Russia says new ICBM can beat any system

[georges]

There are only 5 mig 25 in service in Russia about its sucessor the mig 31, about 500 were produced, approximately 370 of which remain in Russian service, with another 30 or so in Kazakhstan. Some upgrade programs have found their way in the MiG-31 fleet, like the MiG-31BM multirole version with upgraded avionics, new multimode radar, hands-on-throttle-and-stick (HOTAS) controls, liquid-crystal (LCD) color multi-function displays (MFDs), ability to carry the AA-12 'Adder' missile and various Russian air-to-ground missiles (AGMs) such as the AS-17 'Krypton' anti-radiation missile (ARM), a new and more powerful computer, and digital datalinks. However, only very small number of Russian aircraft have been upgraded to the MiG-31BM standard, although others have been equipped with new computer and the ability to carry the R-77 long-range missile as well.
It is not yet clear when the Russian Air Force will phase out the MiG-31, but according to their importance in the VVS and with no clear successor in line, it is likely that it will continue serving for as long as until 2010, depending on its upgrades and the growth of the Russian economy.
The MiG-31 was the world's first operational fighter with a passive electronically scanned array radar, the Zaslon S-800. Its maximum range against fighter-sized targets is approximately 200 km (125 mi), and it can track up to 10 targets and simultaneously attack four of them with its AA-9 'Amos' missiles. It is claimed to have limited astern coverage (perhaps the reason for the radome-like protuberance above and between the engines). The radar is matched with an infrared search and tracking (IRST) system in a retractable undernose fairing. Up to four MiG-31s, spaced up to 200 km (125 mi) apart to cover a wide swath of territory, can coordinate via datalink. The radar is controlled by the back-seater, whose cockpit has only two small vision ports on the sides of the canopy.

 

[McRocket]

Re: Oh, the ABM treaty! Yes, I've never heard of that! (sarcasm)

Man, I don't expect anyone to know this stuff, but I do expect some people to STFU and stop telling me things when they don't, but I do!

Not only is this extremely rude.

Who the heck are you to tell people to (STFU) Shut The Fuck Up simply because you don't like what they are typing?

I have as much right to type my opinion as you do and I will continue to do so until the mods stop me or I no longer can or wish to.

Is this how you handle yourself in the real world? With your wife? Tell them (and apparently expect them) to shut up whenever they do not agree with you or discuss things as you wish them to?

I have no idea why you think I will listen to you on this request but I can tell you with great confidence I will never.


BTW, thanks for the info on the MIG 25 and 31 georges. Fascinating aircraft, I think.

 

[bodie54]

Georges - If you leave a post that's all (or virtually all) a copy and paste, it would be good to know the source so we can read the rest, if any, of the information available from that source. Thank you.

 

[McRocket]

Georges - If you leave a post that's all (or virtually all) a copy and paste, it would be good to know the source so we can read the rest, if any, of the information available from that source. Thank you.

I understand your point an agree with it.

But I wouldn't be shocked if all that came directly from georges mind - he knows ALLOT about this stuff.

But assuming it didn't - I would like to know where it came from also so I can read more about it.

 

[McRocket]

According to this link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/696028.stm

The U.S. only plans to deploy 10 anti ballistic missiles. If that is the case and as long as Russia can verify that on a regular basis then I think they have little to really complain about.
10 missiles should not be a threat to the Russian ICBM force.

I also think that America and Russia should draw up a new ABM (anti ballistic missile) treaty that allows for these kind of weapons so long as both sides can confirm that they do not exceed a preset number.
That would hopefully lead to enough missiles to destroy a 'rogue' states missile attack, but no real thread to MAD (mutually assured destruction) that has worked so well for so long - seemingly.

 

[niptuck]

Re: More buzzwords to abuse!

Obviously you haven't read a thing in this whole thread then, eh?

The Russians just love to make a big deal about so much in the hope we'll cater to them.

Wow, I never thought that such a thread would appear here.

In all fairness, Prof, we love to make a big deal out of everything because, in this instance, U.S. is tinkering right next to our borders. You didn't like it when we put up missiles in Cuba, why should we be O.K. with you putting up any sort of hardware in Poland?

I hear your argument about the difference between TMDs and NMDs. But am I correct in understanding that such strategy implies Russian military action against Europe? O.K., against U.S. forces located in Europe?

Even if you are talking about missiles from "rogue nations" (obviously a bogus excuse since they barely have a hand grenade to share between them) it would be safe to assume that these missiles would be shot down over Russian territory?

 

[Member2019]

The rhetoric v. reality, and why NATO is getting pissed by the Russian response ...

In all fairness, Prof, we love to make a big deal out of everything because, in this instance, U.S. is tinkering right next to our borders.

And not just the US, but NATO.
In fact, many non-Americans in NATO are not taking very kindly to Putin's "over-reaction."

It's one thing to bitch about the American sensor capabilities of TMD, which I totally understand.
But it's a completely other thing to threaten Europe with nuclear retaliation!

You didn't like it when we put up missiles in Cuba, why should we be O.K. with you putting up any sort of hardware in Poland?

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!

There is a huge difference between putting up a passive, defensive "early warning" system in Eastern Europe, and putting in nukes!
The US had no issue when the USSR put massive sensory and defensive installations in Cuba!
It wasn't until the USSR put nukes into Cuba that we took issue!

Now in return for the USSR removing the nukes from Cuba, the US removed aging Jupiter missiles 6 months later and didn't replace them
(which was required to avoid Turkey from feeling like the US was "selling out" it's own NATO ally for its own protection -- of which we really were from their perspective).
At the same time, the USSR did not remove the tactical nukes from Cuba -- a major oversight by JFK!
Fortunately, shortly thereafter, your premier finally didn't trust Castro with them, and pulled them out anyway.

I hear your argument about the difference between TMDs and NMDs.
But am I correct in understanding that such strategy implies Russian military action against Europe?
O.K., against U.S. forces located in Europe?

It is no more "military action against Russia" than NATO -- that's what even NATO is saying!
Here's the deal, we're with open arms wanting to share our TMD technology and show the USSR the installations so the Russians know exactly where they are!
Putin is putting out 100% rhetoric, despite our openness and willingness. Why?

Because it's an "early warning" system that integrates into the US' Command'n Control structure.
The Russians don't like that because it is a complete deterrent to them fucking with Eastern Europe again.
And that's also the exactly same reason why these Eastern European countries want us, despite 60% of citizens in the Czeck Republic being against it.

NATO is largely mum because they know it's "bad press" to side with the US on TMD, largely because of the public ignorance.
At the same time, NATO is all for TMD deployment -- because it's an integral part of the Command'n Control capability of NATO itself!
So what you have here is 100% PC/political BS standing, because of the gross ignorance of the public on what TMD is.

TMD is modern air defense and battlefield control -- basically the "next generation" of evolutionary radar-SAM defense and protection.
Nothing more, nothing less -- it just is NOT optional to not deploy the capability.
It would big like the US not deploying the F-22 because the F-15 is "good enough" and the F-22 gives us an "unfair advantage."

Even if you are talking about missiles from "rogue nations" (obviously a bogus excuse since they barely have a hand grenade to share between them) it would be safe to assume that these missiles would be shot down over Russian territory?

If a rouge element inside of any country decided to independently launch a missile undeclared, and it was headed towards a US ally or other country that requests protection, yes.
It can also be used to shoot down aircraft or anything else in air (or even space to a limited extent) that decides to become a "threat."
It's not about actual use, but the capability and resulting deterrent.

If Russia wanted to obliterate those Eastern European nations, it could throw 100+ missiles or aircraft and overwhelm the system -- no question.
Which is why Putin's comments are pissing off even NATO, because they are 100% rhetoric based, and not reality.

Now if Putin wants to bitch about the "sensor" capability of being in the US' Command'n Control system, that's understandable.
Of course, then NATO would have even a bigger problem with their stance, because that smacks all of NATO.
Everyone wants to join NATO because of the early warning and protections the US' Command'n Control infrastructure offers.
That's what this is virtually about, and the Russians hate the fact that it is creeping up on their doorstep -- especially the Ukraine (which is another story).

So the "0% reality rhetoric" is Russia's only option, prying upon ignorance of the majority of the public what TMD actually does.
Just like your analogy to Cuba, ignoring the fact that the USSR put in early warning and defensive systems in Cuba, and the US had no issue with that (not until nukes did we).

 

[georges]

I understand your point an agree with it.

But I wouldn't be shocked if all that came directly from georges mind - he knows ALLOT about this stuff.

But assuming it didn't - I would like to know where it came from also so I can read more about it.

It was an extract of the wikipedia mig 31 foxhound page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mig_31

 

[niptuck]

Prof, we are not threatening them with retaliation, we are simply pointing out that it would be logical for us then to take certain defensive precautions. The reason being the whole Cuban scenario, thats why I brought it up. You make some good points about that, but I am simply telling you why many Russians (including Putin) feel nervous about that.

Georges has pointed out that the next Russian President will be the former Defense Minister. Unlikely, of course. But what stops the American public from electing... I dunno... Rumsfeld? Cheney? Where will THEY take this? To the next step? Offensive capabilities?

The other issue we are concerned with is WHY does your current administration think that "rogue nations" will launch an attack against Europe, Western or any other? The only beef that Iranians had with any Europeans was when the Brits showed up near their borders. That was it. I once again ask you, what is the ultimate purpose of this system? You have explained yourself in no uncertain terms that this would do NOTHING to U.S. itself. Why do you need it then?

Of course, the most important factor that troubles me personally is the fact that whatever NATO is planning to shoot down with it will be most likely shot down over Russian territory. I respect other people's desire to protect themselves, but I take issue with that right when others do it at our expense. ERGO our promise to point our missiles at Europeans.

 

[McRocket]

Re: The rhetoric v. reality, and why NATO is getting pissed by the Russian response .

Here's the deal, we're with open arms wanting to share our TMD technology and show the USSR the installations so the Russians know exactly where they are!
Putin is putting out 100% rhetoric, despite our openness and willingness. Why?

Share? I have seen no evidence that the United States is willing to share all the technology that goes into these weapons systems with anyone - let alone Russia.
They are willing to let the Russians go and look at it - but share it with them - I have not seen any evidence of that.

Because it's an "early warning" system that integrates into the US' Command'n Control structure.

Eastern Europe is not and/or should not be part of the US's Command and Control structure. Now if they want to place those systems there at the request of the countries they are in - to be used only with the express consent of those countries, then fine (more or less). But otherwise, the US has no business being over there in any military capacity now that the Cold War is supposedly over. Especially not in a capacity that could be interpreted as threatening to surrounding countries.

Also, niptuck makes a good point that I had not considered. If Russia was going to shoot down rogue nuclear tipped missiles over America, I am quite sure the Bush administration would have fits about it as there would probably be radioactive fallout from such an interception that could land on it's citizens.
If that is a concern of Russia then I think - from what I know of it - that it is a legitimate one.


Also, I want to give you credit. You apparently went the whole post without insulting or ordering around any Freeones member.
Good for you.

Have a nice day.

 

[Friday on my mind]

First let me just say to McRocket thank you for your kind words regarding ny earlier post basically stating this whole situation was basically the current American govt. again doing provacative things with seeming total disregard for other nations.If really the Russians are not the country this ABM system is aimed at then why wasn't this all handled diplomaticly behind the scenes prior to this?It's because as the so called winner of the cold war we now act as though their is nothing we are not allowed to do.Notions like pre-emptive invasions would never have considered if the the Soviets were still there as a counter balance to the US.Power corrupts,it corrupts everyone everytime and that includes Americans.Maybe the EU will someday imerge as a powerful enough group to counter both US and the Russians or less favorably it might be China.But it will happen as no empire as shown by the Soviets lasts forvever.Also regarding the likelyhood that we will see a Nuclear war someday In my opinion is very high for the following reasons.If they exist they will probably be used, we have come close to there use in the past and with new members of the nuke club all the time that just becomes more likely.Also the further away from Hiroshima we get the horror is forgotten.Further our stance of we are allowed to have nukes but we can tell other sovereign nation they don't have that same right has not worked and proliferation has not been stopped.We should start to get rid of some of ours and then ask that everyone else do the same I think and then maybe someday we can be rid of the things but I don't see it.Live it up lol cause we are probably still on the "EVE OF DESTRUCTION" just as we were when Barry McGuire sang that classic song in the late 60'S.I consider the almost 40 years since that time as just that much gravy that we got out of sheer dumb luck and some skill by politicians,even the first Bush knew these things unlike his crazy didn't learn any of the lessons of history son.George should have learned the lessons of Vietnam while he was dodging it lol then we would not be in Iraq or pissing off the only country who really can wipe us out namely the Russians.Last thing is about the ABM treaty,im fairly sure it no longer exists as we withdrew because we wanted to pursue SDI and couldn't do that under the treaty, so the treaty lost.Dr.Strangelove approves.:thumbsup:

 

[Member2019]

PAC-3+THAAD replaces Patriot/PAC-2

Prof, we are not threatening them with retaliation, we are simply pointing out that it would be logical for us then to take certain defensive precautions.

Threating NATO with nukes is not the way to win over European leaders.
It's beyond just the Brits and Eastern Europeans at this point, but Canadians and even the Germans are getting pissed at Russia's attitude.

The reason being the whole Cuban scenario, thats why I brought it up. You make some good points about that, but I am simply telling you why many Russians (including Putin) feel nervous about that.

If we put nukes in Eastern Europe like we did Turkey, I'd agree with you.
But all we're talking about is an advanced, radar and early warning system with advanced SAMs.

It's like saying, "oh, the F-4 is okay, but the F-15/F-22 threaten our security."

Georges has pointed out that the next Russian President will be the former Defense Minister. Unlikely, of course. But what stops the American public from electing... I dunno... Rumsfeld? Cheney? Where will THEY take this? To the next step? Offensive capabilities?

Sigh. More rhetoric and non-sense.
It's no more "offensive" than Patriot or any other radar+SAM system prior.

The other issue we are concerned with is WHY does your current administration think that "rogue nations" will launch an attack against Europe, Western or any other? The only beef that Iranians had with any Europeans was when the Brits showed up near their borders.

It's all grandstanding BS.
The system is an advanced "air defense" system, and that's how it should be sold.
The Clinton administration alone spent $4B on its development so it would be deployed -- to protect our allies, our troops and our interests -- all 100% defensive and protective.

As far as "stopping rogue nations" -- that includes any "rogue entity" that got its hands on a missile and fired it.
That includes all the countless, roaming SS series of mobile launchers in Russia itself.
That "capability" exists in pure "air defense" terms -- with the added fact that it can intercept ballistic missiles as well as other air objects is just an "advanced" capability.

Again, it's likes saying "the F-4 is okay, but the F-15/F-22 are not."
The US has Patriot missiles and radar installations in NATO units and in NATO nations, which are now being replaced by PAC-3 and THAAD units.
At what point did we discretely cross the "oh, this is wrong" point merely because "they're too good"?

US TMD designs comply fully with all missile defense treaties, because TMD poses no threat to MAD or anything else.
But even then, TMD interceptors -- like PAC-3 and THAAD -- were purposely designed not to even approach the capabilities outlawed by treaties.
Treaties designed to prevent massive/widespread deployment of NMD, of which does not remotely apply to TMD.

TMD, when used as a NMD, is mainly a "last resort" and not merely as effective, but design.

That was it. I once again ask you, what is the ultimate purpose of this system? You have explained yourself in no uncertain terms that this would do NOTHING to U.S. itself. Why do you need it then?

Why do we need radar installations?
Why do we need SAMs?
Why do we need fighters?
Why deploy any new capability for that matter?

We spent over $10B on this system to replace our existing systems already in NATO and Europe.
It has nothing to do with TMD, air defense or anything else, but with Russia's attitude toward NATO expansion.

Of course, the most important factor that troubles me personally is the fact that whatever NATO is planning to shoot down with it will be most likely shot down over Russian territory.

NO! That's a technical lie!

THAAD is near exo-atmosphere, so it happens at the edge of space.
If it happens during the "boost" phase, it will likely intercept before the payload even arms.
If it happens during the "terminal" phase, it will likely intercept at an altitude that is much, much better than a lower altitude "airburst."
Including "much better" in terms of dispersion and "nearby countries."

PAC-3 is near-terminal, in other words, right above the target nation, and at altitudes of 5-7 miles (25-35,000', 8-11,000m).

God, I can't believe people are bitching about the US and TMD when any nation that fires a WMD would be the guilty party!
Man, are people's values that fucked up?
Where was all this bitching when Patriot was deployed?

One thing is for certain, the Japanese join us in thinking TMD is the best damn idea.

I respect other people's desire to protect themselves, but I take issue with that right when others do it at our expense.

Where as the same bitching when we deployed Patriot to NATO and their eastern front?
We're talking about the direct replacement of Patriot/PAC-2! That's all!

ERGO our promise to point our missiles at Europeans.

Which only pissed NATO the fuck off.
I mean, it's like telling NATO they can't have air defense!
Why? Not because of any treaty, but only because "it's too good."

Which is why 100% of this is utterly laughable to anyone with a remote, technical understanding of TMD.
TMD is the evolution of air defense, it's not some "discrete revolution" in a capability.
Bitching about PAC-3 and THAAD replacing Patriot and other systems is like bitching about F-15/F-22 replacing F-4.

TMD does not violate any ABM or other treaty that covers far more capable NMD.
I'm personally tired of having to point that out to people who have NEVER read or bothered to understood those treaties!

 

[Member2019]

TMD is not a "provacative system"!

First let me just say to McRocket thank you for your kind words regarding ny earlier post basically stating this whole situation was basically the current American govt. again doing provacative things with seeming total disregard for other nations.

My God, the majority of R&D was done under the Clinton administration!
It is the evolution of air defense, and the direct replacement for existing Patriot/PAC-2 systems!

If really the Russians are not the country this ABM system is aimed at then why wasn't this all handled diplomaticly behind the scenes prior to this?

Saying PAC-3+THAAD is "aimed" at the Russians is like saying any NATO Patriot/PAC-2 or other "air defense" system in Europe is "aimed" at the Russians!
The Cold War is over, and deploying the replacement radar+SAM systems in NATO is just evolution!
That's why most of us who worked on TMD are just rolling our eyes!

You guys have bit into the rhetoric bullshit, big time!

It's because as the so called winner of the cold war we now act as though their is nothing we are not allowed to do.

Nothing changed about the US from the Cold War era.
We were just the "lesser of two evils" back then -- we still did the same shit!
As did the Brits, French and select, other "western Allies."

Notions like pre-emptive invasions would never have considered if the the Soviets were still there as a counter balance to the US.

You mean like Iraq invading Kuwait?
Or Iraq invading Iran?
Or North Vietnam invading South Vietnam?
Or North Korea invading South Korea?
Or the British and French invasion of the Suez?
Or the French reclaiming Algeris, Vietnam, etc... as colonies?

Dude, do you even know your history?

The only reason most countries don't do these things isn't because some grand "oh, we're good now."
It's because they don't have the military capability anymore!

Power corrupts,it corrupts everyone everytime and that includes Americans.
Maybe the EU will someday imerge as a powerful enough group to counter both US and the Russians or less favorably it might be China.

Maybe.
Because by the '70s, the UK and the French could no longer afford their armies, and had to drop their corresponding foreign policy.
A quick trip back to the '50s-'70s will quickly drop the "holier than thou" (US) attitudes most have.

But it will happen as no empire as shown by the Soviets lasts forvever.Also regarding the likelyhood that we will see a Nuclear war someday In my opinion is very high for the following reasons.If they exist they will probably be used, we have come close to there use in the past and with new members of the nuke club all the time that just becomes more likely.Also the further away from Hiroshima we get the horror is forgotten.Further our stance of we are allowed to have nukes but we can tell other sovereign nation they don't have that same right has not worked and proliferation has not been stopped.

We don't tell the North Koreans they can't have nukes because we are hypocrites.
We tell the Chinese that we will keep nukes out of South Korea or Japan if they keep them out of North Korea.
That's what it is about!

Geez, the US isn't the only country involved in the debate!
The US works with its allies to ensure their interests are considered!

We should start to get rid of some of ours and then ask that everyone else do the same I think and then maybe someday we can be rid of the things but I don't see it.Live it up lol cause we are probably still on the "EVE OF DESTRUCTION" just as we were when Barry McGuire sang that classic song in the late 60'S.I consider the almost 40 years since that time as just that much gravy that we got out of sheer dumb luck and some skill by politicians,even the first Bush knew these things unlike his crazy didn't learn any of the lessons of history son.George should have learned the lessons of Vietnam while he was dodging it lol then we would not be in Iraq or pissing off the only country who really can wipe us out namely the Russians.

Unfortunately, if the US eliminates its nukes, it will just eliminate the deterrent for other nations.
I'm sorry, but to think otherwise is not only to be a fool, but to utterly ignore other nations and their unwilliness to give them up!
Apparently only the US is to blame and fault, despite the fact that other nations are the ones that also have them and won't give them up!

Last thing is about the ABM treaty,im fairly sure it no longer exists as we withdrew because we wanted to pursue SDI and couldn't do that under the treaty, so the treaty lost.Dr.Strangelove approves.:thumbsup:

For the last time ...

1. SDI was an "initiative" -- to learn what we could do

2. The US has never violated the ABM treaty

3. The US is developing a NMD that abides by the ABM treaty

4. And most importantly ...

TMD -- namely the Army PAC-3 and THAAD systems, as well as the Navy Theater Wide / Block II evolution -- has nothing to do with any of that!

Man, how many more ignorant folk are going to keep quoting ABM non-sense and says the US has "violated" the ABM treaty with TMD?

 

[Member2019]

What I can take away from this thread ...

Some things I can take away from this debate ...

1. Lay people will use the term "missile defense" like they use the term "renewable energy"

They act like complete experts, telling engineers who actually work on defense or power generation, that they know more. And when the engineer tries to explain what "missile defense" is, just like a "renewable energy," the lay people will ignore those specifics, and act like they don't apply. We engineers can't even argue specifics and real-world solutions with people who want to argue with people who use non-existent/non-real things, especially when they argue they exist and they are somehow "different" or "better" or whatever.

In other words, the "political" aspects are the "expertise" -- especially those overused buzzwords which are not even real! The actual realities of the situation -- let alone specifics of the PAC-3 and THAAD TMD systems versus the EKV and other NMD capabilities are (just like what "renewable energy" power plants are in nuclear, wind, hydro, geo, etc... and all their attribute) -- of the situation be damned. So if someone says the ABM treaty applies to TMD, it doesn't matter that TMD velocities, capabilities and other aspects are well below those of an interceptor that comes under the rules of the ABM treaty (that's a NMD-class interceptor's attributes and capabilities, which are far better), it applies because non-experts say it does.

2. Lay people are not interested in the details

Most of my sound physics and engineering concepts here have been ignored, in addition to the sheer military/battlefield concepts.

E.g., one person talked about using stealth on an ICBM. That's like putting an invisibility suit on a screaming person -- supersonic speed is mutually exclusive with reducing radar cross section (RCS). Again, all the rhetoric being thrown about is insulting to the intelligence of anyone who has a remote understanding of the physics involved, let alone the military/battlefield concepts.

E.g., most everyone keeps ignoring the fact that Patriot and PAC-2 already exist in NATO, and are deployed in Europe on various borders, including Russia. Those defensive interceptor systems (they are not surface-to-surface missiles at all) are also accompanied by radar and other sensory installations, which feed back into the huge, US Command'n Control system that pisses everyone off (except our allies, of course).

3. This is about NATO expansion, and has nothing to do with TMD

The US has repeatedly invited the Russians to not only oversee any new air defense deployments at NATO alies in Europe, but the US has even engaged the Russians to join in such a "defensive network" and related, technology-developments. The US would love to have the Russians as a "partner," possibly as leverage against the Chinese, as much like the US used to play China against the USSR in the Cold War. This includes NATO categorizing Russia as an "ally" short of membership.

But the problem is that it doesn't play into Russia's interests well to be "part of the NATO, and ultimately, 'US cronie' crowd." Furthermore, everyone is blaming the US for everything now -- post Cold-War (even in the Clinton days) -- and has taken their eyes off them, a 180 degree reversal. Before Putin, Russia was silent, and Putin (among others) absolutely hate the feeling of "not being significant." So it makes absolutely no political sense to just become, what some consider to be, "another US cronie."

Especially when you can develop a new "strategic" ICBM, and people will blame the US' for developing PAC-3 and THAAD "theater" replacements for existing Patriot/PAC-2 capability! You can do anything when the blame is shifted to someone else!

Sorry, at this point, the rhetoric is just too thick, and my experience is just to extensive to even consider this thread credible. But then again, "credible" anymore isn't about technical, tactical and real facts, but what the media and -- more importantly -- what political rhetoric buys you. Especially rhetoric that survives on the ignorance of people, and not actual knowledge and context -- especially when its laughable to those who have the knowledge and put it under the context.

I honestly will not bother to educate anyone in areas of my first-hand, experience-laden career anymore. I am an expert here, and I'm telling you that you are not bothering to learn the facts at all, and constantly bringing up things that don't apply, adding to the utter rhetoric this whole thing has become! It has nothing to do with "arrogance," but pure, utter frustration that no one bothers to even understand the facts of the matter. If it's negative and you can blame the US for it, it's politically acceptable. If it's about improved technological capability and replacement of something that already exists, then people don't want to consider that.

 

[McRocket]

Re: PAC-3+THAAD replaces Patriot/PAC-2

US TMD designs comply fully with all missile defense treaties, because TMD poses no threat to MAD or anything else.
But even then, TMD interceptors -- like PAC-3 and THAAD -- were purposely designed not to even approach the capabilities outlawed by treaties.
Treaties designed to prevent massive/widespread deployment of NMD, of which does not remotely apply to TMD.

I say that this European deployment DOES violate the ABM treaty.
To my knowledge, the treaty allowed for only two (2) ABM bases. One near a countries capital city and one in defense of one (1) ICBM facility.
There is already an operational TMD base operating in Alaska. To open this base would mean two bases - thus violating the treaty.
Also, these missiles are capable of shooting down ICBM's. What theatre missile are you going to shoot down in Alaska? The only missile you would be defending against in Alaska is an ICBM. Ostensibly from North Korea (though I think they are really there to stop Chinese ICBM's).
That is why I state that obviously this deployment would violate the ABM treaty - were it still active.
But it is not because George W. Bush pulled out of the ABM treaty years ago.

THAAD is near exo-atmosphere, so it happens at the edge of space.
If it happens during the "boost" phase, it will likely intercept before the payload even arms.

The boost phase. Iran is what 1000+ kilometres from the proposed base. North Korea much farther. These THAAD and PAC-3 missile's ranges are no more then 200 kilometres.
They are not going to shoot it down during the 'boost' phase.

PAC-3 is near-terminal, in other words, right above the target nation, and at altitudes of 5-7 miles (25-35,000', 8-11,000m).

It can be used in that manner. But Patriot 3 was designed to protect an area 7 time bigger then Patriot. It is a far more lethal and capable system.

Where was all this bitching when Patriot was deployed?

Patriot missiles used proximity fuses. They only came near the incoming missile and then detonated and used shrapnel to destroy. And as shown during Desert Storm, this is not the best way to stop an incoming missile. Especially if you are defending a huge target like a city.
The THAAD and Patriot 3 are hit-to-kill missiles. They actually hit the incoming warhead. An entirely more sophisticated system.
You would not use Patriot to try and take out ICBM's - unless you had no choice. Especially if you are trying to protect a city. Their range is insufficient. And their proximity fuses do not guarantee (as seen in Desert Storm) that the incoming warhead would be sufficiently damaged. And they can do little to consistently stop a medium atmosphere air burst of an ICBM's warhead.
THAAD and PAC-3 can - theoretically. At distances much farther away then before.
They may not be true ABM's in the conventional sense.
But they are the first time that America has deployed missiles that are realistically capable of shooting down ICBM's without resorting to nuclear warheads on the ABM's to destroy the incoming missiles.
And if they were deployed in sufficient numbers could theoretically destroy (the first wave anyway) of a massed incoming ICBM attack.

 

[McRocket]

Re: What I can take away from this thread ...

And when the engineer tries to explain what "missile defense" is, just like a "renewable energy," the lay people will ignore those specifics, and act like they don't apply.

I don't believe you are an engineer any more then the 'babes' that come on here are who they claim to be. They probably are, but I am not going to believe it 100% just because they say it. And at least they are confirmed by the staff on here. No one has confirmed you that I know of. You probably are an engineer. Or for all I know, you are just a guy who reads allot.

So if someone says the ABM treaty applies to TMD, it doesn't matter that TMD velocities, capabilities and other aspects are well below those of an interceptor that comes under the rules of the ABM treaty (that's a NMD-class interceptor's attributes and capabilities, which are far better), it applies because non-experts say it does.

The ABM treaty was signed almost 35 years ago. The velocities and missile characteristics that were required at that time to intercept ICBM's no longer apply.
THAAD and PAC-3 can (theoretically) intercept ICBM's. They just built a base in Alaska to take out planes? And IRBM's (intermediate range ballistic missiles with maximum ranges of 5500 kilometres)? Of course not. They are there to stop ICBM's.
That means they would violate any realistic and modern ABM treaty. And if these missiles were to be deployed under the current ABM treaty, it is obvious that the Russians would demand that these treaties be modified to meet the needs of today's modern weaponry.

Most of my sound physics and engineering concepts here have been ignored, in addition to the sheer military/battlefield concepts.

Not ignored. Taken with a grain of salt. If you want me (and I assume others) to believe you then you are going to have to provide verifiable data to back up everything that you propose.
Others do it on other subjects. Why would you be any different?

And maybe if you stopped getting so angry when we don't take your word for it then we might trust you a bit more.
Yelling and insulting someone is no way to get them to believe you.

As I have typed before. You have some knowledge that can be good for the board - IMO.
But if you want to gain people's respect, you are going to have to earn it.
And that means treating people as equals, not delinquent children. And backing up your scientific claims with links or Copy and Paste passages that prove what you are typing.

Have a nice night.

 

[Member2019]

Stop confusing TMD and NMD!

I say that this European deployment DOES violate the ABM treaty.

And you are intimately knowledgeable with the specifications that fall under the ABM treaty and the specifications of the PAC-3 and THAAD interceptors?
If you are, please tell me what velocity and altitude of intercept classify an anti-ballistic missile?
And then tell me how do PAC-3 and THAAD interceptors even quality as remotely having the capability of an ABM?

To my knowledge, the treaty allowed for only two (2) ABM bases. One near a countries capital city and one in defense of one (1) ICBM facility.

Yes.

There is already an operational TMD base operating in Alaska.

The new, National Missile Defense (NMD) installation is now in (from memory, may be wrong) Kodiak, AK (again, the last time I checked).
PAC-3 and THAAD are not NMD interceptors!
They do not have the capability of what the ABM treaty defines as an "anti-ballistic missile"!
That's why they are "Theater" and not "National" -- and we use "National" for those interceptors that come under the capabilities of the ABM treaty.

To open this base would mean two bases - thus violating the treaty.

Have you even seen what a PAC-3 or THAAD unit looks like?
Let alone the missile itself?
Especially in comparison to a sub-orbital sounding rocket carrying the NMD EKV?

It's like comparing the Redstone against the Saturn V!

Also, these missiles are capable of shooting down ICBM's.

Even Patriot was capable of that, although not nearly as well.

What theatre missile are you going to shoot down in Alaska?
The only missile you would be defending against in Alaska is an ICBM.

Correct!
NMD is about intercepting anything almost on a global-scale.
That's why it's called "National" missile defense.
And the technical capability to do such falls into the specifications covered in the ABM treaty.

TMD is about "Theater" -- as in "Theater of Operations" -- as in "local, NATO allies or areas of deployment."

Ostensibly from North Korea (though I think they are really there to stop Chinese ICBM's).
That is why I state that obviously this deployment would violate the ABM treaty - were it still active.

PAC-3 and THAAD are theater interceptors.
In the theater, they can only intercept near the protected area, a very small region.
THAAD, if it's deployed close to the launch position, can intercept during boost.

How you can even remotely continue to state they violate the ABM treaty?
TMD-type capability is not even covered or classified as an ABM under it!

But it is not because George W. Bush pulled out of the ABM treaty years ago. The boost phase. Iran is what 1000+ kilometres from the proposed base. North Korea much farther.

Yes. But we are deploying THAAD (as well as PAC-3) in Japan, Israel and elsewhere.
THAAD could take out a ballistic missile during boost, depending on the trajectory and other considerations.

These THAAD and PAC-3 missile's ranges are no more then 200 kilometres.
They are not going to shoot it down during the 'boost' phase.

No, not from Eastern Europe.
But you don't put interceptors in one place without the other.

It's called "defense in depth."
Even TMD complements NMD as the "last line of defense" for American soil.

It can be used in that manner. But Patriot 3 was designed to protect an area 7 time bigger then Patriot. It is a far more lethal and capable system.

Yes! That's why we want it to replace Patriot and PAC-2 on the battlefield!
Patriot is a SAM -- surface to air missile -- that provides "general air defense."

Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC) is the augmentation of that.
So is the greater Theater High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD)!

Air Defense! Air Defense! Air Defense!
A "by product" -- as we found with the original Patriot -- is that it can also intercept ballistic missiles.

Patriot missiles used proximity fuses. They only came near the incoming missile and then detonated and used shrapnel to destroy. And as shown during Desert Storm, this is not the best way to stop an incoming missile.

I've already covered this over the years.
Especially the notions that "hit-to-kill" allegedly "doesn't work."

CYNICAL: If it doesn't work, the Russians have nothing to fear!

Especially if you are defending a huge target like a city.
The THAAD and Patriot 3 are hit-to-kill missiles. They actually hit the incoming warhead. An entirely more sophisticated system.

Exactly! Hence why they are replacing Patriot and PAC-2!

You would not use Patriot to try and take out ICBM's - unless you had no choice.

EXACTLY! It's a "last stand" missile defense and "general air defense"!

Especially if you are trying to protect a city. Their range is insufficient. And their proximity fuses do not guarantee (as seen in Desert Storm) that the incoming warhead would be sufficiently damaged. And they can do little to consistently stop a medium atmosphere air burst of an ICBM's warhead.

Huh? At 5-7 miles for PAC-3, that's 25-35,000 feet.
That's still well above the altitude where a WMD would air-burst to be even remotely effective.
THAAD is much, much higher.

THAAD and PAC-3 can - theoretically. At distances much farther away then before.
They may not be true ABM's in the conventional sense.

Not only "in the conventional sense" -- but in the "terms of the treaty"!

But they are the first time that America has deployed missiles that are realistically capable of shooting down ICBM's without resorting to nuclear warheads on the ABM's to destroy the incoming missiles.

Exactly! That's why we developed "hit-to-kill"!

And if they were deployed in sufficient numbers could theoretically destroy (the first wave anyway) of a massed incoming ICBM attack.

Yep! But we're not deploying them in "sufficient numbers."
NATO will be deploying a whole ten (10) units in Eastern Europe!
Which is why they are not even a remote threat to a massive attack by even a tiny portion of the Russian arsenal.

If TMD is "against the ABM treaty," then the US Navy should just remove all its Block IIs from all Guided Missile Destroyers and Cruisers as well.
As some point, "general air defense" was going to reach a capability of providing for "general air defense" against even very fast moving, re-entry vehicles.
It started with Patriot, and we've improved upon it.

So ... it begs the question ...
Who operates the largest air defense network in the world and has an entire military branch (1 of 5) virtually dedicated to it?
It's not the US.

 

[McRocket]

The Kodiak facility is not an ICBM base. Thus deploying ABM's at that location violates the ABM treaty.

Also, PAC-3 and THAAD are theoretically capable of destroying incoming ICBM's sufficiently to defend cities. Patriot was not - as shown in Desert Storm.
They each have a range of over 100 miles.

The Sprint missile, which was classified under the ABM treaty as an ABM, had a range of only 25 miles. And only could shoot down an incoming missile by using an atomic warhead.
Please tell me how Sprint is an ABM and THAAD and PAC-3 (which are far more effective) are not?

BTW, if you had read my posts you would have seen that I agree that the proposed deployment of only 10 missiles is not a threat to Russia. However, I still believe that this deployment represent a breach of the old ABM treaty. If in spirit if not in technical fact.

 

[Member2019]

Then why do you have to continually concede the facts I present?

I don't believe you are an engineer any more then the 'babes' that come on here are who they claim to be.
They probably are, but I am not going to believe it 100% just because they say it. And at least they are confirmed by the staff on here.
No one has confirmed you that I know of. You probably are an engineer. Or for all I know, you are just a guy who reads allot.

Then you are free to assume everything I say comes out of my ass and has no merit.
But over the years I have provided consistent, technically accurate information -- and it's that which "proves" who I am more than any "credentials" I could ever flash!
In fact, after years of proving you wrong with technical facts, you'd figure someone like yourself would have learned by now?!

The ABM treaty was signed almost 35 years ago.
The velocities and missile characteristics that were required at that time to intercept ICBM's no longer apply.

Oh, so now we're not in violation of the ABM treaty, but the US is in violation of what you think it should be?

Furthermore, we've always had the capability to intercept missiles from a velocity/altitude standpoint.
What we didn't have was the "real-time" sensory and "active guidance" to do it.
The ABM treaty took this into account, that it would happen in the future.
That's why there is the distinction between TMD and NMD -- TMD is "general air defense" for a "theater of operation" and NMD is a system designed to protect a "nation or large region"

The ABM treaty was to prevent the US and USSR from upsetting the MAD balance.
That no country would build a huge lot of exo-atmosphere ABMs that could take out a significant number of their ICBMs.
It didn't address TMD because TMD was never (and still isn't) a threat to MAD!

THAAD and PAC-3 can (theoretically) intercept ICBM's.
They just built a base in Alaska to take out planes?

Man, do you even THINK before you type?!
No, better yet, do you realize how continually foolish and argumentative you look?

The NMD base in Alaska provides thousands of miles of global-wide coverage using a NMD interceptor -- sounding rocket plus EKV.
It intercepts exo-atmosphere at very long ranges -- again, thousands of miles.

TMD deployments, like mobile PAC-3 and THAAD launchers, provides short range, "general air defense."
We're talking about defending NATO in Europe, so we're talking about providing "general air defense" for the theater.

So how you keep crossing Alaska's fixed, long-range NMD capability with the fact that the US is going to deploy mobile, short-range TMD units at NATO bases (such as those in Eastern Europe) is beyond me.
I really don't understand what your point is at all.

TMD intercepts anything that is lower or upper atmosphere -- including aircraft, as well as boosting or re-entering ballistic vehicles.
NMD intercepts exo-atmospheric -- including any spacecraft, satellites, etc... as well as ballistic vehicles near apogee, but not aircaft.

TMD is used locally, in the theater, virtually mobile/as needed -- aircraft, surface-to-surface missiles, etc...
NMD is used globally, from a fixed location, like Alaska, and can't be used for tactical engagements, like aircraft.

What NMD has to do with Eastern Europe is beyond me.
How you even thought I was talking about PAC-3 or THAAD in Alaska, and shooting down aircraft, is beyond me.
At this point, since you can't even construct a consistent argument without having to redefine and otherwise backtrack, let alone state things that I never even hinted, is beyond me.

Now the US would like to build a joint NMD system with the Russians to protect all of Eurasia!
But that's another story and unrelated to TMD deployments by NATO.
PAC-3 and THAAD aren't even NMD-capable, and no where near the specs set in the ABM treaty.

And IRBM's (intermediate range ballistic missiles with maximum ranges of 5500 kilometres)? Of course not. They are there to stop ICBM's.

Yes. That's why Kodiak can't use PAC-3 or THAAD (other than as a "last resort" to just protect itself).

That means they would violate any realistic and modern ABM treaty.

Under your same classification, the Russians are in violation of that treaty!
They have deployed the most extensive radar and interceptor network in the world!

And if these missiles were to be deployed under the current ABM treaty, it is obvious that the Russians would demand that these treaties be modified to meet the needs of today's modern weaponry.

What "modern weaponry" are you speaking of?
General air defense was considered in the ABM treaty, and it doesn't apply to preventing MAD!

The ABM treaty was MAD would not be unbalanced.
Putting ten (10) TMD interceptors does nothing to stop MAD!

Not ignored. Taken with a grain of salt. If you want me (and I assume others) to believe you then you are going to have to provide verifiable data to back up everything that you propose.

My God, you can't even stop to consider the facts, so why should I continue to provide my first-hand knowledge that has been accurate over and over?!

Others do it on other subjects. Why would you be any different?
And maybe if you stopped getting so angry when we don't take your word for it then we might trust you a bit more.

Maybe you should respect that fact that virtually everything you have challenged me on with regards to defense and space you've been PROVEN WRONG over and over again.
Many, you utterly expose your ignorance over and over, while I show that I know these systems.

Yelling and insulting someone is no way to get them to believe you.
As I have typed before. You have some knowledge that can be good for the board - IMO.
But if you want to gain people's respect, you are going to have to earn it.

I've "earned" my respect from others by continually providing sound information in areas I could be considered "an expert."

And that means treating people as equals, not delinquent children.

Because you can't seem to understand what "air defense" and TMD is, and how that has nothing to do with NMD and the type of interceptors at Kodiak, you are an delinquent child at this point.

And backing up your scientific claims with links or Copy and Paste passages that prove what you are typing.

You can assume I pull everything out of my ass, the "proof" is what you research and find out I'm 100% correct on.
Like the "backtracking" your doing right now on the ABM treaty!
You were wrong and you know it, but you won't even admit it, and are dancing around it.
You got everyone "riled up" on the ABM treaty, before you even know a fucking thing about it.
The ABM treaty is about ensuring "MAD" -- not about being able to stop 2-3 missiles.

So as you have continually proven for me, time and time again, you end up agreeing with everything technical I state over time.
Why? Because you finally research stuff and realize that it would be "common knowledge" to someone who has worked on the shit.
And you'll still try to "dance" around it, and put the focus on, "how can we believe you are who you say you are"?
If you "don't believe me," then why do you continually have to concede the facts I state, over and over, time after time?

 

[McRocket]

No, you are right about Alaska.

I confused Alaska's missiles with THAAD and PAC-3. They are not.

From what I can see. Alaska's missiles are actually true ABM's.

This is the first time I have actually done reading on the Alaska and PAC-3 and THAAD systems. So I am learning on the fly.

But other then the fact that I goofed on the Alaska deployment, I see nothing else that you proved me wrong on.

And if you would answer my Sprint quetion, I think you will find that it is you who may be proved wrong.

Unfortunately, you are proving to me once again that you are too biased by your apparent past to be treated as a rational and well thought out opinion on such matters.
The fact that you are getting so incredibly agitated over this matter proves it.
No one gets as angry as you are unless the subject in question means a GREAT deal to them. Thusly, you are too biased to be rational on this subject in my opinion.
And it is causing you to not look at the facts clearly and with due clarity, also in my opinion.
PAC-3 and THAAD are obviously ABM's. If they can shoot down ICBM's - which they can - then they are.
Period.