• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Russia Seen Pursuing U.S. Missile Shield Tech

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,839
Reaction score
1,963
Russia Seen Pursuing U.S. Missile Shield Tech
Thursday, March 24, 2011

Russia is pursuing an agreement with the Obama administration that would give Moscow access to U.S. technology for interceptors designed to destroy enemy missiles on impact, the Washington Times reported on Wednesday (see GSN, March 22). The United States has proposed sharing missile launch data and pursuing other initiatives with Russia in a bid to alleviate the Kremlin's concerns about the Obama administration's missile defense activities, which would include deploying increasingly advanced interceptors in and around Europe. The systems, along with accompanying radar technology, would be intended to counter missile threats to the continent, primarily from Iran. Russia presently has few capabilities of use to the United States in a prospective missile defense cooperation pact, U.S. national security officials said. Missile interceptors deployed around Moscow are tipped with nuclear warheads, and Russia is unlikely to tap the defenses in responding to a potential Iranian strike, according to the Times. Such defenses could also be targeted for elimination in possible future U.S.-Russian arms control talks, the newspaper said.

The United States has restricted sensitive technology exports to Russia over its previous proliferation to Iran, but Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher and other Obama administration officials have sought to eliminate some of the restrictions as part of an export reform effort now under way. “It’s the perfect storm: loosened export controls, reset with Russia and arms control fever by the administration,” one U.S. government source said. "Hit-to-kill" technology forms the basis of most modern missile defense systems and was developed over the last 20 years with billions of dollars in funding, according to the Times (Bill Gertz, Washington Times, March 23).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK so we had to get New Start ratified to reduce the chance of nuclear war with the Russians, things were apparently that tense. The other main argument was without verification - Old Start had expired - the Russians could not be trusted and would build and deploy in secret back to Cold War weapons levels.

Now we are going to share our most sensitive missile defense technology with Russia. Am I missing something?
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,136
Reaction score
1,690
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
bobbymike said:
Now we are going to share our most sensitive missile defense technology with Russia.

Russia? The same Russia that has made it clear they're working on missile-shield-penetrating-missiles specifically to defeat American anti-missiles systems?

That's...
wacko.jpg
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,885
Reaction score
2,164
bobbymike said:
Now we are going to share our most sensitive missile defense technology with Russia. Am I missing something?

Nothing Zero could do would surprise me anymore. The Russians have seen how gullible, naive, and full of himself Barry is and they're going to take every advantage of it. They'll promise him the possiblity of unicorns and rainbows, get everything they can out of him, and then laugh in his face while he sits there, too stupid to realize what just happened.
 

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
58
SERIOUSLY.

"The United States has proposed sharing missile launch data" = crap we do already.

"give Moscow access to U.S. technology for interceptors designed to destroy enemy missiles on impact" = thoroughly irrelevant given the state of their air defense industry.

"Missile interceptors deployed around Moscow are tipped with nuclear warheads" = no they aren't, the GAZELLE interceptors have been conventional for a few years now.

"The United States has restricted sensitive technology exports to Russia over its previous proliferation to Iran" = where in the hell did that one come from? We haven't sold Russia sensitive technology for decades.

"Bill Gertz, Washington Times" = never mind, I understand the rampant inaccuracy and lunacy in the article now.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,839
Reaction score
1,963
SOC said:
SERIOUSLY.

"The United States has proposed sharing missile launch data" = crap we do already.

"give Moscow access to U.S. technology for interceptors designed to destroy enemy missiles on impact" = thoroughly irrelevant given the state of their air defense industry.

"Missile interceptors deployed around Moscow are tipped with nuclear warheads" = no they aren't, the GAZELLE interceptors have been conventional for a few years now.

"The United States has restricted sensitive technology exports to Russia over its previous proliferation to Iran" = where in the hell did that one come from? We haven't sold Russia sensitive technology for decades.

"Bill Gertz, Washington Times" = never mind, I understand the rampant inaccuracy and lunacy in the article now.

SOC - What do you mean by irrelevant given the state of their air defense industry? That it is so good this won't help them or it is so antiquated that it won't help them?
 

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
58
bobbymike said:
SOC - What do you mean by irrelevant given the state of their air defense industry? That it is so good this won't help them or it is so antiquated that it won't help them?

Given the systems they have fielded and are developing, this technology is not going to ultimately make them more effective. Russian ATBMs already use directional warheads capable of targeting the warhead section of an inbound missile. If you have achieved that level of accuracy with an explosive kill device, switching to an HTK system isn't really going to mean anything in the long run. So:

1. Could it make their defensive missile systems more effective? - Not really. It's just a different system. They've had ASAT weapons for decades as well, it's not like this is going to be anything earth-shattering to them. That's probably why some of the technology would be cleared to give to them in the first place: we know it won't transform their industry. And with China developing various ASAT systems potentially morphable into an ABM, proliferation to someplace like Iran is no longer solely dependent on the Russian arms industry. And given that Russia caves to the West over selling PURELY DEFENSIVE systems to Iran in the first place, I'd argue that China developing similar systems makes it far more likely to be exported. Chia doesn't allow the West to interfere with it's arms industry.

2. Could it make their offensive systems more effective? - Again, not really. They've researched ICBM penetration aids for a while, and given how long we've been researching HTK ABMs you'd have to be a moron to believe they haven't studied a counter by now. Plus, they have the ultimate ABM evader: SSBNs. Stick an HGV PBV on an SLBM and fire it off on a depressed-angle trajectory and see what happens.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,839
Reaction score
1,963
SOC said:
bobbymike said:
SOC - What do you mean by irrelevant given the state of their air defense industry? That it is so good this won't help them or it is so antiquated that it won't help them?

Given the systems they have fielded and are developing, this technology is not going to ultimately make them more effective. Russian ATBMs already use directional warheads capable of targeting the warhead section of an inbound missile. If you have achieved that level of accuracy with an explosive kill device, switching to an HTK system isn't really going to mean anything in the long run. So:

1. Could it make their defensive missile systems more effective? - Not really. It's just a different system. They've had ASAT weapons for decades as well, it's not like this is going to be anything earth-shattering to them. That's probably why some of the technology would be cleared to give to them in the first place: we know it won't transform their industry. And with China developing various ASAT systems potentially morphable into an ABM, proliferation to someplace like Iran is no longer solely dependent on the Russian arms industry. And given that Russia caves to the West over selling PURELY DEFENSIVE systems to Iran in the first place, I'd argue that China developing similar systems makes it far more likely to be exported. Chia doesn't allow the West to interfere with it's arms industry.

2. Could it make their offensive systems more effective? - Again, not really. They've researched ICBM penetration aids for a while, and given how long we've been researching HTK ABMs you'd have to be a moron to believe they haven't studied a counter by now. Plus, they have the ultimate ABM evader: SSBNs. Stick an HGV PBV on an SLBM and fire it off on a depressed-angle trajectory and see what happens.

So would you recommend the US sell all its advanced military technology to countries sufficiently advanced because "it not going to ultimately make them more effective"?
 

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
58
Of course not. The point is that this particular instance is far from being a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

It's basically a way for the TMB's to find more cash to breed voters, and to try and fix a "problem" that was all ridiculous bluster to begin with.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,885
Reaction score
2,164
SOC said:
bobbymike said:
SOC - What do you mean by irrelevant given the state of their air defense industry? That it is so good this won't help them or it is so antiquated that it won't help them?

Given the systems they have fielded and are developing, this technology is not going to ultimately make them more effective. Russian ATBMs already use directional warheads capable of targeting the warhead section of an inbound missile. If you have achieved that level of accuracy with an explosive kill device, switching to an HTK system isn't really going to mean anything in the long run. So:

1. Could it make their defensive missile systems more effective? - Not really. It's just a different system. They've had ASAT weapons for decades as well, it's not like this is going to be anything earth-shattering to them. That's probably why some of the technology would be cleared to give to them in the first place: we know it won't transform their industry. And with China developing various ASAT systems potentially morphable into an ABM, proliferation to someplace like Iran is no longer solely dependent on the Russian arms industry. And given that Russia caves to the West over selling PURELY DEFENSIVE systems to Iran in the first place, I'd argue that China developing similar systems makes it far more likely to be exported. Chia doesn't allow the West to interfere with it's arms industry.

2. Could it make their offensive systems more effective? - Again, not really. They've researched ICBM penetration aids for a while, and given how long we've been researching HTK ABMs you'd have to be a moron to believe they haven't studied a counter by now. Plus, they have the ultimate ABM evader: SSBNs. Stick an HGV PBV on an SLBM and fire it off on a depressed-angle trajectory and see what happens.

I'd think KKV technology would make a huge difference when it comes to miniaturization. Even an SM-3 is smaller than an S-300. Hell, even a SM-3 Block II will be smaller. Going with a KKV vs a high explosive warhead allows you to pack more performance into the same airframe. As for not really changing anything, which of their SAMs has the ability to take out a satellite? Or operate in space? Not knockin' you or anything (I know you know what you're talking about better than me :) ) but when you talk about systems superior to THAAD, SM-3 or GBI are you referring to Russian systems the public doesn't know about? Because I don't see it in the S-300/400.
 

Trident

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,115
Reaction score
429
Generally, I'd agree with SOC, particularly since Russia investigated a KKV of their own 25 years ago (liquid propellants, very lightweight, Brilliant Pebbles style space-based solution), so I'm not sure how much they'd stand to learn overall. However, I can see one specific area about KKVs where they would probably appreciate access to American technology: large, high-resolution IR focal-plane arrays. As evidenced by the dearth of Russian AAMs and AGMs with imaging IR seekers (as well as the difficulties in producing competitive TI sights and FLIRs for anything from AFVs to laser designator pods and attack helos), this is an area that seems to give them some headaches. They'd almost certainly benefit from that.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,885
Reaction score
2,164
Trident said:
Generally, I'd agree with SOC, particularly since Russia investigated a KKV of their own 25 years ago (liquid propellants, very lightweight, Brilliant Pebbles style space-based solution), so I'm not sure how much they'd stand to learn overall. However, I can see one specific area about KKVs where they would probably appreciate access to American technology: large, high-resolution IR focal-plane arrays. As evidenced by the dearth of Russian AAMs and AGMs with imaging IR seekers (as well as the difficulties in producing competitive TI sights and FLIRs for anything from AFVs to laser designator pods and attack helos), this is an area that seems to give them some headaches. They'd almost certainly benefit from that.

Any info on KKVs they actually flight tested? (Or even hover tested.)
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,155
Reaction score
1,298
I wonder why you are discussing that Washington Times BS for a page or so.
 

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
58
sferrin said:
I'd think KKV technology would make a huge difference when it comes to miniaturization. Even an SM-3 is smaller than an S-300. Hell, even a SM-3 Block II will be smaller. Going with a KKV vs a high explosive warhead allows you to pack more performance into the same airframe. As for not really changing anything, which of their SAMs has the ability to take out a satellite? Or operate in space? Not knockin' you or anything (I know you know what you're talking about better than me :) ) but when you talk about systems superior to THAAD, SM-3 or GBI are you referring to Russian systems the public doesn't know about? Because I don't see it in the S-300/400.

The S-300/400 aren't comparable to the ABM SM-3 as the S-300/400 use pure endoatmospheric interceptors and aren't designed as exoatmospheric ASAT/ABM systems. 48N6DM performance is roughly the same as the SAM SM-2ER Block IV (slightly less altitude, slightly more range); if they wanted to turn it into an ABM like the USN did with the SM-3 I don't see why it couldn't work. I'm saying that 1) HTKs won't give them an air defense upgrade, and 2) they've got other options for killing ICBMs or satellites. Plus they'll field the ASAT/ABM S-500 before long, basically an expanded capability technological successor to the S-225. For endoatmospheric ATBM intercept, Russian systems like the 48N6D will give you less in terms of intercept range, but that's because they're already been compromised by the requirement to also engage aircraft. Electronically, the radar systems of the S-300V and S-300P relegate the much shorter range PAC-3 ERINT to the minor leagues.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,885
Reaction score
2,164
SOC said:
2) they've got other options for killing ICBMs or satellites. Plus they'll field the ASAT/ABM S-500 before long, basically an expanded capability technological successor to the S-225.

What other options do they have today for killing ICBMs and satellites? I thought they only had a handful of Gazelles at a fixed site around Moscow, and I didn't think they had anything like the altitude capaiblity necessary to hit a satellite? ???
 

SOC

I look at pictures all day
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
58
5 GAZELLE sites around Moscow, one adjacent to the PILL BOX radar site. And yeah, they have nowhere near the altitude reach to hit a satellite.

ICBM/ASAT: I'd have to dig to see what's still around, but they've done ASAT work since the 60s and ABM work since the 50s. There may be a newer IS-type ASAT in storage. Plus, the MiG-31 ASAT is apparently being resurrected. At any rate their technological and experience base is enormous, and I haven't even mentioned directed energy systems yet.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,885
Reaction score
2,164
SOC said:
5 GAZELLE sites around Moscow, one adjacent to the PILL BOX radar site. And yeah, they have nowhere near the altitude reach to hit a satellite.

ICBM/ASAT: I'd have to dig to see what's still around, but they've done ASAT work since the 60s and ABM work since the 50s. There may be a newer IS-type ASAT in storage. Plus, the MiG-31 ASAT is apparently being resurrected. At any rate their technological and experience base is enormous, and I haven't even mentioned directed energy systems yet.

I don't doubt they have the history, it just sounded like you were saying they had something fielded right now, and that's what had me puzzled.
 

Trident

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,115
Reaction score
429
sferrin said:
Trident said:
Generally, I'd agree with SOC, particularly since Russia investigated a KKV of their own 25 years ago (liquid propellants, very lightweight, Brilliant Pebbles style space-based solution), so I'm not sure how much they'd stand to learn overall. However, I can see one specific area about KKVs where they would probably appreciate access to American technology: large, high-resolution IR focal-plane arrays. As evidenced by the dearth of Russian AAMs and AGMs with imaging IR seekers (as well as the difficulties in producing competitive TI sights and FLIRs for anything from AFVs to laser designator pods and attack helos), this is an area that seems to give them some headaches. They'd almost certainly benefit from that.

Any info on KKVs they actually flight tested? (Or even hover tested.)

I'd love to know more myself. According to buran.ru several modified Progress cargo capsules were allocated to serve as launch platforms for planned orbital tests of the KKV in the late 1980s. These never happened, but the Progress spacecraft did reach the hardware stage and were later expended in normal space station re-supply missions. No idea what that means as to how far ground testing advanced, I suppose that would depend on what the lead time for the Progress launches was.
 

Similar threads

Top