Global Defence and Strategic Issues
USA/NATO Militaries
moskit
ATLASCUB
Tyranus
KiloGolf
OminousSpudd
Towen
DerWolf
Rodinazombie
JohninMK
Morpheus Eberhardt
sweetflowers365
AMosienko
gloriousfatherland
Pervius
IronsightSniper
Ogannisyan8887
Go to page : 1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 11, 12, 13
NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response
Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response
Corrosion Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:42 pm
GarryB wrote: Talk about destabilising...
I agree GarryB. What if your enemy shoots it down. What are the consequences when the debris fall on ground. What if people are killed or radiation poisoned? Wont that equal to a sort of nuclear/chemical attack. You would definitely put your enemy in dilemma, how to strike back at you? What if your enemy is nuclear weapons state. More of the reason for more countries to have nuclear weapons and strong defenses and form alliances. Talk about destabilizing....
GarryB Sat Apr 07, 2012 2:16 am
A cruise missile flying at mach 3 at low level would be an enormous task to hit efficiently and even if you hit it it would need to be before it gets to your territory.
Both Russia and the US have directions from which the likelyhood an ICBM attack is very very low so there are not many defences pointed in that direction... the obvious example for the US is its southern border where drug filled cessnas penetrate US airspace at will.
Another aspect is that the old 1950s system was huge... with modern electronics and materials and nuclear power technology a modern missile could be a small fraction of the size of the old missiles... in fact they could probably base the design of the weapon on Granit or enlarged Onyx. In fact Onyx already uses ramjet propulsion... a nuclear powered scramjet version would have a heat speed limit only... a normal jet engine chokes on supersonic speed air so even at supersonic flight speeds the intake narrows and restricts the air coming in to the engine to make it subsonic by the time it enters the engine. With a scramjet the fuel is burnt supersonically so no need to reduce the speed of the air going into the air intake and therefore flight speed can go as high as orbital speed... it would be an efficient way to get into space.
In fact as there are two options for nuclear powered engines... one being dirty direct drive and the other being clean indirect drive if scramjet technology could be perfected then a nuclear powered indirect drive scramjet powered aircraft might be the future of getting to space stations,,, large amounts of slush (ie very cold) hydrogen could be stored on board and pumped through the front skin of the aircraft to cool it as it accelerates to leave the atmosphere and then outside the atmosphere close the intake and use the slush hydrogen superheated by the nuclear reactor to blast out the rear of the space craft like a rocket... actually no... liquid nitrogen instead of hydrogen. 70% of the earths atmosphere is nitrogen and it is totally inert so it is totally safe even when mixed with oxygen inside the atmosphere. The reason to use hydrogen is to burn as fuel but with the nuclear heat source you don't need to burn the hydrogen with oxygen to create rocket fuel... which means all the oxygen on board can be kept for breathing. The slush nitrogen will cool the aircraft skin just as slush hydrogen would and when superheated in the reactor it would expand into a gas inside the engine which would blast out the back in space as thrust. Nitrogen is a heavier element so the exhaust velocity will be lower than with hydrogen but it should still do the job of manoeuvring in empty space...
You could even unify the reactor and have an ion engine to leave earths orbit... and go to the moon or mars or whereever.
The point about the nuclear armed nuclear powered cruise missile is that the enemy will not start a war with you if you have them because his ABM shield will not stop such weapons and the radiation they leave in their wake just from the engines will be devastating to the human population and these things could fly for decades... and a mach 3 shockwave at ground level would have the effect of an explosive bomb... it could destroy buildings and kill people... 24/7 and of course you would never hear it coming as it would be traveling at almost a kilometre a second.
As an anti ABM concept I think even the US will realise that given a choice between protection from Iranian ICBMs that don't exist and Russian development of such technology, or vulnerability to non-existent Iranian ICBMs and no nuclear powered super doomsday cruise missiles... I rather suspect they will choose the latter.
The most important thing is the Russians don't need to spend a cent in development and it will actually save the US taxpayer trillions of dollars, though I am sure the US military will find another way to spend that money...
Location : India || भारत
Sujoy Wed May 23, 2012 6:04 pm
Last month Secretary of Russia's Security Council Nikolai Patrushev had said that NATO"s Missile defense could intercept Russian ballistic missiles by 2020 .
With today's successful launch of the next generation ICBM , Russia it seems has made the NATO Missile shield irrelevant . According to Russian military sources this missile substantially upgrades the technology used by its already feared Topol-M and Yars systems.This missile is using a new type of fuel that helps reduce the time required to operate the propellants in the active stage of the rocket's trajectory . This makes it more difficult to detect and easier to manoeuvre. Interfax said the weapon is also equipped with individual warheads that can change course to avoid being shot down.
GarryB Thu May 24, 2012 11:18 am
An ABM shield might be irrelevant for this new missile, but what percentage of Russias nuclear deterrent will this missile make up in 2020, and how will further growth of the US ABM systems effect this situation.
The US is now in talks with ME countries... that means a potential UK US system, a system in Europe, a system in the ME, they have suggested a system with India... and of course the talks with Japan and South Korea for a system there...
At what point do the Russians say enough... you can have your ABM systems all over the place, but in the interests of preventing a nuclear war they want their deterrent to be effective and they will now position a nuclear warhead in all their future satellite launches with a small deorbit rocket motor that can be triggered when needed to shower the whole world with nuclear explosions as a deterrent so they never have to worry about nuclear war.
Sujoy Thu May 24, 2012 1:56 pm
The US ABM system is at best - a dark horse . Simulations after simulations carried out by individuals/organizations in the US have clearly proved that present day US SAM's will "nudge" an incoming warhead but will not be able to destroy it completely. So there has to be a quantum leap in ABM technology in the US for it to effectively field an ABM system that can intercept incoming Russian ballistic missiles. In the guise of stationing ABM systems in foreign countries the US is actually looking for more funding for it's ABM system . A few gullible states in the Gulf might well fall into this trap .
And by 2020 Russia will be able to fine tune all it's ICBM's to penetrate any NATO missile defense shield . I would hope that Russia increase it's defense budget significantly over the coming years . Even China spends close to $150 billion in defense annually . The Russian defense budget should therefore be in the vicinity of $150 billion - $200 billion . With the exception of China only Russia can afford a huge defense budget because it does not run a huge current account deficit like India .
If push comes to shove , Russia will activate missile sites in Greece , Venezuela and possibly even in Cuba . "Old Europe" does not have the stomach for this or maybe they have grown wiser . Hopefully , sense will prevail in "New Europe" or else they might well be turned by Russia into a "parking lot " for ABM systems
GarryB Fri May 25, 2012 12:53 am
The problem is that ABM systems are completely unregulated.
There is no agreement or structure that would demand the US tell the Russians anything... like their hit to kill payloads are working out to be too expensive so they decided... without telling anyone especially their allies, that they will replace the hit to kill payloads with nuclear warheads. The US doesn't care about a few more nuclear explosions over asia or europe or the middle east... this is all about making the US safe from everything.
Sujoy Mon May 28, 2012 10:39 am
Russia does not actually need an ICBM to neutralize NATO missile shield .Russia can simply deploy Iskander-M missiles armed with a Thermobaric warhead in the Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad and around Russia's periphery, in order to be able to strike quickly against US missile defense systems.Given the fact that the Iskander uses special composite materials to reduce the radar signature of the missile to evade targeting radars employed by enemy surveillance sensors, UAVs and smart weapons it becomes that much more difficult for NATO to intercept an incoming Iskander.
GarryB Mon May 28, 2012 12:22 pm
It certainly could, but how can it continue to follow the new Start treaty in good faith when the US is undermining the value of balance of that treaty.
This is not about the US plans for 2013, this is about US plans for 2020 and beyond.
The current plans for 2020 include comments about a ballistic missile shield able to deal with any threat.
This potentially renders Russias nuclear deterrent questionable... remember the system can never be fully tested against Russian assets, so it really doesn't matter whether it is an effective ABM system or not.
The belief that it might be effective is enough to make the US think it is no longer dealing with a Russia that can seriously damage it. In effect the US will start treating Russia the way it treats Iraq and Iran.
It doesn't matter if it turns out that all these ABM systems are ineffective against Russian weapons... by then it is too late.
Russia doesn't object to the US ABM system because it wants to attack the US... it objects to the US ABM system because it doesn't want to have to attack the US.
MAD requires no trust at all, and no broken promise or stab in the back change of leadership in the US will effect the stability and peace as long as the US can wipe Russia off the map and Russia can do the same to the US.
For Russia it makes the most sense to object now and nip it all in the bud before either the US and Russia have spend a ridiculous amount of money on something that will never be needed.
Plan B is to analyse the new system and look at simple and cheap ways of undermining it, so the US wastes a lot of money and gets a white elephant that helps them sleep at night with the false sense of security they seem so desperate to get.
Either way the US is going to be spending billions it really doesn't seem to have right now, but the American people just don't seem to care... so why should I?
Worst case scenario for Russia is to simply withdraw from the INF treaty and the new Start treaty and also the convention that bans nuclear weapons in space. All future Russian military satellites can be fitted to carry small nuclear weapons... lots of nukes going off in space above Europe and Japan and the US will blind most assets using radar and IR sensors long enough to let enough missiles through to do the job.
The irony is that the US relies on space based assets and the INF and new Start agreements are useful to them too... much more useful than a system that might stop a missile that Iran might launch at the US... but even that logic is flawed because the act of building an ABM system pretty much guarantees a sensible enemy will find some much cheaper and easier way to deliver a warhead to the US... they could smuggle a nuclear weapon to Turkey and then Fed Ex it to the US... marked urgent. Subsonic low flying cruise missiles are much cheaper and easier to make than ICBMs and hidden on a container ship it could be launched mid atlantic off a container ship in the middle of the night and no one would have any idea what hit them.
Even a nuclear powered and nuclear armed torpedo fired from the African coast with no impact fuse and set to run at 20knts at a depth that will prevent it hitting any ships and it can run for days or weeks and when it gets to a certain geographic location it can rise and navigate its way into a port and blow up the whole port... GPS is quite accurate around the US and at 20 knots speed civilian GPS signals would be accurate enough.
Location : London, United Kingdom
AMosienko Mon May 28, 2012 6:16 pm
Europe is more concerned about Russia's nuclear weapons . It fully understands it doesn't have a chance against Russia's unconventional weapons.
Location : India
Austin Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:14 am
Technical concerns: Why Russia worries about missile defense
Firebird Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:53 pm
The people that matter in Europe, don't have any problem with Russia. France, Italy, Germany and the rest. Its only American shit-stirrers that even want to think about this ABM crap.
And Britain has as much to gain working WITH rather than against Russia.
Putin needs to start talking about "protecting Cuba's sovereignty" and the like.
ie Russian ABM and hypersonic planes based in Cuba. Might stop this idiotic American posturing for redneck (trailer trash) voters in Hicksville USA.
GarryB Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:06 pm
But you can't tell them that... they seem to think Russia is a naughty little boy and needs democracy lessons from the west in general and the UK in particular.
The UK is the rich kid growing up that had everything (like India) and Russia was the poor kid who didn't have anything. The UK was always scared Russia was going to pinch something... like India.
It seems that India made friends with Russia because Russia didn't treat India like it was their parent.
Even today Britain thinks its influence and effect on India and the rest of the world was largely positive... of course they never saw all the violence and brutality needed to force the natives into line.
Of course most European naval countries did it too and probably think they spread civilisation to the world, when in most cases what they spread was destructive consumerism. They consider themselves culturally diverse because they eat curries and chinese food at their takeaways.
To be honest I think Russia should trade with Europe, but not expect any real friendship... at least for a few generations to get their chips off their shoulders. There are plenty of countries around the world who would be interested in fair honest trade relations. Wouldn't expect too much from some countries under the western thumb like Australia or part of it like the UK, but asian countries, central and south american countries, and african countries will likely want a change from the west.
Poland to host Aegis BMD
flamming_python Tue Oct 23, 2012 1:56 am
Man this is hilarious, when will these n00bs learn?
http://rt.com/politics/poland-missile-defense-invest-791/
New arms race? Poland to spend fortune on missile defense
Warsaw plans to expend up to US$400 million on the creation of its missile defense system as Russia promises to deploy weapons close to Poland's borders in response to the proposed American AMD shield.
The US missile defense shield in Europe – which Russia sees as a threat to its national security – has been a bone of contention between Moscow and NATO. Washington claims there is no threat, but has refused to provide legally-binding guarantees that the system would not be used against Russia.
Moscow underlined that, though it has every capability of adequately responding to the shield's deployment, it would prefer Washington's plans to be reviewed. No matter what terms the American side uses, the missile defense plan "is still an element of an arms race," President Vladimir Putin said earlier.
As part of the project, the US plans to station SM-3 missile interceptor site in Poland by 2018.
Russia in response announced it would deploy Iskander missiles systems in its westernmost region Kaliningrad (bordering Poland and Lithuania) to counter the threat. Earlier this year, a top Russian military official also raised the possibility of a possible pre-emptive strike on the European missile system if the US refuses a dialogue.
Warsaw considers the Russian move as "blackmailing which would have been impossible if Poland had powerful missile defense," believes the head of the country's National Security Bureau, General Koziej, reports Polish Gazeta Wyborcza paper.
There is another reason behind Poland's decision to develop its own shield: missile attack is the most likely military threat in the modern world. In addition, the possibility of a single ballistic blow – when it is difficult to identify the aggressor – is highly likely, the Polish Security Bureau head observed. A prompt reaction would be necessary in case of such a scenario, while NATO would take its time and think before providing help to its member-state.
The preliminary concept of the project has already been developed, the paper writes. Under the plan, by 2023 Poland should be ready to repulse a missile attack against a group of its forces, cities or important facilities. Providing a shield for the whole territory of the country is not possible yet.
The system will be mobile and it will be integrated in to NATO missile defense. The alliance will be able to use it in case of a serious crisis.
TR1 Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:10 am
"Earlier this year, a top Russian military official also raised the possibility of a possible pre-emptive strike on the European missile system if the US refuses a dialogue."
Who writes this crap?
Poland being someone elses bitch and a drama queen, what else is new?
GarryB Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:26 am
I wouldn't have much confidence in SM-3 effectively countering Iskander let alone what they will have in service in 2018.
flamming_python Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:14 am
Speaking of which, what will Russia have in service in 2018? Any Iskander upgrade or replacement on the horizon?
Sujoy Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:05 am
There is this $1.2 billion Iskander M upgradation program specifically designed to take out any missile shields in Europe. This allocation will ensure the speedy development of the R 500 Iskander K that will have a 2000km range.
In it's current form neither SM 3 nor PAC 3 can intercept the Iskander M because the optically guided warhead,can be controlled by encrypted radio transmission, even those originating from UAVs and AWACs.
flamming_python Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:54 pm
Sujoy wrote: There is this $1.2 billion Iskander M upgradation program specifically designed to take out any missile shields in Europe. This allocation will ensure the speedy development of the R 500 Iskander K that will have a 2000km range.
Iskander-K - isn't that just a cruise missile launch platform? What the hell is so special about that? They can be intercepted by any air defense system in contrast to the Iskander-M which is far more capable.
Sujoy Thu Nov 08, 2012 4:41 pm
flamming_python wrote: Iskander-K - isn't that just a cruise missile launch platform? What the hell is so special about that? They can be intercepted by any air defense system in contrast to the Iskander-M which is far more capable.
Iskander-K is the latest variant in the Iskander series of missiles. The missile system is equipped with R-500 cruise missile. Compared to Iskander M that has a range of 400kms the Iskander K will have a range of 2000kms.
In other words the Iskander K is an extended range version of the Iskander M . And No, they just cannot be intercepted by any air defense systems . After receiving the images of the target, the onboard computer of the missile locks onto the target with its sight and directs it towards the target at supersonic speed.The optical homing head can be controlled so if it senses an incoming interceptor it will turns at waypoints making it impossible for the interceptor missile to neutralize it .
Compared to Iskander M that has a range of 400kms the Iskander K will have a range of 2000kms.
That's nice. Only problem is the missile getting there.
In other words the Iskander K is an extended range version of the Iskander M . And No, they just cannot be intercepted by any air defense systems .
Balloney - it's a cruise missile travelling at supersonic speeds; of course it can be intercepted. Iskander-M's whole selling point, the reason why its so feared - is because it's a ballistic missile (therefore travelling at high hypersonic speeds), and manuverable.
flamming_python wrote: That's nice. Only problem is the missile getting there.
Under what circumstances ?
flamming_python wrote: Balloney - it's a cruise missile travelling at supersonic speeds; of course it can be intercepted. Iskander-M's whole selling point, the reason why its so feared - is because it's a ballistic missile (therefore travelling at high hypersonic speeds), and manuverable.
Balloney is the suggestion that a cruise missile can be intercepted especially a barrage of such missiles. Reliance on land based SAM systems for terminal defence of target areas is an in-effective strategy as high performance SAMs with expensive high power-aperture radars are required, and even with mast mounted antennas to improve coverage the footprint is bounded by ranges of miles to at most tens of miles.
Will the enemy know the the attack distribution of the Iskander K ?
Will they have precise information of the launch site/s ?
Will the enemy have a mechanism on board a ship / aircraft / vehicle that automatically shares information on the arriving threat and/or firing solutions ?
In any period, not all attacking cruise missiles will be judged to be threats. Cruise missiles not projected to damage predesignated critical infrastructure targets are not considered to be a threat—even though they may land on friendly soil. The initial attack queue consists only of those missiles projected to hit critical infrastructure targets or the SAM sites. The rate at which the arrival rate queue is populated is therefore of paramount importance and not the rate at which the missiles are detected by the radars.
As on this date even China , Japan , India , EU does not have such systems in place . And we are talking about Poland here .
Mindstorm Thu Nov 08, 2012 6:52 pm
This allocation will ensure the speedy development of the R 500 Iskander K that will have a 2000km range.
Some straight facts:
1) The so called "Iskander-K" was a relatively simple validation test of a modular system, on the basis Iskander platform, foreseeing the substitution of the two Iskander-M with 6 domestic 3M54 Klub cruise missiles , even the conventional version of which show a range in excess of 2500 km and CEP inferior to three meters (it is practically a BGM-109 TLAM with much greater range, higher average speed , greater manoeuvrability and significantly higher precision).
It could be done literally even tomorrow at morning......if was not for INF Treaty banning ground launched weapons of this category (representing obviously by far the most lethal and,potentially, quickly unbalancing offensive elements in this class).
2) Also Iskander-M is mantained ,artificially, within the 500 km ballpark only to let it remain within INF's limits.
3) NATO lack even the most distant and elementary guise of an advanced, organic ,multilayered IADS ; its capability to defend its most critical installations (moreover widely spread around the globe) from even only the most simple barrage attack employing stand-off ammunitions (for not even name the unique type of offensive weapons in this category available to Russian federation) is simply PATHETIC.
Its architecture is obviously conceived for power projection over immensely inferior enemies (to increase aggressively its sphere of influence) aware that thermonuclear equilibrium element would avoid the chance of a conflict against any enemy so advanced to capitalize its frail structure.
Sujoy Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:42 pm
Mindstorm wrote: Some straight facts:
Mindstorm , sorry to bother you with a question . But why do they want to "substitute" the Iskander M , it's already a great missile ? The only concern I have is I still recon that the terminal homing phase of the Iskander does not have evasive manoeuvring capabilities, because these are all pre-programmed, and are not REACTIVE in real-time. Maybe I am wrong on this part .
Mindstorm Fri Nov 09, 2012 8:03 pm
Mindstorm , sorry to bother you with a question . But why do they want to "substitute" the Iskander M , it's already a great missile ?
Probably i has been no clear enough, the so called Iskander-K is a MODULAR system , clear ?
Practically it is possible to mount a module of 3 missiles in the place of each of the two ballistic missiles ; at example two divisions of Iskander-M fire its 48 balistic missiles (with mix unitary/penetrating and special radial submunition warheads) to destroy an important enemy airfield and a C4/radar installation within only few minutes.literally, and with almost assured target's neutralization ; at this point the launcheres and theirs reloading vehicles quickly disperse and masking/covering themselves (in civil tunnels, underground garages, between high buildings, military redeploying subways , covered hangars etc..etc...); all of that while the decoy vehicles do the same and under full cover of the whole IADS .
30-35 minutes later the same vehicles, now armed with "Kaliber" cruise missiles are ready to destroy less critical or less defended targets with cruise missiles (288) ; this process can go over and over and over up to total obliteration of the enemy's most important assets.
Image that you can realize now why ground based missiles systems in this class (it is moreover a sector where Russia enjoy a very wide technological advantage over any competitor worlwide) are limited by INF treaty at 500 km, it can literally reduce an entire military structure devoid of a powerful IADS to shreds in a matter of few hours even using only conventional warheads.
The only concern I have is I still recon that the terminal homing phase of the Iskander does not have evasive manoeuvring capabilities, because these are all pre-programmed, and are not REACTIVE in real-time. Maybe I am wrong on this part .
If you remeber i already gave a response in the Iskander thread to this authenticate non-sense (if i am no wrong ,you had heard this idiocy from a marketing representative of Barak-8 at an exposition).
nemrod Sat Feb 16, 2013 6:29 pm
Report casts doubt on US missile shield in Europe protecting America
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/apnewsbreak-report-casts-doubt-on-missile-shield-in-europe-protecting-america/2013/02/09/6e0c2820-7291-11e2-b3f3-b263d708ca37_story.html
I think, they cannot afford to maintain their pressure against Russia.
America is in Bankrupcy. Let's add this info
It demonstrates that, we are reaching a turning point, a shift in international area.
Moreover, I suspect that, this shield, was only a pressure against Russia in the goal of Kremlin's help in Iran's nuclear standoff.
As USA is going to admit a nuclear Iran, and leaving Israel, this shield is becoming useless, if not embarrassing.
Free forum | Invision | Free forum support | Report an abuse | Forumotion.com