NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

The scariest part would be if Zhirnovsky or one of his stooges gets president based on his "patriotism" which he loudly claims to have. One of the worst, would lick US ass in a second after being elected.

The Communist? Nah, he is right now riding the ultra Patriot ride that if he did lick us butt, the countrymen would BBQ his fat arse.

sepheronx wrote:The Communist? Nah, he is right now riding the ultra Patriot ride that if he did lick us butt, the countrymen would BBQ his fat arse.

He means the LDPR leader. The court jester. I don't the LDPR will ever form the government. The problem with the KPRF (Communists) is that
Zyuganov never properly reformed the party and made it democratic with fresh ideas. Instead he followed the obsolete dictatorial model and made
himself its leader for life and suppressed any challengers. If the KPRF had reformed itself there would now be two major parties in Russia instead
of one, namely United Russia. Thanks for nothing, Zyuganov, you retarded old meat.

Maybe fresh new person will take over. That old man looks like he is at deaths door.

Maybe the LDPR act nationalistic (ultra nationalist as I do like many of the bills they propose) but I don't know enough about them. The liberals are almost nothing (3%) so yeah, United Russia it seems will be rulers for next while. Not huge fan about that really and I don't trust half the party members. I see at least some newer parties Right cause party. And PVO.

Werewolf wrote:Or they leave the pandora's box closed because Putin can't be president for ever and i doubt the next one will be set in stone to be a patriot.

putin can choose a next candidate for the presidency who is aproximately like him. a ex fsb agent. they have the balls to stay in usa's face .....

about the misile shield. here in romania is said that russia isn't prepared to take a arms race with usa. and a race would cost alot russia because of the difference in gdp. because russia (they clame) doesnt have a diversificated civil economy so they cant have the money to build those weapons.
in my opinion as long as money flew from russia that is bad. printing money to be a solution?

victor1985 wrote:about the misile shield. here in romania is said that russia isn't prepared to take a arms race with usa. and a race would cost alot russia because of the difference in gdp. because russia (they clame) doesnt have a diversificated civil economy so they cant have the money to build those weapons.
in my opinion as long as money flew from russia that is bad. printing money to be a solution?

Printing money causes inflation

victor1985 wrote:about the misile shield. here in romania is said that russia isn't prepared to take a arms race with usa. and a race would cost alot russia because of the difference in gdp. because russia (they clame) doesnt have a diversificated civil economy so they cant have the money to build those weapons.
in my opinion as long as money flew from russia that is bad. printing money to be a solution?

No.  And those Romanians are not sure what they are talking about either.  1) GDP has little to do with it. 2)Russian goods are much cheaper so with less money, more can actually be purchased. 3)US cannot afford an Arms race either.  Just printing money isn't a form of a real economy and sure sounds like your fellow Romanians have very little knowledge on economy.

There are a lot more factors I could go into, but don't really feel like it.  All in all, Russia can easily afford various types of missiles to easily deal with these systems - since they already have the weapons available (Cruise missiles like Kalibr, Iskander, Kh-101, etc.)

Militarov wrote:

victor1985 wrote:about the misile shield. here in romania is said that russia isn't prepared to take a arms race with usa. and a race would cost alot russia because of the difference in gdp. because russia (they clame) doesnt have a diversificated civil economy so they cant have the money to build those weapons.
in my opinion as long as money flew from russia that is bad. printing money to be a solution?

Printing money causes inflation

as long as it's a low inflation that is not so bad. but contrary being in the market new money that would make another relation between price and work .....

sepheronx wrote:

victor1985 wrote:about the misile shield. here in romania is said that russia isn't prepared to take a arms race with usa. and a race would cost alot russia because of the difference in gdp. because russia (they clame) doesnt have a diversificated civil economy so they cant have the money to build those weapons.
in my opinion as long as money flew from russia that is bad. printing money to be a solution?

No.  And those Romanians are not sure what they are talking about either.  1) GDP has little to do with it. 2)Russian goods are much cheaper so with less money, more can actually be purchased. 3)US cannot afford an Arms race either.  Just printing money isn't a form of a real economy and sure sounds like your fellow Romanians have very little knowledge on economy.

There are a lot more factors I could go into, but don't really feel like it.  All in all, Russia can easily afford various types of missiles to easily deal with these systems - since they already have the weapons available (Cruise missiles like Kalibr, Iskander, Kh-101, etc.)

2) that would mean that more you buy would mean less money that the usa counterpart for the producer .....

victor1985 wrote:

Militarov wrote:

victor1985 wrote:about the misile shield. here in romania is said that russia isn't prepared to take a arms race with usa. and a race would cost alot russia because of the difference in gdp. because russia (they clame) doesnt have a diversificated civil economy so they cant have the money to build those weapons.
in my opinion as long as money flew from russia that is bad. printing money to be a solution?

Printing money causes inflation

as long as it's a low inflation that is not so bad. but contrary being in the market new money that would make another relation between price and work .....

But Russia already has higher inflation that they would like, below 5% inflation is considered as "healthy". And at certain points Russia reached even almost 20%, printing additional money without "cover" would just make things worse.

victor1985 wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

victor1985 wrote:about the misile shield. here in romania is said that russia isn't prepared to take a arms race with usa. and a race would cost alot russia because of the difference in gdp. because russia (they clame) doesnt have a diversificated civil economy so they cant have the money to build those weapons.
in my opinion as long as money flew from russia that is bad. printing money to be a solution?

No.  And those Romanians are not sure what they are talking about either.  1) GDP has little to do with it. 2)Russian goods are much cheaper so with less money, more can actually be purchased. 3)US cannot afford an Arms race either.  Just printing money isn't a form of a real economy and sure sounds like your fellow Romanians have very little knowledge on economy.

There are a lot more factors I could go into, but don't really feel like it.  All in all, Russia can easily afford various types of missiles to easily deal with these systems - since they already have the weapons available (Cruise missiles like Kalibr, Iskander, Kh-101, etc.)

2) that would mean that more you buy would mean less money that the usa counterpart for the producer .....

English please.

Russia gets more bang for its buck. Cruise missiles are relatively cheap compared to what they used to be, and are more readily available. A stationary defense system such as this ABM would be a far easier target than a mobile system. The Launchers are blind without its method of tracking the missiles or air assets, and the radar stations would be the first to go. No stationary or mobile is 100% effective, even FAR less so when salvo strikes. Which would be cheaper than the setup of this station. Couple million vs tens of millions.

Militarov wrote:

victor1985 wrote:

Militarov wrote:

victor1985 wrote:about the misile shield. here in romania is said that russia isn't prepared to take a arms race with usa. and a race would cost alot russia because of the difference in gdp. because russia (they clame) doesnt have a diversificated civil economy so they cant have the money to build those weapons.
in my opinion as long as money flew from russia that is bad. printing money to be a solution?

Printing money causes inflation

as long as it's a low inflation that is not so bad. but contrary being in the market new money that would make another relation between price and work .....

But Russia already has higher inflation that they would like, below 5% inflation is considered as "healthy". And at certain points Russia reached even almost 20%, printing additional money without "cover" would just make things worse.

you see .....normally the market would try to restore the equilibrium ...but is the unemployement problem who makes the things worse ....fix that and youre done

sepheronx wrote:

victor1985 wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

victor1985 wrote:about the misile shield. here in romania is said that russia isn't prepared to take a arms race with usa. and a race would cost alot russia because of the difference in gdp. because russia (they clame) doesnt have a diversificated civil economy so they cant have the money to build those weapons.
in my opinion as long as money flew from russia that is bad. printing money to be a solution?

No.  And those Romanians are not sure what they are talking about either.  1) GDP has little to do with it. 2)Russian goods are much cheaper so with less money, more can actually be purchased. 3)US cannot afford an Arms race either.  Just printing money isn't a form of a real economy and sure sounds like your fellow Romanians have very little knowledge on economy.

There are a lot more factors I could go into, but don't really feel like it.  All in all, Russia can easily afford various types of missiles to easily deal with these systems - since they already have the weapons available (Cruise missiles like Kalibr, Iskander, Kh-101, etc.)

2) that would mean that more you buy would mean less money that the usa counterpart for the producer .....

English please.

Russia gets more bang for its buck.  Cruise missiles are relatively cheap compared to what they used to be, and are more readily available.  A stationary defense system such as this ABM would be a far easier target than a mobile system.  The Launchers are blind without its method of tracking the missiles or air assets, and the radar stations would be the first to go.  No stationary or mobile is 100% effective, even FAR less so when salvo strikes.  Which would be cheaper than the setup of this station.  Couple million vs tens of millions.

that would depend on who shoot first. thinking at the both sides they both have radars and missiles. who shoot first with no warning has the advantage because he is not suppose to be the one that receive a warning from the eyes about the missiles who are coming. far to this point is about the less minutes capability to launch a response....in case you can fastly respond the enmy would not risk a total mutual anihilation. even if usa has hypersonic missiles ..... they miss too because of the errors....so 20 nukes in the head of europe doesnt sound so good. not to mention that at close speeds between missiles a intercept point is hard to calculate. make that calculation be a nightmare and youre done....no ABM or cruise missiles defense shield can resist.

Russian leaders are giving twisted responses , but underlying a increase in Navy and Ground based missiles as responses for
Romanian and Poland U.S ABM sites..  Can Rogozin be talking about 4202 tough nut to crack ..?

Russian response to US ABM

Russia's response to the deployment of U.S. missile defense elements in Romania and Poland will be military-technological but inexpensive, says Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin.

"Surely, there will be a response. A military-technological and a modern response, and an inexpensive one, of which the president said. We are not getting dragged into an arms race, but we have forces and resources, including those currently being tested, which will work not in an old-fashioned way but based on the enemy's vulnerability," Rogozin told journalists when asked about Russia's response to the deployment of U.S. missile defense elements in Romania and Poland.

Russia will develop its resources and allocate the funding "to make it possible to neutralize any threat with the least resources," he said. "As regards the industry, we reported to the president during these days about the most recent work, and tests and changes to the regulations for such tests, which allow us to speed up the creation of a weapon whose technical characteristics are even superior to [those of] the weapon of our probable adversaries," the deputy prime minister said.

He focused on the U.S vulnerabilities(my 2cents) they are

direction of attack (relatively close range sites in Romania and Poland) multiple directions
Warhead resources (complete stealth)
Electronic warfare embedded in warhead ..and other ground based sites.
Bt whatever be the responses it is indeed a full spectrum response from Russian Industry to US ABM.

gaurav wrote:

Russian leaders are giving twisted responses , but underlying a increase in Navy and Ground based missiles as responses for
Romanian and Poland U.S ABM sites..  Can Rogozin be talking about 4202 tough nut to crack ..?

Russian response to US ABM

Russia's response to the deployment of U.S. missile defense elements in Romania and Poland will be military-technological but inexpensive, says Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin.

"Surely, there will be a response. A military-technological and a modern response, and an inexpensive one, of which the president said. We are not getting dragged into an arms race, but we have forces and resources, including those currently being tested, which will work not in an old-fashioned way but based on the enemy's vulnerability," Rogozin told journalists when asked about Russia's response to the deployment of U.S. missile defense elements in Romania and Poland.

Russia will develop its resources and allocate the funding "to make it possible to neutralize any threat with the least resources," he said. "As regards the industry, we reported to the president during these days about the most recent work, and tests and changes to the regulations for such tests, which allow us to speed up the creation of a weapon whose technical characteristics are even superior to [those of] the weapon of our probable adversaries," the deputy prime minister said.

He focused on the U.S vulnerabilities(my 2cents) they are

direction of attack (relatively close range sites in Romania and Poland) multiple directions
Warhead resources (complete stealth)
Electronic warfare embedded in warhead ..and other ground based sites.
Bt whatever be the responses it is indeed a full spectrum response from Russian Industry to US ABM.

One of the easiest asymmetrical responses would be to fit S-300V4/400 missiles with tactical thermonuclear warheads...with the immense size of the blast pressure, heat, and EMP effect you could easily push the effective ranges from said missiles from 3 to 6 times the effective range. Also as GarryB has stated that those same missiles could have direct offensive fire modes built into the software algorithms, and without the need to have sufficient endgame kinematic energy to attack maneuverable air-targets, but instead ground stationed targets...in effect you basically have a much longer range (potentially from 2,500 km to 3,500 km) Iskander-M, with the thrust-vectoring maneuverability and all.

^
What? No....... Just no.


The best response is what they already have and are already fielding - Iskander missiles and Kalibr. Saturation attacks are the biggest threat to any military, be it Russia or US. The concept of Iron dome and what not is to strike at targets that are usually pretty piss poor accuracy already and require more than 1 missile to hit 1 rocket. Now imagine a saturated attack of multitude of highly accurate rockets? Well, now imagine that being done by cruise missiles and Iskander Quasi Ballistic missile. Essentially, the ABM system is supposed to be able to defend against standard based BM with a basic trajectory of that of a BM and its multiple warheads. Mind you, they make claims like it can determine what is a decoy and what isn't, but I call BS unless the ABM system uses optical guidance, which it does not. Now modern ICBM's that Russia is producing are maneuverable, thus it becomes an issue for US. The other one is the fact that so far, we have full on proof that the accuracy of such systems are somewhat abysmal (see Saudi Arabia conflict with Yemen using old BM and converted Anti Air missiles as ground missiles, and THAAD accuracy). What makes this even more so an issue for US is that the placement of the systems and how many there are, etc. For instance, the Radar stations are completely stationary. Even if mobile it wouldn't really help it. But more so worst when a massive complex like the radar station is put up, it is a massive target screaming "Look at me!". An attack on that would pretty much disable the ABM as it would destroy its Eyes and Ears of the ABM system.

Key here is saturation attack, even with the current weapons. The placement of Iskanders in Kaliningrad, giving Iskanders to Belarus and placing Kalibr in Crimea would give Russia the advantage here. Of course these sites will be protected by other air defense assets and what not, but reality is, all systems can be bypassed in such a manner.

One wild card is Russia's new EW systems they are putting in place at Air defense sites. If it works as intended and claimed, such a system could pose a major problem for US if such system is in Kaliningrad where they could possibly cause major interference in the guidance systems of the ABM system thus making it pretty much useless. But we know so little of it that I am just going to ignore it altogether.

If lets say Russia just scraps the INF treaty, because of the US and what they are doing, it would benefit Russia quite a lot. And in so, it wouldn't really take much to turn Iskander from a limited 500km range missile to 1,500+ km range missile in the same configuration (QBM).

http://sputniknews.com/military/20160516/1039683754/us-missile-defense-europe-russian-response.html?utm_source=https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2F0uv3AYwKF2&utm_medium=short_url&utm_content=bquH&utm_campaign=URL_shortening

So the expert is proposing what I was saying quite INF and build ground based launcher systems for long range cruise missiles.

very interesting view of General Designer of MIT

General designer MIT: US missile defense system can be converted to lock the Nuclear Forces

http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20160516/1434290900.html

I think he is referring to tomahawk with nuclear tipped, which he is very correct on. So moving EW and missile systems and AD assets is ideal.

I wonder if moving towards Launch on Warning LOW policy would be good option along with FOBS in the future ?

As scary as that is, it may have to be. Good thing that tomahawk is subsonic, or it would be even more a threat.

sepheronx wrote:As scary as that is, it may have to be. Good thing that tomahawk is subsonic, or it would be even more a threat.

My suggestion would be scrap out of INF Treaty , Move Towards LOW Policy and Deploy Tactical Nukes on Kalingrad , Forward deploy Borei SSBN , May be scrapping new start is not a bad idea its a useless treaty any ways

Austin wrote:

sepheronx wrote:As scary as that is, it may have to be. Good thing that tomahawk is subsonic, or it would be even more a threat.

My suggestion would be scrap out of INF Treaty , Move Towards LOW Policy and Deploy Tactical Nukes on Kalingrad , Forward deploy Borei SSBN  , May be scrapping new start is not a bad idea its a useless treaty any ways

INF is already dead just formal withdrawal is yet to come. I am sure Russians are about to test SRBM/IRBM. Maybe variant of Rubezh with less stages... as IRBM