Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Share

    victor1985

    Posts : 723
    Points : 764
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  victor1985 on Sat May 14, 2016 7:13 am

    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.
    avatar
    gaurav

    Posts : 332
    Points : 332
    Join date : 2013-02-19
    Age : 37
    Location : Blr

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  gaurav on Sun May 15, 2016 12:33 am

    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.

    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4495
    Points : 4674
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sun May 15, 2016 5:38 am

    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.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7255
    Points : 7555
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Russian leaders are giving twisted responses , but underlying a increase in Navy and Ground based missiles as responses for

    Post  sepheronx on Sun May 15, 2016 5:58 am

    ^
    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).
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7255
    Points : 7555
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  sepheronx on Mon May 16, 2016 2:56 pm

    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.

    Austin

    Posts : 6237
    Points : 6643
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Austin on Mon May 16, 2016 4:25 pm

    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
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7255
    Points : 7555
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  sepheronx on Mon May 16, 2016 4:34 pm

    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.

    Austin

    Posts : 6237
    Points : 6643
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Austin on Mon May 16, 2016 4:39 pm

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

    Posts : 7255
    Points : 7555
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  sepheronx on Mon May 16, 2016 4:42 pm

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

    Austin

    Posts : 6237
    Points : 6643
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Austin on Mon May 16, 2016 4:47 pm

    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
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1502
    Points : 1542
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon May 16, 2016 5:02 pm

    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
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    very interesting view of General Designer of MIT

    Post  max steel on Tue May 17, 2016 12:48 am

    Austin wrote: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


    The larger issue here IS NOT much touted (or, rather, marketed) missile "defense" shield--that is not an insurmountable problem at all and, shield or no shield, all necessary targets will be destroyed in case of conflict. The problem here is different--Russia is worried about the use of launchers for very different, other than anti-ballistic, missiles. We are talking about the first strike weapons, which are medium and short range missiles. These are not "defensive" weapons. These are first-strike weapons.

    Putin's quote from Russian President's site:

    this is an obvious violation of the Short And Medium Range Missile Treaty, since these missile-launchers which will be deployed at the sites in Romania and Poland upon activation of the Radars there could easily be reconfigured for short and medium range missiles. This reconfiguration of the launchers could be done in a very short time and for us it will be impossible to see what is going on there. We will not be able to control (used as "monitor" semantics) it and this is an additional threat to us.

    US Missile Defense In Poland And Romania

    avatar
    Flanky

    Posts : 182
    Points : 191
    Join date : 2011-05-02

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Flanky on Sat May 21, 2016 8:14 pm

    max steel wrote:
    Austin wrote: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


    The larger issue here IS NOT much touted (or, rather, marketed) missile "defense" shield--that is not an insurmountable problem at all and, shield or no shield, all necessary targets will be destroyed in case of conflict. The problem here is different--Russia is worried about the use of launchers for very different, other than anti-ballistic, missiles. We are talking about the first strike weapons, which are medium and short range missiles. These are not "defensive" weapons.  These are first-strike weapons.

    Putin's quote from Russian President's site:

    this is an obvious violation of the Short And Medium Range Missile Treaty, since these missile-launchers which will be deployed at the sites in Romania and Poland upon activation of the Radars there could easily be reconfigured for short and medium range missiles. This reconfiguration of the launchers could be done in a very short time and for us it will be impossible to see what is going on there. We will  not be able to control (used as "monitor" semantics) it and this is an additional threat to us.  

    US Missile Defense In Poland And Romania

    Exactly... he pointed out the main problem. Because ICBMs are most vulnerable in the initial phase after start trying to reach space. If ABM system have enough range it could intercept such missile very easily... however if Russians would launch these from central Siberia there is no way ABM can intercept them so easily. However if these sites are reconfigured for short and medium range ballistic missiles - thats a totally differrent story as to their strategic value as first strike weapons.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2979
    Points : 3011
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  max steel on Sun May 22, 2016 2:06 am

    INF treaty is important to Russia since Russia does not think merely in terms of MIC's profits but really does care about her safety.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7255
    Points : 7555
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  sepheronx on Sun May 22, 2016 2:11 am

    max steel wrote:INF treaty is important to Russia since Russia does not think merely in terms of MIC's profits but really does care about her safety.

    INF holds Russia back actually. While US is blatantly backtracking on the agreements with these missile defense systems (so called), Russia actually is put in a tough position since its counter measures either have to be massive in range which is just very costly and unproductive and or very short range and has to be quite close to the system. Without INF, Russia could just simply expand the ground based launch systems of Kalibr and even expand it to supersonic for striking ground targets, and creating a multi launch system for it and poof! there goes any advantage US had. They already placed cruise missiles and or nuclear missiles in Europe, so all it will do is force US to spend even greater amount to put more systems in Europe and Russia just continues to expand itself without having to break the piggy bank.
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6321
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Viktor on Sun May 22, 2016 1:11 pm

    sepheronx wrote:
    max steel wrote:INF treaty is important to Russia since Russia does not think merely in terms of MIC's profits but really does care about her safety.

    INF holds Russia back actually.  While US is blatantly backtracking on the agreements with these missile defense systems (so called), Russia actually is put in a tough position since its counter measures either have to be massive in range which is just very costly and unproductive and or very short range and has to be quite close to the system.  Without INF, Russia could just simply expand the ground based launch systems of Kalibr and even expand it to supersonic for striking ground targets, and creating a multi launch system for it and poof! there goes any advantage US had.  They already placed cruise missiles and or nuclear missiles in Europe, so all it will do is force US to spend even greater amount to put more systems in Europe and Russia just continues to expand itself without having to break the piggy bank.

    Russia can produce massive amounts of cruise missiles with the stated range of 500km with its fuel tank almost at low point enabling them to increase its range momentarely.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7255
    Points : 7555
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  sepheronx on Sun May 22, 2016 1:56 pm

    That is what it will have to do till US decides to go that one extra mile that will cause downfall of INF. I am hoping they will be able to come up with a system that can launch more than two of them though per vehicle.

    Vann7

    Posts : 3452
    Points : 3570
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Vann7 on Tue May 24, 2016 2:41 am

    sepheronx wrote:
    max steel wrote:INF treaty is important to Russia since Russia does not think merely in terms of MIC's profits but really does care about her safety.

    INF holds Russia back actually.  While US is blatantly backtracking on the agreements with these missile defense systems (so called), Russia actually is put in a tough position since its counter measures either have to be massive in range which is just very costly and unproductive and or very short range and has to be quite close to the system.  Without INF, Russia could just simply expand the ground based launch systems of Kalibr and even expand it to supersonic for striking ground targets, and creating a multi launch system for it and poof! there goes any advantage US had.  They already placed cruise missiles and or nuclear missiles in Europe, so all it will do is force US to spend even greater amount to put more systems in Europe and Russia just continues to expand itself without having to break the piggy bank.

    This is why Russia needs to create a world issue against United States. To give an Ultimatum
    that they either remove their missiles launchers capable to be used offensively against Russia in Romania or else that Russia will withraw from the Nuclear treaty with Americans and start deploying hundreds of long range kalibers missiles in Kalingrad ,Cuba , but also deploy nuclear long range missiles in IRAN too ,armed with nuclear warheads. But also start deploying nuclear missiles in Space , so that Russia can strike any part of US just withing 5 minutes with a nuclear warhead. Only When they feel a pressure ,that something really bad could happen to their security ,they will back down and retreat .

    But if Mr Putin does nothing ,and just limit to just complain and be so sorry ,and just allow Americans to continue moving lethal missiles ,Air defenses on its borders  ,the last one can be used to attack Putin presidential plane for example. (yes they can do that and later blame it on a happy trigger general),it will seriously damage the national security of Russia territory. and it could even encourage Americans to give it a try ,to a massive first nuclear preventive attack at the first major conflict between them .

    JohninMK

    Posts : 4565
    Points : 4622
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  JohninMK on Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:41 pm

    Agnia Grigas ‏@AgniaGrigas 2h2 hours ago

    Interesting map illustrating the working principles of #NATO's #missile #shield that will be operational by 2018.


    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 1861
    Points : 1889
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  KiloGolf on Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:44 pm

    JohninMK wrote:Agnia Grigas ‏@AgniaGrigas 2h2 hours ago

    Interesting map illustrating the working principles of #NATO's #missile #shield that will be operational by 2018.



    X-band floating platform by Turkey in the Black Sea? And Russia is talking with Turkey?! lol1
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16324
    Points : 16955
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:40 am

    There is a serious issue with the map projection there... if you actually showed it in 3D the path of the missile would pretty much follow a line almost directly between Iran and the supposed target of germany which would mean the radar and systems in Poland are not there for missiles from Iran, but are intended to look into Russian air space.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10258
    Points : 10744
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  George1 on Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:48 pm

    Russia to respond if Norway joins European missile shield - envoy

    "Therefore, there will be no peaceful Arctic anymore," Russian Ambassador to Norway Teimuraz Ramishvili said

    OSLO, March 19. /TASS/. Oslo should understand that its possible move to join the NATO European missile shield will not be left unanswered by its neighbor Russia, Russian Ambassador to Norway Teimuraz Ramishvili said in an interview with Norway’s state-run NRK TV channel.

    "In this case we will have to make military-level technical decisions needed to neutralize the effect of the possible creation of a missile shield element. Naturally, it will trigger a vigorous reaction in Norway, which will claim that Russia poses a military threat to the country," he said in an NRK interview aired late Saturday.

    "Norway has to understand that after becoming an outpost of NATO, it will have to face head-on Russia and the Russian military might," Ramishvili said, adding that the move "will become a new factor that will be included in our strategic planning as an additional problem in the Arctic Region."

    "Therefore, there will be no peaceful Arctic anymore," he added.

    In a comment to TASS, Ramishvili said that Moscow had to express its views on the issue in public, because the Norwegian side is unwilling to communicate on the problem.

    "We have to talk about this in public recently due to the lask of the negotiation process and the Norwegian side’s reluctance to discuss their concerns with the neighbors. For this reason, the embassy tries to attract the public and politicians' attention to the problem in an attempt to prevent the arms race from spreading to the Arctic region," he said.

    In 2015, Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg expressed her country’s readiness as a NATO founding member to make a contribution in the creation of the European missile shield. Norway and US defense experts were to submit their recommendations on the issue to the Norwegian government by the end of 2017.

    The Royal Norwegian Navy currently has in service five modern Fridtjof Nansen-class frigates, equipped with Lockheed Martin's AEGIS combat system, that can be modernized to be incorporated into the European missile shield system.

    The Globus II, a radar station located on the Vardo island near the Russian border, and another radar that the US plans to deploy there by 2020, can also be turned into elements of the European missile shield. Norwegian defense officials, however, dismissed this possibility.


    More:
    http://tass.com/politics/936322


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3035
    Points : 3160
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  kvs on Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:25 pm

    Russia must deploy fast delivery nuclear missiles to within 500 km range of these "shield" sites. This way they will become instantly
    irrelevant once WWIII starts. This must be done to send these f*cktards the message. They think they can corner Russia by
    surrounding it with strategic destabilization elements. That Russia is too useless and weak to respond. They must know that
    nuclear warheads will reach them in under 5 minutes.


    George1 wrote:Russia to respond if Norway joins European missile shield - envoy

    "Therefore, there will be no peaceful Arctic anymore," Russian Ambassador to Norway Teimuraz Ramishvili said

    OSLO, March 19. /TASS/. Oslo should understand that its possible move to join the NATO European missile shield will not be left unanswered by its neighbor Russia, Russian Ambassador to Norway Teimuraz Ramishvili said in an interview with Norway’s state-run NRK TV channel.

    "In this case we will have to make military-level technical decisions needed to neutralize the effect of the possible creation of a missile shield element. Naturally, it will trigger a vigorous reaction in Norway, which will claim that Russia poses a military threat to the country," he said in an NRK interview aired late Saturday.

    "Norway has to understand that after becoming an outpost of NATO, it will have to face head-on Russia and the Russian military might," Ramishvili said, adding that the move "will become a new factor that will be included in our strategic planning as an additional problem in the Arctic Region."

    "Therefore, there will be no peaceful Arctic anymore," he added.

    In a comment to TASS, Ramishvili said that Moscow had to express its views on the issue in public, because the Norwegian side is unwilling to communicate on the problem.

    "We have to talk about this in public recently due to the lask of the negotiation process and the Norwegian side’s reluctance to discuss their concerns with the neighbors. For this reason, the embassy tries to attract the public and politicians' attention to the problem in an attempt to prevent the arms race from spreading to the Arctic region," he said.

    In 2015, Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg expressed her country’s readiness as a NATO founding member to make a contribution in the creation of the European missile shield. Norway and US defense experts were to submit their recommendations on the issue to the Norwegian government by the end of 2017.

    The Royal Norwegian Navy currently has in service five modern Fridtjof Nansen-class frigates, equipped with Lockheed Martin's AEGIS combat system, that can be modernized to be incorporated into the European missile shield system.

    The Globus II, a radar station located on the Vardo island near the Russian border, and another radar that the US plans to deploy there by 2020, can also be turned into elements of the European missile shield. Norwegian defense officials, however, dismissed this possibility.


    More:
    http://tass.com/politics/936322
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1119
    Points : 1119
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  miketheterrible on Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:54 am

    They already have the greatest anti ABM system available - Iskander missiles.

    It doesn't fly a standard ballistic path thus it becomes very hard for the ABM system to calculate its position at every given moment for the ABM to make a direct hit. Quasi-Ballistic path is one of the smartest inventions for such missiles. And we know how effective current US ABM systems are (not very) so it becomes even far greater in capabilities. Only thing they need to do, is increase the numbers of it.

    The only other system that I like that I wish Russia invests in or produces their own alternative is the Belorussian Polonez MLRS system. 200KM is long range. If Russia produces one of equivalent or longer range, with high degree of accuracy, then a salvo launch becomes impossible for ABM systems to counter. Guaranteed systems like Iskander and Polonez are significantly cheaper than any ABM system and their intended missiles.

    As well, anti Radiation cruise missiles may be another big step too. Once the radar systems are neutralized, the ABM systems are more or less useless. And in case of a war (if Russia has to go to war with NATO), then first strike at the ABM system's radar installations is the mandatory thing to do to neutralize the systems. Of course they could buddy off of other systems like satellites and maybe ship based radar (I don't know exactly) but I doubt it will even be close to as effective.

    TL;DR - More Iskanders, Anti Radiation missiles and long range MLRS systems to counter ABM sites. As well, increase # of nuclear missiles in order to nullify ABM sites entirely.

    PS

    Maybe leaving INF treaty isn't a bad idea for Russia. It will guarantee Iskander's ranges could increase drastically.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4495
    Points : 4674
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:39 am

    miketheterrible wrote:They already have the greatest anti ABM system available - Iskander missiles.

    It doesn't fly a standard ballistic path thus it becomes very hard for the ABM system to calculate its position at every given moment for the ABM to make a direct hit.  Quasi-Ballistic path is one of the smartest inventions for such missiles.  And we know how effective current US ABM systems are (not very) so it becomes even far greater in capabilities.  Only thing they need to do, is increase the numbers of it.

    The only other system that I like that I wish Russia invests in or produces their own alternative is the Belorussian Polonez MLRS system.  200KM is long range.  If Russia produces one of equivalent or longer range, with high degree of accuracy, then a salvo launch becomes impossible for ABM systems to counter.  Guaranteed systems like Iskander and Polonez are significantly cheaper than any ABM system and their intended missiles.

    As well, anti Radiation cruise missiles may be another big step too.  Once the radar systems are neutralized, the ABM systems are more or less useless.  And in case of a war (if Russia has to go to war with NATO), then first strike at the ABM system's radar installations is the mandatory thing to do to neutralize the systems.  Of course they could buddy off of other systems like satellites and maybe ship based radar (I don't know exactly) but I doubt it will even be close to as effective.

    TL;DR - More Iskanders, Anti Radiation missiles and long range MLRS systems to counter ABM sites.  As well, increase # of nuclear missiles in order to nullify ABM sites entirely.

    PS

    Maybe leaving INF treaty isn't a bad idea for Russia.  It will guarantee Iskander's ranges could increase drastically.

    Tornado-G is set to grow from 40km range (when it was Grad) to 100km range, and Tornado-S is set to grow from 90km range (when it was Smerch) to over 200 km range.

    https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fvpk.name%2Fnews%2F174562_izvestiya_noveishaya_rszo_tornados_poluchit_sverhtochnuyu_raketu_so_sputnikovoi_navigaciei.html&edit-text=&act=url

    .....BTW the main goal of the Euro ABM shield is to violate the INF treaty with plausible deniability. Aegis Ashore's MK41 cells are capable to store and launch Tomahawk cruise missiles.

    Sponsored content

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Aug 23, 2017 4:22 am