Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RuAF News and development Thread part 15

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 17 (0 members and 17 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Bellum
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jul 2010
    • 117

    Originally posted by FBW
    Russia knows the purpose and scope of US ABM shield. First off, do you know how many ABM weapons the US has with even limited capability against ICBM? Do you know why most US systems are worthless against ICBM?

    First, there would need to be a concerted US effort and budget to create a missile shield that could seriously upset deterrence. No such plan exists. It is much more economical to create an ICBM force to overwhelm a missile defense than to create such a defense in the first place. Russia has that capability, N Korea and Iran do not. The US would like to keep it that way, so there is no strategic need for “asymmetric” nuclear deterrence from Russia.
    Unfortunately I have to remind you of your own comment you made just a moment ago: "If Russia was concerned about US missile defenses and their own second strike capabilities"

    Now if and as Russia is concerned about the US missile defenses, your reply is incoherrent. You focus on challening the presupposition you yourself accepted for your proposition. Also you make silly claims, that you cannot possibly know, like "Russia knows the purpose" and "No such plan exists".

    Russia obviosly cannot relax so long that the US can develop this technology to the Russian ICBM threatening level and be ready for full on mass deployment, because waking up to the threat at that point would mean that there could well be a time when the US missile defence is conceivably effective against the Russian second strike, but Russia has not yet been able to make the new anti-ABM MAD weapons effective and massproductable.

    There are only a couple of relevant facts one has to recognize.
    1. The US has an existing and ongoing missile defense program.
    2. Even though the shield is currently only effective at best against a small number of rudimentary ICBMs, the technology will continue to improve.

    If the technology continues to develop, there is no logical reason to think that the ABMs cannot became a threat to the Russian ICBMs. And when it reaches that point, Russia better have a non-ICBM means of upholding the MAD as a symmetrical arms race of ICBMs vs ABMs against the economic power such as the United States could be too much for Russia.

    Fact on the matter is that both the US military and the Russian armed forces act in contrast to your expressed position and in a way that supports my position. The US continues to pour more money and resources to the missile defenses and capability is continuously improving. And the Russian military took the threat seriously and developed at least new concepts of MAD weapons well in advance of the potential breakaway point of the US missile defences.
    Last edited by Bellum; 18th March 2018, 14:46.

    Comment

    • Levsha
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Jan 2006
      • 2823

      1. The US has an existing and ongoing missile defense program.
      So has the Russian Federation.

      2. Even though the shield is currently only effective at best against a small number of rudimentary ICBMs, the technology will continue to improve.
      The same can be said for Russia's 'shield'.

      The Russian Federation is probably better armed to defend itself against the entire US nuclear forces combined compared to compared to America's defences against the Russian Federation, you do realise that?

      Comment

      • sepheronx
        Senior Member
        • Jun 2015
        • 320

        I would wager that in the end, cruise missiles technology will be pushed by Russia even more to deal with the ABM systems, since being low altitude, it becomes very hard to intercept them, especially at longer ranges.

        I think that's the reason for the nuclear engine cruise missiles. As said, it can be applied to existing Kh-101s.

        I am more eager to see Zircon. Since most Russian cruise missiles are dual purpose, it would be able to hit both ground and sea targets.

        It's been tested and all, last year. But because it's a much newer system than Kinzhal (these been in development since 2004), we probably won't see much of it in media for some time. But I believe it's development is tied to Brahmos 2 since Brahmos 2 will share similar design and engines, at least from what I read.

        Comment

        • panzerfeist1
          Rank 6 Registered User
          • Feb 2018
          • 341

          @bring_it_on
          My apologies for overlooking the SM-6 and focusing specifically on the SM-3 block 2A tests. Thank you.
          I thought the fall of western civilization was a tragedy, now I realize it's a comedy.

          Comment

          • bring_it_on
            2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
            • Jun 2004
            • 12480

            SM3 Block 2A is in development and it wouldn't be till further down the road that it will conduct an operational test. That said, block I missiles are operational and have over two dozen tests over the last many years. Do also note that the US-Navy CNO approved the 21" SM-6 (Designated SM6-Blk. IB) back in January. This will considearably build on its capability to go after Medium or longer ranged ballistic missiles and also attack OTH targets even further out than it currently can using NIFC-CA.

            @soyuz1917: Hence why they do like 1-2 tests a year. They have to phone Russia to alert them of the test just to avoid the end of the planet.
            The Ballistic Missile Defense System test program conducted 10 tests in FY17, including 8 tests for AEGIS, THAAD and GMD combined.
            Last edited by bring_it_on; 18th March 2018, 17:04.
            Old radar types never die; they just phased array

            Comment

            • St. John
              Rank 4 Registered User
              • Jan 2018
              • 568

              I wonder whether recent developments will see a return of SDI in its full, original, intended anger. Given developments over the last 20 years, I bet there are many who wish it'd never been dropped.

              Comment

              • TR1
                TR1
                http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
                • Oct 2010
                • 9804

                The same can be said for Russia's 'shield'.
                Yes, because one interceptor network around Moscow is the same as locations in Alaska, Eastern Europe, and all across the world on Aegis cruisers.

                This has to be one of the most willfully ignorant positions of all time.


                I wonder whether recent developments will see a return of SDI in its full, original, intended anger. Given developments over the last 20 years, I bet there are many who wish it'd never been dropped.
                Then the US can expect a new arms race, with new, destabilizing non ICBM delivery vehicles to actually be developed and deployed full force. And it won't be just Russia who reacts badly to such a imbalanced development.

                The nuclear torpedo and cruise missiles are messages that Russia does not like the implications to its ICBM counter-strike capability, and your response is to ACTUALLY work against that capability? In other words, justify every fear that Putin talked about.

                Insane.
                sigpic

                Comment

                • bring_it_on
                  2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
                  • Jun 2004
                  • 12480

                  Yes, because one interceptor network around Moscow is the same as locations in Alaska, Eastern Europe, and all across the world on Aegis cruisers.
                  The largest and fastest growing threat to those AEGIS cruisers and destroyers, and the assets they protect are from the ever-growing Medium and Intermediate-range Ballistic Missiles fielded by China so don't expect that capability to go anywhere anytime soon regardless of what new weapons Russia decides to pursue. The bi-lateral (for practical purposes) ABM treaty is not coming back and what the Russians disclosed has no bearing on that. INF will be threatened as well but thanks largely to the rapid pace of Hypersonic developments, should survive for now because they allow an easier path to legally circumvent.

                  Last edited by bring_it_on; 18th March 2018, 18:03.
                  Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                  Comment

                  • TR1
                    TR1
                    http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
                    • Oct 2010
                    • 9804

                    I trust the videos because these leaks are intentionally being put out to get the US to negotiate a new treaty.
                    Yes, unfortunately the American response is "Doesn't matter, our stuff isn't a threat" and then wonder why Russia is not convinced that will remain the case.

                    A) The US is not sticking 400 ABM interceptors in Europe, they have 24 in Romania
                    Plans. Change.

                    B) The Romanian silos can hold only one Tomahawk, but NATO fields hundreds of MK41 VLS in Europe, namely in the seas around Europe, so making a fuss about those Romanian silos is entirely idiotic
                    The fuss is because the US is making an equally pointless argument that a new Russian missile is a violator of the INF treaty based on its own land based developments.

                    D) Russia is deployng S400s all over the bloody place and i dont see anyone in Russia about it...
                    No, Russia has deployed S-400 in RUSSIA, and in SYRIA. That is it. Are you seriously comparing that to Aegis deployments wherever you need them/and NATO right on Russia's doorsteps? Russia has no similar "potential threat" to offer the US.
                    sigpic

                    Comment

                    • TR1
                      TR1
                      http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
                      • Oct 2010
                      • 9804

                      The largest and fastest growing threat to those AEGIS cruisers and destroyers, and the assets they protect are from the ever-growing Medium and Intermediate-range Ballistic Missiles fielded by China so don't expect that capability to go anywhere anytime soon regardless of what new weapons Russia decides to pursue.
                      While not the political threat right now, China's shorter ranged weapons are also a concern for Russia (US has no such offensive weaponry due to treaty) so that is another angle that will make Russian-US treaty making problematic in the future.
                      sigpic

                      Comment

                      • bring_it_on
                        2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
                        • Jun 2004
                        • 12480

                        (US has no such offensive weaponry due to the treaty)
                        For now. Hypersonic boost glide weapons advances allow both sides to very easily circumvent the existing treaties such as the INF. which were drawn up before such capabilities became possible in both the tactical and strategic sense. US is not really looking to deploy any of its intermediate ranged systems on land, which may be something covered under the INF (even though a miniature HGV would neiter be a ballistic missile, nor a cruise missile based on INF). These will be on Navy ships, and Air-Force bombers.
                        Last edited by bring_it_on; 18th March 2018, 18:17.
                        Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                        Comment

                        • St. John
                          Rank 4 Registered User
                          • Jan 2018
                          • 568

                          Then the US can expect a new arms race, with new, destabilizing non ICBM delivery vehicles to actually be developed and deployed full force. And it won't be just Russia who reacts badly to such a imbalanced development.

                          The nuclear torpedo and cruise missiles are messages that Russia does not like the implications to its ICBM counter-strike capability, and your response is to ACTUALLY work against that capability? In other words, justify every fear that Putin talked about.

                          Insane.
                          Given the current proliferation of nuclear weapons, including ICBMs to the likes of North Korea, the only future is to neutralise the effectiveness of all nuke delivery platforms.

                          Comment

                          • JSR
                            JSR
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Aug 2011
                            • 4950

                            Given the current proliferation of nuclear weapons, including ICBMs to the likes of North Korea, the only future is to neutralise the effectiveness of all nuke delivery platforms.
                            SK will have to increase its trade relations with Russia manifold. the primary focus of Russia modern weopon system is to squeeze money out of wealthy countries. so it has to very large stock ready cruise missile in all platforms in all sizes capable to strike all regions of the world and even small ships in Caspian. the next stage is to deal with Japan.
                            they know Japan cannot afford modern and complex military stuff in quantities.
                            https://www.reuters.com/article/us-j...-idUSKBN1FM169
                            Russia approves warplane deployment on disputed island near Japan
                            https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Eco...-manufacturing
                            Japan to offer technologies to improve Russian manufacturing

                            Comment

                            • bandit6
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Dec 2014
                              • 6

                              Looks like a sukhoi was downed in Syria 0:25, cant tell the make

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AObsVi7qbkc

                              Comment

                              • Levsha
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Jan 2006
                                • 2823

                                Y
                                es, because one interceptor network around Moscow is the same as locations in Alaska, Eastern Europe, and all across the world on Aegis cruisers.

                                This has to be one of the most willfully ignorant positions of all time.
                                Notice I didn't say US ballistic missile forces, but US nuclear forces combined which includes cruise missiles and B61 gravity bombs dropped by tactical aircraft. As it happens, Russia probably has a greater number of anti-ballistic missiles in service S-300V, S-400 and S-500 coming online - not sure how effective the first 2 missiles are against US ICBMs. But the Russian air-defence missile forces certainly has the massive advantage when fighting against nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and gravity dropped nukes. The US air-defences don't really compare against Russia's entire collection of SAMs - Russia has thousands of them.
                                Last edited by Levsha; 18th March 2018, 21:15.

                                Comment

                                • sepheronx
                                  Senior Member
                                  • Jun 2015
                                  • 320

                                  Originally posted by bandit6
                                  Looks like a sukhoi was downed in Syria 0:25, cant tell the make

                                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AObsVi7qbkc
                                  https://life.ru/t/новости/1099107/bo...vintsii_damask

                                  Said plane is an Su-22. Such a shame.

                                  Comment

                                  • MadRat
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Aug 2006
                                    • 5033

                                    S-300 is a staple in the Russian Navy. S-400 is adapted, too. And again this helps how? Interceptor missiles must be literally directly in the path to work.
                                    Go Huskers!

                                    Comment

                                    • haavarla
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Dec 2008
                                      • 6652

                                      S-300 is a staple in the Russian Navy. S-400 is adapted, too. And again this helps how? Interceptor missiles must be literally directly in the path to work.
                                      How so?
                                      Under which variant and designation?
                                      Last time i checked, Russian Navy was stuck trying to fix the haunted Redut Anti-Air missile System. Which is a Navalized Vityaz system. Which is not a S-300 nor S-400 system.
                                      Thanks

                                      Comment

                                      • MadRat
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Aug 2006
                                        • 5033

                                        Look up the Kirov-class for two forms of the S-300 family. I think the S-400 began integration around 2008 or 2009, actual deployment began within the previous 24 months. It was scheduled for deployment with the refits of the Kirov-class to give it a big boost in engagement range over the old system. The Kara-class was actually the first cruiser to test out the feasibility of S-300F. The Slava-class actively used them, too.

                                        If you're trying to pin me to say 9M96E2 was here, 9M96E was there, etc. That's a bit tough to pin exacts. The navalized 9M96 has had quality control issues since the beginning. 9M100, the smaller missile, hasn't had the head aches. We do know that there hasn't been any 40N6 to wonder about.
                                        Last edited by MadRat; 19th March 2018, 06:26.
                                        Go Huskers!

                                        Comment

                                        • TR1
                                          TR1
                                          http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
                                          • Oct 2010
                                          • 9804

                                          As it happens, Russia probably has a greater number of anti-ballistic missiles in service S-300V, S-400 and S-500 coming online - not sure how effective the first 2 missiles are against US ICBMs.
                                          The first two have zero effectiveness vs ICBMs. S-500/ Nudol will be a different story, but one will be limited to the current ABM sites, while the former has lots of question marks re. capability and deployment.

                                          But the Russian air-defence missile forces certainly has the massive advantage when fighting against nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and gravity dropped nukes.
                                          Err, I guess, although size of USN and USAF plus the not-so-anemic land based US AD might have something to say about that.
                                          But ICBMs (and SLBMs) are the final arbiter allowing for guaranteed MAD, this is why they are so key to deterrence, not to mention relatively easy to treaty verify as well.

                                          S-300 is a staple in the Russian Navy. S-400 is adapted, too. And again this helps how? Interceptor missiles must be literally directly in the path to work.
                                          If by staple, you mean 4-5 ships at most have it, then sure. Also, it has had no development in re. to long range ballistic missiles as compared to SM-6 and some SM-3 variants.

                                          Look up the Kirov-class for two forms of the S-300 family. I think the S-400 began integration around 2008 or 2009, actual deployment began within the previous 24 months.
                                          No. S-300F is used on 3 project 1164 ships, while Peter the Great has S-300FM, which is S-300PMU2 level at best, and has short range ballistic missile capability via 48N6 missile. There is no naval S-400, and no plans AFAIK for 40N6 on naval ships either, which is the only S-400 round in any case that has the altitude to talk about ICBMs and co. That is of course, when it is actually in service, which has been around the corner for like a decade.
                                          Nakhimov is getting 48N6DMK, so the S-300FM system is staying, despite AESA Fregat search radar.
                                          sigpic

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X