Lockheed-Martin, the main arms supplier for the Pentagon, has unveiled a new guided missile. A promotional video has been published on the company’s official website in which the promising PrSM long-range high-precision missile system simulates an attack on an enemy air defense system. The enemy is the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missile system. This is not the first time that foreign manufacturers have demonstratively “destroyed” Russian weapons. How justified are their applications, MK asked the expert.
In recent years, the world’s leading arms manufacturers have repeatedly published advertising materials demonstrating how exactly their developments can destroy the equipment of a potential enemy. Firms from Europe, Israel and, of course, the USA indulge in virtual subjects. American companies will present new unmanned systems, missiles and promising ammunition. The main “targets” are traditionally Russian weapons systems, in particular, air defense systems.
The American concern Lockheed-Martin posted a three-minute video on its official website. It simulates the attack of an enemy anti-aircraft missile system with a new-generation high-precision missile of the US Army. Guidance is carried out by F-35 stealth fighters.
As a conditional target, the position of the Russian-made S-400 anti-aircraft missile system is presented as part of the 5P85TE2 self-propelled launchers, the 92N6 multifunctional fire control system, the 91N6E combat detection and control radar and the 5T58-2 missile carrier.
The target is destroyed by a promising ground-to-ground missile PrSM. According to the official release, this is a new weapon system that will provide enhanced capabilities for attacking, neutralizing, suppressing and destroying targets using indirect missile weapons at a range of more than 499 kilometers. As noted in the company, PrSM provides increased range, has high combat effectiveness and is well protected from interference.
Military expert Aleksey Valyuzhenich told MK that the desire of Western firms to “destroy” Russian weapons is understandable. But, the specialist notes, Western firms too often wishful thinking.
First of all, this concerns the United States and Israel. They take real frontline situations, such as the destruction of the Pantsir installations in Syria, and promote them in every possible way. They say that competitors cannot supply good weapons. But let’s remember that the American Patriot systems in Saudi Arabia cannot protect the country from rocket attacks from Yemen. That the Israeli Iron Dome also regularly misses missiles. Or is it different? It is strange to see from them such a generalization of certain local successes.