What's so important about Elektrostal, Russia?

So, I was reading about the S-300 and S-400 missile defense systems Russia developed when I read something that struck me as odd. When the S-400 was completed, the first place they deployed it was not Moscow but a relatively small town called Elektrostal. At first I thought maybe this was just the most strategic place to put the system to defend Moscow, but I would think the ideal place for that would be either north or west of Moscow. Elektrostal is about 35 miles east of Moscow. The wikipedia article about the town notes there are a number of factories there but I'm sure that's true of a lot of towns in Russia. Why would they send their most advanced missile defense system here before even protecting the capital?

a reply to: face23785

This might not answer your question, but I found this. I'm not sure of the source, and I don't seem to be able to open its source(unsecured or something). Hope it gives some idea.

www.freerepublic.com...

He said the first S-400 complexes will be deployed at an air defense missile regiment in the town of Elektrostal, about 50 km to the east of Moscow, adding that under the state arms program, several dozen regiments are to be equipped with new systems. He said this may not be enough to cover Russia's entire territory, but was sufficient to protect the main cities and strategic installations.

a reply to: face23785

It's the home to major manufacturing, including fuel rods for nuclear reactors.

a reply to: Zaphod58

We can always rely on you for the definitive answer. Thank you.

Protecting Nuclear anything is very critical.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

They've got some interesting manufacturing there. They have a metallurgical facility, a chemical-mechanical plant, a major power generation plant, and a heavy machine plant all in there too. They do fuel rod assemblies that are used in multiple countries.

a reply to: face23785

It could be that the military strategists in the Kremlin have worked out that if a disabling strike were to be struck against the missile base during a war situation, it would potentially be struck with a nuclear weapon. If that were to happen, it would deny safe access to the site for a time. Perhaps the Kremlin strategists believe that putting that big stick out to the East, means that they would have a better chance of free movement to the West for a period, allowing them to evacuate key figures and other assets over land in the opposite direction.

Also, it may have to do with prevailing wind direction. The prevailing winds in Moscow are most commonly from the North East or so, which means that erecting a target which might come under direct, nuclear assault on the northern compass point, would be rather foolish, since there is a good chance that any fallout from the explosion, and indeed the destruction of the missile base, would float over the city itself under normal conditions. With the missile base out to the East, that airflow would traditionally cause the cloud to pass over areas which may not have as much strategic significance.

a reply to: face23785

Interesting! It also has an awesome name.

I'm betting the command and control center for dead hand. This is well the Russian dead mans switch. If say the United states was to wipe out Russian command and control this system has the ability to determine if a nuclear strike occurred through seismic data and radiation readings. If it decides indded a nuclear strike has occurred and it cant establish communications it will launch Russia's nuclear arsenal. I guess you can consider this there end the world scenario since even if they are destroyed this system can still launch a final retaliation. The US considered a system like this as well but thought better of it turning over the final decision to a computer just to retaliate after you have been destroyed seems kind of pointless and dangerous.

I get protecting the nuclear manufacturing is important, I did read about that before I posted. It just seemed strange to me that that would be deemed MORE important than protecting the capital or maybe some key strategic installations. According to wikipedia, nuclear power only provides about 18% of Russia's energy. While it would obviously be a problem if you all of a sudden couldn't provide rods for those plants or for export due to an attack, I could imagine a lot of things that would be a much more immediate and serious problem, and along those lines I would think are more important to defend. Does that make sense?

I probably should've included all that in the OP.

a reply to: face23785

The range on the ER version of the S400 covers Moscow even from there though. It's only 58 km from Moscow, and using the 40N6 missile, the S400 has a 400 km range. Even just using the older 48N6 it can reach 250 km. There's only one missile used by the S400 that doesn't cover Moscow.

The nuclear facilities there aren't providing power for Russia, they're building fuel rod assemblies for other European nations. That would actually be far worse than just a nuclear power plant being hit.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Don't the Russian plants use fuel rods manufactured there?

I get what you're saying, I get that's important, I guess I just didn't think it was TOP PRIORITY important, although that's a good point that it can cover Moscow from there. I could argue the reverse as well, but eh, I guess it's kind of a moot point. Nothing to see here, dumb thread idea lol

a reply to: face23785

They do, but so do many other European countries. They're basically providing power for most of Europe from there.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Right, my point there was that I don't see why safeguarding the rest of Europe's power supply and 16 or 18% of their own power supply would be deemed more critical than other facilities and infrastructure. Their power grid mostly runs on gas, so I would think protecting their gas supply would've been a higher priority. The economic impact of not being able to export rods to Europe and losing 18% of their own power grid would not be nearly as immediate or critical to national defense as half of the country going dark because their gas supply was disrupted. So what would be the line of reasoning to protect nuclear rod manufacturing first? Do you see my point? That just doesn't make sense to me.

a reply to: face23785

Because if you attack a gas supply point, you damage a small area. If you attack where they build fuel rod assemblies, and have a huge stock of nuclear fuel, you irradiate Moscow, and a huge chunk of Russia with it, along with most of Europe.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I've read the prevailing winds there are out of the west so really if this plant that's situated to the East were attacked nothing would track over Moscow or Europe. Also, if I'm not mistaken, fuel rods are only highly radioactive after they are used. In their unused state they're much less dangerous. Fallout would be way worse from an actual nuclear power plant being attacked, which again raises my point about there apparently being more critical targets to protect.

a reply to: face23785

So because it's only slightly radioactive, and the winds are out of the west, they shouldn't protect the site, or be worried about it? They've got more than one battery of S400s. Protecting a nuclear fuel and production site, especially one that is the only site in Russia is kind of important.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that between protecting slightly radioactive material and highly radioactive material, it doesn't jive. You would have much worse fallout from an actual nuclear power plant being attacked, so I doubt that was a consideration in why to place the S400 there.

a reply to: face23785

And the nuclear facility isn't the only important thing there. It's probably one of, but not the only thing there. That town holds some of their most important manufacturing facilities as well.

a reply to: face23785

As Zaphod has repeated there's all sorts of stuff in this town which needs protection, but there's also one more thing that he hasn't covered.

Moscow is already well covered with anti ballistic missile defenses that have been constantly upgraded for decades and are even mentioned and exempted from certain clauses in strategic arms reduction treaties between the US and Russia.

So in this situation why would you not basically extend and expand already existing coverage under the Moscow defensive umbrella?

It actually makes perfect sense.

"Deployed" doesn't necessarily mean operationally deployed. In this case it means the weapons systems have been assigned from national stocks to the unit that will train on and employ them. This unit is garrisoned in Elektrostal, where the platforms will be parked and maintained.

There is another set of S400s deployed to a unit in Dubrovki, north of Moscow.

The systems are mobile, so they can be operationally deployed from this garrison if necessary, but since it has a range of up to 400km that wouldn't be necessary to cover Moscow. That said, I highly doubt these missiles are sitting at the ready without an active threat. I can almost guarantee these things are sitting in a garage on the base and only come out a few times per year.

originally posted by: ksiezyc
a reply to: face23785

www.freerepublic.com...

He said the first S-400 complexes will be deployed at an air defense missile regiment in the town of Elektrostal, about 50 km to the east of Moscow, adding that under the state arms program, several dozen regiments are to be equipped with new systems. He said this may not be enough to cover Russia's entire territory, but was sufficient to protect the main cities and strategic installations.