Right Soyus, but GDP per-capita is correlated with per-capita defence-spending. The total defence spending is obviously correlated with the economic size. And, like it or not, Russia is much smaller than the West and smaller than China. Nevertheless Russia has other advantages: technological lead in many areas (specially those related to defence) and “its hand on the Oil & gas valve”.

Sounded more like a propaganda piece to me. Justifying the Russian nuclear build-up while going on about the Russian lead in ABMs. There’s a hypocritical situation if ever there was one. But then why anybody else would expect anything else from Russia is a mystery.
Reply With Quote

In can’t see any unexpected event nor hypocrisy here. If fact the Russian were quite clear saying “OK build it and live targeted”. So let the shield be. As consequence Europe will have to live targeted. That’s all.

Is difficult to blind EKV with lasers? After all, the URSS disturbed the Challenger, long time ago, in 1984. Being IR guided, the EKV would be easily “blindable” with ground-based lasers. So, it may be just matter to deploy ground-based lasers as “bodygurads” of Russian ICBM fields. As soon an American interceptor is directed toward Russia, the lasers would just target the EKV. Off-course USA must be notified that any western rocket ditrected to the Russian air-space (irrespectively of any pretext) would be subject to blind/downing tasks.

There is a “run-run” abouth the re-birth of development of Russian super(hyper?)sonic cruise missiles. Is that likely?

Rigth SOC. So far that it is just “run run from the net”. But I remember Carlo Kopp mentioned something referred to the introduction of AESA. I don’t know how reliable are his sources.

It was not a photo. It was a draw. A truck with a large array behind the cabin. Let me time. I will search.

I think you are talking about the Voronezh-DM. This is a EW stuff.

But an aircraft-killer doesn’t need a 3 km/s speed plus a150 km ceiling. It was stated that the “big missile” have such parameters. :confused: :confused:
An explanation can lie in the possibility that these cinematic parameters correspond to the second improvement iteration of the 9M82 and not to the 40N6. In such a case a improvement of the 9M83 is more or less straightforward (to kill Scud type BM) leaving space to dedicate 9M82 to Pershing-like BM.

Garry. I agree with your comments at all, specially those referred to the clown Yeltsin. When I talk about the “bad years”, I refer to years of massive retirement of old soviet material. No actions were taken during the catastrophic Yeltsin era and this leaded to a vacuum of systems that will be apparent during the 2005-2020 period. So after 2020 no SS-18, no SS-19 and no SS-25 will survive. In addition a few Delta-IV might remain operational. Just Russian systems (SS-27, the new MIRV ICBM and Borey) will be here. In the meantime there will not be resources enough to fill the gap produced by the 90s collapsing economy.