American weapons of the new generation. Modern weapons of the USA

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the two main nuclear powers that remained in the world, namely the US and the Russian Federation, were in the relative strategic nirvana for the first years. The leadership and the people of both countries had a deceptive impression of the coming peace, guaranteed for decades. The Americans considered their victory in the Cold War so convincing that they did not allow for further confrontation. The Russians did not feel themselves losers and expected an equal-benevolent attitude towards themselves as a people who voluntarily joined the West-democratic scale of values. Both of them were wrong. Very soon a civil war began in the Balkans, in the outcome of which the decisive role played by American weapons.

The US leadership considered its success in the matter of dismembering the SFRY a good omen. It went further, striving to establish a complete hegemony, allowing to dispose of material resources on an all-planetary scale, and suddenly stumbled at the beginning of the third millennium to resist Russia, a country that has the will and the means to protect its geopolitical interests. The US was not ready for this confrontation.

Before and during the war

On the eve of World War II, the United States was a peaceful country. The American army was not numerous, and its technical equipment remained rather modest. In 1940, a congressman boasted that he saw all the armored vehicles of his country's armed forces: "All 400 tanks!" He proudly declared. But even then some weapons were given priority, serious achievements of American designers were observed in the field of aircraft construction. In the war, America entered, having a powerful air fleet, which included an armada of strategic bombers B-17, long-range fighters "Mustang" and "Thunderbolt", other examples of fine aircraft. By 1944 in the Pacific Ocean, the United States began to use the latest B-29, unattainable for Japanese air defense systems. Impressive and the US fleet, a powerful, aircraft-carrying and capable of crushing objects far from the coast.

American weapons of the Second World War were supplied to the USSR under the Lend-Lease program, and this concept included dual-use technology. Excellent trucks "Studebaker, jeeps" Willis "and" Doji-three-quarters "enjoyed the well-deserved respect of the Red Army drivers, and to this day they are remembered with a kind word. American military weapons, that is, a means of directly defeating the enemy, were not so unambiguously assessed. The fighter of the "Aerocobra", on which fought the illustrious as I. Kozhedub, possessed a truly titanic firepower, excellent maneuverability and unprecedented ergonomics, which in combination with a strong motor contributed to the achievement of many air victories. The masterpiece of engineering thought was also the transport Douglas.

Tanks made in the US were estimated rather low, they were obsolete both technologically and morally.

Korea and the 50s

American weapons of the ground forces of the postwar decade practically did not differ from that with which the US Army fought fascist Germany and militaristic Japan. In practice, they were the same "Shermans", "Willis", "Studebaker", that is, either obsolete armored vehicles, or excellent transport equipment, created by the automotive industry of Detroit. Another thing is aviation. Having joined the race of aircraft, the company "Northrop", "General Dynamics", "Boeing" achieved a lot, taking advantage of the technological superiority achieved in those years when in Europe (and not only) the fire of war raged. The US Air Force has adopted the largest in the history of the strategic B-36 bomb, not without irony, called the "Peacemaker". The jet interceptor "Saber" was also good.

Lagging in the field of fighter aviation of the USSR soon overcame, Soviet tanks for decades remained indisputably the best in the world, but in many other areas, American weapons surpassed the Soviet one. In particular, this concerned the naval forces, which had a large tonnage and crushing fire capabilities. And the main factor was nuclear warheads.

The beginning of the atomic race

In fact, the arms race began after the appearance in the arsenals of the United States and the USSR of a large number of atomic charges and their means of delivery to the target. Once the vulnerability of piston strategic bombers was convincingly demonstrated in the Korean sky, the parties focused on other methods of delivering nuclear strikes, as well as technologies for parrying them. In a sense, this deadly ping-pong continues to this day. At the dawn of the arms race, even such joyful events in the history of mankind, like the launching of a satellite and the flight of Gagarin, acquired an apocalyptic color in the eyes of military analysts. It was clear to everyone that in case of a big war, American weapons, even the most modern, can not play the role of a deterrent. To repel the attack of Soviet missiles at that time was simply nothing, only deterrence ensured by the guarantee of a retaliatory strike remained. And the number of warheads was constantly growing, and the tests were constantly on, then in Nevada, then on Spitsbergen, then near Semipalatinsk, then at Bikini Atoll. It seemed that the world had gone mad, and moving briskly to its imminent death. Thermonuclear (or hydrogen) bombs appeared already in 1952, less than a year later the Soviet Union presented its response.

Local wars

Another illusion that arose at the dawn of the Cold War was that, out of fear of an atomic apocalypse, local wars would become impossible. In a sense, this was true. American nuclear weapons aimed at the large industrial and military areas of the USSR, acted on the Soviet leadership as sobering, as on J. Kennedy missiles deployed in Cuba. An open military conflict between the two superpowers never happened. But the horror of the inevitable end did not prevent mankind from fighting almost continuously. The best American weapons were supplied to the pro-Western allies of the United States, and the USSR almost always responded to these actions by "providing fraternal assistance" to one or another freedom-loving people fighting against imperialism. It should be noted that the practice of such (often gratuitous) supply of friendly regimes was stopped even before the collapse of the Union due to the economic problems that arose. However, during the time when the allies of the USSR and the US fought among themselves, analysts had no doubt about the relative parity of the superpower systems of armaments. In some cases, the domestic defense industry demonstrated superiority over the overseas one. The American small arms were inferior in reliability to the Soviet.

Why does the US not attack Russia?

Unlike the enterprises of the Soviet and Russian defense industries, which were always owned predominantly by the state, American firms that produce weapons are privately owned. Military budgets (or rather, their ratio) suggest that the US military should be the most powerful in the world. The history of the last decades leads to the conclusion that it is inevitable that they will be used against a deliberately weak opponent in the event of discontent with the US administration of the policy of a state declared an outcast. The budget of the US Armed Forces was in 2014 an astronomical sum of 581 billion dollars. The Russian indicator is many times more modest (about 70 billion). It seems that the conflict is inevitable. But it is not, and it is not foreseen, despite serious tensions with respect to superpowers. The question arises as to how much the American Army's weapons are better than the Russian. And in general - is it better?

Judging by all the signs, the United States has no superiority (at least overwhelming), despite the huge amounts of military appropriations. And there is an explanation for that. It consists in the main goals and tasks of the American military-industrial complex.

How the US MIC works

It's all about private ownership. American arms manufacturers are interested in observing the basic law of capitalist society, for which his majesty Profit serves as the main shrine. Technical solutions that require low material costs, even if they are genius, are, as a rule, rejected at the root. The new American weapons should be expensive, technologically rich, complex, have an impressive external appearance so that taxpayers can, after admiring it, make sure that their blood money is not wasted.

While there is no big war, the effectiveness of these samples is difficult to assess (if at all possible). And against the opponent, technically weak (such as Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya or Afghanistan), the application of technology miracles is generally win-win. With a strong opponent, the US Army is not going to fight, apparently. At least, it does not conduct technical preparations for an attack on China, India or Russia in the near future. But to spend budget funds for promising secret American weapons is a win-win situation, but very profitable. The public is promised a hypersonic rocket, a fantastic unmanned aircraft. The latter are already there, for example, "Predator" in the shock and reconnaissance versions. True, it is not known how effective they will be in the face of countering powerful anti-aircraft defense. Over Afghanistan and Libya, they were relatively safe. The newest invisible interceptors "Raptor" are also not experienced in combat, but they are so expensive that even the US budget can not stand it.

The main trend of recent decades

The aforementioned relaxation that came after the victory in the Cold War prompted a change in the structure of spending of the US military budget in favor of preparing for a series of local wars planned to achieve a new geopolitical picture beneficial to the US and NATO. The nuclear threat from Russia since the early 1990s was completely ignored. The weapons of the American army were created taking into account the application precisely in such conflicts, in nature close to police operations. Advantage was given to tactical means at the expense of strategic. The United States still maintains the world championship in terms of the number of nuclear warheads, but in the majority they have been manufactured for a long time.

Despite the fact that their service period has been extended (for example, "Minutemen" - until 2030), there is no confidence in their ideal technical condition even among the most vigorous optimists. The new missiles in the US plan to start developing only in 2025. The Russian state in the meantime did not miss the opportunity to improve its nuclear shield. Against the backdrop of the backlog, the US leadership is making attempts to create systems capable of intercepting ICBMs and are trying to bring them as close as possible to the borders of the Russian Federation.

American anti-missile systems

According to the idea of transatlantic strategists, the most likely enemy in the supposed global conflict should be surrounded on all sides by means of detection and interception of ICBMs, united in a single complex. Ideally, Russia should also fall under a kind of umbrella, woven from invisible satellite orbits and radar beams. New American weapons are already deployed on many bases in Alaska, Greenland, the British Isles, it is being continuously upgraded. An extensive warning system about a possible nuclear missile strike is based on AN / TPY-2 radar stations located in Japan, Norway and Turkey, countries that share borders or are closely adjacent to Russia. Early warning system "Aegis" is installed in Romania. According to the program SBIRS, 34 satellites are being orbited into the orbit.

All these preparations are spent for space (both in direct and figurative sense), but their real effectiveness raises certain doubts due to the fact that Russian missiles can overcome the most advanced missile defense systems - both existing and planned, and even planned.

"Trunks" for export

Approximately 29% of world exports of defense products are held by American modern weapons. "On the heels" of the United States is Russia with its 27 percent. The reason for the success of domestic manufacturers lies in the simplicity, efficiency, reliability and relative cheapness of the products they offer. In order to promote their goods, Americans have to act in different ways, including using political influence on the governments of importing countries.

Sometimes simplified and cheaper models are developed for the external market. Deserved success in many countries is used by American small arms, which in most cases are modifications of time-tested and combat experience models that have been in service since the Vietnam War (quick-firing carbines M-16, M-18). The latest "barrels" are considered to be the P-226 pistol developed in the 80s, the Mark 16 and 17 assault rifle and other successful designs, however, by popularity of Kalashnikov they are far from being too expensive and complicated.

"Javelin" - American anti-tank weapons

The use of guerrilla methods of combat, the complex character of the theater of modern military operations and the appearance of compact wearable means revolutionized tactical science. The fight against armored vehicles has become one of the most important tasks. In connection with the expansion of the geography of local conflicts in the world, there is a growing demand for American anti-tank weapons. The reason for the shift in import channels is, mainly, not in the superiority of overseas models over the Russian ones, it lies in political motives. Recently, RPTK "Javelin" has become very famous in connection with negotiations on possible deliveries of them from the USA to Ukraine. The new complex costs $ 2 million and includes a sight-starting system and ten rockets. The Ukrainian side agrees to purchase used units, but at a price of $ 500 thousand. What will end the negotiations and whether the deal is still unknown.