With the Zircon missile, Russia does not need to establish bases near the United States

15

The appearance in Russia of hypersonic anti-ship missiles "Zirkon" or 3M22 made it unnecessary to create military bases, including in the Western Hemisphere of the planet, closer to the United States. This was announced during the program “Full Contact” on the YouTube channel “Soloviev LIVE” by Andrey Kartapolov, ex-Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation, head of the State Duma Defense Committee.


In the presence of modern weapons, such as hypersound, there is no longer such a need, because, being at one conditional point in the Atlantic Ocean, a ship armed with Zircon missiles is quite capable of completing any tasks and immediately leaving - it can be a surface ship or Submarine

- he explained.

Kartapolov explained that the base is an "immovable object", which, although it poses a threat, is a vulnerable spot. Therefore, the appearance of Russian bases in Cuba or Venezuela is hardly considered by the Kremlin, “but nothing can be ruled out in our world,” the functionary summed up.


However, it is difficult to agree with such a statement. Based on this logic, if Russia has the Strategic Missile Forces, then the fleet is not needed at all. Why, then, does the Russian Navy need a base in Tartus (Syria)? At the same time, the constant presence of surface ships of the US Navy in the oceans is felt everywhere, despite the fact that Washington has a nuclear triad. Moreover, these ships, however, like submarines, rely on a scattered network of US military bases and US allies.

Note that before this, American diplomats slandered in the media about the "dirty hints of the Russians." Allegedly, their Russian colleagues "subtly threatened" that if Moscow's demands for non-expansion of NATO are not met, then Russian missile weapons will appear closer to Washington.

We remind you that over the past years, Russia has repeatedly asked the United States how they would react if Moscow did in the Gulf of Mexico what Washington is doing in the Black and Baltic Seas. But there are still no clear answers.
Reporterin Yandex News
Reporterin Yandex Zen
15 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. zloybond Offline zloybond
    zloybond (steppenwolf) 19 January 2022 12: 50
    +5
    The base is, first of all, rest, repair, the availability of material reserves for supply. It is not necessarily an object as a threat point. This is the pivot point.
    1. sH, arK Online sH, arK
      sH, arK 19 January 2022 19: 56
      +3
      Yes, you are absolutely right! The base - now it is no longer a fortified area or a fortress, it is rather a logistics point with berths and storage systems with attendants.
  2. Eduard Aplombov Offline Eduard Aplombov
    Eduard Aplombov (Eduard Aplombov) 19 January 2022 13: 25
    +2
    better bases in Cuba and the rest of the countries of the south and north of America would be a joint start of construction of a new channel with China, China builds and pays, Russia guards
    Americans would suffocate from anger and impotence
    and bases, as engineering logistics support, would be useful and useful (I think so)
  3. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 19 January 2022 14: 04
    -2
    The appearance in Russia of hypersonic anti-ship missiles "Zirkon" or 3M22 made it unnecessary to create military bases, including in the Western Hemisphere of the planet, closer to the United States. This was announced during the program “Full Contact” on the YouTube channel “Soloviev LIVE” by Andrey Kartapolov, ex-Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation, head of the State Duma Defense Committee.

    The Zircon is simply a very fast anti-ship missile with a non-nuclear warhead. It does not pose a strategic threat to the US.
    1. chemurij Offline chemurij
      chemurij (chemurij) 19 January 2022 16: 06
      +3
      Quote: Marzhetsky
      The Zircon is simply a very fast anti-ship missile with a non-nuclear warhead. It does not pose a strategic threat to the US.

      Yes, but it deprives the United States of a strategic advantage in the form of AUG, without which the United States will not take any decisive and serious action against Russia.
      1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
        Marzhecki (Sergei) 19 January 2022 16: 09
        -1
        You already decide there, AUG is complete garbage or a strategic advantage of the United States.
        And secondly, take care of the means of target designation for the Zircons, so that they can definitely hit the American aircraft carriers and escort ships moving at a speed of 30 knots.
        1. chemurij Offline chemurij
          chemurij (chemurij) 19 January 2022 16: 21
          +4
          Quote: Marzhetsky
          You already decide there, AUG is complete garbage or a strategic advantage of the United States.

          I never wrote or said anywhere that the US AUG is bullshit.

          Quote: Marzhetsky
          target designation means for Zircons so that they can accurately hit American aircraft carriers and escort ships moving at a speed of 30 knots.

          And why do you think that this issue has not been resolved to the extent necessary to fulfill these tasks?
          1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
            Marzhecki (Sergei) 19 January 2022 16: 38
            -3
            And why do you think that this issue has not been resolved to the extent necessary to fulfill these tasks?

            I have no reason to think so. I wrote a lot on this topic, I see no reason to repeat myself.

            I never wrote or said anywhere that the US AUG is bullshit.

            This is good. A lot of people here think it's bullshit. They are wrong.
    2. boriz Offline boriz
      boriz (boriz) 19 January 2022 16: 36
      +6
      The Zircon is simply a very fast anti-ship missile with a non-nuclear warhead. It does not pose a strategic threat to the US.

      And who said that she does not have YABCH? According to open data, the mass of Zircon warheads is 300 - 400 kg. YBCH 200 kt will fit into 200 kg. Otherwise, there are no fundamental differences between the missiles. And the fact that they didn’t consider it necessary to report to us about this is “it’s already the same,” as our non-brothers say.
      We were also told for a very long time that the range of Iskander does not exceed 500 km. And then in one of the broadcasts of 60 minutes, Klintsevich (then deputy chairman of the Federation Council committee on defense) stated that the range was 2 km. A few months later he was removed from this position. This was even before the termination of the INF Treaty by the Americans. If anything, I saw this show myself. It was a long time ago, I still sometimes watched TV.
      Judging by the sudden appearance of our nuclear submarine 2 miles from the territorial waters of the United States, Zircon is very dangerous for the United States. Target designation on land is not a problem. And the US does not have missile defense from the south. And it is unlikely that it will already appear, the resources are not the same.
      By the way, this is one of the promised military-technical answers. And in tracking our nuclear submarines, the Americans, it seems, are not so blissful.
      1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
        Marzhecki (Sergei) 19 January 2022 16: 41
        -4
        And who said that she does not have YABCH?

        Anything can be imagined. There will be a nuclear version, we will discuss.

        Judging by the sudden appearance of our nuclear submarine 2 miles from the territorial waters of the United States, Zircon is very dangerous for the United States. Target designation on land is not a problem.

        Just remember that all of our submarines are continuously monitored and escorted.

        And the US does not have missile defense from the south. And it is unlikely that it will already appear, the resources are not the same.

        As far as I know, the missile defense system in the United States is a little different than in Russia, it is arranged. The role of the marine component is great, where everything is in perfect order.

        And in tracking our nuclear submarines, the Americans, it seems, are not so blissful.

        I'm afraid there's not enough reason to think so.
        1. boriz Offline boriz
          boriz (boriz) 19 January 2022 16: 58
          +2
          Just remember that all of our submarines are continuously monitored and escorted.

          Anything can be imagined. This time, something went wrong.

          Just remember...

          I will allow myself to remain in my opinion.

          Anything can be imagined. There will be a nuclear version, we will discuss.

          Once again: it is said that the mass of the warhead is 300-400 kg. Nowhere does it say that there is no option with a nuclear warhead. Which of us fantasizes is a big question. But life shows that I am closer to the truth.
          Until 2015 they also said about Caliber that 300 km and not a centimeter more. And in 2015 showed concretely and substantively ...

          As far as I know, the missile defense system in the United States is a bit different than in Russia. The role of the marine component is great, where everything is in perfect order.

          Ground-based missile defense systems in the southern direction are definitely not covered by them.

          The role of the marine component is great, where everything is in perfect order.

          And where are they all right? In what specific place? Have you looked at the US map for a long time? Are they able to stretch the missile defense system at the right time (of dubious effectiveness, in any case, powerless against Zircon) to all three sea directions? Despite the fact that they have something to cover in the entire oceans.
  4. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 19 January 2022 15: 25
    -7
    Here I read an interview with one professor, he expresses doubts about the possibility of creating an engine for a hypersonic missile in the near future.
    https://iz.ru/695749/sergei-valchenko/massovogo-giperzvukovogo-oruzhiia-ne-stoit-ozhidat
    True interview 18 years.
  5. yo yo Offline yo yo
    yo yo (Vasya Vasin) 19 January 2022 16: 55
    +2
    'Military base' sounds more serious and impressive than 'ship armed with missiles'.
    1. boriz Offline boriz
      boriz (boriz) 19 January 2022 20: 56
      +2
      A military base is a specific point on the map. There is no particular problem to cover it with a rocket. Not one, but two or three. And the submarine still needs to be found.
      In addition, the base is a fixed cost, it must be deployed. Where do you put it when it's no longer needed? Give the same Venezuela?
  6. The comment was deleted.
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. Nazim Yarmagomedov Offline Nazim Yarmagomedov
    Nazim Yarmagomedov (Nazim Yarmagomedov) 22 February 2022 19: 12
    0
    It's not needed yet. And when the United States has its own Zircons, which they will place along the perimeter of our borders, then WHAT? Bases in Cuba are needed!