Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
HoleNo. Not for now. But I guess they could do it.
+25
PhSt
thegopnik
nemrod
eehnie
magnumcromagnon
LMFS
Arrow
rambo54
GunshipDemocracy
dino00
Singular_Transform
GarryB
Hole
x_54_u43
KomissarBojanchev
Isos
Mindstorm
AlfaT8
Big_Gazza
PapaDragon
kvs
miketheterrible
Nibiru
The-thing-next-door
George1
29 posters
Peresvet laser complex
Hole- Posts : 11121
Points : 11099
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 48
Location : Scholzistan
GarryB- Posts : 40539
Points : 41039
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Being a mobile system it will have its own power generators, but equally I would expect it could also be plugged in to the local power grid and also use local power sources... just as a backup and to further improve performance.
Arrow- Posts : 3479
Points : 3469
Join date : 2012-02-12
GarryB how is Peresvet supposed to protect ICBM missile bases? Against drones.
GarryB- Posts : 40539
Points : 41039
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
A lot of cruise missiles use optical systems for terminal guidance to improve terminal accuracy.
Dazzling optical sensors on passing satellites would also degrade the performance of the US and their ability to strike targets from a distance.
Imagine WWIII kicks off and all of a sudden all the optical satellites the US uses to monitor Russian ICBM bases fail at once... the missiles they have launched will still get to the area but with reduced accuracy they will get close but are unlikely to get direct hits on the silos, which would be what was needed in a first strike to destroy the contents of those silos.
More importantly the sudden activation of previously hidden air defence systems might not be spotted... to destroy an ICBM in a silo you pretty much need a hit on the ground within tens of metres of the silo itself, so a TOR system hitting a tomahawk ten kms away and destroying before it detonates its nuke warhead means missiles in silos are safe and so are any in the air at the time of the interception.
Heavier ABM systems like S-400 or S-500 mean even larger systems like global strike will have issues in getting a clean hit.
As laser power increases the potential to lase physical targets like missiles becomes more realistic too... especially as the target gets closer and closer, the amount of energy a laser can concentrate on the target increases significantly.
Missile bases also have ground forces to protect them from direct special forces attack... such a laser system could easily be used agaisnt hostile ground targets using heavy anti material rifles to try to snipe ICBMs as they launch.... they already have laser systems that can detect rifle scopes and locate them for laser attention to "degrade" the optics being used... (ie blind the sniper permanently).
As time goes on the system will likely get smaller and more powerful and capable of a much wider range of duties.
Dazzling optical sensors on passing satellites would also degrade the performance of the US and their ability to strike targets from a distance.
Imagine WWIII kicks off and all of a sudden all the optical satellites the US uses to monitor Russian ICBM bases fail at once... the missiles they have launched will still get to the area but with reduced accuracy they will get close but are unlikely to get direct hits on the silos, which would be what was needed in a first strike to destroy the contents of those silos.
More importantly the sudden activation of previously hidden air defence systems might not be spotted... to destroy an ICBM in a silo you pretty much need a hit on the ground within tens of metres of the silo itself, so a TOR system hitting a tomahawk ten kms away and destroying before it detonates its nuke warhead means missiles in silos are safe and so are any in the air at the time of the interception.
Heavier ABM systems like S-400 or S-500 mean even larger systems like global strike will have issues in getting a clean hit.
As laser power increases the potential to lase physical targets like missiles becomes more realistic too... especially as the target gets closer and closer, the amount of energy a laser can concentrate on the target increases significantly.
Missile bases also have ground forces to protect them from direct special forces attack... such a laser system could easily be used agaisnt hostile ground targets using heavy anti material rifles to try to snipe ICBMs as they launch.... they already have laser systems that can detect rifle scopes and locate them for laser attention to "degrade" the optics being used... (ie blind the sniper permanently).
As time goes on the system will likely get smaller and more powerful and capable of a much wider range of duties.
Arrow- Posts : 3479
Points : 3469
Join date : 2012-02-12
The US will attack strategic bases with ICBM / SLBM missiles and not cruise missiles. This laser will not help against RV.
eehnie- Posts : 2425
Points : 2428
Join date : 2015-05-13
Then, the Peresvet system seems not to be oriented to anti-person use like weapons, and can be considered more in the area of engineering systems.
The most interesting part in the strategic and tactical analysis about the potential use of this system, is that this kind of system can be used preemptively, in peace time, to damage the US capability of first strike attack.
The most interesting part in the strategic and tactical analysis about the potential use of this system, is that this kind of system can be used preemptively, in peace time, to damage the US capability of first strike attack.
GarryB- Posts : 40539
Points : 41039
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
For terminal accuracy the US is heavily dependent on a range of optical satellites to increase precision and monitor the results of strikes... a laser system that can take out optical sensors in satellites is useful for now... over time as its performance improves it will become capable of all sorts of missions.
And BTW what makes you think the US would not try a first strike against an ICBM field or a truck mounted ICBM unit?
They are working on hypersonic gliders that can be launched from standard Mk-41 launchers like those they have put in eastern europe and on most of their large ships...
And BTW what makes you think the US would not try a first strike against an ICBM field or a truck mounted ICBM unit?
They are working on hypersonic gliders that can be launched from standard Mk-41 launchers like those they have put in eastern europe and on most of their large ships...
eehnie- Posts : 2425
Points : 2428
Join date : 2015-05-13
Preemtive attacks to satellites doing or trying to do intelligence work over Russian soil, is conceptually like the attack to unmanned drones trying to do the same. Satellites are in fact drones flying at higher speed and altitude. Obviously satellites are more expensive, but are also expendable material.
Very difficult to justify a nuclear attack by loses on expendable unmanned material.
Very difficult to justify a nuclear attack by loses on expendable unmanned material.
GarryB- Posts : 40539
Points : 41039
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
They likely would not start damaging US satellites until it was pretty clear a real attack was happening.
The US very much relies on satellites of all types for much of their intel, so blinding them would be blinding the US... which I rather doubt they would take kindly to.
Of course they never let facts get in the way of their views so in practical terms they will think the worst anyway and continue to accuse Russia of crimes they understand well because they perpetrate them on a daily basis.
Blinding their satellites will be used for justification for the attack that was ongoing at the time... dirty ruskies...
The US very much relies on satellites of all types for much of their intel, so blinding them would be blinding the US... which I rather doubt they would take kindly to.
Of course they never let facts get in the way of their views so in practical terms they will think the worst anyway and continue to accuse Russia of crimes they understand well because they perpetrate them on a daily basis.
Blinding their satellites will be used for justification for the attack that was ongoing at the time... dirty ruskies...
dino00- Posts : 1677
Points : 1714
Join date : 2012-10-12
Age : 37
Location : portugal
Peresvet took over the combat duty
On December 1 of this year, the Peresvet laser complexes, based on new physical principles, took up experimental combat duty. Their equipping of the Armed Forces started in 2017 as part of the State Armaments Program. With the arrival of laser complexes into the troops, their mastering and combat calculations were organized.
The personnel of the units in service of which this newest weapon is retrained on the basis of the AF Aerospace Military Space Academy. Mozhaisky and in industrial enterprises, where he acquired the necessary theoretical knowledge and practical skills. In the course of mastering this modern armament, combat calculations of laser complexes have worked out actions on equipment with the implementation of deployment measures and preparing them for use.
http://redstar.ru/na-boevoe-dezhurstvo-zastupili-peresvety/
On December 1 of this year, the Peresvet laser complexes, based on new physical principles, took up experimental combat duty. Their equipping of the Armed Forces started in 2017 as part of the State Armaments Program. With the arrival of laser complexes into the troops, their mastering and combat calculations were organized.
The personnel of the units in service of which this newest weapon is retrained on the basis of the AF Aerospace Military Space Academy. Mozhaisky and in industrial enterprises, where he acquired the necessary theoretical knowledge and practical skills. In the course of mastering this modern armament, combat calculations of laser complexes have worked out actions on equipment with the implementation of deployment measures and preparing them for use.
http://redstar.ru/na-boevoe-dezhurstvo-zastupili-peresvety/
eehnie- Posts : 2425
Points : 2428
Join date : 2015-05-13
Of course this kind of attacks would hurt the US, but neither Russia is happy with the continuous flux of satellite images of their military bases.
Russia can start attacking soon some of the most agressive satellites, not only from the US, as soon as they get bored of seeing pictures of their military bases on internet every day.
Some isolate attack of this type would not be cause of war.
Russia can start attacking soon some of the most agressive satellites, not only from the US, as soon as they get bored of seeing pictures of their military bases on internet every day.
Some isolate attack of this type would not be cause of war.
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6168
Points : 6188
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
eehnie wrote:Preemtive attacks to satellites doing or trying to do intelligence work over Russian soil, is conceptually like the attack to unmanned drones trying to do the same. Satellites are in fact drones flying at higher speed and altitude. Obviously satellites are more expensive, but are also expendable material.
attack against spy satellites is an act of war, and can be easily treated as a prelude to own nuclear strike.
eehnie- Posts : 2425
Points : 2428
Join date : 2015-05-13
Counter-intelligence measures never have been an act of war. And less without personal loses.
In this case, if there if someone to blame, is who is trying to do the intelligence work.
Despite it, if Russia does it, you can bet that at same time is ready for more.
If Russia did not go nuclear after the use of one of its aircrafts as shield, no-one would go nuclear by losing a spy satellite.
The age of the satellite images of the Russian military bases on internet every day can be near the end.
In this case, if there if someone to blame, is who is trying to do the intelligence work.
Despite it, if Russia does it, you can bet that at same time is ready for more.
If Russia did not go nuclear after the use of one of its aircrafts as shield, no-one would go nuclear by losing a spy satellite.
The age of the satellite images of the Russian military bases on internet every day can be near the end.
Arrow- Posts : 3479
Points : 3469
Join date : 2012-02-12
GarryB- Posts : 40539
Points : 41039
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Of course this kind of attacks would hurt the US, but neither Russia is happy with the continuous flux of satellite images of their military bases.
Russia can start attacking soon some of the most agressive satellites, not only from the US, as soon as they get bored of seeing pictures of their military bases on internet every day.
Some isolate attack of this type would not be cause of war.
The US is seriously dependent on its optical recon satellites and they would seriously have a cow if anyone tried to actually interfere with them.
They certainly would not let such a thing go... the US media would not allow it... it would be like Pearl Harbour times a million... and I am only exaggerating because they will act like it was PH x 100 million.
attack against spy satellites is an act of war, and can be easily treated as a prelude to own nuclear strike.
Agreed... the initial reaction to Russia blinding a US recon satellite is... we must be under attack right now... our only chance is to strike back before they can launch a full attack on us... well it was nice knowing you all... (humming stars and stripes...)
Counter-intelligence measures never have been an act of war. And less without personal loses.
Disabling their ability to see what you are doing threatens their ability to see what is going on.... they wont give that up.
In many ways Sputnik was a test.... the Soviets weren't sure what the rest of the world would do... there was a possibility that the US might declare the overflight was an act of war violating their air space. I suspect the Americans realised what a use it would be to be able to fly satellites over other countries... even friendly countries to see what is actually going on... did those crops fail this year... what are you building now, etc etc in friendly countries and enemy ones... remember before satellites the west was largely in the dark about what was going on in the Soviet Union or most other places for that matter.
The US is not going to give up this power for nothing... they might not attack, but they will certainly destroy one or more Russian satellites and Russia can't afford to lose their recon satellites...
If Russia tests this on anything it will be one of their own old satellites that is no longer in service...
eehnie- Posts : 2425
Points : 2428
Join date : 2015-05-13
lol GarryB, you mean Russia must allow to be watched in their military bases because otherwise the US would be annoyed?
Russia is annoyed now being watched this way
You can bet Russia will begin to correct this situation as soon as they have ready the material that allow it
Russia is annoyed now being watched this way
You can bet Russia will begin to correct this situation as soon as they have ready the material that allow it
George1- Posts : 18519
Points : 19024
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
From bmpd, we recall that in 2018, a famous user of twitter.com rambo54 (who is this guy?), by analyzing publicly available satellite images, discovered two alleged positions of the new Russian ground-based combat laser complex Peresvet - at the position of the 2426th technical missile base of the 54th Guards Rocket Division of the Strategic Missile Forces Teikovo (Ivanovo Region) (this position apparently made a video about the Peresvet complex, previously distributed by the Russian Ministry of Defense) and in the deployment area of the 39th Guards Rocket Division of the 33rd Rocket Army of the Strategic Missile Forces Yona Novosibirsk.
In this regard, it was suggested that these positional areas indicate that the main purpose of the Peresvet laser complex is to blind American low-orbit satellites, both reconnaissance and, apparently, primarily promising satellites of the early-warning system for missile attack and missile defense systems, similar to those previously created under the STSS (Space Tracking and Surveillance System) program, as well as possible early warning and missile defence suborbital and altitude atmospheric sensors (works on which is underway in the United States). Dazzling reconnaissance satellites and early warning missile satellites can be an important prerequisite for neutralizing a promising US missile defense system in preparation for a missile strike and at the time of a missile strike.
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3442101.html
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6168
Points : 6188
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
eehnie wrote:Counter-intelligence measures never have been an act of war. And less without personal loses.
nobody ever shoot any drone loitering near Russian borders nor any satellite over Russia. neither US shot down any Russian satellites. Satellites watching nukes' silos if you blind/destroy them then other party starts counter strike thinking you want to start first strike.
You dont have to believe me. Just live and watch reality.
GarryB- Posts : 40539
Points : 41039
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
lol GarryB, you mean Russia must allow to be watched in their military bases because otherwise the US would be annoyed?
You must have worked out by now I don't give a fuck about the US.
But currently the Russians are spending enormous amounts of money on their GLONASS satellite network and also military optical recon satellites and other communications satellites that can be used for all sorts of purposes around the world... including controlling UCAVs etc.
Do you really think they should put that all at risk for a stupid pot shot at a US satellite?
If they want to test the system they can launch a target satellite and shoot at that.
What you are basically saying is that Russia should sail out into the Pacific ocean and launch an Onyx missile against a US ship just to see if it works... you know what fragile little pussies they are... they are soiling their pants over election meddling that they admit themselves did not effect the result for goodness sake... these guys are way too LGBTACB friendly...
Russia is annoyed now being watched this way
Perhaps in the early 1990s it might have made sense, but now that Russia is populating space with its own satellites it is doing more and more of the watching and I am sure any excuse would be used to attack them.
Look at 11/9... don't bother with the facts... it was Saudi and Pakistani nationals that actually perpetrated the attack... the Pentagon just went to their little black book of problems in the middle east and said... lets invade Iraq and Afghanistan.
Even though it was well known that OBL was a Saudi national with most of his support from Pakistan.
They would just pick the 4-5 most useful Russian satellites and attack them...
You can bet Russia will begin to correct this situation as soon as they have ready the material that allow it
Satellites are not perfect and can be fooled, but their correction to this situation is not damaging one US satellite and hope the US wont over react... first of all because they always do, their reaction will be to put up satellites that are much better and more useful than the US satellites...
nobody ever shoot any drone loitering near Russian borders nor any satellite over Russia. neither US shot down any Russian satellites. Satellites watching nukes' silos if you blind/destroy them then other party starts counter strike thinking you want to start first strike.
You dont have to believe me. Just live and watch reality.
But that is also the point... there is a difference between air space... where you can shoot down an intruder... manned or otherwise, and space where no country has yet destroyed or attacked another countries satellites as far as we know.
Of course the US programme to put weapons in space is bound to effect that record... but it would still be considered an act of war to attack an enemies space based assets.
In comparison flying over enemy territory inside the atmosphere in a manned or unmanned craft is the act of provocation... shooting it down or forcing it to land is the standard response.
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6168
Points : 6188
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
GarryB wrote:
But that is also the point... there is a difference between air space... where you can shoot down an intruder... manned or otherwise, and space where no country has yet destroyed or attacked another countries satellites as far as we know.
Of course the US programme to put weapons in space is bound to effect that record... but it would still be considered an act of war to attack an enemies space based assets.
In comparison flying over enemy territory inside the atmosphere in a manned or unmanned craft is the act of provocation... shooting it down or forcing it to land is the standard response.
that's wahy I said "loitering near borders"
eehnie- Posts : 2425
Points : 2428
Join date : 2015-05-13
GunshipDemocracy wrote:eehnie wrote:Counter-intelligence measures never have been an act of war. And less without personal loses.
nobody ever shoot any drone loitering near Russian borders nor any satellite over Russia. neither US shot down any Russian satellites. Satellites watching nukes' silos if you blind/destroy them then other party starts counter strike thinking you want to start first strike.
You dont have to believe me. Just live and watch reality.
The reality is that not only drones are shut down, also Ukranian ships are treated in the way that I mean when entering in the Russian territory. This is the reality.
Satellites have been "out of range" until now. But it can change soon.
eehnie- Posts : 2425
Points : 2428
Join date : 2015-05-13
GarryB wrote:lol GarryB, you mean Russia must allow to be watched in their military bases because otherwise the US would be annoyed?
You must have worked out by now I don't give a fuck about the US.
But currently the Russians are spending enormous amounts of money on their GLONASS satellite network and also military optical recon satellites and other communications satellites that can be used for all sorts of purposes around the world... including controlling UCAVs etc.
Do you really think they should put that all at risk for a stupid pot shot at a US satellite?
If they want to test the system they can launch a target satellite and shoot at that.
What you are basically saying is that Russia should sail out into the Pacific ocean and launch an Onyx missile against a US ship just to see if it works... you know what fragile little pussies they are... they are soiling their pants over election meddling that they admit themselves did not effect the result for goodness sake... these guys are way too LGBTACB friendly...
Russia is annoyed now being watched this way
Perhaps in the early 1990s it might have made sense, but now that Russia is populating space with its own satellites it is doing more and more of the watching and I am sure any excuse would be used to attack them.
Look at 11/9... don't bother with the facts... it was Saudi and Pakistani nationals that actually perpetrated the attack... the Pentagon just went to their little black book of problems in the middle east and said... lets invade Iraq and Afghanistan.
Even though it was well known that OBL was a Saudi national with most of his support from Pakistan.
They would just pick the 4-5 most useful Russian satellites and attack them...
You can bet Russia will begin to correct this situation as soon as they have ready the material that allow it
Satellites are not perfect and can be fooled, but their correction to this situation is not damaging one US satellite and hope the US wont over react... first of all because they always do, their reaction will be to put up satellites that are much better and more useful than the US satellites...
nobody ever shoot any drone loitering near Russian borders nor any satellite over Russia. neither US shot down any Russian satellites. Satellites watching nukes' silos if you blind/destroy them then other party starts counter strike thinking you want to start first strike.
You dont have to believe me. Just live and watch reality.
But that is also the point... there is a difference between air space... where you can shoot down an intruder... manned or otherwise, and space where no country has yet destroyed or attacked another countries satellites as far as we know.
Of course the US programme to put weapons in space is bound to effect that record... but it would still be considered an act of war to attack an enemies space based assets.
In comparison flying over enemy territory inside the atmosphere in a manned or unmanned craft is the act of provocation... shooting it down or forcing it to land is the standard response.
It is funny to see you comparing the use of an engineering weapon of a nature similar to the electronic warfare, making minimal phisical damage to unmmaned intelligence satellites, in order to dissable them, with the September 11 of 2001 attack, that caused 3000 civilian deaths in the heart of the US. To note that not even this attack caused a nuclear answer, despite Afghanistan and Irak were considered responsible of the attacks.
But the nature of this system is very different. Not sure of what you are thinking about, but this seems to be an engineering system. Engineering systems, including radars, sonars, and also more destructive ones, like electronic warfare systems are used habitually on international waters and in the air space of the enemy in peace time.
The fact that this system was elevated to this level of importance, in the speach of Vladimir Putin, means the system has the potential of being a game changer, but not in the Star Wars model of use of laser weapons. Laser systems, in the engineering system mold, like this seems to be, even should not be called weapons.
And do not forget this is a land based system, like the S-500 or the A-235 Nodol, not an air space based system. The difference with the S-500 or the A-235 Nodol which use at full range you seem to question not, seems to be in that the Peresvet laser system is more an engineering system, than a destructive weapon. The Peresvet systems seems to be a projection of the Electronic Warfare to the space, and like the Electronic Warfare seems oriented to cause a mal function of the systems and weapons of the enemy, not to destroy them phisically, despite in some cases, the mal function created can lead to the destruction of the foreign system/weapon.
Hole- Posts : 11121
Points : 11099
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 48
Location : Scholzistan
There is an article on Sputnik Germany that a new version of Peresvet will be developed (smaller, less support vehicles) in the next "years" and that it will be shown on red square.
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6168
Points : 6188
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
Hole wrote:There is an article on Sputnik Germany that a new version of Peresvet will be developed (smaller, less support vehicles) in the next "years" and that it will be shown on red square.
next version will be hand held Peresvet
Hole- Posts : 11121
Points : 11099
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 48
Location : Scholzistan
With nuclear reactor in a backpack. 