It is necessary to develop measures to counter new means of US aerospace attack today. In the United States, the concept of “Instant Global Impact” (IGU) has been developed for several years now. The military-political leadership of the Russian Federation sees in these works a direct threat to our country. Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke directly about this in his Address to the Federal Assembly back in 2013, when the crisis in relations between the Russian Federation and the United States was just brewing:
« We are closely monitoring the so-called “Disarming Prompt Global Strike” concept, which may have negative consequences... No one should be under any illusions about the possibility of achieving military superiority over Russia. We will never allow this».
Today, when the Russia-West confrontation has reached its most serious level in the post-Soviet period, these words of the president are no less relevant. In this regard, it is necessary to analyze the goals, objectives, composition and combat capabilities of MSU strike weapons, as well as prepare proposals for measures to counter this threat.
According to foreign information materials, the main purpose of applying MGU is to give the US Armed Forces the ability to carry out high-precision and global non-nuclear destruction of critically important objects anywhere in the world within one hour from the moment the object is identified and a decision is made by the US military-political leadership.
The efficiency of applying MGU and the range of destruction of objects is envisaged to be ensured by the use of hypersonic weapon systems (GZSV), capable of reaching speeds of up to 18 thousand km/h with a firing range of up to 15 thousand kilometers.
It should be emphasized that the practical implementation of the “Global Strike” concept is carried out within the framework of the comprehensive technical program “Instant global strike", which is aimed at creating and forming groupings of the GZSV with their inclusion in the new US strategic triad.
ONCE AGAIN ABOUT THE PROMISING STRATEGIC TRIAD
In accordance with the provisions of the US nuclear strategy the basis of a promising strategic triad will be the following three components:
- deployed strike weapons consisting of: strategic and non-strategic nuclear weapons; GZSV; high-precision long-range weapons (LTO BD) of various types; weapons based on new physical principles;
- strategic defensive forces as part of the global missile defense system, which ensures the protection of US territory, and its regional segments (European missile defense, missile defense in the Middle East, Japanese missile defense in the Asia-Pacific region);
- infrastructure of an industrial and scientific research base designed to maintain, modernize and create new types of strategic offensive weapons, as well as confirm the reliability and safety of operation of nuclear weapons in the context of a moratorium on nuclear testing.
Hypersonic gliding vehicle HTV-2.
The US nuclear strategy notes that in the context of the implementation of the START Treaty, it seems advisable to entrust some of the tasks of destroying important enemy targets to high-tech weapons from the US Air Force and Navy, GZSV and other strike weapons in conventional equipment. Washington believes that the security of the state can be ensured by a smaller number of strategic offensive forces, which will significantly reduce the cost of their maintenance.
The document emphasizes that “the Pentagon’s expanded capabilities to deliver non-nuclear instant global strikes represent one of the means of countering the growing threats to the forward presence of the US Armed Forces and meet the needs of US troops (forces) for global power projection.” The position of US Vice President Joe Biden, expressed in February 2010 at the National Defense University, is also characteristic: “The conventional weapons we are developing with a strategic range allow us to reduce the role of nuclear weapons. With such modern weapons, our power will remain unchallenged, even in the event of far-reaching nuclear reductions.”
It is important to emphasize that these provisions of the nuclear strategy were clarified in the new “Report on the US Nuclear Employment Strategy” of June 2013.
Meanwhile, the Americans are not eliminating the strategic offensive weapons reduced in accordance with the START Treaty, but are directing them toward the formation of a “returnable” potential for carriers and warheads, which can be used in the event of force majeure circumstances affecting the interests of the United States and its allies. Moreover, part of the tasks for nuclear destruction of targets of potential adversaries is redistributed between the nuclear forces of the United States, Great Britain and France during the annual refinement of NATO nuclear planning.
It is appropriate to recall that all components of the new strategic triad are organizationally integrated into the United Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) of the US Armed Forces (Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska). Work has begun to increase the capabilities of the combat command and control, communications, reconnaissance and operational planning systems. At the same time, USSTRATCOM leadership was entrusted with new tasks for organizing adaptive planning and launching global strikes, which required clarification of the structure, content and procedure for developing (clarifying) operational plan No. 8010 for the use of US nuclear forces.
According to the views of the US military-political leadership, the created strike and defense complex provides a significant reduction in the time it takes for the US President to make and implement a decision to respond to a sudden aerospace attack by potential adversaries and in the event of terrorist attacks.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF INSTANT GLOBAL STRIKE
US guidance documents note that the main goal of the MGU and the created GZSV is the search and destruction of the leaders of terrorist organizations, usually located in highly protected bunkers, the liquidation of caravans with weapons, drugs and radioactive materials, the destruction of WMD production facilities, etc.
It later became clear that the real goal of developing the GZSV is the high-precision global non-nuclear destruction of critical objects of potential enemies anywhere on the globe within one hour from the moment the object is identified and a decision is made to eliminate it.
Experimental hypersonic cruise missile X-51A
Russian and foreign experts believe that GZSV have the following advantages:
— hypersonic speed of approach to the target, making it difficult to detect and destroy them;
— the ability of strike weapons to hit highly protected and buried control points;
— the ability of some types of GZSV to carry out loitering, search and operational destruction of mobile missile systems;
— implementation of ground, air, sea and space methods of basing platforms;
— the difficulty of intercepting hypersonic strike weapons due to the imperfection of the tactical and technical characteristics of interceptor missiles.
In the governing documents of the US Armed Forces within the framework of peacetime and the immediate threat of aggression, the following are defined: main tasks assigned to hypersonic weapons:
— demonstrative actions on the use of GZSV;
— destruction of highly protected and buried facilities housing the leaders of terrorist organizations and leaders of international criminal gangs in countries where access is limited;
— identification and liquidation of caravans of terrorist organizations with weapons, drugs, fissile radioactive materials necessary to create “dirty” nuclear bombs;
— liquidation of terrorist bases, WMD storage warehouses and means of transporting weapons and drugs;
— providing direct military assistance to friendly regimes or opposition movements in their armed confrontation during an internal conflict;
— suppression of violations of embargoes or economic blockades of rogue countries or sponsors of international terrorism.
In wartime conditions, the State Defense Forces will be involved in solving such problems as:
— delivering preventive strikes and defeating organs and points of state and military command and facilities of the counterforce group of strategic nuclear forces of potential opponents;
— destruction of early warning systems, early warning missile systems, missile defense, air defense, and orbital constellations of enemy spacecraft;
— disabling enemy combat control and communications system facilities before the start of hostilities;
— causing specified damage to economic infrastructure without significant losses among the population;
— destruction of energy and other infrastructure that supports the life of the state, as well as that used by the enemy in the interests of logistical support for troops (forces);
— destruction of objects that cannot be hit by other strike weapons, etc.
MAIN GZSP PROJECTS, POSSIBLE FORMS AND METHODS OF THEIR APPLICATION
To develop GZSV for various purposes, the United States is implementing a comprehensive technical program “Prompt Global Strike” (Program Element: Prompt Global Strike Capability Development), which is an integral part of the “Global Strike” concept.
Thus, the US Air Force is creating a missile system with non-nuclear ICBMs as part of the Minotaur strategic launch vehicle of various modifications and the HTV-2 hypersonic glide vehicle. To assemble Minotaur-type missiles, modernized stages of Minuteman II and MX ICBMs are used, which were not previously eliminated in violation of the START-1 Treaty. The deployment of a group of these missile systems is planned at Vandenberg Air Force Base (West Coast of the USA) and Cape Canaveral (East Coast), i.e. at points sufficiently distant from existing ICBM missile bases.
The United States has already conducted four test launches of the X-51A
Satisfactory results were obtained during flight development tests of the hypersonic aircraft guided missile X-51A and the reusable spacecraft X-37B. The X-37B spacecraft can be put into service and put into orbit by 2016.
The US Army Space and Missile Defense Command is developing a GZSV based on a two-stage ballistic missile and an AHW hypersonic glide reentry vehicle, the test results of which are unknown. Moreover, the ballistic missile was created in violation of the existing INF and START Treaties: performance characteristics were not presented to the Russian side, there was no preliminary display of the missile, the necessary notifications were not provided, the deployment location of the missile system was not announced, etc.
The US Navy plans to modify two of the 24 Trident II SLBMs on all twelve SSBNs to carry four adjustable conventional warheads. However, work on this project has been suspended by the US Congress, and the necessary financial resources have not been assigned, since the Pentagon cannot provide convincing evidence of identifying the launches of nuclear and non-nuclear SLBMs. However, work in this direction is being carried out at the expense of the US Department of Defense’s own resources.
In addition, a version of the two-stage Trident II medium-range SLBM with a non-nuclear glide warhead is being developed, with a flight time of about 13 minutes. One of the multi-purpose nuclear submarines is being tested as the main carrier of this type of SLBM.
For the first test launch of the HTV-2 apparatus on April 22, 2010, a Minotaur IV launch vehicle was used
According to Russian and foreign experts, the adoption of some strike weapons similar in performance characteristics to hypersonic systems is possible by 2025. Presumably, a certain number of them will be deployed as part of the existing air force, naval forces, tactical aviation of the NATO Air Force in Europe and other theaters of operations.
With the successful completion of the Instant Global Strike program, hypersonic weapons with real capabilities to destroy critical targets of potential enemies within an hour can be deployed after 2025. Their deployment locations will be chosen on the continental United States and military theaters remote from the United States actions at American air bases located on the territories of other states. All suitable navigable zones of ocean theaters of operations are considered as combat patrol areas for sea-based GZSV carriers.
The US military leadership, simultaneously with the creation of the GZSV, is developing the fundamentals of the combat use of hypersonic weapons, paying special attention to the search for effective forms and methods of their combat use in various environmental conditions.
Presumably, the GZSV formations, together with other strike assets, will participate in military operations in the form of a strategic aerospace offensive, air campaigns, offensive aerospace operations, being in the first echelons of strike groups to destroy early warning systems, missile defense, air defense, and system objects combat control and communications. The goal is to “knock down the doors” in the enemy’s layered defense and provide access to his combat space. At the same time, a global strike will be accompanied by information operations, radio-electronic and psychological actions and actions.
Possible methods of using GZSV include simultaneous, sequential, combined or selective delivery of global strikes against all or part of important targets of potential adversaries in one or more strategic aerospace directions.
It must be emphasized that the choice of forms and methods of delivering global strikes will depend on the timing of the assigned tasks, the remoteness of objects, physical-geographical and climatic conditions and other factors. Therefore, strict requirements will be imposed on the functioning of the combat control and communications system; organizing adaptive strike planning; target distribution and target designation; guidance of strike weapons and evaluation of the results of their combat use.
It will be necessary to deploy a group of space-based hypersonic weapons during a period of immediate threat of aggression and when conditions arise for the outbreak of military action against the United States and its allies.
At the same time, it seems unlikely that the military-political leadership of the United States will make decisions on the use of strategic nuclear forces at strategic nuclear forces, early warning systems, missile defense, air defense facilities, government and military command posts, groupings of troops (forces) and other strategic and critically important facilities of the Russian Federation.
DEVELOPMENT OF HYPERSONIC WEAPONS IN THE USA AS A DESTABILIZING FACTOR
The preamble to the START Treaty emphasizes that the Russian Federation and the United States of America, when concluding the START Treaty, “take into account the impact of conventional ICBMs and SLBMs on strategic stability.” However, the destabilizing influence of ICBMs and SLBMs of this type has already become apparent, which is confirmed by the following arguments.
As already noted, the basis of the non-nuclear ground-based missile system is made up of Minotaur-type ICBMs of various modifications, developed using the sustainer stages of the Minuteman II and MX ICBMs, which, in violation of the START-1 Treaty, were not eliminated. In addition, Minotaur-class ICBMs are not declared as a new type of missile, inspection of these missiles by Russian experts is not regulated, there was no preliminary display of the missiles, distinctive features were not presented, etc.
In the US Navy, as already noted, two Trident II SLBMs on each boat are planned to be equipped with non-nuclear warheads. High accuracy of warhead guidance on the final part of the flight trajectory will be ensured through correction based on data from the NAVSTAR space radio navigation system (GPS).
To counter a possible instant global strike, it is necessary to improve the forms and methods of action of the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation
The destabilizing nature of the use of non-nuclear missiles lies in the real possibility of nuclear incidents between the United States, Russia and China. Thus, mutual notifications regarding combat training, testing, unauthorized and accidental launches of ICBMs and SLBMs are carried out only between Russia and the United States. It is doubtful that the Americans will pre-inform the military leadership of Russia and other states about preparations for launching preventive strikes with non-nuclear ICBMs and SLBMs to promptly destroy time-critical targets anywhere in the world, for example, against the DPRK, Iran or Syria.
There are no methods for identifying the launches of ICBMs and SLBMs with non-nuclear warheads, and no research is being carried out in this direction. Direct communication channels are organized only between the leaders of Russia and the United States, and their use in the interests of informing other states has not been worked out. Due to the lack of an international treaty base, there is a problem of promptly notifying heads of state about undeclared launches of US ICBMs and SLBMs, coordinating missile flight routes through their territory, clarifying the areas where the first and second stages of missiles will fall into the ocean, and the third stage into the territory of other countries, which will inevitably cause complications in relations between states.
It is quite possible to covertly re-equip ICBMs and SLBMs with nuclear weapons. Moreover, the START Treaty does not define control and inspection procedures and does not provide for the submission of notifications and telemetric information. Under the pretext of conducting test launches of non-nuclear missiles, uncontrolled improvement of the characteristics of ICBMs, SLBMs and testing of new nuclear warheads is quite possible.
According to experts, launches of non-nuclear ballistic missiles from SSBNs will unmask submarine combat patrol areas. At the same time, concerns are being expressed that the use of conventional SLBMs may make it difficult for SSBNs to carry out combat missions related to the preparation and delivery of nuclear missile strikes against enemy strategic targets.
Preconditions for accidental or unauthorized launches of SLBMs equipped with nuclear warheads are quite possible, which requires the implementation of a set of operational and organizational measures to ensure their prevention and a high level of training of SSBN missile crews.
It should be noted that even the US Congressional Research Service, which put forward a number of primitive proposals to mitigate the risks, tried to solve the problem of “erroneous interpretation” by other nuclear powers of launches of re-equipped missiles. Thus, it is recommended to resolve the problem of identifying ICBM and SLBM launches through prompt consultations with foreign partners at the military and diplomatic expert levels.
To develop measures of mutual trust, it was proposed to introduce a system of guaranteed notification of planned launches. To exclude possible attempts to re-equip conventional warheads with nuclear ones, it is proposed to develop technical control procedures at the expense of permanent inspectors of the parties.
Thus, the actions of the Americans to develop non-nuclear ICBMs and SLBMs destabilize the situation in the world and violate the START Treaty.
KEY CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
According to Russian and foreign politicians, by 2030 the United States will be able to develop, adopt and deploy a group of military forces capable of hitting state and military command centers and the main part of the counterforce group of Russian strategic nuclear forces in a massive strike. In addition, the US global missile defense system and its regional segments can significantly reduce the combat capabilities of the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Armed Forces to carry out retaliatory strikes.
V. Putin emphasized in his Address to the Federal Assembly: “ Such actions could nullify all previously reached agreements in the field of limitation and reduction of strategic nuclear weapons and lead to a violation of the so-called strategic balance of power».
Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin assured that “the American concept of “Instant Global Strike” as the main strategic idea of the United States will not go unanswered.”
Due to this the following directions and measures to counter an instant global strike can be proposed.
First direction. Improving the forms and methods of action of the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Armed Forces in terms of emergency dispersal, maneuver actions, redeployments over long distances with the occupation of hidden position areas. The use of non-standard methods of operational camouflage and misleading the enemy regarding the locations, states and movements of the PGRK, groupings of the aviation and naval components of the strategic nuclear forces.
Completion of the preliminary design of a combat railway missile system within the established time frame, taking into account countermeasures against MGU and overcoming the layered US missile defense system. Continued implementation of optimal options for the deployment of Iskander missile systems.
It seems advisable to revisit the concept of creating a new PGRK based on the Courier missile system. Consider the possibility of patrolling submarines equipped with long-range precision weapons in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, taking into account the disadvantages of the geographical location of the United States and the concentration of key infrastructure on the coast of the state.
Equipping existing and future ICBMs and SLBMs with effective means of overcoming layered missile defense. Constantly informing the leadership and public of the states on whose territory the facilities of the US global missile defense system and its regional segments, as well as tactical nuclear weapons, are located that these facilities are priority targets for Russian high-precision strike weapons.
Completion of the creation of the appearance of the aerospace defense system of the Russian Federation, ensuring timely notification of authorities and control points and strategic nuclear forces about the launches of ICBM and Trident II SLBM cruise missiles with non-nuclear warheads, adjusted using the NAVSTAR system. Implementation of effective ways to suppress this system. Improving anti-aircraft missile systems capable of intercepting warheads of ICBMs, SLBMs, supersonic and hypersonic cruise missiles. Reducing the time it takes for air defense/missile defense systems to be ready to repel an enemy aerospace attack.
Ensuring reliable and complete cover and defense of Russian strategic nuclear forces and other important facilities from aerospace attacks by a potential enemy. Improving methods of combating high-tech weapons in order to protect silo launchers and command posts of stationary missile regiments in conditions when their coordinates were transferred to the United States under the START Treaty.
Second direction. Improving the system of combat command and control of troops and weapons in order to promptly communicate orders (signals) for response actions and their combat use to the executive bodies and control points of the strategic nuclear forces, the aerospace defense system and groupings of the State Defense Forces. Particular attention should be paid to the modernization of existing and commissioning of promising control points.
Third direction. Accelerating the development and adoption of our own GZSV with the simultaneous creation (improvement) of navigation, topographic and geodetic support systems and means of preparing flight missions in the required strategic aerospace directions.
Fourth direction. Implementation of asymmetric and indirect actions to level out US superiority in technologies and means of armed warfare. These include:
— actions of special operations forces and foreign intelligence;
— various forms of information impact;
— political, economic and other non-military types of action;
— threats of high-precision strikes against missile defense and tactical nuclear weapons facilities located on the territory of a number of NATO member countries, informing the population about the consequences of such strikes, and others.
This is not a complete list of adequately asymmetric measures to counter the threat of an instant global strike, ensuring the implementation of the functions of strategic (nuclear) deterrence of potential adversaries. For obvious reasons, most of the measures taken to counteract Moscow State University cannot be published in the open press.
In conclusion, it seems necessary to quote the words of Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin during his speech in the State Duma: “ Any aggressor should remember that nuclear weapons are considered by Russia as the main means of deterrence. We have never downplayed the role of nuclear weapons, weapons of retaliation as a great equalizer of chances ».
/A.V. SERZHANTOV, Deputy Head of the Department of Military Strategy of the VA General Staff of the RF Armed Forces,
Major General, Doctor of Military Sciences, Professor;
M.P. VILDANOV, Professor of the Academy of Military Sciences, Major General,
Candidate of Military Sciences, Associate Professor, oborona.ru/
The S-400 complexes are capable of creating a reliable “security umbrella” for domestic nuclear forces. Photo by Reuters
The correct answer to the question posed in the title of the article is of decisive importance for the very existence of the Russian state. Currently, the main military task of the United States is the destruction of the Russian nuclear missile potential, which prevents Washington from becoming a world hegemon and disposing of the world's resources (human, material, natural, etc.) at its discretion. The elimination of Russian strategic nuclear forces (SNF) will allow the United States to solve all its main problems, including paying off the huge US public debt, which has reached almost $20 billion, with war.
As a result, there will be a real opportunity to fulfill the long-standing dream of the West about the “golden billion”, which will live on Earth forever in harmony with nature, while the remaining 6 billion inhabitants of the Earth become redundant, and the hegemon will control their fate at his own discretion. Thus, for the United States, the elimination of Russian strategic nuclear forces is a pressing task. In order to implement it, they are ready to violate both international agreements and many moral prohibitions, and commit any atrocities against Russia, Europe and all humanity.
In the current situation, how can we protect Russia from such an aggressor as the United States? Experts express different points of view on this issue.
The main watershed is the assessment of the likelihood of implementing a rapid global strike (GSU) against Russia. Let's look at the differences in attitude towards the BGU problem using the example of two articles published in the weekly "Independent Military Review" this year: Alexander Kalyadin "Strategy of rapid global deception" (No. 18, 2017) and Leonid Orlenko "How to protect yourself from a rapid global strike" ( No. 9, 2017).
THE CONCLUSIONS ARE WRONG
Alexander Kalyadin believes that a quick global strike is a myth, the main purpose of which is to serve as a “horror story.” The main function of the “horror story” is to intimidate Russians, cause panic in the Russian leadership, and force it to spend ruinously. Since BGU is just a myth, money should not be spent on protection against BGU, but it is better to use it to increase the competitiveness of the Russian economy, healthcare, science, education, social sphere.
In his article, Kalyadin tries to prove that the United States is not interested in launching BGU on Russia, even if it manages to destroy Russian strategic nuclear forces. Indeed, in this case, the Russian and European economies will be destroyed, their entire territory will be contaminated with radiation, tens, and maybe hundreds of millions of people will die. As a result, the United States will lose its European allies and NATO will cease to exist. The United States will suffer colossal political losses, economic and diplomatic ties throughout the world will be severed, and the United States, instead of a world hegemon, will turn into a global outcast, hated by all peoples living on Earth.
We can agree with these predictions of the devastating consequences of BSU. But the death of Europe in a nuclear war will not sadden the United States much, since it is a competitor in the field of high-tech products and also consumes a large amount of resources needed by the United States. Currently, Europe serves as a valuable tool for America to combat the sovereignty of the Russian state. After a “successful” BSU in Russia, this function disappears.
According to Kalyadin, China will benefit from BSU in Russia, which will increase its chances of becoming the main country in the world instead of the United States. Such a result of BSU also cannot be beneficial to the United States.
Kalyadin substantiates his understanding of the BSU problem as a myth. He writes that between the Russian Federation and the United States there are no such antagonistic contradictions that could not be resolved by political and diplomatic means. There are no ideological contradictions: both countries live within the capitalist system. There are also no territorial border disputes. Russia is not a competitor to the United States in the field of high-tech industry, since Russia accounts for only less than 2% of world GDP, and the United States - more than 24%, Russia's share in world exports of high-tech products is only 0.7%, and in the United States - 36%. Exports of high-tech products in Thailand are 6 times higher than in Russia, where there is a lot of talk about innovation at all levels, but no real action. At the same time, the growth rate of the Russian economy is less than 2%, which is lower than global growth rates. In such conditions, the creation of a high-tech economy is impossible, so the United States has nothing to worry about in this regard.
However, Alexander Kalyadin’s conclusion that there are no deep-seated disagreements between the United States and Russia is erroneous. As practice over many years has shown, contradictions that cannot be overcome through negotiations do exist. As long as the desire to become a world hegemon is the basis of US foreign policy, aimed at subordinating all countries of the world, including Russia, to its interests, antagonistic contradictions will persist. But on the path to US global hegemony, Russia’s strategic nuclear forces stand. Without them, Russia's independent foreign policy would be impossible. Hence the conclusion follows: reliable protection of Russian strategic nuclear forces is a necessary condition for the preservation of Russia as a sovereign state (see the mentioned article by L. Orlenko in NVO No. 9, 2017).
TECHNOLOGY OF DEPRIVATION OF SOVEREIGNTY
Alexander Kalyadin, considering the BGU problem, argues that currently there is a strategic nuclear missile balance between the United States and Russia, therefore, in the event of a rapid global strike by the United States, Russia will launch a retaliatory or retaliatory strike with nuclear missile weapons, which is unacceptable for America . In this case, the military-political leadership of Russia should be advised to restrain the military-political leadership of the United States from the BSU in Russia.
Since, according to Kalyadin, there are no antagonistic contradictions between Russia and the United States, all existing differences can be resolved through negotiations: on Syria, on Ukraine, on sanctions, etc. In addition, one must hope that the common sense of the US President will not allow him to dare to a deliberately failed, insane and criminal adventure - delivering a quick global strike on Russia. But can one hope for the common sense of the American president if there is a fierce struggle between him and the political establishment?
Donald Trump, in his election speeches, proposed to intensify work in the United States to create a sixth technological order (bio-, nano-, information and cognitive technologies) and become an example for other countries. However, those political structures that are fighting Trump continue a policy aimed at establishing a unipolar world and world domination by force, including using the concepts of a quick global strike and missile defense (BMD).
The works of Leonid Orlenko (“NVO” No. 9, 2017) and a number of other authors (Leonid Ivashov, Konstantin Sivkov, Sergei Brezkun, etc.) present a different point of view on the probability of BSU in Russia.
Firstly, Washington has now broken the strategic nuclear missile parity between the United States and Russia. Secondly, antagonistic contradictions between the United States and Russia that cannot be overcome through negotiations persist. The main direction of United States foreign policy remains the idea of building a unipolar world. America wants to have sovereignty, while other countries, including Russia, China, and European states, cannot have state sovereignty and must carry out the will of the hegemon. Currently, Russia is most actively opposed to such a policy, whose main goal, unlike the United States, is peace, which is necessary for carrying out reforms, creating an innovative economy in the country, improving the level and quality of life of the population, and developing every citizen in the intellectual, spiritual and moral fields, but also to ensure the internal and external security of the country.
To date, the United States has developed a technology for depriving countries of state sovereignty. Soft power is used first, and if it does not give desired result, then the “hybrid war” begins. If in this case it is not possible to destroy the sovereignty of the unwanted state, then military force is activated, which the author of this article outlined in detail in the material “Classification of Modern Wars”, published in Izvestia RARAN No. 3 for 2016.
In order to suppress the independence of Russia, the United States is currently waging a hybrid war against it: sanctions, information war, drawing Russia into military conflicts, using “agents of influence” to destroy the Russian economy, etc. If the ongoing “hybrid war” does not suppress Russia’s state sovereignty, then BSU may be inflicted, for which Russia is not sufficiently prepared. Hence the conclusion: protecting strategic nuclear forces is the number one priority in the field of defense.
IS THERE PARITY?
Currently, Russia has about 500 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) deployed. Of these, about 400 are located approximately equally in silos and on mobile ground-based missile systems (GGRK). The remaining ICBMs are located on submarines (submarines). The coordinates of the mines and PGRK are known to American intelligence, and the US anti-submarine system has the ability to track submarines on combat duty in the seas and oceans.
As a result, the most likely attack is on the Strategic Missile Forces (about 400 ICBMs) and submarines stationed at the piers. For this, most likely, the United States will use its Ohio-class missile submarines armed with Trident 2-D5 missiles, each of which carries 14 nuclear units (NU) with a yield of 100 kt or eight units with a yield of 475 kt. There are 14 such submarines in the American fleet; they each carry 24 missiles, that is, 1,728 nuclear units, of which 384 have a capacity of 475 kilotons. The flight time of such missiles to Russian targets is only 10–15 minutes.
By and large, three Ohio-class submarines, armed with about 1000 nuclear weapons of 100 kt each, are capable of destroying up to 90% of Russian ICBMs in silos and PGRK, as well as submarines with ICBMs stationed at the piers.
The commander of the Strategic Missile Forces, Colonel General Sergei Karakaev, believes that the use of camouflage makes the PGRK invisible to space reconnaissance. But this does not take into account the fact that to destroy the PGRK you do not need to see them, it is enough to know the route, since the radius of destruction when a nuclear charge with a power of 100 kt explodes on the surface of the Earth is 3 km. For example, if the route of a PGRK is 120 km, then to destroy all PGRKs located on the route, only 20 nuclear weapons are required. Therefore, we cannot assume that they are protected reliably enough.
ASYMMETRICAL RESPONSE
To destroy a nuclear unit flying towards a target (mine or other), Russia does not yet have the appropriate means, so it is necessary to use non-standard methods of protection that can be implemented relatively quickly and inexpensively within the existing defense budget.
Firstly, it is necessary to create in the north and east of the country, with the help of the Northern and Pacific fleets, water areas protected from aircraft, helicopters, drones, submarines and ships, and place in such water areas two or three submarines with ICBMs, the coordinates of which are not known to the United States, which will protect them from BGU. In the future, instead of strategic submarines, it is quite possible to place ICBMs in a hull that is towed in the specified water area by any submarine.
Secondly, since Russia’s defense budget is 15 times smaller than the NATO budget, it is necessary to use asymmetric methods of defense to protect the country. To do this, the geophysical vulnerability of the US territory should be used. During the time of the USSR, academician Andrei Sakharov proposed to mine several dozen non-removable nuclear mines certain areas of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans off the coast of the United States. When mines explode, they create waves that can cause unacceptable damage to the United States. The signal to detonate mines will be given only if the United States launches a quick global strike on Russia. After mining, conditions are created for equal negotiations with the United States on mutual disarmament. For example, Russia is demining coastal areas, and the United States is removing all military bases around Russia, as well as missile defense in Europe, submarines and ships with missile defense systems located near Russian borders. There has already been a precedent for mining with nuclear mines. During the existence of the USSR, the border between the countries of the Warsaw Pact Organization and NATO in Europe was mined by the United States with nuclear mines.
Reliable protection from BSU is necessary for Russia to carry out reforms in order to create an innovative economy. A condition for the successful implementation of reforms is the replacement of the liberal-monetarist model of economic management, which is destructive for Russia, with a planned market model, economically and socio-politically more effective than the Chinese economic model.
In the final part of the material, it is necessary to point out such a serious mistake made by Alexander Kalyadin in his article. Thus, he believes that the American project “Strategic Defense Initiative” (SDI), announced by President Reagan in 1983, served only as a decoy launched to ruin the USSR.
However, Kalyadin apparently does not know what happened next. American firms secretly continued to work on SDI, and currently this program is the number one priority in US defense plans (see material by Vladimir Ivanov in NVO No. 18, 2017). To implement these plans, two years ago the unmanned reusable spacecraft X-37B was launched, which is capable of shooting down satellites in space, as well as launching missiles with nuclear warheads at ground targets. Such a rocket flies to any target on the surface of the Earth in only two to three minutes. Currently, there are no technical means to combat such missiles. The X-37B's mission is to provide the United States with complete control over the globe.
Mining of the American coast is blocking this new US project.
Follow us
In 2020, the American army will receive the first PGS systems
The Pentagon has begun creating promising instant global strike systems. This was announced on Thursday, October 12 Representative of the Russian Ministry of Defense Alexander Emelyanov. He noted that “in non-nuclear equipment, these complexes should solve the same tasks that are assigned to strategic nuclear forces today.”
“The relationship between plans to deploy a missile defense system and create instant global strike capabilities is obvious. When delivering a “disarming” strike against Russian and Chinese strategic nuclear forces, the effectiveness of the American missile defense system increases significantly,” Emelyanov noted on the sidelines of the first committee of the UN General Assembly.
He emphasized that “the creation of means of an instant global strike is another factor that confirms Washington’s desire to destroy the existing balance of power and ensure global strategic dominance.”
Previously First Deputy Chief of the Main Operations Directorate of the Russian General Staff, Lieutenant General Viktor Poznikhir clarified that “the arrival of the first complexes to the American armed forces is planned in 2020.” He also expressed the opinion that “building up the potential of the American missile defense system stimulates the arms race,” thereby forcing other states to “take retaliatory military and military-technical measures.”
As a representative of the General Staff noted then, Russia, China and the United States need to resolve through negotiations the problems associated with the deployment of the American missile defense system, especially since they have experience in reaching agreements with the United States in a difficult political situation.
Let us remind you: instant global strike systems (Prompt Global Strike, PGS) are non-nuclear high precision systems, allowing you to strike any target on the globe within 60 minutes from the moment the decision is made.
The targets of such complexes are mobile and stationary ballistic missile launchers, command posts, and nuclear facilities. Today, three types of PGS agents are known.
The first type is conventional intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), equipped with high-precision non-nuclear warheads, including individually targeted cluster warheads. The second is strategic hypersonic cruise missiles.
Finally, the third type includes the so-called kinetic weapons - heavy, refractory tungsten rods 5-10 meters long (“rods of God”), which are dropped with high precision from space orbit. Such a projectile fired from space, reaching the Earth's surface at the desired point, releases energy at the point of impact equivalent to the explosion of approximately 12 tons of TNT. So far, this option is supposedly at the preliminary design stage in the United States.
And the question arises: how can Russia respond to the emergence of Americans’ instant global strike complexes, besides diplomatic attempts to reason with the United States?
The ultimate goal, which should be achieved by PGS systems, is to strike any point on the planet in no more than an hour, says reserve colonel, member of the Expert Council of the Collegium of the Military-Industrial Commission of the Russian Federation Viktor Murakhovsky. - At the same time, I would not consider conventional non-nuclear ICBMs as a means of PGS at all. Such missiles are subject to the limitations of the START III treaty; in addition, it is possible to distinguish between a nuclear and conventional missile by existing technical means impossible.
Therefore, when the Pentagon talks about instant global strike systems, we are talking about hypersound. True, how far the Americans have advanced in this direction is not yet entirely clear.
For example, the American Boeing x-37b is known - an experimental orbital aircraft created to test future technologies. Officially, the US Air Force states that the mission of the x-37b is reusable spacecraft technology. In fact, such a “space plane” allows us to solve the problem of reaching any point on the planet within an hour.
Plus, by 2020, Lockheed Martin promises to create a working version of the SR-72, a promising hypersonic drone that will be capable of flying at speeds of up to Mach six (up to 6.9 thousand kilometers per hour). Hypersonic aircraft armed with hypersonic missiles will also be able to fly to their destination and strike a target in less than one hour.
Another element of PGS is missile defense systems, which, due to military strategy, are inextricably linked with instant global strike systems. Strike and defensive systems, I note, smoothly flow into each other, primarily in organizational and military terms.
“SP”: - What place is given to kinetic weapons in PGS?
At hypersonic speeds, explosives in the warhead are simply not needed. Since the mutual collision speed with the target exceeds 10 km/sec, the matter is almost instantly converted into pure energy.
American missile defense systems such as GBI (Ground-Based Interceptor) and the mobile THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) system, which is a theater missile defense system, already operate on this principle.
GBI, in theory, can intercept warheads of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) - targets moving along a ballistic trajectory at speeds of up to 7 km/sec. Moreover, to do this at the boundary of the atmosphere with space - at an altitude of 120-200 km.
THAAD works against ballistic targets that have a flight speed of 3-3.5 km/sec (in the latest versions - up to 5 km/sec). These are operational-tactical missiles, the so-called intermediate range.
So, the warhead of the anti-missile missiles of these missile defense systems is really a metal rod.
Strike systems, that is, hypersonic vehicles, can be equipped in exactly the same way. They will be able to attack from lower space or upper layers atmosphere, dropping on the target not a bomb, but essentially a metal blank. This blank will crash into the target at a speed of Mach 6-8, and the effect will be the same as that of detonating a large-caliber bomb.
“SP”: - What can Russia oppose to these systems?
We are already taking these threats into account and deploying a set of countermeasure systems. First of all, the missile attack warning system (MAWS), which includes both ground and space echelons.
Plus, we are improving firepower, and above all the S-500 universal anti-aircraft and anti-missile system. It will be able to work against hypersonic targets, and against targets in near space, and against ballistic targets.
Finally, in Russia, work is underway to create a promising missile defense system on the topic “Nudol”. True, apart from the name of the topic and the fact that it relates to missile defense, nothing more can be said about it.
Andrey Polunin
Follow us
“Implementing the concept of joint use of offensive and defensive weapons, the Pentagon has begun to create promising strike systems for an instant global strike,” Emelyanov noted.
According to a representative of the Ministry of Defense, when delivering a “disarming” strike against Russian and Chinese strategic nuclear forces, the effectiveness of the American missile defense system increases significantly.
The system suppresses
Global Lightning Strike (or Global Rapid Strike, BSU) is an initiative of the US military to develop a system that allows a massive disarming strike with conventional (non-nuclear) weapons on any country within an hour. Its idea is to use non-nuclear weapons to disable state and military control centers, communication centers, silo launchers of ICBMs, mobile ground vehicles in the territory of a potential enemy. missile systems, strategic missile submarine cruisers in permanent deployment areas and in combat service areas, cause unacceptable damage to long-range aviation formations.
The enemy's intercontinental ballistic missiles, which will be able to take part in a retaliatory strike, are supposed to be neutralized by means of the US national missile defense system, as well as by missile defense systems deployed on the territory of allied countries and on US Navy ships.
Ideally, the concept of a global lightning strike involves not giving the enemy a single chance to use its strategic and even tactical nuclear weapons.
For these purposes, the Pentagon intends to use all the forces and means of the army, air force and navy. First of all, a massive strike with cruise missiles of all types - from surface and submarine ships, from bomber air command aircraft - will be launched against previously and thoroughly reconnoitred enemy targets (and the capabilities of US reconnaissance assets are exceptionally high today).
It is possible that so-called missile defense facilities in Eastern Europe will also take part in such a strike, since the Mk41 vertical launch devices allow the use of Tomahawk-type SLCMs.
In the seas adjacent to the enemy territory where the BGU will be launched, ships of the US Navy and its allies with missile defense capabilities will be deployed. They will take part in the first strike and will hit those enemy ballistic missiles that can take off after the first US strike.
By 2022, the number of deployed interceptor missiles on US Navy and continental US ships will exceed 1,000. This, according to the authors of the BSU theory, will easily allow the Pentagon to neutralize the enemy’s remaining ICBMs. Among other things, the United States is beginning to deploy missile defense capabilities in near space.
Then the US Air Force will finish off the enemy using all types of precision weapons - bunker-busting bombs, advanced small-diameter bombs, JDAM-type bombs, laser-guided aircraft based on GPS data, etc.
The Americans' arsenal in this regard is very large, and they probably already have unexpected surprises in store for the enemy, because from conflict to conflict, the US armed forces never repeat themselves and do not act according to a once and for all established pattern.
In order to increase the capabilities of delivering BGU, new cruise missiles, formerly Gazeta.Ru, are also being developed in the United States.
Who to fight with?
“The question arises: against whom is all this directed and who is the main enemy of the United States today,” ex-deputy chief Lieutenant General Valery Zaparenko says in a conversation with Gazeta.Ru. “It’s no secret that today only one country in the world is capable of wiping out the United States with its strategic nuclear forces, and doing this several times in a row. No terrorists or any regimes hostile to the United States in any region of the globe will ever be able to do this.
Therefore, the concept of a rapid global strike is directed exclusively against the Russian Federation.”
According to the former first deputy commander-in-chief of the Air Defense Forces, Colonel General Vladimir Litvinov, the BSU concept reduces Russia's ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons.
“In the event of an attack, the capabilities of our national missile warning system will be significantly limited, since it relies on detecting the launch of intercontinental ballistic missiles from the continental United States, and ballistic missiles from submarines from operational areas in the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean,” he explained. "Gazeta.Ru" former first deputy commander-in-chief of the Air Defense Forces, Colonel General.
According to the military leader, if a strike by cruise missiles of various types is delivered from a distance of several hundred kilometers, then the flight time will be minimal, and there will be practically no time left for the country’s political leadership to make a decision.
“Such developments by the Pentagon must be taken more than seriously,” Lieutenant General Nikolai Moiseev, ex-head of the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff, told Gazeta.Ru. “Nevertheless, in my opinion, it will be very difficult for Americans to avoid a nuclear war at BGU. No one can give a 100% guarantee of the destruction of the nuclear arsenal. And besides ballistic missiles, there remain artillery shells with nuclear filling, nuclear warheads of tactical and operational missile systems, free-falling aviation nuclear bombs, nuclear mines of engineering troops, numerous nuclear weapons of the Navy - from cruise missiles to torpedoes.”
According to the expert, it is impossible to destroy this entire nuclear arsenal in 60 minutes, and in this case a nuclear war cannot be avoided.
Apparently, the Americans will soon test the main provisions of their BSU concept in North Korea, experts interviewed by Gazeta.Ru agree. It is there that the “first test of the pen” of a rapid global impact will take place.
The main task set by the Pentagon is to prevent a single launch of a North Korean ballistic missile and prevent any active detonation of nuclear weapons. If the premiere of the BSU is successful, and the Pentagon really has every chance for this in relation to the DPRK, then the temptation to apply the theory of a quick global strike on any other country will become simply irresistible for the United States.
In the meantime, the representative emphasized that the United States, by creating means for an instant global strike, seeks to destroy the existing balance of power in the world, as well as to ensure global strategic dominance.
Preface
The author will cover the topic of a global strike on the Russian Federation in a series of five parts over two weeks (each topic in 2-3 days). Instead of the word “fast,” media articles also use the terms “instant,” “lightning fast,” and “sudden.”
In messages, when expressing his opinion, the author will use the term “sudden global impact” (SUG) or mark “ MA:» (author's opinion). When quoting the text, the author took the liberty of somewhat distorting certain terms (for example, “nuclear warhead” or “nuclear warhead” is changed to “nuclear ammunition,” etc.) in order to reduce the abbreviations used in the text. When discussing posts on the forum, the author reserves the right not to respond to any comments or questions. If you have any questions, ask in a private message. If more than 20 forum members support the same question in messages, I will answer. The author's opinion may differ from the opinions of other people on the site. Therefore, I apologize to them in advance and undertake to read your comments, which will be posted within 7 days.
US plans for nuclear strikes on the USSR and Russia. Unilateral initiatives to reduce nuclear stockpiles
From the 80s until the collapse of the USSR at the end of 1991, there were many plans for US nuclear strikes on the territory of the USSR, which included waging a nuclear war for 3-6 months.
September 27, 1991 of the year US President D. Bush(Senior) announced that the United States unilaterally undertakes:
- eliminate ground-based short-range nuclear weapons (nuclear weapons) (artillery shells, short-range ballistic missile (BM) warheads):
- remove tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) from surface ships, attack submarines (meaning attack submarines), and land-based naval aviation. Most of the land-based and sea-based nuclear weapons will be dismantled and destroyed, and the rest will be stored at central storage sites;
- strategic bombers (SB) are removed from combat duty;
- development of mobile-based MX ICBMs ceases;
- the program to create a short-range nuclear missile for the Security Council is cancelled;
- streamline the management of strategic nuclear forces (SNF) (the operational commands of the nuclear forces of the Navy and Air Force are consolidated into the US strategic command under the command of one commander with the participation of both types of armed forces).
October 5, 1991 the head made a counter statement USSR M. Gorbachev:
- all nuclear artillery ammunition and nuclear warheads of tactical missiles are eliminated;
- are withdrawn from the troops and concentrated at the central bases of nuclear warheads of anti-aircraft missiles, some of them are eliminated;
- all nuclear mines are eliminated;
- all tactical nuclear weapons are removed from surface ships and multipurpose submarines. These weapons, as well as nuclear weapons from ground-based Navy aviation, are stored in centralized storage areas, and some of them are being liquidated;
- Security forces are removed from combat duty, and their nuclear weapons are placed in military depots;
- the development of a modified short-range nuclear missile for the Security Council ceases;
- the development of small-sized ICBMs is stopped;
- the number of launchers (PU) of railway-based ICBMs is not being increased beyond the existing ones, and these missiles will not be modernized. All railway-based ICBMs will be located in places of permanent deployment;
- 503 ICBMs are removed from combat duty. 3 SSBNs with 48 SLBM launchers are being withdrawn from service (in addition to the previously withdrawn 3 SSBNs with 44 launchers);
- a deeper reduction of strategic offensive weapons (START) is being carried out than is provided for by the Treaty (by the end of the seven-year reduction period, the number of nuclear warheads on START will not be 6,000 units, as established by the Treaty, but 5,000 units;
- in order to increase the reliability of control over nuclear weapons, all strategic nuclear forces are united under a single operational control. Strategic defensive systems are included in a single type of aircraft.
Since at the end of 1991 the USSR collapsed into many independent states, a statement was made on January 29, 1992 President of the Russian Federation B. Yeltsin:
- about 600 land- and sea-based strategic ballistic missiles were removed from combat duty;
- 130 silo-based ICBM launchers have been liquidated or are preparing to be liquidated;
- prepared for dismantling launchers of 6 nuclear submarines;
- programs for the development or modernization of several types of strategic offensive weapons have been terminated;
- production of SB Tu-160 and Tu-95MS ceases;
- production of long-range air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) of existing types ceases;
- production of existing types of sea-launched nuclear cruise missiles (SLCMs) will cease. New types of such missiles will not be created;
- the number of SSBNs on combat patrol has been halved and will continue to be reduced;
- the production of nuclear warheads for ground-based tactical missiles, as well as the production of nuclear artillery shells and nuclear mines, has ceased. Stockpiles of such nuclear warheads will be liquidated;
- a third of sea-based tactical nuclear weapons and half of the nuclear warheads for anti-aircraft missiles will be eliminated;
- stocks of aviation tactical nuclear warheads will be reduced by half.
The last of the US plans for nuclear strikes on Russia (successor to the USSR) were the “Unified Comprehensive Plan for Conducting Military Operations” SIOP-92 (the number of nuclear weapons destruction targets up to 4000, which were mainly located on the territory of the Russian Federation) and SIOP-97 (the number of nuclear weapons destruction targets up to 2500, mainly in the Russian Federation). It should be noted that several nuclear warheads may be assigned to hit one target.
In 1999, a new plan SIOP-00 was developed (the number of nuclear weapons destruction targets is up to 3000, of which 2000 are on the territory of the Russian Federation). From the above data it is clear that after the collapse of the USSR, Russia began to be considered the most dangerous potential enemy of the United States. At the same time, the number of targets on its territory decreased by 2 times by 1999. The military-political leadership of the United States began to pay closer attention to other countries, in particular to the People's Republic of China.
The Birth of the Prompt Global Strike Concept
The idea of a global strike (a quick, high-precision strike from US territory within 90 minutes) against particularly important targets arose among Air Force specialists in 1996. They assumed that by 2025 the United States would have long-range conventional and gliding ballistic missiles in non-nuclear configurations. In 1999, Air Force specialists also considered the option of a sudden massive nuclear strike (SNU) against the Russian Federation. According to their estimates, the SB, mobile ICBM systems, railway-based missile systems, SSBNs at naval bases, up to 90% of silo-based ICBMs and one of the two SSBNs on combat patrol were completely destroyed at permanent deployment points. In the retaliatory strike, the US territory was hit by less than 5% of the nuclear warheads that Russia had. Based on the results of the assessments, it was suggested that with the strengthening of missile defense, it is possible to reduce the number of nuclear warheads striking targets in the United States to less than 1%.
During the interethnic military conflict on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Security Council imposed an embargo on the supply of weapons to the warring parties. European countries (including NATO members) were especially in favor of this - they did not need a conflict in Europe. The Americans announced the continuation of the supply of weapons and equipment unilaterally (mention of these events was removed from the Internet. They remained only in newspapers). European countries remained silent in response. Since then, the process of “crushing Europe under the United States” began (or continued).
During air strikes on the territory of Serbia (Yugoslavia), the practice of destroying the country (and changing the regime) by air strikes and sending NATO troops into Kosovo was tested. But this turned out to be possible only due to the international isolation of the country. Europe has finally become a vassal of the United States.
By the end of 1999, the American military-political leadership recognized “...the existing SIOP-00 plan is unbalanced and does not meet the new military-political conditions.” In the early 2000s. The US Department of Defense, in accordance with the instructions of the President, updated nuclear strike plans. After President D. Bush (Jr.) came to power, plans for the construction of missile defense were revised. A project to create a layered system began to be considered, the key requirement for which was the ability to intercept ballistic missiles of any range in all sections of the trajectory. The creation of such a system contradicted the provisions of the ABM Treaty.
In 2001, by global strike, Air Force specialists during command and staff exercises (CSE) still meant “breaking through corridors” in air defense zones to hit important targets on enemy territory. After the terrorist attacks on US territory in September 2001, the Defense Ministry announced its intention to create a new conglomerate of offensive strike systems: strategic nuclear forces, conventional strike forces and information operations forces. In 2002, the global strike mission was made the responsibility of the Unified Strategic Command (USC). In June 2002, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty.
The first updated national nuclear war plan was OPLAN-8044, which came into force in 2004. It included many options suitable for use in a wide range of scenarios for the development of the military-political situation. In the OPLAN-8044 plan, the strikes were smaller in scale, but the possibility of delivering a nuclear weapon remained.
A nuclear weapon can be delivered suddenly without additional deployment of strategic offensive weapons, the composition of which corresponds to START-3, which ensures secrecy and efficiency in preparing a strike. A nuclear weapon can be applied after additional deployment using the “return potential” of nuclear warheads and reserve carriers, which provides an increase in strike power. The choice between these options is determined by the conditions of the situation and depends on the time required for the immediate preparation of a nuclear strike and the additional deployment of strategic offensive weapons.
Below is an assessment of the need for US strategic offensive forces in nuclear warheads based on declassified plans for nuclear strikes against the Russian Federation. The targets of destruction of nuclear weapons are ICBM silos, permanent deployment points (PDP) of mobile-based ICBMs, naval force bases, air bases, nuclear warhead storage points, nuclear weapons complex enterprises, control and communications points.
For each silo launcher with ICBMs, two warheads for ground blasting Mk21 and one Mk5 are assigned. It is believed that shelling one target with different types of nuclear warhead delivery vehicles provides a higher guarantee of hitting the target compared to other options. In the PPD for mobile-based ICBMs, targets are considered to be structures for self-propelled launchers and other stationary objects. The location of dispersed self-propelled guns at the moment of impact is not known with certainty; their destruction is considered almost impossible. Each PPD is assigned two Mk4A warheads for ground detonation, which makes it possible to destroy undispersed launchers, as well as administrative and technical buildings and structures.
Several levels of destruction of naval force bases are considered: from attacks on SSBN base infrastructure to destruction of objects that can be used by fleets. Several nuclear warheads can be assigned to defeat each target. A similar approach is implemented when planning attacks on objects military aviation. The minimum level is considered to be the defeat of SBA air bases. The build-up of destruction involves attacks on other airfields, as well as targets related to the functioning of aviation. From one to three nuclear warheads are assigned to an object.
Objects of the class “nuclear warhead storage points” include “national level” storage bases. For each, given their high security, 8 nuclear warheads are assigned for ground detonation. This creates radioactive contamination of the area, excluding long time any activity on the territory of the facility, including rescue and evacuation work.
The number of enterprises of the nuclear weapons complex includes federal nuclear centers, plants for the production of nuclear warheads, their components, as well as plants for the production of nuclear materials. 1-5 nuclear warheads are assigned to the facility.
The list of control and communication points includes points of higher state and military control, elements of control systems for strategic nuclear forces and general-purpose forces, control and monitoring of space objects, as well as elements of a telecommunication system. Their main affected elements are radio transmitting, radio receiving and radar stations, antenna devices and other objects that have low resistance to damaging factors. nuclear explosion. In this regard, one nuclear warhead is assigned to destroy each target.
As a result of a sudden MNA, the following is expected:
– defeat of about 93% of silos with ICBMs;
– destruction of mobile ICBMs located in the PPD;
– destruction of SSBNs located in bases and fleet basing infrastructure;
– destruction of carrier aircraft at airfields and aviation infrastructure;
– destruction of all storage points containing nuclear warheads;
– destruction of the infrastructure for the development and production of nuclear warheads;
– disabling the system of higher state and military administration.
In 2005, USC created the Space Operations and Global Strike Command, a structure that clearly defined the regional focus of the strike and separated it from strategic nuclear operations, as well as from large-scale operations without the use of nuclear weapons.
The 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.
In November 2006, at the NATO summit, a proposal was made for the first time to extend Article 5 of the Joint Defense Treaty to international energy policy. In this case, NATO will have to provide assistance to any member of the alliance whose energy reserves are exposed to an external threat.
In 2007, a doctrine was adopted, according to which, in the event of a threat of attack on the United States, on American objects or on its citizens abroad, the armed forces must be able to deliver a high-power and precision strike to any point on the globe within 60 minutes in order to neutralize such actions.
In accordance with the doctrine, the “Strategic Deterrence and Global Strike Plan” was developed in 2009. OPLAN-8010". Compared to OPLAN-8044, it contains "more flexible options to ensure the security of US allies, deter and, if necessary, defeat the enemy in a wide range of contingencies."
The number of nuclear warheads used in various types of strikes ranges from several so-called “adaptive nuclear strikes” to more than a thousand during MNE. OPLAN-8010 also includes options for non-nuclear strikes that do not interfere with nuclear strike plans. Thus, despite a certain increase in the role of conventional high-precision weapons in military policy USA, nuclear weapons continued to be viewed not only as a tool to deter opponents, but also as a means of decisively defeating them.
In 2009, a report to a US Congress commission noted: “... the Russian Federation has the intention of modernizing its basic platforms for delivering nuclear warheads, but does not have the technical resources and scientific potential for this. Currently, only 3 SB Tu-160 out of 15 are operational. By 2019, not a single flying copy will remain due to the lack of spare parts. After 2019, only about 50 SB Tu-95 will remain in service. Of the 8 SSBNs, 4 can go to sea. After 2019, it is possible to commission 2 more submarines, bringing the total number to 5-7 operational (when on combat duty, no more than 2-3). Most ICBMs will be withdrawn from service in 2017-2019 due to exceeding the warranty period by 2.5-3 times. It is possible that up to 40 ICBMs will be put into service by 2019.”
MA: In the eyes of the American military-financial-political elite, Russia has slowly degraded. True, it slightly recovered after the collapse of the USSR and the 1998 crisis. Under the conditions of that time (despite the 2008 crisis), degradation did not occur as quickly as the foreign elite would like.
In 2010, the US Air Force Global Strike Command was created with the inclusion of all ICBMs, B-52N and B-2A bombers (since 2015 and SB B-1B). It was reported that the purpose of Global Strike Command is "nuclear and conventional strike - a key component of strategic deterrence."
In April 2010, President Barack Obama spoke about revising the US national security doctrine: “... The threat of nuclear war has decreased to a minimum level... The main threat is nuclear terrorism...”. The non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and missile technologies was also discussed. Russia was not mentioned on the list of threats to US national security.
In 2010, a new strategic concept, NATO's Active Engagement, Modern Defense, focused on the threats posed by energy and resource disruptions due to dependence on foreign energy suppliers (NATO's previous concept dates back to 1999).
MA: The Predator lay in ambush (Russia's fears should be allayed by United States Doctrine, but there is a clue in NATO doctrine for the use of military force).
The START-3 Treaty entered into force (we will consider the provisions of the Treaty in the second message).
A problem has emerged that makes the use of conventionally equipped ballistic missiles during a rapid global strike very problematic. The START-3 Treaty limits total number deployed ballistic missiles and does not distinguish between their nuclear or conventional equipment. The United States can equip ground- and sea-based ballistic missiles with conventional warheads only through a corresponding reduction in the number of deployed nuclear-equipped missiles. This approach did not suit the military-political leadership of the United States, and Russia did not meet the United States halfway.
In February 2011, US President Barack Obama informed the Senate that the administration's next goal would be to begin negotiations with the Russian Federation on limits on TNW stockpiles.
At the end of 2012, information was disseminated in the media about the US military computer game(KShU) to practice the skills of delivering massive strikes with high-precision conventional weapons against 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, according to which it is planned to defeat the enemy’s most important military, political and economic targets using existing and future models of high-precision weapons. It was assumed that as a result of such actions, the victim country would be deprived of the opportunity to strike back at the aggressor, and the destruction of key objects of its economy would lead to the collapse of the entire state system. It was indicated that the goal set during the CFS 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 infrastructure and would lose the ability to resist. This “leak” of information is not accidental and unauthorized. The United States has clearly shown the whole world that high-quality products are emerging the new kind strategic weapons, which make it possible to solve tasks previously assigned exclusively to nuclear forces. In fact, the Americans made 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.
On May 3, 2012, Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Federation N. Makarov noted: “Given the destabilizing nature of the American missile defense system, i.e. creating the illusion of the possibility of delivering a massive destructive strike with complete impunity, a decision may be made on the preemptive deployment of strike weapons of the Russian Federation if the situation becomes threatening.”
In 2012, a report to the US Congress stated: “... We are talking about planned reforms in the RF Armed Forces and large-scale rearmament... About plans for the development and supply of weapons until 2020, mainly in the interests of the strategic nuclear forces.” Experts concluded that after 2020, in the event of a war [with Russia], it will cause unacceptable damage to the United States, even if the PRC does not enter the war.
The exercises of the RF Armed Forces in February 2013 became the largest in 20 years and demonstrated an increase in the level of combat readiness of the strategic nuclear forces, units of the 12th Main Directorate of the Moscow Region (during transportation and work with nuclear weapons). The Americans did not expect this and were stunned by the scale of the transportation of nuclear warheads and the level of training of personnel. The commander of the Strategic Missile Forces N. Solovtsev noted: “The level of combat readiness of the missiles is no less than 96%. Launch is possible in a few tens of seconds...” Experts clarified that the readiness of mobile ICBM systems is somewhat lower.
On March 8, 2013, the US media again mentioned the concept of a rapid global strike: “...With the end of the deployment of forces and the receipt of a report on the destruction of SSBNs and nuclear submarines of the Russian Federation at sea, aviation and surface ships are transferred to full readiness. The stage of launching a missile strike begins, in which 3,504 cruise missiles are launched from sea carriers alone at strategic targets on the territory of the Russian Federation. The expected launch success rate is 90%.”
MA: This probably refers to the destruction of targets, and not the successful launch of missiles. Based on the experience of a missile strike in Syria, this percentage is disproportionately lower))) Also, the Americans believe that with the VGU they will be able to destroy up to 90% of China’s nuclear potential. The Americans are probably trying to intimidate the enemy, disorient him, and force him to refuse any action. Ideally, the United States tries to force the enemy to capitulate without even engaging in actual combat with him.
In June 2013, Directive No. 24 “Strategy for the Use of US Nuclear Weapons” was issued. The document expresses serious concern in connection with the modernization of existing strategic weapons carried out in Russia and the development of promising strategic offensive weapons. A group of American experts calculated the minimum number of nuclear warheads of ICBMs and SLBMs that Russia can use in a retaliatory strike on the territory of the United States: if the Russian Federation strikes American cities, then after a strike with 37 combat units there will be up to 115 million people (the number of deaths was not estimated after some time) . This is due to the fact that 80% of the American population lives on the east and west coasts. That's why Russian missiles can destroy all life on these densely populated coastal strips. The population of Russia is only half of the American population, but it is scattered over a vast territory, so that in many areas of residence people can survive both the first and second nuclear strikes.
MA: Interest Ask: Experts suggest we destroy more of the population so as not to feed them or not?
06/28/13 D. ROGOZIN noted: “...The United States can destroy up to 80-90% of our nuclear potential in a few hours... Such a threat can be countered only by creating “autonomous weapons” that do not depend on modern telecommunication technologies.”
MA: Over the past year and a half, a lot of information has appeared on drones for various purposes that are being tested for the needs of the Russian Armed Forces.
March 2014. USC's first mission is to “maintain readiness and operationalization of the nation's strategic (nuclear) deterrence war plan. Strategic deterrence includes not only maintaining combat duty of strategic nuclear forces, carrying out demonstrative operations for strategic deterrence, developing and maintaining readiness plans for nuclear operations, but also putting into effect these plans using strategic nuclear forces under the options of a selective, main attack or emergency response in nuclear war.
In June 2014, the US Department of Defense conducted a military conflict between Russia and NATO using conventional weapons. The results were disappointing. Even if all available NATO troops (including the US) stationed in Europe were transferred to the Baltic (including the 82nd Airborne Division, which must be ready to move within 24 hours), NATO would lose the conflict. “We simply don’t have such forces in Europe. Then there is the fact that the Russians have the best surface-to-air missiles in the world, and they are not afraid to use heavy artillery,” explained one US Army general. Russia's victory was not the only one. The Americans conducted exercises several times, with different scenarios favorable to NATO. But always with the same conclusion. The Russians turned out to be invincible.
MA: Perhaps it was a “Horror Story” deliberately spread in the media in order to increase the number of NATO troops in Europe (including in the Baltic states).
In November 2014, a new command and control unit “Bear Spear” was launched, the legend of which was testing the concept of a Rapid Global Strike. According to the US military, these exercises were one of the largest in the 2000s. Let's take a closer look at them.
According to the exercise scenario, events developed as follows. There is a certain Eurasian state called “Usira”, which is located on the territory of Russia. This state refuses to supply energy resources to the European Union, using them for political blackmail. The Usira Navy blocked the NATO fleet, which came out to provide military assistance to a “third state” in the disputed waters.
MA: Where was the NATO fleet blocked? If NATO wishes, such an area can be found in the Black or Baltic Sea, or in the waters of the Northern Sea Route.
Massive anti-Usyrian protests are taking place in the Northern State (MA: probably this is the Baltic states with massive, maximum harsh measures against the Russian-speaking population).
Usira threatens to use military force to protect these citizens. NATO troops are forced to take more active action. The United States is launching a massive attack on Usira with high-precision missiles on the enemy’s stationary missile silos, partly on the locations of mobile missile launchers and on military control centers, including classified and buried command posts of strategic and conventional armed forces located in space. KR penetrating warheads (in conventional equipment), B61-11 bunker-busting bombs and a minimum number of other low-power nuclear warheads are used.
However, during a simulated attack under the most realistic conditions, the United States suffered unacceptable damage due to three main reasons.
The first of these was the enemy's intelligence work on US territory, during which he became aware of the possibility of carrying out such an operation. However, the agents (MA: so it was believed according to the script) knew neither the reasons prompting its start, nor exact amount and the type of weapons involved. The enemy, despite the lack of information, was able to prepare missile defense and air defense systems, mobilization and evacuation resources, protective structures and strategic nuclear forces.
The second reason was the existence of a system that was inaccessible to bunker-busting weapons (including nuclear warhead carriers) and special forces. After a high-precision strike, the system launched command missiles (the so-called “Dead Hand” system), which transmitted commands for use to the remaining strategic nuclear forces (about 30% of the initial composition). The enemy's use of nuclear missile weapons with current characteristics, according to US analysts, made it possible to break through the missile defense system and destroy both infrastructure and military facilities, as well as about 100 million US civilian population. How centralized state The United States would cease to exist, having lost 4/5 of its entire civil and industrial infrastructure. It was worse only in Europe, where the level of destruction reached 90% (MA: After some time, people in Europe may remain only in parts of Spain and Portugal).
The main role was played by the Russian submarine fleet, despite the destruction of a significant part of it in the open ocean (about 1/3). The most destructive were the salvos of enemy SSBNs, incl. produced with North Pole and near US territories. The damage to the mobile complexes of the Strategic Missile Forces amounted to about 10%.
The third reason was the use by the enemy of special groups and means, which made it possible, ten minutes after the start of the operation, to attack and disrupt the work of public, government and special computer systems that control the transport, financial and energy activities of the United States.
The review notes that the analyzed attack tactics and strategy ultimately led to a massive nuclear and missile exchange between Usira and the United States, resulting in unacceptable damage to both states. The total number of deaths during the year as a result of the operation and the retaliatory strike exceeded 400 million people. According to unofficial data, the PRC was involved in a nuclear war, on which the United States launched a weakening preventive nuclear strike. The number of dead Chinese residents has not been estimated.
In a quick global strike, the United States plans to use promising Kh-51A hypersonic missiles. Testing of this missile is not completed. Therefore, the appearance of hypersonic missiles in service cannot be expected soon. Thus, in the medium term, the US Army will not receive sufficient quantities of any fundamentally new weapon systems to achieve an operationally significant effect within the framework of the VGU concept. Therefore, in the near future, when planning VGU, the United States can rely on SLCMs, ALCMs, strategic, tactical and carrier-based aviation.
US National Military Strategy 2015: “Some countries are attempting to violate key provisions of international law... which poses a threat to US national security.” Our country, the Russian Federation, is included in the list of “some countries”. At the same time, the document notes that the likelihood of unleashing a large-scale war with the use of nuclear weapons and the participation of the United States is insignificant. The Russian Federation and the United States are no longer adversaries.
On June 16, 2015, Supreme Commander-in-Chief V.V. Putin, in a report on the volume of military equipment supplied to the RF Armed Forces, said: “...So, this year the nuclear forces will be replenished with more than 40 new ICBMs...”.
(MA: We are talking about the planned replacement of ICBMs whose warranty period was expiring. Previously, about 20-30 ICBMs were produced per year.)
In response to these words, the Commander-in-Chief of NATO forces in Europe, F. Breedlove, stated: “...Russia is behaving like an irresponsible nuclear power. "Rhetoric that inflames nuclear tensions is not responsible behavior, and we call on nuclear powers to handle these types of weapons in a more responsible manner."
(MA: And these words were spoken after the “Rohatyn on the Bear” exercise, which showed that the presence of powerful strategic nuclear forces in Russia can deter an aggressor. They would really like it if instead of missiles we produced tanks, planes and other conventional weapons).
On September 20, 2015, the US Department of Defense announced: “The new plan for war with Russia is divided into two parts. One provides for a scenario of actions in the event of a Russian attack on one of the NATO member countries. The second involves an attack by the Russian army outside the alliance countries. Both versions focus on the possibility of a Russian invasion of the Baltic states as the most likely front for a potential armed conflict.
(MA: The Americans identified sacrificial small horned animals to start a military conflict).
November 18, 2016 V.V. Putin: “Our task is to effectively neutralize any military threats to the security of Russia. Including those related to the creation of a strategic missile defense system, the implementation of the global strike concept and the conduct of information wars.” From February 7 to 17, the US Strategic Command held the Global Lightning 17 command and control exercise, which became the largest in recent years. During the exercises, the military worked out a scenario in which a local conflict on European territory escalated into global war. The conditional enemy is an unnamed nuclear power against which the United States used its strategic forces.
(MA: Only one country meets these conditions - the Russian Federation). The Pentagon had a goal to work out the actions of its forces and their interaction with allies in the event of a conflict with a nuclear power in the European theater of operations. At the same time, the Austere Challenge 17 command and control unit took place, according to the scenario of which the Europeans defended themselves from external aggression with the help of conventional weapons.
The “Global Lightning 17” exercise worked out a scenario where conventional weapons failed to stop the enemy and nuclear weapons were used. The US military, together with colleagues from Australia, Canada, Denmark and Great Britain, used different variants events: they delivered a retaliatory nuclear strike and disarmed the aggressor with a preventive nuclear strike. The essence did not change - the conflict in Europe was developing into a global war of nuclear powers. Three countries were drawn into the Global Nuclear War against the United States: Russia, China and Iran. According to the announced results of the exercises, the United States won the war. At the same time, the space operations command was training to repel attacks on US and allied space systems.
MA: Winning a nuclear war against Russia, China and Iran at the same time is an interesting question... There is something in this... Perhaps they found some solution to “play off” the Russian Federation and the PRC? Currently, there are three great powers: the USA, China and the Russian Federation. A nuclear war between any two (without the participation of a third country) should lead to a significant strengthening of the third country, which will win the third World War. Therefore, the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China, understanding this, will NEVER fight each other as long as the United States exists (unless the Americans, through third parties, carry out some kind of large-scale provocation. I think that the leadership of the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China will have enough wisdom in any development of events not to give in to it). It is possible that the United States will simultaneously start a sudden nuclear war (including VGU) with both the Russian Federation and the PRC.
US Air Force Chief of Staff D. Goldfin said at a meeting with reporters: “I expect that we will have a review of nuclear doctrine... I do believe that we will have a discussion on nuclear warheads on all components of the nuclear triad, their yield and the required number, and not just by means of delivery.”
MA: Probably there were few carriers and nuclear warheads for the war against the Russian Federation, China and Iran.
On April 27, 2017, a representative of the Russian General Staff announced that the United States was preparing for a surprise nuclear strike on Russia. American missile defense bases in Europe and anti-missile ships near Russian territory “create a powerful hidden component” for a possible nuclear missile strike. Today, such developments are underway, systems are being created that, according to the Pentagon, will make it possible to deliver an instant global strike with high precision from orbit, destroying our control centers. Therefore, Russia will take measures to protect itself from the effects of both instant global strike weapons and missile defense systems... The enemy intends to disable a significant part of the Russian strategic nuclear forces. And if Russia decides to retaliate with the remnants of its nuclear potential, then the Americans hope to intercept the missiles at launch and in orbit - thereby neutralizing the attack on America.”
Our opponents should not forget that in accordance with the military doctrine of the Russian Federation reserves the right use nuclear weapons… in case of aggression against the Russian Federation using conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is threatened.
When asked by a journalist about the time required to destroy the United States, V.V. Putin replied: “...If it wishes, Russia is capable of destroying the United States in thirty minutes. And even less."
MA: The United States, based on numerous scenarios for the development of events of rapid global strikes and nuclear weapons, is carefully studying the plans of the air force on the territory of the Russian Federation, China and Iran. The main task: to destroy the potential of these countries. In a retaliatory strike, the infrastructure and population of Europe (including the UK) could be destroyed. It’s strange that this does not bother the military-political circles of the US, the EU, or the government European countries, nor the international community)))
Russian Aerospace Forces
The developed US plans for global missile strikes on strategic targets of the Russian Federation (not excluding the transition to a nuclear weapon) and their regular clarification based on the results of the command and control exercise should set certain tasks for the Russian Aerospace Forces.
The Russian Aerospace Forces includes Air Force troops, air defense and missile defense troops, and Space Forces.
The number of fighters and interceptors in the Air Force at the beginning of 2017 was: 60 Su-27/UB, 61 Su-27SM2/SM3, over 84 Su-30SM/SM2, over 60 Su-35S, 154 MiG-29S/SMT/M2 /UBT, up to 150 MiG-31/B/BS/BM/BSM.
The most effective aviation systems in the fight against SB and CR are operational-tactical aircraft of the MiG-31 type. The modernization of MiG-31 aircraft is carried out by NAZ Sokol. As part of the agreements with the Ministry of Defense, 113 aircraft must be modernized by 2019 (by the beginning of 2017, 97 had been modernized, of which one was lost).
The VKS consists of the following structural associations:
- 4 Red Banner Air Force and Air Defense Army of the Southern Military District (51 air defense division (Rostov-on-Don), 31 air defense division (Sevastopol), 1 guards mixed air division (Krymsk), 4 mixed air division (Marinovka), 27 mixed air division (Marinovka) and other parts);
- 6th Leningrad Red Banner Air Force and Air Defense Army (2nd Red Banner Air Defense Division (St. Petersburg), 32nd Air Defense Division (Rzhev), 105th Guards Mixed Air Division (31 MiG-31 aircraft) and other units);
- 11 Red Banner Air Force and Air Defense Army (25 Air Defense Division (Komsomolsk-on-Amur), 26 Air Defense Division (Chita), 93 Air Defense Division (Vladivostok, Nakhodka), 303 Guards Mixed Air Division (20 MiG-31B/BS aircraft) and others parts);
- 14th Red Banner Air Force and Air Defense Army (76th Air Defense Division (Samara), 41st Air Defense Division (Novosibirsk), and other units (56 MiG-31B/BS/BM/BSM aircraft);
- 45th Air Force and Air Defense Army (1 air defense division (Kola Peninsula), 100 separate naval air regiment, 98 mixed air regiment (20 MiG-31BM aircraft) and other units).
Air defense systems are also part of the coastal defense division of the Russian Navy (Kamchatsky Peninsula). It should be noted that as of 2016, the Navy aviation had 32 MiG-31B/BS/BM aircraft. As of 2016, there were 125 divisions of the S-300 type (1,500 launchers) in the Russian air defense. As of 2017, the Russian air defense included 38 S-400 divisions (304 launchers). This year, another 8 divisions are expected to be delivered.
A new air defense division will be formed as part of the 45th Air Force and Air Defense Army in 2018. The new connection will cover the border from Novaya Zemlya to Chukotka. The division's anti-aircraft missile and radio technical regiments will be able to detect (MA: to a greater extent - detect the enemy and cover only certain directions) and destroy aircraft, missile launchers and unmanned aerial vehicles. After the regiments of the new division begin combat duty, a continuous radar field will be created around the border of our country. (MA: The aviation component in this area will probably be strengthened).
The grouping of Russian troops and air defense systems in the Kuril Islands area is being strengthened. According to the commander of the Eastern Military District S. Surovikin: “The task is to deploy a group on the islands of the Kuril ridge. It is related to the need to ensure the safety of the air, surface and underwater spheres. The district troops must create a fire shield to cover the Eastern strategic direction.” The islands host a group of ground forces, the Bal and Bastion complexes, and the Buk and Tor-M2U electronic warfare and air defense systems. We cannot exclude the possibility of the appearance of S-300 systems in the near future (MA: someday, maybe S-400?). In accordance with the statement of the Ministry of Defense of S. Shoigu - Pacific Fleet, it is necessary to study the possibility of future basing of ships on the islands. Earlier it was said about the intention to place a submarine base (diesel, of course) on the islands.
Certain tasks of detecting enemy aircraft can also be carried out by long-range radar detection stations as part of the Russian missile attack warning system. The following long-range radar detection stations are currently in operation:
- “Voronezh-M” - Lekhtusi (Leningrad region) - covers the range from Morocco to Spitsbergen;
- "Voronezh-DM" - Armavir - covers the range from Southern Europe to the Northern coast of Africa;
- “Voronezh-DM” - Pionersky (Kaliningrad region) - covers the whole of Europe (including the UK);
- “Voronezh-M” - Usolye-Sibirskoye (Irkutsk region) - covers the territory from the West Coast of the USA to India;
- “Voronezh-DM” - Yeniseisk – covers the north-eastern direction;
- "Voronezh-DM" - Barnaul - covers the south-eastern direction.
(MA: Deployed air defense (missile defense) systems on the territory of the Russian Federation, combat patrols of Air Force aircraft (during the threatened period) solve the main tasks, but among others, ensure the protection of these stations. Until the stations are hit, it will be problematic for the aircraft of a potential enemy to take part in the air defense. )
The unified air defense system of the CIS member states includes: Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
The Air Force and Air Defense Forces of the Republic of Belarus are armed with two divisions: S-400 and 16 S-300 divisions. There are Buk and Tor-M2E complexes. Fighter aviation is represented by 20 modern MiG-29 aircraft. The possibility of purchasing new Su-30 fighters is being considered.
The basis of the Air Defense Forces of the Republic of Kazakhstan is 25 S-300 divisions. There are S-200 and S-125 divisions, several dozen MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters of various modifications, 6 Su-30SM and 25 MiG-31/BM.
The skies of Tajikistan are covered by the S-125 and S-75 systems.
Kyrgyzstan is armed with the S-125 and S-75 systems. The Air Force has 20 MiG-21 fighters. The Russian 999 Kant air base is deployed on the territory of Kyrgyzstan, where Su-25 attack aircraft are based. As part of the exercises, Su-24 aircraft were deployed to the base (if necessary, fighter jets could also be deployed).
The Uzbek Air Force is armed with MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters.
The Armenian Air Force has five battalions of S-300PS and Buk-M2 air defense systems. The 102nd Russian military base (Gyumri) is located on the territory of Armenia. It hosts the 988th anti-aircraft missile regiment, equipped with the S-300V complex. MiG-29 type fighters are based at the base.
On the territory of Abkhazia there is a 7th Russian military base, which is covered by anti-aircraft missile system S-300.
The Syrian Arab Republic is home to a Russian air base (Khmeinim) and a logistics support point (Tartus). Both objects are covered by air defense systems (S-400 and S-300) of the Russian Aerospace Forces. To strengthen air defense, the number of air defense systems of the Russian Aerospace Forces can be increased and 6 S-300 divisions can be supplied under the 2010 Treaty. A unified air defense system of the SAR, units of the Russian Aerospace Forces and surface ships of the Russian Navy (if any) has been created.
US NORAD system
The NORAD system includes ground surveillance systems, warning systems, balloon posts, over-the-horizontal radars, and AWACS aircraft. There are missile defense areas in Alaska and California (perhaps a new missile defense area will be created on the East Coast of the United States). As of 2016, 7 batteries (3 launchers each) of the THAAD system have been deployed. Air defense is provided by US F-15, F-16, F-22 and Canadian CF-18 aircraft.
The continental US has:
- included National Guard there are 21 anti-aircraft missile divisions (about 480 Patriot launchers, 700 Avenger launchers);
- the army has two THAAD air defense regiments;
- in the Washington area - one NASAMS division (3 launchers).
It is also planned to cover the continental United States using surface ships equipped with a missile defense system.
It should be noted that a feature of the guidance and control system of missile defense interceptors has, let’s say, a design defect. But we’ll talk about this in one of the following articles.