Short Explanation.

Andrei Raevsky sent me this first and now I noticed our friend Marko also had his hand on the pulse. So, here it is: 

(CNN)The US suffered a setback in the race with China and Russia to develop hypersonic weapons when its latest test failed, the Pentagon said in a statement Thursday. A booster stack, which is the rocket used to accelerate the projectile to hypersonic speeds, failed and the test of the projectile, the hypersonic glide body, could not proceed, the statement said.Because the rocket failed the Pentagon was not able to test the hypersonic glide body, which is the key component needed to develop a hypersonic weapon.Officials have started a review of the test, which took place Thursday at the Pacific Spaceport Complex in Kodiak, Alaska, to understand the cause of the booster failure. 

As I repeat ad nauseam: there are hyper-sonic weapons and there are hyper-sonic weapons. The United States is trying to come up with something like both Avangard (long-range) and Kinzhal (medium range) which are either ballistic or quasi-ballistic weapons which do fly either inside the atmosphere or bounce from its edge, such as those gliders akin to Avangard. Eventually, the United States will be able to come up with something like that and the US desperately wants something like Kinzhal (in effect an advanced airborne version of Iskander). These are weapons which have only a boost phase, after which they fly and maneuver without propulsion. Look also up project Kholod. 

Now, 3M22 Zircon is a whole other animal altogether because it has a propulsion which works till the very end and thus provides this missile with the atmospheric speed of M=10 and the range of 1000 kilometers, coming modification of GZUR and Zircon will have the range of 1500 km and speed in excess of M=12-13. These weapons can attack both moving targets (like ships) and, obviously, stationary objects. These are the real game changers in a real war. If strategic weapons such as Avangard are what the United States wants, those, like any other deterrent exists to... deter merely by the threat of their use in case shit hits the fan. Kinzhal with Zircon, however, are the weapons of battlefield, because their main task is to sink enemy's ships and blow up military facilities using non-nuclear ordnance, albeit these weapons too can carry nuclear warhead and can destroy a good size city. If Avangard was created to be uninterceptable  by dedicated weapons of (strategic) Anti-Missile Defense, both Kinzhal and Zircon cannot be intercepted by existing air-defense and anti-missile systems such as THAAD or SM3/SM6 variety integrated with the AEGIS.   

While Avangard, and Sarmat (especially Sarmat) render any anti-missile defense useless, Kinzhal and Zircon are the most impactful, because they change modern warfare radically and already made modern surface fleets obsolete even within non-nuclear paradigm. As I repeat ad nauseam about repeating this ad nauseam--this is a strategic catastrophe for NATO (and US) because everything what NATO's "fighting doctrine" was built around in the last 40-50 years has become simply useless. I will give some ASW math on that later, but a single Yasen-class (pr. 885) with 15-20 Zircons "parked" somewhere  in the Atlantic in 1000 kilometer range from D.C. is not only extremely hard to detect and will require enormous forces dedicated to this kind of ASW, but controls the movement of any US naval asset from Norfolk or any other base on the East Coast which in case of (God forbids) real war will not be able to deploy. Granted, of course, that Russia builds 10 of such subs, modernizes couple of pr. 949A to AMs (that is 72 cruise missiles, including God knows how many Zircons) and there you go. So, in other words, it is not going to be a single sub. 

In related news, Russia officially announced the increase of range of venerable X-35 (of Bal complex) to 500+ kilometer, after Russkies were scared shitless by great American "strategist", prognosticator, second coming of Clausewitz and Sun Tzu wrapped in one, really, the great heir to the intellectual prowess of Mahan and Zumwalt, David Axe who promised to starve Kaliningrad by Estonian 300 km range anti-shipping missiles. As you know,  Shoigu and Gerasimov start their every morning by going to Forbes site trying to learn if David Axe has come up with a new stratagem designed to defeat those pesky Russkies. So, they went, saw the article on Estonian missiles, got scared and decided that covering both Baltic and Black Seas with the salvos (each of them) capable to contain between 16 to 32 X-35s is a really bad news for any NATO forces there, especially mighty Estonian ones. I would love to explain to David Axe basic math behind Salvo Equations and distribution of probabilities, but I don't think he wants to lower himself to my primitive level, so I have to live with that and I am sure Shoigu and Gerasimov will continue visiting those "military" sites such as Forbes or The National Interests to partake in strategic and operational wisdom of their "experts".

People Who Really Matter.

While Western mass-media sewer (and circus) continues its miasma-generating cycle non-stop, so much so that people who have some decency left can not take this anymore, such as William Arkin of NBC, what really matters and people who really matter remain beyond the focus of this swamp. Too bad, because when Yuri Solomonov speaks, all those Western and many, allegedly Russian, military "experts" better listen. The Chief Designer of strategic ballistic missiles of Topol and Bulava fame, Solomonov spoke recently to Russia's Argumenti Nedeli (Arguments of the Week) weekly, including on video. It is a long interview (in Russian) and Solomonov speaks on a variety of issues, including creation of Russia's brand-new heavy rocket which will take Russia to the Moon and beyond and, of course, he speaks about strategic stability and about, in particular, US ABM technology. Here is one of his opinions:

– Несколько слов по поводу противоракетной системы США, которая должна быть размещена в Северной Европе и на Аляске, чтобы перехватывать наши межконтинентальные ракеты с ядерными боевыми блоками. Скажите, нам этого стоит так бояться?

– Нет, бояться этого не надо. Всё, что связано с существующей противоракетной обороной, давно уже перестало быть тем, что относится к категории военно-технических средств, и «переросло» в военно-политическую область. То есть на самом деле и в общих словах эффективность этих средств ПРО чрезвычайно низка. Другое дело, что когда мы говорим о средствах противоракетной обороны, расположенных на Европейском континенте, это угроза совсем другого типа. Эти средства противоракетной обороны могут быть переоборудованы в средства нападения. И это действительно стоит учитывать.

Translation: 

Q. Several words about US anti-missile system which will be deployed in Northern Europe and Alaska, in order to intercept our intercontinental missiles with nuclear warheads. Please tell, should we be worried?

A. No, don't worry about that. Everything what is related to existing anti-missile defense long ago stopped being a military-technological matter and migrated into military-political field. In reality and in general words the effectiveness of these ABM means is extremely low. Another matter, when we talk about means of anti-missile defense deployed in European continent, this is the threat of a totally different type. These means of anti-missile defense could be reconfigured into strike means and that must be taken under consideration.

Solomonov articulated here, again, Russia's worry about Aegis Ashore installations in Romania and Poland and possibility of those armed with TLAMs (It will happen one way or another, Solomonov thinks otherwise--we'll see, will be glad to be wrong). But Russia's worry is not just TLAMs whose launch will be detected and facilities will be obliterated within minutes, it is also not far fetched to state that most of those TLAMs will be intercepted by VKS. Russians worry about people in US, and there are plenty of those around, with "experiences" in law, journalism, political "science" and "economics", who still believe that there is a chance of "defeating" Russia by some strike of TLAMs while being able to sit out the shitstorm which will engulf Europe after that. Yes, I kid you not--there are people like that in the top echelons of US government and they do have a say in formulation of what passes in US for foreign "policy", that is a combination of bizarre ideas and delusions which are totally foreign to any competent policy--that is what defines it as US foreign policy. 

The other level of this delusion is precisely what Solomonov defines as a military-political, that is unrelated to technology, matter--some kind of pressure or spoiling instrument which should alter Russia's "behavior". This is where we also observe a very severe case of delusion since it is akin to trying to influence a guy carrying loaded Mossberg 12-gauge shot gun with Daisy bi-bi gun. "Influencing", in general, works in dyadic relations only when one side can make the other side hurt in order to condition its responses, that is to say influence its behavior (Pavlovian responses that is)--the United States long ago lost this ability, after March 1st 2018 (in reality, much earlier) this ability was completely reversed, with Russia having more options for response and thus being very flexible. Solomonov merely elaborates on what is already clear for a long time to anyone with even rudimentary understanding of the process of calculation of required force and about response-head-on (otventno-vstrechnyi) strike. 

In a clown show by Al-Jazeera with such "experts" as Pavel Falgnehauer, Richard Weitz of Hudson Institute went as far as stating that latest news on Avangard "do not fundamentally change" the calculus of Russian-American nuclear deterrence, since both sides still retain the ability to mutually "overwhelm" each-other defenses. 

Well, this statement, indeed, could have been made only by an "expert" with degrees in political "science" and "economics" not by professional. Weitz is no professional, he is an agenda-pusher from RAND-induced "think-tank" and has no expertise in modern warfare, Solomonov, however, does. In fact, he is the guy with a world-class top level technological education and military service, you may have guessed it already, in Strategic Missile Troops. Solomonov thinks, when one considers well-known inability of US missile defense to stop even single primitive North Korean missile, and is explicit in defining new military paradigm. 

В этом смысле ядерный потенциал Соединённых Штатов как был мощным, так и остаётся. Другое дело, что, приняв на вооружение несколько модифицированную систему по сравнению с той, что была в Советском Союзе, мы создали новое поколение наземных и морских стратегических ядерных сил, которые минимизировали затраты на их создание благодаря унификации. За последние 10–15 лет мы ушли далеко. С точки зрения тактико-технических характеристик и характеристик, которые вытекают из условий боевого применения, по сравнению с западными аналогами. Это то, чем мы сегодня обладаем по сравнению с американскими аналогами – с точки зрения инвариантности к меняющимся внешним условиям. Ну, например, это появление более совершенных систем ракетной обороны. Например, нанесение ответного удара в более жестоких условиях упреждающего удара, живучести, сохранение средств боевого управления и связи в критических ситуациях неожиданной агрессии и т.д., всё это создало наше преимущество. Действительно, имеет место опережение американцев минимум на 10–15 лет. Это не значит, что они этого не сделают. Если займутся, лет через 
10–15 смогут сделать то же самое.

- Кто дышит нам в спину? Нам и американцам. Я имею в виду членов ядерного клуба.

– Никто. С точки зрения возможности нашего стратегического ядерного потенциала мы далеко впереди. Это не хвальба. Это объективно.

Translation: 

A. (In this sense) the American nuclear potential was and remains strong. Another matter that, by accepting a somewhat modernized system, when compared to the Soviet one, we created a new generation of land-based and naval strategic nuclear forces, which minimized our expenses due to their unification. In the last 10-15 years we moved very far, from the point of view of tactical-technical characteristics and characteristics which are defined by the conditions of combat use, when compared to Western analogues. This is what we have compared to American analogues--from the point of view of invariance to new, changing external conditions. For example, such as the appearance of more advanced anti-missile defense systems. As an example, a response strike under much more difficult conditions of a preventive strike, survivability, retention of the means of control and communications in critical situations of unexpected aggression etc., all that is our advantage. Indeed, we lead Americans by 10-15 years. This doesn't mean that they will not be able to do the same. If they put their minds to it they can do the same.  

Q. Who is breathing down our necks? I mean us and Americans, I mean members of the nuclear club?

A. Nobody. From the point of view of our nuclear potential we are far ahead. This is not bravado, it is objective. 

So, I would suggest Mr. Weitz to read attentively and take in what Solomonov said a week ago and try to understand a simple military truism which today is as valid as it ever was--those who can control escalation, control the war and they create conditions for victory. It is especially true for nuclear age--here it comes--because Russia can conduct strategic strikes at US proper both in nuclear and conventional way and that opens the whole other strategic (and political, and philosophical) can of worms altogether. Continuous deployment of hyper-sonic weapons by Russia today, be that 3M22 Zircon, Kinzhal, Avangard and whatever comes next after them, together with other stand-off weapons, allows Russia to defeat any combination of threats WITHOUT resorting to nuclear weapons. I cannot convey enough a significance of this paradigm shift in warfare, nor can I foresee all ramifications of this, I just know that they are gigantic. But then again, the US either rethinks and cleanses her whole "expertise" field, especially in relation to Russia and warfare, or she will continue to believe in validity of her, mostly wrong, assessments of the outside world and will either stumble into disastrous conflict or will completely fade away as great power. 

P.S.  I will comment later on China's military role in all this--I have some piece on that--I may try first to run it by Ron Unz.  

P.P.S. Recall Frank Herbert's Dune and convention on the use of the atomics--if used without authorization by Landsraad, any house would be completely destroyed. In related news, any Bulava SLBM is capable of carrying several hyper-sonic highly maneuverable blocks capable to provide conventional strikes.