CBO alternatives to NMD in Poland

Don’t need to hit it at the apogee. You could just as easily shoot at it on it’s way up or on it’s way down. And if you look at some of the MDA powerpoints that’s exactly what they have in mind.

Ideally, yes, you should shot down an ICBM during its ascending phase while it is slow, leaves a large IR track and before it releases decoys. Depending on where the ICBM is fired from in Russia that is simply not possible.

I am a bit sceptical concerning the interception of an ICBM during a descending phase, with its speed and decoys deployed.

But I stand to be corrected.

Sure , I will let Medvedev and Putin know that 🙂

I’m sure they already know but injured pride can make one irrational. 😉

It may have escaped your notice but none of the ABM sites are situated to deal with SLBMs (of which Russia has hundreds) coming from the South.

US has quite a quality fleet and argubly the best 4th Gen SSN and in numbers , the credbility of small operational Russian SSBN ( Delta 4 ) ability to survive being hunted by far superior US SSN fleet is questionable at best, may be it will get better with Borei but thats still some years away.

Like has been said numerous times the US ABM system isn’t designed with Russia in mind.

Sure , I will let Medvedev and Putin know that 🙂

Nope, I’m afraid not. Was really busy “a while back”.

Looks like you did but I was too vague.

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/573.pdf

Page 5.

Not really 10 missile , but the entire matrix of ABM systems the US is developing , no one is naive to believe that the entire matrix of Land Based , Sea Based and Aircraft based ABM system is not being built or have the real potential to deal with Russian ICBM.

Deny as you may , but these thing are all designed to take care of Russian system in the medium and long run , though they are sugar coated to make believe that this is to deal with Iranian or Noko missile.

So eventually Russia will have to qualitatively increase its offensive systems , it simply cant compete with US in developing a multi tier and multi dimensional ABM system , for cost and perhaps technology reasons.

Although it may not prevent any US ICBM or B-2 striking at Russia in case of an eventual strike , but Russia can be sure that most of their qualitatively better systems will have a good chance to penetrate through US multitier ABM system

It may have escaped your notice but none of the ABM sites are situated to deal with SLBMs (of which Russia has hundreds) coming from the South. Like has been said numerous times the US ABM system isn’t designed with Russia in mind.

did you ever see the PDF I posted a while back that showed the difference in area coverage between the Block 1A and the Block II?

Nope, I’m afraid not. Was really busy “a while back”.

Typical paranoia. How is all of that necessary to overcome TEN missiles? Come to think of it how about explaining how ten missiles can even make a noticable difference in what Russia has NOW. They can’t.

Not really 10 missile , but the entire matrix of ABM systems the US is developing , no one is naive to believe that the entire matrix of Land Based , Sea Based and Aircraft based ABM system is not being built or have the real potential to deal with Russian ICBM.

Deny as you may , but these thing are all designed to take care of Russian system in the medium and long run , though they are sugar coated to make believe that this is to deal with Iranian or Noko missile.

So eventually Russia will have to qualitatively increase its offensive systems , it simply cant compete with US in developing a multi tier and multi dimensional ABM system , for cost and perhaps technology reasons.

Although it may not prevent any US ICBM or B-2 striking at Russia in case of an eventual strike , but Russia can be sure that most of their qualitatively better systems will have a good chance to penetrate through US multitier ABM system

Well what I think asymetric response should be , without investing too much indeveloping ABM system which is expensive.

1 ) Deployment of RS-24 ( 6 MIRV ) to replace SS-19
2 ) Silo/Road mobile single warhead Topol-M to replace the SS-25
3 ) New ICBM to replace SS-18
4 ) Kh-101/102 to replace the Kh-55 on Tu-160 and arm it on SSGN and SSN
5 ) 8 Borei armed with Bulava , strive for a 12 SSBN fleet.

If US refuses to scale down its ABM , then START limitation should to set to 1,800 to 2000 active warhead.

thats the bare minumum asymetric reponse which can provide some reasurance to Russia that their detterent remains viable in some way.

Typical paranoia. How is all of that necessary to overcome TEN missiles? Come to think of it how about explaining how ten missiles can even make a noticable difference in what Russia has NOW. They can’t.

Of course you don’t need to reach all the way up. Just saying, if the thin version of SM-3 can already go up to 150nm, the fat version might double or even trebble that, making IIa viable against ICBMs.

did you ever see the PDF I posted a while back that showed the difference in area coverage between the Block 1A and the Block II?

People throw “asymetric” around these days like it’s a nuclear weapon or something. Funny thing is “asymetric” usually means just getting your a$$ kicked in a different way.

Well what I think asymetric response should be , without investing too much indeveloping ABM system which is expensive.

1 ) Deployment of RS-24 ( 6 MIRV ) to replace SS-19
2 ) Silo/Road mobile single warhead Topol-M to replace the SS-25
3 ) New ICBM to replace SS-18
4 ) Kh-101/102 to replace the Kh-55 on Tu-160 and arm it on SSGN and SSN
5 ) 8 Borei armed with Bulava , strive for a 12 SSBN fleet.

If US refuses to scale down its ABM , then START limitation should to set to 1,800 to 2000 active warhead.

thats the bare minumum asymetric reponse which can provide some reasurance to Russia that their detterent remains viable in some way.

Don’t need to hit it at the apogee. You could just as easily shoot at it on it’s way up or on it’s way down. And if you look at some of the MDA powerpoints that’s exactly what they have in mind.

Of course you don’t need to reach all the way up. Just saying, if the thin version of SM-3 can already go up to 150nm, the fat version might double or even trebble that, making IIa viable against ICBMs.

We shall see how far up the Block IIa version can reach up. Apogee of an ICBM might be 600-700nm. The Block Ia back last summer reached up 150nm.

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33745_20081121.pdf
Speaks about certain capabilities against ICBMs.

Don’t need to hit it at the apogee. You could just as easily shoot at it on it’s way up or on it’s way down. And if you look at some of the MDA powerpoints that’s exactly what they have in mind.

As far as I can recall, the SM-3 does not have the capacity to engage an ICBM – a short to medium-range ballistic missile, yes, but an ICBM no except potentially in its boost or final stage. Or has the SM-3 markedly involved since the MDA was making this point clear only 18 months ago??

You must have missed that ASAT shot last year.

I dont think Russia should trade Iran with ABM or things like that, the answer to a weapon should be asymetric response

People throw “asymetric” around these days like it’s a nuclear weapon or something. Funny thing is “asymetric” usually means just getting your a$$ kicked in a different way.

We shall see how far up the Block IIa version can reach up. Apogee of an ICBM might be 600-700nm. The Block Ia back last summer reached up 150nm.

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33745_20081121.pdf
Speaks about certain capabilities against ICBMs.

Thanks for the link.

The 150 nm you mention refer (if I am not mistaken) to the shooting down of the ailing US satellite. The SM-3 was at the very end of its capability, if I recall well. Could the US come up with an evolution of the SM-3 that goes 3 to 4 times as far?? Seems a bit doubtful to me, but I admit I am not a scientist.

As far as I can recall, the SM-3 does not have the capacity to engage an ICBM – a short to medium-range ballistic missile, yes, but an ICBM no except potentially in its boost or final stage. Or has the SM-3 markedly involved since the MDA was making this point clear only 18 months ago??

We shall see how far up the Block IIa version can reach up. Apogee of an ICBM might be 600-700nm. The Block Ia back last summer reached up 150nm.

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33745_20081121.pdf
Speaks about certain capabilities against ICBMs.

@ the Russians ignoring AEGIS BMD: Yip, interesting. Probably they figure they could sink them quite easily, esp taking into account the optimum patrol locations would be right on the Russian doorstep in the Black Sea and the Baltic.

No there is a differences of opinion between US and Russia

US believes that it has an ABM system that it thinks can deal with lets say Russian ICBM based on the test that US conducted with its ABM.

Russia believes ( and I am quoting Solmonov and Putin ) that it has missile it can penetrate any current or future ABM under development , Solmonov says 86 % against any US ABM system for Topol-M and Putin says it does not care about the presense of ABM systems

So its a big leap of faith for both parties , ofcourse US says its ABM is not against Russia that should make the job easier.

Well only a real test will ever prove who is right and wrong , could be both are right or both are wrong or just US is right …….but then we are talking WW3

But we haven’t heard them say one word about the AEGIS BMD as far as I know. Given that it could be a far more threatening system to Russian ICBMs, that pretty much demonstrates that thrashing about over 10 ABMs in Poland is purely political.

As far as I can recall, the SM-3 does not have the capacity to engage an ICBM – a short to medium-range ballistic missile, yes, but an ICBM no except potentially in its boost or final stage. Or has the SM-3 markedly involved since the MDA was making this point clear only 18 months ago??

More or less agree with that. Doubt that Russia is in a position to pressure Iran into giving up their nuclear ambitions. Can’t keep a numerous and strong country with 70 million people (plus the same number throughout south-western Asia) from acquiring nuclear weapons. Non-proliferation is dead. After the Persians declare themselves nuclear, Turkey will certainly follow, possibly Egypt also …

And ABM will come, that is for certain, as it is neccessary as the only alternative to outright threatening all the future minor (= tactical) nuclear powers with strategic annihilation. If the Russians are sane (which they basically are, once the propaganda and “we are the last Rome” stance subsides), they will support BMD and will do their own system. Interests and priorities will shift, still in our generation, and north-south (or whatever you want to call it) will certainly replace east-west as the major axis of conflicts.

@ the Russians ignoring AEGIS BMD: Yip, interesting. Probably they figure they could sink them quite easily, esp taking into account the optimum patrol locations would be right on the Russian doorstep in the Black Sea and the Baltic.

I dont think Russia should trade Iran with ABM or things like that, the answer to a weapon should be asymetric response , it should not be a political sell off , nor do I think Russia has the capability to infulence Iran to stop its N program.

Iran if any thing is a thorn for West , so it makes sense for Russia to keep an allay in ME which keeps every one on toes and is a good arms market for russia and may be in a small way keep infulence in ME

The only trade off with ABM system will be the limit on N weapons for new START treaty , if US promises to reduce its ABM deployment and employment then , reduce the number of deployed N systems or else reduce it meaningful enough that it can blunt the ABM systems and yet be effective by developing asymetric response.