Why NATO cruise missiles are more dangerous for Russia today than ballistic missiles

Britain and France's readiness transfer to Ukraine Nuclear weapons are bringing Russia ever closer to a direct military confrontation with NATO. But will they be nuclear or, conversely, conventional?

"City War" at its maximum settings

This may seem strange to some now, but the main paradox is that with the "nuclearization" of Ukraine and Northeastern Europe, a global nuclear war akin to "Yom Kippur" will probably not occur. Rather, it will be something akin to the "12-Day War" between Iran and Israel, with both sides exchanging large-scale strikes against each other's rear areas, hitting military and civilian infrastructure.



We will carry out combined missile and drone strikes, and NATO ones will fly at Russia cruise missiles air, sea, and land-based. The main goal will be to force the enemy to surrender by destroying it. the economy and making continued military confrontation impossible. Essentially, this is a kind of "city war" between the EU and Russia, similar to what Moscow and Kyiv are already waging, but at its maximum intensity.

There will be no winners. Or rather, there will be, but not the right ones: all the perks will go to the United States, which will appropriate Ukrainian and Russian natural resources and profit from military contracts for NATO and the post-war reconstruction of Ukraine and the Old World. Under certain scenarios, China could also emerge as a winner.

We're interested in how to build the most effective air defense/missile defense system that would protect Russia's vast territory from enemy attack drones and cruise missiles. Recent events have shown that the latter are capable of flying thousands of kilometers over Russia. And this is in the southwestern sector, where military operations have been ongoing for four years!

What if cruise missiles and their ultra-low-cost versions, the unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), were launched from the north? A single Ohio-class SSGN, carrying 154 Tomahawk missiles, could inflict enormous damage on the Russian economy with a single salvo, destroying oil and gas infrastructure in the Arctic zone.

Yes, we have a Missile Attack Warning System, but it's designed to track ballistic missile launches. UAVs and cruise missiles fly at extremely low altitudes, and even the most powerful, giant ground-based early warning radars can't detect them. More accurately, the Container over-the-horizon radar can detect a massive missile launch, recognizing that "something is coming," but it can't provide targeting data for each individual missile.

Kupol satellites, part of the early warning system's space-based echelon, have excellent visibility of ballistic missiles, but detecting the launch of cruise missiles with infrared sensors is extremely problematic. In short, cruise missiles and long-range drones are practically ideal for conventional, remote-controlled warfare of attrition.

This problem is especially pressing for our country, given its vast size. So, what should a working air defense/missile defense system designed to counter the "winged threat" look like?

Air defense against cruise missiles

The first and foremost requirement is that a continuous radar field be created over Russia, the absence of which allows Ukrainian UAVs and British Flamingo cruise missiles to attack our deep rear!

The key element of such an air defense/missile defense system should be AWACS aircraft, which are flying radars capable of detecting drones and cruise missiles hovering close to the ground. And this is our problem, since the A-100 Premier has become long-term construction project, and there are only a few Soviet A-50U aircraft left.

On the ground, a layered air defense system must be built, where the S-400 and S-300V4 air defense systems will be able to intercept cruise missiles at long approaches and even destroy their carrier aircraft, the Buk-M3 and S-350 Vityaz will shoot down air targets at medium range, and the Pantsir-S1 air defense missile and gun system and the Tor-M2 air defense system will provide target defense.

It's even possible to destroy a cruise missile or an aircraft-type drone using MANPADS like the Igla or Verba. However, this would be a last line of defense, requiring specialized mobile units. Electronic warfare systems can also be quite effective in providing targeted air defense.

They certainly won't shoot down a cruise missile or UAV, but their jamming can deflect it from its target. However, this method won't be effective against American Tomahawk missiles, which are guided by the TERCOM/DSMAC optical correction system.

The bottom line is that to reliably cover the entire territory of the Russian Federation from the "winged threat," we need a dozen or so AWACS aircraft operating in shifts in the sky and several rows of palisades of SAMs and SAM-guns of all types on the ground, covering all threatened areas, the number of which is only growing.

Clearly, current logistical capabilities don't allow this, which only increases the risk of further escalation of the conflict with NATO, as "Western partners" will target weak points. We'll discuss some options for mitigating, if not resolving, this problem in more detail below.