Famous speech of Dmitry Medvedev at the American dilemma European missile defense, obviously, had openly electoral character, and the measures proposed therein, and so has long been produced (in addition, some of them have to do with this most European missile defense system is very indirect relation). With all of this degree of controversy on the subject indicated by getting higher and higher. Unusual way in the course of this debate the Russian Navy is not mentioned either in terms of countering the U.S. missile defense, either in terms of the construction of ASD, which also verbally given a lot of attention.
How many times have written "NWO" (for example, in the article "Useless defense — an artificially constructed reality", 22.07.11) if the Russian strategic nuclear forces and will be able to threaten a member of the American missile defense system, the only sea. On the ground, even the Americans from Poland (about Romania is no question) will not be able to shoot down our ICBMs, as long as Washington can not afford to cancel the laws of physics.
But cruisers and destroyers with the "Aegis" will be able to go to the arctic sea (if the ice will continue to melt), appearing under the trajectories of Russian ICBMs. Subject to the completion SAM "Standard-SM3» they will be able to specifically hit here in the middle of our ICBM leg of the flight, and SLBMs launched from the North Sea PKK CH — even at the active site.
In addition, with the help of improved Zour South American ships from the waters adjacent to both coasts of the USA, will be able to shoot down Russian warhead ICBMs and SLBMs on the downstream section of the line movement.
Attacks from the sea
Now the U.S. Navy system of "Aegis" cruisers are equipped with all 22 of the "Ticonderoga" and all 60 destroyers of the "Arleigh Burke", the construction of which lasts (for a total of 75 built and 99 destroyers). At 5 cruisers and 16 destroyers of this number system "Aegis" modernized and acquired the ability to solve puzzles defense, and not just the classic defense, as on other ships.
The implication is that this upgrade will be coming all the cruisers and destroyers of the U.S. Navy. At the moment, they are assigned tasks TMD (for example, in the Persian Gulf), and in the case of successful development of new versions of "Standard" and it comes to strategic missile defense.
In addition, as reported in "IEE" in the article "Who will be bad if you do not agree" (see number of 03.06.11), discuss European missile defense prepyadstviya some reason we are one hundred percent divorced from real-life scenarios of implementation. Actually, threaten our strategic nuclear forces may only defense in this case the Russian ICBMs and SLBMs are launched against targets in the United States, in other words, if a full-scale nuclear war.
In connection with this hunt to understand under what criteria it can happen. Variants of anger on the part of the Russian Federation against the U.S. nuclear first strike by the U.S. or even less anger on the part of NATO forces in using everyday are so low probability that there is no special meaning to their open a discussion. The only option, the possibility of which is slightly higher ground, — the application of the U.S. preemptive strike against our strategic nuclear forces by SLCM and ALCM, with the expectation that the remains will be finished off by the strategic nuclear forces and missile defense. In this embodiment, the impact on us will be applied first to the sea — with the same cruisers and destroyers, and submarines from the types of "Los Angeles" and "Virginia" and SSGN type "Ohio".
So Makar, if we seriously afraid of the South American hits and covering up its defense, the role of the Navy in parrying this danger must be paramount. And in terms of destruction of U.S. submarines and surface ships, and in terms of the creation of the marine boundary air defense / missile defense system capable of very ease south american strike even before the "Tomahawks" will fly to the Russian coast.
But, as said first article of the Navy here in this nuance for some reason do not recall in general. Explanation of this strangeness may be three. Or our military and political control of strategic thinking, to put it mildly, huge difficulties. Or all of the hysteria about the missile defense is purely political in nature and is focused only on domestic consumption. Or our Navy is in such a state that none of the danger he parries can not participate.
Strictly speaking, none of these 3 embodiment does not exclude other 2-yi. Discussion of the first 2-can be worn even non-political and purely rhetorical in nature, because it is stupid. Referring to the third embodiment.
The trick or not?
And immediately it becomes clear that the Russian Navy in contrast to the U.S. Navy no maritime boundary defense / defense is not able to do in principle, and will not be able in any foreseeable future. Nothing even remotely comparable to the system "Izhdis" we do not have.
Not only available in the fleet, and being built at the moment surface ships capable of new projects only in terms of defense of self-defense or in the best case, the defense has several adjacent vessels and ships in the order of the ship or convoy, but certainly not on defense areas of the country from missile attack from the sea.
The exception, however, is composed of four missile cruiser: atomic "Peter the Great" in 1442 and so on three ships, etc. 1164 ("Moscow", "Marshal Ustinov" and "Varyag"). We have them from time to time incorrectly believe some analogues of American ships. But the fact is that the "Aegis" — is not just a collection of various missiles and easy built-in system. On our own cruisers have specific set of missiles.
Namely — SAM "Fort", a marine analogue of the S-300P. SAM this complex inferior in their performance characteristics "standard", though they churn SLCM fully capable. But here's the number of combat-ready missiles at us and the Yankees just is not comparable. How many cruisers and destroyers, the U.S. Navy has been said above. In this case, all the missiles at them constantly ready for launch (to 122 on each cruiser, and 90 or 96 on each destroyer).
We have to "Peter the Great" 96 missiles, of which are immediately ready for launch 12, ships, etc. 1164 — 64 missiles, of which 8 are ready for launch. In addition, certain ships are scattered fleets. "Moscow" — on the Black Sea Fleet, "Varyag" comes in the Maritime Fleet Pacific Fleet, "Peter the Great" and "Ustinov" — in SF.
Construction of new ships of this class in Russia now does not even discussions are, naturally — we have to do no money, no technical skills. After all, even the U.S. monetary judgments canceled program from creating a new cruiser that much about us, then read.
However, to reflect or at least weaken the disarming strike our Navy could be another way — by attacking media SLCM significant of which are "together" is the carriers and missile defense. In other words, hitting cruiser or destroyer U.S. Navy, we kill two birds with one stone-uh. Here the prospects of our fleet is somewhat better.
Of course, the dangers of the South American submarines — SLCM carriers — our Navy will not be a
ble to do. Even at a time when the Navy was at the peak of his own power, his anti-abilities were very low at the moment is in the best case is provided by the PLO in particular close to the naval base of their own. But on surface ships can cause strokes and our nuclear and diesel submarines and surface ships (first — above cruisers, also remained in service until 956 destroyers, etc.), and aircraft from the shore.
The very threat of such an attack itself is largely devalue the potential of American ships, so as to parry it into the cells of the OHR will Mk41 instead of "Tomahawk" missile and the "Standards" to download antiaircraft "Standards" and anti-"Asroki."
However, at such feats Russian Navy can only near their own shores, in the Arctic seas. With all of this, as mentioned above, most problems South American cruisers and destroyers we will be able to do this if using the improved "standards" will be able to shoot down Russian warhead ICBMs and SLBMs from the waters off the coast of the United States. There, they will not get any of our surface ships or aircraft.
In other words, Russian surface ships can walk there, but in the absence of air that would be tantamount to suicide, and the worthless. Chance for success is only at the PLA. For a more adequate measure of anti-missile defense system is essentially a nedavneshnee signing of the contract for the construction of four submarines, etc. 885M "Ash" (in addition to passing the tests "Severodvinsk" and under construction for two years, "Kazan"). Of course, this is not much, but, unfortunately, impossible to speed up the process. All for the same reason — lack of resources, trained personnel and manufacturing capacity.
As said first article, the creators of "unprecedented hard" President's statement on missile defense have put into his mouth the "counter-measures", which are already long been made or are planned, and some of them do not have a case for this dilemma. Nothing prevented to enter in a statement to the same four "Ash." But we, or the "top" quite bad with strategic thinking, or is there a second one does not believe in their own "horror stories" about missile defense. Either it is a ruse?