Instant global. Instant global impact. Success must be complete

US "lightning strike" system threatens with apocalyptic consequences

The creation by the United States of a system of global lightning strike could lead to the escalation of the conflict "with apocalyptic consequences," said Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov. Answering the question whether the system poses a threat to the strategic balance and whether such launches can be assessed by Russia as nuclear, he said: "Yes, if we are talking about existing ballistic launch vehicles in conventional equipment."

“If we are talking about new carriers - hypersonic gliding, hypersonic with engines, and so on, then here we need to understand what their technical characteristics and applications will be. We are following this very carefully, realizing that a possible decision on this set of issues in Washington will be made in the foreseeable future,” the diplomat added.

The Deputy Foreign Minister also touched upon the prospects for the emergence of a new class of carriers - hypersonic platforms, which are now being tested in the United States. “We have yet to assess how the emergence of such systems may affect our security. I can only emphasize that the development of such systems significantly affects the strategic balance and stability,” Ryabkov emphasized.

They are trying to create something similar in Russia: last year, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin announced that a “superholding” would be created, the main task of which would be the development of hypersonic technologies.

The task of the PGS is the ability to deliver a quick and accurate strike on any region of the world in the event of a conflict or emergency, but without the use of nuclear weapons.
* * *

The United States cannot destroy Russian strategic nuclear forces with lightning speed.
The concept of "Non-Nuclear Rapid Global Strike" (PGS) being developed by the US Department of Defense is causing serious concern to the Russian military and political leadership.

According to the concept, the mines and mobile soil complexes of some states are subject to destruction by non-nuclear hypersonic missiles and aircraft. Although official Washington denies that Russia is among the targets, the reality of the threat of being subjected to a missile blitzkrieg needs to be analyzed.

In their reports on the Non-Nuclear Rapid Global Strike (NCG), the Pentagon leadership, the US Strategic Command (SC) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) allege that the delivery and destruction vehicles are designed to strike Chinese anti-satellite systems, Iranian and North Korean nuclear objects, fixed positions and mobile installations of missiles with nuclear warheads (nuclear warheads).

The second most important task of the NBSU is the elimination of the so-called systems that "prohibit access to the theater of military operations." For example, Chinese ballistic anti-ship missiles DF-21 in the event of war will significantly limit the maneuvering areas of American aircraft carrier strike groups. Hence, they are subject to preventive liquidation. The third task is the fight against terrorists. Tests under the Prompt Global Strike project are scheduled to be completed by 2025.

"China and North Korea, but not Russia"

According to the majority of American military experts, the fight against terrorism by means of the NBGU is the most dubious option for using hypersonic missiles. Over the past 10 years, there have been no cases when the information received turned out to be so reliable that the strike was not in doubt.

The priority goal of PGS, after all, is well-protected stationary strategic facilities and anti-satellite warfare systems. But China, North Korea and Iran have an order of magnitude fewer such goals than Russia. So the American "quick strike" will obviously be directed against ICBM silos, mobile ground-based missile systems (PGRK), space surveillance facilities, command posts.

Russia also has systems that “prohibit access to the theater of operations”. These are the Iskander operational-tactical missile systems (OTRK) deployed in the western and southern directions, covering most of the US military facilities in Europe. They also significantly complicate the strategic maneuver of NATO forces and means.

Operations Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, and Allied Force in Yugoslavia show that the US always seeks to strike a decapitating blow against the top leadership of the enemy in the early hours of a conflict, although not always successfully. So NGV hypersonic weapons are a perfect fit for America's favorite strategy.

We are looking for "Topol" and "Yarsy"

American experts argue that a disarming strike on Russia with the means of destruction of the "Non-Nuclear Global Strike" is impossible. The main problem is the timely detection of patrolling mobile ground-based missile systems deployed in the depths of our country. You need to track them in real time, and beat them as accurately as possible. Only satellite or aviation radar reconnaissance systems, such as Lakros satellites, U-2R, E-8 Joint Star reconnaissance aircraft, RQ-4 Global Hawk drones, can provide such accuracy. But the flight time of the Lakros over Russian territory is limited, and the number of satellites does not allow for continuous monitoring, since the US Senate and Congress recently refused to fund the launch of new ones. During the passage of satellites, PGRK can be covered with powerful electronic interference. The U-2R, RQ-4 and E-8 airborne radars have high performance, but the scouts will still have to intrude several thousand kilometers into Russian airspace, which is unrealistic. Moreover, the Strategic Missile Forces are now equipped with the most modern mobile electronic warfare equipment.

The positions of the intercontinental ballistic missile silos are well known, but it is difficult to destroy them with the means of destruction of the NBGU. To destroy the cover or the mine itself, to cause unacceptable damage to the rocket, you need to hit within a radius of eight meters from the center of the position. Only GPS provides such accuracy, because an inertial system is useless at hypersonic speeds. At the final stage of the flight, the speed of the rocket and the aircraft should decrease from five to one thousand meters per second. The GPS jamming tools we are developing cover the starting positions with an impenetrable dome of interference, and the S-400 and S-500 systems will intercept a missile that has dropped from hyper to supersonic speed.

These arguments of American experts sound convincing, but in Russia they think otherwise. It is known that the US Armed Forces Investigative Committee is specifically developing seismochemical sensors capable of detecting the movement of mobile missile systems by the pressure on the ground and the presence of exhaust gases in the air. The accuracy of the sensors is not high, but if a network of such small, inconspicuous devices is organized on the routes, then the required pointing accuracy can be obtained.

The flight time of the NBGU weapons from America is about one hour, and Topol or Yars will not be able to go far. True, placing sensors by aircraft or Special Forces soldiers on the ground simply will not work in the depths of Russian territory, and the routes of the PGRK are being checked.

But silo-based ICBMs are more vulnerable, since even a weak satellite signal is enough for GPS navigation systems to work successfully. At last year's exercises of long-range aviation and electronic warfare troops at the Ashuluk training ground, it was not possible to completely jam the GPS satellite signal by means of electronic warfare. In addition, American hypersonic missiles and aircraft can be equipped with missile defense systems with active electronic and passive physical interference systems.

Nevertheless, the threat to the Russian Strategic Missile Forces is not as high as it is portrayed by domestic experts. The Pentagon is unlikely to have effective systems for detecting PGRKs, continuous monitoring and target designation before 2020.

Death strikes from orbit

The first means of defeating the NBGU was to be the Trident-D5 sea-based ballistic missiles with non-nuclear high-precision warheads proposed by the administration of George W. Bush in 2006. The US Congress reacted negatively to them and allocated modest funding. Later, the Strategic Command considered the Trident to be too risky a project. A launched missile will be immediately detected by means of missile attack warning (EWS) and will provoke a retaliatory strike, because how to explain that a missile flying over Europe or Russia does not carry nuclear warheads and is aimed at Afghanistan? By 2013, work on this program was almost curtailed.

But the HTV-2 and AHW hypersonic gliding vehicles (HZLA), which have been developed since the early 2000s, can become the main and, probably, the only means of defeating the NBGU. The device is launched by a carrier rocket, reaches a height of several hundred thousand meters, separates from the carrier and glides at hypersonic speed to the target. If the HTV-2 is supposed to hit targets at a distance of 10 thousand kilometers and be launched from the territory of the United States, then the AHW operates at half the range and can be launched from ground targets and submarines. At the moment, HTV-2 has failed all tests, and AHW has a real opportunity to become a full-fledged combat system by 2020-2025.

It is planned that these GZLAs will be deployed on the Pacific atolls of Kwajalein or Guam, as well as at the Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean. The placement of AHW on submarines is questionable, since the size of the launch vehicle based on the Minuteman-3 ICBM does not allow them to be put on nuclear submarines of the Virginia and Los Angeles types, and by the time of the first test launches of the marine version scheduled for 2025 AHW strategic missile carriers "Ohio" will be decommissioned.

GZLA is a deadly threat to aerospace defense facilities, since the flight altitude passes below the field of view of early warning radars. Considering the hypersonic speed of the GZLA, the means of radar detection and air defense anti-aircraft missile systems have only minutes, if not seconds, to react.

The HTV-2 cost the Pentagon just $600 million from 2003 to present, and the AHW even less, $200 million since 2008. If we evaluate the allocated funds and the complexity of the work, we can safely say that the NBGU project is at the end of the Pentagon's list of priority programs, yielding even to research into new individual ways to protect military personnel.

Specialists erroneously refer to the X-51 Wave Rider hypersonic cruise missiles being developed by order of the US Air Force Strike Aviation Command as the means of destruction of the Non-Nuclear Fast Global Strike. Over time, they can really enter the NBGU system, however, American experts note that the technical solutions of the X-51 make it difficult to use it as a combat unit for long-range strikes. According to the US Air Force command, the optimal range of a hypersonic missile is no more than 500 kilometers, which is less than the range of modern Tomahawk and ALCM subsonic missiles.

The main problem hindering the use of the new missile is its short range and easy detection. Developing speed over 5 M at an altitude of 21 thousand meters, the rocket cannot maneuver. Due to significant air resistance, when descending towards the target, the speed of the Kh-51 drops several times, which will make it an easy target for air defense systems. Classic, low-altitude cloaking subsonic cruise missiles don't have these problems, so the US Air Force is very skeptical about the possibility of building a hypersonic strategic cruise missile.

When analyzing the situation with the weapons of destruction of the NBGU, it becomes clear that so far they fall short of the declared characteristics and requirements for intercontinental destruction of targets and are least of all similar to strategic weapons. The radius of application of the current AHW system is only five thousand kilometers, and fine-tuning the long-range HTV-2, according to American experts, will take up to 15 years and will require more funds than currently allocated.

Given the existing developments, as well as the planned locations (Diego Garcia, Guam, Kwajalein), there is no threat to Russia yet. In the current scenario, the possibility of inflicting a disarming strike on Russia by means of a “non-nuclear rapid global strike” is unrealizable in the next ten, and possibly 15 years.

The Pentagon is working in this direction with negligible costs. Tests of weapons are slow, with great problems, only one AHW system is ready. However, the declared goals of the NBGU clearly put the Russian Federation on the list of priority targets. In addition, the AHW can easily be deployed, as Pershing-2 used to be, on the territory of Europe, and the launch of the marine version of the GZLA from the sea areas adjacent to Russia will require the deployment of a new early warning system that is significantly different from the existing one.
* * *

US Prompt Global Strike targets Russia's nuclear arsenals.

Prompt Global Strike, PGS, also global
lightning strike) is an initiative of the US armed forces to develop a system that allows conventional (non-nuclear, English conventional) weapons to strike anywhere on the planet within 1 hour, by analogy with a nuclear strike using ICBMs.

In the words of General James Cartwright: "At the present time, if we are not talking about a nuclear strike, it may be days, perhaps weeks" before the military can launch an attack with regular forces.

The task of the PGS system is to provide the ability to deliver a quick and accurate strike on any region of the world in the event of a conflict or emergency. A ballistic version could launch directly from US soil.

The PGS system will complement the formations of the Forward Deployment Force, Expeditionary Air Force (which can be deployed within 48 hours) and Carrier Strike Groups (AUG, eng. Carrier battle groups, which can respond within 96 hours). PGS
will allow you to attack any point on the planet or near space for 60 minutes.

These forces, according to some, incl. the Obama administration should be a way to reduce nuclear arsenals while maintaining deterrence and rapid strike capability.

Potential scenarios that require a quick response only to nuclear weapons holders at the moment include a ballistic missile launch threatened by North Korea or the possibility of al-Qaeda taking over leadership in Pakistan.

However, the main problem with the ICBMs launched by this system is that they can alert Russian or even Chinese anti-missile systems, causing George W. Bush to delay plans to build the system.

It is currently unclear what means or precautions are intended to reassure these countries that the missiles do not carry nuclear weapons.
Possible measures include flying low trajectories or allowing Russian and Chinese inspections of missile sites.

On April 11, 2010, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates indicated that the US was already capable of delivering a rapid global strike.

Also on April 8, 2010, the New START Treaty was signed, setting new, even lower limits on the number of ballistic missiles and warheads. It does not distinguish between conventional and nuclear weapons, which means that the number of any PGS ballistic missiles and warheads is set to a new limit.

Despite this, the US State Department stated that this would not interfere with the plans to deploy PGS, since. there are no plans to exceed the limits at the moment.

President Obama has yet to decide whether to deploy a new type of weapon capable of reaching any corner of the planet from US soil in less than an hour, and with such precision and power that the value of America's nuclear arsenal will be greatly reduced.

Yet these technologies are already such a concern that the Obama administration, yielding to Russia's demand, agreed to decommission one nuclear-armed missile in exchange for the Pentagon's deployment of one of these conventional weapons. This provision, according to representatives of the White House, is contained "in the depths" of the "New START" agreement signed in Prague.

Colonel O. Oberstov

Since the end of the Cold War, Pentagon leadership has paid close attention to finding ways to equip the US military with the ability to deliver conventional strikes at strategic range. After the reorganization of the system of forward presence of the national armed forces in the 90s of the last century, the experts of the American military department came to the conclusion that new approaches to the deployment of troops in remote theaters of operations do not allow to effectively neutralize by conventional means sudden threats to the global interests of the United States, the sources of which are located out of reach of advanced groups.

In this regard, the 2001 Pentagon Review of the Current State and Prospects for the Development of US Nuclear Forces documented for the first time the need for national armed forces to plan the integrated use of precision-guided strike weapons in conventional equipment and strategic nuclear forces. In addition, in the same year, the American military department began to justify the need to create a "new class of long-range weapons" that would make it possible to reduce the dependence of the United States on the nuclear arsenal in solving the problems of deterring a potential adversary.

Subsequently, this issue was periodically raised in various doctrinal documents, including the Comprehensive Review of the State and Prospects for the Development of the US Armed Forces, developed by the Department of Defense every four years.

In particular, in 2003, in a special report by the Ministry of Defense of the country on improving the doctrine of the national air force, it was noted that "the rapid projection of force (through the use of weapons) from the continental United States has become dominant in the national military strategy. In May of the same year, the Air Force Ministry initiated target program for the development of advanced non-nuclear means for delivering instant global strikes (MGU).In accordance with the requirements, these weapons systems must ensure the destruction of targets located anywhere in the world within 1 hour from the moment the decision is made by the president or the minister of defense without involving groups of troops The presence of such weapons systems will contribute to the solution of deterrence tasks, and, if necessary, will ensure the destruction of especially important objects, as well as targets, the elimination of which is time-critical 1 at all stages of armed conflict.

Initially, it was assumed that the first promising strike systems would go to the US Armed Forces within a few years after the start of their development and would be in demand both at the stage of a sharp aggravation of the situation and during the escalation of the armed conflict. At the same time, the strict time parameters of the "instant global strike" were determined by the need to anticipate the use of the latest camouflage by the enemy, as well as the mobility of a number of important targets.

In 2006, the Pentagon expanded the interpretation of Moscow State University in its latest Comprehensive Review of the State and Prospects for the Development of the US Armed Forces. The document emphasized that "the US military must have the ability to defeat fixed, hardened, buried and mobile targets with increased accuracy anywhere in the world and as soon as possible after receiving an order from the US President." In addition, the review declared the intention to use ballistic missiles from Trident-2 submarines equipped with non-nuclear warheads to deliver instant global strikes. 2 .

The 2010 Comprehensive Review of the State and Prospects for the Development of the US Armed Forces noted that "the Pentagon's enhanced ability to apply MGU will increase the effectiveness of countering the growing threats to the forward presence of the US Armed Forces, as well as provide the need for national military forces in global force projection." In addition, this document emphasized the urgent need to continue developing prototypes of strategic-range strike weapons that meet the requirements of "instantaneous global strike."

At present, the United States does not have a separate legislative act regulating the creation and use of MSU funds. The implementation of the program is governed by the decisions of Congress within the framework of the annual laws on appropriations for national defense.

In accordance with the current doctrinal documents of the Pentagon, the single target program "Instant global strike" is an integral element and one of the most promising areas for implementing the operational-strategic concept "Global strike". This concept is a system of views on improving the capabilities of the national armed forces to deliver high-precision strikes against critical targets in the shortest possible time (within 72 hours from the moment the order is received) and at long range using a limited array of weapons in nuclear and conventional weapons, and also through space, information and special operations.

As part of the Moscow State University program in the United States, technologies for strategic high-precision weapons with fundamentally new combat capabilities are being developed. The highest priority is given to developments in the field of hypersonic (having a flight speed exceeding the speed of sound five times or more) guided weapons, which have a number of the following advantages: short flight time; high efficiency of use against protected stationary objects; enhanced capabilities for the destruction of moving targets; low vulnerability due to the lack of capabilities to intercept hypersonic weapons by modern and advanced air defense and missile defense systems.

In addition, the Pentagon emphasizes that advanced hypersonic systems are not subject to consideration by the current treaty regime on arms limitation.

High-ranking representatives of the US military department have repeatedly stated that, if necessary, instantaneous global strikes can be inflicted on the military-political leadership, the most important bodies of state and military administration, production and storage facilities, as well as delivery vehicles for weapons of mass destruction of the enemy.

According to American experts, if the Moscow State University program is successfully completed, up to 30% of enemy targets, the destruction of which is currently planned by nuclear weapons, could become targets for promising hypersonic weapons. At the same time, Pentagon officials believe that the hypersonic systems being developed will not replace nuclear weapons, but will serve as an additional tool for deterring and defeating the enemy in remote theaters without deploying forward-based American troops.

Along with loud statements from high-ranking Pentagon officials that hypersonic strike systems will become an "ideal weapon", a number of influential American research centers believe that the implementation of the program is fraught with significant risks, limitations and problems.

In particular, the research service of the US Congress in one of its reports noted that the use of hypersonic strike weapons in a conflict with an enemy with nuclear weapons could lead to an escalation of hostilities uncontrolled by Washington.

Of particular concern to American experts is the fact that the enemy may regard an instantaneous global strike as a nuclear attack. In addition, the use of gliding hypersonic strike assets with a flight trajectory that differs from the ballistic one can cause a third party to incorrectly assess the possible impact area and serve as a pretext for drawing states into the conflict that were not originally involved in it.

The Pentagon does not yet have any specific plans for the deployment of MGU facilities. However, in the future, in the event that technological problems are overcome and new hypersonic strike weapons are adopted, it is planned to adjust the operational plans of the United Strategic Command (USC) of the US Armed Forces, which is responsible for planning, organizing and implementing global strikes.

At the same time, the task of developing forms and methods for the combat use of advanced MGU assets has already been entrusted to the USC Center for Analysis of Combat Operations Methods (Dalgren, Virginia). This structure is equipped with modern combat situation simulation systems that allow you to explore personal options for delivering instant global strikes and develop optimal solutions for the use of advanced hypersonic weapons.

Research, experiments, technological developments and tests within the framework of the Moscow State University program cover a wide variety of aspects of creating hypersonic weapons. A significant number of projects were closed after achieving certain results or recognizing them as unsuccessful.

For example, since the late 1990s, the US Navy has been exploring the possibility of equipping Trident-2 missiles with high-precision conventional warheads. Despite the satisfactory results of flight tests of experimental samples of such warheads in the 2000s (they were developed at the expense of Lockheed Martin), this project did not receive support in Congress. Attempts were also made to develop non-nuclear strategic weapons to defeat strategic targets and use them in local conflicts. Thus, in 2005-2006, R&D was carried out on a sea-based ballistic missile with a firing range of up to 5,500 km.

In 2010-2011, the Office of Advanced Studies of the US Department of Defense, within the framework of the Arc-light project, studied the possibility of creating a high-precision non-nuclear strike weapon system based on Standard-3 anti-missiles to destroy ground targets at a distance of up to 3,500 km. Currently, these works are not funded.

Until 2011, considerable attention was paid to the CSM (Conventional Strike Missile) project, which provided for the creation of a non-nuclear ICBM (based on the decommissioned MX missile). As part of this project, the HTV-2 (Hypersonic Test Vehicle) delivery vehicle was tested. In 2010 and 2011, two of its flight tests were carried out using the Minotaur-4 launch vehicle, as a result of which serious problems were revealed related to ensuring the controllability of the vehicle and the durability of its heat-shielding coating. Because of this, funding for these works has been significantly reduced and further testing of the HTV-2 apparatus is not planned yet.

At present, the priority is the development of technologies for the AHW (Advanced Hypersonic Weapon) hypersonic gliding payload delivery vehicle launched using a multi-stage launch vehicle. Two tests were carried out - successful in 2011 at a distance of about 3,800 km and unsuccessful in 2014. The next flight experiment under the AHW project is scheduled for 2017, the fourth - for 2019.

In addition, the TBG (Tactical Boost Glide) project has been underway since 2014, within the framework of which the possibility of creating a hypersonic weapon system for use as part of air and sea-based missile systems is being studied.

In the field of hypersonic guided missiles, the Kh-51A technological project has now been completed as a completed task. The results achieved during it are supposed to be used in the HAWC (Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept) program, which is focused on testing the technologies of a hypersonic aviation guided missile.

How Russia can repel America's "rapid global strike".

The threat of a potential instantaneous global strike by 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 announced by the commander of the Aerospace Defense Forces (VKO) for air defense, Major General Kirill Makarov.

Questions of air defense are now coming to the fore. This is due to the fact that the United States has adopted the concept of an instantaneous global strike, which carries the main danger for the Russian Federation from aerospace, Makarov said.

According to the estimates of the command of the troops of the Aerospace Defense of the Russian Federation, 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 be used against objects on the territory of the Russian Federation.

He noted that the American concept of "Quick 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, intercontinental missiles already in service, as well as means that should appear in the near future - hypersonic aircraft, can be used.

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

MiG-31s ​​will cover those of our ships that can move along the Northern Sea Route in the event of any aggravation 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 the United States has, how many cruise missiles they can actually lift at the same time, and in what geographical areas - these are the main issues that deserve our attention, notes Alexander Khramchikhin, deputy director of the Institute for Political and Military Analysis.

The Americans can produce 80,000 missiles, but what's the use of them 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 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. Yes, and it is very problematic to imagine a scenario in which all US submarines could covertly approach Russian shores.

As for surface ships and "strategists" - bombers, by definition they cannot covertly move in large numbers to Russian borders.

It is easy to shoot down a cruise missile, but it is difficult to detect it - for 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 it must be borne in mind that when one missile is detected, an alarm is automatically announced for all the Armed Forces.

In principle, the implementation of the concept of "Quick Global Strike" 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 can be no partial success for them here, they need to destroy the entire Russian nuclear potential with one blow, and practically simultaneously - literally with a difference of minutes. Otherwise, our missiles will fly in their direction, and the Americans, in fact, have no anti-missile defense. Their vaunted missile defense system is nothing more than another propaganda myth that is being fanned by both sides at the same time. If they shoot down one rocket, then this, consider it, will be a great success for them.

The editor-in-chief of Arsenal of the Fatherland magazine, a 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 rather exaggerated. For any weapon, a service life is set, so those weapons that were stockpiled in the 1990s are now simply removed from service at the end 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 reveal the preparation of an attack in time and repel it. I myself saw a map where assessments were made for various theaters, and, of course, we are not talking about thousands of missiles there.

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

Both the USA and Russia are 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 to a distance of up to six thousand kilometers, also carries on board three X-22 supersonic cruise missiles with a flight range of up to 600 km and 10 Kh-15 hypersonic air-to-surface missiles with a range of up to 300 km…

The X-15 is, of course, no longer a supersonic, but not a hypersonic missile either. 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 a speed is developed by the warheads of an operational-tactical or medium-range missile in the descending part of the trajectory. For comparison, the initial speed of a 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 planes would be deployed at airfields in the Arctic, which would sort of 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 intercept manned aircraft and cruise missiles at long range. On these aircraft, you can work as part of a group, up to a squadron, exchange information between yourself and the aviation command post.

Vladimir Yevseyev, director of the Center for Social and Political Studies, also says that the United States can produce 10,000 cruise missiles, but such a volley is fantastic.

Potentially, the US Navy can take a large number of SLCMs (sea-launched strategic cruise missiles), putting them on cruisers, missile destroyers and submarines. Theoretically, it is cruisers that can carry out massive shelling of our territory from various theaters of operations that can give great potential. However, the Mk41-type shipborne vertical launchers (VLAs) are equipped with both SM-3 interceptor missiles and anti-aircraft and cruise missiles. And considering that the US ships provide protection for aircraft carriers and solve missile defense tasks, this greatly reduces the possibility of deploying the required number of cruise missiles on ships. As far as I understand, the concept does not imply 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 a ground-based combat information and control system (CICS) Aegis, which, for example, will be installed in Romania. Some experts believe that such complexes are capable of attacking ground targets. But whether this is true or not is still unclear.

Now with regard to 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 the means of tactical nuclear weapons, it was decided not to deploy nuclear weapons in the fleet, with the exception of SSBNs (nuclear submarines with ballistic missiles). In addition, there are nuclear-weapon-free zones in the world. American ships carrying nuclear weapons cannot enter certain areas, and, accordingly, certain ports.

Thus, the concept of "Fast Global Strike" is only at the stage of implementation, and whether it is being implemented at all is a big question. In my opinion, it is necessary to separate the "Quick 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 also provides for striking within an hour. Accordingly, in order to use the BGM-109 Tomahawk within it, it is necessary to place carriers directly along the Russian border, which is quite difficult to do for a variety of reasons.

I also note that if we have the potential for a deep nuclear strike, then we even more have the possibility of a retaliatory strike in the case of the use of precision-guided weapons in conventional equipment. In addition, an attack with missiles with conventional warheads does not guarantee 100% destruction of strategically important objects. For example, such as mine launchers, which are quite well protected. In my opinion, no one will go for a disarming strike if it is delivered by non-nuclear missiles.

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

The country's leadership is taking a number of measures to deploy fighter-interceptors, anti-aircraft missile systems in dangerous directions. However, in the case of a "Fast Global Strike", our strategic nuclear forces are a deterrent. What is the creation of a military railway complex (BZHRK) "Barguzin", based on the missile "Yars" worth? Also, by 2020, mobile and silo-based PC-24 Yars ICBMs, heavy Sarmat ICBMs, about which many flattering words will still be said, will be put into service.

There are skeptical opinions about the BZHRK "Barguzin". Some experts say that with the modern development of space intelligence, the United States can track the movement of rolling stock with a rocket by characteristic unmasking signs ...

It must be clearly understood that those BZHRKs that were in service in the Soviet-Russian period were equipped with heavy missiles that did not fit in one car. Indeed, a twin carriage was one of the characteristic unmasking signs. But the main problem was that it was impossible to make a rocket launch from the waypoint due to the fact that the momentum 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 capsizing of the composition. 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 wagon and is three times lighter than the Soviet one. Accordingly, its start can be provided from any point of the route.

As for space intelligence, one should not exaggerate the capabilities of the United States. I read the US 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 echelons, and even more so to hit the BZHRK with a cruise missile - during its approach to the target, the train can go far from aiming points, and even on a different path.

This term is called a special strategy that allows you to capture any country in just 1 hour. Such a lightning-fast global strike has much in common with a nuclear strike by ICBM A-9/A-10 ICBMs and their newer versions. The only difference is that the new technology of warfare will not use nuclear weapons capable of destroying all life not only in the conquered country, but on the planet in general.

BGU is planned to be carried out with the help of other weapons:

Ballistic missiles SLBMs with non-nuclear equipment;
- cruise missiles of the Boeing X-51 system, etc.

All these weapons of the Navy can be launched both from land-based and sea-based platforms, and directly from space. In the latter case, the United States has special space platforms at orbital, near-Earth stations. The Thor project is most often associated with rocket strikes from space. It just assumes the shelling of ground targets from the Earth's orbit. For the country that will become the object of BSU, this will be a real shock. After an hour of massive attack, she will only have to surrender to the mercy of the winner.

In addition to the described weapons, the BGU also includes technologies such as the Rapid Deployment System (in 48 hours) and the use of aircraft carrier strike groups. All this in a complex and allows you to conquer any state within an hour. According to the US statements, BSU was created as a deterrent system for countries that are going to launch a nuclear war. A quick global strike can be directed against a power that has nuclear weapons in its arsenal and demonstrates aggressive intentions.

It is important to remember that not all weapons are launched from space. There is one that requires ground (or sea) launch pads. In view of NATO's recent high activity in Eastern Europe, it is becoming clear that it is Russia that causes quite specific fears in the United States. Back in 2010, US Secretary of Defense R. Gates openly stated that the BSU technology was fully developed and the Pentagon was ready to press the button at any moment.

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 “rapid global strike,” but Russian propaganda and officials repeat “instant strike” 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. Outdated GBIs can try to shoot down a primitive single North Korean ICBM, and they are basically useless against the Russian nuclear potential. 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 the military is demanding trillions now to counter non-existent or deliberately inflated threats in an impoverished country with crumbling infrastructure, health care, 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.