When All News Are Bad.

 You can put this: 

On this:

It is not going to do you any good when you face this: 

Now, it is not a secret--the "performance" of the NATO air defense systems in 404 is shocking (it is also shocking in Israel). It is shocking due to its manifest ineffectiveness and inadequacy for the modern battlefield. A lot (as Larry beautifully put it today), a big tube of lipstick is required. So, neocon central, against the background of the gap in kinetic stand-off weapons and AD systems between Russia and the US widening, decided to announce some "good news". 

A hypersonic weapon is defined as one capable of flying at Mach 5 or faster—over five times the speed of sound. Unlike ballistic missiles, which travel on a predictable trajectory, this type of "superfast" weapon can maneuver in flight, making it difficult to intercept.

Both China and Russia have put hypersonic weapons into service, while North Korea and Iran claim to have developed and tested similar systems. In late March, the U.S. conducted a missile defense test by firing a simulated interceptor at a hypersonic target over the Pacific. The delivery of the upgraded THAAD AN/TPY-2 radar to the U.S. Missile Defense Agency comes as Washington pushes for an American version of Israel's Iron Dome air defense system—also known as the "Golden Dome"—to defend against current and future aerial threats. ... Regarding its hypersonic defense capability, Norman claimed that the upgraded radar can now detect what he called "very small targets" when a missile's booster separates from its warhead after launch. "We can hit it before it starts maneuvering," he told Breaking Defense.

LOL, let me explain something here--we wouldn't expect from creeps from Newsweek rag to have an idea--but the amount of bovine excrement in Raytheon's own Jon Norman statement is through the roof. 

1. United States DOES NOT have real simulator of hypersonic weapon. What is "sold" to the bunch of morons with journo degrees from Ivy League about "simulation" is a horseshit about classic ballistic somehow "emulating" hypersonic weapons merely on the fact that all Intercontinental, Intermediate or even most operational-tactical ballistic missiles reach speeds above M=5 on their boost phase. US has nothing, not even close, similar to Avangard, Kinzhal, let alone 3M22. 

2. The US doesn't have and will not have any kinetic means to hit hypersonic weapon any time soon. Bringing up in the conversation lame Iron Dome, not to speak of ALL Raytheon's (and Boeing's) "Israeled" products which failed miserably in Israel, is a first sign of not only of BS being sold yet again, but a dead-end of development of real hypersonic weapons, not to speak about real anti-hypersonic interceptors.

3. And here is a give away: Regarding its hypersonic defense capability, Norman claimed that the upgraded radar can now detect what he called "very small targets" when a missile's booster separates from its warhead after launch. "We can hit it before it starts maneuvering," he told Breaking Defense. (c) This is a tacit admission of what I speak about ad nauseam--they cannot detect, track and develop firing solution for their arquebuses and can only "detect" separation of the booster. LOL. 

In related news, all radar of Russia's AD systems such as S-400, S-500, S-300V4, S-550, all, without exception, are capable of detecting, tracking, developing firing solutions and HITTING hypersonic targets both in tests and, actually, a little engine that ... or rather little Tor-M2, a close zone AD (company, battalion) scored a shitload of hits on all kinds of 404 ballistic missiles, such as Tochka-U, which reaches the target with velocities slightly above M-5. The capability gap between Russia and the US is colossal and, likely, is not going to be closed. For that, the US can also thank its "imported" Wehrmacht and SS component which "worked" for TRADOC in the capacity of operations' specialists and who sold to NATO a shitload of fairy tales and outright BS about Eastern Front and then laid the foundation for discredited Air-Land Battle, which prevented Pentagon and a bunch of US "historians" and "thinkers" from studying real warfare and developing what ANY serious martial arts course starts with: development of defense, all kinds of blocks, before the student is even allowed to get to hits, kicks and strikes. 

Yes, And?

Those admissions are important, of course. Especially from The National Interest tabloid which gave the start to all kinds of pseudo-military BSers like Michael Peck, as an example. After the departure of Dmitry Simes as its publisher, the whole rag went US exceptionalist until events overtook narratives. Now they admit:

America has all but thrown in the towel in the great race to achieve hypersonic weapons capability. Not only is China ahead of the United States in this domain, but the Russian Federation is apparently lightyears ahead of both. One such Russian system that is redefining the face of modern warfare is the 3M22 Zircon. This impressive system has now been married to the Yasen-class nuclear-powered submarine, giving the Russians an even more impressive—and lethal—capability.

For some reason they put rendering of Kinzhal above the piece, but in general conclusion is correct, despite the fact that 3M22 Zircon's speed is rumored to be more than M=9 and new generation of such weapons will fly even faster and further than already astonishing range of 1,500 kilometers.

The Zircon has already upset the precarious balance of military power between the United States and Russia. The growth of this system, while the Americans find it difficult to field its own similar system or to create countermeasures against hypersonic weapons, risks ensuring that the Russians enjoy the dominant position. Unless America finds a countermeasure or its own hypersonic weapons, that balance of power with Russia will forever tilt in Moscow’s favor. 

It was always about the balance of power and the myopia of NATO's procurement based on obsolete technological and, hence, tactical and operational views. What is most important, however, in all of this is relentless work by Soviet Union and Russia in developing a reliable and survivable system of both surface and space-based recon and targeting allowing for reliable targeting globally. By 1980s USSR had such a system--MKRC Legenda. Today it is Liana. Here, you can access a superb two-part article (by professionals, no less-Ph.Ds engineers) in Arsenal Otechestva (Arsenal of Fatherland) titled: The Concept of Perfecting of the System of Naval Space Recon and Targeting (in Russian). Part 1 and Part 2. On photo is a good ol' Korall-B from Oscar-II (pr. 949A) SSGNs. 

What they describe already exists and now expands. Plus, modern recon is much more than space-based systems--it is also and even primarily so a sensor (data) fusion across all types of heterogeneous sensors, which provides a reliable resolution of uncertainties. 

Meanwhile, Kiev had a night party today and rocked throughout the night:

At the very end you can see the arrival of either Kinzhal or Iskander and that gives you some idea about why the US has neither real hypersonic weapon nor, what is even more important, any means of intercepting it. Trump was "dissatisfied" with massive strikes by Russia. Well, what can I say ... too fucking bad. 

Planning To Talk...

 ... about it tomorrow. I am talking about this: 

Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress

It is a good document by the intrepid Congressional Research Service, which exposes a rather sad state of the affairs in the US military industry but it also exposes a very dramatic lag in air and anti-missile defense in the US across the board. This was prepared in February this year, before Iran demonstrated capabilities or rather lack thereof of all those systems. Moreover, the rigidity of the "planning" in terms of positioning US Navy's Aegis DDGs as possible ABM "outposts" completely ignore the fact that no US Navy system can intercept anything similar to 3M22 with its Mach=9+ and 1,500 kilometer range. Yet, they still grasp for the obsolete systems and operations based on them. 

Obviously claims like these are laughable:

MDA is working closely with the Navy to develop, field, and upgrade SBT defenses to counter more advanced maneuvering and hypersonic threats. SBT Inc 2 is deployed. MDA is analyzing the evasion maneuvers that hypersonic weapons may perform and addressing them in Aegis SBT Inc 3. SBT Inc 3 upgrade and delivery are in 2025 and include terminal defense capability against hypersonic threats. MDA will conduct flight tests against advanced threat-representative targets in FY 2024 and FY 2025…    

For starters one has to have "targets" which simulate hypersonic missiles. The US is not even in the vicinity of fielding even "slow" Mach=5 hypersonic system. But, but... never miss the opportunity to parade oneself as a "winner", LOL))

The U.S. will take even longer to field a purpose-built, long-range hypersonic defense system expected by the 2030s, despite a $1 billion cash injection from Japan, but Pentagon officials say they can speed up a less capable alternative by the end of the decade. The threat posed by offensive hypersonic glide vehicles (HGV) materialized less than five years ago. Russia’s Avangard and China’s DF-17 and -27 missile systems are now operational, with the latter posing a long-range threat to U.S. warships and land bases in the Western Pacific region.

"Less-capable" being a euphemism for some n-th iteration of good ol' SM-3s, which today are made completely obsolete against modern hypersonic weapons. Let alone something like strategic Avangard. By the time in 2030s and IF they will be able to field anything even remotely capable, think where will Russian technology be in this respect. Obviously, RS-28 Sarmat due to its insane energy can fly any trajectory, including through... South Pole, making all those imaginary systems useless. Mind you, Sarmat can carry up to 10 Avangards. Good luck "intercepting" them. I am on record, and you can quote me--the US lost the arms race, especially so, by a knockout, in missile development. Now, it is all Kabuki Theater and damage control mode. Remember--at first slow, and then all at once?

Let Me Think... Hm...

3M22 Zircon: M=9+, range of 1000+ kilometers, AI driven, once several tons of it hit the target--it is over for the target. Now, alternative: rail gun M=7 for a "whole" 23-pound projectile with an "astonishing" range of a whole around 160 kilometers. But, but it is so cool, the iPhone, the Tesla, of naval weapons. Boy, talk about technology mismatch. Talk about a mindless pursuit of "woke" technological and operational BS. Ah, wait...

BATH, Maine (AP) — The U.S. Navy pulled the plug, for now, on a futuristic weapon that fires projectiles at up to seven times the speed of sound using electricity. The Navy spent more than a decade developing the electromagnetic railgun and once considered putting them on the stealthy new Zumwalt-class destroyers built at Maine’s Bath Iron Works. But the Defense Department is turning its attention to hypersonic missiles to keep up with China and Russia, and the Navy cut funding for railgun research from its latest budget proposal. “The railgun is, for the moment, dead,” said Matthew Caris, a defense analyst at Avascent Group, a consulting firm. The removal of funding suggests the Navy saw both challenges in implementing the technology as well as shortcomings in the projectiles’ range compared to hypersonic missiles, he said. The Navy’s decision to pause research at year’s end frees up resources for hypersonic missiles, directed-energy systems like lasers and electronic warfare systems, said Lt. Courtney Callaghan, a Navy spokesperson.

I recall how few years ago, when I would state that this whole rail gun thingy was nothing more than a crock'o'shit which would have zero combat value, many "experts" would laugh at me. Indeed, what do I know. Four years ago I warned:

We entered a missile paradigm some time ago and today missile technology takes us to a completely new capabilities that change not only tactics, they change the outlook of operations and of strategy. No amount of the prohibitively expensive exotic and useless in real combat technology is going to change it. Ranges, velocities, maneuverability,  AI, stealthiness of missiles will only continue to grow until some new technological paradigm unfolds--probably with full robotics, actual combat lasers and other energy weapons which will change the nature of war, but for now: 100 miles range, projectile of M=6, try harder to impress anyone with any knowledge.

Ah, good ol' me, ever so pessimistic and doubtful about this whole Pentagon's war-fighting thingy. Indeed, who am I compared to some political "scientist" from some Ivy League prestigious school who saw so many pictures of weapons and was taught history in which the United States won all of its wars starting from Peloponnesian, Punic and Napoleonic wars. Of course, at this stage one has to ask a very simple question and a painful one: how far the United States lags behind Russia (and China) in hypersonic and laser weapons. Honest answer in terms of hypersonic ones, genuine hypersonic weapons capable of receiving targeting, flying, including within atmosphere, being controlled, locking on target and hitting it--as I say non-stop, at least a generation.  I am not sure about lasers, though, and we all know the real, unimpressive, putting it politely, state of the American air and anti-missile defenses. Here, the lag is not one but several generations. As Pink Floyd sang:

And then one day you find ten years have got behind you
No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun

The United States missed the starting gun on Revolution in Military Affair in 1990 when it convinced itself, against the overwhelming empirical evidence, that is can fight a peer (or near peer) and win. It can't and that is why America is so dangerous today--she is always at the precipice of a historic miscalculation which will see her military's destruction thus triggering the only response the United States has as an option--nuclear. 

 

In a tragic development:

Within hours of the US withdrawal from Bagram - the largest air base in Afghanistan and the longtime hub of America's longest war - looters rolled in. The looters stole laptops and gas canisters from the base, said Darwaish Raufi, a district administrator for Bagram, The New York Times reported. Raufi said the US withdrawal from the base was done overnight and not in coordination with local officials. "Unfortunately the Americans left without any coordination with Bagram district officials or the governor's office," Raufi said, the Associated Press reported. "Right now our Afghan security forces are in control both inside and outside of the base."

Why tragic, you say? Because against better advice and help from friends and even "foes" alike (Russia aided the United States mightily in Afghanistan), the United States accomplished nothing there and it is up to someone else to clean this mess up and deal with a triumphant Taliban. Guess from three times who will be cleaning this goddamn mess, while the United States runs and there are huge issues with...

The Biden administration asked three Central Asian nations to temporarily house thousands of Afghans who worked with American forces and could be targeted by the Taliban as U.S. and NATO troops withdraw after nearly two decades. The U.S. has asked Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan to take in about 9,000 Afghans who assisted with the American military’s invasion and occupation of the country, according to three people familiar with the request, who asked not to be identified discussing private deliberations.

For now, Turkey wants the job in Afghanistan. Let them, Erdogan still thinks in terms of the Great Turan forgetting, of course, that it is the 21st century and Turkey simply has no resources to accomplish things of this scale and nature. Of course, he should remember that neighboring Iran and Pakistan have their own designs in Afghanistan, so it will be fascinating to observe events unfold in that locality. 

Lester Grau wrote 14 years ago: 

"There is a literature and a common perception that the Soviets were defeated and driven from Afghanistan. This is not true. When the Soviets left Afghanistan in 1989, they did so in a coordinated, deliberate, professional manner, leaving behind a functioning government, an improved military and an advisory and economic effort insuring the continued viability of the government. The withdrawal was based on a coordinated diplomatic, economic and military plan permitting Soviet forces to withdraw in good order and the Afghan government to survive. The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA)managed to hold on despite the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Only then, with the loss of Soviet support and the increased efforts by the Mujahideen (holy warriors) and Pakistan, did the DRA slide toward defeat in April 1992. The Soviet effort to withdraw in good order was well executed and can serve as a model for other disengagements from similar nations."  

It took the alcoholic and degenerate Yeltsin and his cabal of "reformers" to shut down any help to Najibullah's government. Otherwise, we wouldn't have had what we have today in Afghanistan, we might not have had a tragedy of 911. But the United States runs and utterly corrupt regime in Kabul starts counting its last months, probably weeks. We will, I have to sadly admit this, witness a tragedy of many people in Afghanistan again, those who believed at some point that some positive change was possible in that cursed land. Boy, they were wrong. As de Saint-Exupéry once prophetically uttered: "You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed." Many people in Afghanistan will learn now that the United States doesn't have responsibilities and is non-agreement capable. But hey, "let's declare a victory and leave" principle is as American as baseball and apple pie.  

But I always recall those Afghan girls who started playing women's soccer--a crime in the eyes of Taliban. What will happen to them? Remember, we are responsible for those we have tamed. Now, watch Russia, her actions.

Now They Finally Admitted It.

Take a gander at that. Congressional Budget Office (CBO) suddenly admitted that, how to put it politely, the United States is indefensible against serious enemy. Like, you know, Russia. And even if the United States invests into the extremely costly CMD (Cruise Missile Defense) things are not exactly working out for the US. 

Limitations of the CMD Architectures That CBO Examined: The illustrative architectures that CBO examined would be subject to several important operational limitations.• The defenses would have limited capacity—eight LR-SAMs and two fighters at a particular time and location. A raid consisting of many LACMs could overwhelm them. For example, a Yasen-class guided missile submarine in the Russian Navy can reportedly carry up to 32 LACMs (3M-14 Kalibr) in its eight vertical launchers.

You can get acquainted with the whole thing by just following the link above. CBO also provides a map, a very useful one, which in this blog and in my books was discussed non-stop and is at the heart of the matter. Here it is:

It is all fine and dandy until one notices this phrase by Vice-CJCS who says that:

The best way to defend the United States from a cruise missile attack may be to focus on where adversaries are keeping the ships and aircraft that could fire such a weapon and not take a broader approach to counter any possibility. 

Now look at the map above, again. Now recall what I wrote two years ago:

Well, what can I say: 3.14 x 1000^2=3.14 million square kilometers of potential search area for a single submarine carrying Zircons. For comparison, 3+ million square kilometers is the area of India. Good luck coming up with the location probability density mapping for this one. Putin went further and simply confirmed that any carrier of Kalibr family missiles is capable of carrying Zircons. OK, the picture of a modernized (that is Kalibrized) pr. 949A (Oscar II-class) SSGN carrying  somewhere between 20 to 50 Zircons is kinda the stuff of nightmares for any surface combatants, but it is what it is. 

Then recall, that already now Russian Navy takes deliveries of a new Kalibr 3M14M with a range of 4,500+ kilometers, which means 2,800+ miles, and this range is not even on CBO's map. Rightly so, because such strikes can be carried out without leaving defended zones for carriers of such missiles, ranging from surface combatants to submarines, to strategic bombers. That was the whole idea behind creation of new missiles by Russia--to force the enemy to deal with them only at the terminal, thus leaving precious little time for detection, tracking and shooting them down. This, mind you, applies only to subsonic land-attack missiles of Kalibr family, everything else in Russian arsenal flies either high-supersonic or hypersonic which is not interceptable in principle by modern means at US disposal. In this case the probability of the leaker is defined merely by probability of normal functioning of the cruise missile. 

Surely, the  geographic peculiarity of the United States is such that frontal defense against the ocean's "background" is a natural choice:

But the ranges of modern cruise missiles are such that, as CBO's report generally admits, this all is good primarily for non-state actors and regional powers trying to attack US territory. In case of Russia and her land-attack cruise missiles, the salvo could be delivered not only by a direct path from a launch point in the ocean but also by means of bypassing future CMDs over land be that Mexico or Canada. In this case, the detection of missiles becomes a daunting task due to:

1. Submarines with missiles being still within the area of the ocean which requires a very large patrol force to conduct an exhaustive ASW search even in case of a reliable datum, e.g. it may take duty Patrol/ASW aircraft 3-4 hours to get to datum to start with, which leaves ample time for submarine to break off; 

2. Detection of terrain hugging stealthy missiles of 3M14(M) variety over the ground is an extremely difficult task because of the ground clutter and other interference. 

3. Launch from a new iterations of "bastions" making any attempts to counter launch itself impractical. 

Here is a demonstration of a salvo of a combined surface-submarine force of Russia's Pacific Fleet at the state of Washington, without leaving a well defended position near Kamchatka Peninsula. 

So, basically, what CBO and JCS are arguing here for is... a lower end, when compared to Russia, limited national air-defense which could be, and most likely already is, too little too late, once one considers a trajectory of evolution (if not revolution) of modern missile technology which already sees ranges of 10,000 kilometers within reach. While 9M730 Burevestnik (Petrel) has basically unlimited range and hypersonic terminal speed. So, in this case the proposal for such a CMD in the United States is more about feeling good because doing something in this field and, of course, good work program for Pentagon's contractors. But CBO's readily admits:

Although CBO’s illustrative Architectures 1 through 4 would provide CMD coverage of the contiguous United States, they would have limitations. First, some of CBO’s calculations of system performance are based on best-case assumptions. For example, radar detection ranges might be less than the distance to the horizon if the architectures’ radars had difficulty distinguishing low-altitude or stealthy LACMs from ground clutter (radar reflections from the surface). Second, imperfect tracking information would decrease the effective reach of SAMs and fighters because they would not fly the shortest route to their target. The range of results for each architecture should account somewhat for such uncertainties. Finally, other factors, including limited shooter capacity, the need for positive identification of targets, and measures that adversaries could take that would decrease the effectiveness of the system—such as programming LACMs to fly indirect routes, launching LACMs close to the border or coast, or using faster LACMs—are worthy of consideration by policy-makers weighing the merits of fielding a national CMD system. Addressing those limitations would increase costs.

In other words, the scenario is built primarily around some "rogue" power (state or group) getting its hands on container type Kalibrs (3M14s) which could be carried by all kinds of commercial vessels and while it is certainly something in terms of defense, in case of serious conflict and if built, this CMD will be of a very limited use against peer, but then again, if, God forbids, this comes to Russia striking the United States proper conventionally, it wouldn't matter because the most likely final state will be a nightmarish scenario of nuclear exchange between Russia, US and, likely, China. This, must be avoided by all means. But the most instructive about this CBO Report is admission of what I wrote about for the last 7 years, in fact, much longer than that--new, radical military technologies are already here and it is them, which forced the United States to face a bankruptcy of its views on warfare and its self-proclaimed primacy in the military-technological sphere. Don't tell me that I didn't warn about it, I, sure as hell, did. Do I have a smile on my smug face right now? You can bet your ass--I do. I love "I told you so" moments. Well, I am a mere mortal sinner;))