Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Share

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Tue Dec 17, 2013 7:12 am

    flamming_python wrote:
    medo wrote:Railway missile launchers are more and more limited in their operational areas because of electrification of railroads. Road mobile complexes give them more flexibility.

    What about the electrification of railroads?


    The Russian govt. can go the same route as the PRC and have disguised underground "hardened" tunnels/subway-rail system with retractable tunnel roofs pieces, disguised as vegetation. A fast-rail system with multiple cars for different systems, such as Tor, Buk, Pantsir, S-300, S-400, S-500, artillery, electronic warfare/countermeasures, radar systems of all sorts, many kinds of vehicles, drones and or ballistic and anti-ballistic missiles with conventional and thermonuclear war heads. These systems will be all directed by underground command center networks with multiple hubs in strategically important areas. The retractable roof could open up, and the train car could lift the system of your choice for the right scenario in to place within 5 minutes, if enemy aircraft engages in incursions on Russian territory the systems could be rapidly deployed 35-160 km ahead of the aircraft (giving little time to react), giving Russia a serious asymmetrical warfare advantage. Hell Russia could be really innovative and develop a system of wide & long retractable roofs and train cars that could carry rail mounted landing/take off strips for airborne vehicles such as helicopters and fighter jets. Now if they can pull something like that off then the sky's the limit!

    The cover for developing these networks could be for commutes for civilians, economical transport of raw materials/manufactured goods and military personal (you have to at least admit some military purpose); all for the convenience and expediency of commutes from Russians western borders to it's eastern borders. There will be above ground networks (mostly civilian); the networks would be separated by where 2/3rd's of the rail system could be dedicated to civilian and economic purposes, and 1/3rd for strict military control. There can be  limited cross over of dedicated sections, where the military could use some civilian rail for emergency purposes (natural disaster relief, etc). The 1/3rd dedicated to the military can lead to areas where there's hidden hardened bunkers, with stock piles of food, medicine, equipment, vehicles, ammunition with military command posts/intelligence centers all intertwined and networked (I've mentioned that part already).

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3189
    Points : 3317
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  flamming_python on Wed Dec 18, 2013 6:15 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    flamming_python wrote:
    medo wrote:Railway missile launchers are more and more limited in their operational areas because of electrification of railroads. Road mobile complexes give them more flexibility.

    What about the electrification of railroads?


    The Russian govt. can go the same route as the PRC and have disguised underground "hardened" tunnels/subway-rail system with retractable tunnel roofs pieces, disguised as vegetation. A fast-rail system with multiple cars for different systems, such as Tor, Buk, Pantsir, S-300, S-400, S-500, artillery, electronic warfare/countermeasures, radar systems of all sorts, many kinds of vehicles, drones and or ballistic and anti-ballistic missiles with conventional and thermonuclear war heads. These systems will be all directed by underground command center networks with multiple hubs in strategically important areas. The retractable roof could open up, and the train car could lift the system of your choice for the right scenario in to place within 5 minutes, if enemy aircraft engages in incursions on Russian territory the systems could be rapidly deployed 35-160 km ahead of the aircraft (giving little time to react), giving Russia a serious asymmetrical warfare advantage. Hell Russia could be really innovative and develop a system of wide & long retractable roofs and train cars that could carry rail mounted landing/take off strips for airborne vehicles such as helicopters and fighter jets. Now if they can pull something like that off then the sky's the limit!

    The cover for developing these networks could be for commutes for civilians, economical transport of raw materials/manufactured goods and military personal (you have to at least admit some military purpose); all for the convenience and expediency of commutes from Russians western borders to it's eastern borders. There will be above ground networks (mostly civilian); the networks would be separated by where 2/3rd's of the rail system could be dedicated to civilian and economic purposes, and 1/3rd for strict military control. There can be  limited cross over of dedicated sections, where the military could use some civilian rail for emergency purposes (natural disaster relief, etc). The 1/3rd dedicated to the military can lead to areas where there's hidden hardened bunkers, with stock piles of food, medicine, equipment, vehicles, ammunition with military command posts/intelligence centers all intertwined and networked (I've mentioned that part already).

    Sounds like the Railroad troops are in for a major expansion!  lol1 
    Forget about the VDV, Shamanov, VVS, VMF, FSB, all these good for nothing lobbyists.. useless in a real war

    I really like the sound of that:

    Russia - the Railroad empire.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:43 pm

    flamming_python wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    flamming_python wrote:
    medo wrote:Railway missile launchers are more and more limited in their operational areas because of electrification of railroads. Road mobile complexes give them more flexibility.

    What about the electrification of railroads?


    The Russian govt. can go the same route as the PRC and have disguised underground "hardened" tunnels/subway-rail system with retractable tunnel roofs pieces, disguised as vegetation. A fast-rail system with multiple cars for different systems, such as Tor, Buk, Pantsir, S-300, S-400, S-500, artillery, electronic warfare/countermeasures, radar systems of all sorts, many kinds of vehicles, drones and or ballistic and anti-ballistic missiles with conventional and thermonuclear war heads. These systems will be all directed by underground command center networks with multiple hubs in strategically important areas. The retractable roof could open up, and the train car could lift the system of your choice for the right scenario in to place within 5 minutes, if enemy aircraft engages in incursions on Russian territory the systems could be rapidly deployed 35-160 km ahead of the aircraft (giving little time to react), giving Russia a serious asymmetrical warfare advantage. Hell Russia could be really innovative and develop a system of wide & long retractable roofs and train cars that could carry rail mounted landing/take off strips for airborne vehicles such as helicopters and fighter jets. Now if they can pull something like that off then the sky's the limit!

    The cover for developing these networks could be for commutes for civilians, economical transport of raw materials/manufactured goods and military personal (you have to at least admit some military purpose); all for the convenience and expediency of commutes from Russians western borders to it's eastern borders. There will be above ground networks (mostly civilian); the networks would be separated by where 2/3rd's of the rail system could be dedicated to civilian and economic purposes, and 1/3rd for strict military control. There can be  limited cross over of dedicated sections, where the military could use some civilian rail for emergency purposes (natural disaster relief, etc). The 1/3rd dedicated to the military can lead to areas where there's hidden hardened bunkers, with stock piles of food, medicine, equipment, vehicles, ammunition with military command posts/intelligence centers all intertwined and networked (I've mentioned that part already).

    Sounds like the Railroad troops are in for a major expansion!  lol1 
    Forget about the VDV, Shamanov, VVS, VMF, FSB, all these good for nothing lobbyists.. useless in a real war

    I really like the sound of that:

    Russia - the Railroad empire.

    ...But it's a great idea considering the massive asymmetrical warfare advantage the Russian Federation would gain against invading militaries.

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3189
    Points : 3317
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  flamming_python on Wed Dec 18, 2013 11:45 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    flamming_python wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    flamming_python wrote:
    medo wrote:Railway missile launchers are more and more limited in their operational areas because of electrification of railroads. Road mobile complexes give them more flexibility.

    What about the electrification of railroads?


    The Russian govt. can go the same route as the PRC and have disguised underground "hardened" tunnels/subway-rail system with retractable tunnel roofs pieces, disguised as vegetation. A fast-rail system with multiple cars for different systems, such as Tor, Buk, Pantsir, S-300, S-400, S-500, artillery, electronic warfare/countermeasures, radar systems of all sorts, many kinds of vehicles, drones and or ballistic and anti-ballistic missiles with conventional and thermonuclear war heads. These systems will be all directed by underground command center networks with multiple hubs in strategically important areas. The retractable roof could open up, and the train car could lift the system of your choice for the right scenario in to place within 5 minutes, if enemy aircraft engages in incursions on Russian territory the systems could be rapidly deployed 35-160 km ahead of the aircraft (giving little time to react), giving Russia a serious asymmetrical warfare advantage. Hell Russia could be really innovative and develop a system of wide & long retractable roofs and train cars that could carry rail mounted landing/take off strips for airborne vehicles such as helicopters and fighter jets. Now if they can pull something like that off then the sky's the limit!

    The cover for developing these networks could be for commutes for civilians, economical transport of raw materials/manufactured goods and military personal (you have to at least admit some military purpose); all for the convenience and expediency of commutes from Russians western borders to it's eastern borders. There will be above ground networks (mostly civilian); the networks would be separated by where 2/3rd's of the rail system could be dedicated to civilian and economic purposes, and 1/3rd for strict military control. There can be  limited cross over of dedicated sections, where the military could use some civilian rail for emergency purposes (natural disaster relief, etc). The 1/3rd dedicated to the military can lead to areas where there's hidden hardened bunkers, with stock piles of food, medicine, equipment, vehicles, ammunition with military command posts/intelligence centers all intertwined and networked (I've mentioned that part already).

    Sounds like the Railroad troops are in for a major expansion!  lol1 
    Forget about the VDV, Shamanov, VVS, VMF, FSB, all these good for nothing lobbyists.. useless in a real war

    I really like the sound of that:

    Russia - the Railroad empire.

    ...But it's a great idea considering the massive asymmetrical warfare advantage the Russian Federation would gain against invading militaries.

    I suppose it's a good idea; just remember that there will be nothing stopping the enemy from targeting and taking out any train anyway. I'd imagine they'd be legitimate military targets anyway due to their logistics/redeployment/reinforcement capacity; and especially with your ideas. So they will take a large amount of attrition and a large proportion of targeted trains will turn out to be military ones, while large amounts of civilians will die too.

    I can definately see the advantages though of basically making a huge amount of Russian military infastructure and firepower/capability permenantly mobile.
    In case of an imminent threat of nuclear war; the general staff & political leadership can be put on rail-mobile command centres too.

    Rail-mobile Iskander systems, cruise-missile launchers  What a Face 

    Very expensive though.


    Last edited by flamming_python on Wed Dec 18, 2013 11:53 pm; edited 3 times in total

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  collegeboy16 on Thu Dec 19, 2013 11:33 am

    flamming_python wrote:

    I suppose it's a good idea; just remember that there will be nothing stopping the enemy from targeting and taking out any train anyway. I'd imagine they'd be legitimate military targets anyway due to their logistics/redeployment/reinforcement capacity; and especially with your ideas. So they will take a large amount of attrition and a large proportion of targeted trains will turn out to be military ones, while large amounts of civilians will die too.
    S-500s/S-400s/S-350s/Tor/Pantsirs would make sure any attack on trains from above will be met with fierce resistance. Imagine you are the enemy and you actually try to avoid the rail lines because there could be mofos behind the controls of equivalent of moscow air defence  Twisted Evil 
    flamming_python wrote:
    I can definately see the advantages though of basically making a huge amount of Russian military infastructure and firepower/capability permenantly mobile.
    In case of an imminent threat of nuclear war; the general staff & political leadership can be put on rail-mobile command centres too.

    Rail-mobile Iskander systems, cruise-missile launchers  What a Face 

    Very expensive though.
    they need not be expensive, russia actually needs thousands more miles of railways and lots of people and entities with cash to burn would like to invest there.
    also it fits right into the mobility aspect of new russian army, any tank army would get annihilated by armata brigades in no time at all.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Tue Dec 24, 2013 6:07 am

    flamming_python wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    flamming_python wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    flamming_python wrote:
    medo wrote:Railway missile launchers are more and more limited in their operational areas because of electrification of railroads. Road mobile complexes give them more flexibility.

    What about the electrification of railroads?


    The Russian govt. can go the same route as the PRC and have disguised underground "hardened" tunnels/subway-rail system with retractable tunnel roofs pieces, disguised as vegetation. A fast-rail system with multiple cars for different systems, such as Tor, Buk, Pantsir, S-300, S-400, S-500, artillery, electronic warfare/countermeasures, radar systems of all sorts, many kinds of vehicles, drones and or ballistic and anti-ballistic missiles with conventional and thermonuclear war heads. These systems will be all directed by underground command center networks with multiple hubs in strategically important areas. The retractable roof could open up, and the train car could lift the system of your choice for the right scenario in to place within 5 minutes, if enemy aircraft engages in incursions on Russian territory the systems could be rapidly deployed 35-160 km ahead of the aircraft (giving little time to react), giving Russia a serious asymmetrical warfare advantage. Hell Russia could be really innovative and develop a system of wide & long retractable roofs and train cars that could carry rail mounted landing/take off strips for airborne vehicles such as helicopters and fighter jets. Now if they can pull something like that off then the sky's the limit!

    The cover for developing these networks could be for commutes for civilians, economical transport of raw materials/manufactured goods and military personal (you have to at least admit some military purpose); all for the convenience and expediency of commutes from Russians western borders to it's eastern borders. There will be above ground networks (mostly civilian); the networks would be separated by where 2/3rd's of the rail system could be dedicated to civilian and economic purposes, and 1/3rd for strict military control. There can be  limited cross over of dedicated sections, where the military could use some civilian rail for emergency purposes (natural disaster relief, etc). The 1/3rd dedicated to the military can lead to areas where there's hidden hardened bunkers, with stock piles of food, medicine, equipment, vehicles, ammunition with military command posts/intelligence centers all intertwined and networked (I've mentioned that part already).

    Sounds like the Railroad troops are in for a major expansion!  lol1 
    Forget about the VDV, Shamanov, VVS, VMF, FSB, all these good for nothing lobbyists.. useless in a real war

    I really like the sound of that:

    Russia - the Railroad empire.

    ...But it's a great idea considering the massive asymmetrical warfare advantage the Russian Federation would gain against invading militaries.

    I suppose it's a good idea; just remember that there will be nothing stopping the enemy from targeting and taking out any train anyway. I'd imagine they'd be legitimate military targets anyway due to their logistics/redeployment/reinforcement capacity; and especially with your ideas. So they will take a large amount of attrition and a large proportion of targeted trains will turn out to be military ones, while large amounts of civilians will die too.

    I can definately see the advantages though of basically making a huge amount of Russian military infastructure and firepower/capability permenantly mobile.
    In case of an imminent threat of nuclear war; the general staff & political leadership can be put on rail-mobile command centres too.

    Rail-mobile Iskander systems, cruise-missile launchers  What a Face 

    Very expensive though.


    I think some things I need point out about my post:

    1.) The vast majority of the military related infrastructure within the fast rail networks will be hidden underneath long networks of hardened infrastructure. You'll need a cover to sell this to the Russian public and to the world so claim the reason behind the "improved durability"  of the tunnels is to protect rail system against bad weather and "natural disasters"...and by natural disasters I'm talking about thermonuclear strike.

    2.) I put emphasis on the above ground hatches meant to be disguised as vegetation, implying that a large part of the militarized "underground" rail structure will be in not so obvious places, satellites would have a hard time pin-pointing the locations of secret strategic sites. Let's not forget the rail will cover thousands of miles, and it would take many nukes to take the entire infrastructure out, if the Pentagon strikes blindly and misses then it would give the Russian MOD plenty of time to counter attack.

    3.) Russia needs the fast rail anyway for economic reasons, the economic investment will pay its worth back and more. As far as civilian deaths go, it's been discussed in American think tanks such as the Rand Corporation that such "Megadeath" (not the metal band) scenarios have a extremely high probability of happening in a thermonuclear war. According to Rand Corp an acceptable amount of civilian deaths/casualties on both sides would be 30-40 million civilian deaths, that means that the top think tank in America would expect 60, 80 or even 100 million deaths in a short amount of time. Either way you slice it there would be a huge amount of civilian casualties, and at least with fast rail and long networks of hardened tunnels you'll be able to evacuate large portions of the Russian population.

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  AlfaT8 on Tue Dec 24, 2013 10:45 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:

    I think some things I need point out about my post:

    1.) The vast majority of the military related infrastructure within the fast rail networks will be hidden underneath long networks of hardened infrastructure. You'll need a cover to sell this to the Russian public and to the world so claim the reason behind the "improved durability"  of the tunnels is to protect rail system against bad weather and "natural disasters"...and by natural disasters I'm talking about thermonuclear strike.  

    I don't think they'll need a cover, the Russian public should have have no problem about making there rail safer, and as for the world well they no say in what Russia does with there rail within there borders.

    magnumcromagnon wrote:2.) I put emphasis on the above ground hatches meant to be disguised as vegetation, implying that a large part of the militarized "underground" rail structure will be in not so obvious places, satellites would have a hard time pin-pointing the locations of secret strategic sites. Let's not forget the rail will cover thousands of miles, and it would take many nukes to take the entire infrastructure out, if the Pentagon strikes blindly and misses then it would give the Russian MOD plenty of time to counter attack.  

    Wouldn't a militarized "underground" rail structure be an obvious target, granted it's not a bad idea, but the construction of said structure would make it easy to locate.

    Using nuke to destroy rail lines would be a waist it makes more sense to target there central hubs and even then nukes would still be overkill. it would more sense to use cruise missiles as mentioned in the US’s Conventional Prompt Global Strike concept.

    magnumcromagnon wrote:3.) Russia needs the fast rail anyway for economic reasons, the economic investment will pay its worth back and more. As far as civilian deaths go, it's been discussed in American think tanks such as the Rand Corporation that such "Megadeath" (not the metal band) scenarios have a extremely high probability of happening in a thermonuclear war. According to Rand Corp an acceptable amount of civilian deaths/casualties on both sides would be 30-40 million civilian deaths, that means that the top think tank in America would expect 60, 80 or even 100 million deaths in a short amount of time. Either way you slice it there would be a huge amount of civilian casualties, and at least with fast rail and long networks of hardened tunnels you'll be able to evacuate large portions of the Russian population.

    Yes, Russia's rail network especially the Trans-Siberian Railway suppose to pay it's weight back in gold, that was the idea from the beginning.

    A WW3 scenario would definitely see a death toll on all sides going in the tens of millions if not hundreds of million for this reason M.A.D exists.

    If i recall correctly the Russian subways are already hardened against thermonuclear strikes.

    BTW is this plan still on:

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:23 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:

    I think some things I need point out about my post:

    1.) The vast majority of the military related infrastructure within the fast rail networks will be hidden underneath long networks of hardened infrastructure. You'll need a cover to sell this to the Russian public and to the world so claim the reason behind the "improved durability"  of the tunnels is to protect rail system against bad weather and "natural disasters"...and by natural disasters I'm talking about thermonuclear strike.  

    I don't think they'll need a cover, the Russian public should have have no problem about making there rail safer, and as for the world well they no say in what Russia does with there rail within there borders.

    magnumcromagnon wrote:2.) I put emphasis on the above ground hatches meant to be disguised as vegetation, implying that a large part of the militarized "underground" rail structure will be in not so obvious places, satellites would have a hard time pin-pointing the locations of secret strategic sites. Let's not forget the rail will cover thousands of miles, and it would take many nukes to take the entire infrastructure out, if the Pentagon strikes blindly and misses then it would give the Russian MOD plenty of time to counter attack.  

    Wouldn't a militarized "underground" rail structure be an obvious target, granted it's not a bad idea, but the construction of said structure would make it easy to locate.

    Using nuke to destroy rail lines would be a waist it makes more sense to target there central hubs and even then nukes would still be overkill. it would more sense to use cruise missiles as mentioned in the US’s Conventional Prompt Global Strike concept.

    magnumcromagnon wrote:3.) Russia needs the fast rail anyway for economic reasons, the economic investment will pay its worth back and more. As far as civilian deaths go, it's been discussed in American think tanks such as the Rand Corporation that such "Megadeath" (not the metal band) scenarios have a extremely high probability of happening in a thermonuclear war. According to Rand Corp an acceptable amount of civilian deaths/casualties on both sides would be 30-40 million civilian deaths, that means that the top think tank in America would expect 60, 80 or even 100 million deaths in a short amount of time. Either way you slice it there would be a huge amount of civilian casualties, and at least with fast rail and long networks of hardened tunnels you'll be able to evacuate large portions of the Russian population.

    Yes, Russia's rail network especially the Trans-Siberian Railway suppose to pay it's weight back in gold, that was the idea from the beginning.

    A WW3 scenario would definitely see a death toll on all sides going in the tens of millions if not hundreds of million for this reason M.A.D exists.

    If i recall correctly the Russian subways are already hardened against thermonuclear strikes.

    BTW is this plan still on:

    Again, re-emphasis on the hidden infrastructure, the underground bases would be in areas where the above ground areas would be in wild tundra, near boreal forests, not necessarily all near major cities; of course some will be near the major cities like St. Petersburg or Moscow, but majority should be hidden underground in areas where the above ground is uninhabited.

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3189
    Points : 3317
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  flamming_python on Wed Dec 25, 2013 8:38 am

    Fine, it can be done - but it would still be hideously expensive. All that military infrastructure won't have any civilian use, it will only drain the economy.
    Fast rail? It's being built anyway, but so far only between a few cities.
    For military purposes fast trains aren't really desirable; there are far fewer of them so they can more easily be pinned down.
    All the cargo trains, most of the passenger trains, etc... all go at standard speeds along normal lines, and this is what military-purpose trains will be disguised as.

    The question is whether Russia's existing survivability of military infrastructure, and ability to retaliate after a US first-strike (whether from nuclear attack or their global strike weapons) is decreasing. I don't think so. At least not to the extent that would neccessitate a project of such magnitude.

    It's better just to take small steps for now. The rail-mobile ICBM complex looks set to enter service (with the Yars missile apparently http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/12/18/russia-set-to-deploy-new-railway-based-intercontinental-ballistic-missile-system/).
    Concurrently, some thought should be given to rail-mobile command posts, and perhaps ABM defenses like for example the S-500 system.

    After that's all done, Russia can start to consider moving more infastructure/control/weaponary to rail-mobile platforms, depending on how the situation in the world and with its potential adversaries develops.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Wed Dec 25, 2013 9:37 pm

    They are looking at using trains because the problems for the US in finding specific trains on specific lines would be incredibly difficult as there will be tens of millions of train carriages they would have to examine to keep a track of them all and those train carriages will be moving constantly.

    In comparison fixed silos, fixed strategic bomber air fields, and fixed submarine bases and fixed bases for truck based missiles would be much easier to monitor.

    Later they should withdraw from the INF treaty and fit long range cruise missiles and theatre range ballistic missiles in standard shipping crates as carried in enormous numbers on ships, trucks and trains....


    _________________
    “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

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Dec 25, 2013 10:32 pm

    GarryB wrote:They are looking at using trains because the problems for the US in finding specific trains on specific lines would be incredibly difficult as there will be tens of millions of train carriages they would have to examine to keep a track of them all and those train carriages will be moving constantly.

    In comparison fixed silos, fixed strategic bomber air fields, and fixed submarine bases and fixed bases for truck based missiles would be much easier to monitor.

    Later they should withdraw from the INF treaty and fit long range cruise missiles and theatre range ballistic missiles in standard shipping crates as carried in enormous numbers on ships, trucks and trains....

    IMO this may sound controversial but Russia should withdraw from virtually all nuclear treaties due to the fact that NATO is an aggressive force that makes up not just 1 nuclear power (America), but 3 including Britain and France. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the INF treaty doesn't apply to France or Britain, and Russia's long term nuclear ally "India" has been passive in the ABM mess. If the INF treaties do not cover all of NATO than it's a waste of time to sign in to it, and the only nuclear ally of Russia that has stepped up to take the plate and voice concern and protest against NATO's expansion of ABM bases has been China.

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  collegeboy16 on Thu Dec 26, 2013 2:52 am

    flamming_python wrote:Fine, it can be done - but it would still be hideously expensive. All that military infrastructure won't have any civilian use, it will only drain the economy.
    Fast rail? It's being built anyway, but so far only between a few cities.
    For military purposes fast trains aren't really desirable; there are far fewer of them so they can more easily be pinned down.
    All the cargo trains, most of the passenger trains, etc... all go at standard speeds along normal lines, and this is what military-purpose trains will be disguised as.
    Yes, I think this is key, having as much military infra with civil purposes too. When the railroads are developed anyway they will become targets too.
    Best defence would be all sorts of ABM and air defence complexes mounted on trains, armatas on trains for rapid deplyment and multiple redundancies in the rail net. Also by making them a very vital part of trade, transporting cargo from east to west and back would make some of them tthink twice.

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  AlfaT8 on Thu Dec 26, 2013 3:19 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    GarryB wrote:They are looking at using trains because the problems for the US in finding specific trains on specific lines would be incredibly difficult as there will be tens of millions of train carriages they would have to examine to keep a track of them all and those train carriages will be moving constantly.

    In comparison fixed silos, fixed strategic bomber air fields, and fixed submarine bases and fixed bases for truck based missiles would be much easier to monitor.

    Later they should withdraw from the INF treaty and fit long range cruise missiles and theatre range ballistic missiles in standard shipping crates as carried in enormous numbers on ships, trucks and trains....

    IMO this may sound controversial but Russia should withdraw from virtually all nuclear treaties due to the fact that NATO is an aggressive force that makes up not just 1 nuclear power (America), but 3 including Britain and France. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the INF treaty doesn't apply to France or Britain, and Russia's long term nuclear ally "India" has been passive in the ABM mess. If the INF treaties do not cover all of NATO than it's a waste of time to sign in to it, and the only nuclear ally of Russia that has stepped up to take the plate and voice concern and protest against NATO's expansion of ABM bases has been China.

    Agreed, the INF treaty is pretty much useless for Russia and in some respects puts there national security at risk, i don't believe they should leave all nuclear treaties for relatively obvious reasons, but instead they should withdraw from those that are counter productive or irrelevant in todays world like the INF treaty.

    Also the range restriction on exported missiles (~300km) isn't going to save any country from a US, UK, French or hell NATO led assault, if the US can't export missiles over 300km then they'll (the US) just let the UK or France export it instead, the treaty has already been bypassed and only serves to assist the west in there expansion, it would be in Russia's best interest and that of its allies/costumers to leave the INF treaty.

    As  for the US global ABM shield we can only hope that this won't end up like the END WAR scenario as foreseen by the now late Tom Clancy.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu Dec 26, 2013 7:32 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    GarryB wrote:They are looking at using trains because the problems for the US in finding specific trains on specific lines would be incredibly difficult as there will be tens of millions of train carriages they would have to examine to keep a track of them all and those train carriages will be moving constantly.

    In comparison fixed silos, fixed strategic bomber air fields, and fixed submarine bases and fixed bases for truck based missiles would be much easier to monitor.

    Later they should withdraw from the INF treaty and fit long range cruise missiles and theatre range ballistic missiles in standard shipping crates as carried in enormous numbers on ships, trucks and trains....

    IMO this may sound controversial but Russia should withdraw from virtually all nuclear treaties due to the fact that NATO is an aggressive force that makes up not just 1 nuclear power (America), but 3 including Britain and France. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the INF treaty doesn't apply to France or Britain, and Russia's long term nuclear ally "India" has been passive in the ABM mess. If the INF treaties do not cover all of NATO than it's a waste of time to sign in to it, and the only nuclear ally of Russia that has stepped up to take the plate and voice concern and protest against NATO's expansion of ABM bases has been China.

    Agreed, the INF treaty is pretty much useless for Russia and in some respects puts there national security at risk, i don't believe they should leave all nuclear treaties for relatively obvious reasons, but instead they should withdraw from those that are counter productive or irrelevant in todays world like the INF treaty.

    Also the range restriction on exported missiles (~300km) isn't going to save any country from a US, UK, French or hell NATO led assault, if the US can't export missiles over 300km then they'll (the US) just let the UK or France export it instead, the treaty has already been bypassed and only serves to assist the west in there expansion, it would be in Russia's best interest and that of its allies/costumers to leave the INF treaty.

    As  for the US global ABM shield we can only hope that this won't end up like the END WAR scenario as foreseen by the now late Tom Clancy.

    May'be Russia should stay in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, but then pull out of all INF treaties due to the fact the only NATO nuclear member affected by it is America, while Britain and France will not be affected at all.

    navyfield
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 211
    Points : 168
    Join date : 2013-05-27

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  navyfield on Thu Dec 26, 2013 1:49 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:

    May'be Russia should stay in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, but then pull out of all INF treaties due to the fact the only NATO nuclear member affected by it is America, while Britain and France will not be affected at all.
    Russia shouldnt retreat at all ,and should try to keep as many as possible old agreements , quit INF will hurt Russia most.
    USA is seperated by oceans ,medium range missiles wont hurt it , but partialy landlocked Russia it will ,poland, baltic countries and other need just a 1000-2000km missile and boom there goes Moscow or Sankt Petersburg.

    Those agreements were signed when Russia had much more power (as USSR) , and its USA interest to whitdraw or rewrite them in its favour.

    As for the train ICBM its a poore idea ,and it actualy shows how little confidence Russia has into 2 of its forces of nuclear triade for a secondary capability .

    Its naval and airforce second strike forces are weak and vulnerable.

    So its why it needs army to carry secondary nuclear strike capability on its shoulders ,or the army is pushing it as its the case with new heavy ICBM project.

    But its a wrong move and blown money , putting that money into new submarine and bomber forces would be much more productive then a cold war relict icbm train.
    Better dolgoruky-2 subs  in greater numbers with working missiles , and new pak-da bomber (if its supersonic , if its subsonic then more pak-da and more tu-160) ,would be the right move.

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  collegeboy16 on Thu Dec 26, 2013 2:27 pm

    navyfield wrote:
    Russia shouldnt retreat at all ,and should try to keep as many as possible old agreements , quit INF will hurt Russia most.
    USA is seperated by oceans ,medium range missiles wont hurt it , but partialy landlocked Russia it will ,poland, baltic countries and other need just a 1000-2000km missile and boom there goes Moscow or Sankt Petersburg.
    haha, they should actually retreat asap, as it stands they can only use icbms for murica, eurp and chi. if they withdraw, the latter 2 would be covered by irbms and the first with all icmbs.
    navyfield wrote:
    As for the train ICBM its a poore idea ,and it actualy shows how little confidence Russia has into 2 of its forces of nuclear triade for a secondary capability .

    Its naval and airforce second strike forces are weak and vulnerable.

    So its why it needs army to carry secondary nuclear strike capability on its shoulders ,or the army is pushing it as its the case with new heavy ICBM project.

    But its a wrong move and blown money , putting that money into new submarine and bomber forces would be much more productive then a cold war relict icbm train.
    Better dolgoruky-2 subs  in greater numbers with working missiles , and new pak-da bomber (if its supersonic , if its subsonic then more pak-da and more tu-160) ,would be the right move.
    wrong, its naval and airforce second strike capabilities are nowhere near as vulnerable as muricas. They might even be the best, considering the boomers are becoming more and more state of the art and the aircraft with nukes dont have to enter the enemies airspace to launch their payloads.
    Also, putting some of these nukes in trains would make for delicious irony. eur and chi would actually be paying part of the infrastructure for these trains and if war ever happens they would be playing wack a mole with their own cargoes. Twisted Evil 

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  TR1 on Thu Dec 26, 2013 2:45 pm

    Navyfield apparently does not get Russia does not care about the US using shorter range missiles.

    The concern is China.

    So yes, useless treaties should absolutely be withdrawn from.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Dec 26, 2013 8:59 pm


    navyfield wrote:USA is seperated by oceans ,medium range missiles wont hurt it .....

     

    Razz Razz Razz 

    Last time a similar situation arisen - the famous "IRBM crysis" of '80 years- NATO was literally trapped in the most dark of the strategic corners possible and was grossly attempting ,with almost improvised as militarily inconsistent strategic counter-moves (to the edge of the comical) to bring URSS to the negotiating table.

    At the time only the totally unexplicable unilateral aid offered by the initiative of M. Gorbachev (someone ,today, could even say to the limits of the betrayal.....) saved NATO from fall in an horrible spiral of immensely costly countermeasure to attempt to exit from that near-checkmate situation.

    Just for your information by 1987 , of the 650 mobile systems deployed, more than 160 Пионер/Пионер-УТТХ ,each with 3 150 Kt MIRV payload, was positioned in the Far East Region and directly aimed at US continental soil and easily capable to obliterate in a matter of less than 40 minutes the bulk of US industrial and military infrastructures from Alaska up to Chicago (main ports, C4 bases, main airfields , radar installations, strategic commands etc...).

    NATO was ,in the field, not only technically at prehistoric level ,in comparison, and incapable to deploy anything of even only by far in the same league, but was also light years behind in the design of air defense systems capable to effectively deal with similar menaces.



    "USA is seperated by oceans ,medium range missiles wont hurt it".....oh yes, yes sure  Laughing  Laughing 

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Thu Dec 26, 2013 11:17 pm

    Russia shouldnt retreat at all ,and should try to keep as many as possible old agreements , quit INF will hurt Russia most.
    USA is seperated by oceans ,medium range missiles wont hurt it , but partialy landlocked Russia it will ,poland, baltic countries and other need just a 1000-2000km missile and boom there goes Moscow or Sankt Petersburg.

    You keep thinking about Russia vs the US, but Russia has rather more targets than just the US.

    IRBMs would be very useful for Russia to target China, Japan, the EU, the Middle East etc... right now they have to use ICBMs which is very inefficient and expensive and more importantly there are limits to how many ICBMs they can have and where they can have them.

    There is nothing to stop EU countries developing and deploying IRBMs if they want to.

    IRBMs would be able to be stopped by S-400 and Vityaz and S-300V4. Only S-500 will be able to deal with longer ranged weapons.

    Those agreements were signed when Russia had much more power (as USSR) , and its USA interest to whitdraw or rewrite them in its favour.

    Rubbish. The INF treaty cost the Soviets thousands of very good missiles... SS-21, SS-20, SS-23, were all lost.

    As for the train ICBM its a poore idea ,and it actualy shows how little confidence Russia has into 2 of its forces of nuclear triade for a secondary capability .

    Excellent logic there... I guess that means the UK has the best strategic forces as it only has SSBNs, while the US can't rely on its ICBMs or SLBMs and has to have a strategic bomber fleet too.

    So its why it needs army to carry secondary nuclear strike capability on its shoulders ,or the army is pushing it as its the case with new heavy ICBM project.

    What has the Russian Army to do with this?

    The Iskander is a Tactical weapon.

    Strategic nuclear forces are not handled by the Russian Army.

    But its a wrong move and blown money , putting that money into new submarine and bomber forces would be much more productive then a cold war relict icbm train.

    I would actually say the opposite... new materials and designs means new rail launched ICBMs or IRBMs could be made to be very cheap and very mobile... compare Iskander to Scud.

    The problem of tracking all the rail traffic in Russia will be an excellent conundrum for the US to solve... I am sure their solution will be gold plated and very expensive...  Twisted Evil 

    Better dolgoruky-2 subs in greater numbers with working missiles , and new pak-da bomber (if its supersonic , if its subsonic then more pak-da and more tu-160) ,would be the right move.

    There wont be more Tu-160s... SSBNs are limited by treaty in platform numbers and cost rather more than any train.


    _________________
    “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

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Fri Dec 27, 2013 12:11 am

    TR1 wrote:Navyfield apparently does not get Russia does not care about the US using shorter range missiles.

    The concern is China.

    So yes, useless treaties should absolutely be withdrawn from.

    The concern is not China at all, but in fact NATO. Don't allow yourself to be a pawn in a greater game, the people who are advocating "Evil Red China" as a threat to Russia is not even the Russian MOD itself but in fact "Mr. Afghan War" himself Zbigniew Brzezinski, Andrew "Yoda" Marshall, the Rand Corporation, NATO, the British Foreign Office, and the Pentagon.

    Andrew "Yoda" Marshall of the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment has a front group called the "Defense Science Board" which was created in response to China's anti-satellite missile test in 2007. The Defense Science Board authored a study called "The Great Siberian War of 2030":

    http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/International_security_affairs/china/09-F-0759theGreatSiberianWarOf2030.pdf

    ...In actuality since the 1960's the Pentagon's main goal in Asia was to foster,foment, and instigate war between Russia and China. Hell the late Tom Clancy who would get interviews with top Neo-Con think thanks, Pentagon study groups, and officials for inspiration for his books, wrote one book in particular called "The Bear and the Dragon" which sounds similar to the Great Siberian War of 2030:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bear_and_the_Dragon

    ...Now time to answer the question at hand, since when did the Pentagon all of sudden care for the well-being of the Russian diaspora? Obviously that's a sick joke, the Pentagon doesn't care about the Russian diaspora at all! The guy who runs the Office of Net Assessment is not Yoda, the so called "Futurologist" is actually a guy who loves creating self-fulfilling prophecies; he should go by the new moniker: Andrew "Senator Palpatine" Marshall...




    If China was really the threat than why would the Russian MOD work with the PRC on missile defense? According to Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov "Our dialogue with China on missile defense is very important, our colleagues from the People’s Republic of China have the same concerns on US global missile defense plans."

    http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/709553


    It's not just America that want's to spread it's nuclear influence in Europe, but France a non-signator of the INF treaty wants in on all the nuclear sharing action. In September 2007 the French president Nicolas Sarkozy offered Germany to participate in the control over the French nuclear arsenal. Chancellor Merkel and foreign minister Steinmeier declined the offer however, stating that Germany "had no interest in possessing nuclear weapons":

    http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/ueberraschender-vorstoss-sarkozy-bot-deutschland-atomwaffen-an-a-505887.html


    ...So the issue isn't China at all, but the NATO aggressor force.


    Last edited by magnumcromagnon on Fri Dec 27, 2013 12:19 am; edited 1 time in total

    zg18
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 872
    Points : 948
    Join date : 2013-09-26
    Location : Zagreb , Croatia

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  zg18 on Fri Dec 27, 2013 12:18 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:The concern is not China at all, but in fact NATO.

    Well , both of you are right , so to speak. The problem is when it comes to military it`s not intention what counts but capabilities. If Chinese develop their IRBM force and Russian cannot because of INF , than that is an issue. While you`re right , that NATO is primary adversary for Russian Federation.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Fri Dec 27, 2013 12:23 am

    zg18 wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:The concern is not China at all, but in fact NATO.

    Well , both of you are right , so to speak. The problem is when it comes to military it`s not intention what counts but capabilities. If Chinese develop their IRBM force and Russian cannot because of INF , than that is an issue. While you`re right , that NATO is primary adversary for Russian Federation.

    ...Of course the mission of your armed forces is to be prepared to fight anyone, at any time even China, however the people who advocating war between Russia and China, are not Russian nor are they Chinese, they're Pentagonese and NATOnese.

    zg18
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 872
    Points : 948
    Join date : 2013-09-26
    Location : Zagreb , Croatia

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  zg18 on Fri Dec 27, 2013 12:30 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:...Of course the mission of your armed forces is to be prepared to fight anyone, at any time even China, however the people who advocating war between Russia and China, are not Russian nor are they Chinese, they're Pentagonese and NATOnese.

    Because this people are mostly stupid , Siberia and Russian Far East have larger population than Canada. And that there is a tiny belt where people can live in greater numbers (like in Canada).

    For China , if it can buy all energy and resources , great , it`s cheaper than risk utter devastation. And secondly , Russia isn`t only buffer for Europe when it comes to China , but also vice versa. Russia is the reason why China will never get fully encircled and cut off from supplies and commodities.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  Viktor on Sat May 31, 2014 8:25 pm

    Nice  thumbsup 

    Russia prepares response to American 'prompt global strike' initiative - Defense Ministry

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9457
    Points : 9949
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Thu Aug 21, 2014 4:55 pm

    First S-500 missile complex to be put on combat alert in central Russia

    ASHULUK, August 20. /ITAR-TASS/. First combat package of the S-500 antiaircraft and anti-ballistic missile system will shield Moscow City and the regions around it, traditionally referred to in this country as Central Russia, reporters were told Wednesday by the Commander of Air Defense and Anti-Missile Defense branch of Russia’s Aerospace Defense Troops, Major General Adrei Demin.

    “I’m sure that after the development and testing the first package of the S-500 system will be entered on the tables of equipment of the branch of our troops shielding Moscow and Central Russia,” Gen Demin said after the trial tests held on the Ashuluk range in the southern Astrakhan region.

    As it was reported earlier, deliveries of the S-500 packages to the Aerospace Troops are expected to begin in 2016.

    Open military sources say the S-500 will be capable of tracking down and incapacitating simultaneously up to ten ballistic targets traveling at 7 kilometers per second and the warheads of hypersonic cruise missiles.

    The S-500’s are supposed to have the characteristics highly superior to those of Russia’s S-400 Triumph missiles and their US competitor, the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 complex.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 3:34 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 3:34 pm