Russia says its new weapon will make U.S. missile defence useless

[The Watcher]

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Russia says its new weapon will make U.S. missile defence useless

Canadian Press
Tuesday, March 30, 2004

MOSCOW (AP) - Russia has designed a "revolutionary" weapon that would make the prospective American missile defence useless, Russian news agencies reported Monday, quoting a senior Defence Ministry official.

The official, who was not identified by name, said tests conducted during last month's military manoeuvres would dramatically change the philosophy behind development of Russia's nuclear forces, the Interfax and ITAR-Tass news agencies reported. If deployed, the new weapon would take the value of any U.S. missile shield to "zero," the news agencies quoted the official as saying.

The official said the new weapon would be inexpensive, providing an "asymmetric answer" to U.S. missile defences, which are proving extremely costly to develope.

Russia, meanwhile, also has continued research in prospective missile defences and has an edge in some areas compared to other countries, the official said.

The statement reported Monday was in line with claims by President Vladimir Putin's that experiments performed during last month's manoeuvres proved that Russia could soon build strategic weapons that could puncture any missile-defence system.

At the time, Col-Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, the first deputy chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces, explained that the military tested a "hypersonic flying vehicle" that was able to manoeuvre between space and the earth's atmosphere.

Military analysts said that the mysterious new weapons could be a manoeuvrable ballistic missile warhead or a hypersonic cruise missile.

While Putin said the development of such new weapons wasn't aimed against the United States, most observers viewed the move as Moscow's retaliation to the U.S. missile defence plans.

After years of vociferous protests, Russia reacted calmly when Washington withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 in order to develop of a countrywide missile shield. But U.S.-Russian relations have soured again lately, and Moscow has complained about Washington's plans to build new low-yield nuclear weapons.

source

 

[gf0012-aust]

This one cracks me up! It's been discussed a few weeks ago on some of the other weapons boards.

Apart from the fact that the russians have have two failed launches, their flagship has problems, their largest sub is now docked due to probs, 80% of their penanted combat fleet is deemed ineffective, they have one new surface vessel being built and the last 5 year build plan still hasn't reached keel laying stages, their aerospace industry is in crisis due to a lack of sufficient sales and a lack of funds for development, their space station is in terminal decay and they require US funds and help to keep it aloft. Their nuclear systems are using US technology (discovered in 2000 when they had to go to the US for assistance as they were concerned about Y2k trippages)

If it wasn't for Indian funding for missile research, and Indian and Chinese purchases of Migs and Sukhois they'd have no industry at all.

Yep, the russians are doing well. They can barely stave off block obsolesence, barely keep existing assets running, barely demonstrate any new technologies - and they have a new silver bullet?

LOL I don't think so.

 

[mysterious]

I believe that they do have this claimed for 'silver bullet' but its deployment and production would take a lot of time because of the lack of funds which has also hampered other Russian forces as mentioned by gf above. :smokingc:

 

[gf0012-aust]

I believe that they do have this claimed for 'silver bullet' but its deployment and production would take a lot of time because of the lack of funds which has also hampered other Russian forces as mentioned by gf above. :smokingc:

If you look at how a hypersonic works, look at the engine to payload weight, then look at the claims made - then its becomes a clear nonesense. The shots of the missile showed severe thermal degradation on the chines. That missile couldn't have hit a low flying duck once it went below a certain altitude. The missile wasn't even shielded properly.

It's an absolute farago of nonsense.

 

[mysterious]

Oh well. You know better about all this than I do so you must be right!

 

[gf0012-aust]

Don't get me wrong, I think that some of the russian missile systems are the best in the world, but this is a different technology base, and all the little clues and cues as to how the russians have been working over the last 3 years doesn't point to any competency as claimed.

I have no doubt that one day they will do it, but I'd still bet on the French and the Americans dominating hypersonic systems.

You also need to factor in local politics and the fact that russia is feeling decidely tense about all of its former warsaw pact prisoners joining NATO.

This is more about statement than capability.

 

[Aussie Digger]

IN addition to GF's statements, the US Missile Defence Shield isn't even close to be built let alone introduced into service. How the hell could the Russians "KNOW" their system will defeat the US defence shield? From paper comparisons?

 

[The Watcher]

I think russians just want to catch some attention in this regard after as GF said missile failures along with flagship potentially blowing up.

oooh ooh me too mee too :lolol

 

[Indianguy]

I think russians just want to catch some attention in this regard after as GF said missile failures along with flagship potentially blowing up.

oooh ooh me too mee too :lolol

[ Admin Edit: Indian guy, read the topic. Its about Russian missiles not Space shuttles. If you keep posting irrelevent replies we will have to end it because I don't like to delete too many posts! ]

 

[adsH]

IN addition to GF's statements, the US Missile Defence Shield isn't even close to be built let alone introduced into service. How the hell could the Russians "KNOW" their system will defeat the US defence shield? From paper comparisons?

The MYthical Magic cure !!!


Its just plain PR to get the INdian and chinese buyer to pay up front for such systems lol i'll be :lol if India gets this missile that would mean the US will not ever give its research on Sam 3 to india. i bet the russians are starved for cash as usual will tell there loyal buyers that they have a cure for a plague called Missile defence. then they will rap up the prescribed Medicine (cure) in piece of paper then they will give them instruction use one only incase of an attack. :

 

[Indianguy]

So before editing the things please read the inner meaning of that ,ok ...... My mean to comparision is that Russian are more good in Rocket Technology then US


Well If i am not mistaken Russian never claims fake, If you remember that it was Russian SAM which bring down the U2 US plane on Oct, which US denied it existance till then and U2 claimed by the US that it cannot be shot down becasue it fly too high.

Russian Kilo Sub makes US fools.

Russian made Shkval rocket torpedo,"This torpedo travels at a speed of 200 knots, or five to six times the speed of a normal torpedo, world fastest Tarpedo.

So you can see , russian can never fake their tech. Russian infact make the best wepon system.

So why not they can make missile which can penetrate shields

 

[gf0012-aust]

So before editing the things please read the inner meaning of that ,ok ...... My mean to comparision is that Russian are more good in Rocket Technology then US


Well If i am not mistaken Russian never claims fake, If you remember that it was Russian SAM which bring down the U2 US plane on Oct, which US denied it existance till then and U2 claimed by the US that it cannot be shot down becasue it fly too high.

Russian Kilo Sub makes US fools.

Russian made Shkval rocket torpedo,"This torpedo travels at a speed of 200 knots, or five to six times the speed of a normal torpedo, world fastest Tarpedo.

So you can see , russian can never fake their tech. Russian infact make the best wepon system.

So why not they can make missile which can penetrate shields

After the Kursk (and 2 other sub incidents) I'm not sure anyone is too keen on buying russian torpedos.

btw, the problem with the Sqval is range and guidance. Both of which have not been dealt with. Tell me how you successfully turn a 200kph torpedo underwater with disturbing the cavitation, then tell me how you can achieve that when the strike force is travelling at flank speed and undertaking normal evasive action. The sqval is going to be a killer on an inert, immobile target - but against normal fleet manouvres? I doubt it.

the Kilo's problem is range - compared to an HDW 212 it is a no contest. The 636 may be better - but there are insufficient numbers in play.

BTW, the USN was developing cavitiating torpedoes some 3 years before the russians - so the sqval is not new technology. In fact the US is the only country that has cavitating projectiles that work.

The russians have a greater fear of Mk48 ADCAPs than the US has of the Sqval.

 

[tatra]

btw, the problem with the Sqval is range and guidance. Both of which have not been dealt with. Tell me how you successfully turn a 200kph torpedo underwater with disturbing the cavitation, then tell me how you can achieve that when the strike force is travelling at flank speed and undertaking normal evasive action. The sqval is going to be a killer on an inert, immobile target - but against normal fleet manouvres? I doubt it.

Just fit a nuke warhead and aim in the general direction ....

 

[Indianguy]

lol ....really :mrgreen

 

[gf0012-aust]

The russians couldn't guarantee a ASM kill with a nuke. What yield would you get out of a short range 21" torpedo. The sqval is smaller than a
Mk-48 by a considerable margin, the range would need to be compensated by an enormous warhead - and I can't see the sqval in its current dimensions being able to deliver sufficient proximity energy to kill a carrier from a distance. The russians always thought that the only way to kill the carrier was by an almost kinetic kill.

I'm always prepared to give a concept some "proof of life", but I just can't see the numbers stacking up.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Why would you want a nuclear torpedo to take out a single ship? Why not use a nuclear missile that would possibly destroy an entire force? Going nuclear is ridiculous, do you honestly think the US would not respond in kind?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Why would you want a nuclear torpedo to take out a single ship? Why not use a nuclear missile that would possibly destroy an entire force? Going nuclear is ridiculous, do you honestly think the US would not respond in kind?

One of the reasons why US Strike Forces go into a full battle formation - which literally can be 100+ sq miles, was to minimise the effects of a nuclear anti shipping strike.

The US has practiced against supersonic strikes for over 30 years - the missiles used have been progressively updated to stay "current". In a twist of irony that were originally supersonic killers when designed, so form meets function when they are now used to emulate an enemy air strike.

So the Russian notion of being able to take out a strike force by saturating it with nukes was never considered to be a show stopper. They still train against missiles that are tuned to act like a Yakhont. Hence why they don't tend to over react when people talk about supersonics being the new carrier killers. They weren't 20 years ago, and they still aren't. Even the Yakhont which seeks to update itself through autonomous satelllite links would be hard pressed to track and find a strike group. The data linking dependancies are enormous. The sqval faces a considerably more daunting task. It's basic design opportunities are also its biggest achilles heel.

The UK had nuke torpedos and nuclear mines in the 60's and they were abandoned fairly quickly as not being that useful - the concept has been revisited by various navies (including the Russians) and preference IIRC was to go with TLAM-N derivatives. Even so, terminal guidance has always been the show stopper for most navies. It has been less of a problem for the US as they not only have 24/7/365 sat coverage for weapons targetting, but that is backed up by a redundancy grid of GPS that also give 360deg coverage. The only other nation with a large number of sats up is russia - and they never had the same spread - certainly not now in their current fiscal crisis.