US missile defense systems in Poland and Romania: no guarantees for the absence of Tomahawk missiles there


In 2020, the construction of the US missile defense base in Poland should be completed. This is the second US missile defense facility in Eastern Europe; the first is already operational in Romania.


It is no coincidence that the United States has shown increased interest in Eastern European countries. Both Poland and Romania are located on important strategic directions, allowing to control the north-west of Russia and the Black Sea coast, respectively. Therefore, for the Pentagon, the question of creating military bases with missile defense systems deployed on them was of fundamental importance.

Deploying Tomahawks at missile defense bases is very easy


The first military base appeared in the Romanian town of Deveselu, the second is about to be commissioned in the Polish village of Redzikovo. Both bases, according to the assurances of the American military leadership, are purely defensive in nature and are not intended for aggression against Russia. But it is clear that where there are opportunities for deploying missile defense, shock missiles can also be deployed there.

A system for high-altitude transatmospheric interception of medium-range missiles (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, THAAD) has also been deployed in Devesela. The US military command claims that this is a temporary measure, but it is known that there is nothing more permanent than temporary.


Aegis Ashore missile defense system, designed for 24 Mk41 launchers for SM-3 interceptor missiles, should be deployed in Poland. Exactly the same complex deployed in Romania. If necessary, the Tomahawk cruise missile can be launched from the Mk41 launcher. All you need to do is reinstall the software.

Of course, representatives of the US military command argue that the Tomahawk missiles are not deployed in Poland and Romania. But what prevents them from being brought secretly in containers instead of Standart Missile-3 missiles? Moreover, it is not possible to track the deployment of missiles at military bases in Redzikovo and Deveselu. And taking into account how many American weapons have already been transferred to Poland, where is the guarantee that these weapons did not include the mentioned missiles? There are no such guarantees. But there are no guarantees for the simple reason that the United States withdrew from the INF Treaty, and that no inspections of the Russian Armed Forces in Poland "on the ground" are carried out. Offer to believe "in a gentleman's way" - a word. At the same time, they also suggested believing that NATO would not follow the path of eastward expansion.

It was from the Mk41 launcher on August 18, 2019 that the U.S. tested a medium-range and shorter-range ground-based missile. And this causes a lot of concern in Moscow. After all, shock missiles with a range of 2,5 thousand km pose a direct threat to Russia, albeit in Washington they assure that Polish and Romanian bases are being built supposedly to protect Europe from Iran.

Aiming at Russian territory


From Redzikovo to Moscow - 1300 km, and to Minsk about 680 km. The distance from the base in Redzikovo to Kaliningrad is generally 180 km. Accordingly, the Americans gain a strategic advantage by deploying missiles at such a close distance from Moscow, St. Petersburg and other major centers of the European part of Russia.

In the event of an armed conflict, both Russia and Belarus will be fired at once from two directions - from Poland and Romania, and this is not taking into account the striking power of 4 American ships with the same Aegis Ashore system deployed in Spain. The US Navy command can always send them to the Baltic and Black Seas, respectively.


Meanwhile, the conditions for deploying American missiles in Eastern Europe were created back in the 1990s, when NATO's eastward expansion began. At one time, the American leadership deceived Mikhail Gorbachev and his entourage, promising not to expand the North Atlantic Alliance, but in the end, almost all the countries of Eastern Europe and the three countries of the post-Soviet space - Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia - joined the NATO bloc.

In addition, Ukraine, Georgia and partly Moldova are also in the sphere of influence of NATO. Therefore, the United States does not have any formal obstacles to deploying its missiles in Eastern Europe. Moreover, following the bases in Poland and Romania, such objects may appear in the Baltic states, and even in Ukraine, which will become an even greater threat to Russia.


The only thing that remains for Moscow to do in this situation is to build up its defense potential, including by strengthening the missile and air defense systems and developing new types of strike weapons. As for the governments of Poland, Romania, the Baltic states, in fact they are substituting their countries and their citizens, turning their territory into a target for Russian missiles in the event of a real armed conflict between our country and the NATO bloc.

“Caliber” and “Zircon” in Kaliningrad and Crimea could be an excellent response to the further expansion of the network of American military bases in Eastern Europe and “cool” the hotheads of the same Polish and Baltic politicians calling for an increase in NATO's military presence in their territories .
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

43 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Hunter 2 7 February 2020 10: 37 New
    • 12
    • 6
    +6
    Well, someone doubted that there would be no strike weapons? The exit from the INF Treaty was necessary for this!
    I just don’t understand why, with such a piggy joy, the Poles and Romanians are trying to draw a target in their countries ??? Actually attaching it to her forehead ... masochism!
    1. Olgovich 7 February 2020 10: 55 New
      • 9
      • 4
      +5
      Quote: Hunter 2
      Well, someone doubted that there would be no strike weapons?

      I hope that the Iskaders, respectively, are already "looking" at Polish and Romanian objects am
      1. mark1 7 February 2020 11: 11 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Quote: Olgovich
        "look" already at Polish and Romanian objects

        "Looking" at Polish and Romanian targets is, of course, good and right, but we must strive to create a proportional threat directly to the aggressor’s territory and link strategic offensive arms points not with the number of carriers and warheads but with the number of outgoing threats to the territories of the contracting parties.
        1. Tatyana 7 February 2020 11: 26 New
          • 6
          • 3
          +3
          I completely agree with the author of the article!
          I’ve been saying for a long time that the military doctrine of the Russian Federation needs to be changed from DEFENSE to preventative-offensive!
          Putin himself said that "if a fight is inevitable, then hit first!"
          The alleged assurances of peacefulness of the Washington / Pentagon mantra for expanding and re-equipping NATO in Western and Eastern Europe are just verbal zombies for pro-American proxy suckers and traitors of their people in the leadership of these countries.
          1. Den717 7 February 2020 18: 18 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Quote: Tatiana
            I’ve been saying for a long time that the military doctrine of the Russian Federation needs to be changed from DEFENSE to preventative-offensive!

            I’m embarrassed to ask, where do you want to step into military doctrine? Well, that’s about soft power ... But military ...? Wanted to fight? Did you see a war other than a TV? Preventive and offensive actions - this is to start first, that is, the transition to foreign territory by land forces, the landing of naval assault forces, the bombing of an enemy who has not yet had time to show activity against us. Do you want that? Tell me why? What peacetime do you not like? The United States, with its monstrous military budget, NATO allies, and a mobilization resource of more than 30 million people, did not dare to begin active operations against a lone Iran with its 8 million resource. And you, with our scanty 14-18 million mob resources, want to start stepping on a united Europe that can summon up to 80 million in total. This is crazy ... Maybe you are going east? Those, in general, without straining can call for 150 million. How do you imagine this your preventive and offensive doctrine? Share your thoughts, otherwise I’m somehow at a loss to understand you. request
            1. Tatyana 7 February 2020 19: 06 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Den717
              Preventive and offensive actions - this is to start first, that is, the transfer to a foreign territory by land forces, the landing of naval assault forces, the bombing of an enemy who has not yet had time to show activity against us. Do you want that?

              In these military doctrines, the difference is primarily in armament.
              The defensive doctrine implies, first of all, the development and accumulation of defensive weapons, and so-called the residual principle is the development and accumulation of offensive weapons.
              Offensive military doctrine suggests the opposite.

              In fact, never with a defensive tactic in military defensive doctrines has anyone won a war with an aggressor in history. Victory was always achieved only by the transition from defense to offensive and the complete defeat of the enemy.
              At present, no matter how perfect the missile defense of the Russian Federation is, anyway some enemy missiles will be missed and the goal will be achieved.
              Therefore, betting only on defense and defensive weapons is in no way possible.

              In this regard, it is necessary to switch, whether we like it or not, from the DEFENSE military doctrine to the OFFENSIVE military doctrine. And do not be shy about Russia rapidly creating already offensive types of weapons and deploying Russian offensive weapons - and in sufficient quantities - near the territory of the United States and its proxy allies, who constantly declare the whole world of Russia as their enemy.

              As a matter of fact, in a sense, Putin has already designated the Russian Federation’s forced transition from the DEFENSE to the OFFENSIVE military doctrine, when he said that if in Europe there is even the slightest armed conflict between NATO and the Russian Federation, then Russian missiles will definitely fly towards the United States. But these are only words so far.
              1. Den717 7 February 2020 19: 23 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Tatiana
                In fact, never with a defensive tactic in military defensive doctrines has anyone ever won a war with an aggressor in history. Victory was always achieved only by the transition from defense to offensive and the complete defeat of the enemy.

                You obviously do not understand what military doctrine is.
                "..... The Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation (hereinafter - the Military Doctrine) is one of the main documents of strategic planning in the Russian Federation and is a system of views officially adopted in the state on preparation for armed defense and armed defense of the Russian Federation.... "
                Note, not preparation for armed defense. You must understand that this document is declarative in nature. Those. It is officially published so that EVERYONE, including foreign partners, can familiarize themselves with it. It reflects the whole range of security issues and reactions to threats to the country, its interests and ways to protect them. The document is large, but one of the main ones in it is not to give rise to fears from neighbors that we are going to conquer someone. I will not begin to stress that war tactics are not won at all - a terminological question. You did not catch the essence of the document.
                1. Tatyana 7 February 2020 20: 07 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Den717
                  The document is large, but one of the main ones in it is not to give rise to fears from neighbors that we are going to conquer someone.

                  But our neighbors rakhorochilsya against the Russian Federation with their territorial claims to Russia! As they say, radish horseradish is not sweeter!
                  And at the same time, you propose to hide your head in the sand and stagnate, losing time and wait until the USA also has hypersonic weapons, at a time when the USA, already in its offensive doctrine, has already announced its right to launch a preventive nuclear strike against the same Russia and deploy their MSD missiles near Russian borders.

                  In general, I agree with you, but only to a reasonable "red line".

                  It is clear that diplomacy is diplomacy, but sometimes it’s better to tell the world the truth and warn everyone about a possible TMV than to continue an ineffective policy that only dissolves our enemies in aggression. US allies want to substitute for nuclear strikes from the Russian Federation - well, let them substitute! You can’t put your mind and brains into someone else’s head. So this is fate.

                  Professor I. Ostretsov. Prospect Academician Sakharov is not in vain carries its name. Posted Jun 30 2019 year
                  1. Den717 7 February 2020 22: 14 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    Quote: Tatiana
                    And at the same time, you propose to hide your head in the sand and stagnate, losing time and wait until the USA also has hypersonic weapons, at a time when the USA, already in its offensive doctrine, has already announced its right to launch a preventive nuclear strike against the same Russia

                    Please, do not glue your fantasies to me. There is nothing in my words about my head in the sand and something to wait for, just as there is no talk in the main US defense declarations about the planned delivery of a preventive nuclear strike against Russia. You should write novels together with the Strugatsky, rather than discuss defense doctrines.
                    Quote: Tatiana
                    I agree with you, but only to a reasonable “red line”.

                    You would have heard less about the red lines, from our media only a mess in our heads. It is better to take the source to read and discuss it with some colonel from the operational control of the General Staff. These documents are very specific, although they are intended not only for the military. But you need to know the terminology. And it often differs from the usual perception of films about the war, especially of modern performance. In short, you are not special in this; you need a military planning consultant.
                    1. Tatyana 8 February 2020 05: 47 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: Den717
                      In short, you are not special in this,
                      Did I tell you that I am special in military planning? But I know something in psychology, and I proceed from it.
                      Quote: Den717
                      It is better to take the source to read and discuss it with some colonel from the operational control of the General Staff.
                      Well you give! good You might think that the colonels from the General Operations Directorate almost wallow like mushrooms on the road - pack them in the basket as much as you want! laughing Now! How so? So they said that they were from the General Staff, and they just ran away to talk to me! Although I have no complaints about the officers - they are quite decent and always in communication they are very delicate people! There is something to talk about with them - they know a lot of things in their field ..
                      1. Den717 8 February 2020 07: 56 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Tatiana
                        Did I tell you that I am special in military planning?

                        I’m not trying to offend you, it's just that military affairs are an area of ​​special knowledge, and it’s not entirely correct to discuss it from the point of view of a psychologist.
                        Quote: Tatiana
                        You might think that the colonels from the General Operations Directorate almost wallow like mushrooms on the road - pack them in the basket as much as you want!

                        The Colonel from the General Staff, of course, is an ideal option, although you can reach Sivkov through social networks. He is a public man. What do you want? You can’t give your car to a passerby for repair? You will look for a specialist, ask a lot of friends, colleagues, etc., in short, you will diligently look for an expert on the topic. Same thing here. Do you have a doctrinal theme? It is necessary to delve into it with knowledge of the matter, and since you do not have a military education, you will have to resort to the services of experts. There are other options, of course, but you will not look very ... wink
        2. Den717 7 February 2020 14: 48 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: mark1
          but we must strive to create a proportional threat directly to the territory of the aggressor

          You (both me and them) have already been told once that the answer will be given also at the centers of decision-making of the enemy. True, London is not very clear, is it considered such a center or not? Washington, I think, is not asking questions .... We could add that we will not support the concept of minimizing the power of nuclear munitions that Washington advertises today, but rather the opposite. And for the Poles to explain that even an accurate shot by an air defense missile at an approaching Iskander will not facilitate the fate of people in the territory adjacent to Redsikovo ... laughing
          1. mark1 7 February 2020 14: 58 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Quote: Den717
            You (both me and them) have already been told once,

            Quote: Den717
            True London is not very clear

            You see, they said something, but someone does not understand. It is one thing to say another to create new threats by concentrating forces (not included in the strategic offensive arms) that threaten directly (well, let’s say frankly, why flirt) the US territory. Chukotka is a good place, but I (well, what to take from me - a couch strategist!) Would put about a dozen platforms with SD, air defense and radar missiles in the Gulf of Mexico and near Cuba (if empty) under our Naval flag.
            1. Den717 7 February 2020 15: 08 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: mark1
              they said something, but it’s not clear to anyone.

              And this may be the strategic idea - to keep the enemy in the dark and keep in suspense in all directions. Who in their right mind will begin to tell everyone in what direction and how we will respond to certain threats. Well this is always kept secret. Well, what are you really asking? There is a Supreme, there is a General Staff with a full staff of specialists. Trust them, they know what to do ...
              1. mark1 7 February 2020 15: 19 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Den717
                the strategic idea is to keep the enemy in ignorance and keep in suspense in all directions.

                Of course, the idea is interesting (and even strategic!), But this is how to crush the enemy morally, so that he starts to shy away from his own shadow! Respect and respect for our strategists! And thank you, comrade, for your trust! hi
        3. ANB
          ANB 7 February 2020 17: 48 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          . link START

          Unfortunately, it doesn’t work out.
          The United States is not particularly in a hurry to renew the current treaty.
          And they are going to write so many of their Wishlist in the new one that they will coordinate everything until the next US President. And, most likely, they don’t agree.
          1. mark1 7 February 2020 18: 09 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            It all depends on the quantity and quality of the newly created threats to the territory of the United States, upon reaching a certain quantitative and qualitative indicator that the United States will not be able to fend off in an acceptable form for itself, they will become very negotiable (even earlier). examples of this are previous agreements of the SALT, ABM, etc. As a matter of fact, it is precisely along this path that our people are going to create a new quality of threats (Poseidon, Brevestnik, Sarmat, Skif, Vanguard, etc. cartoons), but I would have supplemented quantitatively by taking those measures about which indicated above in a previous post.
            1. ANB
              ANB 7 February 2020 18: 12 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Well, in principle, at one time, this is exactly what happened with OSV 1 and 2.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. 1959ain 7 February 2020 11: 11 New
      • 3
      • 4
      -1
      Quote: Hunter 2
      I just don’t understand why, with such a piggy joy, the Poles and Romanians are trying to draw a target in their countries ??? Actually attaching it to her forehead ... masochism!

      It is hoped that the United States will continue to feed them, and most of these countries work in the United States as cleaners. And they also hope that with the help of the USA, they want to chop off our territory, they constantly have territorial shadows against Russia. They constantly lived by beating our merchants and preventing them from trading. The Hanseatic League forbade Novgorod to have its own ships and trade in Europe, the Livonian Order, defeated our embassy and put all the specialists we hired and wanted to bring to our place, so the Livonian war began Ivan the Terrible, and Sweden did not let merchant ships into Russia, Peter 1 solved this problem. And the Latvian arrows who drove our grandfathers into the Revolution of 1917 suppressed the uprisings of the peasants. And Poland until 1939 Robbed Ukraine, and hates us that we recaptured it from her. By the way, Poland took Moscow with the Molaros Cossacks, (from autumn 1610 to autumn 1612) the Moscow Kremlin was occupied by the Polish-Lithuanian garrison under the command of Stanislav Zholkevsky, assisted by Russian collaborators. Also, Latvian arrows occupied Moscow when Lenin transferred the capital to Moscow
    3. mvg
      mvg 7 February 2020 21: 05 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      The exit from the INF Treaty was necessary for this!

      I’m embarrassed to ask, but how is this connected? Well, at least through the “soft” and “warm”. Or using a slide rule. Nothing personal, I'm for education.
  2. rocket757 7 February 2020 10: 57 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    They are strange, hoping for common sense among those who have things, it happens different things ... including Wishlist, such shots from which everyone periodically gets worse so, up to incontinence of different functions of the body!
    They can only buckle so that no one will get worse.
  3. knn54 7 February 2020 10: 58 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    WHY it is impossible to provide for a preemptive strike?
    1. novel66 7 February 2020 11: 23 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      why DO NOT ?? necessary!!
  4. iouris 7 February 2020 10: 59 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    “Only an insurance policy gives guarantees” (Osia Bender).
  5. Ros 56 7 February 2020 10: 59 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Therefore, during the first thirty seconds from the hour “X” there should be guests with greetings from “Iskander the two-horned.”
  6. Operator 7 February 2020 11: 00 New
    • 6
    • 4
    +2
    With the only amendment - in the case of the use of the American Tomahawks from Redzikovo and Devesela, the Russian Caliber will fly on a return visit to give heat and light to Warsaw and Bucharest, and not to the location of the empty Aegis mines.
  7. prior 7 February 2020 11: 06 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Well, what's the difference in which NATO country the Tomahawks are located?
    Automatically, as soon as a single missile launches toward Russia, this means a war with all NATO countries. And this is the third world war, the complete destruction, with all that it implies.
    Russia's military doctrine should clearly state that in the event of an attack on Russia by any NATO country, a nuclear strike will be delivered in response to the capitals and military facilities of all NATO member countries.
    And let all NATO countries scratch their "Honduras" from such a perspective.
    Or maybe all the same disarmament and limitation of use ?!
    And then they are not RSMD RSMD, OSV not OSV ...
    1. Ka-52 7 February 2020 12: 13 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Automatically, as soon as a single missile launches toward Russia, this means a war with all NATO countries. And this is the third world war, the complete destruction, with all that it implies.

      Americans hope (according to the latest doctrine) to resolve the issue with conventional weapons. And they expect that their opponent will not dare to use nuclear weapons first.
      1. Alex Nevs 7 February 2020 15: 25 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Yes, what are you? And Hiroshima Nagasaki isn’t?
    2. ANB
      ANB 7 February 2020 17: 51 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      So Putin has already made it clear.
  8. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 7 February 2020 11: 15 New
    • 1
    • 7
    -6
    There are no such guarantees. But there are no guarantees for the simple reason that the United States withdrew from the INF Treaty, and that no inspections of the Russian Armed Forces in Poland "on the ground" are carried out. Offer to believe "in a gentleman's way" - a word.
    Believe whatsorry? The absence of INF Treaty means not only the absence of inspections, but also the absence of any obligation not to deploy the INF Treaty. Russia also has a similar right to produce and deploy the INF Treaty where it sees fit.
  9. pytar 7 February 2020 11: 28 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    As a Bulgarian citizen, I want to ask the gentlemen from the Pentagon one questionnaire! The missile defense system installed in East Europe, the United States positioned there with the insistence that it is "aimed at intercepting Iranian ballistic missiles" and "is not against Russia in any way!" So ... why then, this "anti-Iranian missile defense" didn’t react at all when recently Iranian missiles hit an American base in Iraq? Is it too far from Iran? Well, then what is she doing in East Europe?
    By the way, I want to mention that Bulgaria at one time flatly refused to accept the active elements of the American missile defense system in its territory! stop As a result, it was installed in neighboring Romania! I am sure the Romanians made a huge mistake! negative
    1. iouris 7 February 2020 11: 54 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Quote: pytar
      I am sure the Romanians made a huge mistake!

      I don’t know if Romania has the right to “make a mistake”.
      Quote: pytar
      Bulgaria at one time flatly refused to accept the active elements of the American missile defense in its territory!

      In theory, this will not save Bulgaria. Like the USA. But this is in theory. As will be in practice, the war will show. We will observe.
      1. pytar 7 February 2020 12: 46 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        In theory, this will not save Bulgaria. Like the USA. But this is in theory. As will be in practice, the war will show. We will observe.

        If God forbid, a great mess breaks out, the whole Earth will be destroyed in thermonuclear fire! No one will be left untouched! The difference will only be in the amount of local damage, but still for all it is unacceptably high! So, a bigger war is deliberately caused, definitely will not be!
        Here the question is different! The creation of a threat, through the installation of new military-technical automated elements, leads to increased risks from the unintended occurrence of critical situations! No matter how perfect they are, these systems can cause an uncontrolled escalating chain reaction! At the same time, to understand and respond appropriately, due to automation and computerization of systems, it becomes extremely limited! Probably soon the robots will take fatally important decisions in a split second! Humanity is becoming a hostage in this dangerous game!
  10. Old26 7 February 2020 13: 30 New
    • 3
    • 6
    -3
    Quote: Olgovich
    Quote: Hunter 2
    Well, someone doubted that there would be no strike weapons?

    I hope that the Iskaders, respectively, are already "looking" at Polish and Romanian objects am

    In Polish - yes, in Romanian - no

    Quote: pytar
    As a Bulgarian citizen, I want to ask the gentlemen from the Pentagon one questionnaire! The missile defense system installed in East Europe, the United States positioned there with the insistence that it is "aimed at intercepting Iranian ballistic missiles" and "is not against Russia in any way!" So ... why then, this "anti-Iranian missile defense" didn’t react at all when recently Iranian missiles hit an American base in Iraq? Is it too far from Iran? Well, then what is she doing in East Europe?
    By the way, I want to mention that Bulgaria at one time flatly refused to accept the active elements of the American missile defense system in its territory! stop As a result, it was installed in neighboring Romania! I am sure the Romanians made a huge mistake! negative

    Well, basically, Americans are right. A missile defense base located in Romania is not aimed at Russia. It is too far to intercept Russian ballistic missiles.
    She was physically unable to work on Iranian missiles fired at Iraq. This is the same as taking, giving a man a hunting shotgun and offering him to hit a target located at a distance of 3 km from him.
    Until recently, anti-missiles of this base covered the area until about Ankara in Turkey, Greece, and Bulgaria. Now, after the completion of modernization and the replacement of Block-1B missiles with Block-2A missiles, the coverage area will almost triple
    1. LiSiCyn 7 February 2020 15: 17 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Quote: Old26
      in Romanian - no

      From the Crimea, don’t they get it?
      1. Hunter 2 7 February 2020 16: 29 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Hi Stas hi Normally reach, from Simferopol to Bucharest 634 km in a straight line. In the next tests, the Iskander rocket flew (accidentally) 627 km. wink Real range - after the end of the INF Treaty, is a secret!
        News on VO from 12.01.20.
        1. LiSiCyn 7 February 2020 17: 03 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          hi Aleksey hi !
          Quote: Hunter 2
          In the next tests, the Iskander rocket flew (accidentally) 627 km.

          Yes. But after that there was a refutation from Kazakhstan. Officials stated that a "weather missile" was discovered, not 9M723. wink
          And about the “Caliber” and “Onyxes ... ... From the wall in Baltiysk with MRCs (which you, Alexei, tried to heal for the KBF)) they perfectly reach Romania.
  11. Avior 7 February 2020 15: 42 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    . If necessary, the Tomahawk cruise missile can be launched from the Mk41 launcher. All you need to do is reinstall the software.

    Not enough, you still need to mount a missile control module of this type. Not all MK41 can shoot Tomahawks, only equipped with the appropriate module.
    But now all this discussion does not make sense - there is no longer an agreement on limiting ground-based medium-range missiles
  12. Old26 7 February 2020 16: 53 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Quote: LiSiCyn
    From the Crimea, don’t they get it?

    And in the Crimea as part of 22 army corps deployed a team of "Iskander"?
  13. dirk182 7 February 2020 17: 12 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I read the comments and do not understand one thing that gives a change in doctrine? Comrades, will it reassure you? Well, we will deliver a preventive strike, will it ever be easier for you to live ?. Nonsense, and only. With our politicians. I believe that the President is right, the Minister of Defense is right. And our doctrine is correct. And it corresponds: "Whoever comes to us with a sword will perish by the sword!" We have never been and never will be aggressors. But for our land we will gnaw our teeth. In light of recent events: NATO exercises, the deployment of low-power nuclear weapons on submarines, the fate of strategic offensive arms is most interesting. Either the signing and the disappearance of missile defense systems at our borders, or the gap started ...
  14. Old26 7 February 2020 19: 40 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Quote: Hunter 2
    Normally reach, from Simferopol to Bucharest 634 km in a straight line. In the next tests, the Iskander rocket flew (accidentally) 627 km. wink Real range - after the end of the INF Treaty, is a secret!

    But nothing that Deveselu is still a couple of hundred kilometers from Bucharest? And why did the Iskander brigade suddenly appear in Crimea? Borrowed from another army? So you can measure the maximum from Krasnodar, even from Rostov it is impossible, although the extreme brigade will probably be part of the 8th Army. So for now leave the Iskander out of the brackets ...
  15. mac789 11 February 2020 23: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    That's interesting, but for rszo Smerch there are special ammunition? From Kaliningrad region to work on pshkah ... It's nice if that