The US military recognized the unrealizability of the "anti-Russian" missile defense system


Recently at a U.S. Senate hearing, Commander-in-Chief of the United States European Command and Supreme Allied Commander-in-Chief of Europe in Europe, General Tod Walters confessedthat the US air defense / missile defense has serious problems. And now, the head of the US Armed Forces Strategic Command, Admiral Charles Richard, at a hearing of a subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives committee for military affairs, said that the creation of an American missile defense system to protect against Russia is unrealizable with technical points of view.


Our current missile defense systems are designed to protect us from rogue nations, and are deliberately designed to not interfere with the strategic means of deterring Russia and China

- said Richard, answering the question whether the US missile defense system is designed to protect "from an attack using intercontinental ballistic missiles from Russia."

Because we simply do not have enough anti-ballistic missiles to intercept such a number of missiles?

- Asked a clarifying question Congressman Democrat from Massachusetts Seth Multon.

This is not only technically unrealizable and costly, but also raises serious questions in terms of strategic stability.

- answered Richard.

By the way, the acting (from November 24, 2019) head of the U.S. Navy, Thomas Modley, believes that the appearance of long-range missiles with hypersonic warheads in Russia is a huge challenge for Washington, which actually puts the U.S. in a hopeless situation. At the same time, Modley added that some work is being carried out in the United States in this direction, which he cannot "declare openly."

A huge challenge for us now is that our opponents are developing long-range hypersonic missiles, which puts our armed forces in a hopeless situation and forces us to work further and further. We must develop various opportunities to counter this. Therefore, we are developing weapons as part of a non-nuclear instant strike

- said Modley.

It must be recalled that recently Modley compared Washington lagged behind Moscow in the field of hypersonic weapons with the launch of the first artificial Earth satellite in the USSR in 1957.
  • Photos used: https://www.flickr.com/
3 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.
I have an account? Sign in
  1. Observer2014 Offline Observer2014
    Observer2014 28 February 2020 19: 11
    0
    Mochilovo in our direction is canceled. That would still mochilo our people from our side as it were, as it were, the elites to cancel. repeat In the tonsils, push yourself pension reform, who invented this abomination to the Russian people. am Well, who executed and implemented, in ten times the size. am At the very, most drawbar.
  2. shinobi Offline shinobi
    shinobi (Yuri) 3 March 2020 20: 44
    +1
    In general, the bluff did not go away. They did not believe in the world. It remains to admit defeat and retake the cards.
  3. EnGenius Offline EnGenius
    EnGenius (Engenius) 6 March 2020 09: 32
    +1
    Actually, the creation of a cruise missile with an unlimited flight range, a hypersonic planning block or an underwater nuclear super torpedo - all this makes the missile defense system ineffective, as it will allow delivering strikes from any part of the world ocean. Therefore, after Putin announced these new cartoons, a mild attack of claustrophobia occurred in the Pentagon and the Senate with Congress. The United States will try to ban these new types of weapons within the framework of strategic offensive arms, and if this does not work out, then the missile defense program will face reduced funding in favor of programs to create a similar class of weapons. The arms race is not inevitable. In the best case scenario, it will be possible to agree within the framework of strategic offensive arms on the inclusion of these weapons as carriers of nuclear warheads and maintaining the number of deployed carriers - it will do for us for ten years, especially since the number of SSBNs will sag a little due to a failure in the shipbuilding of the 90s and the 2000s.