Thursday, July 17, 2025
  • About us
    • Write for us
    • Disclaimer
    • Terms of use
    • Privacy Policy
  • RSS Feeds
  • Advertise with us
  • Contact us
DefenceTalk
  • Home
  • Defense News
    • Defense & Geopolitics News
    • War Conflicts News
    • Army News
    • Air Force News
    • Navy News
    • Missiles Systems News
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • Defense Technology
    • Cybersecurity News
  • Military Photos
  • Defense Forum
  • Military Videos
  • Military Weapon Systems
    • Weapon Systems
    • Reports
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Defense News
    • Defense & Geopolitics News
    • War Conflicts News
    • Army News
    • Air Force News
    • Navy News
    • Missiles Systems News
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • Defense Technology
    • Cybersecurity News
  • Military Photos
  • Defense Forum
  • Military Videos
  • Military Weapon Systems
    • Weapon Systems
    • Reports
No Result
View All Result
DefenceTalk
No Result
View All Result
Home Defence & Military News Missile News

Russia's missile defense systems: past, present and future

by Editor
May 19, 2008
in Missile News
3 min read
0
14
VIEWS

RIA Novosti,

MOSCOW: Thirty years ago, on May 15, 1978, a missile defense system was placed on combat duty to protect Moscow as the capital city of the Soviet Union.

Russia has been developing missile defense systems since the early 1960s.

On March 1, 1961, the Soviet Air-Defense Force conducted the first hit-to-kill test when a V-1000 missile interceptor developed by the Fakel (Torch) design bureau under the supervision of Pyotr Grushin, a member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, successfully destroyed the warhead of an R-12 inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) launched from the Kapustin Yar space center in the Volga Region.

Several R-5 medium-range ballistic missiles were destroyed during subsequent tests.

The United States was able to conduct similar tests only 23 years later.

In 1961-1971, Soviet experts developed the experimental A-35 missile-defense system around Moscow. The system became operational in June 1971 and protected the Soviet capital and surrounding industrial areas.

At that time, the United States, which lacked similar systems, was compelled to negotiate with the Soviet Union. In 1972, Moscow and Washington signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty that served as the main element of mutual nuclear parity for several decades.

Under the treaty both sides agreed that each could only have two ABM deployment areas that were heavily regulated and placed so that they could not provide a nationwide ABM defense or become the basis for developing one. Each country thus left unchallenged the penetrating capability of the other's retaliatory missile forces. Both parties agreed to limit the quantitative improvement of their ABM technology.

In 1974, both countries signed a protocol to the treaty which entered into force in 1976 and reduced the number of ABM deployment areas to one, either around either side's national capital area, or as a single ICBM deployment area.

The United States elected not to deploy an ABM system and in 1976 deactivated its ineffective site at Grand Forks, North Dakota, around a Minuteman ICBM launch area.

Although the 1971 Soviet ABM system became obsolete even before it was commissioned, the ABM Treaty allowed Moscow to upgrade it. On May 15, 1978, the more advanced A-35M system was placed on active duty around Moscow.

However, the United States subsequently embarked on an ambitious multiple independent reentry vehicle (MIRV) program which nullified the Soviet system's capabilities.

Russia's A-135 ABM system capable of coping with MIRVed ICBMs was developed and commissioned in 1995 and 1996, respectively. The system hinged on the Don-2N multi-role radar and a command computer inside a truncated tetrahedral pyramid. Silo-based missile interceptors were deployed along the A-108 highway, also known as the Greater Moscow Belt Highway, in the Moscow, Kaluga and Yaroslavl Regions.

The missile-defense system around Moscow had to be constantly upgraded in order to deal with new threats. Unfortunately, federal allocations were not enough to ensure its combat readiness.

The situation became particularly serious in the late 1990s when ABM allocations accounted for just 1% of those made in the 1980s.

Moscow feared that it might lose the scientific and technical ABM potential accumulated since the late 1950s. The situation improved only in recent years. Under the national rearmament program until 2010, approved by former President Vladimir Putin, minimal R&D levels in this sphere will be reinstated.

The Russian rearmament program was adopted in response to new U.S. missile-defense plans stipulating the deployment of space-based attack weapons. Washington may decide to return to the Brilliant Pebbles project, a non-nuclear system of satellite-based, watermelon-sized mini-missiles designed to use a high-velocity kinetic warhead under the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) program.

At any rate, Washington rejects all Russian and Chinese initiatives aimed at preventing the militarization of outer space.

It would be appropriate to recall that the Reagan Administration spent $3.4 billion a year on ABM defenses; such allocations totaled over $5 billion under George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton; President George W. Bush persuaded Congress to allocate $8 billion per year.

Many military analysts believe that both sides should agree on specific parameters for assessing the mutual strategic nuclear and missile-defense balance. Increases in one area will require reductions in others. However, Washington will never agree with this fair approach because it runs counter to its military doctrine aimed at ensuring undisputed U.S. military-technical superiority.

Nor should Russia become involved in another ABM race because it cannot afford to develop and deploy a national missile-defense system reliably protecting a huge territory of our country at present or in the foreseeable future.

Instead, Moscow should opt for an asymmetrical response and develop weapons capable of breaching missile defense systems.

Yury Zaitsev is an academic adviser at the Russian Academy of Engineering Sciences.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

Previous Post

China confirms nuclear safety after quake: army

Next Post

IS-900 Technology Deployed at US Army's Fort Benning Soldier Battle Lab

Related Posts

Britain, Germany jointly developing missiles: ministers

Britain, Germany jointly developing missiles: ministers

May 17, 2025

Britain and Germany are working together to develop strike missiles, their defence ministers said Thursday, as Russia's war rages in...

North Korea fires multiple suspected cruise missiles

North Korea fires flurry of short-range ballistic missiles

May 9, 2025

North Korea fired multiple types of short-range ballistic missiles Thursday, South Korea's military said, around a week after leader Kim...

Next Post

IS-900 Technology Deployed at US Army's Fort Benning Soldier Battle Lab

Latest Defense News

Britain, Germany jointly developing missiles: ministers

Britain, Germany jointly developing missiles: ministers

May 17, 2025
Trump announces ‘full and immediate’ India-Pakistan ceasefire

Trump announces ‘full and immediate’ India-Pakistan ceasefire

May 10, 2025
Pakistan says Indian missiles strike air bases as conflict spirals

Pakistan says Indian missiles strike air bases as conflict spirals

May 10, 2025
J-10C fighter jet

Pakistan says India has brought neighbours ‘closer to major conflict’

May 9, 2025
North Korea fires multiple suspected cruise missiles

North Korea fires flurry of short-range ballistic missiles

May 9, 2025
China says ‘closely watching’ Ukraine situation after Russian attack

China vows to stand with Russia in face of ‘hegemonic bullying’

May 9, 2025

Defense Forum Discussions

  • 6th Generation Fighters Projects
  • The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
  • Indonesian Aero News
  • Marine Nationale (French Navy)
  • Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
  • US Army News and updates general discussion
  • Russian Air Force News & Discussion
  • German Navy: Third Combat Support Ship instead of F125-Frigates?
  • USAF News and Discussion
  • Royal Netherlands Navy
DefenceTalk

© 2003-2020 DefenceTalk.com

Navigate Site

  • Defence Forum
  • Military Photos
  • RSS Feeds
  • About us
  • Advertise with us
  • Contact us

Follow Us

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Defense News
    • Defense & Geopolitics News
    • War Conflicts News
    • Army News
    • Air Force News
    • Navy News
    • Missiles Systems News
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • Defense Technology
    • Cybersecurity News
  • Military Photos
  • Defense Forum
  • Military Videos
  • Military Weapon Systems
    • Weapon Systems
    • Reports

© 2003-2020 DefenceTalk.com