special maneuvering engines are responsible for maneuvers, then in the atmospheric part of the flight the control rudders are usually responsible for this. But the catch is that at speeds of 10 Mach such means simply will not work: imagine the effort that must be applied to change the trajectory of the warhead at ten thousand kilometers per hour, even with the help of hydraulics,” explains a military observer in an interview with Zvezda and weapons expert Alexey Leonkov.

Another important task is to control the warhead: it will not be possible to control a “blank” flying remotely at a speed of 10 M, which means that each warhead will probably be equipped with a control computer. Experts note that “pitch” and “yaw” on hypersonic units will most likely be carried out using special pulse engines. But even here it will not be without difficulties: the warhead’s dashing maneuvers with minimal loss of speed reveal several more problems related not so much to the anti-missile system probable enemy, how much with the usual laws of physics.

“We have to solve the issue of crazy overloads and kinetic heating. And if the issue with heating can be solved, albeit using passive means, in the case of overload everything is a little more complicated: here it is required that the warhead be enclosed in a compound and be a monolith that is not affected by overloads in any direction,” explains in an interview with Zvezda, the head of the department of scientific and technical information at TsAGI named after. N. E. Zhukovsky Ivan Kudishin.

Combat use

Improved energy characteristics, which make it possible to equip the Sarmat with additional means of overcoming the American missile defense system, as experts note, are achieved precisely through hypersound. In early May, the Izvestia newspaper, citing foreign media, reported that Russia had tested hypersonic warheads for the newest Sarmat missile.

Defense Ministry specialists do not comment on media statements, however, based on publicly available information, we can conclude that work on hypersonic “products” for ICBM warheads is indeed underway and is at the finish line. Experts admit that the problems of the American PGS program, or global lightning strike, are mainly related to the fact that the American HTV GLA will not have a hypersonic flight speed and will switch to a “supersonic” flight mode at the final stage, becoming a target for air defense systems.

In turn, Russian specialists are working on the issue of the so-called constant hypersonic regime, in which the warhead will maintain high speed even during vigorous maneuvers. If Russian science and engineering were able to solve this issue, then the information that over the past ten years up to six launches of “product 4202” using intercontinental ballistic missiles could have been carried out does not at all look like science fiction.

Considering that the concept of a global lightning strike could be rewritten for the sake of national security Russian Federation, the use of several highly maneuverable hypersonic warheads with a nuclear warhead (or conventional, increased power) in the new Sarmat liquid-propellant missile is guaranteed to neutralize the entire potential American system PRO.

Experts explain that the situation in the Russian economy is similar to the 90s, when work on promising directions, including hypersound, “were abandoned” does not at all prove that such weapons cannot be created, tested and put into service. This means that the secret of a global lightning strike has already been revealed by Russian specialists.

Despite the fact that experts in the field of weapons, and people not involved in the creation of the RS-28 missile and warheads for it, do not know and will never know everyone technical features missiles, the fact remains: the adoption of the Sarmat with hypersonic maneuvering warheads is planned for 2018.

Throughout the post-war period, including today, Russian residents have been aware of a certain likelihood of an external military attack. The events of the summer-autumn of 1941 forever shaped the idea that it should never happen again. Foreign soldiers walking across our land, spreading death and horror, have become the personification of what cannot be tolerated. However, such plans were made, and they continue to be developed in the general headquarters of states that verbally proclaim peace. The latest achievement of Western military science was the concept of an “instant crushing blow” that would disarm Russia, after which, theoretically, you can do anything with it: intervene to change the political regime or even complete occupation.

The essence of the concept

The concept is seemingly simple and even has a certain “humaneness,” which is manifested in the declared reluctance to use nuclear or other special ammunition. The bottom line is that the US Army, using all the latest technological advances, inflicts a sudden massive crushing blow on ballistic missile launchers, headquarters, communications and control centers, material supply bases and other defense facilities, without giving the opportunity to activate retaliatory means. Theoretically, even if a small part of Russian ICBMs are still able to launch, they, according to the plan, should be hit by the missile defense system deployed in Europe near state borders. In the event of a breakthrough of some remaining part, a small one, the moral advantage will remain with the attackers - they say, they did not start the nuclear conflict. And in this case, NATO, and primarily America, will reserve the right to use weapons mass destruction. This is roughly the meaning of the concept of a rapid global strike. Its essence is the preventive disarmament of Russia.

Targeted Actions

It cannot be said that this concept is at the stage of theoretical development, and in practice nothing has been done to implement it yet. The process of creating a combat system that allows it to be implemented, as they say, has begun. As part of the preparation, NATO countries already have a strike component in their arsenal in the form of missiles (ballistic and cruise) in quantities measured in the thousands. In addition to them, surveillance, reconnaissance and control subsystems are being formed, for which ships of the Orly Burke class are being built in huge quantities, united, again by design, into a single information network, allowing the exchange of operational information and the development of tactical and strategic decisions in real time. Electronic warfare equipment is also important. Advanced missile defense systems are moving toward Russia's borders. In general, a lot of things are being done to fulfill the overall plan within the framework of the concept of an advanced disarming strike.

Dual military-economic plan

This concept has a kind of “double bottom”. On the one hand, it represents real preparation for the start of hostilities, albeit hypothetical, but quite possible, and on the other hand, it is intended to involve Russia in a ruinous arms race. This strategy has already yielded results once. It is possible that exorbitant military expenditures were not main reason the collapse of the USSR, but coupled with an inefficient economy, the burden of the Afghan war and other unfavorable circumstances, they contributed to the overall result. This was in the eighties, and this type of influence is most often associated with the name of US President Ronald Reagan, although, of course, he was not the only one who came up with this plan. Therefore, right now, when Russia’s strength is being revived, it is important not to fall for this trick and, to the extent possible, to respond to the intimidating actions of the West asymmetrically, with minimal costs. And it works.

Ballistic tactical missiles

The main component of the strike component of the concept is tactical ballistic delivery vehicles equipped with powerful high explosive (non-nuclear) warheads with the ability to deliver a throwable weight of approximately 3.5 tons. Their range is small, up to 150 kilometers, but they provide accuracy within a few meters and a short flight time, measured in 30-40 minutes. High destructive force charge allows the authors of the plan to count on the effective destruction of defense facilities, even if they are buried in the ground.

Cruise missiles

The navy is considered the most combat-ready part of the American armed forces. Its main strike weapon in carrying out the “global strike” mission may currently be sea-based cruise missiles, and the main emphasis is placed on them. The main characteristics of the Tomahawk cruise missile, which is in service with the US Navy:

Range - 1600 km.

Charge weight - 450 kg.

Hit accuracy - 5−10 m.

There are many of these missiles, on each of 23 submarines of the Los Angeles class there may be a dozen of them, and the same number on other types of submarines - three Seawolves and nine Virginias. In addition to this - 61 Orly Burke-class destroyers with 96 launchers each and 22 Ticonderoga-class missile cruisers (122 each). According to a rough estimate, the surface combatants of the US Navy are capable of becoming carriers of approximately four thousand or even more Tomahawk missiles. Another thousand are on submarines of various types. And then there are missile-carrying aircraft. But these figures only take into account the current situation. And even then not completely, because the plan also includes the use of unmanned attack aerial vehicles.

Promising developments

The imagination of the creators of the concept, we must give them credit, works well. To fully guarantee success, hypersonic missiles with an extended range of use and even spacecraft are needed. And all this with high precision and with massive use should, according to the plan, crush rebellious Russia, force it to surrender and finally realize the centuries-old dream of the West about great open spaces and inexhaustible resources. The numbers sound scary, and technical data can also make a gloomy impression, but there is no need to rush to panic. According to military experts, both Russian and foreign, an instant global strike is not feasible even theoretically, and in practice, as we know, everything happens even worse than planned.

Counterarguments

We can begin to list the arguments preventing the implementation of this bold to the point of recklessness plan with the fact that for the Russian missile defense surveillance system it is completely indifferent what kind of warheads will be launched with, nuclear or high explosive. In any case, she will respond with a command to repel a massive attack, and the answer will be the same. In other words, the aggressor will be hit with a counter strike even before the flight of hostile objects is completed. And it will be nuclear. Second: if the Americans want to focus on conventional explosives, they will have to reduce the number of special charges, since the START treaty provides for a limit on the total number of carriers. And third, hypersonic missiles, suitable for combat use, the United States does not yet have it and does not expect it in the near future; the tests are extremely unsuccessful. But in Russia they are already on the way, and there will be nothing to stop them. And one last thing: it will not be possible to detect and hit not only all, but at least most of the installations; they are mobile, including disguised as railway cars.

Time factor

Any military conflict is preceded by a long period of aggravation of relations. Just like that, out of nothing to do, striking a blow is stupid and criminal, especially without confidence in success. It will take 2-3 months to deploy forces; the Americans need to bring too much cargo to the intended theater of military operations, from fuel and ammunition to Coca-Cola and toilet paper, otherwise they will not go into battle. All these circumstances will clearly indicate aggressive intentions, and therefore will give time to prepare to repel the attack. After this, the definitions “instant” or “fast” completely lose their meaning. And Russia is not Iraq or Libya.

RAPID GLOBAL IMPACT CONCEPT

GRNTI: 78.21.00.

Belousov Oleg Mikhailovich,

Chernomazov Ilya Stanislavovich,

Perm Military Institute of Troops

National Guard of the Russian Federation

Lecturer at the Department of Tactics and Security Safety.

THE CONCEPT OF PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE

BelousovO.M.,

lecturer in tactics and SBP

Chernomazov I.S.,

lecturer in tactics and SBP

Perm military Institute of national guard troops of the Russian Federation.

ANNOTATION:

The article discusses the concept of using a rapid global strike by the US armed forces, countermeasures and deterrence measures.

ABSTRACT:

In the article the question of the concept of the use of prompt global strike by the U.S. armed forces, measures for combating and deterring.

Keywords: rapid global strike, the concept of “non-contact warfare”, anti-missile surveillance system, sea-launched cruise missiles (SLCM) and air-launched cruise missiles (ALCM) of the Tomahawk type.

Keywords: prompt global strike, the concept of “contactless war,” missile surveillance, naval cruise missiles (slcm) and the air (krwb) - based missiles such as “Tomahawk”

Prompt Global Strike (PGS, also global lightning strike) is an initiative of the US armed forces to develop a system that allows a massive disarming strike with conventional (non-nuclear, English conventional) weapons on any country within 1 hour , analogous to a nuclear strike using intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

According to General James Cartwright, "At this time, unless there is a nuclear attack, it could be days, perhaps weeks" before the military can launch an attack with regular forces. The task of the BGU system is to provide the ability to deliver a quick and accurate strike to any region of the world in the event of a conflict or other emergency. The ballistic version could be launched directly from US territory. The BGU system will complement the formations of Forward Deployment Forces, Expeditionary Air Forces (which can be deployed within 48 hours) and Carrier battle groups (AUG, English. Carrier battle groups, which can deploy to the theater of operations within 96 hours). The BGU will allow you to attack any area of ​​the planet or near space within 60 minutes.

The United States is capable of implementing the concept of a rapid global strike exclusively to solve local problems.

Since the end of the Cold War, the likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons, both by potential adversaries of the United States and by the Americans themselves, has steadily declined. The issue of revising the existing military doctrine was on the agenda. New concept implies the achievement of global military superiority by the United States by expanding the arsenal of its armed forces by creating super-effective non-nuclear weapons capable of delivering lightning strikes against threat sources.

At the end of 2012, information was disseminated in the media about the US military conducting a computer game to practice the skills of launching massive strikes with high-precision conventional weapons on a fictitious 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 (BGU, Promppet Global Strike), according to which it is assumed that the enemy’s most important military, political and economic targets will be destroyed using existing and future models of high-precision weapons. It is assumed that as a result of such actions, the victim country will lose the opportunity to strike back at the aggressor, and the destruction of key objects of its economy will lead to the collapse of the entire state system.

The published materials indicated: delivered within the framework of this war game the goal was achieved. Analysis of the exercises showed that as a result of a strike 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 would suffer unacceptable destruction of its entire infrastructure and would lose the ability to resist.

It is quite obvious that this “leak” of information is not accidental and unauthorized. The Pentagon very clearly shows the world that the United States is getting high-quality the new kind strategic weapons, which allows you to solve tasks previously assigned exclusively to nuclear forces.

In fact, the Americans are making an attempt to implement the concept of “non-contact war.” At a qualitatively new technical level, they are striving to do what they failed to accomplish in the 20th century: to achieve political goals in a major military conflict only with air strikes.

Is it possible to “bomb” the enemy? In 1993, an experimental launch of a Trident-2 ballistic missile with conventional warheads was carried out from the US Ohio-class nuclear missile submarine in order to test the possibility of hitting highly engineered point targets. However further work efforts in this direction have not been carried out intensively enough.

The terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, intensified this activity, and by January 2003, the Global Prompt Strike Project was approved by President George W. Bush. After a detailed study of this idea in the US Department of Defense and scientific institutions, it was recognized as technically feasible, which allowed Congress to approve the BSU concept in 2007.

In accordance with this doctrine, in the event of a threat of attack on the United States or American installations and citizens abroad, the US armed forces must be able to launch a strike with high power and precision at any point within 60 minutes globe in order to neutralize such actions.

The Prompt Global Strike Force will become part of the US strategic triad and will operate in close coordination with other branches of the armed forces.

The BGU concept involves the creation of a full-fledged combat system, including, in addition to the strike components itself, reconnaissance and surveillance subsystems, command posts and communications, as well as electronic suppression equipment.

The basis of the strike weapons of this doctrine will be land- and sea-based non-nuclear ballistic missiles and long-range hypersonic missiles launched from air carriers. In the long term, it is planned to use space platforms to carry out strikes.

Ballistic missiles equipped with conventional warheads are today the weapons that best meet the requirements for strike components of a BSU. They provide high accuracy of destruction (circular probable deviation - 100–150 meters), a short time delivery of ammunition (no more than 30–40 minutes). The significant speed of movement upon contact with an object makes it possible to destroy targets of various types, including those buried in the ground. The large throw weight (up to 3.5 tons) makes it possible to use various types of warheads, including cluster ones, as well as special unmanned aerial vehicles.

At the same time, there are a number of conditions that make the use of conventional ballistic missiles very problematic.

Firstly, the anti-missile surveillance system of Russia, and in the near future also of China, can classify a group launch of such missiles (at least two or three are needed to reliably destroy an individual object) as a nuclear attack, which will lead to an adequate retaliatory strike.

Second, the START treaties limit the total number of ballistic missiles deployed and do not differentiate between their equipment. That is, land- and sea-based missiles with conventional warheads can appear in the United States only after a corresponding reduction in existing nuclear ones.

The United States proposes to resolve the first of these problems in relation to ground-based missiles through their separate deployment. However, as tensions increase, this factor may not work - Russia is quite capable of assuming that the United States has placed nuclear missiles in silos for non-nuclear missiles. The second obstacle can be eliminated by signing the appropriate agreements. It’s not in vain, apparently, that the Donald Trump administration is once again raising the topic of “nuclear zero.”

Taking into account these limitations, the number of sea- and land-based non-nuclear ballistic missiles that the US armed forces are able to put on combat duty in the medium term is in the range of 100–150 units.

The most important strike element of the BGU is the Kh-51A hypersonic missile being created with a flight speed of 6500–7500 kilometers per hour. However, four of her tests did not give a positive result. And although the development program is not closed, the appearance of such a missile can be expected only in five to ten years, and adoption and delivery to the troops only in the distant future.

Thus, in the medium and even long term, the US Army will not receive any fundamentally new weapon systems in sufficient quantities to achieve an operationally significant effect within the framework of the BSU concept.

In the future, it is possible that fundamentally new weapons of destruction will emerge, such as air- or even space-based hypersonic missiles, which will bring the Americans to a level of qualitative superiority in aerospace weapons relative to other states.

But this situation is unlikely to persist long enough long time, since in both Russia and China, which demonstrates exceptionally high rates of development in the military-technical sphere, such developments are also underway. Albeit with a lag, such models will be put into service, which will neutralize the American military-technical gap in this area.

In this regard, the United States, within the framework of the BGU concept, at least in the medium term, can rely mainly on sea-based (SLCM) and air-launched cruise missiles (ALCM) of the Tomahawk type, strategic, tactical and carrier-based aircraft.

The SLCMs in service with the American Navy, having a launch range of 1600–2400 kilometers, ensure that a target is hit with a warhead of 340–450 kilograms with an accuracy of five to ten meters.

These missiles can be used from all modern ships and US submarines. The 23 Los Angeles-class attack submarines can carry 12 SLCMs. The new American multi-purpose submarines of the Seawolf (three units) and Virginia (nine units) types each carry the same number of similar missiles. Under the program for converting Ohio-class missile submarines into Tomahawk carriers, four units were converted, each capable of carrying 154 SLCMs. All 62 of the newest American Arleigh Burke-class destroyers have vertical launchers(VPU) Mk.41 with 96 cells. In the strike version they accept up to 56 SLCMs, in the multi-purpose version - eight. Each of the 22 Ticonderoga-class missile cruisers, having 122 VPU cells, carries 26 SLCMs in a typical load. In total, up to 4,000 SLCMs could potentially be deployed on US Navy ships and up to 1,000 SLCMs on submarines.

However, in reality, given the degree of operational readiness, the US Navy is able to use no more than 3,000 SLCMs from ships and submarines.

In addition, American strategic bombers are equipped with long-range cruise missiles. Currently in combat strength The US Air Force has about 150 such aircraft, including about 60 B-52N, 50 B-1B and 16 B-2A. There are about 80 more aircraft in storage. Of these, the carriers of air-launched cruise missiles are the B-52N aircraft, capable of carrying up to 20 ALCMs at maximum load. In total, the US strategic aviation group can use about 1,200 ALCMs per flight. In total, all cruise missile carriers are capable of using up to 4,200 missiles in one strike.

In addition to missiles, the first strike may involve up to 2,500–3,000 tactical and carrier-based aircraft, which can strike targets at a depth of up to 600 kilometers from the border.

These are quite impressive forces and, in the absence of effective counteraction, they are capable of destroying or disabling up to 1,000 important objects on Russian or Chinese territory in the first strike. As a result of such a strike, 80–90 percent of Russia’s nuclear potential or up to 90 percent or more of China could be destroyed, the system of state and military command and control could be partially disorganized, and the air defense system could be suppressed or weakened in certain operationally important areas.

But if we take into account some factors that will operate in a real situation, then the possibility of applying BGU becomes doubtful.

First, the US can accept this decision in relation to Russia or China only under the condition of a sharp deterioration of relations between states.

Secondly, such a strike must be preceded by a sufficiently long period of threat, when the American leadership will be forced to conduct a serious information campaign to justify the upcoming aggression. At this time, the United States and its allies need to carry out the strategic deployment of their air force and naval groups to combat areas, create the necessary material reserves, build up military infrastructure in areas of upcoming combat operations, and conduct reconnaissance of targets for planned attacks. This is a very long time (probably several months), which is quite enough to take retaliatory, very effective measures. For example, as the experience of Iraq in 1991 and subsequent conflicts showed, due to high-quality operational camouflage measures, a significant part of the strike forces enemy to false targets. Moreover, if the United States uses the main stock of its long-range cruise missiles in the first strike, there may not be enough of them left for subsequent strikes. And then the success of the operation will be in question.

Thirdly, the duration of this strike will last several hours (according to the experience of the mentioned computer exercises, up to four to six). And within one or two hours, when the scale of aggression becomes obvious to the leadership of Russia or China (even if operational surprise is achieved), a decision may be made to retaliate with a nuclear strike. At the same time, most of the strategic nuclear weapons will still remain. That is, for the United States, the high risk of such a conflict escalating from a conventional one to a nuclear one is absolutely obvious. Moreover, the enemy may be the first to decide to use strategic nuclear weapons. Therefore, the Americans are unlikely to provoke such an attack on their territory without guarantees of its reliable repulsion.

And fourthly. Global strike will not be “fast”, since its preparation will take a lot of time - several months. That is, in fact, it will no longer be able to become a specific form of using air attack means - BGU. This will be a conventional first missile and air strike carried out as part of an initial air offensive operation.

Attacking Russia or China with limited air attack capabilities makes no political or strategic sense.

If we consider other large countries, for example, Iran, as the target of such a strike, then its delivery makes sense only if it becomes part of a sufficiently large-scale military operation with the participation of other types of armed forces. That is, if this is the first missile and air strike of the initial air offensive operation.

A completely different picture emerges if we consider striking individual particularly important targets to achieve a local goal using a relatively limited range of weapons.

In this case, there is no need for lengthy preparation. An attack can be carried out by combat-ready forces immediately upon receipt of an order.

Such actions will be sudden not only operationally or strategically, but also tactically. Flight to a target of a limited number of cruise missiles or aircraft can be carried out at low and extremely low altitudes outside the surveillance zone ground means control of the air situation, with a minimum duration of the strike, when the fact of its delivery will be revealed by the enemy after the attack is completed.

Therefore, it can be argued that in the current state of affairs and in the medium term, the BSU concept makes sense for solving problems of an exclusively local nature against objects on the territory of states that are not able to respond to the aggressor and do not have security guarantees from third, sufficiently powerful states.

The speed, surprise and global impact (up to 60 minutes in accordance with the concept) can only be achieved if US Navy and Air Force groups are present in all vital areas. This means that to solve suddenly emerging problems, the Americans will be able to use very limited forces: several dozen long-range cruise missiles and tactical (car-based) aircraft. When creating conditions for the use of ballistic missiles in conventional equipment, it is possible to use a certain number of them.

These forces are capable of incapacitating or destroying, depending on the task at hand, one or two large enterprises, or two or three military or government control points, or one or two area field research facilities or militant training camps.

That is, in the short and medium term, a quick global strike can be delivered solely for the purpose of solving local problems. For example, to eliminate certain politicians or the destruction of the leadership of any organizations (declared terrorist), depriving individual states of the opportunity to implement development programs that the United States considers threatening their security, suspending in certain countries some areas of scientific research activity that are dangerous for the Americans and their allies.

In any case, the BGU concept itself is a gross violation of international law, since it involves striking targets of sovereign states without valid legal grounds and a formal declaration of war.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. Materials for the analysis of the Prompet Global Strike 2016 exercises.

Nakanune.RU| The Pentagon reported that it has begun creating promising instant global strike systems. Such a step by the American side is fraught with the beginning of a new round of the arms race, and also upsets the global balance of strategic forces. Moreover, the means of such a strike are already partly in the Pentagon's arsenal, as well.

This topic was discussed at the Russian-Chinese briefing on missile defense on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Alexander Yemelyanov said that the Pentagon is implementing “the concept of joint use of offensive and defensive weapons.” According to him, “in non-nuclear equipment, these complexes should solve the same tasks that are assigned to strategic nuclear forces today.” The development of the complexes proceeds in parallel with the improvement of missile defense systems, the effectiveness of which, according to Emelianenko, will increase significantly after a “disarming” strike on Russian and Chinese strategic nuclear forces.

According to the Wangyi Xinwen portal, from the PRC side, the briefing was attended by the deputy commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Central Military Council, Zhou Shangping, who noted that the development of missile defense without taking into account the interests of other countries will undermine the global strategic balance, lead to confrontation and, possibly, even to an arms race. The development of missile defense should be limited by the framework of international law.

Zhou also recalled the damage to the security interests of China and Russia from the THAAD missile defense systems deployed in South Korea and called on the United States and South Korea to reverse the wrong decision and withdraw them from the region. In addition, the Chinese publication notes that this briefing is the third joint event of the two countries dedicated to missile defense issues.

The director of the Center for Analysis of the Global Arms Trade spoke in an interview with Nakanune.RU about the threats to domestic security that new American developments pose, when we should expect them to appear, and what the possible response of Russia and China will be. Chief Editor magazine "National Defense" Igor Korotchenko.

Question: What kind of weapon for an instant global strike are we talking about, what is known about it?

Igor Korotchenko: We are talking about the entire complex of high-precision weapons that are currently being developed in the United States. We also cannot exclude that, in part, a number of American intercontinental ballistic missiles will perform the functions of a first instant strike by re-equipping them from nuclear warheads to conventional ones. These are also Tomahawk cruise missiles, plus the emergence of new means of delivering strikes from space, based on the X-37B military mini-shuttles currently being tested in the United States, and let’s not forget about the emergence of hypersonic strike weapons and their carriers.

The United States today is actively implementing all components of this program, and the threat they spoke about will be quite real for our country. Appropriate countermeasures are required.

Question: How can it be expressed?

Igor Korotchenko: The parry consists of creating a layered Russian aerospace defense system based on information systems, which will detect the fact of the Americans delivering such a strike and the concentration of carriers, and repulse this strike. This will be a fire subsystem of aerospace defense based on the S-400 and the promising S-500, capable, I say in this case about the S-500, to intercept even in near space.

Question: What level of development might these technologies be in the US?

Igor Korotchenko: The Americans already today partially possess such systems, for example, these are the same Tomahawks. As for the possibility of re-equipping some intercontinental ballistic missiles with conventional warheads, this can also be done, although it would be a very provocative step on the part of the United States, and here we are counting on some kind of consultations with Washington so that this does not happen or is not uncontrolled.

And the emergence of hypersonic strike weapons and reusable satellite systems - these programs are now being actively developed, and in five to eight years they could become a reality. Accordingly, we, based on the forecasts that our intelligence makes on US programs, are setting appropriate countermeasures. work, in particular, the creation of the S-500.

It was reported that Almaz-Antey is at the final stage of developing the promising S-500 system; all its elements will soon be tested and verified in real field tests, after which a decision will be made on mass production. In parallel with this, components of detection systems are being developed in the form of radars, capable of monitoring all missile-hazardous directions without exception.

Question: Is this the arms race that the Chinese representative spoke about at the briefing?

Igor Korotchenko: Of course, if the Americans begin to create weapons systems that they deploy in space, this will cause a response from other countries, primarily Russia and China. The Americans are thereby provoking a new round of the arms race.

Question: Is the fact that such a statement was made at a Russian-Chinese briefing evidence of interaction between Moscow and Beijing in the field of missile defense?

Igor Korotchenko: This means that Russia and China are taking a joint position regarding American plans. But each country will defend itself independently. Another thing is that Russia and China are coordinating and, to a certain extent, coordinating their position; some kind of joint exercises are possible. Political conditions may also emerge on the basis of which joint military programs will be further determined. But for now we are talking purely about diplomatic measures of response on the part of Moscow and Beijing to the US plans.

How Russia can repel America’s “quick global strike.”

The threat of a potential instantaneous global strike from the United States on Russian territory is the main reason for strengthening the air and missile defense system of the Russian Federation. This was recently stated by the commander of the Aerospace Defense Forces (VKO) for air defense, Major General Kirill Makarov.

Air defense issues are now coming to the fore. This is due to the fact that the United States has adopted the concept of an instant global strike, which poses the main danger to the Russian Federation from aerospace,” Makarov said.

According to estimates by the command of the Russian Aerospace Defense Forces, by 2020 the United States will have up to eight thousand cruise missiles, six thousand of which will be able to carry nuclear warheads. According to Major General Kirill Makarov, “under certain conditions” they can also be used against objects on the territory of the Russian Federation.

He noted that the American concept of “Prompt global strike” assumes that within a short period of time an instant strike will be delivered to any state that the United States considers an enemy - its duration will be from 40 minutes to two and a half hours.

Cruise missiles already in service may be used, intercontinental missiles, as well as the means that should appear in the near future - hypersonic aircraft.

Makarov also said that the Russian Armed Forces have deployed Pantsir anti-aircraft missile gun systems in the Arctic and it is planned to deploy MiG-31 fighter-interceptors there.

The MiG-31s ​​will cover those of our ships that can move along the Northern Sea Route in the event of any escalation or military conflict,” Makarov said, adding that it is planned to deploy a radar unit on Novaya Zemlya.

How many air and sea-based carriers does the United States have, how many cruise missiles can they realistically launch at the same time, and in what capacity? geographical areas– these are the main issues that deserve our attention, notes Deputy Director of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis Alexander Khramchikhin.

The Americans can produce 80 thousand missiles, but what good are they without carriers? In my opinion, the maximum that the United States is capable of, based on the number of carriers, is to simultaneously use two thousand cruise missiles. But, most likely, in reality there will not even be a thousand.

The only carrier that can covertly approach Russia is submarines. At the same time, they are capable of lifting approximately 800 cruise missiles, if they are not loaded with torpedoes. But here again the question is how many submarines can be at sea at the same time, because some of them are always under repair. And it is very problematic to imagine a scenario in which all US submarines could secretly approach Russian shores.

As for surface ships and “strategists” - bombers, by definition they cannot secretly move in large numbers to the Russian borders.

It’s easy to shoot down a cruise missile, but it’s difficult to detect - to do this, you need to create a continuous radar field along the entire perimeter of the borders, which is quite expensive, especially if you need to detect cruise missiles - targets with a very low reflective surface. But here we must keep in mind that when one missile is detected, an alarm is automatically announced throughout the entire Armed Forces.

In principle, the implementation of the “Prompt Global Strike” concept is the only real threat to Russia from the West, because all other threats to NATO are nothing more than a propaganda myth. But this “disarming” strike is so difficult to execute that I cannot imagine a real scenario in which the Americans would go for it. Precisely because there cannot be partial success for them here, the entire Russian nuclear potential they need to be destroyed with one blow, and almost simultaneously - literally with a difference of minutes. Otherwise, our missiles will fly in their direction, and the Americans, in fact, have no missile defense. Their vaunted missile defense system is nothing more than another propaganda myth, which is simultaneously inflated by both sides. If they shoot down one missile, consider it a great success for them.

The editor-in-chief of Arsenal of the Fatherland magazine, member of the Expert Council of the Chairman of the Military-Industrial Commission under the Government of the Russian Federation, Viktor Murakhovsky, also notes: the announced number - eight thousand cruise missiles - is quite exaggerated. For any weapon, a service life is established, so those weapons whose reserves were accumulated in the 90s are now simply removed from service upon expiration of their service life.

The General Staff of the RF Armed Forces is carrying out appropriate calculations, building options for repelling aggression, including a massive missile and air strike, in order to timely reveal the preparation of an attack and repel it. I myself saw a map where assessments were carried out for different theaters of operations, and, of course, we are not talking about thousands of missiles there.

In 2015, the Aerospace Defense Forces will be merged with the Air Force and form a new type of troops - the Aerospace Forces. In this sense, they will, to a certain extent, combine the roles of “shield” and “sword”, because in addition to interceptors and anti-missile systems, they will be armed with Long-Range Aviation strategic bombers and long-range cruise missiles. In addition, the Strategic Missile Forces are capable of reaching any point on the globe within 30-40 minutes. And if such a task is set, then nothing prevents us from equipping part if necessary strategic missiles conventional warheads (combat units), including penetrating ones. In my opinion, all this completely ensures the balance of forces at the strategic level, even in the face of the appearance of hypersonic weapons in the future.

Both the USA and Russia are now actively working on its creation. However, the media have repeatedly mentioned that each Russian Tu-22M3 supersonic long-range bomber, in addition to being capable of delivering a bomb load weighing 24 tons over a distance of up to six thousand km, also carries on board three supersonic cruise missiles X-22 with a flight range up to 600 km and 10 X-15 hypersonic air-to-surface missiles with a flight range of up to 300 km...

The X-15 is, of course, no longer a supersonic, but also not a hypersonic missile. In general, hypersonic speeds are those that exceed the Mach number by five or more times, that is, they have a speed of one and a half to two kilometers per second. Now such speed is developed by the warheads of operational-tactical or medium range missiles on the downward trajectory. For comparison, starting speed tank sub-caliber projectile is 1850 meters per second. But no one has aerodynamic hypersonic missiles.

Major General Kirill Makarov said that MiG-31 fighter aircraft will be stationed at airfields in the Arctic, which will seemingly cover our ports, transport arteries and ships throughout the Arctic zone from the air.

The MiG-31 is not a cover fighter. Loitering over ships, convoys, etc. - this is the prerogative of the Su-30, Su-35. The main function of the MiG-31 is to ensure the interception of manned aircraft and cruise missiles at long ranges. On these aircraft you can work as part of a group, up to a squadron, exchange information with each other and command post aviation.

Director of the Center for Social and Political Research Vladimir Evseev also says that the United States can produce 10 thousand cruise missiles, but such a salvo is fantastic.

Potentially, the American fleet could take a large number of SLCMs (sea-launched strategic cruise missiles), placing them on cruisers, guided missile destroyers and submarines. Theoretically, cruisers that can carry out massive shelling of our territory from various theaters of operations can provide great potential. However, both SM-3 interceptor missiles and anti-aircraft and cruise missiles are installed on shipborne vertical launch systems (VLS) of the Mk41 type. And given that US ships provide security for aircraft carriers and solve missile defense problems, this greatly reduces the possibility of deploying the required number of cruise missiles on ships. As far as I understand, the concept does not involve reloading after a salvo. As for air carriers, their number is also known, and it is not astronomical.

A separate topic is ground-based missile defense launchers with the Aegis ground-based combat information and control system (CIUS), which, for example, will be installed in Romania. Some experts believe that such complexes are capable of attacking ground targets. But whether this is really so or not is still unclear.

Now as for equipping cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. Theoretically, they can have nuclear warheads, but based on the parallel commitments of the United States and Russia in the early 90s to significantly reduce tactical nuclear weapons, a decision was made not to deploy nuclear weapons in the fleet, with the exception of SSBNs (nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines). In addition, there are nuclear weapon-free zones in the world. American ships carrying nuclear weapons cannot enter certain zones and, accordingly, certain ports.

Thus, the concept of a “Prompt Global Strike” is only at the implementation stage, and whether it is being implemented at all is a big question. In my opinion, it is necessary to separate the “Rapid global strike” and the delivery of a massive strike with cruise missiles. The fact is, the BGM-109 Tomahawk is a subsonic cruise missile. The concept involves delivering a strike within an hour. Accordingly, in order to use the BGM-109 Tomahawk within its framework, it is necessary to place the carriers directly along the Russian border, which is quite difficult to do for a variety of reasons.

I will also note that if we have the potential for a deep nuclear strike, then we even more so have the possibility of a retaliatory strike in the event of the use of high-precision weapons with conventional equipment. In addition, an attack by missiles with conventional warheads does not guarantee 100% destruction of strategically important targets. For example, such as silo launchers, which are quite reliably protected. In my opinion, no one will agree to a disarming strike if it is carried out by missiles without nuclear equipment.

In your opinion, are the military development measures that are being implemented in our troops sufficient to ensure guaranteed protection of the territory of our country from a massive cruise missile attack that the United States can actually carry out?

The country's leadership is taking a number of measures to deploy interceptor fighters, anti-aircraft missile systems in dangerous directions. However, in the case of a “Prompt Global Strike”, our strategic nuclear forces are the deterrent. Just look at the cost of creating the Barguzin combat railway complex (BZHRK), based on the Yars missile. Also, by 2020, the PC-24 Yars mobile and mine-based, heavy Sarmat ICBMs, about which many flattering words will still be said.

There are skeptical opinions about the Barguzin BZHRK. Some experts say that when modern development space reconnaissance, the United States can track the movement of rolling stock with a missile using characteristic unmasking signs...

It must be clearly understood that those BZHRKs that were in service during the Soviet-Russian period were equipped with heavy missiles that did not fit into one carriage. Indeed, the twin carriage was one of the characteristic unmasking signs. But the main problem was that it was impossible to launch a rocket from the route point due to the fact that the impulse of the heavy rocket was so strong that the rails went to the side by about one and a half meters. And this could lead to the train capsizing. Therefore, prepared congresses were provided for the starts, which, of course, were known in advance. The current BZHRK has a missile that fits in a carriage and is three times lighter than the Soviet one. Accordingly, its start can be ensured from any point on the route.

As for space reconnaissance, there is no need to exaggerate the capabilities of the United States. I read American data. So, when Saddam Hussein decided to occupy Kuwait, the US ambassador found out about this only when he saw Iraqi tanks through the window... It is very difficult to track moving trains, much less hit the BZHRK cruise missile– during its approach to the target, the train can go far from the aiming point, and even on a different path.