NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

Moscow sees deployment of US interceptor missiles in Romania as INF treaty violation

More:
http://tass.com/politics/901459

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?!

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

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

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.

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.

The Kaliningrad region is preparing for the deployment of Iskander-M missile systems



http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2513997.html

Frankly nato is rather silly for pushing the Kremlin's buttons when it is very unready to deal with kaliningrad alone. Nato will probably use the threat from srbm in kaliningrad alone to push up mic spending and pr.

There is a very expensive alternative to solve the issue. Cuba will take 15-25B in aid every year. In return Russia can forward deploy Borei's in Havana's (it's in the north, don't recall well) submarine base specifically made for this purpose. Denied of course. Once S-500s are ready to go - deploy them there as well. You see the drug threat and their overpasses of Cuban air space are a major international concern for peace.

I don't see the embargo being dropped in another 8 years least but the Cubans won't do it for cheap - they're not stupid. That money will also preoccupy the U.S with Latin America again since Cuba is the only geopolitical chess player in the region (besides the U.S of course). The time is ticking in forging strong tries with the new generation who, sadly, like the new Russian generations, are becoming more "westernized". Russia could afford it if it had an economy double its current size.

US missile shield aims to cover sudden nuclear strike against Russia – General Staff

https://www.rt.com/news/386276-us-missile-shield-russia-strike/

US missile shield aims to cover sudden nuclear strike against Russia – General Staff“. The presence of US missile defense bases in Europe, missile defense vessels in seas and oceans close to Russia creates a powerful covert strike component for conducting a sudden nuclear missile strike against the Russian Federation. Applying sudden disarming strikes targeting Russian or Chinese strategic nuclear forces significantly increases the efficiency of the US missile defense system,” Poznikhir added. What are the options Russia possesses ??https://www.rt.com/news/386276-us-missile-shield-russia-strike/

It seems evident that a new nuclear arms race has begun, in fact, as it is mentioned in literature, the race has probably been in progress since US withdrawal out of the ABM treaty.

Could this perhaps be the beginning of a nuclear stockpile buildup? The production of new nuclear capable artillery, missiles and self-propelled munitions? I would think so.

We will see more ABM elements being deployed in short-order either covertly or officially, thus Russia's hand has essentially been forced here.

It was suggested by some that the variable nuclear fuses on some munitions must be proximity fused. The thinking is the following: In the case of a war time scenario, it is critical to degrade the performance of ABM radars & sensors besides the use of decoys and anti-radar munitions.

In the point of view of the Russian Federation conventional forces are quite obsolete after a certain scale engagement, due to obvious conventional weaknesses Russia faces. Russia needs to make clear that any type of military action against it is just not worth it and will eventually lead to the use of nuclear weapons.

Bringing me on to my next point... The other dimension of deterrence that needs attention must be the ratio of cost of nuclear engagement vs perceived benefits. Thus Russia will have to construct nuclear arms that impose unacceptable consequences that might result from a tactical engagement. Such examples can be drawn from something like the status-6 that may employ, supposedly 100MT salted warheads. It has been reported by some that current warhead boosted technology easily allows for > 100 MT (reported 800MT boosted) compatible warheads in these drones.

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.

US missile defense system in Romania threatens Russia’s security, says diplomat

The US missile defense system Aegis Ashore was deployed at the Deveselu Military Base in May 2016

BUCHAREST, August 2. /TASS/. The US missile defense system Aegis Ashore stationed at a military base in the Romanian commune of Deveselu threatens Russia’s security. Diplomat from the Russian Embassy in Bucharest Pavel Alexeyenko wrote on Facebook that it is proved by the words of Romanian Minister of Defense Mihai Fifor, who said in an interview with the TV channel Antena 3 on Tuesday that his country "has a military base with ballistic missiles in Deveselu." This wording, corrected by the minister later, sparked a large scandal.

"Fifor’s statement is another proof that the American shield in Deveselu is a direct and immediate threat to Russian national security. Thank you for this spontaneous truth, Mr Fifor!" the Russian diplomat wrote on social media on Wednesday evening. On Thursday, his statement was cited by numerous Romanian mass media, including the Mediafax agency.

Some local observers consider the Romanian minister’s statement as the possible confession that there are ballistic missiles at the Deveselu Military Base. Political analyst Stelian Tanase noted that "there are either ballistic missiles there, as Fifor said live," and then the minister should be removed from office and handed over to the tribunal for the divulgence of state secrets, or "this was just a slip of the tongue," which, however, should arouse mistrust in Romania among its NATO partners. On Wednesday, the leaders of three opposition parties - the National Liberal Party (PNL), the Save Romania Union (USR) and the People's Movement Party (PMP) - demanded the minister’s resignation.

Fifor himself stated later that he never said that there are ballistic missiles in Deveselu and supposed that his words could have been misinterpreted. "I never said there are any ballistic missiles in Deveselu," he told Mediafax. "Anyway, it is hard to believe that a defense minister could say such a thing. I think this is misinterpretation."

The US missile defense system Aegis Ashore was stationed at the Deveselu Military Base in May 2016. It includes the command and control center, Mk-41 vertical launching systems and SM-3 missile defense interceptors and is serviced by 200 US soldiers.

The Russian Foreign Ministry repeatedly stated that by deploying Aegis Ashore systems in Eastern European countries Washington violates its obligations under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty).


More:
http://tass.com/defense/1015846