The Iskander is a short-range ballistic missile. Swerve handled the refutation quite well.
Tomahawks are cruise not ballistic missiles. And long-range GLCMs are a treaty violation.
NATO Missile Shield
- Thread starter gazzzwp
- Start date
So, can the mk 41 vls launch tomahawks, or not. Treaty violation or not, that capability appears to be the critical question.
Not really. If it's Tomahawks the US wants to lob at Russia, the USN has more then enough launchers and an easy ability to get those launchers close to Russia, though someone more qualified then me will have to answer the specific question.
It isn't a critical question. It's a red herring. GLCMs are very different from MRBMs or IRBMs. For a start, they're not ballistic missiles. They're slow, & much easier to shoot down. They're not first strike weapons, unlike ballistic missiles, because they take too long to reach their targets.
The strike length Mk 41 can fire Tomahawk (TLAM), but so what? Most of the infrastructure for the land-based missile defence system is useless for TLAM, & a single ship or SSN can carry more than the anti-missile system has in its launchers, while being much less vulnerable - the launchers Feanor mentions.
BTW, the USA no longer has any nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, & it scrapped a much more threatening system than one could turn a handful of fixed Mk 41 strike length VLs into. There used to be mobile GLCM launchers. I remember when some of them were based near here. If it wanted to deploy TLAMs in eastern Europe, it could probably re-create that system relatively quickly (much more to than a new IRBM), & it wouldn't have the vulnerability of fixed GLCM launchers.
Claims that the missile defence system is a cover for deploying land attack missiles are propaganda, pure & simple. It's a lousy basis for TLAM, & useless for ballistic missiles.
The strike length Mk 41 can fire Tomahawk (TLAM), but so what? Most of the infrastructure for the land-based missile defence system is useless for TLAM, & a single ship or SSN can carry more than the anti-missile system has in its launchers, while being much less vulnerable - the launchers Feanor mentions.
BTW, the USA no longer has any nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, & it scrapped a much more threatening system than one could turn a handful of fixed Mk 41 strike length VLs into. There used to be mobile GLCM launchers. I remember when some of them were based near here. If it wanted to deploy TLAMs in eastern Europe, it could probably re-create that system relatively quickly (much more to than a new IRBM), & it wouldn't have the vulnerability of fixed GLCM launchers.
Claims that the missile defence system is a cover for deploying land attack missiles are propaganda, pure & simple. It's a lousy basis for TLAM, & useless for ballistic missiles.
Last edited:
Does he really need a reason? To be honest I don't care what he claims, the site isn't well placed to intercept anything from Russia, plain and simple.
There are dedicated systems to detecting ICBM launches with a much deeper reach than a single Aegis facility.
RT... Not exactly a credible "news" site. Aegis is a defensive system, nor does it have a nuclear capability.
What offensive purposes? As others have said there are better T-Hawk launch platforms.
That is one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard. Good luck sticking a BM in a Mk-41.
You can't. The largest missiles that can be installed in MK-41 are Tomahawk and ASROC. The launcher is too small.
Besides why redevelop that capability when the US has plenty of ICBM's in US and sub based launchers?
First off Tomahawk is not an IRBM.
It can but doing so in Romania would be silly. Why would the US install the Tomahawk system in a land based facility with a handful of VLS cells when every DDG and CG has more cells as well as every SSN and the SSGN's?
I'll be blunt. It is an idiotic question.
Not even propaganda. I can't recall the Russian government actually claiming this. It's a conspiracy theory floating around the Russian part of the internet, on some of the less reputable military-related sites. It's total junk.
So to be clear, deploying the GLCM-capable launchers is not itself a treaty violation, as long as they're not carrying the Tomahawks? The reason I ask is because Russia has displayed a land-based and container-based Kalibr system, featuring special reduced-range missiles for export. But the launcher would be identical. Could Russia deploy these launchers domestically with the short-range cruise missiles that don't violate the treaty, and then in war-time simply transfer the full-range Kalibr missiles from a VMF warehouse and arm the launchers then, since the treaty will be a moot point?
This thread is rapidly descending into Wally World
Can we not suspend critical thinking when talking about extant missile systems and the placement of said systems
If the thread continues down this path it will be locked so as to protect what remains of logic and sanity
Can we not suspend critical thinking when talking about extant missile systems and the placement of said systems
If the thread continues down this path it will be locked so as to protect what remains of logic and sanity
It's actually the reverse: the aegis ashore site in Romania currently fields sm3-1b, w/ baseline aegis 9.b1 (+ bmd 5.0cu) not currently configured for aaw. The HASC has directed the USN to study upgrading ashore sites for aaw w/c could then mean fielding sm2-blk4 & sm6 (plus potentially adding bmd terminal phase defense w/ these two as well).
I assume you mean the UEWR at Fylingdales, right.
Ack, that's what I get for relying on spell-check: rogue, rouge, lol...
gazzzwp
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #49
Putin: "We will respond if we see rockets".
Putin: Russia will 'respond if we see rockets' - BBC News
Not much in his speech other than some hint that they are waiting to see what transpires in Poland presumably with the missile shield. Putin seems to be making a warning to NATO and warning that he will take action.
On RT he is saying that the defense missiles can easily be replaced with 500km and 1000Km IRBM's. He warns that Romania is now in Russia's 'crosshairs'.
https://www.rt.com/news/344642-putin-visit-greece-tsipras/
Putin: Russia will 'respond if we see rockets' - BBC News
Not much in his speech other than some hint that they are waiting to see what transpires in Poland presumably with the missile shield. Putin seems to be making a warning to NATO and warning that he will take action.
On RT he is saying that the defense missiles can easily be replaced with 500km and 1000Km IRBM's. He warns that Romania is now in Russia's 'crosshairs'.
https://www.rt.com/news/344642-putin-visit-greece-tsipras/
Well, since an IRBM is defined as a ballistic missile with a range of 3000 to 5500 km, it's hard to see how 500 km or 1000 km IRBMs could be installed anywhere.
And it's untrue even if we ignore the error over IRBMs, since neither 500 nor 1000 km ballistic missiles exist which fit in the launchers for the SAMs.
And it's untrue even if we ignore the error over IRBMs, since neither 500 nor 1000 km ballistic missiles exist which fit in the launchers for the SAMs.
IIRC the original Bush Euro Missile Shield called for the installation of the Ground Based Interceptor launched from underground silos. This is a much bigger missile than eiher the SM-2/SM-3 that Obama's plan calls for. To the general public at the time GBI could look menacing and even resemble a IRBM or even a MRBM though it is strictly an ABM and is not tasked for European BMD.
Maybe I'm missing something, but here's his quote.
"At the moment the interceptor missiles installed have a range of 500 kilometers, soon this will go up to 1000 kilometers, and worse than that, they can be rearmed with 2400km-range offensive missiles even today and it can be done by simply switching the software, so that even the Romanians themselves won’t know,"
So where's the IRBM part?
EDIT: I didn't watch the video, so if it's in there, I'll feel pretty stupid.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I do wonder just what 'offensive' missiles the US has in service with a range of 2,400 km is being talked about. The AGM-86B might have a range of 2,400+ km, and the TLAM-A has a range of ~2,500 km, but neither of these are designed for launch from a land-based launcher. And as previously mentioned, the US has more, and better launch/delivery methods to use if targeting Russia. One of the Ohio-class SSGN's for instance can launch 154 Tomahawk missiles, which would be very difficult for Russia to deal with, should the launch site be just off the Russian coast, especially if near the prospective target.
No. Assuming it is Tomahawk they are ranting about then additional hardware (specifically the entire Tomahawk system and possibly GSSM) would need to be installed. It isn't "just software".
DerPanzerDUDE!
New Member
Why is Russia complaining? They have a better system than NATO in the s400 and upcoming s500&600... They say it's for air defence but a common moron can see it's easily capable of taking out a BM and maybe even an ICBM... does Putin think the west wants a world ending war? No not the west, but I do believe he worries about the globalists which happen to be in control of many aspects of Western nations... but I guarantee the people and many Gov. and military officials that haven't been bought, wouldn't let these evil globalists have the chance at accomplishing their goals... More and more people are waking up to the corruption happening on a global level and there'll be a mass uprising soon if they keep escalating things and trying to eliminate a huge % of earths population with a 3rd and nuclear World War!
gazzzwp
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #57
What do people think about the S300 and S400 in terms of proven technology? When the US conducts a missile interception test it is usually open about them in terms of success or failure. The Patriot system has been seen to work in action in actual battle theatres,
Has anyone actually seen any success data for these miraculous Russian anti aircraft/missile systems?
Just how open the US is, is best left for another discussion. But for starters, there is nothing miraculous about a ~40 year old SAM (iirc serial production started 1978). I'm sure, if you wanted to, you could dig for results from tests and training, but the best proof is the high premium placed on the system, and on its S-400 successor. At the end of the day, today the S-300/400 family is the backbone of Russian air defense.
Anyways, the only possible combat use I know for the S-300 family is the shoot-down of the Ukrainian Tochka missile, which may have been done by an S-300V, though a Pantsyr-1S is also a candidate. Details are lacking for obvious reasons.
Here is a S300 test fire. You will be impressed by the technical superiority of the system and the professionalism of the personnel. USA needs a new stealth bomber, a restart of F-22 production and to replace its old aircraft types with F-35, as soon as possible, or its "near peers" will gain the upper hand.
https://youtu.be/1s77cqabHsM
Russia missile launch fail - Business Insider
EDIT:
This is how you do it (ignore the second rocket please, focus just on the first)
http://phimtoday.org/chinese-military-s-300-rocket-failure/SRHK8dvbwWA
There is little doubt about the range capabilities of the S300/400 systems. PK remains unproven IMO. No doubt a modern, lethal system.
That said, like all SAM systems it can be dealt with with a proper strike package. Could be done with standoff with a well laid out package of MALDs, HARM, TLAM without putting pilots within its engagement envelope.