Predictions of a new Cold War and a new arms race between Russia and the United States are increasingly heard. This topic attracts the attention of military experts and the general public. As a result, numerous attempts are being made both in our country and abroad to compare the current situation and the potential of the two countries, as well as to draw some conclusions. Consider one of these attempts.
On June 1 last year, the American publication Popular Mechanics published an article by Joe Pappalardo entitled "How Russian and American Weapons Would Match Up in a New Cold War". The title fully reflects the goals of the author - he made an attempt to compare the existing military developments of the two countries and draw conclusions about the balance of forces. It should be noted that a little more than a year has passed since the publication of this publication, which allows us to compare the conclusions of the American author with the results of subsequent events.
At the beginning of his article, J. Pappalardo notes that when comparing the armed forces of Russia and the United States, it is difficult not to go to the calculations of the times of the past Cold War, especially when you consider that a significant number of weapons of that era are in operation to this day. In addition, Russia and the United States remain the largest sellers of weapons and military equipment, which is why fairly old systems are in the arsenals of a significant number of countries.
At the same time, the United States and Russia are currently developing new models that will determine the face of a possible new Cold War and various armed conflicts of the future. In this regard, the author of the publication Popular Mechanics made an attempt to consider new promising developments and determine which of the "competing" countries has advantages.
Robotic systems
J. Pappalardo recalls that in recent years, joint combat work of humans and robotic systems has become the norm. Wheeled and tracked vehicles of this class were actively used by the American army in Afghanistan and Iraq to solve a wide range of tasks, including demining, reconnaissance and destruction of various objects. In recent years, robotics has received a tangible boost related to the conduct of military operations. As a result, in a relatively short time, many robotic systems were created, from light 5-pound reconnaissance vehicles to tracked vehicles weighing 370 pounds, capable of carrying machine guns and grenade launchers.
Russia, the author notes, also did not sit idle and was engaged in its own projects of military robots. In June last year, during the "Army-2015" exhibition, several new samples of such systems were shown. The exhibits included automated minesweepers, fire robots, as well as equipment armed with small arms and rocket weapons. Also, the leaders of the Russian military department stated that by 2025 a third of the equipment of the Russian armed forces will be robotic.
According to the American author, in the field of robotics, the United States is currently the leader. This conclusion is due to the presence of a mass of projects of such systems, as well as extensive experience in their combat use. Also, the American industry has some advantage in the form of more advanced technologies.
Tanks
Every year in May, Russia demonstrates the latest models of weapons and military equipment. In 2015, the latest armored vehicles took center stage in the parade on Red Square. Armored combat vehicles are considered by Russians to be a reason for pride, and are also deservedly considered as one of the main reasons and means of victory in World War II.
The foreign press immediately drew attention to the newest Russian main tank T-14 "Armata". Among other things, it is called the first Russian tank, created after the iconic T-72. Thus, for the first time since the seventies, the Russian industry has built a truly new tank. The T-14 tank is built using the most powerful crew protection, is equipped with advanced armor and carries an uninhabited turret. The media actively discussed the possibility of equipping the Armata tank with a 152 mm gun with a significant increase in firepower. As a result, the newest Russian tank turns out to be a "supreme predator" that is extremely difficult to kill.
At the same time, the United States is preparing new projects to keep the existing relatively old tanks in service. It is argued that new American modernization projects are based on expanding capabilities over the current state of technology. Industry efforts are focused on ensuring that the existing M1A1 Abrams tanks remain a serious enemy in the future. The latest upgrade options for this technology involved the use of new infrared systems, new instrumentation for crew workstations and a remotely controlled combat module.
Popular Mechanics recognizes Russia as the leader in the field of tank building. He notes that the new is not always the best, and that the Russian defense industry cannot match the Soviet one. However, trying to counter Russia's new armored vehicles would be a bad idea. Armata tanks appear to be very effective and are also equipped with modern armor and detection systems. All this makes the T-14 a dangerous enemy.
Rocket artillery and missiles
The "god of war" in the current situation can be multiple launch rocket systems: hardly anything can compare with the rain from warheads delivered by missiles. With the use of unmanned aerial vehicles capable of searching for targets and determining the results of a strike, artillery can increase its potential in counter-battery warfare. For this reason, artillery, including rocket artillery, must have high mobility in order to get away from a retaliatory strike in a timely manner.
Both the United States and Russia are armed with self-propelled MLRS of medium and long range. At the same time, however, the two countries created their complexes in accordance with their own views. Thus, the United States created the M142 HIMARS system. On the self-propelled chassis of this vehicle, a package of guides for six 227 mm missiles is installed, capable of delivering cluster warheads with various submunitions to targets.
The HIMARS complex differs from other systems in its high accuracy of hits. In addition, the American industry has created a similar high-range system - ATACMS. Also MLRS type ATACMS receives a missile with a 500-pound warhead. A characteristic feature of American multiple launch rocket systems is the ability to use satellite-guided missiles capable of hitting various targets. According to available data, to date, 570 ATACMS missiles have been used by the army in a combat situation. In addition, in May (2015), the developer and manufacturer of new systems Lockheed Martin was awarded a new contract to continue the production of missiles, totaling $ 174 million.
Russian creators of multiple launch rocket systems use different ideas. Traditionally, the number of missiles in a salvo has a higher priority than their accuracy. The standard look of the Russian MLRS looks like this: a truck on which a launcher is mounted with a large number of missile rails. For example, the BM-21 Grad combat vehicle is built on the basis of a three-axle cargo chassis, carries 40 guides and can use up the entire ammunition load in a matter of seconds. Here J. Pappalardo recommends recalling the HIMARS system with an ammunition load of six missiles and a little more accuracy.
Nevertheless, the Russian armed forces also pay great attention to other missile systems. It is armed with mobile complexes with long-range missiles, which can be used to attack various objects on the territory of Eastern European NATO member states. The Iskander-M operational-tactical missile system (according to NATO classification - SS-26 Stone) deserves special attention. After 20 minutes of preparation, such a combat vehicle can launch a missile with a range of about 250 miles and a warhead weighing 880 pounds. In this case, the missile deviates from the calculated point of impact by only 15 feet. Russia regularly conducts exercises using Iskander-family complexes. In addition, these complexes are being deployed in new areas. For example, the deployment of Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad region makes it possible to significantly expand their area of responsibility.
According to the author, Russia is the leader in the field of rocket artillery. Russian MLRS are not very accurate, but the use of reconnaissance drones and spotters can significantly increase the effectiveness of existing equipment. In the case of operational-tactical missile systems, the Russian advantage is associated with the advantages of the "home field". Russia has the ability to deploy missile systems in various areas, and also has a significant number of bases and the ability to supply them.
Barrel artillery
J. Pappalardo recalls that artillery from the very moment of its appearance was the main threat to the enemy troops. The experience of recent conflicts, in which American and Russian troops had to take part, clearly showed the importance of ground forces in general and "traditional" cannon artillery in particular. Weapons of various classes have played a vital role in all recent conflicts.
Artillery requires high mobility to survive in modern warfare. For example, US Marine Corps gunners operating M777-type towed howitzers can change positions using MV-22 Osprey tiltrotors. Rotary-wing vehicles are able to lift guns together with the crew and deliver them to the required area, compensating for the initial low mobility of the towed artillery. In addition, US troops have "big guns" on self-propelled chassis, but this technique is not new.
The main United States self-propelled artillery unit, the M109 Paladin, entered service back in 1969. Over the past decades, this armored vehicle has undergone several upgrades, as a result of which the troops now have the M109A7 type self-propelled guns. This modernization, completed relatively recently, implies the use of some new systems, including an updated power supply complex based on an auxiliary power unit. This increases the operational characteristics of the self-propelled gun, opens the way for new upgrades, and also improves the basic fighting qualities. Thus, the M109A7 ACS is now capable of firing up to four rounds per minute.
Meanwhile, Russia is developing completely new systems. At the parade on May 9, the newest self-propelled artillery mounts 2S35 "Coalition-SV" were shown. Various innovations are used to improve the characteristics of the new system in comparison with the existing ones. For example, it became possible to use corrected projectiles, which are self-guided at a target illuminated by a laser. Another characteristic feature of the new Russian self-propelled gun is the ability to use various types of ammunition loaded into an automated stowage. All operations with ammunition are carried out without the direct participation of people.
The author of Popular Mechanics cannot determine which country has the advantage in the field of barrel artillery, as a result of which he renders a verdict: a draw. United States artillerymen are capable of moving both on the battlefield and in the air, which greatly increases the mobility of formations, as well as allows them to launch attacks from unexpected directions. This gives the American artillery certain advantages. At the same time, Russian artillerymen may not fly in the combat area in order to find a convenient position and strike. In addition, the Russian army has good combat vehicles. Nevertheless, the United States has good potential in tracking a ground enemy and then destroying it with air strikes.
***
The article "How Russian and American Weapons Would Match Up in a New Cold War" was published about a year ago, but generally remains relevant. The weapons systems of the two countries considered by J. Pappalardo have not disappeared, and new projects have advanced even further. For example, American troops have already mastered the upgraded M109A7 self-propelled guns, and are also preparing to receive updated M1A2 SEP v.3 tanks. In addition, the Russian T-14 tank is preparing for future serial production, and the troops have already received a significant number of MLRS of the Tornado family, which are distinguished by increased characteristics.
However, there have been some developments in the past year that could have influenced the content of the Popular Mechanics article if it had appeared later. Thus, the main sensation last fall, which occurred during the Russian operation to combat terrorists in Syria, was the use of cruise missiles of the Caliber family. Such weapons have been used several times with remarkable results by ships and submarines of the Russian navy. It would be very interesting to see what the American author would compare the Caliber missile with and what conclusions would be drawn about it.
Also in Syria, several types of aircraft showed their potential in a real conflict: both the relatively old Tu-95MS, Tu-22M3 and Tu-160, and the newest Su-34 and Su-35S. This technique, capable of striking various targets using a wide range of ammunition, could also make an interesting comparison.
Moreover, for some reason, J. Pappalardo did not consider a lot of other types of weapons and equipment of the two countries that have appeared in recent years. It would be interesting to look at a comparison of the latest Russian and American-made fighters, submarines, various types of ammunition, etc. Nevertheless, it seems that the format of the article forced us to abandon the consideration of these samples.
The resulting comparison - albeit an abbreviated one, as well as a very conditional one - can be a kind of reason for pride. When comparing the potential of the two countries in four regions, it turned out that Russia wins in two "nominations", while the United States retains only one such victory, and the state of affairs in the field of barrel artillery does not allow us to accurately determine the advantage of one of the countries. As a result, Russia defeats its potential adversary in a hypothetical Cold War with a total score of 2: 1.
Nevertheless, one should not forget that all such comparisons are very conditional and cannot claim to be true. To determine the real situation with all its nuances, it is required to conduct more serious and in-depth research, which, for obvious reasons, can hardly be published in open sources and in articles of the usual format. However, even then, articles like "How Russian and American Weapons Would Match Up in a New Cold War" in Popular Mechanics are of some interest.
