New Russian Cruise Missile System

Russia has anounced that it will test a new long range cruise missile launched from Iskander-M (SS-26 'Stone') tactical ballistic missile TEL.
New weapon is believed to have long enough range to contradict with INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces) Treaty. That would implicate a minimum range of 500km.

This new weapon seems to be a counter move against the ABM batteries that USA is planning to install to Eastern-Europe.

Iskander-M is allready in use with the missile troops of the Northern Caucasus.

Janes article

INF-Treaty



[edit on 12-6-2007 by northwolf]

Oh but it has a conventional warhead so its ok - like conventional warheads in icbm`s....

seriously - Tomahawk and AGM-86B are in the same class - so whats the problem here?

I assume that the problem is it's ground launched and nuclear capable. So it's banned in INF. In a tactical sense the INF is obsolete as there are so many air and naval launched weapons in that range, but it was the first treaty that reduced the number of nuclear warheads in operational use.

Anyway it's interesting to see new system being developed.
Are there other BM/CM systems that use a shared launher unit?

Tomahawk is ground launched and is nuclear capable, so why make something of the INF treaty in that article - very very strange.

Only good reason i can come up for the INF mention is that it's given out as a clue to the range of the new weapon system... in other words maybe the only thing they knew about the range was that it's within INF boundaries (500-5500km)



Iskander-E Version

[edit on 12-6-2007 by northwolf]

Well if the Tomahawk doesnt meet the INF treaty, why dont the new Russian cruise missile ?? Face it the INF treaty is by this move off the Russians dead.

Are there any specs off this system available??

Iff so, post them plz.

Originally posted by Harlequin
Tomahawk is ground launched and is nuclear capable...

Name the active and deployed version of the Tomahawk that is ground launched from mobile land systems (TEL's) . It's not a serious question because none exists. Now, the US currently has no long range offensive GLCM's in Europe (conventional or nuclear). It's been that way since the 80's due to the INF treaty, the Russians are breaking their commitment.

You don't think the US could deploy a modern version of the Pershing II and BGM-109G in Europe if it wanted to?

[edit on 12-6-2007 by WestPoint23]

Re the whole INF treaty thing, without getting political, it'sworth pointing out that America has already consciously broken similar treaties on anti-ballistic-missile shields. It would be somewhat hypocrytical to denounce Russia re the INF treaty.


Anyway, Irskander is a ballistic missle. Is this a cruise missile?

The Soviet's have had an ABM system for decades so why is the US required not to also have one? Anyway, apart from all the technicalities, the recent developments in former Soviet blocks (and our own limited system) does not threaten Russia directly nor is it offensive in nature. Whereas placing IRBM's and GLCM's within range of Europe (NATO) as a direct response is considerably more serious.

[edit on 12-6-2007 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Whereas placing IRBM's and GLCM's within range of Europe (NATO) as a direct response is considerably more serious.

How is it geographically possible for Russia not to have its IRBMs and GLCMs not within range of a NATO country?

US maintains ballistic missiles and cruise missiles within range of Russia and her allies at all times.

I think that you need to visit Hiroshim and the Atom Bomb dome some time.

The new missile is called R-500.
RIA Novosti Article

"This cruise missile is entirely new, and very precise. It can be used to project pinpoint - I would even say surgical - combat capability to great distances," said Ivanov, a former defense minister.

CNS

While the standard Iskander is a ballistic missile with the capability to maneuver along its trajectory, the May 29 test added one more feature to the system - the ability to launch cruise missiles, R-500. Accordingly, the new designation of the system is Iskander-K (for "krylataya," or cruise). The missile launched during the recent test flew at about 100 meters altitude or less at a speed of 250 meters/second; it performed several maneuvers during the flight, and at the terminal phase deviation from the target trajectory was less than 30 meters. The range of the cruise missile developed for the Iskander missile complex is unknown. However, under the INF Treaty, which banned not only ballistic, but also land-based cruise missiles, it cannot exceed 500 km.

Sound like an impressive system to me. What is the accuracy of current US missile systems?

the warhead on the tomahawk could be swapped out for a nuclear one as needed - you don`t think the us military are that stupid to remove the capability do you?

the us closed down there own abm network themselves -
1 day after it went operational

srmsc.org...

the deployement of this system is a direct result of the proposed deployment of the us abm system to europe - those missles HAVE capability and range to shoot down aircraft well inside russian borders - so it IS an offensive system and it DOES threaten russia directly.

please don`t be so naive if you you think otherwise.

Well it's nice to see that the majority of the people here agree that the deployment of the missile shield next to Russia is a rather threatening move.

A funny comment I read above about Russian missiles being withing range of NATO countries. Westpoint we just happen to border a whole bunch of nato countries - check the map. Why complain about this missile in particular then anyways; how many other kinds of missiles are within range of NATO? Now see the US doesn't border Russia, so what it's missile shield would be doing right at it's doorstep I don't know and I can't seem to find an explanation for it that doesn't end up under the "offense/threat" category.

Anyone know how many of these missiles are in service?

Would a missile shield in Europe even make any sense now that the latest missiles develop by Russia pretty much render them useless?

Regards,
Maestro

Originally posted by WestPoint23
It's been that way since the 80's due to the INF treaty, the Russians are breaking their commitment.

That's a bit rich Westy! Complaining they are breaching a Treaty? How very dare they, only the US can do that!!

Originally posted by Harlequin
- those missles HAVE capability and range to shoot down aircraft well inside russian borders - so it IS an offensive system and it DOES threaten russia directly.

Umm... please cite the source and material which supports the notion that the GBI system has the capability to target and destroy aircraft, that it is intended to be used in that way. I wont even mention the impractically of using such a system in that way.

Originally posted by planeman
How is it geographically possible for Russia not to have its IRBMs and GLCMs not within range of a NATO country?

Point is both countries agreed not to have any nuclear or conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 300-3,400 miles deployed in the European theater of operation. Currently the US has no IRBM's or GLCM's in Europe (conventional or otherwise). The Russians are once again deploying these types of missiles to target Europe.

Originally posted by planeman
US maintains ballistic missiles and cruise missiles within range of Russia and her allies at all times.

True, but as the treaty mandates we have no deployed IRBM's or GLCM's in Europe.

Originally posted by maestro46
Would a missile shield in Europe even make any sense now that the latest missiles develop by Russia pretty much render them useless?

*Sigh*. The current and even short term US ABM system is not intended to defend the United States and her allies against an adversary like Russia. It is simply not capable of it and it is not being design to do so. Similarly a NATO "shield" would not be intended to "neutralize" Russia, nor would it be capable of doing such, new missile or not. As such, no, a NATO effort to develop systems capable of shooting down ballistic missiles is not meaningless or useless; Despite the above baseless claims that this "latest" in development missile renders currently in development systems "useless". So can we pretty much let that subject rest?

Originally posted by WestPoint23
*Sigh*. The current and even short term US ABM system is not intended to defend the United States and her allies against an adversary like Russia. It is simply not capable of it and it is not being design to do so. Similarly a NATO "shield" would not be intended to "neutralize" Russia, nor would it be capable of doing such, new missile or not. As such, no, a NATO effort to develop systems capable of shooting down ballistic missiles is not meaningless or useless; Despite the above baseless claims that this "latest" in development missile renders currently in development systems "useless". So can we pretty much let that subject rest?

Ummm, ok so you wanna tell me then why they're placing a missile shield there if not to try and neutralize Russian missiles? You wanna tell me what other country Poland and the Checz might be begging a missile shield against? What other country in that region does the US worry about most in particular? I mean it surely wasn't the command room misplacing a few zeros on the coordinates and they weren't just throwing darts blindfolded at the globe for a new missile shield location. Christ, get over yourself that missile shield is there to counter Russia's rocket forces. And it's NOT NATO's missile shield. It's the US's missile shield. If they sold the instalations to NATO and NATO did whatever the hell they pleased with them - fine, whatever. This is the US sticking it's tech in NATO countries right under Russia's border. do you still see nothing wrong with that? Try to reverse the situation - if the Russian's were to start building large airfields in Cuba and said the purpose of this would be to land large cargo planes the US would flip the whole 360 degrees.

And yes, this shield wouldn't be able to do much against the latest Russian missiles. Baseless claims....can I just say SS-27 without having to go looking for links? That missile right there would not have any problem getting passed that missile shield.

Regards,
Maestro

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Point is both countries agreed not to have any nuclear or conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 300-3,400 miles deployed in the European theater of operation. Currently the US has no IRBM's or GLCM's in Europe (conventional or otherwise). The Russians are once again deploying these types of missiles to target Europe.

Your statement seems absurd. Russia is in Europe. Over 70% of Russian population is in Europe, as well as the majority of its armed forces. Where do you expect Russia to place their nuclear missiles? It is easy for US to say and dictate who can place their missiles where - It has its own continent to play around in. Russia can and will place its own missiles on its own land, regardless of how Europe feels about it. Or maybe we should just demilitarize the whole Europe- even ban the Europeans from having missiles there. And the INF treaty is joke, and is treated by virtually everyone as such.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by Harlequin
- those missles HAVE capability and range to shoot down aircraft well inside russian borders - so it IS an offensive system and it DOES threaten russia directly.

Umm... please cite the source and material which supports the notion that the GBI system has the capability to target and destroy aircraft, that it is intended to be used in that way. I wont even mention the impractically of using such a system in that way.

*sigh* please cite and show all sources that clearly states that such a systme does NOT have any capability to track and shoot at an aircraft. quad pro quo.

impractical or otherwise it can engage endo-atmospheric targets.

Right after the collapse of USSR, US repeatedly backed out of all kinds of treaties signed during cold was era, and that is just a fact.

Reagan / Gorby disarmament program rings a bell? Right down the tubes under Bush administration.

Bush’s “missile shield” in Check and Poland is just another provocation and purposeful escalation of the arms race.

Why? It’s simple. The “shield” is advertised as a defensive barrier against tyranny of the “evil axis”, and is to protect freedom and democracy.

It is very interesting that over 70% of PEOPLE both in Poland and Czechoslovakia voted AGAINST the system, but apparently their DEMOCRATIC rights are simply irrelevant when US agenda is being pushed through by blatant BRIBERY.

People of Czechoslovakia and Poland have been demanding investigations and resignations of their government leaders for accepting payoffs from US.

Boeing is to get the project contract by the way, so just do a search for their lobby in Washington and who is getting paid off to push this through.

Even mass media calls it a “missile deal”.

What is especially interesting is that Putin proposed a joined anti-missile cooperation through the use of already existing radar installation in Azerbaijan.

Vladimir Putin, bitterly opposed to a U.S. missile shield in Europe, presented President Bush with a surprise counterproposal Thursday built around a Soviet-era radar system in Azerbaijan rather than new defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic. Bush said it was an interesting suggestion and promised to consider it.

www.theconservativevoice.com...

Further more, years ago Russians proposed to coordinate all European radars in order to effectively protect entire Europe;

"I believe the Russians offered several years ago to coordinate radar systems to defend all Europe, including, I guess, western Russia. This is not something that is absolutely new."

www.rferl.org...

Instead, Pentagon simply bribed Check/Polish officials to force the placement of purely American system.

It is true that Gabala radar is not a perfect choice for the proposed system. It is clearly a political move, since previously US simply refused to cooperate with Russia.

Any talk of treaties is absurd in light of the announcement made by Condy Rise, openly stating that Pentagon has been funding an entire department dedicated to overthrowing Putin’s cabinet and removing him self from power.

It’s a clear declaration of war against Russian government.

Arms race? Absolutely, and every step forward is being forced by Bush’s administration.

The fact that Russians are responding so quickly is not a surprise, because they are used to the fact that political currents in American politics change like the wind, and counting on treaties is simply foolish.

R-500 is by far not a new development, it’s just another card pulled out of a thick deck to make its play.

The game goes on, and we are clearly the aggressors.