Russia vs. USA: who is more reliable missile defense

Weapons 14/01/20 Wikipediassa against the United States: who is more reliable missile defence

After the US withdrawal from the anti-ballistic missile Treaty (ABM), especially after reports about the possible withdrawal of the American side of the other agreements, this topic is discussed regularly on a variety of levels. Most often refers to political aspects, and almost never about technical. Primarily, this is due to the fact that experts in the field rarely speak to the media.

unfortunately, a full comparison of the two missile systems, the Soviet and American, to carry out extremely difficult, as data on this are classified as the most important state secrets. However, what is known, allows to make a conclusion about the significant lag of U.S. missile defense from the Soviet, and now Russian.

With the appearance on the arms of the USSR and the USA a large number of ballistic missiles capable of a massive nuclear attack, the question of how to protect themselves, stood on one of the first places by importance. And although from the outset it was clear that completely destroy all fired by the enemy missiles impossible, to reduce the force of impact and consequently the effects in the United States and the Soviet Union were active.

One of the most seemingly simple decisions, was to meet ballistic missile to release the missile with a powerful nuclear charge, and thus to destroy them. The power of a nuclear warhead allowed to hit the warheads without direct contact with the target, which significantly simplified the task.

However, this scheme was not as effective as it may seem, and easily overcome. Why the rocket could be released in two echelons. The first echelon of missiles had incinerated would be a powerful nuclear warheads of missiles. However, these explosions created huge clouds of ionized plasma, blinding tracking and guidance. With the result that the second tier could attack quite freely. Well, and to defend against a nuclear strike on its territory, blasting a much larger number of nuclear warheads on it (though it was supposed to intercept in space), not the best method. Not to mention the fact that the destruction of enemy missiles had to have at least two more of the same, and even larger, that from the point of view of the economy is quite unrealistic.

in addition, U.S. experts generally questioned the effectiveness of destruction of warheads of ballistic missiles by the methods of the detonation of a powerful nuclear warheads. According to them, a certain number of warheads could overcome the impact of the nuclear missiles. A significant disadvantage from the American point of view was that even disabled the warheads could continue the flight, and on the radar screens would not differ. But this would require new shocks on them, and effort wasted.

as a result, the development of missile defense systems in the United States and the Soviet Union (and then Russia) went their separate ways.

the Soviet and then Russian designers continued to develop methods to engage air and space targets with the explosion — it’s called shrapnel method. Currently, all of the developed technique, and even the principles on which they are based, are highly classified, but their efficiency is checked in air defense systems in a real combat situation. And highly appreciated. With regard to missile defense systems, for obvious reasons, no PRO in the world has not been tested in a combat situation. Israeli “Iron dome” does not count, as it works with a very primitive order, in the form of missiles of Iranian manufacture.

However, the fact that the Russian missile test was conducted successfully at targets that simulate the actions of the Russian missiles, such as “Satan” speaks for itself. Because the warheads of the American missiles, now the armament, can’t maneuver in the terminal phase of the trajectory and shoot them down much easier. Because they say that Russian missiles are created to engage both existing and prospective purposes. Tabout there are those that can be created.

within the United States began to develop a system of kinetic destruction. That is, the interceptor missile must directly collide with the warhead. In this situation, the blow is so strong, that all to turn into plasma. And for missiles is generally no charge is not needed, not to mention nuclear. That significantly reduces the cost of production, it would seem. However, in this case becomes much more complicated guidance system, as flying towards each other at enormous speeds (7-10 m/s) and relatively small warheads, must meet an accuracy of a few centimeters. While this was successful only for targets flying along a ballistic trajectory, in other words, do not change the direction of flight. At the same time, as the American press, and even the target itself illuminated. However, the warheads of Russian missiles in the terminal phase of the flight did not fly on a ballistic trajectory and maneuver. And American experts also believe that to shoot them down is impossible in principle. Except by accident.

in addition, it is possible to shoot down the rocket itself-interceptor that is trying to hit a target that is faced with it. Some experts believe that the Russian missiles it is capable of, any such system will be developed in the near future, because it is not so difficult.

Actually, the deployment of ABM systems on Russia’s borders caused primarily by the fact that to create an effective system for destruction of Russian missiles on the territory of the United States today it is impossible. Therefore, it is expected to deal with the Russian missiles are not in the terminal phase of flight, and on takeoff, when they don’t maneuver and needs to be exposed. And in any case it remains possible to intercept the rocket later.

However, underlying this system, the assertion of the helplessness of Russian missiles on the rise, the Russian military, apparently, not very scary. Apparently, not all so is simple.

Kirill Shishkin

© Russian Seven

see also: editor’s choice, “Russian Seven”Why are the Russians in Afghanistan, did not take the spooks captured daggerwing Rommel: what became the best commander Gitlerom “frost” has entered the list of 100 worst movies historical to understand that in the organism the deficit Belorechenskoye article Share: Comments Comments on the article “Russia vs USA: anyone have a reliable missile defense” Please log in to leave a comment! br>
Share on Tumblr