NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

max steel wrote:Can I know what all cruise missiles can be used to neutralize ussa abm in europe both on land and water ( aegis bmd ) ?

Iskander cruise missile version is made for that.. also Kalibrs/Club missiles land attack version.
This ones have up to 3500km range.. or 2600km depending the source. Enough to hit any military base in europe from Russia.  There are also nuclear cruise missiles with 5,000km range
forgot the model..

About US vs Russia defense..
As far i have read ,based on their own simulation videos ,Sm-3 is not a missile interceptor.. but more like a space orbit mine..  that is transported by a missile carrier to the place where NATO expect the missile to pass.. when launched from Russia. Because is very limited its propulsion system.. is just a mine with very rigid mobility by boosters it cannot be used to chase anything.
is a mine you place in front of a predicted trajectory of a passing missile in very high altitude exosphere space orbit. So Sm-3 will have problems to intercept a missile that do maneuvers
and cannot be used in anything but gravity zero space.

So the system of defense, SM-3. is only useful only against missiles with a linear trajectory.
but if it change the course , when the mine is placed , it will fail since cannot chase. is not a missile.

So we can say US navy is more advanced that Russia navy when it comes to high altitude ballistic missiles defense.Russia navy have nothing of that. All Russian defenses are in Land.
S-400 no idea of its range but if it is true can do 180km altitude.. it could do the same and be used as a mid course interceptor.

S-500 will apparently be an all altitude interceptor. So essentially will do it all in just one missile. Can intercept either Planes ,or ICBM. Americans in the other hand.. needs no less than 3 system of defenses or possibly 4 to cover the entire range of territory defend against air or space attacks.

S-400's and others systems will do the job of space interception. So which is more advanced..
thats impossible to know.. unless they tested..in real war conditions , But all the info i have seen suggest US is not really satisfied with their missile interceptors on land. while Russia it is.

The next article will show you how complicate is interception of ICBMs..  Is not an easy thing
at all.. and the best way to intercept them it seems to be before they are in their final trajectory.. ie. .mid course.. because in the final path ,they drop decoys and many other things ,
that really complicates interception.. this is true for both , for Russia and US.

http://www.crazedfanboy.com/roth/missiledefense.html

So to play safe.. Russia will need to deploy missiles capable of Mid course interception ,that is real missiles.. (not space mines like SM-3) at borders of Russia. to counter any nuclear attack before it enters in Russia space . Because im afraid the interception of nuclear missiles in the final stage is next to impossible from land..  This is why i think Russia should really push
for militarization of Space.. why Russia needs to deploy satellite interceptors or a space station
with anti ICBM defenses.. or perhaps laser defenses. .that will truly take things in security to a new level.

GarryB wrote:Interception is 4D maths.

Is even more complex..

Is more like Physics and Differential equations.. with 8-10 unknown variables.. or
"10D maths" if you like.. Gravity ,Acceleration,speed ,Atmospheric pressure ,Position initial ,
Position at expected interception ,Mass, Time ,altitude ,range ,etc etc..  then you need to do this for the interceptor and also for the missile.  Then you will end with a very long differential
equation ..   With computers it can be done fast .. but any unexpected thing can screw the whole thing. Like bad weather , rain ,snow. Why is never perfect any system of defense.. and the rating is never 100% .  Decoys also makes things more complex.. is indeed a real science how to design Ballistic defenses system. According to Russia.. US spend like 15 years of trial and error their THAAD until it had an acceptable performance. But this was of course testing it
against their own technology.. under ideal conditions. like 3-4 warheads.. and knowing when the attack will happen ,last i read.

A nuclear warhead can help ,but it can be a problem if you have a continuous attack.
could end blinding your own radars ,your own defenses.  Ideally Russia should have Space
Station like the ISS ,but completely made by Russia , and covering the entire Russia federation territory and monitoring any launch of anything. armed with interceptors. for early course intercept..and mid course intercept. that will really takes things to a new level.

I think Russia has superior tech in nuclear terms - both deployment and S-500 etc.
It also has aspects like underground bases to a higher level than the US.

The problem Russia has is that NATO is at its borders. Europe, Mexico, Canada etc can be used as buffers for Uncle Sham. They can attempt to shoot down Russian missiles as they leave Russian borders (ie before they have split into MIRVS etc). America can also attempt saturation attacks via subs, planes, cruise missiles, hypersonic missiles near Russian borders.

Russia can hope to use Cuba, Venezuela, its Far East, the N Pole route. But its having to send its missiles greater distances. And it has to send up a smaller number of carrier missiles ie stage 1 which only split up just before reaching America.

Look how close Moscow, St P and much of Russia is to NATO. Look how far America is from Russia.
THIS is why America thinks it can shit stir in Europe.

Historically the balance of power has been acceptable, because long range ie ICBM missiles were impossible for the US(or Russia) to shoot down. But with ABM advances, I wonder what will happen.

And I dont believe for a millisecond that America doesnt have loads of nukes in states bordering Russia.

Clearly lasers, space based ABMs, bases on Russian borders are clear threats. America is also toadeying up to Cuba, and causing shit in Venezuela and other pro Russia states. Not to mention orthodox/Russian places such as Romania and the Eastern former Ukraine.

Russia needs to alter the balance back in its favour geographically. Because superior tech can only get you so far.

It should place "non nuclear" bases (haha) in Cuba, Venezueala and other Central Am/Carribean places. It should pressure Cz, Pol and Romania against hosting bases esp ABMs there. Perhaps space based interceptors are needed too. I would let Lvov separate from the Ukraine but keep Russian bases on its territory.

I think Russia sat back a little with the Ukraine. It cannot afford to sit back with nuclear geopolitics.

US cant keep its nuclear weapons in europe as it violates npt . But still they have  2 ,000 ,000,000 $ bombers in Germany . You cant militarize space as it violates anoyhrr treaty . US is signatory to both of them and till now they itted to it . Laser based weapons currently are limited . Nato basing missile shield is a problem because usa is saving its ass by sabotaging europeans .

As I said Russia must pull out from INF treaty the moment usa places its shield .

What about SM-6 ? Is it also similar to SM-3 ? Btw do all ballistic missiles have predicted trajectory ?

Firebird wrote:I think Russia has superior tech in nuclear terms - both deployment and S-500 etc.
It also has aspects like underground bases to a higher level than the US.

The problem Russia has is that NATO is at its borders. Europe, Mexico, Canada etc can be used as buffers for Uncle Sham. They can attempt to shoot down Russian missiles as they leave Russian borders (ie before they have split into MIRVS etc). America can also attempt saturation attacks via subs, planes, cruise missiles, hypersonic missiles near Russian borders.

Russia can hope to use Cuba, Venezuela, its Far East, the N Pole route. But its having to send its missiles greater distances. And it has to send up a smaller number of carrier missiles ie stage 1 which only split up just before reaching America.

Look how close Moscow, St P and much of Russia is to NATO. Look how far America is from Russia.
THIS is why America thinks it can shit stir in Europe.

Historically the balance of power has been acceptable, because long range ie ICBM missiles were impossible for the US(or Russia) to shoot down. But with ABM advances, I wonder what will happen.

And I dont believe for a millisecond that America doesnt have loads of nukes in states bordering Russia.

Clearly lasers, space based ABMs, bases on Russian borders are clear threats. America is also toadeying up to Cuba, and causing shit in Venezuela and other pro Russia states. Not to mention orthodox/Russian places such as Romania and the Eastern former Ukraine.

Russia needs to alter the balance back in its favour geographically. Because superior tech can only get you so far.

It should place "non nuclear" bases (haha) in Cuba, Venezueala and other Central Am/Carribean places. It should pressure Cz, Pol and Romania against hosting bases esp ABMs there. Perhaps space based interceptors are needed too. I would let Lvov separate from the Ukraine but keep Russian bases on its territory.

I think Russia sat back a little with the Ukraine. It cannot afford to sit back with nuclear geopolitics.

Very well said, Russia has to be ready to respond if necessary.

max steel wrote:US cant keep its nuclear weapons in europe as it violates npt . But still they have  2 ,000 ,000,000 $ bombers in Germany . You cant militarize space as it violates anoyhrr treaty . US is signatory to both of them and till now they itted to it . Laser based weapons currently are limited . Nato basing missile shield is a problem because usa is saving its ass by sabotaging europeans .

As I said Russia must pull out from INF treaty the moment usa places its shield .

What about SM-6 ? Is it also similar to SM-3 ? Btw do all ballistic missiles have predicted trajectory ?

Most do, but the ballistic flight path these days can change with manouverable missiles and warheads. As well, some have the the ability to fly a somewhat ballistic path like Iskander, making it very hard to engage. Decoys and what not make them also nearly impossible to take down.

It is well thought that in turn to a nuclear exchange, Russia would launch their old and outdated missiles to saturate the defense systems, then launch the real stuff.

Also, as Austin pointed out, the success rate is poor on these abm systems and are not geared to combat other types of missiles like cruise missiles.

It does not matter is SM-3 better or S-500 as long as S-500 does for what it was designed for and it was designed to shoot down any ICBM/SLBM and hypersonic cruise missiles

flying up to 100km altitude at the speeds of Mach 20.

Pancir-S1/TOR-M2 combo will eat every cruise missile on their path and thats what matters. S-400 will shoot E-3 and E-8 at 400km distance and thats what matters etc ...

integration is important, new satellite targeting networks etc. Once up and running with Russian global promt strike up and running by 2021 under the guidance of Russian aerospace

defense forces branch all illusions will be shattered.

Remember also that Russian factories are chewing 1.5k cruise missiles per year

New train, mobile ICBM are being introduced as well as new bomber but also the most secretive branch of all - ASAT.

US while ahead still has many years to spend developing things on which we are discussing right now as being done deal (and it isnt) and they have huuuge military to support at the

times while money is slowly being dried out.

Putin rather sees threat in US missile defense system than weapons deployment in Europe

The Russian president noted that if someone threatens Russia’s territory, it is to aim its weapons where the threat is coming from

NOVO-OGARYOVO, June 16. /TASS/. Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday he sees no real threat in the West’s statements about possible deployment of weapons in Europe, since the missile defense system deployment is a bigger threat.

"I’d refrain from whipping up emotions. Of course, we will analyze everything but so far I see nothing that might prompt us to do that [take response measures]," he told a news conference. "It’s rather all about political signals to Russia, in its relations with the European Union."

Read also
Analysts: US forces Russia to take military, technical steps to forestall aggression
US plans of deploying heavy weapons close to Russian borders will push Moscow for response
Military analysts: West embarks on dangerous path of ruining nuclear deterrence

"We are more worried over the deployment of the missile defence system," he said.

Putin said Russia has all the grounds to take response measures. "If anyone threatens Russia’s territory, it must aim its weapons at those countries the threat is coming from," he said. "It is NATO that is approaching our borders, not vice versa."

At the same time, the Russian president stressed that Russia posed no threat to anyone, including Finland. "The best guarantee of Finland’s security is its neutral status," Putin said.

Shortly after reports about Washington’s plans for deploying 1,200 tanks, armored personnel carriers and other military vehicles organic to a force of 5,000 officers and men the United States on Monday declared it had plans for redeploying to Europe a contingent of fifth generation F-22 Raptor fighter jets. Speaking at the 51th international aerospace show at Le Bourget the Secretary of the US Air Force, Deborah Lee James, said that was necessary to show muscle to Russia. Earlier, the United States stepped up the air patrolling of the Baltic Sea and deployed B-2 and B-52 bombers in Britain.

Dmitry Peskov: Russia will take measures if Ukraine deploys elements of foreign ballistic missile defense systems in its territory
Russian Aviaton » Thursday June 25, 2015 14:01 MSK

Russia will take measures aimed at assuring the national security if Ukraine deploys elements of US ballistic missile defense systems in its territory, TASS reports with reference to Russian President’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov.

“If Ukraine wants to deploy elements of US ballistic missile defense systems in its territory, this will cause a negative reaction, because this move is posing a threat to the security of our country,” the Kremlin’s representative said, adding that he didn’t study the details of such statements made by Ukrainian representatives.

“This will force Russia to take countermeasures in order to assure its national security,” he noted. At that Peskov noted that these speculations are of eventual nature.

Earlier the Secretary of National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine (NSDCU), Alexander Turchinov, said that he leaves open the possibility of holding consultations related to installation of components of ballistic missile defense systems in the country’s territory in order “to protect the country from Russia nuclear threat”.

“We are reconstructing our nuclear shield without violating international agreements; its primary objective is to protect the country from Russia nuclear threat,” he said.

Once again Turchinov accused Russia of deploying nuclear missiles in Crimea. He believes that in this situation “joint efforts of all the leading countries are required”. “This should be a combination of economic, political and military actions. In particular, we need to strengthen the common system, designed for protecting against nuclear threats, and deploy additional elements of ballistic missile defense systems,” the NSDCU secretary said.

Moreover, Turchinov urged the western countries to block the way through Bosporus for Russian vessels and disconnect Russia from SWIFT system.

Russia should destroy any future US ABM in Ukraine,there is no second choice .

If any part of a US ABM system appeared in the Ukraine I am pretty sure the first thing the Russians will do is pull out of the new START treaty and start increasing production of ICBM warheads to a level they feel would be uninterceptible... probably about 3,000.

I suspect they might also tear up the INF treaty and start putting IRBMs on their European borders... they already have SAMs able to deal with this class of missile so if the US did the same it would not matter that much...

GarryB wrote:If any part of a US ABM system appeared in the Ukraine I am pretty sure the first thing the Russians will do is pull out of the new START treaty and start increasing production of ICBM warheads to a level they feel would be uninterceptible... probably about 3,000.

I suspect they might also tear up the INF treaty and start putting IRBMs on their European borders... they already have SAMs able to deal with this class of missile so if the US did the same it would not matter that much...

This will be good and enough , US knows Russia will take actions like that , this could lead to a war , the question is why US want to Pull the trigger , is she want war that easy way , that's Disgusting.

usa aegis can intercept IRBMs successfully . Russia should rather opt for Iksander irbms with nuclear warheads .their sams cant intercept iksanders .

This will be good and enough , US knows Russia will take actions like that , this could lead to a war , the question is why US want to Pull the trigger , is she want war that easy way , that's Disgusting.

More likely the US will piss its pants because instead of submitting the Russians have dared to take action in response.

The US prefers to deal with cowards and the weak and thinks it can treat anyone this way... after all they are the only super power left so it is their right and responsibility to make other countries bow to their will and if they are good in time they will get the privilege to be slightly more like the US than they are now... but only if they do everything in their power to keep the US rich and powerful now.

max steel wrote:usa aegis can intercept IRBMs successfully . Russia should rather opt for Iksander irbms with nuclear warheads .their sams cant intercept iksanders .

Their ABM systems cannot stop cruise missiles as they fly too low and too fast and at an unpredictable course, much like Iskander (which flies at a quasi ballistic path). So long range cruise missiles may be ideal in the future for Russia. If they dump the INF treaty because how US is operating, then Iskanders carrying R-500's in numbers, that carry a nuclear warhead, would be ideal.

SM-3 and SM-6 patriot like missiles have not even virtually a chance intercepting IRBM's or ICBM's they are there soley to intercept cruise missiles and the launching plattforms to sustain their domination over entire EU and their logistical and nuclear facilities which are illegally on german,netherland, italian, turkish soil not to mention the illegal nukes in France and Britian which are not obligated by Start treaty despite being NATO member meaning US slave which makes them indirectly US nukes.

Werewolf wrote:SM-3 and SM-6 patriot like missiles have not even virtually a chance intercepting IRBM's or ICBM's they are there soley to intercept cruise missiles and the launching plattforms to sustain their domination over entire EU and their logistical and nuclear facilities which are illegally on german,netherland, italian, turkish soil not to mention the illegal nukes in France and Britian which are not obligated by Start treaty despite being NATO member meaning US slave which makes them indirectly US nukes.

Nope wolf usa never claimed sm series can shoot down icbm's . Rest SM-3 and SM-6 can successfully shoot down SRBMs MRBMs because ballistic missiles follow a predicted trajectory . Maneuverable BMs like Iksander can't be intercepted by ussa defense . Btw what about eruopean defenses ? France posses its own missile defense system . They are meant for terminal phase interception . REst they have MIM-104 Patriot( PAC-3) for SRBMs .




Rest Check S-400/500 Thread last few pages

max steel wrote:

Werewolf wrote:SM-3 and SM-6 patriot like missiles have not even virtually a chance intercepting IRBM's or ICBM's they are there soley to intercept cruise missiles and the launching plattforms to sustain their domination over entire EU and their logistical and nuclear facilities which are illegally on german,netherland, italian, turkish soil not to mention the illegal nukes in France and Britian which are not obligated by Start treaty despite being NATO member meaning US slave which makes them indirectly US nukes.

Nope wolf usa never claimed sm series can shoot down icbm's . Rest SM-3 and SM-6 can successfully shoot down SRBMs MRBMs because ballistic missiles follow a predicted trajectory . Maneuverable BMs like Iksander can't be intercepted by ussa defense . Btw what about eruopean defenses ? France posses its own missile defense system . They are meant for terminal phase interception . REst they have MIM-104 Patriot( PAC-3) for SRBMs .




Rest Check S-400/500 Thread last few pages

Now hold on, we cant say they can successfully intercept them. Let us not forget that in recent Saudi shootdown of the ScudB ended up using 2 missiles to take down that scud. Saturation attack would be a problem, but so would an attack using anything more modern.

there isnt just the solution of long range cruise missile. because short range dont work. the blast would be too close. but...... who said that a nuke must necesarry have 1 kg of radioactive fuel? one for a emp blast of just 30 km would be perfect

nuclear warheads can work for small target too. think that the amount of nuclear fuel for a blast of 30 meters is so tiny and leave space for a lot of equipments around. also targeting land based targets the emp effect would not be so high so would not reach own troops

sepheronx wrote:

max steel wrote:

Werewolf wrote:SM-3 and SM-6 patriot like missiles have not even virtually a chance intercepting IRBM's or ICBM's they are there soley to intercept cruise missiles and the launching plattforms to sustain their domination over entire EU and their logistical and nuclear facilities which are illegally on german,netherland, italian, turkish soil not to mention the illegal nukes in France and Britian which are not obligated by Start treaty despite being NATO member meaning US slave which makes them indirectly US nukes.

Nope wolf usa never claimed sm series can shoot down icbm's . Rest SM-3 and SM-6 can successfully shoot down SRBMs MRBMs because ballistic missiles follow a predicted trajectory . Maneuverable BMs like Iksander can't be intercepted by ussa defense . Btw what about eruopean defenses ? France posses its own missile defense system . They are meant for terminal phase interception . REst they have MIM-104 Patriot( PAC-3) for SRBMs .




Rest Check S-400/500 Thread last few pages

Now hold on, we cant say they can successfully intercept them.  Let us not forget that in recent Saudi shootdown of the ScudB ended up using 2 missiles to take down that scud.  Saturation attack would be a problem, but so would an attack using anything more modern.

How many missiles they need to use to succes interception does not matter, they do not plan to create worlds best ABM, they purpose is to comprimise russias capability to deflect NATO's attack against Russia, so that russia can not destroy NATO logistics and nuclear weapons in Europe which majority are US nukes using EU countries as human shields. If they for their own shame have to use even 10 ABM missiles for every tactical nuke, they will happily do that to achieve their vile goal to conquer russia and the worlds richest country.

The point is to completley make russia incapable of responding to US attack in proxy war against russia. Russia will never launch ICBM's against US even when NATO slaves are going on russian soil and committing genocide, not under putin at least, not with to many zionists in russia which never have lost their caste of jewish families taking part in politics and government.

Russia out of necessity will have to use small yield tactical nukes of just 1-25 kt warheads which is just military use and they will be around 300 at least from the old NATO plans which were counted as the sufficient amount to deal with such circumstances. Russia must react, because otherwise they will need to use more nukes, with bigger warheads which the death count won't be majority of military but will end up with majority of civilians killed and then there is no future for Russia and Europe, such thing they will never accept even if they knew that they are the evil side who started and allowed this nuclear genocide to happen.

This plans are in full order and set in stone, the US this time will not back down, there will be nukes used and i do not recommend being in Germany, Italy, France, Britian, Netherland, Turkey or Rostov region in next 25 years. I don't care how many think that this is just conspiracy, all political and military movements point out to exactly this scenario and not any other scenario.

Operation Gladio and similiar Operations openly planned in 80's and all NATO soldiers during that time had to participate in wargames for such an Operation with Nuclear use by provoking Russia (Soviet Union). It won't be rosey for entire European continent, after that i can assure Madeviel times practice and lynch mob killing of responsible politicians, MSM "journalists" and any other establishment slave that acted against own citizens and i will welcome such behavior, blood for blood. If they do not fear you they do not work for you.

This ABM shield is giving them false sense of security. Failure rates in tests are known (and high) and Russia does not even use Scud B anymore. Russia would indeed use nukes if attacked and even lower yield tactical nukes are enough and abm system wont be able to take them down, as most are in forms of Iskander (quasi ballistic) and cruise missiles. These ABM systems were designed around the times of old IRBM and MRBM systems that are no longer around. Future for Russia are Iskander and cruise missile - that is evident. So they would reach their destination, no problem. But yes, I imagine many in Russia would rather not use ICBM even if attacked, which is stupid and pointless.

sepheronx wrote: But yes, I imagine many in Russia would rather not use ICBM even if attacked, which is stupid and pointless.

If it escalates enough there is no point not to.

There are people in Russia who think they shouldnt nuke if they are even attacked. These same people I imagine would go running away fist sign of trouble or quickly give up to the enemy. So hopefully these people do not have any say or control over Russias policies and nukes.

so you're saying usa is playing these wargames becasuse they have taken it for granted that russians willn't fire their nukes ? Sounds preposterous .

US Military Incapable of Overcoming Defenses of Russia, China



The US military has over-invested into weapons which work well for launching attacks on countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria but are quite ineffective for countries like Russia and China, media outlet Flight Global reports.

The US military has over-invested in purchasing short- range direct attack bombs and has under-invested in the long-range, stealth and precision-guided weapons.

Due to that, the United States cannot overcome the defenses of such countries as Russia, China and Iran(basically russian defenses only ). This conclusion was reached by experts of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, reports media outlet Flight Global.

The report points out that from 2001 to 2014 the US Department of Defense bought 304,750 weapons for direct action with a radius of up to 50 lesions nautical miles (80.47 km), which accounted for 96% of all weapons purchase.

During the same period only 7109 long-range weapons were purchased. They can blast the radius of 400 nautical miles (643.74 kilometers).


The experts concluded that the short-range weapons are only effective when the aircraft can get close to the target but it is impossible at carrying out large-scale military operations against the enemy, which has high-precision weapons.



This report, in fact, confirms what US generals have been saying over the past few years, that the US military investment is aimed at supporting military operations in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and now Syria where “planes can fly and drop bombs without consequences,” writes Flight Global.

At the same time, such weapons are ineffective in the hypothetical operations which may involve Russia, China and Iran .


http://sputniknews.com/military/20150628/1023948515.html#ixzz3eTbpfyJN