Read it. Now for people who continue to propose idiotic schemes such as "Russia should have transferred to Iran ..." 3M22 Zircon, Kinzhal (with MiG-31 K, right?), S-500, Oreshnik et al. So, you are proposing Russia transferring to Iran systems so advanced that CIA, Mossad and MI6 would kill to even have a pick at them and in the country where fifth column is still active. Get a grip. This is not military technology fanboys' blog. I do actually have professional military background.
While at it--this is the dawning on some Iranians who those diaspora are.
Good for this (drop dead gorgeous BTW) girl that she understood. These are precisely the people who BSed morons in D.C. that Iranians will rejoice and embrace "democracy", same types who convinced CIA and others that "Putin's Regime" is about to fall. Their MO is always the same.
To understand the scale it is enough to mention that Russia is using up to 500 air defense missiles DAILY--primarily short to mid-range AD complexes such as Pantsir, Tor and Buk of various iterations. Here is a demonstration:
This is a rather "calm" day and only 147 UAVs have been shot down, then there are always all kinds of shit like HIMARS et al--they also get shot down (most if not all of them) and just for the 29 September 2025 Russian Army's expenditure of missiles (including missiles of Igla type launched often from Ka-52 and Mi-28 helos). There is, obviously, EW too. The average daily shooting down of UAVs alone throughout SMO is about 180 (178, actually) per day. So, we can now move into a very rough estimate for UAVs (alone, I stress it for UAVs alone). We reduce the number of those UAVs shot down by AD missiles (for convenience) to 100 daily.
So, the basic math, then, is such: 100 daily shot down by AD missiles (no EW, no anti-drones, no AAA), SMO lasts 1,313 days so far. So, we multiply 100 by 1,313 and get 131,300 air defense missiles of all kinds. If you think that this:
Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg is playing an “unusually” hands-on role in the effort, reportedly known as the Munitions Acceleration Council. The WSJ noted that the top official personally calls some executives on a weekly basis to track their progress. “President Trump and Secretary Hegseth are exploring extraordinary avenues to expand our military might and accelerate the production of munitions,” Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell told the newspaper. “This effort has been a collaboration between defense industry leaders and senior Pentagon officials.” The new acceleration council is focused on 12 weapons that the Pentagon wants on hand for a potential conflict with China, the WSJ relayed. Some officials and experts have reportedly expressed concerns that the Pentagon’s goals may be unrealistic, citing the fact that assembling certain missile systems can take up to two years. At the same time, certifying new suppliers requires hundreds of millions of dollars to ensure the products meet military standards. Funding remains another major concern, according to analysts cited by the news outlet. While the “Big, Beautiful Bill” recently approved by Washington provided an extra $25 billion in munitions spending over five years, meeting the Pentagon’s new targets could require tens of billions more.
Is going to help--I have a bridge to sell you. For war with China the US will need not 12 but likely 120 types of weapons most of which do not exist in nature--the emphasis on AD. Especially considering such a teeny-weeny fact that with Russia having China's back--a fact which is well-known--one MUST ask the question of what happens when Russia either transfers or deploys and mans her weapon systems to aid China? We know the answer. Or rather, we know that there is no answer quantitatively and qualitatively if, God forbid, crazies in D.C. decide to test REAL opponents. But then again, all this hassle in D.C. is yet another indication of a collapsing empire and there are no "extraordinary avenues". To fight REAL war the US must have a political and economic system based on fundamentally different principles which is impossible to conceive today in the country which largely faked its military history of the XX and XXI centuries.
Danish definitely have a thing for Russians, for some reason, as for Germans ... Look at this guy, he is ready to roll into Volgograd Oblast at the head of mighty Naz ... pardon, German panzers.
So, what can I say. Or rather Medvedev already stated--may be it is time to off Europe once and for all and put it out of her misery?
It is not very difficult to do. Meanwhile, 404 terrorists are getting close and personal to Hungarians living in 404:
"Magyars--on knives". Hungary is keenly aware of the intentions of 404 Nazis. Hey, these are favorite people of Sikorski, CIA, MI6. But in a surprise discovery--who would ever thought:
One of the most poignant movies--a masterpiece, in fact--about Great Patriotic War. On UTube and HBO Max.
There are still many in the US military-political top who still believe, due to the low mental abilities, that one can fight with overpriced and dubiously effective US-made weapons (euphemism for junk), but as long as European populace is whipped literally and figuratively speaking into the concentration camp mentality and brainwashed, which is easily done, into hatred of Russia, it will be easy to kill off whatever is remaining of European industries and military-industrial complex. "And did we tell you the name of the game, boy? We call it Riding the Gravy Train" as immortal Pink Floyd defined it. Morons in D.C. still think that they can do both mutually exclusive things--ride the gravy train selling military junk to Europe, while simultaneously whipping Euro-cucks into the war frenzy for yet another march on Moscow. Cretins from D.C. still think that they will not be turned into the parking lot, or that one can fight the war of the 21st century based on TOE from 1990. But ...
Fact is, the process is underway and accelerating:
Even by the fake GDP metric used by all kinds of finance shysters from the US it is clear where it is all going. I warned about it for many years. Now it has come to fruition. Have a cigar, boys.(c)
... loves to pat itself on the back, but it has to be understood that bragging often divorces people from the reality completely. The US Navy certainly has a magnificent combat history, and its submarine force remains if not the best then at least one of the two best submarine forces in the world. But statements like these:
Well, it is all fine and dandy, and Virginias are, indeed, excellent platforms, but Commanding Officer of USS Minnesota should be reminded that other submarine forces also have all those wonderful gizmos such as cameras with NV/IR channels and joysticks of all kinds, including some damn advanced signal processing, data fusion and minimal acoustic signatures. Here is a reminder from 13 years ago.
And then, of course, comes this simple fact--while being a very good platform, no Virginia-class sub can even touch the weapons' suite of such subs as pr. 885 Yasen-class. In fact, in terms of striking power it is pathetic. People who still think that venerable and largely obsolete Tomahawks can compare to this ...
No, really, let's be realistic--no US submarine has anything even remotely comparable to P-800 Oniks or hypersonic 3M22 Zircon all of which, including 3M14 Kalibr, are carried by Yasen-class subs. So, any talk about "most advanced" is nothing more than chest-thumping about what amounts to the main reason why Russians create state-of-the-art subs, both nuclear and SSKs, which pack an immense punch which simply cannot be countered. The rest of it is just a moot point--both subs are state-of-the-art, but these are weapons which make all the difference in the times of ASW becoming increasingly complex and ranges at which weapons are used growing dramatically and that makes all the difference. Such hubris is precisely the reason why the US was exposed as a paper tiger during SMO.
So, Putin stated that Russia will supply weapons to West's enemies. In the end, two can play the game. So, what can those enemies possibly be. As you might expect, Houthis may get, "suddenly", anti-shipping missiles which will be suspiciously similar to such systems as P-800 Onyx. Or "freedom fighters" elsewhere, including Europe?
Translation:The Italian agency ANSA inquired about Moscow's reaction to the possible sending of NATO instructors to Ukraine and the use of Western weapons to strike Russian territory.Putin pointed out that specialists from the countries of the North Atlantic Alliance are already participating in the conflict and becoming its victims.Long-range weapons are also used, but without a decision from the West and the direct intervention of specialists, the Ukrainian military cannot determine the targets themselves.“Therefore, we have no illusions about this,” he said.Russia will respond by improving its air defense system and will consider the possibility of supplying its weapons to those regions where strikes can be carried out on sensitive targets of states that provide missiles to Ukraine.“This is the path to very serious problems,” the president warned.
Here is Garland elaborating on the issue:
Per Russian ships visiting Cuba and Venezuela. A lot depends on which ships. If Admiral Gorshkov will be involved--this means 3M22 Zircon carrier and this is just polite demonstration of flag. Just to remind everyone: the range of 3M22 Zircon is 1,500 km, the range of 3M14 is 2,500 km. Just FYI.
That's not a hot air akin to Trump's "super-pooper missiles" or Obama's "the finest fighting force in history" proclamations. This is empirically proven statement. It is also remarkable how Russia keeps mum on the issue of this "sunk missile boat". Evidently there is nothing to report so far. For comparison recall the sinking of Moskva with MoD reporting on the issue almost hourly. Same goes for amphibious ship damaged and sunk in Mariupol. Make your own conclusions. Again, VSU, which has been called today by Putin a terrorist organization, which it is, and Kiev regime can subsist only on PR stunts--such as recent BS story about "shot down" A-50 AWACS plane and circulating year old photos of the empennage of IL-22 damaged slightly by shrapnel from a drone.
As Shoigu reported today, VSU lost in January more than 23,000 KIAs and wounded (in Russian). These are events which undeniably create a horrendously grim emotional atmosphere in Pentagon, not to mention Washington's lapdogs from London and Berlin, exacerbated with a severe case of a professional envy. The only military fodder they have now is what Larry masterfully described as a Groundhog Day:
Yes, same as Ukie "counter-offensive", the bombing is announced days in advance. Well, there is an upside to it too--neither Iran nor the US want a real war. So, let the USAF bomb some empty shit in desert and call it a day, or two. US neocons are so dumb militarily that their understanding of war is reduced to this:
As long as something explodes it gives those morons a satisfaction. What do you expect from Ivy League political "scientists", lawyers and "government"--dumbed down specialists whose only loyalty is to Israel. As Phil Giraldi tells Judge:
It is pretty much over for American governance and whatever feeble so called "intellectual" elite which is wholesale uncultured and ignorant. Having a fat bank account and a tenure in some Ivy League degree mill or knowing the difference between Monet (Claude) and Monet (Edourad) doesn't make one "cultured", it merely makes one refined, such as some single cask Scotch compared to a half-gallon bottle of Johnny Walker Red Label from COSTCO--in the end, after consumption of a fifth the hangover is the same. American "elite" is uncultured and militarily utterly incompetent. So, it is the fate of Frito's car from Idiocracy.
Meanwhile Russian Navy received two days ago the newest, second, and first serial, SSK of pr.677 Kronshtadt.
Next hulls of this class of subs will be with AIP (Air Independent Propulsion) which is nearing completion. These subs have a state-of-the-art sonar complex and are extremely quiet. So much for "failed" sub, eh? I guess Western media lied, again. Yawn.
Real General Staffs salivate at the opportunity to try their technology and fighting doctrines on a real battlefield. It is all about those precious war correlates, performance data and its statistical analysis which allow to constantly update tactical and operational manuals, to shape technical requirements, which, in the end, translate into crucial advantages over the enemy.
We, who have some background in military-intelligence affairs, already know about dismal performance of the NATO weaponry, which cannot be fixed, because it is systemic, and this fact inevitably translates from operational reality into the strategic and political one. Any unbiased observer can see the agony in Washington precisely because of that, while Chinese who are present (rumor has it) on some level in Moscow, also were learning to fight together with Russians as single joint units and formations as early as Vostok 2018 maneuvers.
The signs of Washington's agony? Here comes this LOL)) Maria already explained what current US "diplomacy" is--Blinken trying to catch (ambush, actually) Lavrov in lobbies. Now State Department responds...
Translation:WASHINGTON, March 2 - RIA Novosti.Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, during a conversation with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, raised topics of concern to Washington, so the United States will not apologize for her, said State Department spokesman Ned Price."I know our Russian colleagues are trying to make a fuss out of this. But on our part, it is important to note that this was a short contact, and not a full-fledged bilateral meeting. But in a broader sense, we will not apologize for acting in our interests,"Price said. That is how he answered the question on whose initiative the contact took place.Earlier, the Russian Foreign Ministry reported that Blinken had asked for a conversation.
So, Blinken did ambush Lavrov. I guess being schlimazels comes naturally to the modern crop of the US "diplomats". God, how the mighty have fallen. Once upon a time one could at least reason with American diplomats and have a meaningful conversation with them. Evidently, not anymore. But, what can I say, sic transit gloria mundi. The American mundi, that is, aka Pax Americana. In conclusion, a little bit of a strategic boohoo:
What can I say. They wanted it and now they complain of getting unfair disadvantage, cry me a river. Or as they say--well, too bad--you reap what you sow.
There is some constant media "movement" and hassle around the US program of development of hypersonic weapons, which even a few short years ago, especially before March 2018, very many in the US in general, and Pentagon in particular, counted as a gimmick and boutique weapon systems. Boy, did they miscalculate. Now, suddenly, the United States are into hypersonics big time primarily into what could be defined as medium-range glide body for CPS (Conventional Prompt Strike).
In some sense, it is a very American program since it revolves primarily around hitting fixed targets with the stand-off weapon, with it being hypersonic serving this "promptness" of which we all hear since the inception in early 2000s (W's Administration) and then de facto abandonment of the Prompt Global Strike (PGS) program, and relying on the enemy possessing no response and defense capabilities. This whole "Prompt Strike" thing, in other words, has been around in different iterations for at least 20 years with... nothing to show up for it with the exception, and you have guessed it, a lot of media noise.
It warrants comparison with Russian program of hypersonic weapons all of which have been in serial production and deployed and even used in combat by the first line combat units. It is clear that the United States is nowhere near to fielding anything comparable to Avangard or 3M22 Zircon. I do not see anything comparable for years and, naturally, the only segment in which the US has any chance is that of weapon system being developed within the framework of CPS--a roughly 3,000 kilometer range glide body. And here where it all starts to get very confusing for many. US media constantly report on some minor developments of these weapons. But, as the US Navy reports three weeks ago:
Well, it is understandable why Johnny Wolfe talks about time not being a friend of the program. But even the US Army "Dark Eagle" is not a weapon, at least not yet, despite the constant stream of reports around it. But in the October a more subdued reports started to appear:
Exactly, as the Russian saying goes: don't say "hop" before you jump. Report continues:
FY23 is an important year for the Army’s modernization priorities, as
the service plans to have 24 of of its 35 modernization either fielded
or in prototyping. Asked if the service would be able to reach the goal,
Army assistant secretary for acquisition, logistics and technology Doug
Bush said he was “confident.” “We have a very well informed plan to do so,” Bush said. “Of course,
there are risks. So one thing we do very well and we’re going into some
test cycles on new equipment, just learn from the testing, adapt our
plans, and then move from there. “So not everything is going to go perfectly, but that’s the point of doing the test.”
And here is the point of which we can now start talking confidently. As I write non-stop and ad nauseam--NO weapons system, even the most advanced exists in the technological and operational vacuum, the thing which Pentagon still didn't learn. Real integration comes with REAL, that is making operational sense and impact, integration of weapon system into the network of other weapons and systems which operate as unified organism. And here is the point: the United States now is involved in a life and death struggle with Russia, trying to preserve its increasingly untenable (and grossly exaggerated) status of a hegemon. But! But, if Russian hypersonic weapons created a revolution in military affairs, American ones will fail to do so. Here is an interesting explanation from Colonel (Ret.) Knutov, who today is a Director of Russia's Air Defense Forces museum. This is how he assesses the US program and the state of the affairs.
Военный историк Юрий Кнутов
в разговоре с iReactor оценил намерение Пентагона увеличить объемы
исследований и темпы испытаний гиперзвукового оружия. По его словам, с
учетом неудачных испытаний, которые США не раз проводили с целью
создания гиперзвука, срок реализации военной программы составит не менее
трех лет. «Американцы сейчас разрабатывают подобного рода системы, где-то в
2025-2027 году у них на вооружение должны поступить первые гиперзвуковые
ракеты для подводных лодок и наземных систем», — отметил эксперт.
Юрий Кнутов
отметил, что заявленная Пентагоном дальность стрельбы гиперзвуковых
ракет составит около трех тысяч километров. При этом у российской армии
уже есть то, что можно противопоставить в случае успеха США.
К
примеру, система ПВО С-500 «Прометей», представляющая собой комплекс
противоракетной обороны, которая была поставлена на вооружение в армию
РФ еще в 2021 году. Радиус поражения С-500 составляет около 600
километров. Согласно заявленным характеристикам, она способна
перехватывать в том числе гиперзвуковые и беспилотные летательные
аппараты. Эксперт добавил,
что Россия постоянно совершенствует те вооружения, которые есть, и
продолжает разрабатывать новые. Поэтому Америке не удастся обогнать РФ. «Когда
США разработают новые образцы вооружений, у России уже будет более
совершенная технология. Поэтому отставание между Россией и Соединенными
Штатами будет сохраняться на уровне 5-7 лет», — резюмировал Юрий Кнутов.
Translation:They will "catch up" in minimum three years. Military historian Yuri Knutov, in a conversation with iReactor, assessed the Pentagon's intention to increase the volume of research and the pace of testing of hypersonic weapons. According to him, taking into account the unsuccessful tests that the United States has repeatedly conducted in order to create hypersonics, the implementation period of the military program will be at least three years. “The Americans are now developing systems of this kind, somewhere in 2025-2027 they should receive the first hypersonic missiles for submarines and ground systems,” the expert noted.
Yuri Knutov noted that the range of hypersonic missiles declared by the Pentagon will be about three thousand kilometers. At the same time, the Russian army already has something that can be countered if the United States succeeds.
For example, the S-500 Prometheus air defense system, which is an anti-missile defense system that was put into service with the Russian army back in 2021. The radius of destruction of the S-500 is about 600 kilometers. According to the declared characteristics, it is capable of intercepting, among other things, hypersonic and unmanned aerial vehicles. The expert added that Russia is constantly improving the existing weapons and continues to develop new ones. Therefore, America will not be able to overtake the Russian Federation. “When the United States develops new types of weapons, Russia will already have more advanced technology. Therefore, the lag between Russia and the United States will remain at the level of 5-7 years,” summed up Yuri Knutov.
The "catch up" is in quotation marks deliberately, because as Knutov (and many other serious specialists in the filed, not least the President of Russia himself) note for years--the lag of 5-7 years which will be permanent (why, is a separate issue) will constantly mean not only better and generation ahead weapons, but systems of countering of appearing US weapons as a systems of previous generations.
As with the Sputnik moment in 1957, after the US trying to demonstrate that it too has a viable space program, which it did have, initial problems with US satellites, such as Flopnik, Kaputnik or Jalopnik, among many other humiliating titles for Vanguard TV 3, lead to a reasonable call from all sides to "either put up, or shut up". We are living in the same paradigm today in regards to warfare. Comparisons are not only warranted, they are irresistible. For more than two decades the United States was trying to present the world with a new word in weapons. In these 20+ years the US didn't produce a single workable hypersonic weapon, while Russia produced an astonishing variety and, most importantly, weapons to counter weapon systems which the United States... doesn't have. Thus the lag becomes chronic and the gap unbridgeable, especially against the upcoming of increased range Zircons and a variety of M=9+ anti-shipping and land-attack missiles designed to be carried by all kinds of combat aircraft.
Considering already existing and rapidly increasing gap in anti-missile and anti-air systems between Russia and the US, one can easily see how the balance of power shifts dramatically. In fact, have you heard much about US Navy's aircraft carriers lately?
Well, remaining in the Atlantic, with occasional visits to UK, is the fate of the US carrier-centric navy in coming decades, because venturing any closer to Europe, let alone into Mediterranean is not a good idea in case of, God forbids, serious war. These are strategic shifts which happen in a front of our eyes and it is a pathway to the new world in which there is very little place for modern West which now has no resources to re-assert itself. Moreover, it is not the West anymore. Meanwhile in 404:
Recognize the pattern? Meanwhile for those in the US, Happy Thanksgiving, and that the world hasn't been thrown into the global thermonuclear war--it is an ample reason for being thankful.
Also, for those of us who still doubt a catastrophic state of VSU, here is the first hand account, which corroborates many serious analysts' estimates of losses, which partially is confirmed by Kiev regime.
Translation:MOSCOW, August 18 - RIA Novosti. Kyiv significantly underestimates its losses in the Russian special operation, among the Ukrainian military there are already about 200 thousand dead, one of the leaders of the Zaporozhye militia, the commander of the Troy detachment, Vladimir Novikov, with the call sign Alabai, told RIA Novosti. "This is my personal opinion, I think about 200 thousand" two hundredth "(dead. - Approx. ed.) and more than 300 thousand wounded who will not return to duty," Novikov said. According to the commander of the detachment, he uses various sources of information. "Based on the totality of information, I can voice such figures," he said.
That explains quite well a hysterical reaction of neocon cabal, such as this yesterday's desperate and risible piece by all those great "strategists" in The Hill.
This juxtapositions itself quite well against yet another testimony about US weapons being not exactly as they are constantly advertised and of which I wrote three books.
Now, before saying anything about RT using Business Insider "experts" as a source, it has to be stated that US MSM in general DO NOT have real military experts, firstly, because there could be no experts on tactics and operational matters among the graduates of the journo and communications schools and, secondly, the level of the American military "expertise" as performed by all those generals, colonels and "intel" people in 90% of cases is appalling in its ignorance and lack of understanding of modern war and Russia. And yes, US military "technology" is largely a failure in a peer-to-peer environment. So, as is expected a lot of butt-hurt and consumption of copium. And, thanks to my friend Mile Krupa, Mr. Mearsheimer, for all his accomplishments, continues to demonstrate a complete ignorance of the realities of modern warfare in his piece in Foreign Affairs. Mearsheimer, having no clue about what the current state of military balance in Europe is, speculates how the US can get involved directly into the conflict.
Mearsheimer, a graduate of the USMA at West Point in early 1970s is still stuck in... 1945 and continues to drink Kool-Aid from US media, not understanding what state the VSU are in and not understanding that Russia maintains an overwhelming escalation dominance and ability of a strategic maneuver by force. But he speaks with a confidence on this:
What about the ultimate form of escalation?
There are three circumstances in which Putin might use nuclear weapons.
The first would be if the United States and its NATO
allies entered the fight. Not only would that development markedly
shift the military balance against Russia, greatly increasing the
likelihood of its defeat, but it would also mean that Russia would be
fighting a great-power war on its doorstep that could easily spill into
its territory.
Unlike Mearsheimer, I am largely up to date on general view of Russian military on Western military "power" and, having an engineering degree am all ears and eyes trying to hear from Mearsheimer some details on WHAT force and HOW can NATO muster to attack Russia. Don't expect a professional answer from Mearsheimer, because he still thinks that it is 1980 and NATO can do a Reforger type thingy. He doesn't understand, that in order to fight Russia conventionally in Eastern Europe NATO, headed by the US, will need a force around 1 million ground troops with adequate equipment and C4ISR to even have a shot at not being defeated outright--a task impossible in principle, not to mention the fact I would like Mearsheimer's "forecasts" on matters of the US daily losses, in thousands KIAs and WIAs daily, on reconstituting a draft in the US, on the combat readiness of the US ground troops and, in the end, on all those "sophisticated" weapons which the United States is simply afraid to provide not because they are just afraid, and the US is afraid, of real escalation, but because all of those "sophisticated" weapons do not work in real.
I do not expect from Mearsheimer any assessment of operations of RuAF, Air Defense or Navy--he doesn't know it--but maybe he will have enough integrity for stopping spewing an absolutely sophomoric amateur BS on subjects neither he, nor his "political science" environment, have any clue about. In the end, he better learn that it is the United States, not Russia, who is very use of nuclear weapons biased nation precisely because it is incapable of planning and executing anything even remotely similar to SMO. But then again, I don't know if he studies real military history of the world, not BS they teach in Ivy League circle jerk on American exceptionalism. As Mike correctly concluded: "Mearsheimer better concentrate on writing about Israeli Lobby". Agree 100%, this is his field and he better resign himself there: real history, warfare, practical geopolitics, real Russia studies and operational art are not his forte.
LOL. Of course, Russia is a "threat". She has been since the United States decided that it is the force for everything good against everything bad and that the war it is when the United States bombs weak defenseless nations into the stone age and then changes those hapless countries into shitholes, while profiting from it. But that is not a real war.
Russians are strange people, they just don't like to be democratized. Especially when stand-off weapons are involved and, with a typical Russian cunning and perfidy, arrived to a conclusion that if they are getting bombed and invaded, they might as well respond in kind and do bombing of their own. You know, as in rearrange stones in the lands of those who bomb Russia, and in doing so destroy forces which bomb Russia. Yes, I know, this is such a treachery on Russians' part. How could they refuse all those benefits of "democracy" and the general even concluded:
“If your only option to prevent an attack on the homeland is to nuke
them, you’re not in a good place,” he said. “We have to create other
capabilities and options to create doubt in their mind about ever
striking our homeland.”
Right. Because we all know that the only thing Russians sleep and dream about is how to strike Skid Row or Detroit... ah, wait, I believe it has been bombed already by someone.
Well, you get my drift, after all, who said that Robocop movies were fiction? Communities like these are popping up around America like mushrooms after the rain.
On a more serious note, however, it is clear that the United States militarily is in a bind and is undergoing a severe tactical and operational cognitive dissonance spurred by the decades of "transformation" which resulted in deluding itself with some very special "American way of war", while in reality nothing in warfare changed in terms of its main objective since the times of Clausewitz' truism that the main object of war "is to compel the enemy to do our will". Russians are not that kind of people who are compelled to do anyone's will (as many greatest military leaders in human history learned the hard way), and if they refused to do so on the insistence of Napoleon and Hitler and their largest armies in history in their time, they certainly wouldn't do it on America's account.
Russia is certainly not going to attack the United States but if the United States attacks Russia, yes, Russia has means to obliterate the United States in response, no matter what efforts the United States undertakes to prevent such a response. Basically, VanHerck's main grievance is this: he doesn't want to be bombed back while bombing others. I know. But it is what it is--American generals do not know what it means to lose their families as a result of war, that is why they have such a cavalier attitude towards war. Russia, however, makes them uncomfortable and they don't like it.
Russian verb, which Putin uses, сдохнуть, sadly, does not directly translate into English and it is not "drop dead", this verb is used when one describes the death of an animal--human dies, animal сдыхает. The nearest term is to croak. These are subtleties of Russian language which many in the West cannot grasp. VanHerck also expressed his opinions on Arctic, but I heard this tune before too. Sure, looking at the Rosatom fleet today I really cannot see what investment in time and treasure will be required on the US side to catch up. No, really.
Sometimes people just have to stick to doing what they do best. Russians certainly did--they make best weapons and ice-breakers. And a couple of other things which are beyond the narrow scope of this post.
H.I. Sutton passes in the US for naval and submarine expert but his biography is sketchy at best, at worst--he is more informed iteration of Bellingcat's very own Elliott Higgins with naval slant. I don't really read his "analysis" related to Soviet and Russian navies, because it is primarily same ol' narrative one can find anywhere in the US "professional" military "analysis" sphere in all kinds of blogs and YouTube channels and which is primarily an instrument for regurgitation of the same points about US military which brought it to the state in which it resides today and it is not a very good state. So, even against the background of one of a very few truly world class forces remaining in the US, its magnificent submarine force, the need for mental therapy increases exponentially with every passing day in the US OSINT (Open Source Intelligence) community. Here is Sutton doing just that--"comparing" the latest project 885M (Yasen M) Russian Navy's SSGN (such as Kazan) and Virginia Block V SSNs which are not in existence yet. OK.
For starters, Russian Navy's Yasen-class program is in full swing and has three active subs, one fitting out, and five others being under construction. USS Oklahoma (SSN-802) of Virginia Block V class was ordered in December of 2019 and is under construction and is planned to be delivered to fleet in 2025, if all goes as planned. By the time, ball park, fourth and fifth hulls of Block V Virginias will be getting ready to join the fleet, the comparison should be made not with Yasen-class, but with brand-new Russian SSN Laika (Husky)-class whose first hull should get floated out in 2027. But that is just me being anal about the proper framework for comparison. Sutton's next statement betrays a serious need for controlling therapeutically a lot of issues related to actual combat power and its comparison, which in layman's lingo is known as butt-hurt.
Krasnoyarsk is a Project 885M ‘Yasen-M’ class boat (aka
Severodvinsk-II class), the 3rd of 8 planned. These represent the most
modern and powerful attack submarines in the Russian inventory. And they
are often described as being on a par with the latest western types.
But how do they stack up? Particularly in weapons terms? Other aspects such as sonar, sensors
and stealth are harder to compare given the sensitive nature of these
topics. Both submarines are believed to be extremely difficult to
counter. The stand-off weapons however are a major component of the
submarine’s punch.
The parity in terms of submarine platforms' performances between Russia and US occurred sometime in the late 1990s and since then it is absolutely legitimate to NOT compare Russian and US nuclear subs in terms of quieting, other physical fields, signal processing, combat control and mechanical qualities--they will be plus-minus the same. This is not a theorem, this is an axiom. So, for any comparison in terms of platforms (and submarines, ships and planes are platforms first and foremost) between Russia and US, those platforms should be compared ONLY in terms of weapon systems they carry. In the end, the role of a platform is to get a weapon installed on it, deliver this weapon to the point of launch and launch it, hopefully, achieving a desired effect. Period. But these are weapons where the United States is having huge issues in the last decades. But Sutton, describing Block V's weapons, loses last bits of objectivity and states:
The Yasen-M’s 32 vertical tubes can accommodate three missile types. On
paper this versatility could convey an advantage although the
performance of the US Navy’s Tomahawk cruise missiles is hard to
dispute.
The immediate question which arises here is this: if Sutton compares Yasen and Virginia's loads of stand-off weapons, this dyadic connection suggests that these subs should be used against their respective operators in the war, that is the war between Russia and US. This is the ONLY framework which justifies such comparisons, because, frankly, platforms and weapons they carry are built always with combat tasks in mind. Come on, we are not kids here trying to compare whose bike is better. This is the war we are talking about, FFS. And that makes Sutton's statement about venerable Tomahawk grossly inaccurate. Not only Tomahawk never performed against even second-world air defense system, but when it encountered, such as was the case in Syria in April of 2018, a moderately competent Syrian AD, 70% of those TLAMs (and "rumor" has it JASSMs too) were shot down which created a shock in Pentagon, with its officials, including SecDef Jim Mattis himself, forced to lie to mitigate an obvious PR disaster.
I don't know what performance of Tomahawks Sutton is talking about, but there is little problem with uploading a flight task to cruise missile and launching it at some shithole, Russians do it too. So, what "performance" from the subsonic stand-off weapon is he talking about? Yes, 3M14 was used both from subs and ships and its new iteration with the range of 4500 kilometers has been launched already at Kavkaz-2020 maneuvers. Until those TLAMs face a competent Air Defense, there is nothing to talk about. The problem, of course, is that the United States doesn't have any, unlike it is the case with Russia, and this teeny-weeny fact throws all this "comparison" business into a complete disarray. In fact, Russian military professionals have a term for it--I bet Sutton never heard of it--"A Spherical Horse in Vacuum".
Sutton's emphasis on this, however, is a pure therapy--an attempt to mitigate what I am writing about for years: the US' loss of the arms race. Here is Sutton:
The Yasen-M Class boats are larger and carry more weapons than their
western equivalents. They will also be quicker to field hypersonic
weapons (although service introduction is going slower than previously
reported). But they carry fewer cruise missiles than the enlarged Block V
Virginia Class. This will significantly narrow the gap even before the
US Navy adds hypersonic weapons and the anti-ship capable Tomahawks.
Immediately:
1. The only hypersonic missiles which may appear on any US ship are many years away and those will NOT be dedicated anti-shipping missiles but rather land-attack variants. The United States lost the anti-shipping missiles race long time ago, namely in 1970s.
2. Anti-ship capable Tomahawk is the same as regular TLAM--a subsonic, slow, easy target for modern air-defense systems, especially over the water surface, and is in no way competitor to a current and future arsenal of Russia's anti-shipping missiles, in which even nominally subsonic 3M54 Kalibr (now with the launch range of 1,500 kilometers) accelerates to M=3 at the terminal.
The United States will continue to build wonderful, plus ridiculously expensive, submarines with all bells and whistles, but those mean absolutely nothing if they are armed with obsolete weapons which lost their tactical advantages long time ago. And no amount of therapeutic analysis and contrived criteria will be able to address a present (in historic terms) Indiana Jones moment:
You either have a weapon system which works, or you don't, and that is the only thing which matters. Anti-shipping capable Tomahawk, my God, what's next? The return of cannon-balls and sails?
