Posted on 03/01/2005 7:07:17 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
MOSCOW (AP) - Russia will develop missiles impervious to any defense, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said Tuesday in an apparent allusion the nascent U.S. missile defense system.
A year ago, President Vladimir Putin said Russia could build unrivaled new strategic weapons, and in November he said it is developing a new nuclear missile system unlike any weapon other countries have or could come up with in the near future.
Ivanov suggested the weapons would be based on the mobile version of the Russian Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missiles and on a new sea-based system, the Bulava, according to Interfax news agency.
"There is not and will not be any defense against these missiles," he said, according to Interfax.
The Topol-M can hit targets more than 6,000 miles away, and has been in silos since 1998, with about 40 on duty now, according to military officials. Military officials have said they plan to begin deploying the mobile version this year.
Ivanov said the missiles would be for defense and not be intended for use against any country, but he added that "Russia is stretched across 10 times zones, we have many neighbors, and not all of them are as predictable as European states," according to Interfax.
In December, Putin encouraged the Defense Ministry to keep up production of new strategic missile systems, a process slowed in the past by a shortage of funds.
"Russia will ... remain a major nuclear power," Ivanov said, according to Interfax. "But we will not bake missiles like pies. Their quantity should be such that it allows for the provision of our own security in any potential development of the international situation."
Russia opposed Washington's withdrawal in 2002 from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to deploy a national missile defense shield, saying the 30-year-old U.S.-Soviet pact was a key element of international security.
Russian officials subsequently tempered their criticism. Putin said it was a "mistake" that would hurt global security but not threaten Russia.
The ABM treaty banned missile defense systems on the assumption that the fear of retaliation would prevent each nation from launching a first strike - a strategy known as mutually assured destruction.
The Bush administration has said its prospective missile defense system would be aimed against potential missile threats from nations such as Iraq or North Korea, and would be unable to fend off a massive nuclear strike Russia is capable of launching.
--
Both, actually. The Russian clone of the Fiat-124 was called Lada.
Damn, I'd forgotten the Lada. Oh well - I type corrected.
No kidding. That's interesting. I don't want to credit Stalin for making the right decision since he probably purged the best Russian minds the same way he purged his own military leadership.
I also made a mistake about the "F-111" which should be "F-117". I think it was from Russian research on constructing an aircraft of certain angles to reduce its radar profile.
They tested a hypersonic glide vehicle last year from an ICBM.
You can't be serious here! There is no comparison to be made. The US doesn't have a super power supplying arms to the ousted regime. Think how much money training and support the US and the West gave to the Mujahadeen fighting the Soviets?
The majority of the feet on the ground that forced the Taliban out were Afghans themselves. These were the various warlords and alliances who were opposed to the Taliban. The US provided heavy close air support and advisors to those Afghan Alliance forces enabling them to push forward and oust the Taliban. It was Russia who supplied those Afghan Alliance forces with refurbished heavy armour, uniforms and other equipment in preparation for their US led/supported advance on the Taliban.
**********************************************************************
Possible space weapons of the future
Monday, July 28, 2003 By Jack Kelly, Post-Gazette National Security Writer
Snapshots of U.S. space weapons envisioned or under development:
'Rods from God'
In April, within 15 minutes of receiving a report that Saddam Hussein had entered a restaurant in Baghdad, a B-1B bomber dropped four 2,000-pound satellite-guided bombs on the place.
It now appears Saddam slipped out of the building by a secret exit. But if one space-based weapon now being researched had been orbiting above Iraq -- and had worked as envisioned -- Saddam almost certainly wouldn't have got away.
Colloquially called "Rods from God," this weapon would consist of orbiting platforms stocked with tungsten rods perhaps 20 feet long and one foot in diameter that could be satellite-guided to targets anywhere on Earth within minutes. Accurate within about 25 feet, they would strike at speeds upwards of 12,000 feet per second, enough to destroy even hardened bunkers several stories underground.
No explosives would be needed. The speed and weight of the rods would lend them all the force they need.
This principle was applied in Iraq to destroy tanks that Saddam's forces shielded near mosques, schools or hospitals. U.S. aviators used concrete practice bombs.
Jerry Pournelle, a science writer and chairman of the Citizens Advisory Council on National Space Policy, came up with the idea, which he originally named "Thor" after the Norse god of thunder. The Pentagon won't say how far along the project, or variants of the idea, may be in development.
Space planes
Closer to operational readiness is a hypersonic bomber which could attack nearly any target in the world within four hours from bases in the United States.
The FALCON (an acronym for Force Application and Launch from the Continental United States) would be sent into the upper atmosphere by a boost vehicle and cruise at an altitude of 100,000 feet at speeds up to 12 times the speed of sound. The first flight demonstration is scheduled for 2006.
Besides being able to engage a target faster than conventional bombers, the FALCON would be virtually invulnerable. No fighter aircraft or anti-aircraft missile could fly as high, and at Mach 12, the FALCON could outrun antiaircraft missiles. No foreign bases would be needed because the FALCON's range and speed would allow it to be based on U.S. soil.
Air Force Space Command in Colorado Springs is already thinking about a follow-on to FALCON -- a genuine space plane that would fly even higher and faster, stay up longer and carry more weapons.
"Once a target is identified, the space plane can respond from the U.S. and strike worldwide targets in under an hour," SpaceCom researchers said in a white paper last year.
A key advantage of a space plane, the writers said, is its weapons could enter the atmosphere over a target, so there would be no need to seek overflight permission from other countries. "Technology exists today to create this capability and evolve it now," they wrote.
Space lasers
The Air Force soon will begin integrated testing of its first Airborne Laser. If it proves reliable, it could be deployed in three or four years.
Housed in a modified Boeing 747, the airborne laser is designed to cruise at 40,000 feet and engage tactical ballistic missiles like the Scud shortly after liftoff. If a missile is lazed for 3 to 5 seconds, its oxidizer or fuel tank would explode, destroying the missile and spreading debris over the launch site.
Lasers that work in the atmosphere would work even better in space. Air refracts and weakens laser beams, and a great deal of power is required to punch through it.
President Ronald Reagan conceived of space-based lasers as a key element of his "Star Wars" defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles, but they have proved difficult to develop because of the need to push their heavy power sources into orbit.
Besides destroying enemy ICBMs, space-based lasers would also be designed to disrupt or destroy enemy satellites and knock out high- flying enemy aircraft or cruise missiles.
Satellite killers, 'bodyguards'
The Air Force has plans for a variety of weapons to protect U.S. satellites, and to destroy or disable enemy satellites. They are known collectively as anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons. Some would be based in space. Others would be on the ground, on ships, or mounted on airplanes. Some would be directed energy weapons (lasers or high-powered microwaves). Some would have explosive warheads, and some would destroy a target by running into it.
An ASAT weapon that could be used for both defense and offense is described in an Air Force 2025 study. "Satellite bodyguards" would consist of approximately five satellites placed in close proximity to the satellite being protected. Some would be decoys. Others would be "hunter-killers," armed with directed energy weapons to blind or destroy enemy ASAT weapons. The "hunter-killer" satellites would be designed to detect space-based threats themselves and receive warnings from Earth.
Unmanned aerial vehicles
The Air Force is working on a family of "long loiter" Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs): one for reconnaissance, another to strike targets and a "mother ship" -- a UAV itself -- which would deploy and recover smaller combat vehicles. The "mother ship" would store solar energy and transfer it to vehicles.
The "Strike" UAV would be able to loiter over a target for 24 hours or more. It would carry missiles and bombs for precision strikes on ground targets but would have only limited air-to-air capability.
The more ambitious "Uninhabited Combat Aerial Vehicle" could be used either for reconnaissance or attack. It would contain "multispectral" sensors -- optical, infrared, laser, radar, etc. -- and a variety of precision-guided weapons to attack ground targets. This vehicle also could jam enemy transmissions and protect U.S. transmissions from electronic countermeasures.
Also under consideration are UAVs that could airdrop supplies to troops from high altitudes.
UAVs operate in the atmosphere, but must be controlled through satellites if they are to operate at ranges beyond line of sight, approximately 130 miles.
I do realize that the Russian were fighting the Mujahadeen and the U.S., we were fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda beside the Afghans. This time we were a much larger and better equipped force fighting an outnumbered and out equipped foe. I still scoff at Russia's "super missles" though. I doubt they have that advanced technology over ours.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.