Barack Obama ordered to save money. The military answered "yes!" and began to draw up an estimate for 2013, taking into account the wishes of the president. We have already saved about five billion dollars (relative to 2012) and about the same amount will be released in the future. Interestingly, in the set of these five billion, the various parts of the American military machine do not participate on equal terms. Funding for some programs is cut, other projects are closed altogether, and for others, deductions are only increased. The Aegis Combat System is one of those lucky ones.
The Aegis multifunctional combat information and control system (BIUS) (read "Aegis", translated as "Aegis") was originally intended to equip destroyer cruisers with guided missile weapons. The main goal of this system was initially to provide the ability to protect the cruiser / destroyer itself and the ships covered by it from attacks from the water, from the air and from under the water. However, over time, ballistic missiles were also included in the list of targets for ships with Aegis - anti-missiles were included in the weapons compatible with this BIUS. At the moment, ships equipped with the "Aegis" are the basis of the naval unit of the American missile defense system. Aegis is installed on ships of the Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke projects. Since 1983, when the first ship from the Aegis entered service (it was the USS Ticonderoga CG-47), more than a hundred cruisers and destroyers were built, also equipped with this system. However, time goes by and the Aegis complex is constantly in need of improvements and upgrades.
Most likely, the high priority of upgrading ships with BIUS "Aegis" is due to its anti-missile capabilities. It is clear that sea-based missile defense systems are much more convenient than land-based ones. Everyone remembers the tensions that have been going on for several years over the Euro-Atlantic missile defense systems deployed in Europe. In addition to major geopolitical problems, ground complexes have others. For example, it is not always possible to place radars or anti-missile launchers where they are most convenient and effective - the owners of this territory may resist. There is no such problem with missile defense ships. They can freely move around the world's oceans and perform all the necessary actions. Also, ships with anti-missile missiles are mobile and are able to quickly move to the desired area, from where it will be more convenient to intercept enemy ballistic missiles.
The anti-missile weapons of the Ticonderoga-class cruisers and the Arleigh Burke destroyers consist of SM-2 and SM-3 missiles. Despite the obvious conclusions caused by the numbers in the names, these missiles complement each other. The SM-3 is supposed to intercept missiles in transatmospheric space and hit them with a kinetic warhead. The SM-2, in turn, is designed to destroy warheads in the final phase of the flight and does this using a fragmentation warhead. There are also major differences in dimensions, flight data, etc. In theory, one ship can accommodate up to 122 or up to 96 missiles of both types. The difference is due to launchers - on cruisers, they have more cells. However, this is the maximum number of missiles. In addition to anti-missile weapons, each ship must carry anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles, which are also located in the cells of the launcher. Therefore, one ship usually only has 15-20 interceptor missiles of both types.
It should be noted that not all ships with BIUS Aegis are armed with anti-missiles in the state. For this reason, last year the number of SM-3 missiles loaded on ships did not exceed 110-115. However, the Pentagon plans to increase the number of anti-missile ships. As a result of this, by the 15th year, the Americans are going to simultaneously keep 400 SM-2 and SM-3 missiles on duty, and in another five years to pass over five and a half hundred. According to longer-term plans, by 2030 there will be more than twenty times more missiles in service than there are now. You can roughly imagine how many ships will be needed for this and how much area they can cover.
The Pentagon, it seems, also understands how large the total area of responsibility of the ships will be, and for this reason they are going to make their anti-missile shield more uniform. Currently, three-quarters of the anti-missile ships are based or on duty in the Pacific Ocean. The Atlantic accounts for only 20-25% of such ships. In turn, the Indian Ocean in anti-missile terms is completely empty, although this region is not a priority for the American missile defense system. Last year, it was announced that the US Navy would continue to include the new Arleigh Burke Project destroyers with the Aegis BIUS and a 96-cell launcher. The total number of these ships is planned to be increased to one hundred, and it is not a fact that later it will not increase yet. All these anti-missile destroyers will be distributed taking into account the current situation and missile-dangerous directions. So, in the very near future, a full-fledged permanent watch will be organized in the water area of the Arctic Ocean, and the presence in the Atlantic will become more massive, up to ensuring parity with the Pacific group.
In addition to the oceans, the seas also fell into the sphere of interests of American naval sailors. In particular, in the very near future, cruises of missile defense ships to the Mediterranean, Aegean, Adriatic and, possibly, the Black Sea will cease to be isolated events. Last year, the cruiser Monterey even paid a visit to Sevastopol. Probably, now such "guests" will begin to appear on a regular basis. To ensure constant patrols in the Mediterranean, the Americans agreed with Spain to provide a base. In the fall of next year, the first two American destroyers (both with the Aegis and anti-missiles) will appear at the Rota naval base, and then two more similar ships will join them. At the same time, the Pentagon is also interested in the northern coast of Europe. Negotiations are underway with a number of countries to create another base. The area of responsibility of her ships will include the northern seas.
If you look at the map, the areas of responsibility of anti-missile ships near Europe directly indicate that they will cooperate with ground-based missile defense systems deployed in Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania, etc. And this can already be recognized as an attempt on Russia's nuclear deterrent. Official Washington continues to assure that these anti-missile weapons should close Europe from Iranian strikes. Believe them or not? It is hardly worth doing this. Especially in light of other statements. At the end of February, it turned out that some of the allied countries of the States have naval capabilities, which, after appropriate modifications - most likely, they relate to the installation of the Aegis system - could well be connected to a common anti-missile business. So far, these were only words, and they will begin to agree on the subject of such cooperation only in May, at the NATO summit. Due to the fact that most of the US allies are in Europe, one can make an assumption regarding the direction of the allied missile defense system. It is unlikely that Great Britain or Spain itself will send its ships to the Pacific Ocean, so that they are engaged in the destruction of Chinese missiles flying to America. Mediterranean vigils, ostensibly designed to prevent Iranian attacks, seem like a more realistic development of events, but for obvious reasons, the real target is most likely not Iran. The United States also has allies in the Pacific. Japan has already begun negotiations on the modernization of the existing destroyers of the "Congo" class and equipping them with the updated Aegis BIUS. Australia can join the global American missile defense system with the destroyers of the Hobart project now building, and South Korea does not mind using SM-2 and SM-3 missiles on its KDX-III destroyers with Aegis.
But back to Europe. In the coming years, several radar stations and interception complexes will be built in Eastern Europe. The main means of destruction of European missile defense systems will be THAAD complexes. The success of the Aegis Marine BIUS led to the emergence of a competing system. On its basis, BIUS Aegis Ashore is now being created. In essence, this is the same sea-based Aegis in conjunction with SM-2 and SM-3 missiles. The only difference is in the placement features - the ground version is mounted in mobile modules or in bunkers. According to available information, the first Aegis Ashore complex will enter service in 2015 in Romania. It will include a new initially "land" radar SPY-1 and two dozen missiles. It is noteworthy that ground-based missile defense systems will only be armed with SM-3 missiles. This may mean that the eastern European sector of the American missile defense is poorly adapted to defeat ballistic targets that have entered the atmosphere. Interesting fact. It would not hurt to familiarize with it the leadership of those countries that are going to allow the Americans to build their missile defense system on their territory. In 2018, a similar complex will appear in Poland. Its area of responsibility is the northern part of Europe. So tempting to ask: the Americans will again talk about the Iranian threat, right?
These were all placement issues. In addition to dislocation points, American designers and the military are actively expanding the functions of the SM-3 rocket. Its modification Block I a few years ago successfully coped with the task and shot down a failed satellite. During the attack, the spacecraft was at an altitude of about 250 kilometers from the surface of the planet, and its speed was approaching 7.5-8 km / s. SM-3 Block I destroyed the problem satellite only with its own kinetic energy. At one time, this operation caused a lot of noise, and the company that developed the rocket, Raytheon, managed to knock out funding for its further development. Raytheon promises that SM-3 Block II and Block IIA will be even more effective against spacecraft attacks. As for the Aegis control system, its capabilities so far exceed the potential of the missiles in service.
All American steps - both those that have already been taken and those that are only being planned - in the future pose a certain danger to the Russian nuclear deterrent. The modernization of the Aegis BIUS, the creation of the Eastern European sector of the American missile defense system and the equipping of the Pacific fleet with interceptor missiles should be followed by retaliatory actions. It is not at all necessary to take symmetrical measures. For example, it is possible to conclude an agreement on the delimitation of sea areas into zones in which missile defense ships can be located, and free from them. Only the United States, as the initiator of the creation of a global missile defense, is unlikely to agree to such agreements. Very much "Aegis" is useful and promising in order to refuse it.
