NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Of course the rules of war come into play. Russia has a mythology of fighting wars in a humane and justified way and so weapons such as the status-6 are weapons of last resort. The question of course becomes how Moscow intends to secure these weapons and to make sure they are safe and out of reach of possible terrorists for a single mistake could cause catastrophic consequences.