A bet on hypersound: Russian missiles will force the Americans to send their missile defense system "to the scrap"


Russian hypersonic missiles ensure the leadership of the Russian Federation in the field of innovative developments in the military-industrial complex. This was stated by Russian President Vladimir Putin in the framework of the documentary “Russia. Recent History ", shown on the Russia-1 TV channel on December 12.


We maintain an approximate parity with the United States both in delivery vehicles and in the number of warheads (nuclear weapons), but nevertheless, in our promising developments, we are undoubtedly the leaders. (...) we are not just modernizing the potential in service, we are introducing new complexes. In this sense, we can say with confidence that according to this indicator we are today the number one in the world.

- said Putin.

In addition, he stressed that Russian military-technical achievements in the field of hypersonic rocketry are currently unprecedented in the international arena.

I have always said and now I can repeat that the leading military powers of the world will undoubtedly possess the same weapons that Russia has today, I mean hypersonic weapons. But so far, since 2018, no one has had this weapon yet.

- summed up the President of the Russian Federation.

Thus, it can be stated that the Russian military-industrial complex not only ensures the creation of new types of weapons, but also ensures that Russia becomes the world leader in this indicator. What may be especially important in the current geopolitical situation, in which the possession of a strategic advantage can become a decisive factor in deterring the aggressive Western policy in relation to our country.

Hypersound bet


Foreign ill-wishers often try to belittle Russia's current achievements in the field of weapons. The modern myth about the obsolete Russian technologyrooted in the 90s, when the material and technical equipment of the armed forces of the Russian Federation was in dire straits, is still actively supported by the West. And there are two reasons for this: competition and geopolitical tensions. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Russia ranked second in the world in arms exports between 2016 and 2020, behind only the United States. The leadership of "Uncle Sam" is quite obvious here: the purchase of arms is obviously imposed on many countries as a guarantee of good relations with the American side. And given how many states in the Middle East have been destroyed by US-led coalitions, the power of such “marketing” should not be underestimated. However, even if we add up the arms sales of Washington's key NATO allies: France (8,2%), Germany (5,5%), Great Britain (3,3%) and Italy (2,2%), it turns out that even taken together, they still sell less weapons to Russia, which controls one-fifth of the global arms market. Is it worth explaining that this state of affairs does not suit them extremely?

On the other hand, the escalating geopolitical situation inevitably raises security issues for the countries of the collective West. Over the past two years, the United States has managed to withdraw both from the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles, signed by Gorbachev and Reagan, and from the Open Skies Treaty signed in Helsinki in 1992. Valery Gerasimov, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, believes that behind the US withdrawal from international treaties on strategic security is precisely the desire to develop its own weapons.

An analysis of the situation shows that the real reason for the collapse of the INF Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty is the desire of the United States to remove restrictions on the development of weapons. The deployment of intermediate and shorter-range missiles in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region poses a serious threat to regional and global security

- emphasized the head of the General Staff.

Thus, it is obvious that Washington defiantly abandoned both agreements in order to improve its weapons - primarily missiles. However, the paradox is that there is nothing to boast about it in front of voters and allies. Not to say that the United States is losing the new arms race, which it has actually declared itself? After all, it is the Russian Zircon rocket that is the world's first example of a hypersonic cruise missile capable of continuous aerodynamic flight with maneuvering in dense layers of the atmosphere using its own engine thrust throughout the entire route. The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation reported on the successful tests of the Zircon this October. At the same time, the American side now has nothing of the kind, which radically changes the existing balance of power.

Unnecessary missile defense and a new balance of power


It's not just that Russia is once again creating world-class military innovations. The point is in the effect that they have on the state of affairs in the geopolitical arena. For the first time in the decades since the collapse of the USSR, the alignment of strategic nuclear forces is so clearly shifting towards Russia. After all, Russian hypersonic missiles are not just an example of the achievement of Russian gunsmiths that will strengthen the country's defense capability. Their tactical and technical characteristics, above all, make all the multibillion-dollar missile defense systems deployed by the United States simply useless.

If we simplify the situation as much as possible, it turns out that American interceptor missiles are now, even in theory, unable to intercept Russian warheads. To understand how great the gap between the United States and Russia is, the following fact is enough. On September 27, 2021, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) announced the successful testing of an American hypersonic missile. According to the report, the rocket was launched from an aircraft, and a few seconds later its ramjet engine was launched. There were no explosions or other incidents, and the head of the hypersonic missile program (HAWC) even declared a successful "demonstration of capabilities." And everything would be fine, if not for one moment: the speed of an American rocket is capable of exceeding only Mach 5 (a unit of measurement of the speed of sound) - a formal boundary that is recognized as the boundary for determining hypersonic speed. At the same time, Russian hypersonic missiles are capable of reaching Mach 20, that is, flying four times faster than their American counterparts. And this despite the fact that domestic developments are already in service, and the US Army is just conducting trials and tests.

What this has led to is understandable already now: American missile defense systems are simply outdated and went "for scrap" in an instant. For its real function - the interception of Russian ballistic missiles, is simply not able to perform. The fourfold difference in speed, coupled with the ability of Russian missiles to maneuver right in the dense layers of the atmosphere, make them absolutely impossible to intercept. And even if the information about their launch arrives as early as possible, the maneuverability will allow the Russian carrier to evade the interceptors, and the speed will be too high for the interceptor to have a second attempt - it simply will not be able to catch up with it.

Nuclear weapons are key to deterring aggressive American foreign policy. Objectively, it was this that was the main reason that a direct armed conflict did not start between the USSR and the United States during the Cold War. Nevertheless, it is clearly not worth perceiving the strategic nuclear potential as a static and indivisible quantity. The centuries-old experience of armed conflicts accumulated by mankind suggests that sometimes it is not the number of weapons that a side can put up that matters, but the speed with which they will be delivered to the theater of operations.

Of course, in conditions when the United States is ready to dot the half of the world with its missiles, Russia somehow needs to respond. And the creation of new types of weapons is exactly what allows our country to return the balance of power to the balance lost after the collapse of the USSR. Even if Russia did not start a new arms race and does not strive for it, as Russian representatives have said more than once, but if the United States wants to flex its muscles, it needs to know that Russian weapons are still ahead of them. And the hypersonic missiles already in service with our army are a vivid example of this.
25 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 14 December 2021 08: 46
    -1
    Our missiles are good, it's true, but what about target designation for them?
    1. Just a cat Offline Just a cat
      Just a cat (Bayun) 14 December 2021 09: 08
      -3
      there is a fundamental difference with targeting in Russia and the United States. I don’t remember the exactness, but roughly speaking in Russia they’ll first think about it, and then they’ll drop the bomb, and the Americans first drop the bomb, and then they’ll think. The Russian strategist will throw off the blank more accurately than the Americans will throw off their tomahawk. There are more preliminary calculations, and therefore less "brains" are required to be put into the "product".
      1. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
        Marzhecki (Sergei) 14 December 2021 10: 44
        -1
        Aiming a missile at Washington is not a problem. But getting on a moving target, like the notorious AUG, moving at a speed of 30 knots, is a problem.
        This is often forgotten to mention when describing the positive aspects of Zircon. Yes, the rocket is good, but you need to be able to hit it accurately, for this you need operational and accurate data for the control center.
        1. Just a cat Offline Just a cat
          Just a cat (Bayun) 14 December 2021 10: 58
          0
          I don’t know about torpedoes, I crossed paths who were trained as navigators for aviation. and where I do not know, I do not argue.
          1. Marzhecki Online Marzhecki
            Marzhecki (Sergei) 14 December 2021 11: 01
            0
            So I'm not talking about torpedoes, it seems.
            1. Just a cat Offline Just a cat
              Just a cat (Bayun) 14 December 2021 11: 09
              0
              not important. zircons are not in aviation
        2. zenion Offline zenion
          zenion (zinovy) 14 December 2021 20: 29
          0
          Marzhetsky (Sergey). Those that used to have homing heads disappeared, like documents for the manufacture of space lunar rockets in the United States. And the satellites in the looking glass do not do this, they click seeds.
        3. Navigator Offline Navigator
          Navigator (Andrei) 14 December 2021 21: 40
          -1
          with Zircon, everything is still not completely clear either. It is known from open sources that the launch range to the target did not exceed 400 km. And this is very little. Even if the issue is resolved with the Central Command, it will be impossible to strike at the AUG, since the AUG defense line is much larger than these 400 km. Only a submarine with suicide bombers will be able to fire a volley of zircons. There are versions that the range of zircon exceeds 1000 km, but these are only words that are not confirmed by anything.
    2. gunnerminer Offline gunnerminer
      gunnerminer (gunner miner) 14 December 2021 09: 39
      -3
      If only target designation ... After the reforms of 2008-2012, the adequate number of TRBs, maneuverable TRBs, the number of missile maintenance teams were not restored. They were staffed with ensigns. And the institute of ensigns was liquidated. Now they are trying to restore it. The rockets do not know how to transfer themselves to different degrees of readiness, they do not know how to pump themselves on control and adjustment stands, they cannot even pump nitrogen into their containers, they cannot change warheads, etc.
    3. 1_2 Offline 1_2
      1_2 (Ducks are flying) 14 December 2021 14: 24
      0
      targeting for EU cities?
  2. steelmaker Offline steelmaker
    steelmaker 14 December 2021 09: 29
    0
    I already wrote, but I will repeat:

    the United States has 8 Tomahawk cruise missiles on warships, while Russia has only 120 of its caliber.
    Moreover, if necessary, the United States can produce 15 thousand Tomahawks a year, while Russia - only 300. Collect more, they say, there is no production capacity.

    https://www.mk.ru/politics/2020/07/25/v-seti-podschitali-skolko-rossii-nuzhno-raket-chtoby-razoritsya.html
    It takes thousands of missiles, not hundreds, for the enemy to fear us. With such production, ash stump, who will be afraid of us! Ponty alone and the United States understands this.
    1. gunnerminer Offline gunnerminer
      gunnerminer (gunner miner) 14 December 2021 09: 34
      -3
      We need aviation and naval carriers in adequate numbers, as well as means of support in an adequate number. Now carriers are about 10% of the required. And most importantly, we need specialists who can competently maintain both in combat readiness.
    2. Kristallovich Online Kristallovich
      Kristallovich (Ruslan) 14 December 2021 09: 35
      +2
      For example, someone under the nickname "Petrovich from the Army" posted frightening information on the Web. He calculated how many cruise missiles the United States has and how many Russia has. The numbers are impressive. It turns out that the United States has 8 Tomahawk cruise missiles on its warships, while Russia has only 120 of its “Calibers”.

      This is a quote from your link. Even commenting is ridiculous.
      1. steelmaker Offline steelmaker
        steelmaker 14 December 2021 10: 16
        -1
        The Russian army has received 48 Kalibr cruise missiles since the beginning of 2019. This was announced by the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation, General of the Army Sergei Shoigu. 12.04.2019/XNUMX/XNUMX

        https://tvzvezda.ru/news/20194121232-ebxdY.html
        Do you believe Shoigu? Are you friends with mathematics? In four months, 48 ​​missiles.
        1. Kristallovich Online Kristallovich
          Kristallovich (Ruslan) 14 December 2021 10: 30
          +2
          First of all, I don't see any 8 American missiles following the link to Zvezda. Secondly, where is the connection between 48 Caliber missiles for 4 months of 2019 and 120 missiles in total? Is your head really tight?
        2. gunnerminer Offline gunnerminer
          gunnerminer (gunner miner) 14 December 2021 10: 32
          -3
          The further we move away from 2012, the more difficult it is to believe Shoigu.
      2. gunnerminer Offline gunnerminer
        gunnerminer (gunner miner) 14 December 2021 10: 31
        -3
        But the unfunny thing: almost three years ago (in January 2019) they wrote on VO:

        In mid-February last year, a delegation from the Ministry of Defense, headed by Deputy Minister Yuri Borisov, visited the Far Eastern enterprises of the defense complex. Among other things, representatives of the Ministry of Defense visited the Zvezda Far East plant, which is responsible for servicing the submarines of the Pacific fleet.

        According to known data, three nuclear submarines of pr. 949A - K-132 "Irkutsk", K-186 "Omsk" and K-442 "Chelyabinsk" are now being repaired and modernized on it. And the terms have been postponed again. And yes, the missiles are good ...
  3. gunnerminer Offline gunnerminer
    gunnerminer (gunner miner) 14 December 2021 09: 31
    -6
    And the hypersonic missiles already in service with our army are a vivid example of this.

    Hee, hee .. laughing fool
  4. 1_2 Offline 1_2
    1_2 (Ducks are flying) 14 December 2021 14: 30
    -2
    against NATO, they will use the Zircon Daggers of Caliber X-32 only with nuclear warheads, due to the quantitative superiority of NATO over the Russian Federation in people and in conventional weapons, they will strike at NATO cities, and not at individual headquarters and bases. this is the only way to inflict maximum damage on the aggressors
  5. THRONE Offline THRONE
    THRONE (Andriy Shevchyk) 14 December 2021 15: 05
    -1
    Russian hypersound is junk, a popularized topic by illiterate journalists.
    The vanguard, if it reaches the United States, then its speed will decay to the speed of medium-range warheads such as the Iraqi SCAD and can be intercepted by conventional air defense, kinetic energy will be wasted. The farther the glider flies in the atmosphere, the more its speed attenuates due to acceleration. Kinetic energy is converted into thermal heating - plasma.
    The USA tested the HTV-2 glider (analogue of Avangard) in 2010, with an initial speed of Mach 22, after two minutes of flight the speed dropped to Mach 17, if not for an accident it flew 7500 km (approximate distance from the USA to the European part of Russia) then its speed in the final phase faded to the warhead of short-range missiles of the Iskander type.

    The Chinese and Americans know that the Vanguard is scrap metal, so the Chinese tested a glider a month ago, which is produced only at the final section, so that it does not have time to spend kinetic energy, and the United States generally abandoned the creation of such weapons.
    Mach 27 of the Vanguard is the speed in space after separation from the ICBM in the so-called section (re-diving), and not in plasma, when re-entering the atmosphere, the speed drops to 20 mach already at the beginning of the flight
    In addition, one Vanguard has a mass size of 6 warheads + 10 decoys. Under the Vanguard, hundreds of new ICBMs need to be produced, so the Vanguard is exotic in the Strategic Missile Forces, more for show.
    It does not give any missile defense breakthrough because the American missile defense system is concluded mainly in sea floating radars on platforms, as well as Aegis ships. How are you going to destroy them in real time floating targets? Where did you get target designation?
    All talk about zeroing the US missile defense system is complete nonsense.

    2. Zircon is a subsonic warhead, scrap metal. Nothing better than short-range ballistic missiles.
    Hypersonic speed is possible only in the stratosphere in the middle section, the scramjet engine has an air intake design only for a specific atm. pressure, with a decrease in the lower layers - the scramjet engine is useless, the Zircon turns into a warhead that enters the denser layers and loses at times its speed due to atmospheric resistance, and if the target moves, then a gentle flight profile is needed - even more braking, otherwise atm the pressure can render the rudders useless. Vertical dive is used only against stationary targets.

    Zircon has a working engine up to 300 km, does not develop further than Mach 8, after turning off the engine, the Zircon warhead can still fly hundreds of kilometers, but every second losing the accumulated kinetic speed, the further - the greater the damping of speed.
    It is not serious to apply Zircon further than 400 km. All these talks that the aircraft carrier will reach the Zircon there at a distance of 700 km are fairy tales. The speed will die out to the point of indecency.
    3. The United States has twice as many ICBMs, and Minuteman 3 is the best silo ICBM in the world due to its rate of climb, while Russia has no money to build and hold hundreds of missiles - therefore, it is forced to create ICBMs of a heavy class such as Sarmat. And in Russia, the public thinks that the more ICBMs the better, they say there is no such huge ICBM like Sarmat in the USA))

    Conclusions Russia has no advantage over the United States. For years people have been fermenting at patriotic forums, have come up with a mythology of superiority over the United States, in fact, this is all complete nonsense.
    1. zenion Offline zenion
      zenion (zinovy) 14 December 2021 20: 26
      +1
      TRON (Andrii Shevchyk). You are deliberately rinsing the brains and convolutions of the whole world. Of course, they consulted with you and you know how to make a rocket from all over the place, which flies to itself and flies until it arrives. How much is it?
    2. gunnerminer Offline gunnerminer
      gunnerminer (gunner miner) 14 December 2021 22: 06
      -4
      Vanguard is more of a psychological weapon. Less accurate than Yars M several times. This is one of the reasons for its weak deployment.

      Conclusions Russia has no advantage over the United States. For years people have been fermenting at patriotic forums, have come up with a mythology of superiority over the United States, in fact, this is all complete nonsense.

      +100! Technological superiority over the United States could have been believed 50 years ago. good
    3. Leon68 Offline Leon68
      Leon68 (Leon) 15 December 2021 18: 02
      0
      Quote: TRON
      Russian hypersound is junk, a popularized topic by illiterate journalists.
      The vanguard, if it reaches the United States, then its speed will decay to the speed of medium-range warheads such as the Iraqi SCAD and can be intercepted by conventional air defense, kinetic energy will be wasted. The farther the glider flies in the atmosphere, the more its speed attenuates due to acceleration. Kinetic energy is converted into thermal heating - plasma.
      The USA tested the HTV-2 glider (analogue of Avangard) in 2010, with an initial speed of Mach 22, after two minutes of flight the speed dropped to Mach 17, if not for an accident it flew 7500 km (approximate distance from the USA to the European part of Russia) then its speed in the final phase faded to the warhead of short-range missiles of the Iskander type.

      The Chinese and Americans know that the Vanguard is scrap metal, so the Chinese tested a glider a month ago, which is produced only at the final section, so that it does not have time to spend kinetic energy, and the United States generally abandoned the creation of such weapons.
      Mach 27 of the Vanguard is the speed in space after separation from the ICBM in the so-called section (re-diving), and not in plasma, when re-entering the atmosphere, the speed drops to 20 mach already at the beginning of the flight
      In addition, one Vanguard has a mass size of 6 warheads + 10 decoys. Under the Vanguard, hundreds of new ICBMs need to be produced, so the Vanguard is exotic in the Strategic Missile Forces, more for show.
      It does not give any missile defense breakthrough because the American missile defense system is concluded mainly in sea floating radars on platforms, as well as Aegis ships. How are you going to destroy them in real time floating targets? Where did you get target designation?
      All talk about zeroing the US missile defense system is complete nonsense.

      2. Zircon is a subsonic warhead, scrap metal. Nothing better than short-range ballistic missiles.
      Hypersonic speed is possible only in the stratosphere in the middle section, the scramjet engine has an air intake design only for a specific atm. pressure, with a decrease in the lower layers - the scramjet engine is useless, the Zircon turns into a warhead that enters the denser layers and loses at times its speed due to atmospheric resistance, and if the target moves, then a gentle flight profile is needed - even more braking, otherwise atm the pressure can render the rudders useless. Vertical dive is used only against stationary targets.

      Zircon has a working engine up to 300 km, does not develop further than Mach 8, after turning off the engine, the Zircon warhead can still fly hundreds of kilometers, but every second losing the accumulated kinetic speed, the further - the greater the damping of speed.
      It is not serious to apply Zircon further than 400 km. All these talks that the aircraft carrier will reach the Zircon there at a distance of 700 km are fairy tales. The speed will die out to the point of indecency.
      3. The United States has twice as many ICBMs, and Minuteman 3 is the best silo ICBM in the world due to its rate of climb, while Russia has no money to build and hold hundreds of missiles - therefore, it is forced to create ICBMs of a heavy class such as Sarmat. And in Russia, the public thinks that the more ICBMs the better, they say there is no such huge ICBM like Sarmat in the USA))

      Conclusions Russia has no advantage over the United States. For years people have been fermenting at patriotic forums, have come up with a mythology of superiority over the United States, in fact, this is all complete nonsense.

      I have not read more nonsense yet. Continue in the same spirit.
      1. isofat Offline isofat
        isofat (isofat) 15 December 2021 18: 21
        0
        Quote: Leon68
        I have not read more nonsense yet.

        You don't have to quote all the nonsense, especially when it's so big. smile
  6. zenion Offline zenion
    zenion (zinovy) 14 December 2021 20: 20
    0
    It's great that Russian missiles have a program that sends them to scrap. If only they did not get lost and did not send Russian foreign money to Russia. Then everything will burst, or crack.