NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

Pentagon preparing strike with 4000 precision weapon that can disable 80 % of Russia's Nuclear Potential according to Rogozin

Dmitry Rogozin: The main guarantee of security of the Russian Federation is a strong strategic nuclear deterrence and arms of a new generation of autonomous

Rogozin said that that "little blood" paralyze a country like Russia, enough for a few hours, apply about 4 thousand strikes with precision weapons. During this time, you can destroy the nuclear capabilities of the country with minimal losses to the public. Resist such a threat, he said, is possible only with the help of an autonomous self new generation of weapons.

"What can we oppose this enemy? Main security guarantee Russia a strong strategic nuclear deterrence," - said Deputy Prime Minister. However, he doubted that this is only enough to reflect current threats.

"The American strategists first time in the last 50 years, a vision of how to defeat other nuclear" little blood ", while avoiding unacceptable damage for itself in responding to the country that was attacked - said Rogozin. - At the end of last year The Pentagon held a computer game, the results of which showed a blow to the largest and most highly developed country with the use of 3.5-4 thousand units of high-precision weapons in a few hours - and nearly destroyed the infrastructure, the state will lose the opportunity to resist. "

According to the deputy head of the cabinet of ministers, if such a blow will be inflicted on Russia, the main targets will be the objects of nuclear deterrence. He led the expert estimated that, in the event of such an attack could be destroyed from 80 to 90 percent of Russia's nuclear potential. At that civilian casualties would be minimal. Remaining the same weapons will not be enough to retaliate against the aggressor and the leadership of the country would not do it.

Austin wrote:Pentagon preparing strike with 4000 precision weapon that can disable 80 % of Russia's Nuclear Potential according to Rogozin

It was much worse before, but in that case we are talking about total nuclear war. This was most probably said to speed some thing up or with some other purpose.

Still I think mindstorm in it some previous post pretty clearly explained such scenario with Russian ability to fire its cruise missiles in comparison with US.

Austin wrote:Pentagon preparing strike with 4000 precision weapon that can disable 80 % of Russia's Nuclear Potential according to Rogozin  

1. The remaining 20% can still destroy the U.S.
2. The Pentagon predicted the U.S. would defeat North Vietnam in 90 days. After 10 years of fighting  and 58,000 American servicemen killed, the U.S.  pulled out of Vietnam.

Arrow wrote:http://russianforces.org/blog/2013/09/russian_early_warning_system_i.shtml


In the near future, the U.S. will has hypersonic cruise missile and will will fly at a much lower trajectory than ICBM and SLBM warhead. They will be invisible to Voronezh radar system.

When is this "near future" ?

TR1 wrote:

Arrow wrote:http://russianforces.org/blog/2013/09/russian_early_warning_system_i.shtml


In the near future, the U.S. will has hypersonic cruise missile and will will fly at a much lower trajectory than ICBM and SLBM warhead. They will be invisible to Voronezh radar system.

When is this "near future" ?

Russian prediction is 2025-2030. He is speaking about Mach 20 sustained at up to 100km altitude.

Those are the threats Russian scientists predict S-500 will have to deal with.

Sadly S-500 induction dates have changed they first said 2016 and now Air Force chief at MAKS states 2018.

Can't say I am really sad about it given S-400 induction.
No rush here really.

Viktor wrote:

Vann7 wrote:Well not really.. No idea what a battery of 56 is ,so calculate for me.. lol

I meant to say that by 2020 Russia will have 56 S-400 batteries meaning it will be able to shoot with those 56 S-400 at 56 x 10 = 560 targets at once with 560 x 2 = 1120 missiles.

Got it?

Oh i see..

But 560 targets doesn't look like a lot for me.. Im sure if NATO wanted they can fire 5,000 cruise missiles + long range artillery at the same time in case the of war. Maybe they counter with the rest with S-300s, Pantsirs ,Tors and others the difference.

GarryB wrote:Hahahaha... NATO has never fired more than 200 cruise missiles at anything ever before and the last time they fired 100 or so they had fired there available stocks and had to put in big replacement orders... which took time.

Also... this is just SAMs so add fighter aircraft using AAMs to down aerial targets as well.

Thats because NATO  fights are against  third world countries.. in low level easy wars.. and they go cheap.. but in a world war 3 , they do have the capabilities to fight many thousands projectiles.... between Cruise missiles , Rocket artillery , and Air to Ground missiles. Just because in Libya they don't used more than 200 does not means they cannot launch more. in IRAQ war for example US alone launched 800 cruise missiles in just 2 days..

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/25/1042911596206.html

and we are talking at something bigger than IRAQ like Russia. So between Cruise Missiles and Planes flying low  launching air to ground missiles ,Drones ,Rocket artillery and decoys launched , NATO could fill their enemy radars Airspace easily with several thousands targets without problem.

I generally roll my eyes a bit when Garry suggests that Russia would go nuclear over some low-level attack on its territory by NATO... but 5000 cruise missiles (if that's even possible) might just warrant a nuclear response.

Seriously, what the hell would you even target with the 5,000 missiles that may not even exist in all of NATO.. collectively!?

dionis wrote:I generally roll my eyes a bit when Garry suggests that Russia would go nuclear over some low-level attack on its territory by NATO... but 5000 cruise missiles (if that's even possible) might just warrant a nuclear response.

Seriously, what the hell would you even target with the 5,000 missiles that may not even exist in all of NATO.. collectively!?

What Garry states is correct, as tactical nukes are part of the use if any engagement on Russia happens. This could be at home or abroad. This was mandated under Medvedev. Tactical Nukes. Not ICBM's.

Vann7 wrote:Oh i see..

But 560 targets doesn't look like a lot for me.. Im sure if NATO wanted they can fire 5,000 cruise missiles + long range artillery at the same time in case the of war. Maybe they counter with the rest with S-300s, Pantsirs ,Tors and others the difference.

And what if Russia lauches 5000 cruise missiles + long range artillery first or second? West does not have any defenses against it and Russia on the other hand has the most formidable

in the world.

1. West would need to find goals for such a large number of missiles and finding goals and making ELINT against Russia would be fun to watch
2. We dont know full extent of Russian ASAT weapons and dont know how many of US GPS satellities would remaine in orbit within few hours after outbrake of war
3. Organizing 5000 cruise missiles attack from the planes would be fun to watch as NATO never did anything like it before and than there is always danger of Russian pre-emptive missile strike
4. Russia can raise few thousand SAMs in the air and how its quite questionable how many western pilots would survive to live another day and get in the plane
5. Russian ELINT and ECM/ECCM is great and it can reduce efficiency of western CM attack by few orders of magnitude
6. Than there is a Russian interceptors in form of MiG-29/31 and Su-27/30/35
7. Russian Army would launch missile attack against whole spectrum  of targets bringing stone age to any country that hosts agressor planes

First of all, not all 5000 cruise missiles will be launched at the same time, so there will be time for reloads. Second, cruise missiles as Tomahawk is quite easy target for AA guns and MANPADs, specially, when they are well integrated inside IADS, like with Barnaul-T and considering, that majority of them will be launched from the ships and subs, their flight paths could be well predicted and they could be shot down over sea by naval ships guarding the coast (even coast guard ships could do this job).

Werewolf wrote:
I aggree on a small scale and an insignificant attack on Russian soil will not be answered with full nuclear response, but the problem still lies here.

If one Nuclear Power attacks another one regardless of how intensive the attack is be it a mosquito sting or deadly bite both can not be tolerated and have to punished in an oversized manner, not because it is revange but because Pardon one such attack with insignificant answers you will only encourage your enemy for bigger attacks.

Never forget bullies only know the policy of strentgh.

Pardon one offense and you encourage many more.

This is a bunch of armchair general malarkey. There's a lot of things to consider in a real world scenario.

sepheronx wrote:
What Garry states is correct, as tactical nukes are part of the use if any engagement on Russia happens.  This could be at home or abroad.  This was mandated under Medvedev.  Tactical Nukes.  Not ICBM's.

The number of tactical nukes left in the Russian arsenal is rather low - and given their otherwise large yield, would limit their use vastly in most cases.

Viktor wrote:

And what if Russia lauches 5000 cruise missiles + long range artillery first or second? West does not have any defenses against it and Russia on the other hand has the most formidable

in the world.

1. West would need to find goals for such a large number of missiles and finding goals and making ELINT against Russia would be fun to watch
2. We dont know full extent of Russian ASAT weapons and dont know how many of US GPS satellities would remaine in orbit within few hours after outbrake of war
3. Organizing 5000 cruise missiles attack from the planes would be fun to watch as NATO never did anything like it before and than there is always danger of Russian pre-emptive missile strike
4. Russia can raise few thousand SAMs in the air and how its quite questionable how many western pilots would survive to live another day and get in the plane
5. Russian ELINT and ECM/ECCM is great and it can reduce efficiency of western CM attack by few orders of magnitude
6. Than there is a Russian interceptors in form of MiG-29/31 and Su-27/30/35
7. Russian Army would launch missile attack against whole spectrum  of targets bringing stone age to any country that hosts agressor planes

I'd be surprised is Russia had even 1000 cruise missiles with a range higher than 1500KM.

dionis wrote:I'd be surprised is Russia had even 1000 cruise missiles with a range higher than 1500KM.

I would be supprised if they dont

Cruise Missile Engine Manufacturing Localized

NPO Saturn and state machine-building design bureau Raduga officially announced on Monday an agreement to manufacture cruise missile engines worth 4 billion rubles ($120 million).
"We plan to produce over 1,500 such engines per year," said Ilya Fyodorov, managing director of NPO Saturn
"Strategic air and sea-based missiles should not depend on other countries, even friendly states, for major parts supply. So we are now organizing local engine production," Fyodorov said.
Saturn's new manufacturing program has grown 250 percent compared to the previous three-year production plan. It's factory in Rybinsk in Yaroslavl region will now start to produce missile engines at the rate it did before the collapse of the Soviet Union.

dionis wrote:The number of tactical nukes left in the Russian arsenal is rather low - and given their otherwise large yield, would limit their use vastly in most cases

Its number is unknown. You can use 1000 (lowest estimate) to few or even several thousand - no one knows and that includes all of us here but the thing is that their number is great

for any occasion.

There isn't specific nuclear cruise missiles, cruise missiles with nuclear warhead is a different case.  Kh-55's were capable of carrying a warhead, so I would not be surprised if they have a lot of them in reserve, as they are significantly cheaper than a nuclear warhead for an ICBM.

On top of that, Russia has so many generations of cruise missiles, and with the fact of keeping them in storage rather than use, to saver them for if incase a conflict (as evident they use dumb bombs mostly in training exercises), they more than likely have a lot in reserve.

And as Victor said, they localized production prior to the Ukrainian conflict, since a lot of the cruise missile engines came from Ukraine, and stated something like 1500 new cruise missiles per year?  Or something along those lines.

If in case of a conflict, guaranteed the production rate would go up, even if it called for opening another plant for its production.

More specifically, Kh-15 was a nuclear tipped cruise missile. Upgrade was proposed in 1991 but never gone through though.

Guys - the US Navy has something like 4,000 Tomahawks in total. Do you seriously think Russia is about to pump out 1,500 Kh-101 class weapons per year!? How many bombers have even been upgraded to fire them?

Ramping up production in a conflict is basically game over, as these things can happen without any warning and the key military events may unfold in a matter of days.

-----

Regarding the tactical nukes - AFAIK the Kh-15 is completely gone, which is a shame, but seems to be the latest news on the missile.

If NATO fires missiles from subs or bombers - what are you going to nuke? A military airport next to a civilian center or the middle of an ocean?!

Actually US has less than 2000 Tomahawks in its Naval inventory.

The AF had about 1500 long range cruise missiles, but the AGM-129 has been scrapped, so it is left with ~1000 AGM-86s.

TR1 wrote:Actually US has less than 2000 Tomahawks in its Naval inventory.

The AF had about 1500 long range cruise missiles, but the AGM-129 has been scrapped, so it is left with ~1000 AGM-86s.

Really? So the total cruise missile stockpile is less than 3000 (correct me if I'm wrong)? That's surprising...I was under the impression the U.S. military cruise missile assets were somewhere between 8,000-10,000 (especially considering how much is spent for defense). It's interesting that different parties (in power in the U.S. Executive Branch) favor different tactics and strategies to fighting wars. Republican's favor fighting large scale land wars with boots on the ground (with sharp increases in M1 Abrams purchases) while Democrats prefer largely to rely on having bellicose asymmetrical fighting groups to act as meat shields and take up all the loses while Naval and Air assets attack from safe distances and extended ranges.