NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

Russia has a range of options for retaliation... my personal favourite would be to withdraw from the INF treaty.
Russia is developing a Space and Air Defence Force to protect Russian airspace and above which should at the very least be able to deal with all sorts of ballistic missiles from theatre based right up to intermediate range weapons, so banning IRBM development is only harming Russian interests.

Russia could build IRBMs that simply don't have the range to reach the US, but do have the range to reach all of Europe and China, and would be much cheaper to produce than the ICBMs they have to use at the moment to target Europe and China.

Depending on what S-500 system is going to be by simple placing it close to US ABM you could ensure protection for ICBM flying towards US.

Not really.

There is a significant difference between a missile like S-500 designed to hit long range ballistic missiles, and a missile that can shoot down missiles that shoot down ballistic missiles...

They are completely different problems.

The best solution to an ABM defence is instead of firing 5 or 10 ICBMs, you fire about 500 IRBMs instead and completely overwhelm the system... especially when over half the missiles target the components of the ABM system directly.

Removing the INF treaty means that Russia could simply build thousands and thousands of Kh-55 like cruise missiles, which are incredibly cheap and mobile.

Cruise missiles carried by strategic bombers are limited by treaty as strategic weapons, but land based cruise missiles with a range of less than 5,500km are by definition not strategic weapons and Russia can have as many as they want. The current problem is that any weapon with a range of more than 500km and less than 5,500km that is surface launched... whether it is ballistic or cruise missile is covered by the INF treaty... which bans Russia and the US from having them... but it bans no one else from having them.

GarryB wrote:Not really.

There is a significant difference between a missile like S-500 designed to hit long range ballistic missiles, and a missile that can shoot down missiles that shoot down ballistic missiles...

They are completely different problems.

Well Radar can be the only problem depending of what is looking at but why not shoot down ICBM in its boost phase with system like S-400 or S-500. For example in its original plan ABM interceptors where to be launched from Poland. Having S-500 in Kaliningrad would pose no trouble for S-500 to shoot down GBI during its boost phase.

GarryB wrote:The best solution to an ABM defence is instead of firing 5 or 10 ICBMs, you fire about 500 IRBMs instead and completely overwhelm the system... especially when over half the missiles target the components of the ABM system directly.

Removing the INF treaty means that Russia could simply build thousands and thousands of Kh-55 like cruise missiles, which are incredibly cheap and mobile.

Cruise missiles carried by strategic bombers are limited by treaty as strategic weapons, but land based cruise missiles with a range of less than 5,500km are by definition not strategic weapons and Russia can have as many as they want. The current problem is that any weapon with a range of more than 500km and less than 5,500km that is surface launched... whether it is ballistic or cruise missile is covered by the INF treaty... which bans Russia and the US from having them... but it bans no one else from having them.

Agree with that part buy S-500 example was one of the ways to ensure safe ICBM launch. Cozz if it comes to a point where US launch its ICBM first, Russia must do the same within 30 minutes. In such situation Russia will not launch IRBM at EU ABM first and than ICBM at US. There is no time for that. You need to launch right away and for you to do that in safe manner you need something to shoot down GBI.

Other than that previous scenario Russia has range of option to destroy ABM in EU. Iskander/Iskander-M/Kh-555/101 and other cruise missiles launched from bombers/fighters.

In my opinion among the concerns ,perfectly grounded, by part of Russian military analysts for the NATO ABM project in East Europe, the radar with base in Turkey is by far the less worrying.

The basis of the "problem" for which the ABM program (included the very quick abandonin by part of USA of the ABM treaty) is born, is ,at its root, an fast growing technological gap between Russian and American nuclear delivery systems ; in particular with the fast paced advent of Topol-M , Yars and now Bulava the gap turned in a truly security emergence ,above all in a scenario of reduced number of nuclear delivery means.

About all western most authorative analysts in the sector was in fact united and adamantine in declaring that ,by reason of the astounding capabilities achieved by Topol-M class (and obviously even more the derived RS-24) of ICBM ,the only chance for even only attempt an intercept would have been ,of course, during boost phase (while its speed ,vector, signature and capability to maneuvre would have still offered a chance) and with interceptor placed or within or near to Russian borders.
That is an extract from the analysis of Duncan Lennox on the subject:

" The Russian SS-27, or Topol-M, is an intercontinental-range, ground-based, solid-propellant ballistic missile. It represents the pinnacle of ballistic missile technology, incorporating modern fuel and warhead designs, as well as being capable of being launched from both missile silos and Transporter-Erector-Launcher (TEL) vehicles. Current Russian accounts stress that the SS-27 is invulnerable to any modern anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defenses. Yuriy Solomonov, director of the Moscow Institute of Heat Technology and designer-general of the Topol family of missiles, has stated that the SS-27 will be the foundation of the Russian strategic nuclear arsenal by 2015.


The SS-27 is currently portrayed by Russian accounts as being immune to any ABM defense the United States can put into being. The missile is capable of making evasive maneuvers as it approaches its target, enabling it to evade any terminal phase interceptors. It almost certainly also carries countermeasures and decoys to decrease the chances of a successful targeting. The missile is shielded against radiation, electromagnetic interference and physical disturbance; previous missiles could be disabled by detonating a nuclear warhead within ten kilometers. This vulnerability is the basis behind the use of nuclear ground-based and orbital interceptors, to detonate or damage the missile before it reaches its target. However, the SS-27 is designed to be able to withstand nuclear blasts closer than 500 m, a difficult interception when combined with the terminal phase speed and maneuverability. While the boost phase is the most vulnerable time for the SS-27, it remains protected. Hidden safely within missile silos and mobile launchers, a successful boost-phase interceptor would have to be fired from near or within Russian borders or from space. And the SS-27 is also designed to survive a strike from any laser technology available, rendering any current space-based laser useless. The missile highlights the need for considerably more research into missile defenses, as the United States is currently defenseless while Russia is protected by a functional defense system.

The SS-27 can strike any target within the continental United States. The deployment from hardened silos and hidden TEL vehicles makes it nearly impossible to successfully prevent launch and current ABM technology is insufficient to prevent its successful impact. As a solid propellant design, it can be maintained on alert for prolonged periods of time and can launch within minutes of being given the order. Its confirmed single 550 kT warhead is sufficient for the depopulation of cities, which combined with its survivability, makes it an ideal retaliatory weapon. The SS-27 enables Russia to guarantee a successful nuclear response."

In this coldly technical perspective, become absolutely clear that last generation of russian strategical nuclear delivery systems has rendered suddenly obsolete any current ABM placed in the North America theatre and that the only credible response ,or for better say the only forced response, by part of NATO for this unacceptable fast growing gap in the technological level and efficiency of nuclear delivery systems (which even widen if we take into consideration the new prototypes of high hypersonic gliding re-entry vehicles, like IGLA - probably the yesterday test on an old Topol involved just that type of warhead-) was to exit quicly from the ABM treaty and prepare a new startegic anti-missile plan with basis in East europe ,for attempt to neutralize the Topol-M/Yars in the boost phase over the North Pole's vectors [the Wikipleaks's revelations on the long term plans,by part of USA, to lure also India in this titanic encircling anti-ballistic-missile project close to Russian borders is exemplary and in the same way ,obviously, totally unrelated to the wastly backward almsot not-existent Iranian menace.

The initial plan was to place the high-end ground based interceptors in Poland, a good position for the task ,but the menace of Iskander-M from Kalingrad ,which would have pratically rendered the ABM interceptor totally useless (Iskander-M has an apogee by far too low to be intercepted by ABM in the boost phase and ,after that,it enjoy almost the same type of "invulnerability" to ABM of Topol-M) has persuaded NATO planners to accept a less advantageous position -Romania- requiring obviously much more interceptor for attempt the same task and a more long term plan to realize but completely out of reach of Iskander-M from Kalingrad.

GarryB i perfectly agreewith you on the eventuality by part of Russia to exit from INF treaty ; i could bet my right arm,without any risk ,that this move would render the Iranian menace suddenly....not so dangerous....and that the immense and immensly costly anti-ballistic-missile project in East-Europe would be abandoned at light speed.

Mindstorm wrote:In my opinion among the concerns ,perfectly grounded, by part of Russian military analysts for the NATO ABM project in East Europe, the radar with base in Turkey is by far the less worrying.

I dont think so. Cozz Turkey X-band is not the end of the story.

At first you had a plan to put radar i Cezh republic and missiles in Poland. Now you have radar in Turkey with no idea where its looking or where the GBI/KEI missiles will be placed. Besides you have Patriot missiles in Poland and idea of placing SM-3 in Black Sea. Furthermore you have Romania and Bulgaria requesting some elements of ABM placed on its territory. So basically you have diversity with no end in sight and no will whats so ever about cooperation with Russia.

Mindstorm wrote:The basis of the "problem" for which the ABM program (included the very quick abandonin by part of USA of the ABM treaty) is born, is ,at its root, an fast growing technological gap between Russian and American nuclear delivery systems ; in particular with the fast paced advent of Topol-M , Yars and now Bulava the gap turned in a truly security emergence ,above all in a scenario of reduced number of nuclear delivery means.

About all western most authorative analysts in the sector was in fact united and adamantine in declaring that ,by reason of the astounding capabilities achieved by Topol-M class (and obviously even more the derived RS-24) of ICBM ,the only chance for even only attempt an intercept would have been ,of course, during boost phase (while its speed ,vector, signature and capability to maneuvre would have still offered a chance) and with interceptor placed or within or near to Russian borders.
That is an extract from the analysis of Duncan Lennox on the subject:

At the moment yes. Gap is too big. US had two failed SM-3/IB launchers in a row.
Next GBI launch is scheuldered next year only after failed attempt and KEI has
being cut off funds. More to it even US has more nuclear delivery systems they
are way to old and reliable as last Minuteman test showed. Russia has modern
ICBM/SLBM getting ever newer but with US close to 1 trillion defense budget who
can tell you situation will not get worse. KEI getting funded, GBI/SM-3 break trow in capabilities and reliability? Who can ensure Russia that working GBI/KEI besides Patriot for its protection wont eventually be placed in Poland after all. So if you have 1 trillion defense budget state looking to develop ABM shield and place it all around you, you have a very big problem no matter how much its ABM shield is not working at the moment.

Well Radar can be the only problem depending of what is looking at but why not shoot down ICBM in its boost phase with system like S-400 or S-500. For example in its original plan ABM interceptors where to be launched from Poland. Having S-500 in Kaliningrad would pose no trouble for S-500 to shoot down GBI during its boost phase.

It is a question of speed and distance and positioning.

By putting the radar in the Czech republic and the missiles in Poland the US basically positioned the radar and the missiles directly under the flight path of Russian missiles heading for the UK or France or Germany.
This makes it an ideal position to fly up an intercept them... remember GBI is the size of an IRBM at about 10 tons and has a range of about 3,500 miles and is designed to intercept a ballistic target high up in its trajectory. Its path is not curved or parabolic, it will depend which target it is chasing and it will try to lead its target, but its target will be moving much faster than it will be moving.

The S-500 on the other hand will have a horizontal range of 600km and maybe an operational height of 250km at best in the first versions. Later versions might extend that further out into space, but S-500 will not be able to intercept GBI when GBI is intercepting targets 500-2,000km up.... whether it is stationed in Kaliningrad, or indeed if they let it be stationed in Poland.

Other than that previous scenario Russia has range of option to destroy ABM in EU. Iskander/Iskander-M/Kh-555/101 and other cruise missiles launched from bombers/fighters.

Cruise missiles are not really fast enough for ABM targets... by the time your cruise missiles get to the target US ICBMs would have landed in Russia... Russia can't wait that long to launch its ICBMs.

Keep in mind with START the numbers of ICBMs and SLBMs and strategic bomber launched cruise missiles is limited, while the number and strength of ABM systems will only increase... if Russia lets it.

This is not about Russia wanting to destroy the EU with nuclear missiles. This is about Russia wanting to retain MAD because MAD actually works.

The idea of MAD is that he wont fire at me or escalate to all out war with me because he knows I have unstoppable weapons that will mortally wound his country... and I wont attack him for the same reasons. ABM defences creates doubt about whether those unstoppable weapons really are unstoppable, and when 10 interceptors turn into 50 and each interceptor starts getting multiple warheads to deal with MIRV and MARV warheads and the START treaties keep reducing the number of warheads you are allowed pretty soon you get to the point where you think... hey... if I can sneak some stealth bombers in there and they can take out this that or the other airfield with all his strategic bombers and that ICBM field there and my SLBMs can carpet his only base with SSBNs and my seawolfs and virginias that are shadowing his SSBNs currently at sea that might leave only a few ICBMs that might get launched and with an ABM system in Europe and an ABM system in the US with 50 missiles...though there is no verification regime in place so they could just as easily have 200, then a first strike might start looking like a real option.

I think a first strike being an option is bad for everyone because full scale nuclear war is not good for the environment and is something that should be avoided.

The US seems to think they can build this ABM system and ignore Russias feelings because the cold war is "over". The Russians know that relations are that good that such a system would never be part of the military force that is NATO that is still directed largely against them, so they are naturally suspicious and they have had all sorts of promises from the west... give up communism and be welcomed into the international community, NATO will not expand east, Nato will not expand into former soviet republics, NATO will not base troops in eastern europe or former soviet republics...

The lesson they learned was that they didn't get any of that on paper, which is presumably why they want a signed document saying the US ABM system in Europe will not be used against Russia, and also presumably why NATO doesn't want to sign it... they plan to back track when needed.

In my opinion among the concerns ,perfectly grounded, by part of Russian military analysts for the NATO ABM project in East Europe, the radar with base in Turkey is by far the less worrying.

The sea based component would have to be based in the Med and the Black Sea... I doubt that will make Russia very happy with such a build up of US vessels, though the Black Sea is a barrel when it comes to shooting fish if you know what I mean.

The big problem is not what their immediate plans for the ABM system are, but with future upgrades it becomes a layered system that will be improved and made much more effective... and more to the point such plans and upgrades will not need to be revealed because there is no treaty or agreement limiting the parameters of an ABM system... it will become another arms race.

[the Wikipleaks's revelations on the long term plans,by part of USA, to lure also India in this titanic encircling anti-ballistic-missile project close to Russian borders is exemplary and in the same way ,obviously, totally unrelated to the wastly backward almsot not-existent Iranian menace.

The thing to keep in mind about wikileaks is that it is the opinions and goals of the US officials concerned... even if they could fool India into joining this ridiculous scheme all it will buy them is a new confrontation against a new high tech Russia with a hair trigger.
As I said the first thing to go will be the INF treaty but it might cost them the new START treaty too.
The Russians are reportedly working on a new heavy missile to replace the SS-18... and with the accuracy achieved with new missiles and technology reducing the warhead size and weight there were estimations in the west that the SS-18 could carry 30 warheads if they wanted it to, well lets make it 40 with the new missile... and don't target military objectives... they can be city busters... each aimed at a population centre for maximum megadeath counts.

If the US wants the cold war back so bad let them have it... building ICBMs is much cheaper than stopping them.

The initial plan was to place the high-end ground based interceptors in Poland, a good position for the task ,but the menace of Iskander-M from Kalingrad ,which would have pratically rendered the ABM interceptor totally useless (Iskander-M has an apogee by far too low to be intercepted by ABM in the boost phase and ,after that,it enjoy almost the same type of "invulnerability" to ABM of Topol-M) has persuaded NATO planners to accept a less advantageous position -Romania- requiring obviously much more interceptor for attempt the same task and a more long term plan to realize but completely out of reach of Iskander-M from Kalingrad.

Hense the talk a while back about plans to increase the range of Tender-M (Iskander) and an eventual replacement missile with longer range... with the INF treaty gone there is no practical limit to the Tenders range... they can fit ICBMs on trucks they can carry very heavy missiles if need be.

.and that the immense and immensly costly anti-ballistic-missile project in East-Europe would be abandoned at light speed.

The sooner they dump it the safer we will all be.
I think the whole purpose of the program is to get Russia to react in ways that will alienate it from Europe... in other words it is the US keeping Russia and Europe separate.

It amuses me that Europe is so dumb to be played like that, but then when it comes to keeping Russia out of Europe there will always be Eastern European countries lining up to volunteer.

Hense the talk a while back about plans to increase the range of Tender-M (Iskander) and an eventual replacement missile with longer range... with the INF treaty gone there is no practical limit to the Tenders range... they can fit ICBMs on trucks they can carry very heavy missiles if need be.

Yes GerryB this is surely true ,but we must also realise that if the ABM plan in East Europe would for any reason need more time than initially planneed ....cough...cough.... repeated failures of the latest intercept tests against short range thetare balistic missiles devoid of any type anti-intercept capability ...cough ..cough..., probably the time window of its operative introduction will "unluckily" coincide with the entry on the scene of new type of intermediate range menaces which will render also the placement of the ABM's elements in Romania,out of reach of actual Tender-M, at least in theirs officially declared engagement range, , completely pointless : hypersonic cruise missile.

http://lenta.ru/news/2011/08/18/hyper/

In this optic i can bet that the NATO plan will change face several more times;in fact the elements of the ABM complex placed in East Europe for attempt to "patch" the problems caused by the new Russian balistic nuclear delivery systems ,vulnerable exclusively while still in their boost phase, will always be extremely frail against intermediate nuclear offensive systems of different nature which can count obviously on the combined military resources and assets present in the more than half of Russian Federation ,already in place in the theatre; hypersonic cruise missile will have, among those offensive means, both the range and ,above all ,the speed to allow the employement of russian nuclear triad also in case of response scenario.

The problem will be that those type of weapons (nuclear hypersonic missile) ,to remain efficient in a retaliation scenario, would be used in a "shoot on warning" mode, and this will only enormously deteriorate ,instead of increase ,the security level of Europe.

and this will only enormously deteriorate ,instead of increase ,the security level of Europe.

The main problem with the MAD philosophy is that is sounds mad, but in actual fact it is the most sane and rational approach between to powerful forces that have no trust.

It worked all through the cold war and it works now.

GarryB wrote:

and this will only enormously deteriorate ,instead of increase ,the security level of Europe.

The main problem with the MAD philosophy is that is sounds mad, but in actual fact it is the most sane and rational approach between to powerful forces that have no trust.

It worked all through the cold war and it works now.

The problem now is old people in America truly are MAD. Start looking up "Toxic LEAD water in Washington DC". Due to too many peoples poo they had to start heavily chlorinating water supply to Washington DC. Excessive chlorine ate away LEAD water pipes. Made water supply toxic. For 2 years they didn't tell anyone, as they all drank toxic levels of LEAD.

Washington DC/Pentagon truly IS MAD. Poisoned themselves.

This could be the tipping point in human history where irrational plans/actions are done by true......madmen. Make sure global history books remembers this point.

GarryB wrote:It is a question of speed and distance and positioning.

By putting the radar in the Czech republic and the missiles in Poland the US basically positioned the radar and the missiles directly under the flight path of Russian missiles heading for the UK or France or Germany.
This makes it an ideal position to fly up an intercept them... remember GBI is the size of an IRBM at about 10 tons and has a range of about 3,500 miles and is designed to intercept a ballistic target high up in its trajectory. Its path is not curved or parabolic, it will depend which target it is chasing and it will try to lead its target, but its target will be moving much faster than it will be moving.

The S-500 on the other hand will have a horizontal range of 600km and maybe an operational height of 250km at best in the first versions. Later versions might extend that further out into space, but S-500 will not be able to intercept GBI when GBI is intercepting targets 500-2,000km up.... whether it is stationed in Kaliningrad, or indeed if they let it be stationed in Poland.

I know what you mean but I was not thinking the same thing. ABM in EU is projected to counter Russian ICBM launched from its European part, flying over North Pole, no mater US ABM stationed in Alaska. Thats why X-band in Cezch republic besides Iran is able to cover Russia all the way to the Urals region. Forward part of ICBM launch path would cover radar placed in Britain. So GBI launched toward ICBM from Russian missile silo would have to pass over or near Kaliningrad. I think it could be cached with S-500 like system even from Belarus not to mention Kiliningrad while gaining speed and attitude in its boost phase. Nuclear tipped Iskander placed in the same area would be assigned to punish puppet states having ABM on its territory (to avoid such threat Topol-M has ability to manouvre during its boost phase for the same reason). What I mean to say you dont need space attitude S-500 to shoot down ICBM like missiles. You just need to be close to it.

GarryB wrote:Keep in mind with START the numbers of ICBMs and SLBMs and strategic bomber launched cruise missiles is limited, while the number and strength of ABM systems will only increase... if Russia lets it.

Thats why Im looking foward S-500 missile system that will form basis for Russia national missile defense system. Cozz basically every missile can be used as ABM as long as it has enough time to be in the right place at the right time and in order for it to do so it needs proper radar coverage/range to got there. S-500 will be linked to Russia EW radar system and EW satellites. That should ensure parity of some kind.

GarryB wrote:This is not about Russia wanting to destroy the EU with nuclear missiles. This is about Russia wanting to retain MAD because MAD actually works.

The idea of MAD is that he wont fire at me or escalate to all out war with me because he knows I have unstoppable weapons that will mortally wound his country... and I wont attack him for the same reasons. ABM defences creates doubt about whether those unstoppable weapons really are unstoppable, and when 10 interceptors turn into 50 and each interceptor starts getting multiple warheads to deal with MIRV and MARV warheads and the START treaties keep reducing the number of warheads you are allowed pretty soon you get to the point where you think... hey... if I can sneak some stealth bombers in there and they can take out this that or the other airfield with all his strategic bombers and that ICBM field there and my SLBMs can carpet his only base with SSBNs and my seawolfs and virginias that are shadowing his SSBNs currently at sea that might leave only a few ICBMs that might get launched and with an ABM system in Europe and an ABM system in the US with 50 missiles...though there is no verification regime in place so they could just as easily have 200, then a first strike might start looking like a real option.

I think a first strike being an option is bad for everyone because full scale nuclear war is not good for the environment and is something that should be avoided.

Im well aware of how MAD works and its implications during Cold War but thx for
such amusement way of telling info. LOL.

GarryB wrote:The US seems to think they can build this ABM system and ignore Russias feelings because the cold war is "over". The Russians know that relations are that good that such a system would never be part of the military force that is NATO that is still directed largely against them, so they are naturally suspicious and they have had all sorts of promises from the west... give up communism and be welcomed into the international community, NATO will not expand east, Nato will not expand into former soviet republics, NATO will not base troops in eastern europe or former soviet republics...

The lesson they learned was that they didn't get any of that on paper, which is presumably why they want a signed document saying the US ABM system in Europe will not be used against Russia, and also presumably why NATO doesn't want to sign it... they plan to back track when needed.

And for that reason INF needs to go. US has broken so much promises it can not be trusted any more. More to it, it does not want to sign treaty of no use of weapons in space Russia and China are insisting but at the same time complaining every time China shoots down one of its satellites while at the same time doing same thing and developing global strike weapon project. I have a feeling it wont take long Star wars like project will appear at each of those big states.

GarryB wrote:The sea based component would have to be based in the Med and the Black Sea... I doubt that will make Russia very happy with such a build up of US vessels, though the Black Sea is a barrel when it comes to shooting fish if you know what I mean.

I know. Thats why BSF got few Bastion systems. Nuff said. But still having US AEGIS/SM-3 armed ships in barrel does not mean you will have only that. The rest will follow and situation could get complicated. I wonder is Iskander able to target ships. Its stated ability to target moving object and has range of guidance - radar/optical/IC etc. Having to keep your head from cruise and ballistic missiles complicated things.

GarryB wrote:The big problem is not what their immediate plans for the ABM system are, but with future upgrades it becomes a layered system that will be improved and made much more effective... and more to the point such plans and upgrades will not need to be revealed because there is no treaty or agreement limiting the parameters of an ABM system... it will become another arms race.

The only problem is time and money and US has both. It out of question that in near future Russia will have to face working GBI/KEI and tactical THAAD/SM3 all connected with EW satellites and EW radars (at sea and land). Russia responses could led to new cold war. Only real looser in such race is passive Europe who time and time again lets animosities occur on its territory. If like two world wars was not enough to realise. US has always fought wars well away from its territory living its cities and industries intact. Came to think of it in Libya they learned others to fight their wars.

GarryB wrote:The thing to keep in mind about wikileaks is that it is the opinions and goals of the US officials concerned... even if they could fool India into joining this ridiculous scheme all it will buy them is a new confrontation against a new high tech Russia with a hair trigger.

I read about it few days ago. Interesting. Im have a feeling India might pop in because of China. China and India are amassing its armies near border. Besides standard items like tanks and planes and roads and runway big missiles started to appear. That and Pakistan relentless drive toward nuclear tipped IRBM on the one hand and NATO offer on the other could prove just to much for India. Implications could ruin Russia India relations.

GarryB wrote:As I said the first thing to go will be the INF treaty but it might cost them the new START treaty too.
The Russians are reportedly working on a new heavy missile to replace the SS-18... and with the accuracy achieved with new missiles and technology reducing the warhead size and weight there were estimations in the west that the SS-18 could carry 30 warheads if they wanted it to, well lets make it 40 with the new missile... and don't target military objectives... they can be city busters... each aimed at a population centre for maximum megadeath counts.

If the US wants the cold war back so bad let them have it... building ICBMs is much cheaper than stopping them.

Agree, INF must go. Strangely it has not gone when US pulled of ABM treaty.

GarryB wrote:Hense the talk a while back about plans to increase the range of Tender-M (Iskander) and an eventual replacement missile with longer range... with the INF treaty gone there is no practical limit to the Tenders range... they can fit ICBMs on trucks they can carry very heavy missiles if need be.

I like FOBS batter.

GarryB wrote:The sooner they dump it the safer we will all be.
I think the whole purpose of the program is to get Russia to react in ways that will alienate it from Europe... in other words it is the US keeping Russia and Europe separate.

It amuses me that Europe is so dumb to be played like that, but then when it comes to keeping Russia out of Europe there will always be Eastern European countries lining up to volunteer.

I know, but as I said it will be EU that will gone like collateral victim in case of a shoot out.

Washington DC/Pentagon truly IS MAD. Poisoned themselves.

This could be the tipping point in human history where irrational plans/actions are done by true......madmen. Make sure global history books remembers this point.

The term "Mad as a hatter", comes from the result of the chemicals used in hat making that included lead that often led to madness.

Not totally without president then...

I know what you mean but I was not thinking the same thing. ABM in EU is projected to counter Russian ICBM launched from its European part, flying over North Pole, no mater US ABM stationed in Alaska. Thats why X-band in Cezch republic besides Iran is able to cover Russia all the way to the Urals region. Forward part of ICBM launch path would cover radar placed in Britain. So GBI launched toward ICBM from Russian missile silo would have to pass over or near Kaliningrad.

That is the problem though... Russian ICBMs launched at the US would go over the north pole and any GBI missile fired to intercept would be a waste as ICBMs are much faster than the much smaller and much slower GBI missiles.
To intercept missiles coming from Russia to the continental US they would need to be placed much closer to the US... like Alaska.
In the time it takes for the Russian missiles to get airborne and on their way the US satellites will have detected their launch and confirmed their targets, missiles in Alaska would be prepared and launched as the targets came over the north pole to intercept them somewhere high in space over Canada.
The only targets missiles in Poland could hit would be ICBMs being used against Britain and France and they would be very very high to reduce their range from intercontinental down to intermediate range, or a high speed depressed trajectory to trade speed for range... meaning range would be greatly reduced, but speed would be greatly increased.

Either way shots at France and the UK and Belgium would go over Poland and the Czech republic.

Shots at the US would go over the north pole.

What I mean to say you dont need space attitude S-500 to shoot down ICBM like missiles. You just need to be close to it.

The current new Russian ICBMs are designed for a very hot, very fast first stage burn to get the missile up and out of the atmosphere as quickly as possible to minimise any boost phase interception opportunities... with missiles or lasers.

Unless the US system gets 10 minutes warning of an attack then it would simply not be possible to intercept Russian ICBMs going to the US with missiles in Europe.

Very simply the interceptor missiles is a little kid throwing a rock, while the ICBM is a big powerful adult man throwing rocks and getting the kid to stand 50m behind and beside the man and not letting the kid throw the rock till he has seen the man throw the rock and hoping the kid can hit the mans rock with his rock.

The GBI doesn't accelerate to as high a speed as the ICBM, and would have no chance of catching up in a race... and the GBI is always launched second.

Would be like two planes flying in formation, one armed with an Igla missile and the other with an R-77. If the rules are that the R-77 gets fired first and a few seconds later once the other aircraft has determined the target of the R-77 it can fire an Igla at the R-77 then the Igla will never shoot down the R-77...

Thats why Im looking foward S-500 missile system that will form basis for Russia national missile defense system. Cozz basically every missile can be used as ABM as long as it has enough time to be in the right place at the right time and in order for it to do so it needs proper radar coverage/range to got there. S-500 will be linked to Russia EW radar system and EW satellites. That should ensure parity of some kind.

I think the S-500 will be cool too, but it wont be cheap, and the cost burden of trying to match a system the west wants to build is folly in my opinion.

I think it will be very productive to build an air defence network with good coverage, but something that will stop everything is like the safe bank... it doesn't exist.

Im well aware of how MAD works and its implications during Cold War but thx for
such amusement way of telling info. LOL.

It worked an it was cheap. What they are trying now will be enormously expensive... probably quite straight forward to defeat, and with little guarantee it will even work.

And for that reason INF needs to go. US has broken so much promises it can not be trusted any more. More to it, it does not want to sign treaty of no use of weapons in space Russia and China are insisting but at the same time complaining every time China shoots down one of its satellites while at the same time doing same thing and developing global strike weapon project. I have a feeling it wont take long Star wars like project will appear at each of those big states.

THe huge irony is that the US actually relies the most on space based assets and would have the most to lose from a weaponisation of space.

ABM systems they are developing will lead to Russian and Chinese equivalents... and it is a very small step from an ABM that can hit an incoming ICBM, to a missile that can hit satellites in orbit. It is like the difference between an IRBM and an ICBM and both China and Russia can make that step easily... in fact the Russians were the first to put a satellite in orbit... taking out a satellite is simply a case of putting something large in an opposite orbit and waiting... every 45 minutes the satellite and the expanding cloud of debris will cross paths and even a paint chip at 22km/s can penetrate several centimetres of armour... let alone a payload of several hundred kilos of nails or small metal cubes.

The only problem is time and money and US has both.

Actually I would suggest the US has less money than it seems to think it has and US spending billions to "protect Europe" might lead to some in the US thinking that Europe can pay for its own defence if it wants it.
This is just a US ploy to put US troops in Eastern European bases... a very expensive way, but the US is built on technology and this new ABM stuff will lead to new technology being developed... just like the space race did before it.

It out of question that in near future Russia will have to face working GBI/KEI and tactical THAAD/SM3 all connected with EW satellites and EW radars (at sea and land). Russia responses could led to new cold war.

But Russia doesn't need its own equivalent system to respond to this european system... it just needs the ability to defeat this system... lots of 2,000km range cruise missiles and 3-4,000km range ballistic missiles will suffice and not break the bank.

Of course any response by Russia will lead to a new cold war... that is what the US wants... new cold war and Russia to blame for it even though the actions Russia takes against this American system they would not have done without the American system being built.

BTW NATO has not be consulted at all with any of these ABM schemes, this is an American system that is supposed to be protecting Europe which Europe seems to have no say in... which in itself is curious don't you think?

Unless its purpose is to get US troops into Eastern Europe and it is directed at Russia which some of western europe might not approve of.

Implications could ruin Russia India relations.

If Russian/India relations are that shallow then perhaps an end now would be better than later.

I simply don't think they are that shallow.

Of course there are likely a lot of Russians who think the biggest threat is a different skin colour, yet it has been those white skinned Brits and Germans and Americans, not to mention that white skinned Georgian bastard that has done the most damage to Russia over the last few centuries.
There will also be a number of Indians who might believe the silver tongued Americans who couldn't tell a native American from someone from India when they first arrived on the US continent and racial relations have not improved since then.

Agree, INF must go. Strangely it has not gone when US pulled of ABM treaty.

It suits the US to keep it, and even enforce it on countries that did not sign it... they put lots of pressure on the Ukraine and Hungary to give up their IRBMs even though they didn't sign the INF treaty.

I like FOBS batter.

Currently FOBS would be a bad thing for Russia to use against Europe... sure the EMP pulse will wipe out most electronics in Europe, but it will also take down most of Russias satellites too because of their proximity... they would in effect be blinding themselves to strategic nuclear attack.

I know, but as I said it will be EU that will gone like collateral victim in case of a shoot out.

But that is the problem... they wont. As ICBM numbers are reduced and SLBM numbers are also reduced the number of targeting options diminishes and targets get left off the list... add to that any ABM defences and all of a sudden Russia might find itself made very vulnerable after all the bombs have gone off to a land attack from China and Europe...

Russian ICBMs launched at the US would go over the north pole and any GBI missile fired to intercept would be a waste as ICBMs are much faster than the much smaller and much slower GBI missiles.
To intercept missiles coming from Russia to the continental US they would need to be placed much closer to the US... like Alaska.

Sorry GarryB for evidentiate that,but what is up asserted is simply, plainly technically untrue.
As well explained by Duncan Lennox in person - and obviously that is the position shared by pratically the entire expert community both in West and in East by titanic western names of the field like Bruce W. MacDonald or Tom Z. Collina and eastern like Major General Vladimir Dvorkin or Aleksei Arbatov - the (still not operative ) ABM systems in Alaskla are completely useless against the new class of ICBM that Russia has deployed in the last decade; to obtain even only a chance to defend against those class of truly monstrous ballistic missile,an high end ABM systems require absolutely to have the chance of an interception of in the ICBM's initial boost phase by part of systems placed :or in the space by part of satellite above Russian territory (at now technically wastly out of reach by anyone )or from very near to Russian borders.

"Hidden safely within missile silos and mobile launchers, a successful boost-phase interceptor would have to be fired from near or within Russian borders or from space. And the SS-27 is also designed to survive a strike from any laser technology available, rendering any current space-based laser useless. The missile highlights the need for considerably more research into missile defenses, as the United States is currently defenseless while Russia is protected by a functional defense system."

Like you well know,in fact, the optimum (or forced ,in case of retalatory response) trajectory for Topol-M ICBM coming from Russia in theirs boost phase and early sub-orbital collimating pre-apogee phase would be slightly westward of North Pole to capitalize,among several other factors ,Earth rotation ; therefore in theirs boost-phase Topol-M /Yars and Bulava shooted from West or central Russia ,virtually "invulnerable" in any other segments of theirs flight pact, would be still vulnerable just and only above East Europe .

That's exactly the reason for which US unilaterally withdrew from ABM treaty in 2002 and for decision of the same admnistration ,contextually, conceiving the plan for the ABM project in Europe.

I both agree and disagree...

What you are saying is basically what I am saying except where you are saying what I am not saying..

I would happily agree that the GBI interceptors would be useless against Topol-M and Yars (RS-24) simply because these missiles were designed from the outset to have short boost phases and an early release of warheads so any interceptor not based directly in the flight path of these weapons will have zero chance of intercepting missiles with warhead buses loaded, and would also have no chance of catching up to them either... even if they could by the time they did instead of hunting hundreds of missiles they will be hunting almost thousands of warheads and decoys and jammers and other debris with a very short period of time to work out which is which.

Most of the current ICBM fields in Russia are in the north and so far away from Poland any missiles going over the pole even if they are fired slightly to the west because of the earths rotation will never result in an equal start for a fair race with a slower missile.

The amount of Earth rotation during the 30min flight time of these missiles will certainly shift their trajectory, but not enough to allow GBIs from Poland or Turkey to catch up.

GBIs in Poland however would have ample opportunity to intercept missiles headed for the UK or France... remember these missiles don't just have to get to the correct coordinates, they also have to climb to the correct altitude as well which means they need to track the targets for a period determine their targets and assess which represents the greatest threat and then calculate an intercept point and then start launching missiles.

"if they are fired slightly to the west because of the earths rotation will never result in an equal start for a fair race with a slower missile"

Excuse me, but here i don't follow you ; do you truly believe that the GBI to be constructed in Romania when completed will be slower than actual ICBM in theirs boost-phase ?
I am sorry but Americans have planned the employement of 10 Km /sec class interceptors with very fast burnout and acceleration for boost-phase ICBM's neutrtalization since end of '90 years !!

Not even a single expert of the sector in Russia believe that future high-end GBI placed in East Europe will be slower than a Topol-M in its boost phase and is just that the reason for the deep concerns expressed unanimously by russian strategists on the heavy effect which the placement of similar anti-ballistic assets...just in East Europe in the only position where them would have a chance to destroy Topol-M/Yars in theirs boost-phase ...would have on the capabilities of Russian main branch of nuclear triad.

GarryB do you remember when in American startegic community at the end of '90 years ,when Russia was still in the deep of the crysis, was very popular the idea of an ABM project,in hypotetical "collaboration" with Russia to be placed just..... at south of Vladivostok !!! (and try to guess why , cough....cough ...China and Russia far East ICBM's interception...cough.. cough ) selled at the time as a response against a presumed North Korea ICBMs -the "puppet" menace of the time to try to justify the project conceived around ,obviously ,totally different aims ?

The situation ,today is not different, what is changed is the priority ; the wide technological gap established by Topol-M and Yars at beginnig of '00 has rendered suddenly them the greater danger for NATO's strategists so the old plan has simply.....changed the puppet menace : North Korea in 5-6 yeras is passed from capital danger for USA security to the complete nothing while Iran ,the most near puppet menace available to justify the placement of high end ABM assets the most near possible to russian borders ,become at light speed a planetary menace .

Excuse me, but here i don't follow you ; do you truly believe that the GBI to be constructed in Romania when completed will be slower than actual ICBM in theirs boost-phase ?
I am sorry but Americans have planned the employement of 10 Km /sec class interceptors with very fast burnout and acceleration for boost-phase ICBM's neutrtalization since end of '90 years !!

Against older ICBMs, yes the interceptor will be faster, but range equals speed in ballistic missiles, and the 3,500 mile range GBI will not ultimately go faster than 11,000km+ range ICBMs.

In a foot race the GBI will outsprint an SS-18 because an SS-18 is a very heavy missile so despite its much more powerful first stage it is a motorbike racing a truck.

The TOPOL-M and Yars on the other hand were designed with a rapid initial acceleration to greatly reduce the boost phase to reduce their vulnerability during this period and to get to the point where they can release their warheads as soon as possible so that any interceptor will have to deal with each individual warhead and decoy rather than the warhead bus like it would with an older missile.

GBIs in Poland or the Black Sea are thousands of kms from ICBM fields in Russia and even allowing for the shift in trajectories because of the Earths rotation even with 10 minutes warning... which the GBI wont get... even in an ideal situation against the older missiles the earliest time they could catch up would be over the north pole... and the radar in the Czech republic can't track ICBMs there.

On the other hand both the missile placement and radar placement would be ideal for Russian ICBMs heading to EU countries.

Missiles in Alaska on the other hand will get much more warning from satellites monitoring launches in Russia and radars covering Canada/Greenland etc etc.

Remember interceptor missiles don't fly towards the incoming missiles simply because the incoming missiles are flying so fast they wont be there, so the interceptor missiles are fired to a point where the incoming missiles will be when the interceptors arrive... firing them from Alaska means they are as far north as they possibly can be while still being in the US, which is the ideal place to base them from the perspective of the US.

From canadas point of view it means interceptions above its territory and all sorts of crap raining down on them... but why would the US care about that?

"GBIs in Poland or the Black Sea are thousands of kms from ICBM fields in Russia and even allowing for the shift in trajectories because of the Earths rotation even with 10 minutes warning... which the GBI wont get... even in an ideal situation against the older missiles the earliest time they could catch up would be over the north pole... and the radar in the Czech republic can't track ICBMs there."



10 minutes warning ? GarryB i don't understand what you mean with that figure ,but hope that you don't believe that an inteceptor would be shooted after 10 minutes from ICBM ignition ,because this time window is completely out of line (but would explain why you don't understand the concerns of....the whole russian strategic defense scientifical community).

In any document i have read in those years (even those of the end of '90 years of Richard L. Garwin and William Priedhorsky of Los Alamos National Laboratory !!) postulate an interceptor launch in a time window extending from 50 to 95 seconds from ICBM ignition and in particular with sensors placed at the borders of the attacking nation (with both over the horizon and long range atmospheric layer penetrating radars) the time for a fire solution ,obtained conversely only with space based sensors, would be significantly cutted.

Is just for those technical elements that Duncan Lennox and Bruce W. MacDonald in theirs technical examination of Topol-M was adamantine asserting that the only hope ,at today, to intecept a similar ICBM (by far the faster,more manoeuvrable with most unpredicable trajectory and the most depressed apogee at world )would be through : 1) space based means -not lasers against which it is also heavily protected - or high end ground based interceptors placed near or within the borders of Russian Federation.

The scenarios possible at this point are completely at the antipodes : in the first Russia mantain its wide technological primacy in ICBM technology adn the ABM in Europe is or abandoned or rendered pointless by ad-hoc countermeasures , elements which combined with the introdction of the mobile S-500 and the new generation of revolutionary satellites to be launched within the end of this decade and capable to detect from space submerged submarine within an error circle compatible with MIRV/MARV lethal radius, would become a mix destabilizing the nuclear equilibrium in a dramatic way ; in the second scenario NATO complete its ABM "encirclement" of Russian Federation (the second phase will be placement of ABM elements in India and/or Japan) preventing that it deploy any credible counter ,using like now the political/economical leverage ...cough...cough... WTO accession eternally delayed...cough...cough..., with Russia losing a good fraction of the offensive potential of its nuclear triad.

The only sure solution for Russia,like you have cleverly guessed, is to exit unilaterally and quickly from INF treaty, you can bet that Iran will become suddenly a paper tiger not requiring the stratospheric cost of the ABM project in East Europe.

The 10 minute warning comment is an exaggeration to prove a point.

There is never likely to be a case where they would get 10 minutes advanced warning of an attack, what I am trying to say that even with 10 minutes warning they could not shoot the ICBMs down because they need data from the targets to work out interception points and they don't get those till after the target missiles have launched and can be tracked for a short distance to determine what their targets might be and therefore also what trajectory they might use.

With old missiles like the SS-18 and SS-19 the warheads stay in the warhead bus for most of the flight which limits the targets they can hit and makes them more predictable.

With the new missiles (TOPOL-M, and YARs) with basically self guiding warheads that are pretty much released after the last stage has burned out then the problem is multiplied because instead of intercepting a warhead bus with half a dozen warheads in it they now have half a dozen separate warheads to find and intercept...

Also something I haven't mentioned... because of the fact they are pretty much tail chasing the effect of their impact will likely be reduced... a head on impact combines the enormous speed of each object into destruction of both objects. A tail chase impact has much less energy.

Didn't WikiLeaks say the US Army Patriot Battery in Poland didn't have any Patriot missiles in its launchers?

Due to world current events I don't think there will be any active US missile defense in Turkey. Localized AEGIS to protect surface fleet....nothing else in Turkey matters or is valuable enough to have a missile defense. Maybe there is radar plugged into the fiber optic cables to feed targeting data to places they do wish to defend.

Then again the Saudi's financing North Korea's missile program in exchange for a few of their own to put into silo's....maybe the US would make moves to nullify Saudi's Ballistic Missile program.


You have to REALLY admire Saudi's tactics. How they threw the US military out. Successfully financed 9-11. Told the US they weren't accepting US dollars for oil anymore. Financed the Pakistani nuclear bomb program in exchange for a few of their own. Largest Air Base in the world....Largest Dairy Farm in the world....

They've been getting ready to live without the US for some time....AND have the means to keep the US military from striking them. I'd love to know about the Saud's assets in Space clandestinely thrown up over the decades. They've been working with MANY countries for some time to change the middle east to their favor.

Israel's problems now are one of their pet projects as well.

Pervius wrote:Didn't WikiLeaks say the US Army Patriot Battery in Poland didn't have any Patriot missiles in its launchers?

...and that's because the battery was there to train Polish crews, not to actually defend anything.

Pervius wrote:Then again the Saudi's financing North Korea's missile program in exchange for a few of their own to put into silo's....maybe the US would make moves to nullify Saudi's Ballistic Missile program.

...except that Saudi Arabia bought DF-3A IRBMs from China, and they aren't silo launched.

Are you sure Saudi Arabia doesn't have any missile silo's?

They've got 300-400 Israeli nukes staring them down...Plus England/US wanting Saudi oil...but neither country has anything to trade for oil. Just worthless paper.

Saudi's weren't happy about losing hundreds of Billions in the WallStreet debacle. 2007 Saudi came out with the "We're not accepting US dollars for oil anymore".

I'm pretty sure Saudi's got missile silo's their North Vietnamese laborers built for them with North Korean/Chinese help.

There's never been any evidence to support a system of missile silos in Saudi Arabia. The DF-3A's are stored in hardened UGFs and pulled onto launch pads for erecting and firing, so they're still relatively survivable.

Ukraine ‘ready’ to join Euro missile shield project agreed with Russia
© RIA Novosti. Mikhail Fomichev
22:44 06/10/2011
KIEV, October 6 (RIA Novosti)




Ukraine is ready to contribute to the creation of the European missile shield if the program is developed in cooperation with Russia, Ukrainian envoy to NATO Igor Dolgov said on Thursday.

“It is obvious that this project would be of a special interest for Ukraine if the NATO system is built together with Russia,” the Ukrainian Unian news agency quoted Dolgov as saying in Brussels.

“If a system is built that would cover parts of Europe on either side of Ukraine,” the diplomat added, “this is in our natural interest.”

Dolgov said there had been no full-fledged talks between NATO and Ukraine on the country’s participation in the project because the final configuration of the European missile shield “had not yet been defined.”

He said, however, that “information exchange” took place between Ukraine and the alliance, which was intended to acquaint NATO officials and member states with Ukraine’s opportunities in this sphere.

“It’s in our common interest to continue this information exchange, especially at subsequent stages,” when NATO clarifies its missile shield plans, Dolgov said.

NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Wednesday that the European missile defense system would become fully operational by 2018. The statement came as Spain announced its decision to contribute to the project by allowing four U.S. warships equipped with Aegis interceptor missiles to be deployed at the U.S. naval base in the southern port of Rota by 2013.

Besides Spain, Romania, Poland, the Netherlands and Turkey have agreed to host key components of the future missile defense network in their territories. Rasmussen said he would not be surprised if there will be "further announcements in the comings weeks and months as regards new inputs from other countries."

Russia strongly opposes the deployment of NATO missiles near its borders. The Russian Foreign Ministry warned on Tuesday that by refusing to provide legal guarantees that its missile shield would not be directed at Russia, NATO could miss the chance to “turn anti-missile defense from an area of confrontation into an area of cooperation.”

http://www.en.ria.ru/world/20111006/167449648.html

This is a very interesting development.

The situation has been that the Russians want a joint air defence system for all of Europe controlled by NATO and Russia together.

NATO wants two separate systems... a NATO system and a Russian system and both will share data.

This offer by the Ukraine wouldn't really work in the NATO model unless the Ukraine joined the NATO ABM system or the Russians ABM system or created their own and joined it with the other two.

The offer from Ukraine would work well in the Russian model as it provides places for radars and existing radars from the soviet period that could be useful to the system.

Hey GarryB, do you remember what i had foreseen in my previous message ?

...NATO complete its ABM "encirclement" of Russian Federation (the second phase will be placement of ABM elements in India and/or Japan)

Well read here please :


www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2516344.ece

Now we have two different explanations (naturally with degrees of plausibility completely different..... )

1) NATO ,as a true organization of the Good and of Peace, has choiced to protect the innocent NATO European people from the ,mhhhh immense and imminent Iranian threat , starting a galactical program for high end GBI ballistic defence systems (litterally for some trillion of dollars !!!!!) to be placed in.......East Europe .
But that is not all !!!
Because it is a true philantropic organization ,NATO has organized a lottery : "The Great Lottery of Peace and Protection" with the names of several not-NATO nations the citizen of which would have winned the right to be defended under the great NATO's "Shield of Good"; the blindfolded godess has put down its hand and... (drum rull..)... India has been selected !!!
Oh ,i almost forgot, naturally in this istance i have foreseen that name only thanks to my sensitive powers and the position of the stars (the same astral position which suggest to me that within some years another Lottery will be carried out and the winner will be...mhh...mhh...(concentration ) ..mhh..mh... Japan !!!!!

2) On the basis of the technical reasons previously mentioned NATO has been forced ,by a fast widening technological gap with Russia in nuclear delivery systems,to carry out ,in a very short time window, some extrreme measures ,such as the unilateral exit from ABM treaty in 2002 and a multi-trillion dollar ABM program ,envisioning a slow "encirclement" plan of Russian Federation with high end ground based ABM interceptors and sensor bases to attempt the neutralization of Russian missile in the unique phase of theirs vulnerability : boost phase (naturally India become a crucial element also, in perspective against a fast-growing China ICBM menace).


This provide also a good explanation to the great effort by part of USA ,in particular in open media (thanks also to self-evident "shopping" operations of several mean, mercenary Indian media operator) aimed at sabotage in any way and ,eventually, fracture the old partnership and friendship between India and Russia ,bashing anything Russia-related and promoting ,in ways sometimes even comical, any step toward Western products or economic interests.