NATO Missile Shield

[gazzzwp]

In the news over the last few days is the entering service of the NATO missile shield in Romania. Later segments of the shield are due to come into service in Poland in 2018.

NATO insists that it is to counter future threats from Iran and other rogue states. Russia now on the one hand is very concerned that it poses a real threat to European security while on the other claiming that no missile shield can stop their latest Iskander missiles.

Is Russia correct on this point? Even from a novice's viewpoint, a saturation attack on any defense system is bound to render the system useless as there is a limit to how many incoming missiles any system can track and intercept at any one time.

Russia must know this? So why are they complaining? Putin has vowed to 'end the threat' posed by the system. What does he mean?

Despite NATO's claims regarding Iran and rogue nations, would NATO have really spent that money on a system unless it has some real effectiveness against Russian weapon systems?

What is really going on here?

http://www.worldbulletin.net/headlines/172687/moscow-vows-to-end-us-threats

Edit to add:

Russia is also claiming that such a system could be easily adapted for use as an offensive missile launching system.

Quite a few points here to consider.

 

[Feanor]

It's my understanding that the NATO BMD is not designed to counter things like the Iskander, which is an operational-tactical level system. There's also huge numbers of these systems. I have little doubt that the BMD as is could be overwhelmed with Iskander systems.

 

[Ranger25]

It's my understanding that the NATO BMD is not designed to counter things like the Iskander, which is an operational-tactical level system. There's also huge numbers of these systems. I have little doubt that the BMD as is could be overwhelmed with Iskander systems.

Agreed, there are on only a limited number of VLS available. This system has a SPY-1D radar(500km range) coupled with 24 MK41 cells in a separate building. They're fitted with 24 SM-3s, one each per cell. They could also quad pack ESSM but currently I've heard no plans to do so. Easily overwhelmed by a saturation attack.

NATO acknowledges that and again states this is for Rogue state defense, aka Iran.

That being said, the TLAM also fits nicely into a MK41, but I'm not a conspiracist who would believe NATO would mount TLAMs instead.

 

[r3mu511]

...
This system has a SPY-1D radar(500km range) coupled with 24 MK41 cells in a separate building.
...

Hi @Ranger25 -- Where did you get the 500km range for spy-1? The only derivation I've seen for spy-1 performance came from "mostlymissiledefense.com" w/c used as it's starting point an article on CRAM use of spy-1 (see "Field Artillery" mar-jun 2004, p.24, "force protection from the sea: employing the spy-1" by CWO Robinson) w/c gave a performance figure of 165 km vs. a golf-ball sized target.

Using the above value as a starting point and the method of computation used in "mostlymissiledefense.com" would give a range of ~740 km vs. a 1 sq.m rcs, so I'm curious to see from where you get the 500 km range perf value from?

 

[Feanor]

Another thought. Russia's concern is not the current system but more so the general vector of development. It's a lot easier to expand on an existing system then to build one from 0. Russia's threats of Iskander deployments are meant as a counter to the BMD, so clearly Russia thinks that the BMD is not only unable to stop Iskander strikes but is itself vulnerable to them.

 

[r3mu511]

The currently deployed config of Aegis Ashore (BL9.B1 BMD-5.0 CU) w/ just SM3-1B is meant to engage only exo-atmospheric BMs, so the USN knows that endo-atmospheric weapons like Iskander would not be applicable targets. They'ld have to upgrade the ashore config to a level similar to the sea-based config in order to utilize terminal, endo-atmospheric interceptors (SM2-B4, SM6) in order to have a possible means to engage something like Iskander. In fact, the latest HASC bill has directions in it specifying just such a sort of study to see what it would take to enable AAW+terminal BMD for ashore sites.

 

[gazzzwp]

It's my understanding that the NATO BMD is not designed to counter things like the Iskander, which is an operational-tactical level system. There's also huge numbers of these systems. I have little doubt that the BMD as is could be overwhelmed with Iskander systems.

So could the Russians be concerned that Iskander is vulnerable to Patriot batteries? I'm not sure if any are currently deployed in the region of the Romanian missile shield system.

I'm thinking that the Russians are worried about more than just the future direction of the NATO missile shield.

How valid is their argument that the shield can be easily converted into an offensive capability for medium range missiles?

 

[chris]

I think that the whole problem has to do with first strike capabilities. You have to think the chain of events in a nuclear war.

Right now, if either US or Russia launch its missiles, the other can respond, assuring mutual distraction. Now imagine the same scenario with the missile shield in place.

The US can launch its missiles, without any previous warning, to hit Russia. Russia gets less than 30 mins to detect, verify and launch a counter attack. If the US missile shield (in its present or expanded form) can take down a large percentage of the Russian counter attack, then we can assume that the US can use a first strike attack with relative immunity.

An Iskander attack against the missile shield followed by the counterstrike, has probably a very limited time window and I don't think is viable. The whole Iskander issue IMO has to do with Russia's first strike capabilities. It is a "look, if I strike first, I can take down your shield before my main attack, so what is the point placing it there in the first place" statement.

 

[swerve]

The shield does not protect the USA, so your basic premise is mistaken. It protects Europe (only) against a limited strike from the east/south-east (only). Russia could swamp it, & Russian submarine-launched missiles, & ICBMs fired from Russia at North America, bypass it.

And it's destruction, not distraction. Rather a big difference in meaning.

 

[chris]

The shield does not protect the USA, so your basic premise is mistaken. It protects Europe (only) against a limited strike from the east/south-east (only). Russia could swamp it, & Russian submarine-launched missiles, & ICBMs fired from Russia at North America, bypass it.

And it's destruction, not distraction. Rather a big difference in meaning.

You mean the part of the shield that was installed in Romania, does not directly protect USA (but it sure protects some Russian counterstrike targets, don't you think?). The whole shield project, with radar stations all over the world and missiles on AEGIS ships, all networked together, is another mater. The Russians simply react to every component placed. I just try to understand the Russian point of view and I don't believe I'm far from the truth. I may be wrong though. I'm also sure that Russians already work hard to counter it (RS-28 able to hit US from the south anyone? Interesting flight profile) and are just as guilty. S-500 is a missile shield as well after all.

To tell you the truth, I would prefer neither side to even think for a second that they are maybe able to hit the other with nukes and get away with it. Sure both sides have responsible people controlling the nukes, but that is just now. We don't know what will happen in the future. MAD have served us well so far.

Finally I blame spell checkers and the “If there is no red underline, it must be fine” mentality. Years back, I could never think about posting with out first reading it carefully for errors. All those helpful add-ons, sometimes make us lazy.

 

[gazzzwp]

You mean the part of the shield that was installed in Romania, does not directly protect USA (but it sure protects some Russian counterstrike targets, don't you think?). The whole shield project, with radar stations all over the world and missiles on AEGIS ships, all networked together, is another mater. The Russians simply react to every component placed. I just try to understand the Russian point of view and I don't believe I'm far from the truth. I may be wrong though. I'm also sure that Russians already work hard to counter it (RS-28 able to hit US from the south anyone? Interesting flight profile) and are just as guilty. S-500 is a missile shield as well after all.

To tell you the truth, I would prefer neither side to even think for a second that they are maybe able to hit the other with nukes and get away with it. Sure both sides have responsible people controlling the nukes, but that is just now. We don't know what will happen in the future. MAD have served us well so far.

Finally I blame spell checkers and the “If there is no red underline, it must be fine” mentality. Years back, I could never think about posting with out first reading it carefully for errors. All those helpful add-ons, sometimes make us lazy.

It's still far from clear what the Russians are actually so concerned about to justify taking measures to 'neutralise the threat'.

What strategic advantages to the missile shield radars themselves actually provide? Could this be the key to their concerns?

 

[Feanor]

If the US missile shield (in its present or expanded form) can take down a large percentage of the Russian counter attack, then we can assume that the US can use a first strike attack with relative immunity.

You're wrong on both counts. It can't take down a large percentage, and won't be able to even if it's tripled in size. And even if it could drop 75% of the Russian strategic arsenal (which it can't even hypothetically, since Russia has nuclear cruise missiles both air and submarine launched, as well as SLBMs and missile bases that bypass the area of the missile shield) it still wouldn't allow a US first strike with impunity. 25% of the Russian strategic arsenal is enough to leave CONUS looking like something out of Fallout 3. And, to be honest, the biggest deterrent to the US nuking Russia first, is the ramifications of such actions.

Finally, keep in mind, Russia already has an operational BMD, is working on a next-generation replacement, and is integrating BMD capabilities into it's IADS via the S-500.

 

[Toblerone]

I guess the difference is that Russia is deploying these in its territory, while NATO is run by a handful of powerful countries which take advantage of their economic and political strength and stick military bases and installations in countries that are not in direct threat from Russia and are even non-factors otherwise. They just stick their so-called shield as close as possible to Russia.

My country is in NATO, has anyone asked me how I feel about this provocation? What do you think a poll in Europe would show, would the majority of the people agree with this grand military escalation?

And if I told you that I am way more afraid of our "ally" Turkey than Putin, what would you respond? Europe stands to gain nothing from isolating Russia in my opinion.

I used to be curious a few years ago about Russia's sudden increase in military spending. With all that's going on with Georgia, Ukraine, Turkey and the Middle East, I understand, Putin has been looking ahead.

 

[r3mu511]

...
The US can launch its missiles, without any previous warning, to hit Russia. Russia gets less than 30 mins to detect, verify and launch a counter attack. If the US missile shield (in its present or expanded form) can take down a large percentage of the Russian counter attack, then we can assume that the US can use a first strike attack with relative immunity.
...

...
You're wrong on both counts. It can't take down a large percentage, and won't be able to even if it's tripled in size. And even if it could drop 75% of the Russian strategic arsenal (which it can't even hypothetically, since Russia has nuclear cruise missiles both air and submarine launched, as well as SLBMs and missile bases that bypass the area of the missile shield) it still wouldn't allow a US first strike with impunity.

Note that in the context of ICBM strikes on CONUS, the aegis BMD system cannot intercept an ICBM as it's current exo-atmospheric capability w/ SM3-1B limits it to SRBM+IRBM targets, hence it's not currently applicable to "shielding" vs. intercontinental BMs. So it's probably moot to talk about what percentage it could intercept when dealing w/ ICBMs.

 

[Todjaeger]

I guess the difference is that Russia is deploying these in its territory, while NATO is run by a handful of powerful countries which take advantage of their economic and political strength and stick military bases and installations in countries that are not in direct threat from Russia and are even non-factors otherwise. They just stick their so-called shield as close as possible to Russia.

My country is in NATO, has anyone asked me how I feel about this provocation? What do you think a poll in Europe would show, would the majority of the people agree with this grand military escalation?

And if I told you that I am way more afraid of our "ally" Turkey than Putin, what would you respond? Europe stands to gain nothing from isolating Russia in my opinion.

I used to be curious a few years ago about Russia's sudden increase in military spending. With all that's going on with Georgia, Ukraine, Turkey and the Middle East, I understand, Putin has been looking ahead.

A few points to consider which have already been brought up in this thread as well as elsewhere.

Who/what is this "missile shield" supposed to protect against?

Despite the noise Russia is making, it would be very difficult to construct and adequate BMD system which would protect vs. a Russian nuclear strike. Russia just has too many warheads, with too many different delivery methods, which can launched from too many locations. Even if only 10% of the warheads get through and strike populations centres and/or strategic locations, the death and destruction would be horrific. A single large warhead detonating in/over Manhattan Island during normal business hours could kill or injure over 3% of the US population. From my recollection of current warhead inventories, that could happen 100x over, with a 90% successful interception rate. Even if we were to suppose that 4 warheads were allocated for each major metropolitan area in the US, that would mean the top 25 population centres within the US could be hit. By population, the top ten metro areas comprise 85.5 mil. people or over 25% of the total US population.

Even a 99% successful interception rate could mean as many as ten US targets getting hit. Additionally, while I believe Russia currently has ~1,000 warheads of various types active, that would in effect require the US to have about 1,000 interceptors of various types, and quite likely many more, to have a chance at intercepting that many inbound warheads. Plus Russia could also utilize decoy MIRV's for some of ballistic missiles. A single Russian ICBM like an RS-26 can carry ~16 MIRV's. Unless the interceptor was able to strike the ICBM while still in the boost phase, the one target becomes up 16. Assuming the US fired two interceptors per target, then an RS-26 could require 32+ interceptors to get all re-entry vehicles. The US just does not have the interceptors to deal with a saturation attack of nuclear warheads, even if each interceptor were to function perfectly.

The current number of interceptors, plus the planned future numbers (200+ IIRC) is to deal with small numbers of relatively unsophisticated ballistic missiles launched by 'rogue' nations with leadership/political systems of questionable stability. Countries where the prospect of MAD might not work, because the leadership may not care what happens to the population.

As for residents of Europe being asked anything in a poll perhaps try asking them this, "would you feel better if NATO had a capability to intercept ballistic missiles fired at Europe from Iran, or would you feel safer if NATO did not have such a capability?"

Realistically, it would be the gov'ts of the various NATO member-states who would make such a determination on behalf of their respective nations. If one were to have a problem with that, one should bring it up with their national gov't.

 

[r3mu511]

...
A single Russian ICBM like an RS-26 can carry ~16 MIRV's. Unless the interceptor was able to strike the ICBM while still in the boost phase, the one target becomes up 16. Assuming the US fired two interceptors per target, then an RS-26 could require 32+ interceptors to get all re-entry vehicles.
...
The current number of interceptors, plus the planned future numbers (200+ IIRC) is to deal with small numbers of relatively unsophisticated ballistic missiles
...

Against an RS-26 they'ld have to use a GBI CE interceptor as Aegis SM3-1B can't deal w/ an ICBM, and currently they're planning for only 44 GBI CE interceptors by 2017 (ref: "mostlymissiledefense.com/2015/05/20/what-is-a-robust-national-missile-defense-capability-may-20-2015/"). Not for boost phase intercepts though as they're also midcourse phase systems like SM3.

The 200+ number you cite is probably the total numbers for SM3 for Aegis use, w/c is 257 as of FY16 (ref: CRS Aegis BMD report, 03/28/16), good for just SRBM+IRBM though, not much use vs. RS-26 and their kind.

 

[gazzzwp]

I guess the difference is that Russia is deploying these in its territory, while NATO is run by a handful of powerful countries which take advantage of their economic and political strength and stick military bases and installations in countries that are not in direct threat from Russia and are even non-factors otherwise. They just stick their so-called shield as close as possible to Russia.

My country is in NATO, has anyone asked me how I feel about this provocation? What do you think a poll in Europe would show, would the majority of the people agree with this grand military escalation?

And if I told you that I am way more afraid of our "ally" Turkey than Putin, what would you respond? Europe stands to gain nothing from isolating Russia in my opinion.

I used to be curious a few years ago about Russia's sudden increase in military spending. With all that's going on with Georgia, Ukraine, Turkey and the Middle East, I understand, Putin has been looking ahead.

I have to disagree with you on some of these points. Putin's invasion of eastern Ukraine was a catastrophe for the people of the area, the economic well being of Ukraine, and the political respectability of Russia who is now isolated and may well remain so for years to come. Putin must regret the decision and the new military escalation that has ensued. not least because it will cost his nation in terms of sanctions and military spending that he could well do without.

Europe and NATO responded as they should have done bearing in mind the memories of long term annexations by the USSR are still fresh in people's minds. If I were Sweden or Finland I would be rapidly lobbying hard to join NATO and the fact that they haven't suggests a hit and hope policy at best and a dangerous naivety at worst.

The military escalation has nothing to do with Russia protecting itself from NATO or vice versa. This is a vital point to understand. Russia has made sure that it has more than enough capacity to destroy the world and as far as I can see unless the US has any unknown technology up it's sleeve, then Russia has all but closed the gap in technology terms. The Syrian demonstrations showed us that.

It is also clear from Putin's stance that his nation is more prepared for conflict mentally and practically than the west is. That needs to be factored in.

The whole point about the escalation is to do with both sides having aces to play on the world stage. If Putin wants to walk into Syria, no power can stop him. If he wants to walk into Ukraine the same. It gives him leverage, and respect on the world stage. This is the sole reason why he is maintaining the military balance. Nothing more nothing less.

No way can he really be afraid of the missile shield for reasons that Feanor and others have suggested.

 

[Feanor]

I have to disagree with you on some of these points. Putin's invasion of eastern Ukraine was a catastrophe for the people of the area, the economic well being of Ukraine, and the political respectability of Russia who is now isolated and may well remain so for years to come. Putin must regret the decision and the new military escalation that has ensued. not least because it will cost his nation in terms of sanctions and military spending that he could well do without.

I'm not so sure about the isolation. In Dec '15 Italy refused to sign the renewal and it took some backroom dealing to get them to agree. In January France said they're planning to see the sanctions removed at the end of this extension. The recent referendum in Holland on the Ukraine question, the Italians plans for investment in Crimea, the continued delivery of western military equipment (Thales thermals are one thing, but continued supplies of Iveco LMVs are another) all point to the fact that the European actors are far from unanimous on the question. Note none of this has to do with endorsing Russian actions in Ukraine. Some simply see the sanctions as ineffective while others claim that the sanctions benefit Germany and harm their country. So it's an open question how much longer the sanctions last, especially as it becomes more and more obvious that the Ukrainian side is not particularly interested in implementing the EU-brokered Minsk agreements.

Europe and NATO responded as they should have done bearing in mind the memories of long term annexations by the USSR are still fresh in people's minds. If I were Sweden or Finland I would be rapidly lobbying hard to join NATO and the fact that they haven't suggests a hit and hope policy at best and a dangerous naivety at worst.

If Sweden or Finland do join NATO it will have little to do with memories of the USSR and everything to do with Russia's current behavior. And I doubt they would need to lobby very hard.

The military escalation has nothing to do with Russia protecting itself from NATO or vice versa. This is a vital point to understand. Russia has made sure that it has more than enough capacity to destroy the world and as far as I can see unless the US has any unknown technology up it's sleeve, then Russia has all but closed the gap in technology terms. The Syrian demonstrations showed us that.

Destroying the world and protecting yourself are two different things. And Russia has nowhere near closed the technology gap.

It is also clear from Putin's stance that his nation is more prepared for conflict mentally and practically than the west is. That needs to be factored in.

How exactly is this the case?

The whole point about the escalation is to do with both sides having aces to play on the world stage. If Putin wants to walk into Syria, no power can stop him. If he wants to walk into Ukraine the same. It gives him leverage, and respect on the world stage. This is the sole reason why he is maintaining the military balance. Nothing more nothing less.

No way can he really be afraid of the missile shield for reasons that Feanor and others have suggested.

You keep thinking of countries as people. This is extremely simplistic. It doesn't really work the way you think it does.

 

[chris]

One more time...

So why are they complaining?

Because the Russians are afraid that the missile shield might give US first strike capabilities. Quoting our all time favorite Wikipedia

In nuclear strategy, a first strike is a preemptive surprise attack employing overwhelming force. First strike capability is a country's ability to defeat another nuclear power by destroying its arsenal to the point where the attacking country can survive the weakened retaliation while the opposing side is left unable to continue war. The preferred methodology is to attack the opponent's strategic nuclear weapon facilities (missile silos, submarine bases, bomber airfields), command and control sites, and storage depots first.

Stop counting the Russian arsenal as a whole. The missile shield affects the Russian Second Strike capabilities, what is left after a US first strike. None of the systems are indestructible. Subs can be trailed and either sunked or their missiles shot down by the aegis ships, there are lots of ways to take down cruise missiles. That is what they are afraid of. That if for whatever reason US strikes first, the missile shield in its complete form could be able to intercept their remaining missiles.

Are they paranoid? Probably, since the US till now has shown absolutely no sign of aggression against them (or anyone else) but as we all know, they are a bit crazy.

 

[Toblerone]

"Putin's invasion of Ukraine"
Well, more like an "insurgency that started in response to a coup". It is supported by Russia of course but realpolitik advocates can see it through the correct prism. Also, I see the annexation of Crimea as a step towards stability in the area when thinking long-term. The people there are russians.

Also, I don't care about the well-being of Ukraine, it isn't even in NATO. Neither are Sweden and Finland, which have the means to defend themselves and are not failed states.

And personally I am not at all convinced by Russia's military technology. Their equipment is operationally effective against insurgents or soviet-equipped enemies but not against western militaries. This gap will only widen in the future as everyone will get the F-35 (even Turkey, what a travesty!) and NATO sprinkles installations everywhere.

If there is one nation in the world that *needs* the nuclear threat wildcard, it's Russia. Otherwise, you'll have Turkey shooting down your airplanes for a few seconds of air violations, closing off the Bosporus, having your borders littered with hostile missile installations with technology better than yours, casually having the CIA manage the toppling of regimes that aren't friendly to them, leaving you with no base in the whole of the Mediterranean, having european countries sit across the table from Banderas-inspired neonazis with a straight face, in a former USSR country that has millions of russians ...