On the morning of April 11, 2018, an “airplane” took off into the sky over America. doomsday". This is a special E-4B airliner, which has the second name "Aircraft of the End of the World."

Members must be saved on it command center USA: President Donald Trump, as well as the country's top military leadership.

The aircraft is protected from nuclear explosion and rises in alarm only in the event of a nuclear war, when there is a risk of damage or destruction of command and control structures on the ground.

When will the war with America begin

A new round of tension between Russia and the United States began after the American leader threatened to retaliate against the use of chemical weapons in Syria (Duma province). Fact chemical attack April 7, 2018 is denied by the Syrian authorities, as well as the Russian Ministry of Defense.

However, the President of America threatened to make a decision within 24-48 hours regarding the further actions of the US Air Force. Washington has promised to find out which states are involved in the latest events in Syria, and Donald Trump has openly threatened that they "will all pay the price."

The world is on the verge of World War III, when the arms race has reached its peak, and the economies of Russia and the United States are cracking under the pressure of overproduction of the latest murder weapons. Michel Nostradamus is in solidarity with this opinion, who in his predictions directly indicated that the Great War between countries would begin in 2018.

The famous clairvoyant wrote that his forecast for 2018 suggests the start of a big war in France, after which most of the countries of Europe will be attacked. In the notes of Nostradamus there is an indication that soon after this peace will come, "but only a few will be satisfied with it."

The eminent prophet pointed out that the war between "two great world powers will last 27 years." There is also a hint in Nostradamus' notes that Russia, North Korea and China will join forces to jointly attack the US.

Will there be a nuclear war in 2018

That the third World War inevitable, said the seer Vanga, who foreshadowed the fatal End of the World immediately after the fall of Syria. The great clairvoyant directly pointed out that the power of China will reach its climax by 2018. But the Russian economy may suffer significantly due to the cessation of oil production.

Military experts and predictors agree that the fall of the ruble and the explosive situation in the world are closely linked. America is preparing an unpleasant surprise for Vladimir Putin by May 7, 2018, as his next inauguration is scheduled for this day. But at a meeting at the Central Intelligence Agency, they named the exact date for the start of the Third World War, which falls at the end of April.

The United States is aggravating the situation in Syria more and more, but America is afraid of a real war with Russia. “In relations with the United States, everything is heading towards direct confrontation. They are afraid of this, because nowhere and never have they fought with a powerful power, only with small countries. And we have a new weapon that we can test during such a conflict,” Zhirinovsky wrote.

If a war breaks out between Russia and the United States, military operations will be carried out on foreign territory. “Not a single bomb will fall either on the soil of Russia or on the soil of the United States. All actions will unfold in Syria or Ukraine, all misfortunes will fall on the heads of the long-suffering Ukrainians, Arabs, Persians, Turks. Of course, we are very sorry for these peoples,” Zhirinovsky wrote.

What will happen to the ruble exchange rate in the near future

After the introduction of new sanctions against Russia stock market collapsed, some stocks lost more than 30% of their value. Also, create a little panic about Trump's statements about a possible missile attack USA on Syria. The fall of the ruble against the dollar and the euro accelerated.

Already on April 11, 2018, 80 rubles were given for the euro, and 64.5 rubles for the dollar, which is comparable only with the hype of 2015

Large Russian businessmen literally lost about fifteen billion dollars in just a couple of days due to a sharp jump in the foreign exchange market.

The US Treasury has tightened sanctions against 38 Russian oligarchs. The most famous among them are Oleg Deripaska (the main shareholder of Rusal), Igor Rotenberg, Kirill Shamalov and Viktor Vekselberg.

The collapse of the national currency of Russia by almost 30 percent reduced the demand for foreign tours during the period May holidays 2018

The trend of strengthening the national currency in countries controlled by the US government speaks in favor of a deliberate collapse of the ruble in Russia. Most likely, the American government used the sanctions as its main trump card. Such pressure should not only lower Putin's political rating, but also force him to refuse to invest additional funds in the development of the Russian defense complex.

If war breaks out between Russia and the US, who will win?

Relations between Russia and the United States today remain very tense, and in the event of the outbreak of the Third World War, the chances of winning are approximately 50 to 50. The technical superiority of the United States is undeniable, but Russia also has something to answer in the event of association with other countries

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are unlikely to decide to arrange a nuclear Armageddon, as this can lead to mutual self-destruction. Clairvoyants predict the End of the World precisely in the event that one of the parties nevertheless decides to openly use the atomic bomb. According to the soothsayers, in this case, all life on Earth will perish ...

When will NATO go to war with Russia?

The arms race is being fueled by the efforts of North Atlantic Alliance strategists who have already paraded through the Ukrainian Maidan and are eager to do the same on Moscow's Red Square.

However, leading politicians in Russia and America do not want bombs to fall on the cities of their countries. Great states are quite capable of protecting their population from the horrors of war, which cannot be said about the countries of the Middle East and the former USSR.

First of all, states such as Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Israel, as well as the Arab states are under attack. It is there that they will work out strikes, test the enemy’s equipment for strength, make provocations and demonstrate their military power.

According to the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party Vladimir Zhirinovsky, it is beneficial for the Russian Federation to maintain a military confrontation with the United States, since you can clearly see what their army is capable of.

Dangerous events that bring our planet closer to the End of the World will continue starting from 2018 for more than one decade in a row. And in the coming year of the Yellow Earth Dog, people all over the world will see special signs of the Higher Forces, which speak of the approach of the Apocalypse.

For example, three solar eclipses and two lunar eclipses during the year, which is more than it happens in quiet years. And according to the prophecy of the Hopi Indians, in the second half of 2018, the Blue Star will collide with our planet, which will completely destroy all life on Earth.

Also, Easter 2018 fell on April 8 and almost coincided with the Annunciation, which is always celebrated on April 7. Clairvoyants say that these special signs are a direct warning from the outside. Subtle world about future disasters and wars.

In contact with

US, Russia and China are testing each other's patience and strategic power

And while some of the systems missile defense labeled as ineffective after 2002, the US Navy has "Aegis", a system that one former Pentagon missile defense program manager says can shoot down ICBMs. 40 US warships are equipped with nearly 300 Aegis anti-missile launchers. In 2008, one even destroyed a satellite when it went out of orbit.

War mentality

In the run-up to the Iraq War, various governments and observers warned the US and UK of potential unintended consequences. But these countries did not succumb to criticism and fears. And despite all the lessons that can be learned from the disaster in Iraq, today there is a great risk that something similar will happen.

Victims in other countries have little effect on internal politics USA. The hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians who died in the first sanctions and then in the war had no effect on Presidents Clinton or George W. Bush. It is impossible to say whether the reaction will be different with similar losses in Iran or North Korea, especially when using "humane" precision weapons.

There is also a need to revitalize and scale up the arms control activities of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which brought the Cold War to a peaceful end.

Perhaps Trump or one of his successors, like the Kaiser in 1914, will be horrified by the reality of massive US attacks. But unlike the Kaiser, who saw his empire divided and defeated for the first time, a US president in the 21st century may well avoid a similar fate.

New time has the exclusive right to translate and publish columnsthe conversion. com. Republican full version text is prohibited.

In recent years, the US, Russia, and China have been testing patience and testing each other's strategic emphases. Under these conditions, the voices of people who assess the chances of a new world war are getting louder and louder. However, many of those who are seriously involved in this important discussion often have the wrong idea about what is happening.

In assessing military capabilities, Western means mass media they think mostly about the combat capabilities of weaker states and rarely pay serious attention to the colossal potential of the United States, which accounts for most of the world's military spending.

If we are to conduct a sound discussion about the nature of a hypothetical third world war, then we must begin with huge amount and the power of American means of armed struggle. Despite the fact that China and Russia are arming and taking various measures, American commanders in the event of an escalation of the crisis will have superiority and will be able to strike at the enemy even before he uses his forces and means.

Let's take a missile war as an example. The US Navy currently has 4,000 Tomahawk cruise missiles, and the Navy and Air Force are currently receiving 5,000 Jasm Extended Range Air-to-Surface (JASSM) conventionally armed cruise missiles with a range of 320-950 km. . These missiles are barely visible on radar and are designed to destroy heavily defended targets such as nuclear missile silos. Russia and China, unlike America, have nothing comparable in quantity and quality and cannot pose a threat to the continental United States.

The same can be said about maritime forces. There is a lot of talk these days about two Russian patrol ships and other assets off the coast of Syria, but France alone has 20 warships and one aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean. And the United States as part of the forces constant readiness there are six destroyers in this region with big amount cruise missiles and anti-missile systems. At the other end of Europe, the Russian military menaces the small Baltic states, but few people notice that Russia's Baltic fleet is the same size as Denmark's and half the size of Germany's.

Meanwhile, there is now a lot of talk and writing about China's aggressive and expansionist actions in the South China Sea, about its first aircraft carriers and long-range ballistic missiles. But according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, although China's navy is large and rapidly developing, it is numerically comparable to naval forces Japan and Taiwan combined. And the United States can boast of 19 located in different corners of the world by aircraft carriers, if landing ships are included here.

But of course, the main thing here is the nuclear factor.

Context

Russia will launch Avangard hypersonic units

The National Interest 03/21/2018

The main thing is to destroy American satellites

The National Interest 05/15/2017

Will Russia be able to shoot down american missiles in Syria?

The National Interest 04/12/2018
Threat from the sky

The US, Russia and China have nuclear weapons. Vladimir Putin recently spoke of new nuclear-armed missiles, calling them "invulnerable to all existing and future systems," and some have suggested that China might abandon its no-first-use policy. Naturally, this causes concern. It has long been assumed that the threat from nuclear weapons is a deterrent and precludes war between major powers. However, it is possible that the world simply relies on luck. But then again, very often we do not pay due attention to the non-nuclear combat potential of the United States.

The American leadership may actually believe that it will succeed in destroying Russian forces nuclear deterrence through a devastating non-nuclear strike backed by missile defense. Such a concept is embedded in the program of instant global strike, which was adopted before 9/11 and continued under Obama. Such a strike is being prepared by the US Air Force with its command of the global strike forces, and its essence is to strike any point on Earth using non-nuclear weapons in less than 60 minutes.

Such a task cannot be called simple. To destroy Russia's nuclear missiles before they are launched, the US military would first need to blind the Russian radars and control and communications systems so that they cannot detect the strike being made. It is possible that this will require conventional strikes and cyberattacks. Then it will be necessary to destroy approximately 200 fixed and 200 mobile launchers on land, more than a dozen Russian nuclear submarines and bombers. And after that, you will still have to shoot down those missiles that will still be fired.

Russia is unlikely to survive such an attack. Its long-range radars, both ground-based and space-based, are aging and falling into disrepair, and it will be difficult to replace them. At the same time, the United States has and is developing a whole series of systems for combating satellites and radars, and they have been using them for many years. (Back in 1985, using an F-15 fighter, they managed to shoot down a satellite.) But at the same time, the West is very vulnerable, because it is very dependent on its satellites, and Russia and China continue to develop and improve their anti-satellite systems.

War in the air

Russian bombers are from Soviet times, so despite the alarm they cause when approaching airspace Western countries, this aircraft in itself does not pose a serious danger. If Russian and american planes, the Russians will be attacked by machines invisible and inaccessible to them.

The crews of American and British submarines during the Cold War years constantly and very effectively pursued Soviet submarines after they left their bases. Since then Russian submarine fleet significantly weakened, and the American one experienced a resurgence, thanks to which Russian submarines can be destroyed even before they launch missiles.

The basis of the Russian nuclear forces are ground-based missiles. Some are found in mines, and some are mobile, moving along roads and railroads. Silo-based missiles today can be destroyed by several types of missiles launched from aircraft unnoticed by enemy radars. All of them are designed to destroy targets deep underground in concrete and steel bunkers. But the problem is that the missile-carrying aircraft will take too long to reach the targets, and therefore the crews must act on alarm immediately.

One apparently simple solution is to equip fast-flying ballistic missiles with conventional warheads. In 2010, Robert Gates, then Obama's secretary of defense, said the United States had that capability. To fly from the American Midwest to Siberia, an ICBM takes only 30 minutes if launched from a properly positioned submarine. The Tridents have even less time to reach the target - less than 10 minutes.

Since 2001, the US Navy has been preparing to equip these missiles with either inert warheads with an accuracy of 10 meters, or fragmentation warheads. Critics argue that in this case, the potential adversary will not be able to distinguish between a nuclear attack and a conventional one, and therefore will assume the worst. According to researchers from the US Congress, development work was close to completion, but apparently stopped in 2013.

Multimedia

Science 18.04.2018

EW? Russians live in a fantasy world

Military Update 11.04.2018
However, the US continues to develop other types of weapons for different types armed forces that can strike a target anywhere in the world in less than an hour. First of all, it is about hypersonic missiles, which can return to Earth 10 times faster speed sound. China and Russia are trying to keep up.

Envy of missiles

The rest of Russia's nuclear forces consist of missiles transported across railway. An article in the Kremlin news outlet Sputnik suggests that finding such railroad cars loaded with missiles is so difficult that the concept of an instantaneous global strike may not be as effective as the Americans would like. But then it turns out that the rest nuclear arsenal Russia is very vulnerable.

Beginning with the "hunt for Scuds" during the first Gulf War, the US military has been perfecting its skills in destroying mobile land-based missiles over the years. Now they use remote detection devices to strike small ground targets, doing it practically The U.S. military has honed these skills in the many counterinsurgency operations it has conducted since 2001.

If the “sword” of an instant global strike does not stop the launches of all Russian missiles, then the United States will be able to use the “shield” of its missile defense system. They deployed this system after they withdrew from a treaty with Russia to ban such weapons in 2002.

Some of these post-2002 missile defense systems have been described as ineffective, but the US Navy has a very effective Aegis system that, according to the former head of the Pentagon's missile defense program, can shoot down ICBMs. Today at 40 American ships deployed about 300 Aegis anti-missiles. In 2008, one such rocket destroyed a satellite falling from orbit.

War mentality

Before the Iraq war, many countries and observers warned the US and Britain about the possible and unforeseen consequences, but their mentality was immune to criticism and did not give in to doubt. Despite the lessons that can be learned from the Iraq disaster, today there is a great danger that self-confidence and hatred will prevail.

Losses in other countries do not render great influence on US domestic politics. The death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians - first due to sanctions and then during the war - did not negative impact on Presidents Clinton and Bush. The likelihood of similar losses in Iran, North Korea and other countries is unlikely to have any impact on the American leadership, especially if "humane" precision weapons are used.

What's more, a poll by Stanford University's Scott Sagan showed that American society is open to the preemptive use of even nuclear weapons, as long as it doesn't affect the US itself. The nuclear Trident creates such a temptation.

Civil society, the media and political parties around the world must immediately turn their attention to the control of the main types of non-nuclear weapons. There is still time to rally around the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, which has become a laureate Nobel Prize to actively support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and to revive and revitalize the fledgling arms control work of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which played a huge role in the peaceful end of the Cold War.

Perhaps Trump or one of his successors, like the Kaiser in 1914, would be dismayed if faced with the consequences of a major American offensive. But unlike the Kaiser, whose empire was first crushed and then divided, a 21st-century American president can get away with it.

The materials of InoSMI contain only assessments of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the editors of InoSMI.

If we look at the question purely technically and leave aside the obvious comments about the inadmissibility of such a terrible development of events, then we can say the following. Two scenarios are possible: 1) conventional war and 2) nuclear war. I'm afraid that in both scenarios, the numbers, as well as the qualitative characteristics, are not entirely on our side, especially in the first one. To win in a modern war, parity in certain types of weapons (missiles, tanks, aircraft, etc.) is not enough. The military potential required for victory is determined by a set of many factors, incl. the size of the economy, human resources, weapons production capacity, food base, sufficient transport logistics, effective alliances. Of key importance are available technologies. Needless to say, the war between the Russian Federation and the United States will be a war between the Russian Federation and NATO (for simplicity, we will not take into account Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, which will side with the United States). Let's compare the figures: GDP - $1.3 trillion. (RF) to $36 trillion. (NATO); military spending - $50 billion: $900 billion; population - 144 million people: 800 million people; volume of grain production (forecast for 2016): 109 mln.t: 1.047 mln.t. In terms of technology, Russia's lag behind the West is obvious, and in the coming years the gap will increase due to sanctions.

1) In the conventional scenario (although this is not an option against the United States, but against Europe, since the news fighting in the United States, Russia is physically unable to) importance have tactical nuclear weapons. According to them, the advantage is on the side of the Russian Federation: approximately 3.800 (about 2.000 are considered in service and 1.800 are stored), incl. "Iskanders" and cruise missiles, against 200 from the United States in Europe. However, modern conventional weapons in their own way lethality comparable to nuclear. In addition, the use of tactical nuclear weapons is likely to move the conflict to a strategic level.

2) In the event of a nuclear war, i.e. exchange of massive strikes of strategic weapons, one should take into account the differences in the structure of the nuclear potentials of both countries, since the advantage is not in the number of warheads (there are approximately equal numbers), but in the means of their delivery. The Russian Federation has 55% land-based warheads, 25% air-based and 20% sea-based. The US is 60% sea-based, 25% land-based, and 15% air-based. Ground-based ICBMs are considered more vulnerable: their deployment areas are constant and known (with the exception of mobile launchers). Russian ICBMs, however, have a greater throwable weight and the ability to create additional interference. However, half of the ICBMs are aging R-36M2 (SS-18), which are produced by the Ukrainian Yuzhmash, which refused to participate in operational supervision. The air component of the Russian triad is especially vulnerable - the old TU-95s, which, together with the relatively newer TU-160s, are vulnerable due to the fact that they do not have stealth technology and are clearly visible on the radar. In addition, they have a low speed for delivering a sudden blow. Of the 12 submarines, only 10 have missiles on board. Of these, only 3 submarines of the newest Borey class, which should gradually replace the old ones. The Americans claim that combat duty there are only 2 Russian submarines at all times, and that each of them is escorted by 2 NATO ones.

In the United States, most of the warheads are placed on a much more secretive carrier - submarines, which we are not able to physically escort. Bombers have stealth technology, and therefore they can also be classified as stealth carriers. Due to the limitations of our space constellation, we have little opportunity for constant monitoring of American ground-based silo launchers. The Americans also have more deployed missile defense systems, and they are more effective. Simply put, the Americans have the opportunity to meet the first nuclear strike, significantly weaken it, launch a retaliatory nuclear strike and survive. At the same time, it is still impossible to say unequivocally who will win in the end and estimate the losses.

Almost all experts and even people far from the army agree that the Cold War did not even think of ending with the collapse of the USSR, and now the geopolitical situation is tense to the limit.

The North Atlantic Alliance is holding the largest military maneuvers in 13 years. As part of these exercises, a ballistic missile is defiantly shot down in the skies over Europe for the first time, scenarios of amphibious operations, full-scale hybrid wars using the Internet are being played out. And Russia at the same time surprises the world with its the latest weapons during the antiterrorist operation in Syria. Almost all experts and even people far from the army agree that the Cold War did not even think of ending with the collapse of the USSR, and now the geopolitical situation is tense to the limit. In this regard, the "Bell of Russia" decided to find out what the real alignment of forces is in the potential confrontation between our country and the West. Our interlocutor was a former officer of the General Staff, doctor of military sciences Konstantin Sivkov.

Kolokol Rossii: Konstantin Valentinovich, it's sad, of course, to ask such a question on the forehead, but, taking into account recent events, it is necessary. What if the confrontation between Russia and NATO suddenly turns from "cold" into "hot"? What is the state of our army and how strong is the potential enemy?

Konstantin Sivkov: If we take the quantitative composition, then for general-purpose forces that do not use nuclear weapons, the ratio is approximately 12:1 in favor of NATO. This is according to the personnel of the armed forces of the alliance, taking into account the deployment in wartime. If we do not take certain types of troops of the NATO countries, which for the duration of the conflict come under the command of a single center, the ratio will be approximately 3-4: 1 not in our favor.

As for the quality of the composition, here the Russian army is almost not inferior to the opponent. Just like us, the alliance for a long time did not update weapons and equipment.

Now the percentage of modern military equipment we have is slightly lower than that of NATO, but the gap here is not very large. But with serviceable vehicles, the situation is clearly not in our favor - the percentage of combat readiness is estimated at 50-60% for us, and for the enemy - 70-80%.

Although in certain areas, for example, in the Caspian flotilla and on Black Sea Fleet- Our readiness is almost 100%.

Over the past two or three years, we have seriously improved the operational and tactical training of command personnel. And with tactics we had everything in order before. Here it is significant to recall the war with Georgia in 2008, when in just three days the enemy's armed forces were utterly defeated. This is a unique case, despite the fact that the Georgians were then trained and advised by American specialists.

KR: Since then, our military hasn't really shined on international level but now they had to show themselves in Syria. Did they pass this exam successfully?

K.S.: The war in Syria has shown that Russian weapons meets the highest requirements of modernity in a number of indicators, significantly surpassing the American one. For example, cruise missile"Caliber-NK" is better than "Tomahawk" both in range (2600 versus 1500 kilometers) and in accuracy of fire. Our pilots also demonstrated in action the unique sighting and navigation system SVP-24 "Gefest", which allows the use of conventional high-explosive bombs with the efficiency characteristic of high-precision weapons. Thanks to this, a small Russian air group in Syria is able to operate with high efficiency. IN Lately managed to achieve an indicator of 70-80 hit targets with 50 sorties per day - this is very good. The Americans, on the other hand, have at least 3-4 aircraft allocated for one target, and an entire squadron is used to destroy, for example, an enemy airfield. The average cost of our new weapons is much lower than the American one, which is a big plus.

However, the Syrian war has shown that Russian troops there is a serious problem with the provision of ammunition. The brilliant launch of 26 Caliber-NK missiles on October 7 from the Caspian Sea has not been repeated - apparently, our reserve of these weapons is very small.

So far, we have not seen effective launches of K-55 missiles of a new modification, which could well be used by Tu-95 or Tu-160 aircraft. There are single successful launches of K-55 missiles during the exercises, but nothing more. High-precision corrected air bombs - KAB-500S and KAB-500kr are used very limitedly. In terms of security and accuracy of destruction, they are much more reliable than similar American ammunition of the same caliber. Nevertheless, the number of cases of their use allows us to conclude that they are not enough in our arsenals. Free-fall bombs are mainly used, however, as mentioned above, thanks to the Hephaestus system, they hit the target much more accurately.

Bringing the number of sorties per day to the maximum possible - about 60, the refusal to use flights in pairs in favor of single raids indicate that the resource of sorties by our aviation in Syria has reached the limit. Both in terms of stocks of material and technical means, and in terms of the intensity of the use of equipment.

This means that the number of aircraft with the latest electronics is actually limited to the group that is located in Latakia.

KR: It turns out that in the event of a long and large-scale war, our armed forces would have huge problems. First of all, due to insufficient logistical support ...

K.S.: To be more specific, today the Russian army, even with full mobilization, is capable of winning 1-2 local conflicts. After them, it will be necessary to take a long pause to patch holes. If the question of open confrontation with NATO arises, then our general-purpose forces are unlikely to be able to hold out against the United States and allies for more than one or two months. The Americans are now afraid to go to war with Russia just because we have nuclear weapons, which remain the only iron deterrent. If we imagine that we do not have nuclear missiles or that both sides do not have nuclear weapons - in this case, I am sure, a military operation against Russia would have already started.

Using its superiority, the alliance would have agreed to significant losses during the first operations, when they would have defeated our main general forces, and then - the complete occupation of our country. Now we are saved only by nuclear parity.

Therefore, to say that within the framework of a hypothetical World War III, Russia can conduct large-scale military operations (say, a grouping of 800 thousand people or more) without the use of weapons of mass destruction is nonsense.

If we talk not about a local, but about a regional war (which was for us the Great Patriotic War, WWII), then a group of 4-5 million will have to be put in the line of fire ... This is just fantastic. For comparison, the USSR in its heyday was able to provide national security in all wars, including world wars.

KR: But if the question comes up of putting all the reserves we have under the gun, wouldn't a large stock of tanks and field artillery left over from Soviet times help?

K.S.: Indeed, in our arsenals a large number of tanks - T-72, T-80. Judging by open data, there are about 5,000 80-k and 7,000 72-k different models. Our T-90 can handle the new Abrams modifications of the M1A2 series. In any case, there will be no head-on collision and massive tank battles of the Second World War, but they will resist the infantry and solve other modern combat missions our machines are in good condition. Although I note that approximately 80% of them will first have to be repaired.

But the main thing is that today we have almost destroyed the ammunition production industry. Let's say, for a division of 300 tanks, you need to have about 1200 shells for a full ammunition load. In intense combat operations, they are consumed during the day. About 20,000 shots are needed to conduct hostilities in the course of a month. This is just for tanks. Here we will add more intensively working field artillery - they usually have a couple of ammunition sets flying away in a day. Plus air defense systems, and we get the same picture that we had during the Second World War.

In order to launch a large-scale offensive, it is necessary to create a supply of shells, measured in hundreds of echelons - tens of millions of rounds. This requires a powerful industry. The Soviet military industry provided the front with everything necessary. And we can say that now in Syria, according to by and large, not so much Russia as the USSR is fighting.

Most of our stockpiles of aerial bombs are Soviet-made, not Russian. So if a large-scale war starts, then during the first major operation, everything will fly out from us, and we will no longer be able to replenish these supplies. Here I refer, among other things, to the opinion of the most authoritative engineer, one of the former leaders of the ammunition industry Yuri Shabalin.

Our second problem is the production of new equipment. In our country, the so-called industry of basic technologies has been largely destroyed or transferred to private hands - this is heat-resistant steel, standard microcircuits ... Therefore, it will be problematic to solve the issue of replacing components for our tanks.

Finally, one more important point- the launch of 26 Kalibr missiles from the Caspian Sea cost us 10 billion rubles. That is, the cost of each rocket from this volley amounted to 6.4 million dollars. For the Americans, a volley of Tomahawk-type missiles costs about 2-2.5 million dollars.

Question: where do we get such high prices? First of all, because of corruption schemes that no one thinks to fight. Therefore, all our newly created weapons will be very expensive - in any war, all kinds of industrial bosses are happy to warm their hands.

It's no secret that before the recent sanctions, we bought many basic spare parts for new developments from the West. And now we have import substitution mainly at the expense of China and all sorts of gray bypass schemes. From the moment our military industry came under sanctions, I have not heard about the commissioning of a single new, more or less serious enterprise. That is why the only deterrent for the enemy in the coming years is nuclear weapons.

KR: Just the other day, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu spoke about the completion of the construction of a modern military base in the Arctic - on the New Siberian Islands. How effective will this project be, and what other steps should the RF Ministry of Defense take to protect our borders?

K.S.: The Arctic is the most important northern, northwestern and northeastern strategic direction in the event of a major war. It is from there that in the event of hostilities between Russia and the United States, intercontinental ballistic missiles and strategic bombers will fly. In turn, we will go along these directions - all the shortest trajectories will lie there. From the point of view of the development of air defense and missile defense systems, we need this base like air.

The sad result of our liberal reforms in the 90s was that the entire air defense infrastructure in this region was destroyed. Now the gaps in our aerial surveillance system are measured in hundreds of kilometers. And in Soviet times in the Arctic, there was a dense radar surveillance system that controlled all airspace at altitudes of 200-300 meters and above. Separate gaps were closed by patrol planes. Today bottom line observations reaches several kilometers, and in the region of Central Siberia, huge sections of the sky are not visible at all. The creation of a stable ground-based radar field with 100% coverage of our northern borders is the number one task that requires a lot of manpower and resources. So far, patrol posts have been set up pointwise, which close certain areas in order to ensure the detection of at least those aircraft and missiles that threaten the most important industrial facilities and large cities.

In addition, enemy planes must be shot down even before they launch missiles, which are usually 500-800 kilometers from our border. Accordingly, at the border should work Russian fighters. Thanks to the efforts of our scientists, the firing range of MIG-31 missiles reaches more than 300 kilometers. It remains to place airfield nodes with these aircraft, each of which can effectively cover a section of the sky up to 1600 kilometers in size in order to close all the gaps. In addition, all strategically important facilities must be protected by air defense systems. Accordingly, for their good work, people and infrastructure are needed.

Finally, in this zone it is necessary to provide permanent routes for radar patrol aircraft. Today we have only 15 units. In a good way, to cover the entire country, you need about four times more. NATO has 67 such aircraft at its disposal, and the United States has about 100. However, we have planned only single assemblies of such aircraft, and then only for 2018. In addition, from the northern waters (at a distance of more than 1,000 kilometers from the coast), American submarines can launch Tomahawk missiles at our Siberian oil centers in order to deprive the country of energy. Therefore, today the program that is being deployed as part of the defense of this region is quite adequate. But so far this is only a necessary minimum, the first steps.

KR: What can you say about the massive NATO exercises near our western borders? Apparently, the alliance is working out not only defensive, but also offensive operations. Including with the use of landing and heavy equipment. Now the Baltics are being pumped up with new American tanks. What are the possible scenarios for the development of events on the "European front"?

K.S.: First of all, any exercises are carried out in order to work out certain interactions between troops, there is no demonstrative function here. And in the fact that the Americans recently shot down ballistic missile from the destroyer, which was off the coast of Scotland, there is nothing to worry about. This is quite a common event. Just like our anti-aircraft systems ground or ship-based practice the destruction of missiles. Of course, the teachings of the West are not a preparation for big war against Russia of the 1941 model.

They are well aware that if at least preparations for such a war begin, but it cannot be hidden, under the current political leadership Russia, realizing that we have no prospects for a long-term confrontation, will be the first to use nuclear weapons. It must be assumed that there are no suicides either in the USA or in Europe, so they are unlikely to do this.

But our adversary may also have other technologies - for example, to create a system of chaos in Russia beforehand, to disorganize government, to inspire economic problems and completely discredit the current government, opposing it to the people, to force the people to take to the streets and, against this background, create riots, in as a result of which the control of strategic nuclear forces will be disrupted. After the capture of the General Staff in Moscow, no one will be able to take command of a nuclear strike ... And only then an invasion will be organized ground forces, which will destroy the disconnected resistance of individual parts Russian army- and our territory is occupied. This goal in large-scale NATO exercises is very likely.

Of course, no one seriously considers the possible invasion of Russia into the territory of the same Estonia. Everyone understands perfectly well that there are no idiots in the US and Russian governments - no one wants to survive in a nuclear winter. But in order to justify the further deployment of NATO to our western borders and to rally their ranks, they continue to escalate the situation. Moreover, so-called operational-based formations are being deployed in the immediate vicinity of us. With them, all heavy equipment, ammunition are in advanced areas, and personnel are in the United States. At the outbreak of hostilities, personnel are transferred to Eastern Europe, reactivate weapons - and in a couple of days a full-fledged US motorized division of 12-15 thousand people appears there. And in a calm environment there is a maximum of 500-600 military personnel, simply guarding the territory.

War now, of course, will bear little resemblance to the classic head-on collisions we read about in textbooks. It all starts, as you know, with information and network battles for the consciousness of people.

KR: Since we are talking about this madness (exchange nuclear strikes with the United States), what can missile defense systems do here and what does the notorious “nuclear umbrella” actually save from?

K.S.: At the moment, US missile defense poses little threat to our nuclear capability. Their "anti-nuclear" SM-3 missiles are capable of hitting enemy warheads at a distance of up to 400 kilometers.

This is in the most ideal conditions - if the enemy's missile is heading in the opposite direction. Moreover, the speed of the warhead, which it can hit, is limited somewhere in the region of 2.5 kilometers per second. That is, this missile is capable of hitting warheads up to an operational radius of action - within 2-2.5 thousand kilometers. intercontinental missiles on the final section of the trajectory they go with much more high speed. Therefore, the only threat SM-3 can pose to us is only when they are brought closer to a distance of 150-200 kilometers to the patrol areas of our nuclear submarines. In this case, they will get a chance to shoot down missiles launched from our submarines, but only on the active part of the trajectory - they will have about 80 seconds to do this. Naturally, our aviation and naval forces will inflict serious blows on enemy ships. So first he will have to defeat the fleet and aviation of the Russian Federation, which will take at least 10-15 days. By this time, we will certainly use nuclear weapons.

In addition, our submarines, as well as American ones, can launch from under arctic ice, punching holes in it with torpedoes before launch. Although, in the presence of intercontinental-range missiles, in principle, submarines do not need such tricks - they can easily attack off their coasts under the cover of a reliable anti-submarine and air defense system. Here, any missile defense forces available on the two sides are ineffective.

As for other defense systems, they are only capable of firing at warheads that are already in space - not on the active part of the trajectory.

Somewhere around 3-5 warheads out of 1700 the Americans will be able to destroy. You understand that this is negligible. By 2025, the United States plans to bring this figure to 30-40 warheads, but still the problem is not solved in principle.

But what is the real danger for us - by the way, the President of Russia spoke about this Vladimir Putin at the Valdai Discussion Club. In the mines of the NATO missile defense system expanding to the east, if desired, it is easy to load not only the "anti-nuclear" SM-3, but also the ballistic Minuteman-3. That is, in less than a month, a strike group of medium-range missiles with a nuclear potential is being created.

With the tactics of a quick global strike, an extremely unpleasant scenario for us can be realized, when a significant part of Russia's nuclear potential is destroyed in a short time - our retaliatory strike is completely disorganized. And when our single missiles fly in response, they will be removed by the missile defense system.

True, to hone such a scheme, it will take at least another couple of decades. But Putin's concern about this is entirely justified.

Popular