The probable enemy is doomed to keep a perimeter defense
Today, no one doubts that the defense doctrines of the leading states are military space. The strategic American concept of a rapid global strike, among other things, provides for the widespread deployment of space platforms for launching weapons of destruction. Not to mention the fundamental build-up of the satellite constellation of support. To repel a possible counterstrike, a comprehensive missile defense program is being forced. Russia has its own principled approach to such a challenge of the time.
Nuclear answer …
Let's start with the Americans. And right from the conclusion. American military-strategic planning does not provide for the creation in the foreseeable future of new systems of nuclear missile weapons. Certain work in this direction, of course, is being carried out, but they do not go beyond the scope of research, at least R&D. In other words, they intend to "dominate" in the military-technical plan without relying on nuclear weapons.
In this regard, recent studies by the California Institute for International Studies and the James Martin Center for Nuclear Nonproliferation Issues are indicative.
As for ICBMs, at the end of last year, the Air Force began analyzing the possibilities of replacing existing missiles with a new model, but nothing concrete has come out yet. The costs of the corresponding research and development work are modest - less than $ 100 million.
The last time the American ground nuclear component was rearmed in the mid-1980s with the MX Piskiper missile, which was subsequently removed from combat duty. Be that as it may, today only the Minuteman-3 ICBMs, a development 40 years ago, are in service in the United States.
According to the above sources, the Trident-2 SLBM currently in service will remain in this status until 2042. Something new for the Navy will come off the drawing boards no earlier than 2030.
The US Air Force currently has 94 strategic bombers in service: 76 B-52 H and 18 B-2A, which began development in the early 50s and late 70s, respectively. The fleet of these machines will be in operation for another three decades. There are plans to create a promising long-range strike bomber LRS-B (Long Range Strike-Bomber), but sources do not have any details regarding this program.
On the other hand, there is an acceleration of the US space defense programs, in particular the reusable X-37 apparatus capable of carrying out a long-term flight, which is necessary, for example, to service orbital platforms for basing missile weapons and satellite constellations.
The Americans do not want to get involved with nuclear weapons for obvious reasons. Today the threat of local armed conflicts is more likely than a couple of decades ago. We have to fight with varying degrees of intensity more and more often. Nuclear weapons, in this case, are simply not suitable by definition. It can, of course, be used in a preemptive strike, which is tantamount to aggression, or as the last defense trump card when it comes to the existence of a country in principle. But the one who is the first to decide on nuclear madness will immediately become a world outcast with all the consequences, regardless of the noblest reasons that prompted the opening of atomic "zinc".
Today we need effective, and most importantly, real shooting based on high-precision ballistic and cruise missiles, including aerospace-based missiles.
The stake of the Russian Armed Forces, as before, is placed on nuclear forces, with the traditional emphasis on ground-based complexes. Solid-fuel monoblock "Topols" of various basing methods have recently "spawned" two modifications with MIRVs. We are talking about the RS-24 Yars and RS-26 Avangard missiles that have been adopted, which, according to the statement of the Strategic Missile Forces commander, Colonel-General Sergei Karakaev, are planned to be put on alert next year. It is interesting that as the reason for the creation of this complex, the commander-in-chief of the Strategic Missile Forces named, among other things, opposition to the American global strike. But it turns out that this is not enough. Even taking into account the famous "Satan", which is a little below.
On the last spring day, Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov confirmed the development of a new heavy liquid-propellant mine-based ICBM with the working name "Sarmat". “We are in the midst of work on a heavy rocket. A number of R&D projects are underway to forestall the threat posed by a global strike from the United States. I believe that this component (strategic nuclear forces) by the end of 2020 will be re-equipped not by 70 percent, but by 100 percent."
Major General Vladimir Vasilenko, the former head of the leading rocket and space research center, NII-4 of the Ministry of Defense, spoke about the tasks in connection with the new development at the end of February: deployment of missile defense. Why? It is a heavy silo-based ICBM that makes it possible not only to deliver warheads to targets along energetically optimal trajectories with rigid, therefore predictable, approach azimuths, but also to strike from various directions, including delivering blocks through the South Pole."
“… This property of a heavy ICBM: the multidirectional azimuths of approach to the target forces the opposing side to provide a circular missile defense. And it is much more difficult to organize, especially in terms of finance, than a sector missile defense system. This is a very strong factor,”Vasilenko said. "In addition, a huge supply of payload on a heavy ICBM allows it to be equipped with various means of overcoming missile defense, which ultimately oversaturate any missile defense: both its information means and shock."
What conclusions can be drawn from everything you read and heard?
First. Potential and any other adversary for us, as before, is the United States. This fact is emphasized at the highest levels, for example, at the recent "round table" in the State Duma on the sore, hard-to-solve problem of aerospace defense.
Second. We oppose both offensive and defensive US strategic non-nuclear initiatives as a whole exclusively offensive nuclear programs.
Third. If we successfully implement our plans with a new rocket, we will become the first country ready to launch nuclear weapons into space. Meanwhile, this process is objective. No one disputes the fact that outer space is a potential theater of military operations. That is, weapons there, depending on the chosen direction - nuclear, kinetic, laser, etc. - are just a matter of time. Moreover, placing nuclear weapons in space is far from a new idea.
Nikita Khrushchev's "Global Rocket"
As soon as, following the principle of nuclear fission, it was possible to release a myriad of energy, and the minds of Oppenheimer and Kurchatov imprisoned it in "Fat Men", "Babies" and other "products", the idea arose to deploy such a weapon in Earth orbit.
In the late 40s - early 50s, the Germans, who were generating American military space thought at that time, proposed space as a base for nuclear warheads. In 1948, the right hand of Werner von Braun, the head of the German rocket center in Panemünde, Walter Dornberger, proposed placing atomic bombs in low-earth orbit. In principle, there are no “closed” territories for bombing from space, and such weapons seem to be an effective deterrent.
In September 1952, at the very peak of the Korean War, von Braun himself proposed a project for orbital stations, which, in addition to conducting reconnaissance, could serve as launch sites for missiles with nuclear warheads.
However, the tight-fisted Americans quickly realized what it would cost them to build orbital complexes with weapons of mass destruction. In addition, the accuracy of the orbital bombs left much to be desired, since at that time it was not possible to develop the proper orientation system necessary to accurately determine the position of the weapon relative to the target. And there was absolutely no technology for maneuvering warheads in the final atmospheric section.
In the middle of the last century, the United States preferred land-based and sea-based ICBMs. The USSR is another matter. "… We can launch rockets not only through the North Pole, but in the opposite direction too," Nikita Khrushchev, the then leader of the Soviet Union, announced to the whole world in March 1962. This meant that the missile warheads would now fly to the United States not along the shortest ballistic trajectory, but would go into orbit, make a half-turn around the Earth and appear from where they were not expected, where they did not create warning and countermeasures.
Comrade Khrushchev was lying, of course, but not completely. The design bureau of Sergei Korolev has been working on the GR-1 rocket project since 1961. The forty-meter three-stage rocket was equipped with a nuclear warhead weighing 1,500 kilograms. The third stage just helped to put it into orbit. The firing range of such a rocket had no limitations by itself.
On May 9, as well as at the November 1965 parade, hefty ballistic missiles were transported across Red Square. These were the new GR-1. “… Giant rockets are passing by in front of the stands. These are orbital rockets. The warheads of orbital missiles are capable of delivering sudden strikes at the aggressor on the first or any other orbit around the Earth,”the announcer said happily.
The Americans demanded an explanation. Indeed, on October 17, 1963, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 18884, which called on all countries to refrain from placing nuclear weapons into orbit or placing them in outer space. To which the Soviet Foreign Ministry explained: the resolution prohibits the use of such weapons, but not their development.
True, the missiles that were transported across Red Square remained mock-ups. The Royal Design Bureau did not manage to create a combat model of the GR.
Although in reserve remained an alternative project of partially orbital bombardment of the Mikhail Yangel Design Bureau based on the R-36 - R-36 orb ICBMs. This was already a truly orbital nuclear weapon. A two-stage rocket with a length of 33 meters was equipped with a warhead with an instrument compartment for the orientation and braking systems of the warhead. The TNT equivalent of a nuclear charge was 20 megatons!
R-36 orb system. consisting of 18 silo-based missiles was put into service on November 19, 1968 and was deployed in a special positioning area at Baikonur.
Through 1971 inclusive, these missiles were fired several times as part of test launches. One of them nevertheless "got" the United States. At the end of December 1969, during the next launch, a mock warhead, which received the traditionally peaceful designation of the Kosmos-316 satellite, entered orbit. This very "Cosmos" for some reason was not blown up in orbit, as its predecessors, but under the influence of gravity entered the atmosphere, partially collapsed and woke up in debris on American territory.
Under the SALT-2 treaty, concluded in 1979, the USSR and the United States pledged not to deploy combat missiles at test sites. By the summer of 1984, all P-36 orbs. were removed from combat duty, and the mines were blown up.
But, as you know, a bad example is contagious. Developing a new ICBM MX "Piskiper" since the late 70s, the Americans could not decide on the method of basing in any way. The Air Force command rightly believed that for the fantastic striking power of the Soviet land-based nuclear forces at that time, it would not be difficult to destroy most of the position areas of American continental ICBMs in the first strike.
Fear has big eyes. Very exotic methods have been proposed. For example, to anchor rockets on the seabed near their home shores. Or to dump them for greater safety at sea after receiving a "strategic warning" from surface ships and submarines. Calls were heard to withdraw missile warheads in the event of a crisis into the "waiting orbit", from where, in the event of an unfavorable development of events, to re-target the warheads to ground targets.
To whom "Voevoda", to whom "Satan"
Today, when talking about plans to develop a new heavy liquid ICBM for solving relevant problems, we must not forget: the Strategic Missile Forces already have such a complex in service, however, without "orbital" capabilities, which does not detract from its merits. This is all about the same P-36 project, which formed the basis of the famous line of Russian ICBMs.
In August 1983, a decision was made on a deep modification of the R-36M UTTH missile, an early brainchild of the R-36, so that it could overcome the promising American missile defense system. In addition, it was necessary to increase the protection of the missile and the entire complex from the damaging factors of a nuclear explosion. This is how the fourth generation R-36M2 Voevoda missile system was born, which received the designation in the official documents of the US Defense Ministry and NATO SS-18 Mod.5 / Mod.6 and the formidable name "Satan", which fully corresponds to its combat capabilities. In Russian open sources, this ICBM is designated RS-20.
The Voevoda ICBM is capable of striking all types of targets protected by modern missile defense systems, in any conditions of combat use, including multiple nuclear impacts on the positioned area. Thus, conditions are provided for the implementation of the strategy of a guaranteed retaliatory strike - the possibility of ensuring missile launches in conditions of ground and high-altitude nuclear explosions. This was achieved by increasing the survivability of the missile in the silo launcher and significantly increasing the resistance to the damaging factors of a nuclear explosion in flight. The ICBM is equipped with a MIRV-type MIRV with 10 warheads.
Flight design tests of the R-36M2 complex began at Baikonur in 1986. The first missile regiment with this ICBM went on alert on July 30, 1988.
Since then, the rocket has been successfully fired repeatedly. According to official statements of the Strategic Missile Forces command, its operation is possible for at least another 20 years.
