There is something to fight with Russia: new SIAW shock missiles have appeared in the US

It is a vital potential that can incline scales in any future European war. But in the new shock weapons, Stand-in Attack Weapon, or Siaw, there is a problem-and it lies in the name. Siaw is intended for relatively close attacks. But, say, in the war with China for Taiwan, the Air Force fighters may face difficulties during rapprochement. Northrop Grumman handed over the first SIAW aircraft in mid -November, a little more than a year after the Air Force has contracted with Virginia.

"The company continues to develop weapons, integrates the platform and completes a program of flight tests to quickly create a prototype and put into operation by 2026," - said Northrop Grumman. The 14-foot SIAW is the Air Earth-Earth rocket, which, according to the manufacturer, "provides a shock potential for the defeat of rapidly moved goals.

" Its design is largely borrowed from an improved anti -radiation controlled missile of Northrop Grumman Aargm, which is optimized to suppress or destroy the radar of the enemy. The latest version of AARGM with an increased radius of action is reported to overcome a distance of up to 150 miles at a maximum speed exceeding two strokes. The main differences between Aargm and Siaw are their seekers and warheads.

Aargm is equipped with a search engine designed to detect gears from enemy radars and a shrapnel warlock-ideal for the destruction of weak radars and launches of landscapes "Earth-Air". SIAW has to have a whole set of seekers and various warheads, which will allow it to be given to vehicles, command points and other goals that can be more protected, and less noticeable in the electromagnetic spectrum than conventional air defense radars.

Both Aargm and SIAW are designed to accommodate two pieces in the internal weapon compartments of the Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighter. The concept underlying SIAW is quite healthy. Flying without external weapons for maximum secrecy, the F-35 will penetrate into the outer layer of defense of the enemy.

While accompanying aircraft fireting fired enemy radars from Aargm, F-35, armed SIAW, will be aimed at heavier parts of the defensive network-machines, buildings and bins that may evade AargM fragments or are not able to transmit signals from radars. The problem with SIAW and other new American ammunition is the shooting range. For clarity. The problem is not at the range of rocket flight.

After decades of rapid modernization, the People's Liberation Army of China has replaced many of its once outdated air defense systems with hundreds of the latest starting installations that shoot missiles up to 125 miles. F-35 shooting Aargm and SIAW can destroy these launchers, remaining outside the reach of their missiles. No, the problem in the flight range of F-35: 590 miles with internal weapons and fuel.

There is only one major American air base, located close enough to Taiwan to send the F-35 to the fight over the island and around it without the need to refuel fighter jets in the air from large, slow and vulnerable filling aircraft. But this airbase, Cadena, is extremely vulnerable to Chinese attacks. The NVAK has hundreds of rockets with a sufficient radius of action to hit the cadenut from the launchers on the mainland of China.

"Even a relatively small number of accurate missiles can close the flight base on critical days at the beginning of hostilities," Rand California reports. What is the meaning of a pile of high-tech F-35, armed with high-tech SIAW missiles if F-35 cannot approach Chinese troops to release rockets? However, the combination of F-35-Siaw can be devastating in the air campaign over Europe, where the distances between friendly and hostile forces are much smaller.

F-35 flying against Russian troops can shift their air defense by opening the sky for Western fighters so they can act on the battlefield. We know what will happen in this case: in our memory it happened with three different tank armies equipped with Soviet weapons. The Iraqi army was destroyed twice and Libyan once, and the losses of US and allies were very insignificant. Putin soldiers do not go better. The author expresses a personal opinion that may not coincide with the editorial position.