New Nato Missle Defense bas in Romainia to go live on thursday

[Skroe]

Let Americans waste their money.

Quite the contrary this will save money. And a lot of it. It costs about $30-40 million a year to operate a single aegis destroyer and we currently have 4 in Europe providing missile defense. The navy is very eager for these to come online to replace that rather wasteful lot expensive deployment. The cost of operating and building two aegis ashore will be far far less than building say, 12 more aegist destroyers to provide continuous rotating ballistic missile defense coverage of Europe.

We'll be saving hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Oh and they are more capable too, on account of not being limited to a ships dimensions for the radar. Two aegis ashore with a larger radar radius will replace four aegis destroyers.

[Deleted]

Yeah, because it is real fucking smart to launch conventional missiles against the country with the largest nuclear arsenal in the word.

I have no idea what your point is.

[Pangean]

Yeah, because it is real fucking smart to launch conventional missiles against the country with the largest nuclear arsenal in the word.

I wonder how much of the Russian arsenal is actually operationally ready. Size might not equal capability in this case.

[Deleted]

I wonder how much of the Russian arsenal is actually operationally ready. Size might not equal capability in this case.

Even if out of those thousands they have only a few hundred work, is it really worth it when a single nuke landing can fuck a country for decades?

[Pangean]

Even if out of those thousands they have only a few hundred work, is it really worth it when a single nuke landing can fuck a country for decades?

Just making a point about capability Chief.

[Deleted]

Just making a point about capability Chief.

No one on my end is arguing Russian competence, still they have a lot to lob even if most are duds.

[Kellhound]

I get plenty of money from Putin. I will the the first in line to block the construction and be rude to the American soldiers around it.

At least you admit to being on his payroll....

[Ydoajin]

Ahh the military banter from non military types

[Theinquisition]

Ahh the military banter from non military types

I was in the U.S. army for 11 years, rich is still in the British military and kellhound is/was U.S. navy

[Marcellus1986]

Ahh the military banter from non military types

Ah the sock puppet accounts with less than 10 posts.

[Hooked]

I wonder if these missle defense bases also double as anti aircraft systems?

[Skroe]

It's just a missile defense system, it's not an offensive system.

Actually I want to amend my previous point a little bit.

Aegis Ashore utilized the Baseline 9 software/hardware version of Aegis. The key advance of Baseline 9 over its predecessors is it's ability to be multimodal. Pre BL9, Aegis could do missile defense, or it could air defense, or it could do point defense, but not all three at once. With BL9, it can.

It's important to remember that Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense came later. It is an evolution of the seperate, but related, Aegis Combat System, and even within the US navy, not all ships that have the Aegis Combat System have Aegis Ballistic Missile defense capability (although by congressional mandate, most being built MUST have it). Many have been retrofitted. But ABMD includes Aegis Combat System.

Why is this signfiicant? Let's look at the map.



The Aegis Combat System was built with air defense being a core component of it. Properly loaded with SM-6s, Aegis Ashore, like any Aegis Ship, would be an long range A2/AD system in it's own right for aircraft and vehicles, and not just for ballistic missiles.

That said, presently, as far as I can find, the sites in Romania and Poland are planned just to have SM-3s for missile defense. But again, if a ship can fire it, there is no reason that Aegis Ashore can't, if the VLS tube is loaded with it. So who knows. But it's pretty easy to see why this is becoming a popular thing to build. A few months ago, for example, Hawaii's congressional delegation requested the Aegis Ashore test site be made fully operational.

The following slides are for people who have no clue wtf we're talking about.








The Romania Facility




The great thing about Aegis Ashore is that it defends Europe against the types of missiles Russia would actually use (Intermedia Range, Medium Range Ballistic Missiles), and replaced building Ground Based Midcourse Missile Defense, that would defend against ICBMs (which Russia would launch against the US, not Europe, due to distance). By protesting GBMD, Russia basically brought this on itself. For ICBM defense, the solution is an East Coast US Midcourse Defense site. One is being planned to be built now.



The US also has an East Coast Aegis Ashore site in New Jersey already, to defend against Russian ballistic missile cruise missile submarines.

[IMG]tent/uploads/sites/3/2015/07/Aegis-East-Coast-Cooper-Williams-July-29-2014-I.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]2015/12/A-Ashore-e1450876226234.jpg[/IMG]

- - - Updated - - -

I wonder if these missle defense bases also double as anti aircraft systems?

If equipped with SM-6 or Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles, there is no reason why they couldn't be. The same goes for being Tomahawk launch platforms for land attack, or, with a Mk-41 VLS Long Range Anti-Ship missile, be a an effective fixed launch platform for anti-ship A2/AD of our own for the Baltic Sea (via Poland) and Black Sea (via the Romania).

They are Aegis Combat Systems Baseline 9, minus the ship. Even the "deckhouse", a ship term, looks ship-like.

But again, right now, they will just have SM-3 for Ballistic Missile Defense. But the number of VLS tubes attached to it is arbitrary. Destroyers have 96. Cruisers have 122. I'm not sure how many Romania has, but judging from Raytheon materials, it looks to be about 30-40 SM-3s.

it seems that deployment of SM-6 is planned for around 2020, in a medium range ballistic missile defense role.

[ringpriest]

But didn't Trump claim that Obama had abandoned missile defense in Europe in his "big" foreign policy speech last week? (Right... Trump - mouth moving = not only lying, but wrong. Or is that the other way around? )

[The One Percent]

It's just a missile defense system, it's not an offensive system.

/wink wink

[Skroe]

But didn't Trump claim that Obama had abandoned missile defense in Europe in his "big" foreign policy speech last week? (Right... Trump - mouth moving = not only lying, but wrong. Or is that the other way around? )

Christ that speech was revolting.

I'm sure Trump's pal Putin would LOVE if the US, after all of this, put back in GMD under President Trump, since it would be completely useless in defending against attacks on Europe and America from Russia. Aegis on the other hand is perfect for actually defending Europe rather than just saying you are.

[Kellhound]

I wonder if these missle defense bases also double as anti aircraft systems?

The SM-3 used for ABM have some capability to engage aircraft, the AEGIS system itself is fully capable of engaging aircraft, and the Mk-41 VLS can house all common US Navy SAMs.

[zmp]

INB4 USA BEST RUSSIA NOT SO BEST discussions..

[Hooked]

Can these missle defense systems stop the mirv missles before they split up?. If not I don't see how useful they are.

[Skroe]

Can these missle defense systems stop the mirv missles before they split up?. If not I don't see how useful they are.

These ones (SM-3s) cannot... yet. A MIRV'd interceptor is under development (for both the SM-3 and the larger GMD system that is US based).



The white things are the actual interceptors, the gold thing is the core they're launched attached to. This is the one meant for GMD and has 12 interceptors on it.

But for _THIS_ system, Aegis Ashore, MIRVing interceptors would be for redundancy (the plan is to launch 2 inteceptors per warhead already, to increase odds of success... so mirving can give many options). However the types of Missiles from Russia they would intercept - Medium and Intermediate Range ballistic missiles - are generally too small to be MIRV'd and carry only a single warhead. MIRVing is reserved for ICBMs and SLBMs.

Furthermore, although it doesnt cover tactical systems, the NewSTART treaty places only somewhat a lower limit on Launchers (800), than it does Warheads (1550), for all bombers, ICBMs and SLBMs. This has generally prioritized swapping to one-warhead-per-missile in order to hit the sweet spot of keeping the entire nuclear structure economical (rockets, let alone warheads are expensive to own while still distributing the arsenal wide enough.

In the US for example, today for the most part only Trident II D5 SLBMs are nearly fully MIRV'd while Minuteman-III ICBMs, while they can be MIRV'd, are only carrying one warhead. This puts the US at 1481 warheads on 741 launchers. Russia, by contrast, puts 1735 warheads on 521 launchers. For the US, this means that Russia MIRVs more. For Russia, it means they have strike 741 sites, 220 more than the US has to strike of Russia. But the US is also richer and can afford more launchers.

In any event, MIRVing is a fraction of what it was 20 years ago, when the latest strategic weapons were built to carry, and did carry, as many as 12 warheads.


Because ICBMs would be mirv'd, not medium ranged ballistic missiles, or Russia's illegal Intermediate Ranged Ballistic missiles, the US can protect itself with mirving GMD in the continenetal US in coming years. European defense will need more SM-3 missiles (probably about 1000+ more, again, well within the realm of possibility IF desired and paid for), but they wont need to be mirv'd to deal with Russia's tactical systems. MIRVing would make them economical (and to be clear, using "MIRV" in this concept isn't the correct usage of the word at all, but you get what I'm saying)

Sorry for spelling. On shit laptop. Traveling for mothers day.

[Hooked]

These ones (SM-3s) cannot... yet. A MIRV'd interceptor is under development (for both the SM-3 and the larger GMD system that is US based).



The white things are the actual interceptors, the gold thing is the core they're launched attached to. This is the one meant for GMD and has 12 interceptors on it.

But for _THIS_ system, Aegis Ashore, MIRVing interceptors would be for redundancy (the plan is to launch 2 inteceptors per warhead already, to increase odds of success... so mirving can give many options). However the types of Missiles from Russia they would intercept - Medium and Intermediate Range ballistic missiles - are generally too small to be MIRV'd and carry only a single warhead. MIRVing is reserved for ICBMs and SLBMs.

Furthermore, although it doesnt cover tactical systems, the NewSTART treaty places only somewhat a lower limit on Launchers (800), than it does Warheads (1550), for all bombers, ICBMs and SLBMs. This has generally prioritized swapping to one-warhead-per-missile in order to hit the sweet spot of keeping the entire nuclear structure economical (rockets, let alone warheads are expensive to own while still distributing the arsenal wide enough.

In the US for example, today for the most part only Trident II D5 SLBMs are nearly fully MIRV'd while Minuteman-III ICBMs, while they can be MIRV'd, are only carrying one warhead. This puts the US at 1481 warheads on 741 launchers. Russia, by contrast, puts 1735 warheads on 521 launchers. For the US, this means that Russia MIRVs more. For Russia, it means they have strike 741 sites, 220 more than the US has to strike of Russia. But the US is also richer and can afford more launchers.

In any event, MIRVing is a fraction of what it was 20 years ago, when the latest strategic weapons were built to carry, and did carry, as many as 12 warheads.


Because ICBMs would be mirv'd, not medium ranged ballistic missiles, or Russia's illegal Intermediate Ranged Ballistic missiles, the US can protect itself with mirving GMD in the continenetal US in coming years. European defense will need more SM-3 missiles (probably about 1000+ more, again, well within the realm of possibility IF desired and paid for), but they wont need to be mirv'd to deal with Russia's tactical systems. MIRVing would make them economical (and to be clear, using "MIRV" in this concept isn't the correct usage of the word at all, but you get what I'm saying)

Sorry for spelling. On shit laptop. Traveling for mothers day.

The Russians can carry 17 or 18 warheads on their missles, along with a bunch of other crazy stuff to avoid interception. Why don't we have millions of these anti missle systems all over the usa?. I mean holy shit, I feel like we are incredibly vulnerable right now. That puny interceptor can only stop 6 of 18 warheads, if they were lucky.