Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russia's response to NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:12 am

    This is a very interesting development.

    The situation has been that the Russians want a joint air defence system for all of Europe controlled by NATO and Russia together.

    NATO wants two separate systems... a NATO system and a Russian system and both will share data.

    This offer by the Ukraine wouldn't really work in the NATO model unless the Ukraine joined the NATO ABM system or the Russians ABM system or created their own and joined it with the other two.

    The offer from Ukraine would work well in the Russian model as it provides places for radars and existing radars from the soviet period that could be useful to the system.

    Pervius
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 259
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2011-03-08

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

    Post  Pervius on Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:33 pm

    """"US is considering deploying missile defense elements in Israel""""


    Before Obama even became a President, Israel had America's THAAD, Patriot, and AEGIS equipped ships in its Ports.

    The article title is rubbish. America's best Air Defense hardware has been protecting Israel, not Washington DC. Israel's the real Capitol of America and everyone knows it.

    If Obama tried to pull ANY of that hardware out...those Israeli's would give Obama some real trouble.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5673
    Points : 6079
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:06 am

    Nice Technical Summary

    Upsetting the
    Reset :The Technical Basis of Russian Concern Over NATO Missile Defense
    By YOUSAF BUTT and THEODORE POSTOL

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5673
    Points : 6079
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Russia Concerns over NATO Missile Defense

    Post  Austin on Mon Nov 07, 2011 6:34 am

    This write up by Postal and Yousaf summarises the technical write up of Russia concerns on NATO missile defence


    Upsetting the
    Reset :The Technical Basis of Russian Concern Over NATO Missile Defense
    By YOUSAF BUTT and THEODORE POSTOL

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5673
    Points : 6079
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Wed Nov 23, 2011 7:26 pm

    RF to equip missiles in RVSN, Navy with MD penetration systems – Medvedev



    GORKI, November 23 (Itar-Tass) — Russia will equip missiles in the Strategic Rocket Forces and the Navy with missile defence penetration systems, President Dmitry Medvedev said on Wednesday.

    Due to the U.S. plans to continue the missile defence construction in Europe, strategic ballistic missiles, which become operational in the Strategic Rocket Forces and the Navy, will be equipped with missile defence penetration systems and new high-efficiency units, the Russian leader stressed.

    Medvedev has called for ensuring protection of strategic nuclear forces within creating an aerospace defence system.

    President Medvedev said the U.S. had launched its missile defence programme in Europe. Thus, the Russian leader gave instructions to ensure protection of the strategic nuclear forces within creating an aerospace defence system.

    In his address to Russian citizens, Medvedev said he wanted to report on Russia’s return measures to creating missile defence in Europe.

    President Medvedev said: “First. On my instruction the Russian Defence Ministry will immediately put into operation a radar station in the Kaliningrad region to prevent missile attacks.

    “Second. Within creating Russia’s aerospace defence system we will ensure protection of strategic nuclear forces.

    “Third. Russia will equip missiles in the Strategic Rocket Forces and the Navy with missile defence penetration systems. Due to the U.S. plans to continue the missile defence construction in Europe, strategic ballistic missiles, which become operational in the Strategic Rocket Forces and the Navy, will be equipped with missile defence penetration systems and new high-efficiency units.

    “Fourth. The Armed Forces will be set the task to work out measures to destroy information and management missile defence systems,” Medvedev said.

    “These measures are adequate, effective and need minor costs,” the president said. If other measures are insufficient, the Russian Federation will deploy contemporary strike systems [for example, the Iskander systems] in the west and south in order to prevent fire damage from U.S. missile defence deployed in Europe,” Medvedev said.

    “The deployment of the Iskander missile system in the Kaliningrad region will be one of such steps in this aspect,” the Russian leader stressed.

    “If it necessary we will take other measures to counter European missile defence,” Medvedev pointed out.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 23, 2011 11:27 pm

    I still think withdrawing from the INF treaty would be a better threat.

    This would allow Iskanders range to be extended to... say 1,500-2,000km which would make it much more flexible in the conventional and tactical nuclear role.

    It would be much cheaper than an ICBM.

    Obviously Russia would have to make it clear that any US missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads deployed in Europe within range of Russia would be considered strategic weapons and counted under the START treaty and that Russian would accept the same judgement of any IRBM that Russia might deploy with the range to reach CONUS.

    All the improvements in solid rocket fuel technology should allow much smaller missiles with much longer ranges to be developed and used.

    The cruise missile version of the Iskander could carry 5,500km range cruise missiles for example and cover most of europe.

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

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

    Post  Russian Patriot on Thu Nov 24, 2011 3:48 am

    Russian President says Russia may deploy missiles near EU borders

    IRNA - Islamic Republic News Agency

    Moscow, Nov 23, IRNA -- Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Wednesday that Russia will deploy missiles near the EU's borders if the US pursues its missile defence plans.

    In a televised statement, he said 'radar missile warning system' could be deployed in Kaliningrad if Russia, the US and Nato failed to make a deal.

    He said that Russia has the right to halt further disarmament and arms control efforts if it doesn’t reach an agreement with the US on the ABM issue.

    The Russian President said that taking into account the fact that offensive and defensive weapons are closely interconnected, Russia may have legal grounds to walk out of the START-3 and this is stipulated by the Treaty.

    'We will not participate in a program which may weaken our deterrence potential in 6-8 years. This program (European missile defense) has already been launched. Its implementation is gaining momentum in Poland, Romania, Turkey and Spain. And we are informed about it as an accomplished fact.

    'We will certainly continue the missile defense dialogue with the United States and NATO, as we agreed with President Barack Obama during our recent meeting at the APEC summit in Honolulu where I again spelled out our concerns in a precise and clear-cut way. There still is time to achieve understanding. Russia has the political will to move towards agreements that could open a new chapter in our relations with the United States and NATO.

    'If our partners are prepared to take into account Russia’s legitimate security interests in an honest and responsible way, I am sure we will manage to come to an agreement. But if we are offered to “cooperate” against our own interests, we will fail to find common ground. In this case, we will have to look for other options. We will build our actions depending on real developments at each new phase of the American plan.

    'Therefore, I have made the following decisions:

    3. I order the Ministry of Defense to deploy radar missile warning system in the city of Kaliningrad.

    4. A strategic missile facilities shield will be the first to be strengthened as part of setting up Russia’s Air and Space defense system.

    3. Russia’s Navy and strategic missiles troops will be equipped with a cutting-edge ABM penetration device and super efficient warheads.

    4. I have ordered the country’s military to develop measures enabling the troops to destroy ABM control and information systems in the event of an attack. The abovementioned measures are relevant, efficient and low-cost,

    5. If the abovementioned are not enough, Russia will deploy cutting –edge ballistic missile systems providing for total destruction of US ABMs in Europe. One of the measures will be deploying The 9K720 Iskander mobile theater ballistic missile system in a special area in Kaliningrad.

    'Russia has the right to halt further disarmament and arms control efforts if it doesn’t reach an agreement with the US on the ABM issue.

    'Taking into account the fact that offensive and defensive weapons are closely interconnected, Russia may have legal grounds to walk out of the START-3 and this is stipulated by the Treaty.

    'I would like to emphasize that Russia is not shutting the door on the ABM dialogue with the US and NATO and on practical partnership in this area. Nevertheless, this can be reached only via creating a specific legal basis for such cooperation that will provide for the protection of Russia’s legitimate interests and concerns. We’re open for a dialogue. We’re counting on a reasonable and constructive approach from our western partners, President Medvedev said in his television address quoted by IRNA reporter in Moscow.

    **1412
    Islamic Republic News Agency/IRNA NewsCode: 30678698

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2011/russia-111123-irna01.htm

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Thu Nov 24, 2011 4:36 am

    3. I order the Ministry of Defense to deploy radar missile warning system in the city of Kaliningrad.

    Such a forward deployed system would give advanced warning of an attack on Russia. Its position would leave it vulnerable to a first strike, but that in itself would be warning enough... NATO is hardly going to attack an ABM radar station in Kaliningrad if it has no intention to attack Russia and use its ABM system to hide behind.

    4. A strategic missile facilities shield will be the first to be strengthened as part of setting up Russia’s Air and Space defense system.

    So the S-500 will be well funded and likely fairly widely deployed and VKKO forces will also likely be well funded from the start, though the initial focus will be from ballistic missile attack.

    3. Russia’s Navy and strategic missiles troops will be equipped with a cutting-edge ABM penetration device and super efficient warheads.

    So perhaps Ironsightsnipers idea of a naval Iskander missile might become a reality. It would be the ideal missile to base an ABM system penetrating missile on. Perhaps the Kirovs might get more extensive upgrades than previously thought... 80 tubes for the UKSK might change to 64 tubes with 8 x UKSK launchers plus perhaps a 10-12 tube naval 2,000km range Iskander ABM system buster system?

    Plus of course the Redut SAM system reduced in tube numbers to allow a few S-500 tubes to defend from BM attack.

    [quote]4. I have ordered the country’s military to develop measures enabling the troops to destroy ABM control and information systems in the event of an attack.[quote]

    Which pretty much could be handled with a combination of manouvering hypersonic missiles (ie longer range Iskander) and stealthy cruise missiles that could both be land ship and air launched weapons.

    The abovementioned measures are relevant, efficient and low-cost,

    Clearly a dig at the US ABM system in Europe which is not relevant (due to Iran not having nuclear weapons or ICBMs), inefficient... because it will not stop anything but a ballistic missile they don't even have, and of course this ABM system in Europe will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and still not be guaranteed to work.

    5. If the abovementioned are not enough, Russia will deploy cutting –edge ballistic missile systems providing for total destruction of US ABMs in Europe. One of the measures will be deploying The 9K720 Iskander mobile theater ballistic missile system in a special area in Kaliningrad.

    I rather suspect this part will include a withdrawl from the INF treaty.

    'Russia has the right to halt further disarmament and arms control efforts if it doesn’t reach an agreement with the US on the ABM issue.

    And if it doesn't then this certainly means the end of the INF treaty.

    'Taking into account the fact that offensive and defensive weapons are closely interconnected, Russia may have legal grounds to walk out of the START-3 and this is stipulated by the Treaty.

    Just common sense really.

    The US can solve this largely by signing a document guaranteeing that the European ABM system will not be directed against Russia.

    They wont of course, because they are not going to limit themselves... this system will be expensive and will only grow in cost and capability.

    Personally I think naval based systems would be far more useful anyway... far more mobile.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5673
    Points : 6079
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Thu Nov 24, 2011 6:34 am

    I dont think backing out from INF is a smart idea it would just mean US would deploy non-strategic weapons IRBM/MRBM in Europe.

    A better idea would be to start nuclear testing so that they could test better lighter and more powerful warhead.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:42 am

    How would resuming nuclear testing balance an ABM shield?

    You balance the other guys shield by introducing lots more "spears and arrows" for the shield to deal with.

    If the INF treaty is withdrawn from it would simply be a matter of stating publicly that any theatre or tactical weapon (ie IRBM or cruise missile) deployed in Europe by the US that can reach Russia will be considered a strategic weapon and therefore bound by the new START treaty.

    Building a few thousand Iskanders with a range of 2,000-5,000km will still be much cheaper than building their own ABM system to counter a US ABM system in Europe.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5673
    Points : 6079
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Sat Nov 26, 2011 9:14 am

    Seems like Russia is developing a new solid fuel ICBM called Avangrad whose first test didnt go well.

    Russia's response to missile defense

    http://russianforces.org/blog/2011/09/what_was_the_icbm_that_crashed.shtml

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 26, 2011 10:04 am

    Most of the current ICBMs were developed under the shadow of START II which banned heavyweight ICBMs and MIRVed ICBMs.

    This means the TOPOL was designed at a time when its throw weight and warhead capacity were severely limited.

    Developing new ICBMs with much higher throw weights and larger warhead capacities means fewer missiles with more decoys and jammers and other bits and pieces can be carried. Modern manouvering warheads are much bulkier and heavier than old MIRV and MRV warheads that were simply released on target.

    New ICBMs can be designed from the start for lots of bulky MARVs plus lots of decoys and jammers and other items which will mean fewer ICBMs will be needed to be kept in service.

    Just looking at the RS-24 with 6-10 warheads that means a difference of either 500 odd TOPOLs or 50-85 odd RS-24s depending on the capacity.

    This new Vanguard missile probably adds more decoys and jammers to the mix, while a new heavyweight missile offers the potential to fire missiles over the south pole at the US... further complicating their defence.

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

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

    Post  SOC on Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:18 pm

    Austin wrote:I dont think backing out from INF is a smart idea it would just mean US would deploy non-strategic weapons IRBM/MRBM in Europe.

    Except there aren't any to deploy. All of the Pershing IIs and BGM-109 GLCMs are all long gone. A more likely response would be to resume sticking nuke-tipped Tomahawks in SSNs and surface ships.

    GarryB wrote:If the INF treaty is withdrawn from it would simply be a matter of stating publicly that any theatre or tactical weapon (ie IRBM or cruise missile) deployed in Europe by the US that can reach Russia will be considered a strategic weapon and therefore bound by the new START treaty.

    That doesn't work either. New START specifically describes the types of weapons it covers. To incorporate anything that is not an ICBM, SLBM, or bomber would pretty much require a new treaty. Even cruise missiles by themselves aren't really covered at all, except when they are carried by bombers. A BGM-109 unit that magically reappeared would not be regulated by New START, but by the INF treaty. Pull out of the INF treaty and your options become far more interesting. Plus, it would significantly alter the threat to the US by allowing ICBMs tasked to hit places like England or France to be retasked to CONUS targets. That gives you far more targeting options while denying the same ability to the US, as any current US nuke system directed at Russia at this moment is by nature something that will be START accountable. Dropping INF right now is about the smoothest move Russia could make. But it has to be right now, or at least in the near future. With the US making defense cuts and the economy still trying to recover despite Congress, the chances of getting a new nuclear delivery system for European basing funded are not very large. And then, where are we going to put it? What European nations are eager to host US nuclear arms on that scale again? Someone like Poland might be willing to host ABM bits, but are they willing to host actual nuclear weapons? OK, so you can build them and keep them in CONUS until needed. But at that point, if they're actually needed, that's just a huge incentive for a pre-emptive strike.

    I forsee things becoming very interesting once Putin is re-elected.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:31 am

    Another option of course would be to block all US and NATO traffic through Russia to Afghanistan.

    I am sure Pakistan will fold over its threat to stop traffic through Pakistan but I am sure there are plenty of Pakistanis who would happily blockade such convoys on their own.

    Lets face it... Afghanistan is going to become a shthole when the US leaves anyway... the infighting will likely go on for years... decades if Pakistan does not support one side or another...

    Russia just needs to work on its border controls and those of its southern neighbours between it and afghanistan.

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

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

    Post  SOC on Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:41 am

    GarryB wrote:Another option of course would be to block all US and NATO traffic through Russia to Afghanistan.

    Sure, that'd be awesome. We could switch to moving cargo into Mumbai and flying it into Afghanistan through Kashmir. Then we can use increased cooperation to build India an anti-Pakistan missile shield and see how that one gets spun.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:38 am

    Except India has no border with Afghanistan... to run a land route through India would require crossing into Pakistan or China to get to Afghanistan.

    Their best bet would be through the med to the black sea, across Georgia and azerbaijan, over the caspian sea to Turkmenistan to Afghanistan... Lots of transfers from rail to boat and back again, but should be a fairly safe route in terms of attack by hostile opponents.

    Air transport is not a useful component... if it can be all rail and ship then it can be efficient.

    Of course the fact that they wont sign a piece of paper saying the European ABM... sorry... the US ABM system in Europe will not be used against Russia suggests the whole purpose of the system is for use against Russia... which makes sense because Russia has plenty of BMs while Iran has very few.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5673
    Points : 6079
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Sun Dec 25, 2011 5:44 pm

    Medvedev's Missile Threats Are His 'Plan B'

    By Ruslan Pukhov

    On Nov. 23, President Dmitry Medvedev — who, by the way, is still president — announced the measures with which Russia would respond if the United States deploys its missile defense system in Europe. Many commentators in the West and Russia agreed that there was nothing new in his threats to withdraw from the New START treaty with the United States and deploy Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad, saying his rhetoric was aimed primarily at Russian voters during a national election season.

    That is largely true. Medvedev is clearly doing everything he can to avoid looking like a political lame duck or being eclipsed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s vigorous election campaign. The “firm” and “patriotic” foreign policy stance is needed as a counterweight to the Kremlin’s vague economic agenda, the growing popular discontent over the ruling tandem’s return to power and the never-ending dominance of United Russia.

    But that is only an initial and very superficial analysis. It would be a mistake to explain the Russian leadership’s most important strategic foreign policy and defense decisions purely on the basis of domestic policy considerations. In emphasizing those particular factors, observers tend to underestimate Russia’s real national security concerns. In fact, Russian history demonstrates that the foreign policy picture heavily influences the internal dynamics of this country. In fact, the Western forces’ cynical and colonialist foray into Libya, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s banal “wow” upon hearing of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s death, or the bloodthirsty comments made by U.S. Senator John McCain for the benefit of U.S. voters have done more to ensure Putin’s return to the Kremlin than could Central Elections Commission head Vladimir Churov.

    It would be wrong to focus on the propagandistic aspect of Medvedev’s statements while ignoring the underlying message — namely that they denote the beginning of a crisis with the United States on nuclear arms and the overall strategic relationship between the two countries. This crisis has many dimensions, and the disagreement over missile defense is only its most striking manifestation.

    The fundamental reason behind Washington’s activity in the field of missile defense is its desire to achieve complete security for the entire continental United States. That goal drives all of Washington’s national security policy and thinking.

    However, today’s technology and economic situation make it impossible to create a missile defense system capable of guaranteeing protection against a massive nuclear attack. That is why the United States has chosen to work toward this goal in stages, first creating a “limited” missile defense system to stop missiles fired by “rogue states.” However, it is obvious that any “limited” missile defense system would be no more than an interim step toward building a full-scale missile defense system to provide guaranteed protection of U.S. territory against any nuclear missile attack. A lack of desire is not stopping the United States from creating and deploying a full-scale missile defense system now, but technological and economic constraints make it infeasible at present.

    Thus, any “limited” versions of a U.S. missile defense system — provided it really is directed against missiles coming from Iran or North Korea — would essentially be “experimental trial runs” designed to perfect the technology needed for the later deployment of a full-scale missile defense system to protect the continental United States.

    Of course, Washington’s missile defense goal is to achieve complete and unassailable national security. But as former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger aptly said, “Absolute security for one means no security for the rest.” And that is the concern underlying Russia’s position regarding any configuration of the U.S missile defense
    system.

    At the same time, it is clear that Russia has no realistic way to stop or delay Washington’s plans to pursue its missile defense program. There is a strong consensus among U.S. lawmakers and the public on the need to achieve the greatest possible protection of the nation’s territory against any foreign missile attack, including possible strikes from Russia or China. For its part, Russia has nothing to offer in return for Washington’s belief that absolute invulnerability is attainable. Recall that when Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev met with U.S. President Ronald Reagan in Reykjavik in 1986, he offered complete nuclear disarmament in return for a U.S. promise to abandon its Strategic Defense Initiative. That proposal was rejected. Washington’s missile defense program is closely linked to the idea of global hegemony that underlies all U.S. foreign and defense policy.

    As a result, negotiating with the United States on missile defense is entirely futile — a conviction that negotiations in recent years have only reinforced in the minds of Russian leaders. Every attempt to draw the United States into an agreement on some form of restriction has proven completely fruitless. In effect, all interactions with the United States on this question have only confirmed the nature of Washington’s “long-term” missile defense policy — one that ultimately threatens the basis of nuclear deterrence and, consequently, the very foundation of Russia’s national security.

    Under such circumstances, Russian leaders are faced with a choice: either continue making futile attempts to negotiate with Washington on missile defense or resort to a contingency plan. As experienced leaders with a realistic grasp of world affairs, Medvedev and Putin should have had a “Plan B” all along — and they did. It was that plan that Medvedev disclosed on Nov. 23. Of course, domestic policy considerations played some role, but the main significance of the speech was that Russia is officially putting Plan B into action. It would be very unwise for anyone to ignore that clear signal.

    Not surprisingly, Medvedev said nothing new in those statements, and the measures he announced are already being implemented. Russia’s Plan B has been under development for a long time. Development and testing have long been conducted on new nuclear warheads and upgraded missiles to carry them. These include the Lainer, Avangard and Yars missiles — with the Yars already in production. A network of new long-range early warning radar stations is under construction, one of which is the station being built in Kaliningrad. Systems are also being developed for the “destruction of the information and control apparatus of missile defense systems.” In this regard, recall that the Sokol-Echelon program for destroying U.S. early warning satellites was renewed in 2010. Also under way is the scheduled replacement of Tochka-U missiles systems with the new Iskander-M missiles in Russian army brigades. And of course, those upgrades will eventually be applied to the 152nd missile brigade in Kaliningrad as well.

    And now, thanks to the increase in Russian defense spending through 2020, many of those programs can be accelerated and moved toward serial production and deployment. With that in mind, Medvedev was able to put Plan B into action. Russia continues to focus on the military and technical means required for countering the U.S. missile defense system. At the same time, the resources needed for implementing Russia’s Plan B are realistic and relatively modest. What’s more, the gradual and rather slow way that the U.S. missile defense system is being developed makes it possible for Russia to implement the program Medvedev has announced.

    Ruslan Pukhov is director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies and publisher of the journal Moscow Defense Brief.


    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5673
    Points : 6079
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:11 am

    The interceptors are growing Shocked

    U.S., NATO Have Some 1,000 Interceptor Missiles - Rogozin

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5673
    Points : 6079
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:36 pm

    US missile defense a threat to the security of neutral states
    http://rt.com/politics/rogozin-missile-defense-threat-257/

    The planned American missile defense shield is “a copper basin” that will cover NATO states and pose a threat to neutral European countries, believes Russian Vice Premier Dmitry Rogozin.

    “The Americans call the deployment of the missile defense system in Europe 'an umbrella'. It's not an umbrella, it's a copper basin that will cover both NATO member countries and neutral states,” Rogozin said in an interview with Echo Moskvy radio station. The Russian idiom “to get covered by a copper basin” is similar to the English expression, “to go out of the window”. In this context, what is going out of the window is national security.

    Rogozin, Moscow’s outgoing NATO envoy, also underlined that a defense shield should be limited to the territory for which the initiator of this shield is responsible.

    “But if it crawls into someone else’s territory, it’s no longer a defense, but an offense,” noted the Russian deputy PM who is in charge of the country’s defense complex. “What kind of defense system is it that spreads to the territory of states that do not want to be controlled by anyone and don’t want the range of any missiles to lie within their soil?” Rogozin asked.

    The planned deployment of the American-NATO defense system in Europe has long been a bone of contention in relations between Moscow and Washington. The Russian side is worried that the system, located close to Russia’s borders, may pose a threat to its national security as long as the US fails to provide any legally binding guarantees to the contrary.

    Dmitry Rogozin is confident that the system will be directed against Russia’s strategic nuclear forces. He noted that the aim of the deployment of the NATO fleet in Norwegian fjords is not to provide security from North Korea or Iran. “There is only the Russian Federation in this region,” Rogozin pointed out.

    “The very presence of such missile defense system’s parameters that are capable of shooting down exactly strategic missiles, and the very placement of these [military] bases, fleet and anti-missile weapons systems in northern seas point at one thing: a clear and practically uncontrollable anti-Russian nature of the missile defense,” he said.

    The former NATO envoy believes that measures that Russia will have to take in response to the deployment of elements of the American missile defense shield in Europe may lead to a new arms race.

    Meanwhile, US-Russian negotiations on the matter “are maintaining a low profile at the moment.” In fact, there are no talks, Rogozin said. The vice premier thinks it unlikely that there would be any breakthrough or development before the NATO summit in Chicago that is due to take place in May.

    Earlier, Washington invited Russia to send its military experts to missile defense system tests in the spring of 2012.Rogozin said that Moscow was not satisfied with the proposal. Sending Russian military officials to “a planetarium” in the Pacific Ocean to watch missiles and antimissiles being launched through binoculars “is not interesting.”

    “We need telemetry, telemetric equipment, which should be installed on the interceptor itself,” Rogozin explained.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:04 pm

    America is just pushing Russias buttons... muck around building something you actually don't care about and stir things up and then make a big deal about the major concession of giving it up in return for something you really actually want.

    Pretty clear that Russia needs to withdraw from the INF treaty and those 500kg range Klubs in the Iskander system can be replaced with the 2,000km range models.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5629
    Points : 6282
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    ABM in Europe

    Post  Viktor on Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:02 am


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 04, 2012 3:26 am

    Very Interesting... thanks for posting... gets my vote. Smile

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

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

    Post  Russian Patriot on Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:06 am

    I was actually looking for this... Thanks Viktor btw I just got RT on Dish for free.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:09 am

    I have stopped watching other news channels now...

    I would like to see RT produce more science programs like technology update.

    Corrosion
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 196
    Points : 213
    Join date : 2010-10-19

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

    Post  Corrosion on Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:54 am

    Interesting.. Thanks for posting this.

    Sad to see a Polish village used as a pawn in all this. If I was a resident in that village I would sell my property and move out a at least 20 kms out of village. Anything can happen if or when $hit hits the fan.

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:24 pm


      Current date/time is Wed Dec 07, 2016 5:24 pm