The Russian Military Technical Response

G

guppy

New Member
See link on defencetalk Russian Military-Technical Response

Guys,

what do you think the Russian military-technical response would be like? VLO ballistic missiles? I don't know if that is even possible. What else? I am not familiar with ballistic missile technology.

Do you think that the US is justified in trying to install radar and missile sites in the former Warsaw countries to counter "rouge state" attacks?

Personally, I do not agree with the path that the US is taking. I see why they are doing it but do not agree with it. The missile shield is not a proven capability. Why is the US banking so much on it at the risk of provoking old enemies? The US only needs to hint at complete annihilation should the Iranians get funny ideas about attacking others. There are other reasons why the US is doing it, and I can only speculate and disagree.

Whether the missile shields works or not, Russia will embark on new initiatives that will circumvent the missile shield. Historically, since the stone age (I think...), it is usually easier to develop an offense than a defense.

Welcome to an increasingly dangerous world order.

guppy
 
Feanor

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Hehehee. The add beside the article said "Anger Management Program". Oh the irony. Anyways, it would most likely be something to the sort of pointing Iskander missiles from Belarus or Kaliningrad at the missile shield sites.
 
G

guppy

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
Feanor said:
Hehehee. The add beside the article said "Anger Management Program". Oh the irony. Anyways, it would most likely be something to the sort of pointing Iskander missiles from Belarus or Kaliningrad at the missile shield sites.
Click to expand...
I think somebody should call the Russians and point them to the link:)

That might account for the military response. Thus, what would be the technical response?
 
Feanor

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
It's an expression which sounds impressive and elusive at the same time. For example if Russia's only response is to include surgical strikes against the MD sites in wartime planning it can still be considered a "military-technical response". On the other hand if tomorrow Iskander tactical complexes turn up in Belarus, Russia can say "Ha. We warned you, but you didn't listen."

Another point, the Topol-M supposedly contains measures for passing through missile-defense systems unharmed, so decoys, and "other" measures.
 
King Comm

King Comm

New Member
The problem created by the missile defence in Poland is that all Russian ICBM's launched west of Urals may enter the range of missile defence systems during their booster stage, when they are large, slow, unmanoeuverable and easy to intercept. So basically, the Americans are seeking the ability to shoot down Russian missiles in the shortest possible time after they leave their silos/TEL's. So the most viable response for Russians is to move short range ballistic missiles and land attack cruise missile westwards, and ICBM's eastwards.
 
Feanor

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
East of the Urals? I don't know that very many ICBM's are deployed there, for one, and secondly they would be flying over the north pole and Greenland rather then over Eastern Europe. To defend against Russian ICBM's you'd need to enlist Finland and Norway for radars and interceptors, not to mention you need hundreds of interceptors.
 
King Comm

King Comm

New Member
The significance of missile defence in eastern Europe is that is allows the US to watch and launch missiles at the sky above European Russia, soon after Russian ICBM's take off.
 
N

nevidimka

New Member
Hmm, the Radar station is indeed a threat to RUssian ICBM's. The flight path of Russian ICBM's need not fly over the Interceptor coverage, but US will immediately know of any launches with the radar soo close to Russian border, which is why Russia is soo pissed about.

What I dont understand is, if the so-called threat is the rogue state IRan, then why not put the Radar in Turkey whcih is much more closer to Iran? Where it would know immediately of an Iranian launch. Plus it would also serve as a forward warning to Israel from Iranian Attack which US is concerned about.

A Radar station in czech will not serve any purpose for Israel, where the distance between Iran and Israel is soo close.
 
N

nevidimka

New Member
Btw, from the frontpage news, its been reported that Russia is considering restarting bomber flying to Cuba.

Things are getting interesting. I wonder what would US feel like if Russia starts flying its Blackjacks to Cuba, or even restart its signal intelligence station in Cuba.
 
G

Grand Danois

Entertainer
I most certainly hope Russia steps up the waste of flight hours going on round trips to Cuba. It's close to pointless. The airframes will have to be taken out of the Russian ORBAT faster.

Empty gestures.
 
G

Grand Danois

Entertainer
nevidimka said:
Hmm, the Radar station is indeed a threat to RUssian ICBM's. The flight path of Russian ICBM's need not fly over the Interceptor coverage, but US will immediately know of any launches with the radar soo close to Russian border, which is why Russia is soo pissed about.

What I dont understand is, if the so-called threat is the rogue state IRan, then why not put the Radar in Turkey whcih is much more closer to Iran? Where it would know immediately of an Iranian launch. Plus it would also serve as a forward warning to Israel from Iranian Attack which US is concerned about.

A Radar station in czech will not serve any purpose for Israel, where the distance between Iran and Israel is soo close.
Click to expand...
You should try and Google "Vardø" and "DSP". Russian space and launch bastions are already monitored.

You should also look for a map of where the majority of the Russian nuclear missiles are based.

Technically the best position for a radar of this purpose of engagement of Iranian missiles would be somewhere in the Lithuania-Southern UK- Czech triangle.

Launch detection and initial tracking of Iranian missiles is done by DSP and LRS&T AEGIS. Which can be positioned in the Perisan Gulf, the Black Sea, the Eastern Med etc...
 
Last edited:
N

nevidimka

New Member
Grand Danois said:
You should try and Google "Vardø" and "DSP". Russian space and launch bastions are already monitored.

You should also look for a map of where the majority of the Russian nuclear missiles are based.

Technically the best position for a radar of this purpose of engagement of Iranian missiles would be somewhere in the Lithuania-Southern UK- Czech triangle.

Launch detection and initial tracking of Iranian missiles is done by DSP and LRS&T AEGIS. Which can be positioned in the Perisan Gulf, the Black Sea, the Eastern Med etc...
Click to expand...

OK, I'll check it out. Thanks for the tip.

if the launch detection is from the persian gulf or black sea, that would need to have a presence there all the time.
Also wouldnt the radar in Turkey be better positioned to deteact n track the missile launch throughout its phase? Also IIRC there were plans by US to also base another radar in Turkey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top