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

[Marcellus1986]

You do that 101% of the time Kell.

- - - Updated - - -



I am talking about a specific military sector here, the missiles.

And to add to your sentace: I mean, when was the last time you saw USA buying missile parts from Russia.

Ohhh wait..

You mean for spacecraft? That has zero to do with the military sector? Well I'd say last year. Russia will lose that income too now that SpaceX and domestic, private US companies are able to fly space missions 100x cheaper than flying things through Russia.

[Theinquisition]

You do that 101% of the time Kell.

- - - Updated - - -



I am talking about a specific military sector here, the missiles.

And to add to your sentace: I mean, when was the last time you saw USA buying missile parts from Russia.

Ohhh wait..

Indeed...we do sometimes.

Say, how's the rest of Russia's economy doing?

[Kellhound]

You do that 101% of the time Kell.

- - - Updated - - -



I am talking about a specific military sector here, the missiles.

And to add to your sentace: I mean, when was the last time you saw USA buying missile parts from Russia.

Ohhh wait..

No, I state things that I have first hand knowledge of or have researched, you pull hopes and desires out of your butt and try to make them fact.
I would be surprised if you even know how GPS actual works or why it is hard to jam.

No, you were talking about your hope that Russia could jam GPS guided MIRVs.

Yes we buy a small number of liquid fuel engines because they were cheap and it is something even Russia has a hard time screwing up, its 1940s tech after all.

[Ulmita]

No, I state things that I have first hand knowledge of or have researched, you pull hopes and desires out of your butt and try to make them fact.
I would be surprised if you even know how GPS actual works or why it is hard to jam.

No, you were talking about your hope that Russia could jam GPS guided MIRVs.

Yes we buy a small number of liquid fuel engines because they were cheap and it is something even Russia has a hard time screwing up, its 1940s tech after all.

Your first hand knowledge means nothing if you can not back up your claims, especially when you address strangers that don't know who you are or your background. So if you want anyone to even consider what you are saying start listing sources. I've told you that 100000 times already.

[Ripster42]

Your first hand knowledge means nothing if you can not back up your claims, especially when you address strangers that don't know who you are or your background. So if you want anyone to even consider what you are saying start listing sources. I've told you that 100000 times already.

Yes Russia does. It has modern ICBMs which besides that can carry heavier loads further, they are also sophisticated enough to be able to maneuver mid flight in order to avoid interception. USA hasn't build anything since Minuteman, Russia has build 4-5 new generation ICBMS. The fact that Pentagon is crying for argent nuclear triad modernization, must say something to even people like you.

You keep pretending a minuteman is a good ICBM and you might believe it

No source.

As if GPS will work over Russia or around it in case of a full out war...
go ahead and educate yourself.

No source.

Why whats wrong with Sputnik? Also, the new icbm is googlable with multitude of resources.

Take your own advice if this is how you respond to people asking for sources.

Also Skroe, iskander's carry a variety of missiles with a variety of range. The 9M728 judging by its size can travel over 2500 km.
USA was going bonatsas last year when Russia tested the a new intermediate range missile which was either the 9M729 or the RS-26 which both are targeting NATO positions as we speak.

Lastly, Skroe, a volley from an Inskader brigade with w/e missile you put in, with or without conventional warheads, with or w/t missiles capable of changing trajectory and speed mid air ITS GUARANTEED TO OWN any a/a system.
Imagine a volley by multiple brigades.

So keep dreaming.

Your expert eye and your guarantees aren't sources.

Lets see:

-USA is naming Russian #1 Enemy, thread to the USA --> Check
-USA has sucked into war two countries that Russia had bases in --> Check
-USA has tanks and missiles 20km away from Russian borders AS WE SPEAK --> Check
-USA is pushing Europe to war with Russians --> Check
-USA is waging a brutal financial war to the Russians --> Check

Do you want me to continue?

Be afraid of the day that Putin decides to push back. Right now USA is betting that he wont and thus why they are pulling all this shit.
What if he wakes up one morning and says "fuck this shit... yolo"?

No sources.

But no, it's other people who need sources.

[Skroe]

Your first hand knowledge means nothing if you can not back up your claims, especially when you address strangers that don't know who you are or your background. So if you want anyone to even consider what you are saying start listing sources. I've told you that 100000 times already.

Kellhound's profession expertise has been impressive and extremely informative, on dozens of occasions in these threads, usually when he's taking you to task. It may not make an impression upon you, but you're typically on the recieving end of his Cruise Missile of Knowing WTF He is Talking About.

[Marcellus1986]

Your first hand knowledge means nothing if you can not back up your claims, especially when you address strangers that don't know who you are or your background. So if you want anyone to even consider what you are saying start listing sources. I've told you that 100000 times already.

We could all say the same to you, since you all you can link are sources from the 1980s and Russian circle jerk sites, but most of the time it's you just running your motor mouth acting you have jack for expertise when it's apparently obvious that it isn't the case. Just stop making yourself look stupid.

[Skroe]

You mean for spacecraft? That has zero to do with the military sector? Well I'd say last year. Russia will lose that income too now that SpaceX and domestic, private US companies are able to fly space missions 100x cheaper than flying things through Russia.

I actually want to expand a litle on this. To correct a kind of misperception, one that maybe I created.

The Boeing (now ULA) Atlas V is powered by the RD-180 which is made in Russia. However the RD-180, technically speaking, was a joint-American/Russian endevour.

After around 1980, the US and Russia worked hand in hand in controlling the spread of ballistic missile technology, despite the Cold War. Although this was a time both countries deployed advanced (for the time) new missiles, both had an interest in making sure that, beyond the ballistic technology that was already out there, it didn't spread further.

One of the last engines the Soviet Union designed was the RD-170 for the Energia Launch vehicle, a vehicle usually associated with the Buran space shuttle.

After the Cold War ended, a few historical events converged.

First, the US Air Force was deep into planing of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program. In the 1980s, in order to subsidize costs of the Space Shuttle, Reagan ordered that all legacy launchers be retired and the Space Shuttle be the only US Government Launch vehicle for ALL US government payloads. To put in perspective about the ambition of this, consider every NRO Sattelite that in the modern age, Atlas Vs launch, or every Mars probe, or the New Horizons mission, and so forth. All of those, if the plan had been followed, would have been Shuttle payloads.

Then Challenger happened and it became clear, its stupid to send 7 people into space to deploy a payload.

The EELV program was created by the Air Force - over NASA objections mind you - to provide the DoD with Space Shuttle-payload sized launch capability without use of the shuttle. The emerging models were the Delta IV and the Atlas V designs (with the Atlas III a waypost on the road to Atlas V). Delta IV was decided to use the RS-68 engine, a new engine that was a greatly simplified and evolved version of the RS-25D that launched the Space Shuttle. The Atlas III/ V had a purely conceptual engine design, in the early 1990s. Like the RS-68, a new one would need to be built for it.

The second thing that happened is that with the USSR breaking up, the US and Russia became deeply concerned with the fractured superstate, with it's highly distributed defense establishment, having tens of thousands of knowledgable defense professionals out of working, looking for employment, especially in the field of ballistic missiles, space technology, and nuclear weapons. The US government's plan was to essentially subsidize huge portions of the Russian space establishment. Mir-2 was merged with Freedom to become the ISS. The US bought Russian nuclear material for nuclear engergy and space RTGs. Shuttle-Mir was started as an avenue to provide cash to keep the Russian space industry in business.

One of these convergences was to use a variant of the RD-170 design on what became "Atlas III". Now lets be VERY clear here. RD-180, effectively half a RD-170 (2 combustion chambers instead of 4) was still largely a new design, jointly designed by the US and Russia. The US took advantage of Russian institutional knowledge in the metalurgy techniques used in the RD-170/RD-180 combustion chamber. But a joint team design it and the rights to produce it were jointly owned.

Congress and Lockheed/Boeing planned for RD-180 design to eventually transition to the US after 2000. However that date kept getting kicked into the future until around 2011 when the entire plan for domesic production was dropped. Why did it never happen? ULA would have to spend about $1 billion on reverse engineering the Russian metalurgy (a very solvable problem) and constructing a manufacturing facility. It simply didn't want to spend that money, not when it could just buy them from Russia.

Truth be told, in retrospect, ULA likely never intended to actually follow trough with domestic RD-180 production. They were likely lying trough their teeth the entire time. After all, why spend $1 billion to buy something you can already buy on the market? This isn't terribly surprising. The big three - Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop - lie to win contracts all the time.

Is the RD-180 a 'Russian' engine? As a functional matter, yes. It is. It is built by Russians, sold by Russians and based on a very different Russian predecessor. But the legal rights to the design are jointly owned with Americans. It was jointly designed with American rocket engineers and American money, to keep Russian technicians from being poached by Pakistan, North Korea, Iran or China. And the plan was, originally, to produce the engine in the US after 2000.

In the end, the saga of the RD-180 is a microcosm for the two decades of bullshit that was American-Russian relations from 1992-2014. It was complicated, multi-dimensional and founded hugely on lies.

Was it a mistake to go into buisness with the Russians in the 1990s? Absolutely-fricken-not. The US and Russia largely succeeded in controlling the spread of ballistic missile and nuclear know how from a huge unemployed Soviet workforce that was being actively poached. Only a few "got away" to rogue states and China (that said, those few have caused real problems). And the RD-180 was a great design for the time.

The fault is really with ULA. They're by far one of the most depraved government contractors there are. They never should have been trusted to bring RD-180 production stateside. And it's hugely ironic that after spending most of the time from 2006-2014 sitting on its ass and enjoying it's government monopoly, it is now scrambling for a RD-180 replacement (and/or Atlas V first stage replacement), despite the fact that whatever they get will still be a worse design and far less economical than what SpaceX is already flying.

I would not be surprised if Russia's space manufactuers rapidly consolidate and cut product lines (especially Proton) over the next five years. I wouldn't be surprised also if ULA exits the industry sometime after 2020, especially if SpaceX's landing technology starts becoming super reliable (as in, it's no longer news). But ULA deserves this. They didn't want to spend a mere billion dollars opening an RD-180 facility. It didn't want to design a new first stage for Atlas V a decade ago. It didn't want to test landing technology. It didn't want to design new engines. All it seems it wants to do, is crank out overpriced rockets and accept taxpayer dollars in exchange.

If ULA walks away from the industry, I would jump for joy.

- - - Updated - - -

Still the only active (and thats what i meant) ICBM currently in USA silos is the Minuteman (upgraded to 3)



Let me link you how the USA spending looks like because you obviously have absolutely no clue. I mean i didn't see it either before now and i knew the new subs will be the majority of the spending, but hey, it requires some common logic:

US NUCLEAR MODERNIZATION PROGRAMS
Department of Defense Programs
System	Modernization Plan	Costs	Length of Deployment	Additional Information
Minuteman III ICBM	Modernization and Replacement Program	$7 billion	through 2030 and possibly longer	Modernizes the propellant, guidance systems, propulsion system, targeting system, reentry vehicles and continues work on the rocket motors
New ICBM (GBSD)	Replace the Minuteman III missile and associated launch control and command and control facilities	$62 billion (FY 2015-2044)	2080s	The cost estimate includes $48.5 billion for the missiles, $6.9 billion for command and control systems, and $6.9 billion to renovate the launch control centers and launch facilities
B-2 Bomber	Modernization Program	$9.5 billion (FY 2000-2014)	2050s	Improves radar and high frequency satellite communications capabilities for nuclear command and control
B-52H Bomber	On-going modifications		2040s	Incorporates global positioning systems, updates computers and modernizes heavy stores adapter beams, and a full array of advance weapons
Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B)	Research and development phase	$41.7 billion (FY 2015-2024)	2080s	The exact specifications of the new bomber are classified
Long Range Standoff Cruise Missile (LRSO)	Replacement for the ALCM	$25 billion (estimated)	2060s	Air Force plans to procure 1,000-1,100 LRSOs
SSBN(X)	New ballistic missile submarine	$139 billion (DoD estimate)	2031 - 2080s	Replacement submarine for the existing Ohio-class SSBN
Trident II D5 SLBM LEP	Modernization and life extension		2042

Actually you're the one without a clew. These figures are totally without context.

They are, first and foremost, TOTAL figures, over the next 30 years. The US will be spending at least $1 trillion on modernizing our entire arsenal, but in a PHASED approach.

The most immediate apsects are the B-21 bomber (listed as LRSB) and the Ohio Replacement Program (listed as SSBN(X)) as well as industrial base modernization (building new facilities to build and process nuclear fuel and build missiles/warheads).

B-2 Bomber modernization is happening along side of this (and has been going on for a few years), but is small in the overall costs. Also the Trident II D5 SLBM LEP, listed there, is that thing giving the Trident II a 5m CEP, down from 90m CEP. This has been going on for a few years now. Currently 120 missiles have been subject to the LEP, and the Navy is expected to buy 550 replacements over the course of the LEP.

These items will be the extent of US nuclear procurement until around 2025. After that the ORP (SSBN(X)) and B-21 will enter production, rather than design and prototypte production. Work will shift to the LRSO Weapon, an stealthy air launched cruise missile. This is the most controversial weapon because it will either be redundant or dangerously powerful, depending on the direction the Pentagon goes. Detractors on one side say that the Navy may be building a redudnant weapon, because JASSM-ER with a nuclear warhead would be a perfectly suitable replacement for the AGM-86 ALCM that the LRSO would replace. On the other side, if the Navy elects to put a hypersonic airbreathing engine (as discussed in other threads) on the LRSO, it could arm the B-21 (which will carry the LRSO) with a truly terrifying and perhaps destabilizing nuclear global strike weapon. What direction has been chosen? Still very much up in the air.

If I had to bet, looking from the projected price tag, LRSO will go the latter rout. $25 billion for a cruise missile? If they cost $2 million a piece, that's just $2 billion for 1000 missiles. $25 billion is a major program, and JASSM program cost, for 6000 missiles and counting, has been about $4 billion. $25 billion just looks on paper, like something more ambitious than a JASSM that is a little stealthier with a nuclear warhead.

Only after that, will we get to thew new SLBM and ICBM. The current plan is for them to have a high degree of commonality. It may be that the new ICBM is a three stage version of the two-stage SLBM. In any event, Trident is likely the base tech family and not the older Minuteman III or Peacekeeper. Not to make a big point of it, but the Trident II D5, especially with the LEP, is basically a new SLBM. They're tested regularly and built regularly. The same goes with Minuteman III. You made a hilarious, stupid mistake by saying in one of your posts "Minuteman (now 3)". Minuteman III 2016 edition has little in common with Minuteman III 1968 edition. THe name has been kept but it's a highly evolved platform. If you want to see other examples of this, look at the Paladin self propelled artillery, the later builds of the Nimitz Class carrier, the Super Hornet, or even the first 4 versus later 20 Ticondergia Cruisers. Or Flight I Arleigh Burkes versus the Flight III design.

This is a budgeting trick. To build what amounts to a new system, a new design, within an existing family, but evolving it little by little, or having a new variant that is really, a whole new thing. Furthermore the US putting its MIRV'd warheads on it's Trident IIs, and not on the Minutemans, should tell you everything you need to know. Why does the US even own the Minutemans? To give Russia more targets to aim at.

This is not the 1960s or 1970s. Rapid evolution for breakthrough designs is long since past us. Truly next generation programs take decades to get together and require a huge monetary investment. THis is why, for example, the US is talking about an Ohio Replacement Sub now, when the first Ohio class sub won't retire until around 2028, twelve years from now. Because it needs to wind up to have something in production at that point, so it can require the Ohios at 1 every 2-3 years and produce an ORP Sub every few years. Same goes with carriers, bombers, ballistic missiles. Everything. It's staging spending. And unlike the 20th century, we'll probably get through the 21st with a "mid-21st century" build that all these things are part of, and a "late 21st century build" that'll start around 2060 and last into the 2110s. The lifecycle of platforms due to complexity and costs has expanded to 40-60 years. This is largely okay because many designs are mature (as in, a Blackhawk is what a mid sized cargo helicopter looks like no matter who builds it, unless you want to build something substantially different, which is what Next Generation Vertical Lift is about). This contrasts with the 30 year lifecycle we're at the tail end of, but that was also much longer than the 10 and 5 year life cycle that preceded it.



This is a FAR more serious response than you deserve, but maybe it'll educate someone.

[Kellhound]

Your first hand knowledge means nothing if you can not back up your claims, especially when you address strangers that don't know who you are or your background. So if you want anyone to even consider what you are saying start listing sources. I've told you that 100000 times already.

I have told you many times that I do this for fun and not as an academic project and I have no desire spending hours meticulously tracing down every piece of information I have seen in the past 25 years, especially since people like you would either fail to understand it or just dismiss it out of hand (because you fail to understand it). On top of that the raw data would be useless to you without fusion, which you have shown no ability to do.

That would be impressive since you only have 3620 posts, I guess that is another of those things you only think you know.

[Kasierith]

Your first hand knowledge means nothing if you can not back up your claims, especially when you address strangers that don't know who you are or your background. So if you want anyone to even consider what you are saying start listing sources. I've told you that 100000 times already.

I don't even like Kellhound or Skroe, but it's pretty blatantly obvious that you're just handwaving everything they say under the guide of "sources!" because they're right on the point and you don't have an adequate retort to it. This isn't Skeptics.stackexchange.com. They're free to formulate their own arguments.

[Mavett]

What better source for a weapon system than from the government right?

It is if you want exaggerated capabilities, the Russians are well notorious for that with their "The West has no analogous systems and are X years behind" bullshit.

[Easo]

It is if you want exaggerated capabilities, the Russians are well notorious for that with their "The West has no analogous systems and are X years behind" bullshit.

«Не имеющий аналогов в мире» is one of the running Russian jokes about themselves.
Their media is obsessed with those words, so it's get ridiculed, but, of course, repeat it enough and people do believe that everything they have is the most awesomest thing ever made.

[Ulmita]

I don't even like Kellhound or Skroe, but it's pretty blatantly obvious that you're just handwaving everything they say under the guide of "sources!" because they're right on the point and you don't have an adequate retort to it. This isn't Skeptics.stackexchange.com. They're free to formulate their own arguments.

Offcourse, this is how arguments work Kasierith especially in the grow up age. I am not sure of your educational background but me, when i finished university, when i was preparing a paper, i absolutely HAD to SOURCE ANY and EVERY claim i did from respectable sources or they would dismiss the argument / paper all together. This ideology travels to my profession even today.

It is simple, you can't go somewhere claim stuff that you can't possibly backup with sources because if you do the level of the conversation would be at best - high school. It's as me claiming that i saw Martians clubbing downtown Montreal the other night.

Lastly, especially Kellhound has the bad habit of taking things for granted when we talk military and involves technology - equipment. He is like:
This is superior because this is American, or because lockheed made it, or because lockheed's website says so etc.

You can't possibly hold a conversation like that.

- - - Updated - - -

We could all say the same to you, since you all you can link are sources from the 1980s and Russian circle jerk sites, but most of the time it's you just running your motor mouth acting you have jack for expertise when it's apparently obvious that it isn't the case. Just stop making yourself look stupid.

Hey, at least i link. I never said i am expert or anything. Try harder.

[Haven]

Meh, just another act of dick-waving that has no real defensive capability. It has solely symbolic purpose.

[Ulmita]

It is if you want exaggerated capabilities, the Russians are well notorious for that with their "The West has no analogous systems and are X years behind" bullshit.

They are testing a missile that is able to carry double the payload of the SS-18. They didn't claim they are making a spacecraft that travels the speed of light.

- - - Updated - - -

Meh, just another act of dick-waving that has no real defensive capability. It has solely symbolic purpose.

All this started because i mentioned Russia is testing out RS-28.... go figure

[Haven]

All this started because i mentioned Russia is testing out RS-28.... go figure

Meh. Mention Russia and it's like red rag to the bull for those fanatics.

[Kellhound]

Offcourse, this is how arguments work Kasierith especially in the grow up age. I am not sure of your educational background but me, when i finished university, when i was preparing a paper, i absolutely HAD to SOURCE ANY and EVERY claim i did from respectable sources or they would dismiss the argument / paper all together. This ideology travels to my profession even today.

It is simple, you can't go somewhere claim stuff that you can't possibly backup with sources because if you do the level of the conversation would be at best - high school. It's as me claiming that i saw Martians clubbing downtown Montreal the other night.

Lastly, especially Kellhound has the bad habit of taking things for granted when we talk military and involves technology - equipment. He is like:
This is superior because this is American, or because lockheed made it, or because lockheed's website says so etc.

You can't possibly hold a conversation like that.

- - - Updated - - -



Hey, at least i link. I never said i am expert or anything. Try harder.

As I just said, this isnt an academic endeavor, I do it for fun. Unlike you I do not read one RT article and decide it contains everything thats possibly needed to know. It takes multiple sources taken in context fused together. I am not in the business of doing that for you or anyone else anymore. I have done it in the past professionally, but then I was getting paid to painstakingly document every source. I also had an audience that knew 100+ times as much as you do so I didnt have to worry about presenting it at a symbolic kindergarten level. I say things are superior because they are, not because of who built them.

You link but do not comprehend.

[Ulmita]

As I just said, this isnt an academic endeavor, I do it for fun. Unlike you I do not read one RT article and decide it contains everything thats possibly needed to know. It takes multiple sources taken in context fused together. I am not in the business of doing that for you or anyone else anymore. I have done it in the past professionally, but then I was getting paid to painstakingly document every source. I also had an audience that knew 100+ times as much as you do so I didnt have to worry about presenting it at a symbolic kindergarten level. I say things are superior because they are, not because of who built them.

You link but do not comprehend.

I do read multiple sources too Kell and i do comprehend.
Your sentence "I say things are superior because they are, not because of who built them" is just ... i don't know even what to say.

Anyways, i can't be arguing with you anymore about this. I will just stop responding to your claims with no basis other than your "expertise".

[Kellhound]

They are testing a missile that is able to carry double the payload of the SS-18. They didn't claim they are making a spacecraft that travels the speed of light.

- - - Updated - - -



All this started because i mentioned Russia is testing out RS-28.... go figure

The SS-X-30 is still a 1940s tech liquid fueled missile that has a slow reaction time (as can be determined by the belief the silos need enhanced ABM defenses and more hardening). Its most viable use is first strike, use it before you lose it.

- - - Updated - - -

I do read multiple sources too Kell and i do comprehend.
Your sentence "I say things are superior because they are, not because of who built them" is just ... i don't know even what to say.

Anyways, i can't be arguing with you anymore about this. I will just stop responding to your claims with no basis other than your "expertise".

RT and Sputnik are not exactly a diverse set of sources, and no, your posts show you do not really comprehend what you link. You show little to no ability to actually analyze the information, you parrot it.

Of course you do not know what to say, all you know is "If its Russian its better!". I dont always say the US has the best (insert weapon system here), because the US does not have the best of every weapon type. Sometimes Israel does, sometimes the Brits or French or other European country, and sometimes even Russia does. I will say the US has by far the best aggregate capability though, and that is the key.

[Hooked]

Meh. Mention Russia and it's like red rag to the bull for those fanatics.

.

I think once trump is elected, the usa and Russia can have real relations. I never understood why after the fall of the soviet union we didn't rush in there and help the starving Russians. That really pissed me off. A lot of americans like the Russians, not because of communism but because of our common morals and values.