Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Air Defense Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Russia Offers Cruise Missile Insurance
SYSOP    11/3/2012 9:05:30 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
vahitkanig       11/3/2012 2:25:36 PM
Russian Air defence  system  doesnot  make  sense  to U.S.
Duri&&05;g he world  war two U.S. help  Russia by  money  and deliveries whic  included militarty  material; radios ,katyu&&51;as ,7000  lokomotives  alone.
Russian  better  to  remember World War 2 .   
 
Quote    Reply

wastral    Shocking!   11/4/2012 4:15:20 AM
Shocking I tell you! Shocking!
 
Russia, decrying anti missile defense and yet building their own.  No way!  Oh wait, nothing new here, been doing so for as long as the Americans have been.  The 1960s.  Just less success so therefore have a disadvantage and try the political route... 
 
Yup, that is the world we live in.  
 
Move along, nothing to see here.
 
Next up development funds for, Mach 12 missiles.  
 
Quote    Reply

WinsettZ       11/4/2012 4:20:48 PM
Eh? Russians have had pretty robust local ADA capability, mostly because they can't assume that they will have air superiority. The lion's share of American air losses during the Cold War to today stem from Soviet air defense systems, not from the aircraft meant to go to the PVO/VVS. In any case, Pantsir is local air defense, not ABM defense. The ABM treaty specified that the US and USSR could employ very small, local ABM defense systems, but nothing big. The Russians put theirs around Moscow. The US elected to guard its missile fields, then scrapped their systems, then withdrew from the ABM Treaty, leading to the Russians moving away from START II's MIRV provisions and funding a new generation of missiles intended to operate in an NMD environment.
 
Quote    Reply

wastral       11/6/2012 9:23:12 PM
ABM and anti air are essentially the exact same systems.  Bigger missiles, different integration with C&C.  One is just a slight downgrade of the other due to speed.  ABM never had all that great of interception kill %.  Russian go PO'd when our interception % improved while theirs didn't, and actually thought about deploying them on Russia's border(Turkey)  An upgrade of one system is essentially an upgrade of both systems.  Its why we pulled from the idiotic ABM treaty.  Those in the know(Everyone with a functioning brain) knew said treaty was only good as toilet paper essentially from the first day it was signed.  Made good PR though. Its all about tracking, for BOTH so called "separate" systems.  IE how good are the antennas >> C&C loop.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Korz       11/9/2012 6:05:52 PM
 
Quote    Reply

wastral    Oi ve   11/9/2012 8:33:21 PM
Oi ve, and everyone, unless you are a dumb journalist, knew the ABM treaty was garbage at deterrence the day it was signed as both nations already had such systems in place and likewise their anit air missiles were more than capable of going after ballistic missiles as well.  Thus, ANY anti air system is ALSO an ABD system as well.  Thus, said treaty was only PR for dumb idiot journalists.  
 
Quote    Reply

Korz       11/9/2012 11:53:04 PM

 

wastral 

 

 
 "
as both nations already had such systems in place and likewise their anit air missiles were more than capable of going after ballistic missiles as well"  as you  wrote.  
 
        Your are fanciful .  Star wars is not workable even today (  maybe in 5 to 10 years it will be somewhat effective ); that is why it is necessary to have intercepters practically under the ICBMs as to intercept them at boost.  that is why the US wants ABMs next to the Russian borders close  to the Russian ICBMs as to intercept Russian ICBMs  
retaliatory response in their boost faze as they are launched after a nuclear attack as a retaliation on the U.S.
 
Maybe Russia should set up ABMs in Cuba   and or Venezuela  and have a mexican standoff with the U.S. - N.A.T.O.,..................       if M.A.D. is not wanted for peace, but have  war as peace; as in  war is peace. 
http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Load.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);" target="_blank">link
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics