Russian ABM system - 30 years in service

The russians have an ABM system - its been in service for over 30 years now.

www.wonderland.org.nz...

using 2 interceptors , the ABM-3 Gazelle and ABM-4 Gorgon (similar in mission and profile to the US Sprint and Spartan) are tasked with a similar mission - to protect a single location from ICBM attack ; in this case its the capital (Moscow) whereas the SafeGuard system was to protect the ICBM fields in dakota.

The last test of gorgon was in 2002 and for gazelle was last year (2004) both still work.

www.fas.org...

more info there

as a small update , both systems have also been tested with non nuclear warheads as well.

You can't just take out the warheads and using them in the non nuclear intercept role. It would not work. This system is designed to use a large yield nuclear warhead to intercept warheads.

yes i can see that - maybe they are looking at using a non nuclear system in the near future?

But , sprint was that good , that they had to `detune` the accuracy as it was hitting the targets and not detonating near! Sprint was part of Safeguard

Irrelevent, even if the Russian ABM system was operational the US or any other nuclear-armed country would use MIRVed ICBMs to bypass it. It is really more of a false sense of security than anything.

Originally posted by CaptainJailew
Irrelevent, even if the Russian ABM system was operational the US or any other nuclear-armed country would use MIRVed ICBMs to bypass it. It is really more of a false sense of security than anything.

MIRV's make it more difficult but it does not make an ICBM defense impossible or ineffective as such.

This
thread goes into some depth as to why it's highly likely that Russia curently has a 10 000 strong ABM launcher force. It touches on many topics but i think you will find it very interesting anyways.

Stellar

The US has backed out of an admittedly flawed if not massively cheated on ABM treaty. Where does the US go from here? It obviously has plans: It has had a directed energy program for over 30 years now, although I am sure you won't find much unclassified material on the internet. How about missiles? The Navy's SM-3 is an ABM. Clear and simple, and has been successsfully tested as such, and will be put on dozens of cruisers and destroyers. Satellite data links to battle control centers and offboard sensors is a given. Then there is THAAD, which has been said to "exceed the boundries of the ABM treaty". It has had problems, but now it is going to a large enough test range for the next tests. Evidently that was a problem. When it is perfected it will have a 450 km range and Mach 10 speed, in a mobile launch system that could be 'broken out' in a crisis around the country, or theatre of conflict. Quite a neat system, but some years from operational status. This is all from AWST magazine, so I don't have the links for it. While it was originally claimed to be just a "theatre" system, it now has changed it's name, from the "T" meaning Theatre, to Terminal. I suspect it is an ABM. Then there is the obvious "national missile defense" system which uses a Minuteman missile propulsion with a seaker. That can go Mach 24 if it is like the ICBM. Then on the other end there are the latest Patriot upgrades, and the newer PAC-3 version and the extended range version which is comming out. I am sure the US could break out the plans to the old sprint and spartan, but they havent for some reason, probably because they have something better in mind.

Originally posted by Sandman11
The US has backed out of an admittedly flawed if not massively cheated on ABM treaty.

Massively cheated on if you cared to read anything i have shown you in that "other" thread.

Where does the US go from here? It obviously has plans: It has had a directed energy program for over 30 years now, although I am sure you won't find much unclassified material on the internet.

The Soviet dew program is much larger and have been deploying ground based lasers( that could damage satellites) for two decades. The Us has not admitted or proven such a capability. You would be surprised what i can find on the internet and you may have noticed if you cared to read my posts.

How about missiles? The Navy's SM-3 is an ABM. Clear and simple, and has been successsfully tested as such, and will be put on dozens of cruisers and destroyers.

The US clearly has the capability to deploy these missiles but for some reason still tries to stay within the ABM treaty? Does the American government at all serve American interest?

Satellite data links to battle control centers and offboard sensors is a given. Then there is THAAD, which has been said to "exceed the boundries of the ABM treaty". It has had problems, but now it is going to a large enough test range for the next tests. Evidently that was a problem. When it is perfected it will have a 450 km range and Mach 10 speed, in a mobile launch system that could be 'broken out' in a crisis around the country, or theatre of conflict.

It does sound like a great systems but the US had great systems 40 years ago so this is hardly new or special. It's a question of political will and apparently US leaders lack the will or resolve to protect their people when the Russians clearly have the means and the will.

Quite a neat system, but some years from operational status.

They always are " some years from operational status" and have been for decades.

This is all from AWST magazine, so I don't have the links for it. While it was originally claimed to be just a "theatre" system, it now has changed it's name, from the "T" meaning Theatre, to Terminal. I suspect it is an ABM.

While you stick to the truth i wont require you to give sources as i am well enough informed. It's when you buy into propaganda and do not even attempt to back your claims that i will require such.

Then there is the obvious "national missile defense" system which snip ------ snip US could break out the plans to the old sprint and spartan, but they havent for some reason, probably because they have something better in mind.

But they still refuse to fund it into being so that the American people may be protected as the Russian people are. Whats the hangup and why do Americans put up with this nonsense?

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
But they still refuse to fund it into being so that the American people may be protected as the Russian people are. Whats the hangup and why do Americans put up with this nonsense?

The Russian people aren't protected, at best some people in Moscow and only beyond that IF the enemy doesn't fire decoys and neither will a US ABM system protect the US people.

Originally posted by Simon666
The Russian people aren't protected, at best some people in Moscow and only beyond that IF the enemy doesn't fire decoys and neither will a US ABM system protect the US people.

If would appreciate it if you read what i had to say in this thread. Feel free to disagree with me but do go to the trouble to provide some specific reasons as to why beside stating that " decoys" will make a defense impossible.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
If would appreciate it if you read what i had to say in this thread. Feel free to disagree with me but do go to the trouble to provide some specific reasons as to why beside stating that " decoys" will make a defense impossible.

Try reading this. Even if you can discern a difference between decoys among each other and warhead, you still need to know which is which or engage pretty much each and every object, decoy or not. An option is to destroy those missiles still in the boost phase, as mentioned in the article. Further, even if you succeed, you will have spend hundreds of billions of dollars to exclude the "being hit by an ICBM option" while the adversary might still spend maybe just a couple of millions to circumvent it and just deliver it by freighter or other means.

Originally posted by Simon666
Try reading this. Even if you can discern a difference between decoys among each other and warhead, you still need to know which is which or engage pretty much each and every object, decoy or not.

You can in fact intercept the ICBM before it deploys it's different warheads or decoys. Thanks for the link but it's hardly the surprise you imagine it to be. Technology like this has been around for very many decades and is no surprise to strategic planners.

An option is to destroy those missiles still in the boost phase, as mentioned in the article. Further, even if you succeed, you will have spend hundreds of billions of dollars to exclude the "being hit by an ICBM option" while the adversary might still spend maybe just a couple of millions to circumvent it and just deliver it by freighter or other means.

The argument is wrong because it assumes a 100% effective defense when such is not required. What ABM defense entails is simply to make planning for a enemy party far more comples now that they have to assume that some of their missiles will not just fail to hit but actively countered. Whatever your ABM capability it is but part of a larger plan in Russia to survive a nuclear exchange as functioning state.

I really do suggest that you go to the thread i suggested and start reading what i have to say before stating more of the obvious somehow assuming that i did not think of it.

Thanks

Stellar

been a few years so about time we refresh this topic

Only a couple off months before it will celebrate its birth day

33 years off ABM systems.

Soon in the next decade, ABM systems are taking to the Sky`s!!
(Il-76 with S-400 rotary launchers)

Enjoy life in Moscow, the most secure city on the planet against nuclear strikes!!

Originally posted by CaptainJailew
Irrelevent, even if the Russian ABM system was operational the US or any other nuclear-armed country would use MIRVed ICBMs to bypass it. It is really more of a false sense of security than anything.

That my friend is a bold faced lie. The ABM system is operational and working.The Safeguard which is what the current A-135 system was based on was fully capable of handling MIRVs.

William T. Lee

There's much more on this topic if you seriously look into it.

It's moments like these that make it all worth it. Anything else you want to say mister 158 or is that about as much as you can admit in one sitting?

I suppose i shouldn't push it....

Stellar

Fact is that no one knows how the Russian ABM sustems will perform. They have only ever been tested under "test" conditions nit battle conditions and not with dozens of targets.
ow well are they hardened against EMP for example ? They can't shootdown cruise missiles and the US is developing hyposonic delivery platforms like the HyStrike, Fast Hawk and JSSCM - which could easily carry a unclear payload.
If the Americans wanted to hit Moscow, they could simple as that.

For EMP hardening all I can say is that look at the Mig 25 and Mig 31 radars and you will see that hardening radar's against EMP is not that hard.

Foxbat and Foxhound

As for those hypersonic missile programs I do hope that they get into service.

Originally posted by urmomma158
For EMP hardening all I can say is that look at the Mig 25 and Mig 31 radars and you will see that hardening radar's against EMP is not that hard.

Foxbat and Foxhound

As for those hypersonic missile programs I do hope that they get into service.

From your article - Vacuum Tubes - LMAO. This is your answer to hardening against EMP 1950's technology. Well if Russia has to rely on that to defeat EMP, you would hardly call it high tech.

The Foxfire unlike its Western contemporaries, was built entirely with vacuum tubes, a technology which the Communist block developed to a fine art at a time when Western designers opted for semiconductors. While bulky, maintenance intensive and power hungry, vacuum tubes were relatively insensitive to ambient temperatures and EMP and thus were well matched to the environmental extremes of Siberian winters and central Asian summers.

This is as good as junk and wouldn't even have the computing power of a calculator.

reply to post by rogue1


What the article fails to mention is the sensitivity of vacuum tubes to vibration and shock.