Sikorski's Dreams...

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

A Straight Shooter...

... of sorts. Vladimir Putin visiting legendary Obukhov Plant laid it out in the simplest numerical terms today:

Как отметил глава государства, Россия за год производит в три раза больше ракет ПВО, чем США, а в целом оборонная промышленность страны создает примерно столько же ракет различного назначения, сколько все остальные государства мира."Наше производство сопоставимо с мировым производством", — подчеркнул он.

Translation: As the head of state noted, Russia produces three times more air defense missiles per year than the United States, and in general, the country's defense industry creates about the same number of missiles for various purposes as all other states in the world. "Our production is comparable to world production (combined, my clarification)," he stressed. 

That was his comment in support of his other comment that Russia will never run out of missiles. While Lavrov emphatically stated (in Russian) that "there could be no negotiations with Zelensky, including due to impossibility of negotiations through (Ukie) legislation."  Pretty ominous for 404, isn't it. Also, ominous for the combined West which increasingly drowns in a copious amount of BS. John Kerry and clown show in Davos now are:

US climate envoy John Kerry has drawn widespread mockery for his speech to the World Economic Forum, in which he sought to portray the people gathered there as wise saviors of the world. “When you start to think about it, it’s pretty extraordinary that we – a select group of human beings, because of whatever touched us at some point in our lives – are able to sit in a room and come together and actually talk about saving the planet,” Kerry told a WEF panel on Tuesday. “I mean, it’s so almost extraterrestrial to think about ‘saving the planet.’ If you say that to most people, most people think you’re just a crazy, tree-hugging, lefty liberal, you know, do-gooder, or whatever, and there’s no relationship. But really, that’s where we are,” he added. Later in the speech, Kerry lamented that “allegedly wise adult human beings” ignored the science, mathematics and physics of climate change, and said he was certain the world will “get to a low-carbon, no-carbon economy” because “we have to.”

Oh, I agree. People like Kerry DID ignore mathematics and, in general, STEM studies, due to them being primarily lawyers (as Kerry) and political "scientists". In the end, the WEF's big honcho Klaus Schwab's Ph.D. thesis was about... financial loans for the mechanical engineering. I am contemplating writing the Ph.D thesis on the influence of flying RC planes and Lego playing on the non-surgical treatment of severe hemorrhoids in senior citizens. I am sure I can get both my Medical Doctor and Doctor of Engineering degrees through this. I will call the University of Washington tomorrow to inquire about requirements for such advanced programs. So, this is a primer for ya.

P.S. Russia stopped paying dues to European Economic Commission at UN. 

NYT, Again.

But before I continue with NYT, something about execution of 10 Russian POWs by Nazis. Don't get too emotional, by now one has to develop a degree of the thick skin and understand that the use of the term Nazi is not some kind of propaganda hyperbole. Kiev regime is Nazi regime as are people in the West who support it. So, executing civilians, POWs, torturing them, raping etc. is a normal operational procedure for them, especially for a significant strata of military-political-media top in Washington and London. Many of them are sadists and psychopaths and many of them sincerely want many Russians, preferably all of them, dead. They tacitly applaud any kind of atrocity committed against Russians and want even more. There are many people like this in intel community and in Pentagon. This is a hard cold fact of life. I will omit here elaboration on psychological reasons for that in the West (a lot of it has to do with West's decline, especially militarily), as per Kiev--this is what they do, war crimes and crimes against humanity. 

Accidentally, now a part of this reason and growing West's desperation which is a result of sheer ignorance. 

The New York Times on Friday offered four possible explanations as to how Russia was able to launch a massive missile salvo against Ukraine this week, after the government in Kiev, the Pentagon and the British intelligence have spent months insisting Moscow’s stockpiles were running low. Ukraine claimed last month that Russia had used up 70% of its prewar missile reserves, the Times noted, while the British Defense Ministry said the October 10 strike against Ukrainian infrastructure was “likely to constrain their ability to strike the volume of targets they desire in future.” Tuesday’s strike, which the Times described as the “biggest aerial attack” of the conflict so far, featuring 96 missiles, “raises questions about how much Russia’s arsenal may be depleted and whether Moscow will endure by finding alternative sources of weapons.” One explanation comes from the Pentagon, which had claimed that Russia was running out of missiles as early as May. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said on Wednesday that Russia was “reaching out” to Iran and North Korea to replenish its ammunition stocks, though the Pentagon itself has publicly said otherwise. Moscow, Tehran and Pyongyang have all denied this, however. Meanwhile, the US has reportedly been trying to buy artillery ammunition for Kiev from South Korea.

As I already stated many times--the last one being yesterday--average US "journo" from establishment media in the US is semi-literate moron. Some of those morons have Ph.Ds in "journalism" and "communications", others--in political pseudo-science. In other words, using Dunning-Kruger model--it is impossible to explain to most people who graduated all kinds of such "programs", and those who teach those, from the average Western university, that they are ignorant because they are ignorant. They do not know real history, especially of the 20th century, neither do most professors who teach it, they do not understand real economy and how it operates, they have zero clue about real warfare. As the result, despite my, and others, warning since 2013-14 about the US not understanding what it is getting itself into with Ukraine, most military-political-media and business top brass in the US wanted... to kill Russians and destroy Russia. 

Now, as I am also on record--no American servicemen ever fought real large, including modern combined arms, war against very serious, sometimes superior, enemy in defense of his (her) home, period. Russians do it for 1000+ years. Because of that, even when you are well-educated and experienced American soldier, it is still very difficult, not impossible, though, to grasp the intricacies of real war economy, especially when you have been taught "economics" as is taught in the West. Get any top RAND honcho (probably former general) talk to Russian counterpart and you can easily observe how this RAND guy will melt away when faced with substantive issues of arsenals for serious war. Emphasis on "serious". And this is just one example. In other words, American military experiences do not apply to Russia in general. Hence, even when having proper information, many in the US analytical orgs, let alone such toilet paper as NYT fail to grasp basic facts. They do not have skills.

Just a demonstration. In the open, across the whole world. March 2018. 

Начальник Генштаба Валерий Герасимов заявил, что опыт операции в Сирии дал новый импульс совершенствованию системы комплексного поражения противника. МОСКВА, 24 марта. /ТАСС/. Группировки носителей крылатых ракет большой дальности воздушного и морского базирования созданы в РФ на всех стратегических направлениях. Об этом сообщил глава Генштаба ВС - первый замминистра обороны России Валерий Герасимов.

Translation: Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov said that the experience of the operation in Syria gave a new impetus to the improvement of the system of complex destruction of the enemy MOSCOW, 24 March. /TASS/. Groups of carriers of long-range air and sea-based cruise missiles have been created in the Russian Federation in all strategic directions. This was announced by the head of the General Staff of the Armed Forces - First Deputy Minister of Defense of Russia Valery Gerasimov.  

This was four and a half years ago. Now, get an average dumb-ass from NYT, WaPo, Politico or MSNBC, among many others, or some Patton-worshiping West-Point graduate,  and try to explain to him-her-they-those-it-this what it means when Gerasimov makes such statements. Well, you will need to start from demolishing two founding myths of 20th century America, namely that:

1. While America's contribution to the victory in WW II against Hitler (not Japan--here the US did really well, but it was a different kind of war) was significant, many will have to live the fact that despite importance of the Lend-Lease, USSR produced most of its weapons on its own. While doing so, it annihilated 80% of Axis (in reality combined Europe's) forces, creme de la' creme, on its own. In other words, Soviet industrial capacity was immense even in the war time. In general, the US doesn't know real Russian 20th century history.

2. Modern Russia's economy is not only NOT the size of the economy, whatever that means, of Netherlands, but it is much larger than industrial economy of Germany, let alone France, let alone UK. And then one has to explain that Russia practically is 100% independent in her weapons manufacturing, not to mention producing en masse weapons systems of which Pentagon can only dream about.

 

If you succeed making these two points, there are many more, you may also explain that as early as 2015 and 2016 the number, however speculative, because most of it is secret, of Russia's production of the stand-off weapons, namely 3M14 Kalibr and X-101 cruise missiles family was running something on the order of, depending on the source anywhere from 30 a month to 60 per quarter. Even if we assume the more modest number of 60 per quarter, even WITHOUT well documented and publicized dramatic increase of manufacturing as early as 2016, we still get this number: 4 quarters per year x 7 years x 60 missiles per quarter = 28 x 60 = 1,680 missiles of Kalibr and X-101 family at a minimum. But we also know that production was dramatically increased with practically all massive Russia's military-industrial complex plant working three shifts every day since January at least. 

 

My personal estimate of 3M14 and X-101 number alone--I do not count other types such as widely used P-800 Onyx, let alone Iskander--is about at least 2,500 and Russia still maintains most of it untouched, in case she has to face off with NATO proper. When you begin to add here all kinds of other stand off weapons, including very useful X-55s and X-22 and X-32. Oh boy, you are looking at massive arsenal of stand off weapons alone. I know, for NYT it comes as a surprise, but then again, they probably still think that NYC is not a shithole but a great city. You cannot address the provincialism of American "creative" class. And here we are, with these people unable to do a simple arithmetic. That is why they couldn't wrap their brains around the Russian rationale behind letting go of INF Treaty, of which I wrote non-stop in 2018-2019. Russians tacitly applauded the removal of all constrains on emerging dramatic superiority in quality and quantity of Russian stand off missile systems--the fact the US obviously failed to grasp. 

 

Notice? I didn't even count here already used to an astonishing effect hypersonic Kinzhal, nor this teeny-weeny fact of Russian MoD signing a week ago the additional contract for 3M22 Zircon, which is several dozens of additional missiles (in Russian), with this additional contract to be completed in 2023. Now count yourself how many were in the original 2021 contract--100, 120, 150? I wrote three books on military-economic and operational issues. Obviously nobody in NYT or WaPo reads those, albeit I am very pleased that a serious political quarterly American Affairs DID take a note:

But this is not Martyanov’s core critique, which is that the American military is simply not tailored to the needs of today’s world. It is structured for incursions against much weaker opponents—such as Iraq in 1991 and 2003. But it is not in a position of strength when faced with a peer that can compete in terms of troop deployment and firepower. Critical in this respect is America’s continued reliance on aircraft carriers to project power across the globe. “The American super-carrier died as a viable weapon system designed for modern war with the arrival of the long-range supersonic anti-shipping missile,” Martyanov writes. This renders “the 100,000-ton displacement mastodons of the US Navy obsolete and very expensive sacrificial lambs in any real war. Modern Russian hypersonic missiles such as the Mach-9 capable aero-ballistic Kinzhal have a range of 2000 kilometres and are not interceptable by existing US anti-missile systems.” In fact, if an advanced enemy decided to sink a U.S. carrier battle group, it could do so with the push of a few buttons. These missiles cost a few million dollars to make in countries, like Russia, with low labor costs. A carrier battle group, by contrast, costs about $30 billion and has around 6,700 hands on deck. Martyanov seems genuinely concerned that the Pentagon does not recognize the scale of this problem and could deploy a carrier battle group against a competitive peer in the near future. The enormous, immediate losses that would result might force the United States to use nuclear weapons in response.

Yes, my main concern is not some Russian rah-rah to counter American one, albeit it may come across like this sometimes. My main concern always was and is that our new adopted home would commit, again, a cardinal sin of getting involved with the country--Russia--whose real economic, military and other massive capacities across the board remain completely hidden by non-stop propaganda from illiterate, war-mongering and uncultured "top", such as completely discredited, incompetent and malicious US establishment media, who are culpable in the murder of millions of people around the world by the US because they long ago lost any semblance of even basic morality. The latest from NYT proves it again. You neither can teach nor reason with them. In the end, you don't have to. You just keep the score.

Mighty Estonia...

... really wants to "close" Baltic Sea for Russia's Baltic Fleet. 

Tallinn and Helsinki have discussed integration of coastal missile batteries that would enable the two NATO members to blockade the Russian Navy in the Gulf of Finland, Estonia’s defense minister announced on Friday. This would turn the Baltic Sea into a “NATO internal sea,” the official said, echoing comments made earlier by Polish and Lithuanian leaders. “We need to integrate our coastal defenses. The flight range of Estonian and Finnish missiles is greater than the width of the Gulf of Finland,” Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur told the Finnish newspaper Iltalehti. Finland’s MTO85M coastal missiles have a range of over 100 kilometers. The Gulf is about 82 kilometers across from Helsinki to Tallinn. Estonia plans to buy Israeli Blue Spear missiles later this year, which have a range of almost 300 kilometers.

These statements are not surprising for people who went through NATO military "education" and who do not understand that the war is the most democratic procedure and that the enemy has a say too. The enemy being Russia, of course. We should start immediately with the fact of Pevkur being a lawyer, but also with this:

This is the range as measured from Russian Baltic Fleet's main base in Baltiysk (Kaliningrad Oblast), while this is from Kronstadt:

As you can see yourself, modern ships of Baltic Fleet can hit any surface target not only in areas presented but ANYWHERE in the Baltic Sea, even without leaving their piers, because the ranges of modern Russian anti-shipping missiles are all well above 550 kilometers and if Estonia or Finland want to attack Baltiysk or Kronstadt--good luck, because it is well known fact that the best air defense in the world are friendly tanks at the enemy's airfields and missile positions. But let Estonia and Finland feel, even if for a short while important, especially after deploying what amounts to good ol' Israeli Gabriel missile, now in its fifth iteration with all kinds of bells and whistles as seeker. It is still a subsonic missile, however. 

So, if Estonia wishes to experience something like this, which is a Solntsepyok delivery:
 

Among many other things, why don't Estonia try and see what happens. After all, this is what their owners in D.C. want. Nah, I am screwing with you. In related news:

Soldiers from a U.S. air assault division that arrived in Europe in late July are being sent to NATO members in eastern Europe to help protect the military alliance's eastern flank, the U.S. Mission to NATO announced Thursday, as Russia fuels concerns that its war could widen beyond Ukraine. The mission said that nearly 2,400 soldiers would be sent to NATO members Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Slovakia to "reassure our Allies, and deter our adversaries."

Kremlin is in panic, wink, wink. Meanwhile Peskov stated (in Russian) that plant in Ukraine for producing TB-2 Bayraktar UAVs, if completed will be demilitarized. As you may have guessed it, it could be demilitarized from any direction and from any distance. The fact Estonian Defense Minister evidently cannot grasp.

But You Can Call Me Flower If You Want To...

As you know, in the magical world of America's pundits and their Pentagon sources the unsettling feeling was percolating for quite some time now:

The shock from the initially slow, but now greatly accelerating, recognition that the United States was led on a primrose path of obsolete military technologies and operational concepts good only for fighting school kids, still resonates greatly in the circles of the America's military technology brainiacs who came up now with a new thing, which is really an old thing, but is called a new one and, because, as we all know, new names for good ol' shit are good. And, in general, we can call that any name we want. But before I proceed, let me disclose here a startling (for some) fact--image and emissions wise a large caliber self-propelled gun has about the same "footprint" as, say Iskander or Bastion missile systems. About the same size of vehicles, about the same intensity of radio-exchange and so on. Now get this.

The U.S. Army’s top modernization priority is to increase the reach and lethality of its fires, meaning artillery and tactical missiles. To say it has been making steady progress toward that goal would be an understatement; in the near future it will begin deploying weapons that far outclass their Russian and Chinese counterparts.   

OK, sounds interesting, but keep in mind that the shit is written in Forbes, known, among many other ungodly things for partaking in military wisdoms of such "experts" as comic artist with fuzzy biography as David Axe, who periodically creates bouts of a Homeric laughter among professionals. Keep also in mind the fact that this piece is written by Loren Thompson of a Lexington Institute and his biography and set of skills reads like a general set of underlying conditions which brought about a freaking fiscal, political and military mess the United States has become. Here is his "credentials" 

Mr. Thompson holds doctoral and masters degrees in government from Georgetown University and a bachelor of science degree in political science from Northeastern University.  

Make your own conclusions on how one "Ph.D." can teach simultaneously courses in "strategy, technology and media". I wonder if in his spare time he also teaches courses on appendectomy and quantum mechanics. But let's continue, Mr. Thompson discloses that: 

Two weapons in particular break the mold on what the term “fires” has traditionally connoted in Army circles. The Strategic Long-Range Cannon will combine a new gun barrel, projectile and propellant to precisely hit targets up to 1,000 nautical miles (1,150 statute miles) away. That’s greater than the distance from Berlin to Moscow.

And I was, like, sort of, hm...that is interesting--a cannon, with such a range, this is, indeed, a breakthrough, that is until I stumbled into this explanation, after failing to find it in Thompson's pseudo-military Pentagonese semantic BS, and as it turns out:

What gives the SLRC its nearly magical range? One likely solution is ramjet technology. Ramjets are air-breathing engines that use the projectile’s forward motion to shovel air into an intake and then into a combustion chamber, providing a lot of oxygen for fuel and propelling the projectile along at speeds from Mach 3 to Mach 6. Because the ramjet uses available air as fuel, it needs less stored fuel and makes for a smaller overall package. 

Ah, stupid me, I should have known better--they called a ram-jet missile launched from a barrel of a cannon a "projectile". Now, it is clear. It is yet another iteration of a disastrously stupid LRLAP for the cannons on Zumwalt-class DDGs, which were supposed to shoot not really rounds, but missiles and, of course, those "rounds" were so expensive that , well... read yourself:

The USS Zumwalt Can't Fire Its Guns Because the Ammo Is Too Expensive. 

So, what's the difference between this harebrained idea and a new strategic whatever cannon? Simple, more fuel and, hence, longer range for this new (theoretical) missile. It is a missile launched through barrel of a cannon same way as Russian tanks are capable to launch their 9M119M Refleks anti-tank missile through the tank's main gun. Obviously the ranges and targets for Refleks and SLRC, as well as targeting methods, vary greatly but both are MISSILES. Whew, now it is getting clearer. But my interest subsided greatly after reading this from Mr. "strategist" Thompson:

Who provides the targeting information? Target spotting for field artillery typically is provided by warfighting systems organic to the Army, such as scout helicopters and reconnaissance drones. But when targets potentially are a thousand miles away, a different approach will be needed. Gen. Rafferty says much of the targeting information will be provided by space-based assets. That presumably means relying on what used to be called “national technical means,” or spy satellites. Targeting information might also be provided by the F-35 fighter, which is nearly invisible to enemy radar and has extensive recon capabilities.

Yes, we all know that USAF "stealth" aircraft are absolutely invisible to everybody (/s) and they sure as hell will provide targeting, together with always reliable GPS (wink, wink), which, we all know, that if Thompson says:

Like the hypersonic missile, it will have pinpoint accuracy, thanks to GPS guidance.

it must be true and GPS will deliver a pinpoint "accuracy". Once one also considers the fact that the maximum declared speeds for these "breakthrough" weapons is up to M=6, it is worth noting that even in 1980s, during some testing of Sea Sparrow AD system, its missiles locked on artillery shells fired by 5-inch naval guns. Since then, the art of detecting, tracking and shooting down of very high-velocity objects advanced in leaps and bounds, not in the US, though, and modern AD complexes are designed to deal with M=6 missiles. This is if to believe that such a projectile will actually reach those. I have all reasons to believe that this is not the case. I have my reasons, of which I may talk later. 

So, what's the deal with this "cannon" which "shoots" at 1000 miles. I think Mr. Thompson rushes when declares this rather funny contraption a "breakthrough". For starters, he admits himself that:

The pivotal make-or-break year looks to be 2023, by which time both the hypersonic missile and long-range cannon likely will have proven themselves (tests to date have been promising)

Hence, my question, what kind of a breakthrough is this when, it needs to prove itself by the year 2023? Which, of course, as it is apparent from this typical propaganda BS written by an ignorant hack, is still not a guarantee; far from it--the whole "operational concept" comes across as a contrived bungled mess akin to a screenplay of a B-rated 1950-s sci-fi flick. It is clear that the United States is struggling with anything hyper-sonic and is still far away from fielding a complete and proven weapon system. US will get there, undeniably, but this is years away and professionals know this. Even today, when one looks at the type of weaponry Russia fields, it becomes clear that American exceptionalists (many of them being exceptionalists precisely due to their technical, historic, economic and military ignorance) are ready to go any length in their feeble propaganda trying to present either obsolete or preposterous impractical technologies by calling them anything what they are not. But it is nobody's fault, but America's, that she fvcked own missile development so badly, after convincing itself that she fields "the finest fighting force in history"(c). Even China today calls American bluff. 

Chinese general taunts US: Our success against you in Korea 70 years ago serves as a warning to you to stop escalating tensions

Russia called this bluff long time ago and that is the main reason why we will hear about those "breakthroughs" non-stop, after all, we can call them flowers if we want to...    

Guns For Hire?

I stumbled on this just now and was compelled to ask myself a question about purely military-strategic and operational matter: if Saudi Arabia really is afraid (I heard it to be the case) of Iran, what security arrangement thus becomes a most sensible one for her? Get this:

WASHINGTON/LONDON/DUBAI (Reuters) - As the United States pressed Saudi Arabia to end its oil price war with Russia, President Donald Trump gave Saudi leaders an ultimatum. In an April 2 phone call, Trump told Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman that unless the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) started cutting oil production, he would be powerless to stop lawmakers from passing legislation to withdraw U.S. troops from the kingdom, four sources familiar with the matter told Reuters. The threat to upend a 75-year strategic alliance, which has not been previously reported, was central to the U.S. pressure campaign that led to a landmark global deal to slash oil supply as demand collapsed in the coronavirus pandemic - scoring a diplomatic victory for the White House.

It is a very loaded statement which shows both an American oil industry desperation and, simultaneously, extreme limitations, bar some clandestine operation to remove MBS, in measures the United States can take to "motivate" Saudis to dance to the appropriate tune. Considering Saudis' very real fear of Iran and her influence in the region and the fact that US anti-Iranian sanctions have a lot of Saudi "juice" behind them (not just Israeli one) and that Saudi-Iranian "relations" can only be described as Cold War with all "proxies" involved as a result, one has to ask the question, a purely theoretical (I stress this) one: if Iran was forced, could she devastate Saudi oil (and only viable) industry and mount a massive attack on Saudi state institutions? The answer is really simple--if push comes to shove Iran can disrupt with a dramatic effect Saudi oil production and wipe out storage facilities in several salvos of ballistic and cruise missiles and the United States which has Patriot AD complexes in Saudi Arabia will be able to do very little to prevent it. Simple as that. Iran doesn't need, objectively, to "invade" Saudi Arabia to push her over the threshold of economic chaos and, likely, palace coup if not outright revolution. 

Here comes this purely operational consideration: apart from the United States being royally pissed with MBS', and Saudis' in general, irrational behavior (nothing unexpected here, plus the US has this propensity to have among her allies a lowest scum of the Earth), the reality is very simple: if US is provoked to attack Iran, first localities which are getting devastated are US bases in the region and Saudi oil fields and storage facilities. Simple as that. What will be the "weight" of those salvos is a matter for pure speculations, what is clear, however, that Iran has enough of them and with a very good guidance packages to conduct a prolonged operation against variety of regional targets with very high effectiveness, that is to say decent rate of "leakers" against the most sophisticated air and anti-missile defenses the United States can deploy. In the end, nobody cancelled good ol' over-saturation method of overcoming any defenses. Do Saudis know about that? I don't know, they, let's be frank here, suck at everything related to operation of modern technology, let alone combat one. But one thing is clear--not only the United States cannot defend Saudis in case of an actual (God forbids) war, but the United States itself, including through Saudi lobbying, which is as prevalent in D.C. as Israeli one (I don't know what is current going rate for US Congressman or Senator on the market, but Saudis do have cash, for now), may unleash such a war which will not only result in US catastrophic losses against Iran, but will see Saudi's oil treasure burned by a variety of means ranging from missile strikes to oil fields sabotage, which inevitably will lead to disintegration of KSA as such. 

Hm. Thus the question--a very practical one--who can built a proper and effective air and anti-missile defense for Saudis' main treasure while simultaneously restraining Iran. In the end, he bottom line is always not how you live, however important, but if you live at all. Saudis, certainly, saw how certain country conducts object and area defense operations and how she uses both military and diplomatic power to "calm things down" in the country, to he North, infested with Saudis' very own Al Qaeda and Qatar's very own ISIS. They know how it goes there. But then again, Saudis were in the market for technology which actually works for a while:      

Key Point: The Russians have definitely made a breakthrough with sales of weapons to some NATO countries with uncertain futures in the bloc (e.g. Greece, Turkey) and strong US client countries such as Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states such as the UAE. Saudi Arabia’s agreement to purchase the S-400 anti-aircraft Triumf anti-missile system from Russia is a major blow to the United States and its European allies. The deal follows Turkey’s $2.5 billion agreement to buy the S-400, and ongoing negotiations with Egypt for the S-400. Egypt already has the S-300VM system (also known as the Antey 2500) which can engage short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, precision guided weapons, strategic and tactical aircraft, as well as early warning and electronic warfare aircraft. (Originally the S-400 was called the S-300 PMU-3.)

So, you get my drift, right? As I say all the time--in matters of life and death nobody cares how shiny things are, everyone needs and wants the only one thing which matter--a thing which saves your life. That begins to explain a funny statements from Saudis few days ago when talking about Russia being "a family" and that close families always settle their quarrels amicably. You know, all kinds of statements of this nature from the highest power levels of Saudi elites. So, in this case, let me go out on a limb here and propose that Saudis may, actually, have been thinking about changing their posse for a while. In the end, Saudis' main enemy in the region, Iran that is, is in a fairly close relations to Russia who does have some influence on Iran. This influence is, if anything else, dramatically in Saudis' favor because Russia not only doesn't want a war in the region, but has enough wherewithal politically, economically and militarily to, indeed, calm things down. Moreover, behind Russia, which is taking Saudi's share of oil market, is rich China, with her global trade plans. So, Saudis, I am sure are thinking deeply now if they have to go out looking for new guns for hire. Especially, since Russia is openly in this business selling the most desirable, most coveted and most valuable product globally--political stability. How Russia does this, you all know, I write about this for years. In this case, Trump's threats of denying Saudi Arabia American "protection" may not be necessarily a bad news for at least some segments of Saudi princes who surely know where their instincts for survival lead them.    

Not Really A Surprise.

Hindustan Times reported this on January 20th : 

800-km range BrahMos missile to be tested this year

As the newspaper reports:

“The Sukhoi has a range of 3,600 km. Arming it with an 800-km range missile will increase its reach tremendously, and even more, considering the option of midair refuelling,” the official said.

The missile’s land and naval variants are already in service. At least two Su-30 squadrons with 20 planes each are likely to be equipped with the air-launch variant BrahMos missile, 500 kg lighter than the land/naval variants.

Two Su-30 jets have been modified by the Nasik division of the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited to carry the 2.5-tonne missile that flies at nearly three times the speed of sound.

BrahMos, being a derivative of Russia's P-800 Onyx missile, pretty much demonstrates an inexorable step of anti-shipping missile weapons' development, in which range and speed will continue to increase dramatically. Part of the answer to this development is, of course, in fuels and materials. With hyper-sonic Zircon 3M22 being already in IOC stage and having new, very high impulse, fuels developed for it, it is no surprise that very soon, if not already, we will see high supersonic weapons such as Onyx being capable to cover distances in 1000+ kilometer range and that changes naval warfare completely. Just to give an idea what it means to search and "secure" (in civilian lingo) the area of operations for, say, Carrier Battle Group, we may say that it will require a coverage of the area: 3.14 x 1000^2= 3 140 000 square kilometers, within which the salvo of such missiles can be launched by a single or combination of platforms. This is about the size of India and only if the launch is done by submarine or surface ship.

So, you get the idea. Modern space and over-the-horizon reconnaissance systems can provide real time picture of the surface and targeting pretty reliably. And then, of course, comes the issue of missile-carrying aircraft's ranges and that gets us altogether into the very remote sea and ocean zones. For India and her Armed Forces such a capability comes very handy if one considers that India views Indian Ocean as her internal lake and is not very happy with China being present there.  In related news, as Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov stated two days ago, Russia's Pacific Fleet will get all four modernized Project 949A Oscar-II SSGNs by 2021, with the first modernized one, Omsk, delivered this year, one year earlier than planned. Each of those subs will carry 72 3M14 and 3M54 Kalibr-family missiles and who knows what else--we may only speculate.

   

A Rail Gun Myopia.

Make no mistake--I get it: new technology, electric power, some futuristic looking setup and a nice demo pictures and... and... drum roll--a promise of new capability. This is how the US Navy's Rail Gun program was and is being "sold". For people who are not well-versed in naval warfare I may make a simplified description of several major geometric figures which define it:

1. A straight line (angles--bearing, azimuth, course, path etc.). The derivative of this line is a directed segment aka vector--matters great deal; 

2. A sector--well, it is self-explanatory;

3. Most important: A Circle--it's radius being a range of anything from radar to weapons. It's first derivative being a sphere which either protrudes (with great deformations) up--into the air, or down--into the water. 

Why is this important? It is important since this is how any decent naval professional views the world around himself when at the sea on a combat patrol.  Modern combat technology increased the radii of those naval circles tremendously, that, in its turn, brought a revolutionary change to naval and air (and even ground) combat. This became possible, apart from generally incredible development of C4ISR capabilities, due to the combat ranges of  anti-shipping cruise missiles (ASCM) growing by the order of magnitude since 1960s. And here is the issue: we already know that we live in a hyper-sonic paradigm with modern ASCMs capable of launch almost 700 kilometers (700/1.852=378 nautical miles, or 437 statute miles) from the target just on target's current (or even obsolescent) geographic coordinates. For air-launched ASCMs such as X-32 the range grows to 1000 kilometers. The salvo of missiles launched from the surface combatant or from submarine from this maximum distance will reach the position in between 20 and 5 minutes--depends on the velocity. Now draw the circle with the radius of 700 kilometers--you may scale it (say, 7 centimeters) on the piece of paper to do so. We count the area: pi x 700^2= 1, 538, 600 sq. kilometers. This will be, roughly, of course, the area you would be able (granted reliable targeting information) to cover with you ASCMs, apart from the fact that your ASMC DO have active radar (and other) seekers which have the range of detection of surface targets up to 70 kilometers. Here is what the area of 1.5 million square kilometers looks like, roughly. 

   

This is the circle--range which allows one to keep under the aim the territory which is roughly a half of Western Europe. By 2020s we all will live in a hyper-sonic (M=5+) cruise missile paradigm. We also know that 3M22 did reach M=8, we also can see ranges to grow even further, AI becoming even more sophisticated, trajectories varying from sea-skimming to stratospheric extreme maneuvering--all making those missiles NON-interceptible by any existing and short to mid-term perspective anti-missile means. And the question then is this: which new "capabilities" does the rail gun program provide? The answer is--none, zilch, nada. 

The Navy’s Much-Hyped Electromagnetic Railgun May End Up Dead In The Water

It is an interesting piece but I disagree with the title--it is not "May End Up", it already "Ended Up" as nothing but some technology demonstrator for hipsters. A Tesla of the weapon systems. It became a classic case of "polishing a cannon ball in hopes that it will fly further."  The projectile (which costs an arm and a leg) of rail gun flies with Mach=6? OK, did those rail gun enthusiasts check modern ships' designs as of lately? No, well--they better start learning fast that most modern ships will succumb to a regular high explosive shell of any modern naval gun with caliber of 76 mm and higher. But get this, boys and girls:

“In 2015, SCO realized that the HVP, originally conceived as a specialized shell of the railgun, was just as effective when fired from a conventional powder cannons like the Army’s 105mm and 155mm M109A6 Paladin self-propelled howitzers and the Navy’s deck-mounted Mk 45 5-inch guns. A May 2016 report from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment found that large caliber guns could fire an HVP between 10 and 30 nautical miles at Mach 3, faster than conventional unguided rounds. We thought railguns were something we were really going to go after,” then-Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work stated at the Atlantic Council in Washington, D.C. in May 2016. “But it turns out that powder guns firing the same hypervelocity projectiles gets you almost as much as you would get out of the electromagnetic rail gun, but it’s something we can do much faster.”

But, but they said that the round originally should fly the whole 100 nautical miles when fired from the rail gun. Assuming it would have been that (I doubt it greatly, but just for the sake of argument), this is how rail gun range would compare (rail gun in blue) to a capability of ASCMs:

   

  

Some will say that I miss the point and those projectiles would be great against some third world shitholes, but, wait a minute, against shiholes without any competent and well armed forces even regular shells are doing just fine. Same effect for a much smaller expense. Does it mean that those whom the United States got used to bomb with impunity into the stone age now developed an immunity to a classic 5-inch shell or good ole Tomahawk and now could only be scared shitless by new projectile fired from the rail gun? Obviously not, but now, as it was the case with Israel attacking Syria in 2013, modern ASCMs can easily out-range and outperform any projectile fired from any rail gun, especially when they have a good targeting and can reach far beyond the horizon. Will such missiles proliferate? You bet. They already do. Iran eventually will reach some serious anti-shipping capabilities, China and India--they are getting there. So, what will be the point then to bring the knife to a gun fight? This is the main, existential question to American R&D and procurement practices, which Colonel Daniel Davies called "an outright danger to the nation. Perhaps nothing exemplifies this threat better than the Pentagon’s dysfunctional acquisition system."

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. For now, however, these good ol' guys don't go anywhere and they are there to provide relatively short range solutions both against surface baddies and against shore--a fraction of cost of the rail gun and a very satisfactory effect. 

 

Lieutenant X On (The Fate Of) Aircraft Carriers-II

Back to our incognito US naval officer. LT X points out what seems to be an axiom, that is a statement which requires no proof:  

Never in its history has American naval aviation confronted a state-of-the-art, integrated air defense system and provided effective, strategic ordinance. Hypothetically, at times during the Cold War, American strike-configured carriers might have done so, but an era of fiber-optically interlinked, multi-frequency, phased array air defense systems totally precludes such operations. Moreover, naval aviation assets lacked the range to strike strategic targets deep in mainland China and central Russia, limited to around 1,000nm inland.

Well, this argument shouldn't be limited to US naval aviation only. Last time United States faced half-decent adversary capable of a full spectrum warfare, that is ranging from guerilla to full blown combined arms operations.... I would say Korea, and even this is a stretch. Now comes the issue of naval aviation as a "decisive" force in power projection. One of the first US military professionals who questioned the status quo, based on what LT X characterizes as a combat history "polluted by naval aviation", was Colonel Douglas McGregor who in his seminal Breaking The Phalanx pointed out what many knew all along--air forces are simply more "productive" when "projecting power" from their land bases. 

FWEs (Fighter Wing Equivalents) numbers speak volumes. But that is, of course, when one considers an enemy such as Iraq, which neither wanted nor realistically could attack staging areas and airfields of anti-Saddam coalition. But in any case, mathematics (arithmetic) is simply not there when it comes to naval air power "projecting power", especially if this projecting to be done against competent and more-or-less equipped enemy. But that is an arithmetic approach, pure quantitative, comparison of forces; algebra, let alone calculus of such a "projection" will reveal a much grimmer reality for a "projector". I already addressed partially this issue before, here and there, among many other places. It is still arithmetic approach of a linear comparison of forces, the profile of modern battle against developed A2/AD will be extremely complex and against peers, who can deploy, apart from state-of-the-art air defense, capable air forces, it will be a death knell for carrier aviation. 

As Admiral Kuznetsov's latest deployment to the shores of Syria demonstrated fully--the ratios which McGregor refers to (EAW) generally hold. Combat "input" of Kuznetsov's air wing was  marginal at best when viewed against the background of operational tempo of Russia's Air Space Forces there, including, at some point, of some SU-33s being based directly to the Khmeimim airfield due to Kuznetzov's arresters malfunction. Of course, proponents of carrier aviation will make an argument that Kuznetsov is an old carrier and its air wing was not large at all. Against 87 aircraft which Russia's AF had at Khmeimim by November 2015, Kuznetsov carried 14 fixed wing aircraft and 18 helicopters. Out of those only 4 MiG 29Ks and 4 KA-52K were dedicated ground attack aircraft, with SU-33s being equipped with Gefest SVP-24 which gave them a robust ground attack capability. Yet, roughly 4 times larger Air Force (Air Space Forces) contingent from Khmeimim (80+ aircraft of all types against Kuznetsov's ground-attack 18) flew on the order of magnitude more sorties and, it could be stated, played a decisive role in achieving a strategic reversal of the situation in Syria. But Syria was in many respects a repetition of what US combat aviation encountered in its operations against Iraq or Afghanistan--an opponent with no viable air defense and air force. In the peer-to-peer scenario things change dramatically because:

1. Carrier aviation will face real air forces at the enemy's "shore" or even at their carrier stations. As Roger Thompson writes in his important book: The Israeli Air Force, also one of the most professional in the world, has outshined the U.S. Navy, and they have done so even with less capable aircraft. A joint U.S.N.-I.A.F. air combat exercise in 1999 underlines and highlights the thesis that the U.S. Navy is overrated. On September 14, 1999, The Jerusalem Post announced that the Israelis soundly dispatched the air wing from the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt (which, incidentally, was the same carrier the Dutch destroyed in 1999). Israeli F-16s squared off against American F-14s and F-18s, both of which are said to be more capable than the F-16. The final results were astonishing. The Israelis shot down a whopping 220 U.S. aircraft while losing only 20 themselves. The 10:1 kill ratio was so embarrassing that the results were not “officially published ‘to save the reputations of the U.S. Navy pilots.’” The magazine article on which the article was based, however, reported the kill ratio to be about 20:1. Some dispute these figures, and claim that the Israelis had an “unfair advantage,” and did not include American victories from “stand-off missile hits.” But, as The Washington Times reported on September 15, 2000, an official investigation by Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn, U.S.N., confirmed “Navy pilots were thoroughly beaten in an exercise against Israeli fliers. ‘An air wing commander was proud the Israelis only achieved a 6-to-1 kill ratio during simulated air-to-air combat maneuvers against a carrier air wing during a recent exercise, instead of the 20-to-1 kill ratio initially claimed.’”  

It is a tactical axiom that land based aviation, its pilots, dedicate more time to actual combat training than their deck based colleagues, who must train constantly in carrier deck landing and take offs--a very complex skill but which doesn't add much to combat efficiency in the real battle but surely works well as an "argument" in the penis measuring contests between naval and air force aviators. Carrier aviation, however, will face forces who do not care much about deck cycle and have no problems with taking off and landing in any conditions. This is not to say that there are no excellent pilots in carrier aviation, far from it--many superb pilots fly from carrier decks but in case of "power projection" against "peer" they must expect facing jets and pilots who are at least equal and often superior to them and the times of carriers being relatively safe on their stations are coming to an end. Peers and near peers are not only getting excellent jets and training, they also develop "pushing out to sea" methods to protect their own shores and inland. 

2. Missile-carrying submarines, both SSGNs and SSKs. A two-layer (double-range) barrier which starts at a remote sea or ocean zones--this is where modern SSGNs deploy. They will carry extremely potent anti-shipping missiles, many of them. Project 949A (Oscar II) SSGNs are being modernized to carry 72 anti-shipping missiles and not just some missiles--capabilities of something like P-800 Onyx, especially in salvo of 4-6 or 8 missiles. Deployment of even a single such sub creates an extremely serious containment factor, especially if the deployment is "supported" with heterogeneous forces capable to prevent or extremely impede operations of enemy's ASW (Patrol) Aviation in remote sea or ocean zones. Conditions for such a force I will review later in this series of posts. This is the first edge (rubezh) of the defense (or deterrence), the second one being in own littoral with missile-carrying SSKs which will be reliably covered by own air force, ASW-Patrol Aviation and will have an advantage operating against enemy's SSNs. 

The factors, most important of them--missiles, which will, and already influence modern carriers' operations are in play and will only increase their role. Modern missile weapons and platforms which carry them have matured. This is a deadly technological and tactical-operational mix which leaves for CBGs only open oceans to sail in relative safety, far from the littorals of "peers". The coming of 3M22 Zircon (and more tamed Russian-Indian Brahmos-II) will make combat operations of CBGs impossible since there will be no defense against such menace, even if one considers all those promises of laser weapons which exist mostly on paper and in labs and will not become usable weapons for a long time. In the end, even a laser beam must be pointed at the target, that is have all angles (bearing or azimuth and elevation) in order to have a chance at one missile, facing 8 simultaneously? 20? 32? Paradoxically, it is in the open oceans where these magnificent beasts such as US Navy's CVNs will find their end because they will be useless there providing barely a cent of a bang for a ten billion plus of a buck. But here we inevitably get from technological and operational level to a doctrinal one and a nation's views on the armed forces' creation, maintenance and use.  Paradigm shifted and if carriers do not want to disappear completely they will have to change, and they will.  How? That is a billion dollar question. Aviation still has and will have a use over oceans and the first thing which comes to mind is ASW. Remember this...
     

Zumwalt's Idea.

Or this?

                   

There is a reason why I follow closely the fate of F-35B.   

 

 To Be Continued....