Instant global. Should Russia be afraid of an “instant global strike” from the United States? What is being developed in the USA

Colonel O. Oberstov

Since the end" cold war"The Pentagon leadership is paying close attention to finding ways to provide the US armed forces with the ability to strike by ordinary means defeats at strategic range. After the reorganization of the system of forward presence of national armed forces in the 90s of the last century, experts of the American military department came to the conclusion that new approaches to the deployment of troops in remote theaters of operations do not allow effectively neutralizing by conventional means suddenly emerging threats to the global interests of the United States, the sources of which are located out of reach of advanced groups.

In this regard, in the Pentagon’s “Review” prepared in 2001 current state and prospects for the development of US nuclear forces" was the first to document the need for the national armed forces to plan the integrated use of high-precision strike weapons in conventional equipment and strategic nuclear forces. In addition, the US military department in the same year began to justify the need to create a "new class of long-range weapons ", which would reduce the dependence of the United States on the nuclear arsenal in solving the problems of deterring a potential enemy.

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

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

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

In 2006, the Pentagon, in its next “Comprehensive Review of the State and Prospects for the Development of the US Armed Forces,” expanded the interpretation of MSU. The document emphasized that "the American armed forces need to have the ability to engage fixed, fortified, buried and mobile targets with increased accuracy anywhere globe and as soon as possible after receiving an order from the President of the United States." In addition, the review declared its intention to use ballistic missiles to launch instant global strikes submarines"Trident-2", equipped with non-nuclear warheads 2 .

The 2010 Comprehensive Review of the State and Prospects of the US Armed Forces noted that “the Pentagon’s expanded MGU capabilities will increase the effectiveness of countering growing threats to the forward presence of US military forces, as well as meet the need for national armed forces to project power globally.” In addition, this document emphasized the urgent need to continue to develop prototype strategic-range strike weapons that meet the requirements of "instant global strike."

Currently in the United States there is no separate legislative act regulating the creation and use of MSU funds. The implementation of the program is regulated by decisions of Congress as part of the annual National Defense Authorization Acts.

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

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

In addition, the Pentagon especially emphasizes that promising hypersonic systems are not the subject of consideration under the current arms limitation treaty regime.

High-ranking representatives of the US military department have repeatedly stated that, if necessary, instant global strikes can be carried out against the military-political leadership, the most important bodies of state and military command, production and storage facilities, as well as means of delivering weapons of mass destruction to the enemy.

According to American experts, if the MSU program is successfully completed, up to 30% of enemy targets that are currently planned to be destroyed with nuclear weapons could become targets of promising hypersonic weapons. At the same time, Pentagon representatives believe that the hypersonic systems being developed will not replace nuclear weapons, but will serve as an additional tool for deterring and defeating the enemy in remote theaters of operations without deploying groups of forward-based American troops.

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

In particular, the US Congressional Research Service noted in one of its reports that the use of hypersonic strike weapons in a conflict with an enemy possessing nuclear weapons could lead to an escalation of military actions uncontrolled by Washington.

American experts are particularly concerned about the fact that an enemy could regard an instantaneous global strike as a nuclear attack. In addition, the use of gliding hypersonic strike weapons with a flight trajectory different from the ballistic one may cause a third party to incorrectly assess the possible area of ​​their impact and serve as a reason for involving states that were not initially involved in the conflict.

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

At the same time, the task of developing forms and methods of combat use of promising MSU weapons has already been assigned to the center for analyzing methods of conducting combat operations USC (Dahlgren, Virginia). This structure is equipped with modern combat simulation systems that allow you to explore personal options for delivering instant global strikes and develop optimal solutions on the use of advanced hypersonic weapons.

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

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

In 2010-2011, the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the US Department of Defense, within the framework of the Ark-Light project, studied the possibility of creating a high-precision non-nuclear strike weapon system based on Standard-3 anti-missiles for hitting ground targets at a range of up to 3,500 km. Currently, this work is not funded.

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

Currently, priority is given to developing technologies for the hypersonic glide vehicle for delivering combat loads AHW (Advanced Hypersonic Weapon), launched using a multi-stage launch vehicle. Two tests were carried out - successful in 2011 at a range of about 3,800 km and unsuccessful in 2014. The next flight experiment under the AHW project is planned for 2017, the fourth - for 2019.

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

In the field of hypersonic guided missiles, the X-51A technological project has now been completed as having completed its task. The results achieved during it are expected to be used in the HAWC (Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept) program, aimed at developing hypersonic aircraft guided missile technologies.

The budget crisis is in full swing in Moscow. Not only the prospects for defense spending are being decided - a rearmament program until 2025 should soon be approved. The situation is fateful: all summer, at various meetings, Vladimir Putin promised to significantly reduce defense spending within the framework of an ultra-tight budget. It seriously seemed to many that the “war party” had been defeated, but that was not the case. For 35 years now, the most violent military-state hysterics have been associated with the promising American missile defense system, with SDI or Ronald Reagan’s “star wars.” Also, along the perimeter of the borders, enemies secretly form strike groups. In 2017, the Ministry of Defense conducts military exercises in Taimyr, builds a base on Wrangel Island, where previously only polar bears lived, and is also deploying a coastal defense division in Chukotka. And all this happiness is due to cuts in education, medicine, real pensions and social benefits, writes Novaya Gazeta. The General Staff assembled a powerful delegation of generals to tell the UN on October 12 about the harmfulness of the Pentagon, but the Americans did not give a visa, since the consular department in Moscow does not actually work due to the mass layoff of employees as a result of Russian sanctions or “retaliatory measures.” Responsible for the General Staff in New York was a certain Alexander Emelyanov, who was urgently appointed as a “representative of the Defense Ministry,” who spoke about the growing deployment of the American missile defense system and about a new threat - Prompt Global Strike. The correct translation of PGS is “quick global strike,” but Russian propaganda and officials repeat “instant strike” because it sounds scarier. The idea of ​​PGS was born about 15 years ago at the height of the global war on terror after 9/11 and initially had nothing to do with the Russian Federation. It was assumed that if it were suddenly possible to find out that terrorist leaders had gathered somewhere for a meeting, then it would be possible to launch a high-precision non-nuclear strike on them anywhere in the world within an hour (until they dispersed). Of course, PGS assets could potentially be used to destroy Russian targets, but American weapons, capable of reaching any target on the territory of the Russian Federation in less than an hour, and has already existed for about 50 years - these are sea- and land-based missiles (ICBMs) and all sorts of cruise missiles. The General Staff claims that by 2020 the United States will begin to deploy PGS systems, which will “destroy the existing balance of power,” but this seems extremely doubtful. The idea of ​​PGS turned out to be of little demand. In many ways, this is an empty horror story like Reagan’s SDI. Someday, maybe in 20 years, it will appear practical possibility build a defense against ICBMs with MIRVs and “gliding” warheads. Or maybe it won’t appear, but the military department is now demanding trillions to counter non-existent or deliberately exaggerated threats in an impoverished country with collapsing infrastructure, healthcare, science and education. Well, exactly as it was in the eighties, when the country’s resources were mediocrely squandered on all sorts of weapons, countering fictitious SDI and local wars (). Meanwhile, according to the representative of the Russian Ministry of Defense Alexander Emelyanov, “The Pentagon has begun to create promising strike systems for instant global blow. In non-nuclear equipment, these complexes must solve the same tasks that are assigned to strategic nuclear forces today.” Apparently, we are talking about hypersonic missile weapons and unmanned spacecraft, said "Moskovsky Komsomolets" military expert Ilya Kramnik. “Many predicted the emergence of orbital assets, especially against the background of testing such systems as the X-37B orbital aircraft and the technology demonstrator of the promising X-51 Waverider hypersonic cruise missile. In my opinion, it will be a combination of orbital and hypersonic air vehicles.” Now a global disarmament strike by the Americans is impossible, but in the future its danger will become real, and not only due to the appearance of new weapons by our “partners,” the expert added. “Danger will also arise if our nuclear weapons are further reduced. This blow is delivered not only to the control system of strategic nuclear forces, but also to combat assets themselves - missile silos with heavy intercontinental ballistic missiles and mobile missile systems. The main goal of an instant strike is not to destroy everything at once, but to eliminate such a number of our missiles that the missile defense system can finish off the remaining ones. For now, this task is impossible, but in the future it can be solved.” In response to this increase in the combat potential of the American missile defense We should expect the emergence of strategic missile systems with new combat characteristics from Russia. In particular, the promising heavy ICBM Sarmat, which in the NATO classification has already received the name Satan-2, will be able to strike the US territory “from where they were not expected,” Kramnik believes. “Given the potential energy content of this missile, which promises to be high, we can expect various complex flight trajectories from it, including those allowing it to strike from the south.” However, the topic of the emergence of global disarmament strike weapons in the United States is not new for the Ministry of Defense and is periodically raised by the military for discussion (

Illustration copyright Vitaly Nevar/TASS Image caption Most modern Russian complex Missile defense - S-400, it is unlikely to be able to stop hypersonic missiles, but Russia expects that the next generation system will be able to withstand them

The Russian Ministry of Defense said that the Pentagon has begun creating a strategic system of “instant global strike”, which will make it possible to hit targets more effectively than nuclear weapons.

Concerns about last week said Defense Ministry spokesman Alexander Yemelyanov at the Russian-Chinese briefing on missile defense at the UN. According to him, "the unrestricted deployment of the American missile defense system is a serious challenge to global security, a stimulus for the arms race and a threat to all humanity."

But it is possible that the Russian military department is exaggerating the degree of readiness of the states to implement this program, says James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment. In an interview with the BBC Russian Service, he said that the United States has not yet decided whether it wants to adopt the program. Since testing is proceeding very slowly, a solution will only be a few years away.

Acton told the BBC Russian Service that since the book was published, the “instant global strike” program in the United States has developed extremely slowly.

“During this time, only one test was carried out,” he says. And it failed because the accelerator exploded, he adds.

Everything went so slowly because the Americans were faced with both technical difficulties and budget cuts.

What is being developed in the USA?

A "prompt global strike" system could be used during a nuclear conflict, replacing nuclear weapons. This homing weapon will be able to hit a target anywhere in the world within an hour, which is comparable to a nuclear ballistic missile. These can be ballistic or cruise missiles and systems that will combine the properties of both.

Because of high speed it should be extremely difficult to intercept by missile defense systems.

In the United States, work within the framework of the “Instant Global Impact” concept has been going on for many years. The idea is to create a munition that will fly at hypersonic speed and can shortest time hit a target anywhere in the world.

Now the American program includes hypersonic strike weapons, including the X-47, X-37 aerospace vehicles and the combination of missile defense systems with strike systems.

The system's goal is to react quickly and was designed as an immediate response to terrorist groups and smuggled nuclear or chemical weapons.

The United States is creating only conventional weapons, Russia is working on creating nuclear weapons, with the possibility of use in non-nuclear weapons James Acton, Carnegie Endowment

Acton previously called one of the main concerns regarding a “quick global strike” the possibility of a preventive nuclear strike on the side at which this weapon will be aimed. That is, the country will be so afraid of the “speed” of the strike that it will strike first.

Is this system perfect?

This system has disadvantages. The strike relies on satellite guidance, which is vulnerable to man-made jamming in wartime environments.

In addition, in order to hit a target, ammunition flying at enormous speed will have to slow it down before colliding with the surface - otherwise it will not be able to hit an underground target. And decreasing speed means increasing vulnerability.

James Acton wrote about this in Silver Bullet.

Illustration copyright Nevar Vitaly/TASS Image caption Russia claims the next generation of S-500 missiles will be effective against an “instant global strike”, but the expert is not so sure

How Russia can respond to an “instant global strike”

“The bar set by the Americans, which has been repeatedly voiced by their ministers of defense, is the ability to strike anywhere in the world in less than an hour. We are opposing this, firstly, with a missile attack warning system,” RIA Novosti said Chief Editor magazine "Arsenal of the Fatherland" Colonel Viktor Murakhovsky.

It is almost impossible to protect a large area such as the country from supersonic glide munitions James Acton, Carnegie Endowment

According to him, the missile attack warning system “has now been deployed to such an extent and covers so many missile-hazardous directions that it exceeds even the capabilities of the Soviet Union.”

The S-500 complex together with a missile attack warning system can neutralize a “quick global strike,” Murakhovsky believes.

To this, Acton replies that the S-500 is intended for the defense of strategic targets. "I believe the S-500 will be capable of intercepting hypersonic glide bombs," he says.

He calls the S-500's effectiveness "not zero", but says that in any case it will only be able to protect a small area. This will not help in protecting the territory of an entire country from supersonic glide munitions, Acton says.

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, warheads ballistic missiles(BR) short range):
- 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 creation program is canceled nuclear missile short range for SB;
- 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 facilities are eliminated artillery ammunition and nuclear warheads of tactical missiles;
- are withdrawn from the troops and concentrated on central nuclear weapons bases anti-aircraft missiles, some of them are being liquidated;
- 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. Derived from combat personnel 3 SSBNs with 48 SLBM launchers (in addition to the previously withdrawn 3 SSBNs with 44 launchers);
- a deeper reduction of strategic offensive weapons (START) is being carried out than 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 (ALCM) ceases existing types;
- 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 the Conduct of Military Operations” SIOP-92 (the number of nuclear weapons destruction facilities 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, mobile ICBM systems, missile systems railway-based, SSBNs at naval bases, up to 90% of silo-based ICBMs and one of two SSBNs on combat patrol. 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 wide range 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 the shelling of one object different types nuclear warhead delivery systems provide a higher guarantee of target destruction 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 strikes against military aviation targets. 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 enterprises of the nuclear weapons complex include federal nuclear centers, plants for the production of nuclear weapons, 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. The new concept involves the United States achieving global military superiority 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 strike within 60 minutes high power and accuracy anywhere in the world 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 US military policy, nuclear weapons continued to be viewed not only as a tool for deterring 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, in the new strategic concept "Active Engagement, Modern NATO Defense" Special attention focuses on threats associated with disruptions of energy and resources 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 III Treaty limits the total number of deployed ballistic missiles and does not distinguish between nuclear and conventional weapons. 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 fictional country in order to cause unacceptable damage to it and force it to accept political conditions dictated by the United States. The purpose of these exercises was to develop the concept of the so-called rapid global strike, according to which it is planned to defeat the enemy’s most important military, political and economic targets using existing and future models 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 world that a qualitatively new type of strategic weapon is emerging, which makes 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: “... It's about 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 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 application phase begins missile strike, 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. Group American experts calculated minimal amount Nuclear warheads of ICBMs and SLBMs, with which Russia can hit the US territory in a retaliatory strike: if the Russian Federation strikes at American cities, then after the strike with 37 combat units there will be up to 115 million people (the number of deaths after some time has not been estimated). This is due to the fact that 80% of the American population lives on the east and west coasts. Therefore, Russian missiles can destroy all life on these densely populated coastal strips. 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: Interesting question: experts suggest we destroy more population to not 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... It is possible to counter such a threat 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 carried out, the legend of which was the testing of 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 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 against the enemy’s stationary missile silos, partly at the locations of mobile missile launchers and at military control centers, including classified and buried ones located in space command posts strategic and conventional aircraft. 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 them was undercover work enemy on US territory, during which he became aware of the possibility of such an operation. However, the agents (MA: so it was believed according to the script) did not know either the reasons prompting its start, or the exact number and type of weapons involved. The enemy, despite the lack of information, was able to prepare missile defense and air defense systems, mobilization and evacuation resources, protective structures and strategic nuclear forces.

The second reason was the existence of a system inaccessible to destruction by anti-bunker weapons (including nuclear warhead carriers) and forces special purpose. After a high-precision strike, the system launched command missiles (the so-called “ Dead hand"), transmitting commands for use to the remaining strategic nuclear forces (about 30% 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. As a 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 enemy's SSBN salvos, incl. originating from the 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, state and special computer systems, controlling 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 missile exchange between Usira and the United States, which resulted in unacceptable damage to both states. Total 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 hypersonic missiles we can't expect it to be in service any time 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, the United States can rely on SLCMs, ALCMs, strategic, tactical and carrier-based aviation when planning airborne attack systems.

US National Military Strategy 2015: “Some countries are trying to violate key provisions international law... which poses a threat to US national security." Our country is on the list of “some countries” - Russian Federation. 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 stated: “ New plan The 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 a 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 options for events: delivering a retaliatory nuclear strike and disarming the aggressor with a preventive nuclear strike. The essence did not change - the conflict in Europe was developing into a global war 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 space systems USA and allies.
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 “pit” 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 nearby Russian territory“they are creating 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 - to detect the enemy and cover only separate directions) and destroy aircraft, missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles. After the regiments of the new division go on 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.” A group is stationed on the islands ground forces, the “Bal” and “Bastion” complexes are deployed, there are electronic warfare and air defense systems “Buk” and “Tor-M2U”. 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 all 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. As long as the stations are not hit, it will be problematic for the aircraft of a potential enemy to take part in the air attack. )

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. On the territory of Armenia there are 102 Russian military base(Gyumri). It hosts the 988th anti-aircraft missile regiment, equipped with the S-300V complex. The base is home to MiG-29 type fighters.
On the territory of Abkhazia there is the 7th Russian military base, which is covered by the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system.

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 within the framework of 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 in East Coast USA). For 2016, 7 batteries have been deployed (3 launchers each) THAAD systems. Air defense is provided by US F-15, F-16, F-22 and Canadian CF-18 aircraft.

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

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.

The Russian Ministry of Defense is sounding the alarm. As department spokesman Alexander Yemelyanov said on October 12, the Pentagon has begun creating promising Prompt Global Strike systems. The American army will receive the first samples of new weapons by 2020. The media reacted to the statement with panicky headlines in the style of “The United States can destroy Russia in 60 minutes.” Many experts, however, consider these fears to be greatly exaggerated and recall the story of the American program " star wars"SDI, which turned out to be a complete bluff. Military observer of the Moscow 24 portal Alexey Stepanov shares this opinion and substantiates it with numbers.

Let us recall that the concept of an instant (quick) global strike involves inflicting maximum damage to the enemy’s civilian and military infrastructure using non-nuclear means in an extremely short time. The victim state simply will not have time to adequately respond to aggression. In addition, in the event of such a strike, civilian casualties would be kept to a minimum, which would theoretically greatly influence the determination to use remaining nuclear weapons in response. For the first time at a high level, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin announced such a danger at a high level in June 2013. According to his estimates, if the concept is implemented, the United States will be able to destroy 80-90% of the enemy’s nuclear potential, that is, Russia, in six hours. However, these figures raise a lot of fair questions, to which no one has yet been able to give clear answers.

So, the main goal of the aggressor, according to Dmitry Rogozin, will primarily be our strategic nuclear forces. The basis of the arsenal of the Russian Missile Forces strategic purpose are silo-based intercontinental missiles: according to the latest data, there are more than 150 of them on duty. The target is extremely difficult even for nuclear weapons. Thus, according to existing estimates, for guaranteed destruction of a mine launcher it is required to create a powerful shock wave with an excess pressure of 200 atmospheres in the immediate vicinity of the target. The American one is considered the most accurate not only in the US arsenal, but throughout the world. intercontinental missile sea-based Trident-2. The circular probable deviation (CPD) of its warheads (probability of hitting - 50%) is 100-120 m from the target: in this radius, the explosion of the W88 warhead used on Trident-2 is capable of creating an excess pressure at the target of 1750 atmospheres. At 1.8 KEP (probability of hit - 90%), the explosion of the same warhead will cover the target with a shock wave with an excess pressure of at least 380 atmospheres, that is, Trident-2 almost completely guarantees the destruction of the missile in the silo. But there is one “but”: the power of the W88 warhead is 455 kilotons of TNT. We are talking about a non-nuclear strike, so to destroy a missile in a silo, you need some kind of ammunition capable of hitting with impressive force exactly on its lid, flying thousands of kilometers. What is so interesting that the United States has or will be able to have in the near future?

According to available information, the concept of a rapid global strike involves the use of three main types of weapons. The category of already implemented systems includes non-nuclear warheads for intercontinental ballistic missiles already in service. The missile, as in the case of a nuclear strike, lifts the warhead into low Earth orbit, after which it separates from the platform and rushes towards the target along a ballistic trajectory at hypersonic speed. It’s beautiful, but no one knows why suddenly the accuracy of this ammunition or kamikaze device will be higher than that of a nuclear warhead. The fact is that the ammunition will have to travel the entire path from space to the target in a plasma cloud - the speed of the warhead in the atmosphere is 12-15 the speed of sound. This means that such a device will not be able to receive radio signals, including GPS signals.

Photo: TASS/Ben Listerman/Department of Defense/Zuma

Hypersonic cruise missiles are now called another punishing sword of instant global strike. Thus, the X-51 Waverider missile has been under development in the United States for several years. So far, the best achievement of the experimental device is a flight over a distance of 426 km at a speed of Mach 5.1. Clearly not enough to strike from overseas! In addition, judging by fragmentary information in the media, this device so far flies exclusively in a straight line; it is not yet possible to say that it will be able to maneuver. And, as in the case of non-nuclear ballistic missile units, there are also problems with navigation and radio communications. And let us remind you that it must hit the cover of a missile silo with an area of ​​15-20 square meters. m.

The third type of instant global strike weapon is the so-called kinetic weapon. It is reported that it will consist of tungsten rods 5-10 m long dropped onto a target from space orbit. The impact power when such a rod meets the ground will be equivalent to an explosion of 10-12 tons of TNT, and this is quite enough to turn the lid of the "Satan" mine. . Allegedly, to test this concept, the Americans built the mysterious X-37B spaceplane, which was on duty in orbit for the last time for two years, after which it returned to Earth. But it’s hard to believe that someone can throw a tungsten scrap from orbit with such amazing accuracy.

“One gets the feeling that horror stories about an instant global strike are profitable to replicate not so much for the Americans, but for our own generals and officials from the defense industry,” says a source in the defense-industrial complex. “Perhaps someone is trying to knock out additional money from the budget in this way. Especially This is true today when defense spending is being significantly reduced."