Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Missiles & WMDs

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


NATO Concerned about Russian Cruise Missiles

This is a discussion on NATO Concerned about Russian Cruise Missiles within the Missiles & WMDs forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Lcf So, can the shield really become a weapon that easily? How realistic is this scenario? If ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old April 2nd, 2015   #16
Defense Professional / Analyst
Sergeant
Blackshoe's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 274
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lcf View Post
So, can the shield really become a weapon that easily? How realistic is this scenario? If not, why are the Russians opposing it that much, because clearly it doesn't have enough interceptors to match their ICMBs?
Thanks in advance.
Cheers
Only if you think the current Aegis Ashore units can be converted to fire TLAM-Ns rapidly and covertly, which wasn't an entirely crazy view before the US got rid of the W-80 warhead for the TLAM-N.
Blackshoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2015   #17
Potstirrer
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: not in New England anymore...
Posts: 3,845
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackshoe View Post
Only if you think the current Aegis Ashore units can be converted to fire TLAM-Ns rapidly and covertly, which wasn't an entirely crazy view before the US got rid of the W-80 warhead for the TLAM-N.
Even if the 'special' Tomahawks were still in service, they would not be able to deliver a warhead over Moscow or anywhere near it before the Russians could react. Also their flight profile is a low altitude flight, so not exactly something which would lend itself to delivery of an EMP attack over a broad area. A high altitude flight profile (a la FOBS) has been theorized as best to knock out electronics over a large/strategic area.
________________
Beware of Mr. Grumpy...
Todjaeger is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2015   #18
New Member
Private
Lcf's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 48
Threads:
Thanks for the input guys.
No, I never thought the scenario is possible. You can't just slip a nuke under a BMD talk and think no one would notice. Though I still don't buy the story that it's meant to protect from Iran and/or N. Korea.
Lcf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2015   #19
Potstirrer
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: not in New England anymore...
Posts: 3,845
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lcf View Post
Thanks for the input guys.
No, I never thought the scenario is possible. You can't just slip a nuke under a BMD talk and think no one would notice. Though I still don't buy the story that it's meant to protect from Iran and/or N. Korea.
Do you have a better or more likely explanation for developing a system which is only capable of handling a small number of inbounds?

Keep in mind that at one point earlier on in the system development the US was in talks with Russia about having an early detection radar positioned somewhere north of Iran. I forget whether this was within Russia proper, or a former Soviet state where Russia still had an important radar array they manned.

IIRC the deal fell through, because the radar could not provide the data the US wanted/needed for the BMD system and Russia did not want a US system operated by US personnel placed there, and the US did not want Russians to operate (or examine) a US radar system.
________________
Beware of Mr. Grumpy...
Todjaeger is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2015   #20
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 160
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todjaeger View Post
Do you have a better or more likely explanation for developing a system which is only capable of handling a small number of inbounds?

Keep in mind that at one point earlier on in the system development the US was in talks with Russia about having an early detection radar positioned somewhere north of Iran. I forget whether this was within Russia proper, or a former Soviet state where Russia still had an important radar array they manned.

IIRC the deal fell through, because the radar could not provide the data the US wanted/needed for the BMD system and Russia did not want a US system operated by US personnel placed there, and the US did not want Russians to operate (or examine) a US radar system.
It was in Azerbaijan, a long range, long wavelength early warning station. Russia offered to use the radar instead of an installation in Eastern Europe, basically saying, if you're truly only interested in Iranian missiles, here's a radar that would give you the capability beyond what was planned in Europe. Which brings to mind another theory out there, that the value of the shield is really not in the defensive missiles (which were concluded some years ago by a Pentagon-contracted committee of elite US scientists to be almost entirely ineffective and/or impractical in a foreseeable future), but rather in the radar component, boosting the tracking capability of the Russian missile launches.
PhysicsMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 6th, 2015   #21
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 14,998
Threads:
Russia's problem, Todjaeger, is not the present day missile shield, but the long term implications of the missile shield both political and military. The missile shield is a club, an exclusive one. It's a club of developed countries against 2nd/3rd world powers with missiles. And when the shield was being negotiated, before the conflict in Ukraine, Russia had reasonable expectation to be included in this club. However it wasn't. Remember the success of US foreign policy vis-a-vis Germany and Japan? It was by including them in the security framework, and Russia was seeking a similar accommodation (minus the occupation, and military government). Russia is politically and economically not too different from many other Eastern European countries that not only are part of the EU and NATO but are unquestioningly regarded as democracies despite their corruption and oligarchical government. Being excluded from this showed Russian political leadership that they were still regarded as outsiders, and they likely drew the same conclusion that I have. They're outsiders because they're powerful. The Czechs, Hungarians, and Romanians, are allowed to have their corrupt local czars run things, because they're weak, and as long as they play along in foreign policy, the west can ignore their domestic problems. Russia can't get the same arrangement because Russia is powerful and wants to pursue an independent foreign policy. Therefore, no club membership.

On the military side it's not present day capabilities, but the future ones. If Russia is part of the missile shield then the shield can't even covertly be aimed at Russia. But if Russia is not part of it, then even if it's not aimed at Russia today, what's to stop it from being aimed at Russia 50 years from now? Let's say the Russia arsenal shrinks further, and at some point when Russia is temporarily weak again, and the west decides that it's within reach to upgrade the BMD to stop the now much smaller Russia arsenal. It's not inconceivable. It's not unrealistic. Hence the massive Russian nuclear buildup, the rush to replace older Soviet-era assets, and the constant chest thumping. Technology moves very quickly, and it's not inconceivable that, unless the Russian nuclear arsenal is vigorously advanced and upgraded, new technology makes it much easier to deal with. And if Russia is not part of the exclusive western club, then what guarantees Russian sovereignty, if not it's nuclear arsenal?
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6th, 2015   #22
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
gazzzwp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 511
Threads:
I suspected that this may be the logical NATO response.

I think we have been here before? Watch out for suspicious new alliances between Venezuela and Russia.

http://rt.com/news/265147-us-missiles-russia-europe/
gazzzwp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7th, 2015   #23
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
gazzzwp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 511
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gazzzwp View Post
I suspected that this may be the logical NATO response.

I think we have been here before? Watch out for suspicious new alliances between Venezuela and Russia.

Moscow 'closely looks' into reported US plans to return medium-range missiles to Europe ? RT News
Russia certainly is pre-occupied with these proposals.

http://rt.com/uk/265597-us-uk-nukes-russia/
gazzzwp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2015   #24
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
Ranger25's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Si Vis Pacem. Para Bellum
Posts: 558
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lcf View Post
I have some questions so I hope someone can answer them. There are a lot of theories here in Serbian media regarding the shield. A lot of them just copy, translate and paste from Russian sources and people mostly take them at face value. One of the theories is that the system could easily be turned into a weapon, that is, an offensive weapon which could launch a nuclear tipped missile at Moscow, a missile that could reach its target withing 2 or 3 minutes, a time-frame too narrow for the Russian side to react, thus, effectively decapitating their high command, causing a system-wide breakdown due to an EMP blast and limiting their capacity to counter-react.
So, can the shield really become a weapon that easily? How realistic is this scenario? If not, why are the Russians opposing it that much, because clearly it doesn't have enough interceptors to match their ICMBs?
Thanks in advance.
Cheers

Plus the Aegis Ashore system features SM 3s. Most likely 1a/B series. All of which are kinetic, meaning hit to kill, vs A fragmentation style warhead rendering the idea of arming them for offensive ops highly illegitimate.


Don't believe everything on Sputnik News. Pure Soviet Style propaganda.
Ranger25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 4th, 2015   #25
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Aus
Posts: 261
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
Russia's problem, Todjaeger, is not the present day missile shield, but the long term implications of the missile shield both political and military.
This might be a bit late but here's my 2c...

I think both of these are accurate but for additional reasons as well.

Militarily, if Russia wants to maintain its deterrent it now needs to be large enough to overcome any BMD. This means a much larger force than would otherwise be necessary. This will cost billions for weapons that have no conventional use that could otherwise be spent to maintain/expand the Russian military. This will not be an insignificant cost considering the existing arsenal was put together by the combined might of the Soviet Union. Every new nuke equates to a few less stealth fighters.

Politically, it casts Russia adrift on its own when it can see the Chinese will be vastly more powerful in the future. The scales are not in Russia's favour and will likely only be getting worse so long as the Chinese keep things steady. Being in the Western camp would be useful.

I've thought for a while that a longer term goal may be to force Russia into an unequal partnership with China. Basically, the Chinese see themselves as a historically civilised, well-ordered and advanced society. This is similar to how the West see's itself. In the interests of long term peace it is in the interests of both China and the West that Russia's "wild" nature be brought under control.
If the West can't tame the bear then perhaps it's best to shackle it to China.
Goknub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 22nd, 2015   #26
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
Ranger25's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Si Vis Pacem. Para Bellum
Posts: 558
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goknub View Post
This might be a bit late but here's my 2c...

I think both of these are accurate but for additional reasons as well.

Militarily, if Russia wants to maintain its deterrent it now needs to be large enough to overcome any BMD. This means a much larger force than would otherwise be necessary. This will cost billions for weapons that have no conventional use that could otherwise be spent to maintain/expand the Russian military. This will not be an insignificant cost considering the existing arsenal was put together by the combined might of the Soviet Union. Every new nuke equates to a few less stealth fighters.

Politically, it casts Russia adrift on its own when it can see the Chinese will be vastly more powerful in the future. The scales are not in Russia's favour and will likely only be getting worse so long as the Chinese keep things steady. Being in the Western camp would be useful.

I've thought for a while that a longer term goal may be to force Russia into an unequal partnership with China. Basically, the Chinese see themselves as a historically civilised, well-ordered and advanced society. This is similar to how the West see's itself. In the interests of long term peace it is in the interests of both China and the West that Russia's "wild" nature be brought under control.
If the West can't tame the bear then perhaps it's best to shackle it to China.


Well said

As for those discussing revisiting nuke tipped ALCM/GLCM back into Europe, my 2c is there's no need Politically, physically, and financially there's a very high price to pay with little or no gain V current assets.

A single SSGN in theatre can have the same results without the Politcal fallout(no pun intended)
Ranger25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2016   #27
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: germany
Posts: 27
Threads:
I would like to know if this proliferation of Missile Shields worldwide has'nt set off an unnessary spiral with the opposing side eager to deploy weapons to defeat these shields. These weapons are mostly of the theater type which come in a conventional and a nuclear variant. There was a large trend of phasing out more and more tactical nuclear weapons, I dont know if infact making these forces leaner led also to a modernisation of these but this big spiral still may lead to reversing this trend. And that leaves a very bitter taste.

Last edited by Waseb Al-Qisuin; October 25th, 2016 at 08:55 AM. Reason: typos and so on
Waseb Al-Qisuin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2016   #28
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
gazzzwp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 511
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waseb Al-Qisuin View Post
I would like to know if this proliferation of Missile Shields worldwide has'nt set off an unnessary spiral with the opposing side eager to deploy weapons to defeat these shields. These weapons are mostly of the theater type which come in a conventional and a nuclear variant. There was a large trend of phasing out more and more tactical nuclear weapons, I dont know if infact making these forces leaner led also to a modernisation of these but this big spiral still may lead to reversing this trend. And that leaves a very bitter taste.
It certainly has sparked off an escalation. Russia is now showcasing the RS-28 Sarmat with a warhead weighing 100 tons. The replacement for the old SS-18 'Satan'. Russia is gloating that one missile could wipe out an area the size of France or Texas and capable of beating the missile shield. Russia is saying that the procurement and deployment is in direct response to the missile shield.

Russia unveils 'Satan 2' nuclear missile - CNN.com

On the other hand is it good policy for the West to have no defence at all against missiles from rogue states or Russia for that matter?

Cold war 2 is 'hotting up' big time and one wonders what NATO's response will be. I can forsee old treaties being ripped up and the return of short and intermediate range missiles being deployed by NATO in Eastern Europe. What other option is there?
gazzzwp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 26th, 2016   #29
Moderator
General
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,203
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gazzzwp View Post
It certainly has sparked off an escalation. Russia is now showcasing the RS-28 Sarmat with a warhead weighing 100 tons. The replacement for the old SS-18 'Satan'. Russia is gloating that one missile could wipe out an area the size of France or Texas and capable of beating the missile shield. Russia is saying that the procurement and deployment is in direct response to the missile shield.

Russia unveils 'Satan 2' nuclear missile - CNN.com

On the other hand is it good policy for the West to have no defence at all against missiles from rogue states or Russia for that matter?

Cold war 2 is 'hotting up' big time and one wonders what NATO's response will be. I can forsee old treaties being ripped up and the return of short and intermediate range missiles being deployed by NATO in Eastern Europe. What other option is there?
100 tons How the hell are they going to lift a 100 ton warhead into orbit?
________________
"There is one immutable truth we cannot prevent; war is coming, we just don’t know when or where." Brigadier Andrew Harrison DSO MBE
ngatimozart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 28th, 2016   #30
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
gazzzwp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 511
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngatimozart View Post
100 tons How the hell are they going to lift a 100 ton warhead into orbit?
More the question is how will they propel it at the speeds necessary to evade the BMD?
gazzzwp is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:29 AM.