After the publication of an article about the new Arms Program of the Russian Army, it became necessary to narrow the topic somewhat. Agree, it is quite difficult to read in all seriousness that the new Program will be adopted in this form because there is not enough money in the country without a smile. It is strange that we do not know this … Just like reading about the need for new tanks, guns, aircraft. For some reason, some people do not want to "remember" at all what they themselves have repeatedly written and said. In particular, about the generals who are preparing for the past soldiers.
Alas, but conservatism in thinking, which we are constantly reminded of by our own proverbs and sayings (including, by the way, the one I wrote about above), is embedded in us so deeply that we no longer consider ourselves conservatives. No, we think in a new way … Only in old categories.
To begin with, I would like to ask a simple but important question to the readers. It is clear that the question is from (God forbid) science fiction, but still. Dear, where are you going to fight? Purely geographically? "The old fashioned way," as our former brothers from one of the southern countries suggest? When the enemy must "enter your house", and then you will arrange the St. Bartholomew's Night from the caches and other dugouts for him? And it doesn't matter at all that even after your victory, if it comes, which is doubtful, your house will turn into ruins. The main thing is victory.
Or are you still going to win so that your home, family, and your town remain intact? You are going to defend what you have to defend! Protect, but not destroy. As written in the military doctrines of most countries. By the way, "by age" both points of view on "future war" are probably "the same age".
Here is an example of our reflections. Very often, and this is probably correct, we compare our tanks with Western ones. We write especially often about the Israeli tank and our promising one. Simply because colleagues from Israel really "own the material" and adequately justify their statements. The dispute is endless … Endless simply because the Israeli tank and the Russian tank were originally intended for different purposes. Throw an "Israeli" into our forests or off-road in the Baltic states, for example. How many minutes will you need a tractor to rescue him. Conversely, the same tank is on the defensive. Yes, and prepared. The conclusion is simple. Our tanks are not so much a weapon of defense as of a breakthrough. And they are able to act independently. The Israelis were originally defensive vehicles. Such a concept was laid down in them during the design. The main thing is to protect the crew …
I don’t want to, but let me remind you of the hackneyed truth. The army must have sufficient weapons and military equipment. This is the concept of necessary sufficiency. In a modern war, no one will allow you to deploy new production facilities "beyond the Urals". And the war itself will not be measured in terms of duration. We must fight back the enemy and strike back.
And now about what some of our readers do not want to notice. About new weapons, which are already known. Not about those who "came to us from the USSR", but about really Russian developments. Indeed, it is in the future armament of the army and navy that we will find the answer to my question. Not in theoretical disputes about the advantages of a particular strategy, not in scientific disputes about the possibility of using weapons of mass destruction. The answer lies in the weapons that we have or will have. Are US aircraft carriers designed to defend the country? Or missile submarines? Anyway, the Strategic Missile Forces? And what about new air defense systems for attack?
Let's start with the first part of the combat mission, which the Armed Forces of the country must perform - to repel the enemy's attack. What do we see today in this direction? Take a look at our latest generation anti-aircraft missile systems. Almost all of them have significantly increased the range. Why?
For a military man, the answer is obvious. The Russian army must be able to repel a blow on the distant approaches to its borders. And have time to respond to the blow with their own. Keeping the enemy away from the troops. Moreover, developing this idea, such a concept speaks of another feature of "Russian" strategic thinking. Such a response to a blow does not imply the use of weapons of mass destruction! Conventional weapons will be used.
Many today talk about a critical lag in Russia in the production of unmanned aerial vehicles. And not only flying. We don't brag about our drones. Hence, some conclude that they do not exist. Okay, but if you look closely?
Russian land drones are quite competitive with any Western ones. Both combat vehicles and special ones. The Syrian war has shown the successful use of some of them. But the main reproach is still to the UAV. We don't have expensive shock drones. And even about the development of such machines is not heard.
It seems to me that here again it is worth talking about the concept of the development of this "arms branch". Initially, we went our separate ways with the West. For Western armies, the drone is nothing more than a substitute for a soldier. Thanks to Hollywood. Hence, these drones will be developed in the same way as shown in the series of films about the terminator. In the beginning, just a car that is controlled from a distance. Then a machine with the possibility of "independent thinking". Well, then "artificial intelligence". Simply put, a dead end. And the cost of such smart machines is prohibitive.
And we have? And we are developing quite cheap, one might even say disposable, vehicles for reconnaissance and adjusting artillery fire. And they are used more often for tactical purposes. And the number of such UAVs is growing at a rate worthy of a good sprinter. With the advent of "artificial intelligence", creating mechanics is not a problem …
From the same part of our combat mission and the development of new electronic warfare systems. There is no need to talk about the capabilities of modern Russian electronic warfare systems. Those who closely follow the publications in the press know what these systems are. The "invisible hat" in action. And, sometimes, a means to "lose consciousness" of modern "smart ammunition".
There is one more topic. But I cannot talk about her today. Not because the topic is closed. No. Simply because what is said on this topic is most often the thoughts of specialists or the speculations of "specialists". I'm talking about cyber weapons. Therefore, it will be enough to express the opinion of Western analysts and specialists. Russia already today can quite effectively resist the West in cyber warriors.
Probably, it is enough to describe the capabilities of our army in the field of defense, I am sure that "narrow" specialists will be able to expand the list of these "capabilities". My task is different. Let me remind you that we were talking about the concept of the development of the new Russian army.
So, the second part. The new army's response to the attack. Amazingly, I again observe the "80s thinking". Remember our last "Hurray!" Precisely from the point of view of the use of weapons? How did Russia surprise the world with "NK gauges"? How many words have been said about our "defense workers". Well deserved. The rocket did not disappoint. But where did this rocket come from? And she flew in from the 80s … It was then that the idea and implementation appeared. Further, just revision. The same can be said about Iskander-M.
And what do we see from the 2000s? In particular, in Syria? And we see surprisingly good and productive work of our videoconferencing systems. Unlike Western airstrikes, Russian ones are much more accurate. At the same time, judging by the picture from the TV reports, the Western coalition is using high-precision weapons, while we are conventional. How does this happen? Pilot skill?
And that too. Only, as it seems to me, there is another explanation. It's all about the quality of the ammunition. Recently, our southern neighbor had another peremogy. They tested a new "high-precision" missile for MLRS. I put the word high-precision in quotation marks simply because, according to the test results, the deviation from the target of this missile is up to 15 meters … In the conditions of field use, given the mass of the explosive, it is quite "high-precision". And what about equipped positions? Where is an accurate hit required? It is the same in Syria. The Americans are bombing squares with precision.
I repeat, in my opinion, I don’t and cannot have exact data, we are using high-precision weapons. One bomb or missile is enough to destroy the object. The rest, already really ordinary, are destroying the infrastructure. This is where the skill of the pilots comes into play. Completely their merit.
This means that the new Russian army will pay great attention to precision weapons. In a situation where the enemy's volley is immediately followed by a "response" with an accurate hit on the battery, it is doubtful that the fighters of the next battery will be happy to work out their volley. A peculiar tactic to intimidate the enemy, followed by destruction …
Let's see further. And then the S-500 air defense system … Then the hypersonic "Zircon" … Next PAK FA and PAK YES … Next Armata with the company … If you look at the line of future weapons, not from the point of view of the possibilities of its production and creation, here our engineers and designers have proved many times, that almost everything can, but from the point of view of application, a completely clear picture is obtained. We will fight outside the country …
Yes, just outside … We, as I think, Russia is forced, but quite rightly, to change the approach to its army. We will not smash everyone and everything. To release those who will then "forget" everything again. We reserve the ability to respond to a group strike. For this, the necessary and sufficient mass of means of destruction will be retained. But we will, and in many ways can already, have the ability to deliver single, but precise, strikes against the enemy.
Today, nuclear weapons are no longer a deterrent. If you look at the statements of some politicians, you can see complete indifference to the consequences of a nuclear strike. Let's hit and that's it. And there are already the enemy's problems. And ordinary people began to somehow disregard weapons of mass destruction. I remembered how one of the very respected military experts from Israel recently replied in our TV program to a question about a nuclear bomb from his country. "Maybe eat … Maybe not … But I don't advise you to try to take it away from us …". The quote is not literal. But the meaning is just that.
A completely different "scarecrow" has come to the fore today. This is an opportunity to actually receive exactly the same bomb in response … Not hypothetically, but in reality. No options. And the Russian army will soon be ready to provide such an opportunity to a potential adversary … Even without using nuclear weapons. There is always a daddy for the American "mother of all bombs". And to treat our army today, as in the 90s, is already stupid.
On the whole, we cannot get involved in the arms race today. There is no money, but we are holding on … Changes in world politics, breaking up of the old system of relations between states, almost always ended in military conflicts. So, today no one denies the possibility of such a situation.
However, for the third time I will remind readers that it is not the quantity of weapons that determines the capabilities of the army. Opportunities are determined by the necessary sufficiency of weapons … Not only the world is changing, but also the derivatives of this world. Including such specific ones as war. It is important to notice such changes in time. And take steps to eliminate the lag behind rivals and opponents …
