The announcement of the President of the Russian Federation about the newest Kinzhal missile system, together with a video demonstration of its use, created an unthinkable sensation on the Internet, comparable, perhaps, to the explosion of a 100-megaton nuclear bomb. Some experts immediately rushed to prove that all this is nonsense, and that the Russian Federation does not and cannot have any hypersonic weapons capable of moving in space at a speed of Mach 10 (M). Others immediately declared the American aircraft carrier groups (and indeed, all surface ships larger than the minesweeper) completely obsolete and unnecessary.
Let's try to figure out what impact the "Dagger" can have on the development of the world's navy. And first, let's remember what the president told us:
“The unique performance characteristics of the high-speed carrier aircraft allow the missile to be delivered to the drop point in a matter of minutes. At the same time, a rocket flying at a hypersonic speed ten times the speed of sound also maneuvers in all parts of the flight trajectory, which also allows it to be guaranteed to overcome all existing and, I think, promising anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense systems, delivering to the target on range of more than two thousand kilometers nuclear and conventional warheads."
To be honest, very little has been said, but the cartoon presented … well, let's just say, in the time of Joseph Vissarionovich, they would have been sent to the camps for 25 years for such a craft, and they would have been right. For such a hack of people who were engaged in this "cartoon", it would be worth forever excommunicated from the keyboard and sent to Central Africa to teach computer science to the tribes of cannibals (if they are still there). The "animation" itself is such that many fourth-year students would be ashamed of it, but the most important thing is that with a great degree of probability the "product" presented in the frames has nothing to do with the real "Dagger".
No, most likely what we saw "under the belly" of the MiG-31 is a real "Dagger" and there is, but here are the shots of hitting the target … It's not even that the storyboard clearly shows that the ammunition is flying into one target (something like a dugout), and another explodes (like a two-story house).
Still, it's not easy to believe that the warhead of our hypersonic missile is equipped with equally hypersonic guest workers who can jump out of it and build a house in a split second that the warhead will then blow up. But the problem is different - while the president talks about the speed of 10 swings, the elongated body falling on the dugout does it at subsonic speed. Look at the storyboard, estimate the missile displacement in individual frames, and remember that there are 24 frames in a second. In each frame, the ammunition flies barely its own length. Comparing the "Dagger" with the dimensions of the MiG-31, we understand that the missile's length is about 7 meters, which gives us a speed of 168 m / s, or about 605 km / h. Not that hypersonic, here and supersonic speed does not smell.
A very simple conclusion follows from this - either the "Dagger" has a 10-flywheel speed only in the marching sector, but in the target area it loses it sharply, or what we were shown is not the "Dagger".
Particular attention should be paid to the second part of the statement. The fact is that many experts (and people who consider themselves as such) analyzed the "Dagger" on the basis of the presented video. At the same time, one should take into account the likelihood that the content of the "cartoon" (in the part where the flight profile and target attack are shown) may not be related to the "Dagger" at all.
From the height of our current understanding of hypersonic speeds, two serious problems with a combat hypersonic missile are evident. The first is agility. No, while it is flying in the upper layers of the atmosphere, there are probably no special problems with maneuverability (in thin air), but the rocket, sooner or later, must descend into the dense layers of the atmosphere - and there will be any significant maneuvers accompanied by exorbitant overloads, which, among other things, will cause a sharp loss of speed. Therefore, as far as the author knows, our high-speed rockets (they are also called aeroballistic, the term is incorrect, but familiar) like the Kh-15, do not make maneuvers, but, having typed a "near-hypersonic" speed, go to the target in a straight line. Their protection is the minimum time remaining for air defense systems to detect and destroy a missile.
The second problem is the "plasma cocoon", where a body moving in the atmosphere at hypersonic speed will fall, and which prevents the missile's homing systems from working. That is, we can fly on hypersonic, but we cannot aim at a stationary (especially a moving) target, and this greatly limits the capabilities of hypersonic weapons.
Let us now recall the frames of the flight path to the target from the "cartoon". First, the rocket soars to high distances, then it dives into the area where the target is located, after which it mysteriously bifurcates (we see two trajectories), makes cunning maneuvers, from which the air defense systems of sworn friends, obviously, should be dizzy, and attacks the target.
From all of the above, I just want to conclude: "Dagger" is an advanced version of our aeroballistic missiles, and probably works like this. It soars into the air, accelerates up to 10M, flies to the target, then begins to descend into the dense layers of the atmosphere. The missile body is discarded as unnecessary and a pair of warheads fly further, which begin to vigorously maneuver in space (most likely - no longer having an engine, only due to the previously gained speed, i.e., like the warheads of intercontinental ballistic missiles). The objectives of the maneuvers are two - to confuse the enemy's air defense and slow down in order to get out of the plasma cocoon effect, so that the homing head is activated. And then the seeker captures the target, the warhead adjusts the flight to defeat it - and that's it, "final la comedy".
Does such a scheme of work of the "Dagger" contradict the words of V. V. Putin? Not at all - re-read the text of his speech. It does not say anywhere that the rocket flies at 10M along the entire route, and there is not a single word about the speed of its warheads.
Everything seems to be logical, but the sad thing is that if (I repeat - IF) the "Dagger" works as described above, then it does not at all represent a "wunderwaffe" that does not care about any air defense. In order to "turn on" the seeker, it is necessary to drop the swing speed to five, and this must be done several tens of kilometers from the moving target in order to be able to correct the flight. Maneuvering to reach the target - again a loss of speed and the warhead will fly up to the target by no means by 10 M, but it is good if by 2-3. Such a warhead will still be a difficult target, but it is quite possible to destroy it.
So what can we say that Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin has once again slightly embellished the real state of affairs? But not a fact. The fact is that the picture of the work of "Dagger" set out above, we built on the generally known and publicly available information that appeared, as it were, not decades ago.
How can you not remember the cutest story published in one of the issues of "Technics - Youth". In the old days, the bishop of the Catholic Church came to inspect one of the secular schools. After checking, he stayed for lunch, which was treated to him by the headmaster. The bishop told him that, on the whole, he was satisfied with what he saw, but, in his opinion, since “science has not yet discovered a single more or less significant law of nature,” more attention should be paid to studying the Law of God. To this the director replied that yes, science is only taking the first steps, but it has a great future, and someday, for example, a person will learn to fly in the clouds like birds.
- Yes, for such words you have a direct road to hell! - exclaimed the bishop … Wright, father of William and Orville Wright, who designed and built the world's first airplane (although their primacy is disputed) and flew on it.
Let's not be like Bishop Wright and admit that science does not stand still: the impossible yesterday becomes possible today. According to some reports, in Germany not so long ago it was possible to solve the problem of the impenetrability of the plasma cocoon, at least for a short time, and who knows what the domestic Kulibins could have thought of?
As a hypothesis, let us assume that a homing missile has been designed in the Russian Federation with a range of 2,000 km, a cruising speed of 10M throughout the flight up to the target itself, and the ability to vigorously maneuver during an attack. To date, such ammunition is really incapable of intercepting any anti-aircraft missile system in the world. Does this mean that the world's surface ships are decisively outdated and no longer have combat value? What changes the appearance of the "Dagger" in modern concepts of building navies?
Surprisingly - nothing.
A bit of history. In 1975, the Soviet Navy adopted the P-500 Basalt long-range supersonic anti-ship missile. For its time, it undoubtedly had no analogues in the world and was an ultimatum powerful weapon that could not stop the air defense of American ships that existed at that time.
The main medium-range anti-aircraft missile in those years in the American fleet was the "Standard" SM-1 of various modifications, but there was no way to use it effectively against the P-500. The fact is that the missile had a fairly limited range (up to 74 km in some modifications), but required constant target illumination with a radar beam. At the same time, the Soviet missile, having discovered its enemy's AGSN, went down, hiding behind the horizon before the deadline, thereby disrupting the guidance of the SM-1 launched at it. It was also extremely difficult to use a medium-range missile on the P-500 after the Basalt appeared over the horizon due to the short flight time of the Soviet missile. The Sea Sparrow air defense system, put into service in 1976, was a very imperfect weapon (the illumination radar operator had to visually see the target) and could not effectively deal with low-flying supersonic missiles.
The F-14 Tomcat heavy deck interceptors equipped with Phoenix long-range air-to-air missiles were specially created to counter Soviet missile-carrying aircraft. In theory, the Phoenixes could shoot down Soviet supersonic missiles at the high-altitude trajectory. In practice, the Phoenixes turned out to be such a complex and expensive weapon that they did not trust the combat pilots of the US carrier-based aircraft (and this is, in fact, the elite of the elite). That is, ordinary pilots and weapon operators of "Tom's cat" did not see this missile in the eye - they did not give it out during the exercises. Naturally, after that it is impossible to talk about any effectiveness of their use in real combat.
Thus, it seems that the last days were coming for the US surface fleet. Well, well, carrier strike groups with AWACS planes could count on identifying and destroying Soviet surface ships at a distance exceeding the P-500 launch range. And what to do with submarines? Yes, at that time a squadron of anti-submarine aircraft and 12-14 helicopters was based on US aircraft carriers, but they could not guarantee control of the underwater situation at a 500-kilometer distance from the aircraft carrier. At the same time, the Soviet SSGN, having received target designation from the Legend MCRTs (which nevertheless sometimes worked exactly as intended by the creators), could, having received target designation from the satellite, fire a salvo, and …
But the Americans did not panic and were in no hurry to abandon their aircraft carriers. In 1980, the American version of the domestic 30-mm "metal cutter" - the six-barreled "supermachine gun" Vulcan-Falanx, was adopted for service. To tell the truth, its effectiveness against the P-500 is somewhat doubtful. Perhaps the "Falanx" could have targeted the Soviet missile, but at such a distance, when its defeat by 20 mm shells did not solve much, because the anti-ship missile went "to the finish line." there the American "metal cutter" did not shoot at the P-500, this very warhead was almost guaranteed to reach the side of the enemy ship.
But in 1983 the cruiser Ticonderoga entered the US Navy with the latest AN / SPY-1 radar, a modification of the missile defense radar. And the new SAM "Standard" SM-2, which no longer required constant tracking of the target by the radar - it was enough to highlight it in the final section of the trajectory.
In the future, the rocket was constantly improved, reaching a range of over 160 km - in other words, American ships were able to shoot down Soviet supersonic missiles before they, having discovered an American order, went to an ultra-low altitude. Gradually, the Americans learned to fight Russian missiles in the low-altitude area - their Spy, being a decimeter range radar, saw the sky perfectly, but very badly - what was at sea level. This problem was gradually solved, and in 2004 a new ESSM missile, specially designed to combat low-flying supersonic targets, entered service with the US Navy. Against Soviet satellites, the Americans developed the ASM-135 ASAT, but in 1988 the program was closed - the United States pushed the USSR's abandonment of the US-A active radar reconnaissance satellites, the most dangerous for the American Navy.
Not immediately, but gradually, step by step, the Americans found ways to counter the Soviet "wunderwaffe". All of these American assets, of course, did not render supersonic missiles useless at all. Granites and Basalts remain very dangerous weapons even today. But … the fact is that the means of attack and defense are in the eternal competition of "shield and sword". At the time of the appearance of the "Basalts", the American "shield", one might say, cracked, but over time, the United States strengthened it to such an extent that it made it possible to effectively resist the Soviet sword. The new US shield did not give guarantees of invulnerability (no shield would give such a guarantee to the warrior carrying it), but the combination of the "shield" (air defense missile systems, etc.) with the "sword" - carrier-based aircraft, gave the US Navy the opportunity to carry out the tasks for which it was created. it is quite effective to deal with the carriers of Soviet long-range missiles and the missiles themselves.
So, if the "Dagger" really has the characteristics that we "awarded" it, then there is no doubt that the American "shield" cracked again.
But just as there is no doubt that the Americans, realizing what they face, in a year or ten will find ways to counter Russian hypersonic missiles and gradually nullify the current technological superiority of the Dagger. Without a doubt, over time they will "tighten" their "shield" to the level of our "sword".
It is necessary to clearly understand that the concept: “For any of your questions, we will give you the answer:“We have a machine gun, but you don’t have one!”” Works exclusively against countries that are seriously inferior to our country in terms of scientific and technological development. In this case, yes, we can create "such devices" that a lagging country simply cannot oppose. And when he learns, we will already be far ahead.
But no matter how much we rejoice in the jokes of Mikhail Nikolayevich Zadornov, who left us untimely, the Russian Federation does not surpass the United States either in the scientific or in the technical levels of development. If we take the purely military sphere, then, without a doubt, we are ahead of the United States in some areas, in other areas they are the best. And this means that the time is not far off when a quite worthy American answer will be found to the Russian "Dagger", and we need to be ready for this.
By the way, it is possible that this "answer" is already there. To do this, we will make another small excursion into history.
Falklands Conflict, 1982 As we know, Argentina had Exocet anti-ship missiles that it could (and did) use against British ships. So, no matter how strange it may sound, but the "Exocets" in their tactical niche in 1982 absolutely corresponded to the Russian "Dagger" in 2018. Please do not throw flowers in pots at the author of the article, but simply compare some facts.
Argentine aircraft could use "Exocets" without entering the air defense zone of the British formation. More precisely, they entered, but the tactics of low-altitude flight did not leave the British time for a reaction, as a result, they could not even fire at the Super Etandars, let alone shoot them down. The missile flew to the target at an ultra-low altitude, at which the main British shipborne air defense systems "Sea Dart" and "Sea Cat" could not intercept "Exocet" - there was no such technical possibility. Theoretically, the newest Sea Wolfe air defense missile systems could shoot down the French anti-ship missile system, but, firstly, they were installed on only two British ships, and secondly, in practice, they did not always have time to work out the subsonic Skyhawks, too. rocket in combat conditions. Rapid-fire artillery, like our AK-630s or the American Vulcan-Phalanxes, could have destroyed the Exocets, but the British fleet did not have such artillery systems. Air wings on British aircraft carriers could neither intercept the Super Etandars nor destroy the Exocets themselves.
In other words, Argentina had a superweapon at its disposal that the British could not intercept with fire weapons (aviation, missiles and artillery) and whose carriers they could not destroy before they used missiles. As a matter of fact, after use, they could not destroy either. Isn't it very similar to the description of the capabilities of the Kinzhal missile system? The author has no doubts that if Argentine navy fans had the opportunity to discuss the upcoming conflict with Great Britain “on the Internet,” as we do today, the thesis “one Exocet missile - one British aircraft carrier” would sound ubiquitous.
Should the author remind who won the Falklands Conflict?
British ships could not destroy missiles and their carriers, but they were able to mislead the homing head of the Exocets. As a result, Argentine missiles hit only those targets that did not have time to set false targets, as happened in the case of Sheffield and Glamorgan. Strictly speaking, the Argentines did not shoot at the Atlantic Conveyor - they used Exocets on British warships, they set false targets, thwarted the capture and the missiles flew into the milk. And there, unfortunately, turned out to be the Atlantic Conveyor, a converted civilian vessel, on which, due to innate British economy, no jamming devices were installed.
Of course, today's British interference GOS 1982 model is unlikely to be misleading. But progress does not stand still, and the Americans have always attached an important role to electronic warfare. And if, according to some sources, today we have pulled ahead in this area, this does not mean at all that the US electronic warfare stations are bad. At the same time, everyone who proclaims today: "One American aircraft carrier - one" Dagger "and" We do not need a fleet, we have a "Dagger" "seem to have forgotten about the means of suppressing the missile homing heads. But no matter how fast the rocket goes, a modern "gentleman's" set of seeker, "working" on mobile targets - radar, optics and "thermal imaging" in the infrared range can be misled in one way or another. But it is very convenient not to remember this - for personal peace of mind, because one so wants to believe that the "gloomy Russian genius" created an invincible weapon that immediately changed the balance of power in the world!
In fact, if the "Dagger" has the performance characteristics that are attributed to it, it really is an extremely formidable means of fighting at sea. It can be stated that the "shield" of the American Navy has once again "cracked", and this gives us for the next 10-15 years much greater operational capabilities than those that we had before. But everyone who speaks today about the uselessness of the military fleet of the Russian Federation, about the obsolescence of large surface warships as a means of fighting at sea, the author of this article asks to think about one very simple idea.
Yes, without a doubt, today we can curtail our shipbuilding programs, give up on the development of means of countering the American AUG - why, if we have the "Dagger"? But if suddenly the Russian Federation takes this path, then after 10-15-20 years the United States will hurry up, and we will find that our "Daggers" are no longer ultimatum and no longer pose an irresistible threat to the American AUG. And we do not have a fleet capable of defending the shores of the Russian Federation, covering the deployment areas of strategic missile submarine cruisers, showing the flag in the oceans, supporting countries where NATO is "bringing democracy". There is only a regiment of completely outdated MiG-31s, which are now no longer even used as interceptors, because the suspensions have been redesigned for "Daggers".
