NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

Kyo wrote:US missile defense system cannot intercept Russian strategic missiles: deputy PM

“Neither the current nor even prospective American missile defense system can stop or challenge Russian strategic missile potential,” Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said

MOSCOW, January 26. /TASS/. The American missile defense system is unable to counter Russia’s strategic missiles, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said on Monday.

“Neither the current nor even prospective American missile defense system can stop or challenge Russian strategic missile potential,” Rogozin said in a program on the Rossiya 1 TV channel.

However, the deputy prime minister declined to specify any technical characteristics of Russia’s strategic missiles.

They have maneuverable warheads. There is no way to calculate their trajectory a priori and send the hypersonic interceptor.
There are no hypersonic missile systems that can chase warheads. There are only warhead vs. warhead systems being deployed
and designed.

So Rogozin is not talking trash.

Interception is 4D maths.

Very simply it is a question of getting your interceptor object to the 4D position of the target... the 4 dimensions are longitude, latitude, altitude, and time... if all four numbers are exactly the same for the interceptor and the incoming threat then you have a successful interception.

With incoming ICBM warheads travelling at 6km/s however even a half a second early or late means a miss by 3km.

the interceptor does not need to be faster than the incoming target but it does need to get to the interception point at the correct time... a 1 degree turn 10 seconds to interception will shift the interception point hundreds of kms with the interception system having a mere 10 seconds to detect the change in trajectory, recalculate the new interception point and redirect the interceptor to the new interception point and time... obviously you can see that a small turn and then another small turn in any direction will render an interceptor useless because after burning enormous amounts of energy and fuel to reach the initial interception point 10 seconds to impact it suddenly needs to be 10km to the left and you have 7 seconds to get there because the target that was 60km away when it started to turn is now 42km away and closing fast... even if you can turn your interceptor and reach the new interception point another turn of 2 degrees the other way will likely mean the interceptor has no chance of turning back and getting to the new interception point before the target has gone past it, which means it will have to over take the target to catch it... and it is unlikely to be moving fast enough, nor will it have any fuel left by now to reach the new interception point... so a new interceptor needs to be launched....

Pentagon Asks for $9.6 Bln to Counter Missile Threat From Iran, North Korea

The Obama administration asked for $9.6 billion to counter the increasing threat from North Korea and Iran.

The US Department of Defense has requested $9.6 billion in the 2016 budget year to counter "a maturing long-range missile threat from North Korea and the potential threat from Iran," the Associated Press reports.

"The US Military remains deeply engaged around the world," Pentagon said in its $585-billion defense budget proposal, citing Russian activities in Ukraine, Ebola and the rise of the Islamic State as the three main geopolitical challenges the US faces. The DoD also said that the agency must address both current and emerging challenges, including cyberattacks, rising China and threats to space assets.

The Pentagon’s base budget has increased by 7.7 percent from last year, reaching $534 billion, which makes it the largest in US history, according to the Associate Press. However, the $51-billion funding for overseas contingency operations is a 21 percent decrease compared with the 2015 budget year, the news agency said.

The current defense budget proposal ignores the cap of $499 billion, imposed by Congress.

On Monday, US President Barack Obama unveiled a nearly $4-trillion budget for fiscal year 2016, which must be approved by Congress to take effect.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150203/1017695545.html#ixzz3QgA7o45Q

Pervius wrote:There is no reason for a nuclear war between US-Russia. If it came up for a vote today most Americans would elect Putin as US President.

Both countries are facing huge population loss from Baby Boomer Generation which created nuclear arsenals....all dying off.

If Russia and US can avert War both countries will finally see their economy come back after old people die off. We all just need to survive trying to provide for all the old people. Hence why Russia and US people are suffering in poverty. Too many old people to clothe/feed.

1/3rd of US will be dead by 2020. Russia and US will have to join together to survive Chinese Century of domination. We both will be minority countries in the world soon.

SORRY BUTH RUSSIAN POPULATION IS NOT DYING . IT'S A MYTH :
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2013/02/04/five-myths-about-russia/

Russia's Baby Boom. Fertility Rate Far Higher Than in EU, Rising Quickly. : http://russia-insider.com/en/politics_opinion_society/2014/10/27/03-27-22pm/russias_baby_boom_fertility_rate_far_higher_eu_rising


Russia's Birth Rate Is Now Higher Than The United States' : http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2013/07/25/dying-russias-birth-rate-is-now-higher-than-the-united-states/

Denmark ships to join NATO shield Russia threatens to aim nuclear missiles at them .



http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/22/us-denmark-russia-idUSKBN0MI0ML20150322

Well in case of nuclear war , of course they will be a target

The facade is evaporating in front of your eyes, one of the most influential politicians in the United States wants Euro ABM's to target Russia, and he wants them in Ukraine...

magnumcromagnon wrote:The facade is evaporating in front of your eyes, one of the most influential politicians in the United States wants Euro ABM's to target Russia, and he wants them in Ukraine...

Influential ? His wife works for Goldman Sachs and he ain't interested in disclosing her assets . Those unreliable ABMs in europe shows how US is fucked up and wants to push europe for its war .

Let them. ABM shield is a joke and Ukraine will be an open target. Ukrainians will only have themselves to blame if they get struck first and hard.

sepheronx wrote:Let them.  ABM shield is a joke and Ukraine will be an open target.  Ukrainians will only have themselves to blame if they get struck first and hard.

The issue is that there's a lack of transparency on the US/Euro ABM's, and the true warheads may not be KKV's but may in fact be thermonuclear warheads, which suffice to say the US bases countless tactical warheads through out Europe, maybe for this very purpose.

Even if they prove not to be effective, I wouldn't to take the risk of finding out. Seeing how the diplomatic solution failed miserably, the only solution left is to base Moscow A-235 ABM's and S-500's in Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua (Pro-Russian Latin American nations) as a counter-balancer.

sepheronx wrote:Let them.  ABM shield is a joke and Ukraine will be an open target.  Ukrainians will only have themselves to blame if they get struck first and hard.

But with time and money it can be perfected . Nope . We can't allow abm in europe at all .

magnumcromagnon wrote:

sepheronx wrote:Let them.  ABM shield is a joke and Ukraine will be an open target.  Ukrainians will only have themselves to blame if they get struck first and hard.

The issue is that there's a lack of transparency on the US/Euro ABM's, and the true warheads may not be KKV's but may in fact be thermonuclear warheads, which suffice to say the US bases countless tactical warheads through out Europe, maybe for this very purpose.

Even if they prove not to be effective, I wouldn't to take the risk of finding out. Seeing how the diplomatic solution failed miserably, the only solution left is to base Moscow A-235 ABM's and S-500's in Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua (Pro-Russian Latin American nations) as a counter-balancer.

And they will depending on the situation.  Even if the ABM's are 100% accurate (which they are definitely not, last I read somewhere around 40% against modern scud based systems), they would be knocked out early by cruise missiles/pgm's or not effective at all against ICBM's.  Add in that they would definitely need more missiles to accommodate the amount of BM's Russia can employ.  If they are nuclear based, US would find it very hard to convince Europe and Asia that they are peaceful and Russia would have every right to place any defensive systems in Cuba and Venezuela to counter US.

max steel wrote:

sepheronx wrote:Let them.  ABM shield is a joke and Ukraine will be an open target.  Ukrainians will only have themselves to blame if they get struck first and hard.

But with time and money it can be perfected . Nope . We can't allow abm in europe at all .

It will never be perfected. And perfective against what? Time and money doesn't mean squat. As new countermeasures are created, new measures are created to deal with the countermeasures. ABM's have existed since the 60's, on both sides. I wonder why they are still not 100% effective since that long ago? Because new methods are created to overcome them, and the measures and methods to overcome the ABM systems are cheaper and quicker to develop than the other.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

sepheronx wrote:Let them.  ABM shield is a joke and Ukraine will be an open target.  Ukrainians will only have themselves to blame if they get struck first and hard.

The issue is that there's a lack of transparency on the US/Euro ABM's, and the true warheads may not be KKV's but may in fact be thermonuclear warheads, which suffice to say the US bases countless tactical warheads through out Europe, maybe for this very purpose.

Even if they prove not to be effective, I wouldn't to take the risk of finding out. Seeing how the diplomatic solution failed miserably, the only solution left is to base Moscow A-235 ABM's and S-500's in Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua (Pro-Russian Latin American nations) as a counter-balancer.

The US and its NATO quislings simply cannot be trusted.   Based on rather sound physics arguments it is clear that any ABM will have
nuclear warheads.   You just don't throw away any advantage during war time.   Kinetic kill is absurd.  It requires the incoming ICBM
warheads to be on purely ballistic trajectories since a miss is really, really a miss.   With nuclear warheads on ABMs there is the chance
of the nuclear detonation: 1) deflecting the target warhead from its target and 2) doing severe heat damage to it, to the point
that it becomes nothing more than a source of radioactive contamination and ceases to be a bomb.   Nuclear bombs are fragile pieces
of technology (ironically) and frying the various sensors and triggers is quite feasible.  

As such, the ABM violates the INF.   And it is not surprising that Washington is creating a scene and accusing Russia of violating it.
Washington is the source of all the violations.   I think Russia should stop it with the idiotic quiet diplomacy.   Just state in public the
obvious technical issues associated with the ABM, i.e. that it requires nukes to have any chance of usefulness.   So Russia will be
fighting the propaganda battle against nuclear warheads instead of "intrinsically innocent" defense missiles.

kvs wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

sepheronx wrote:Let them.  ABM shield is a joke and Ukraine will be an open target.  Ukrainians will only have themselves to blame if they get struck first and hard.

The issue is that there's a lack of transparency on the US/Euro ABM's, and the true warheads may not be KKV's but may in fact be thermonuclear warheads, which suffice to say the US bases countless tactical warheads through out Europe, maybe for this very purpose.

Even if they prove not to be effective, I wouldn't to take the risk of finding out. Seeing how the diplomatic solution failed miserably, the only solution left is to base Moscow A-235 ABM's and S-500's in Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua (Pro-Russian Latin American nations) as a counter-balancer.

The US and its NATO quislings simply cannot be trusted.   Based on rather sound physics arguments it is clear that any ABM will have
nuclear warheads.   You just don't throw away any advantage during war time.   Kinetic kill is absurd.  It requires the incoming ICBM
warheads to be on purely ballistic trajectories since a miss is really, really a miss.   With nuclear warheads on ABMs there is the chance
of the nuclear detonation: 1) deflecting the target warhead from its target and 2) doing severe heat damage to it, to the point
that it becomes nothing more than a source of radioactive contamination and ceases to be a bomb.   Nuclear bombs are fragile pieces
of technology (ironically) and frying the various sensors and triggers is quite feasible.  

As such, the ABM violates the INF.   And it is not surprising that Washington is creating a scene and accusing Russia of violating it.
Washington is the source of all the violations.   I think Russia should stop it with the idiotic quiet diplomacy.   Just state in public the
obvious technical issues associated with the ABM, i.e. that it requires nukes to have any chance of usefulness.   So Russia will be
fighting the propaganda battle against nuclear warheads instead of "intrinsically innocent" defense missiles.

The introduction of Kh-58UShKE was to deal specifically against ABM system as it is the newest of Russia's anti Radiation missiles and really, it is pretty recent development from a large nothingness in development. Meaning, it only became important recently. Anti Radiation missiles will technically hamper the PAC 3 system by destroying its radar. People will say "But the DAS on the F-35 can detect missiles, and blah blah blah" but that is all wrong. The DAS can detect a launch but cannot track/engage. In the end, the system will need an optical system and or Radar system to track the missile and engage it. Anti Radiation missile will effectively take out the radar and leaving the system either incapable of intercepting anything or relying on an optical/IIR system, which wont be nearly as effective, especially at longer ranges.

Denmark unlikely to join NATO’s missile shield — expert  


http://tass.ru/en/world/784466


btw why the hell there are two us satellites shown just above russia in east . Must be taken down .

NATO: Iran Deal or Not, Missile Shield Will Stay

NATO will go ahead with its plans to deploy a fully-fledged missile defense network in Europe despite the recent agreement with Tehran aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, spokeswoman Oana Lungescu told Sputnik on Friday.

MOSCOW (Sputnik), Alexander Mosesov — The spokeswoman reiterated that the so-called European missile shield is not directed against Russia.

"The threat to NATO countries posed by the proliferation of ballistic missiles continues to increase… The framework [Iran nuclear program] agreement does not change that fact," Lungescu said.

On Thursday, Tehran and the P5+1 countries, comprising Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, China, France and Germany agreed a political framework for a comprehensive agreement aimed at ensuring the peaceful nature of Iranian nuclear activities.

In December 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Washington had created threats for Russia by expanding its missile defense shield, placing elements in Eastern Europe, close to the Russian border.

However, NATO earlier claimed that the system was primarily aimed at protecting its allies, countering threats from Iran and North Korea.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150403/1020449551.html#ixzz3WH3nE599

So despite deal with Iran on Iranian nukes the US ABM shield in Europe will continue.... that clears that up... the US ABM shield in Europe is directed at Russia... so one can assume the ABM system proposed by the US to Japan and South Korea will also be directed at Russia and China...

Russia warned that it is ready to neutralize US anti-ballistic missile system
Russian Aviaton » Tuesday April 7, 2015 16:09 MSK

Russia is able to counter US anti-ballistic missile system, official representative of Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Alexander Lukashevich, said. Despite having such capabilities, Moscow would rather not use it, the representative added, RBC reports.

«In order to keep the strategic balance, we have capabilities to counter US anti-ballistic missile system, but we are not going to use it unnecessarily,» the official said. «But just to let members of this system know: Russia has all the capabilities needed to neutralize such threats,» Lukashevich warned countries, which are going to place elements of US anti-ballistic missile system in their territory.

Over the last few years Moscow has been protesting against deployment of US anti-ballistic missile systems in Europe close to the borders of Russian Federation. Russia also took countermeasures and placed missile early-warning systems in the most western region of the country – Kaliningrad Region.

Last month Bloomberg reported with reference to some officials that USA might try to pressure Moscow (in light of Ukrainian crisis) by means of expanding its military presence in the Eastern Europe and Scandinavia: deploying air defense and anti-ballistic missile systems, military units of the army as well as surveillance units. In January NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced establishment of the alliance’s command centers in six countries: Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

Last September after verbal confrontation between Russia and USA the countries started massive maneuvers. Russia held military exercise aimed at practicing the interaction between Topol missile systems and aviation, while NATO involved thousands of service members in massive maneuvers held in the Western part of Ukraine.

US Stands on Need for European Missile Defense Regardless of Iran Deal

US State Department official stated that United States will not change its stance on the need for missile defense systems in Europe even after a preliminary deal was struck last week by the P5+1 and Tehran Group on Iran’s nuclear program.

MOSCOW (Sputnik), Alexander Mosesov – The United States will not change its stance on the need for missile defense systems in Europe even after a preliminary deal was struck last week by the P5+1 and Tehran Group on Iran’s nuclear program, a US State Department official told Sputnik in an exclusive interview on Tuesday.

“A successful resolution of the nuclear issue with Iran would not obviate the need for ballistic missile defenses. [US] President [Barack] Obama said last Thursday that US sanctions on Iran’s ballistic missile program will continue to be fully enforced,” the official said on conditions of anonymity.

The official said that Iran’s ballistic missile capability remains a threat and “continues to be a source of concern to us and the international community.”

The United States will continue developing its European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) plans that include missile defense systems placed in Eastern Europe because of possible ballistic missile threats from Iran, a US State Department official said.

“The United States remains committed to the security of our Allies and Partners against possible ballistic missile threats, including those posed by Iran and its non-state proxies in the region,” the official said on conditions of anonymity.

Last week, a preliminary deal was struck between the P5+1 Group and Tehran on Iran’s nuclear program. US President Barack Obama said last week that the deal would not alleviate concerns in regard to Iran.

“Our commitment to the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA), including the facilities in Romania and Poland, is ironclad,” the official added.

On April 3, NATO spokeswoman Oana Lungescu told Sputnik that the military bloc would go ahead with its plans to deploy a fully-fledged missile defense network in Europe despite the Lausanne deal.

In 2009, the United States and NATO agreed to the European Phased Adaptive Approach to ballistic missile defense in Europe.

Russia has raised concerns over the close proximity of the ballistic missile systems to its borders. Moscow has also expressed concerns that such deployments could upset the strategic balance.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20150407/1020564234.html#ixzz3WelvWEwK

Does Russia posses any IRBM, SRBM and MRBM which they are planning to target Europe with . I think thats why europeans are going with aegis anti ball missile defence .

If russia has to attack usa it will use icbms or slbms . So this SM class of missiles are basically to form a shield in europe .

Now can these SM intercept Russian irbms , mrbms & srbms ?

IRBM's like Iskander and Tochka U. Tochka's may be able to be intercepted as they are nothing advanced but Iskander is two systems really: a quasi ballistic missile and other ones are cruise missiles. The quasi ballistic missile flies at a different path than a typical BM and thus harder to track and engage. It also is manouverable and may posses decoys of some sort. The cruise missile would possible be used to strike abm systems.

But Iskander is indeed in western Russia, Belarus and Kaliningrad.

Can I know what all cruise missiles can be used to neutralize ussa abm in europe both on land and water ( aegis bmd ) ?

NATO not going to cancel deployment of US missile defense system in Europe — Russian envoy

If they don't cancel it russia must pull out from INF Treaty . enough is enough .