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

[Skroe]

No Gabriel. Russia has an ICBM that can carry a single 20 Megaton Goodie over the Atlantic or multiple lower yields since decades now. The conversation that i started the other day about the news of the new heavy weight Sarmat ICBM was for that reason. It is able to carry twice the load and in higher speeds while changing trajectory MID flight. What i claimed is that since the SS-18's 20 Megatons forced USA to sit on the table and negotiate on Start-2, the new ICBM's 40 Megatons, while at least force the same reaction.

- - - Updated - - -



I am sorry that you don't get the irony. I guess it was hard to understand...

The 20 MT warhead (SS-18 Mod 6 variant) were retired years ago. Only 5 were ever deployed. They were withdrawn in 2009.

The current Mod 6 uses an 8 MT warhead with a 500m CEP. The size is due to its poor accuracy.

http://missilethreat.com/missiles/rs-20a-20b-20v-ss-18/

The Mod 5 has 10 MIRV, with each warhead having an 800 kT yield and an accuracy of 500 m CEP. The range is 11,000 km carrying an 8,730 kg payload.
The Mod 6 contains a single re-entry vehicle with a 8 MT warhead and an accuracy of 500 m CEP. The range is 16,000 km with an 8,470 kg payload.
The Mod 5 and Mod 6 both received improved protection against nuclear warhead effects, improved decoys and penetration aids, increased MIRV coverage, and a rapid re-targeting capability.
The Mod 5 and Mod 6 entered into service in 1988 and remain in service today. 50 -58 are believed to be in service now and until the 2016 to 2026 timeframe. 1

[Ulmita]

Actually I want to ammend my comment.

The joke of this is, this is actually an *extremely* meaningless debate. GPS would make the 90m CEP Trident II, already accurate enough to be a first strike weapon, useful against highly specific targets, say a specific bunker. But when we're talking a 475kt nuclear warhead that has a blast radius of 4 kilometers.

Furthermore unclassified US doctrine requires that hardened sites are hit by multiple warheads in a tandem fashion. That is to say, the first 475 kt warhead hits, then the second hits 30 seconds later or something, and then the third. This is why disarmament advocates say the US can hit all it's targets with far fewer warheads than it has, because in some cases, it's aiming several warheads at one site "just to make sure". This is especially true of hardened launch silos.

So when you're hitting the same site with several 4km blast radius warheads, 90m versus 5m is a big "whatever"... who cares.

On top of that, going behind enemy lines and hunting for mobile launchers would in part be the job of B-1s and B-2s, with B-52s launching AGM-86s from outside Russian air space. Those B-1s and B-2s would carry the B-61B Mod 12, also GPS guided (among other things).

So why is the US even bothering with 5m GPS accuracy for SLBMs? Probably in case to hit hardened sites in a "bunker buster" fashion against Iran and North Korea. The US has reserved the right to use a nuclear weapon for such a thing.

So we're talking about something that is technologically interesting, and situationally useful, but probably not really against Russia and that's the extent of it. But Ultima _will_not_have_it because (A) he doesn't understand jack all about this despite it being spoon fed to him and (B) under no circumstance does the US have something that much better than Glorious Mother Russia has.

It's fucking sad. Yet again the Angry Greek picked a bizarre hill to die on.

I love it when you start insulting because it saws your class =)
Besides Skroe, sorry to bust the bad news to you, you are most probably MISTAKEN.

Lets see why here:

Actually I want to ammend my comment.
The joke of this is, this is actually an *extremely* meaningless debate. GPS would make the 90m CEP Trident II, already accurate enough to be a first strike weapon, useful against highly specific targets, say a specific bunker. But when we're talking a 475kt nuclear warhead that has a blast radius of 4 kilometers.

It is meaningless to you because your knowledge brings you that far.

First of all, lets clear something up from the start. In order to even come closely destroying a stupendously hardened silo you need a ground burst. Air burst wont even scratch the paint off even if it is dead center above it.

Now, i ll go ahead (and unlike you) i'll clear to everybody here (not that is needed but just to avoid misunderstandings and to avoid "comediazing" myself, just like you did in the quoted post) that i am not in any way expert in any of these. I have and i am still reading a lot of stuff, including books.

Now the "Angry Greek" (which btw just between me and you, i am born in Montreal, so you might want to change it to the angry Canadian) has a question for you:

According to Colin S. Gray, "Soviet-American Strategic Competition," p. 291.,
" an increase in nominal silo blast resistance from 2,000 to 3,000 psi can be offset by an improvement in missile CEP of 50 feet"

The Russians HAD their silos hardened to 6,000 psi during cold war (from what we knew) and now days it would be likely to be hardened DOUBLE that since technology allows for even more.

Now mr. Expert. Since obviously a few feet (and not km as you imagine) play such a significant role in the "probable" destruction of a silo
i am asking you this in a legit way since i don't know:

If the Russians have their silos hardened to 6,000 psi as we already know (and not to double that as we suspect they have, but for the sake of the argument lets assume the first) AND your CEP changes from a few meters (with GPS) to 90m (w/t GPS) or from 30 feet to 300 feet what would that strike look like? What yield would it need?

When you realize how accuracy ridiculously changes the yield requirement and the number of strikes, you will understand how big of an argument is the one we are having. 30 feet vs 300 feet is an ocean away when we are talking about things hardened maybe over 10k psi.

Going for ice cream

[caervek]

The Russians HAD their silos hardened to 6,000 psi during cold war (from what we knew) and now days it would be likely to be hardened DOUBLE

Yeah, the first thing a country usually does after going bankrupt is to rebuild all it's missile silos DOUBLE STRONK :P

- - - Updated - - -

Apparently, Russia's building stealth missiles that the missile shield can't see, damn :P

Russia to test unstoppable 'Satan 2' stealth nuke capable of wiping out an ENTIRE NATION

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/russia-test-unstoppable-satan-2-7935675

[Easo]

Because it's their biggest problem. That is, after simple ballistic missiles destroy aircraft carriers and S-300/S-400 eliminate those American jets from previous century.

How do you expect those ballistic missiles to hit carriers? With magic?
P.S.
S-300 is from previous century too and partly S-400 as well. Aaaaannnndd... How much jets USA (just USA, even without rest of NATO) has? How many interceptors Russia has? How much of it's teritorry is actually fully covered? Still Moscow only? And you have to be foolish to think that they have 100% interception chance, or that launchers won't ever be destroyed and so on and so forth?

[Ulmita]

Yeah, the first thing a country usually does after going bankrupt is to rebuild all it's missile silos DOUBLE STRONK :P

- - - Updated - - -

Apparently, Russia's building stealth missiles that the missile shield can't see, damn :P



http://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/russia-...atan-2-7935675

http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/RUREFEG:IND


I'd assume they could afford a few holes in the ground =)

[Crispin]

Yeah, the first thing a country usually does after going bankrupt is to rebuild all it's missile silos DOUBLE STRONK :P

- - - Updated - - -

Apparently, Russia's building stealth missiles that the missile shield can't see, damn :P



http://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/russia-...atan-2-7935675

Still waiting for the PAK-FA, odd how Russia creates a new superweapon every month.

I know nothing about nukes, but a quick look at that tsar bomb detonation which yielded 50Megaton would do third degree burns in a 100km radius and, so if it's lethal in 200km radius through radiation etc.(fact check here), it would need to deliver enough to cover an area of 552.000 Km2, that's alot. (all of this is speculation and you're getting 0 source links cus my no nuke knowledge googling trumps Russias stealth France destroying missile)

- - - Updated - - -

And what the shit is this supposed to prove?

That Russia did not go bankrupt after the USSR collapsed, current reserves prove it. (ofcourse the 5 year one says lot more than the 1 month one, but I guess it depends on narrative, while it ofcourse tells nothing about the 90's)

[Haven]

How do you expect those ballistic missiles to hit carriers? With magic?
P.S.
S-300 is from previous century too and partly S-400 as well. Aaaaannnndd... How much jets USA (just USA, even without rest of NATO) has? How many interceptors Russia has? How much of it's teritorry is actually fully covered? Still Moscow only? And you have to be foolish to think that they have 100% interception chance, or that launchers won't ever be destroyed and so on and so forth?

Why would they need magic? Carriers are not really protected from ballistic missiles. Even from ones from 70s, not to mention the modern ones. US has never encountered a country that had missiles to begin with, so its defensive capabilities are atrophied.

And in your assumptions, you're forgetting the infrastructure. How long would it take to amass all those jets on a distance that could possiby let them attack targets on Russian soil? How long and how much would it take to provide reliable defense for that army (that is currently plastered thinly over the entire world) from, say, "Kalibr"? And please, before you talk about interception chances, remember the efficiency of American work, like wasted months in Syria with no results or "smart" missiles constantly hitting hospitals.

[Marcellus1986]

Why would they need magic? Carriers are not really protected from ballistic missiles. Even from ones from 70s, not to mention the modern ones. US has never encountered a country that had missiles to begin with, so its defensive capabilities are atrophied.

And in your assumptions, you're forgetting the infrastructure. How long would it take to amass all those jets on a distance that could possiby let them attack targets on Russian soil? How long and how much would it take to provide reliable defense for that army (that is currently plastered thinly over the entire world) from, say, "Kalibr"? And please, before you talk about interception chances, remember the efficiency of American work, like wasted months in Syria with no results or "smart" missiles constantly hitting hospitals.

What? Lol. Carriers have an entire web of defensive ships around them. Cruisers and destroyers with anti missile systems.

[Crispin]

Ofcourse the US would send billions worth of ships into war, without protection from missiles, werent this discission up a few days ago, where it was established that it would require a large amount if missiles to break through the defense for carriers? (Do pls correct me if im mistaken)

NATO have several bases around russia, sure youve seen the (WE'RE SURROUNDED!!!1)pictures.

And the hospital the americans hit was intended, they hit their target, problem seems to have been bad info about the target.

[Haven]

What? Lol. Carriers have an entire web of defensive ships around them. Cruisers and destroyers with anti missile systems.

...which were never tested against anything post-1960s. Like I said, US has never encountered a country with modern warfare capabilities.

Ofcourse the US would send billions worth of ships into war, without protection from missiles, werent this discission up a few days ago, where it was established that it would require a large amount if missiles to break through the defense for carriers? (Do pls correct me if im mistaken)

NATO have several bases around russia, sure youve seen the (WE'RE SURROUNDED!!!1)pictures.

And the hospital the americans hit was intended, they hit their target, problem seems to have been bad info about the target.

Yeah, bad info. That reminds me of an anecdote:
A commission is going to a construction site to check the safety and quality, and the place's completely run down. The foreman tells the workers, "whatever happens, act like it's intended". So, the commission is inspecting the site, and then one of the walls just collapses right before them. The worker looks at the watch, and says with the straight face, "10:35, right on schedule".

Syrian campaign has been a clear display of military capabilities. Several weeks or Russian operations completely seized the initiative from Americans and achieved more than US air force managed to do over 1,5 years.

[Deleted]

Syrian campaign has been a clear display of military capabilities. Several weeks or Russian operations completely seized the initiative from Americans and achieved more than US air force managed to do over 1,5 years.

Because Americans try to be surgical, else the public opinion and international media are all over their asses. Russia...doesn't give a shit, Russia bombs everything and if it's some hospitals and schools, they're gonna say they dindu nuffin and it's all American propaganda or "you mad, bros?".

[Marcellus1986]

...which were never tested against anything post-1960s. Like I said, US has never encountered a country with modern warfare capabilities.

Yeah, bad info. That reminds me of an anecdote:
A commission is going to a construction site to check the safety and quality, and the place's completely run down. The foreman tells the workers, "whatever happens, act like it's intended". So, the commission is inspecting the site, and then one of the walls just collapses right before them. The worker looks at the watch, and says with the straight face, "10:35, right on schedule".

Syrian campaign has been a clear display of military capabilities. Several weeks or Russian operations completely seized the initiative from Americans and achieved more than US air force managed to do over 1,5 years.

Your post is so full of propagandistic bullshit I don't really care to respond to it. You're like Summerdrake and Ulmita's love child, with Cybran's reading comprehension.

[Crispin]

...which were never tested against anything post-1960s. Like I said, US has never encountered a country with modern warfare capabilities.

Yeah, bad info. That reminds me of an anecdote:
A commission is going to a construction site to check the safety and quality, and the place's completely run down. The foreman tells the workers, "whatever happens, act like it's intended". So, the commission is inspecting the site, and then one of the walls just collapses right before them. The worker looks at the watch, and says with the straight face, "10:35, right on schedule".

Syrian campaign has been a clear display of military capabilities. Several weeks or Russian operations completely seized the initiative from Americans and achieved more than US air force managed to do over 1,5 years.

Well thats their story, atleast they didnt deny hitting it, if you got any info on it other than "yeah right" and them some irrelevant comparison, then pls do share.

[Ausr]

The damage Trump is inflicting on the political class in America is enough to cheer for him. He is shattering the neo-con power base and making the democrats move further right to counter him which will splinter their party.

The belief that you think he'd win is amazing and further proof of your ignorance and love of animes.

[Easo]

Why would they need magic? Carriers are not really protected from ballistic missiles. Even from ones from 70s, not to mention the modern ones. US has never encountered a country that had missiles to begin with, so its defensive capabilities are atrophied.

And in your assumptions, you're forgetting the infrastructure. How long would it take to amass all those jets on a distance that could possiby let them attack targets on Russian soil? How long and how much would it take to provide reliable defense for that army (that is currently plastered thinly over the entire world) from, say, "Kalibr"? And please, before you talk about interception chances, remember the efficiency of American work, like wasted months in Syria with no results or "smart" missiles constantly hitting hospitals.

I see. So you are not aware that ballistic missiles cannot target ships, just blow somewhere around their reported location? Which even with nukes means that they will most likely stay intact? Ships move fast and are quite hard to sink...

USA has the biggest logistics capacity in the world. Assuming war in Europe, NATO with its advanced infra is involved too. And Russia will face the same issues, due to the sheer size of the country. Kalibr is supposed to be wunderwaffe? I kinda doubt that.
P.S.
Constantly hitting hospitals? You sure about that? And wasted? I guess IS tanks evaporated in air?

[Crispin]

You don't think they test their stuff before deploying it? You think they develop them in a vacuum?

Well obviously Russia is constantly fighting high tech opponents, and shoot down their carrier ships on a weekly basis, like the syrian rebel ones and ofcourse passenger jets.

Btw any news on the pak-fa?

[Haven]

Because Americans try to be surgical, else the public opinion and international media are all over their asses.

Hahaha yeah right. When was the last time muricans asked anyone for opinions? They make opinions because they own Western media. If muricans want some war, they won't ask anyone, including UN Security Council. And Russia will. Russia actually has, unlike American coalition, a resolution from UN Security Council and invitation from legitimate government of Syria. Muricans just invade shit and throw bombs left and right.

Your post is so full of propagandistic bullshit

And your posts are not. Oh, right, there's no propaganda in the West.

I see. So you are not aware that ballistic missiles cannot target ships

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-s...listic_missile

USA has the biggest logistics capacity in the world. Assuming war in Europe, NATO with its advanced infra is involved too.

Like I said, US army is spread thin, it would take a lot of time to assemble a capable army - not to smack another Goatfuckerstan, but for an actual war. Besides, NATO is a political structure rather than a working army. It's Babylon in terms of coordination. So far its trainings are just about welcoming Americans in different parts of it. I don't think NATO will ever be capable of any kind of united act as one pan-European force.

You don't think they test their stuff before deploying it? You think they develop them in a vacuum?

You know how they test their European anti-missile systems? By launching ONE warhead of a known type in sterile conditions.

Well obviously Russia is constantly fighting high tech opponents, and shoot down their carrier ships on a weekly basis

Russian military tech is designed to do that. It's always been a paradigm. American military tech is designed to blow US military budget out of proportion, and bomb goatfuckistans.

[Marcellus1986]

Hahaha yeah right. When was the last time muricans asked anyone for opinions? They make opinions because they own Western media. If muricans want some war, they won't ask anyone, including UN Security Council. And Russia will. Russia actually has, unlike American coalition, a resolution from UN Security Council and invitation from legitimate government of Syria. Muricans just invade shit and throw bombs left and right.

And your posts are not. Oh, right, there's no propaganda in the West.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-s...listic_missile

Like I said, US army is spread thin, it would take a lot of time to assemble a capable army - not to smack another Goatfuckerstan, but for an actual war. Besides, NATO is a political structure rather than a working army. It's Babylon in terms of coordination. So far its trainings are just about welcoming Americans in different parts of it. I don't think NATO will ever be capable of any kind of united act as one pan-European force.

You know how they test their European anti-missile systems? By launching ONE warhead of a known type in sterile conditions.

Russian military tech is designed to do that. It's always been a paradigm. American military tech is designed to blow US military budget out of proportion, and bomb goatfuckistans.

Your post is so full of propagandistic bullshit I don't really care to respond to it. You're like Summerdrake and Ulmita's love child, with Cybran's reading comprehension.

Read and realize what you're doing.

[Haven]

Read and realize what you're doing.

I'm doing what? Russia has permission from UN and Syrian government to act and US does not have it, it's a fact. That anti-ship ballistic missiles exist, it's a fact. That American army is spread thin and that coordinating all European countries at once would be a difficult task for NATO, it's a fact. How latest anti-missile defenses were tested, it's a fact.

So what am I doing?

[Marcellus1986]

I'm doing what? Russia has permission from UN and Syrian government to act and US does not have it, it's a fact. That anti-ship ballistic missiles exist, it's a fact. That American army is spread thin and that coordinating all European countries at once would be a difficult task for NATO, it's a fact. How latest anti-missile defenses were tested, it's a fact.

So what am I doing?

1. US got permission from the Syrian government when they began bombing runs in the country like 2 years ago. So you're wrong on "fact" 1.

2. ASBMs exist, but so do defensive systems to counter them, ie Aegis. Carriers are well defended by many layers of defense, from destroyers and cruisers. Carriers are moving targets and ballistic missiles are not direct on-target weapons, they won't hit the ship and this is assuming they get through any defenses the carrier group has. So you're ill-informed on fact 2.

3. The US has the best logistical system in the world. They have hundreds of bases in Europe, all around Europe actually, that can rapidly deploy forces at the outbreak of conflict. All NATO has to do is delay the Russians for long enough for the US to airlift its troops overseas, which they can do in less than 48 hrs. This is assuming that Russia doesn't get bogged down in the Baltics fighting the Polish and Baltic countries, and Russia had trouble against Chechnya with logistics and in Georgia as well, which are just over Russia's border. So you're again wrong.

4. You realize that missile systems are tested in all sorts of environments and tests take into account all possible scenarios that a system might face. You don't think the US tests to counter possible threats to its land systems and ships? Lol of course you don't. You are like Ulmita and the other Russophiles and spend your time living in your glass bubble thinking defensive advancements are static and offensive systems always have the advantage.

As to what you're doing: You're being a media shill.