Anti-missile defense base in Redzikowo. A pig in a poke?

21
Anti-missile defense base in Redzikowo. A pig in a poke?

NATO's missile defense base in Redzikowo, Poland, was officially opened on November 13, 2024. The Redzikowo missile defense base, 165 km from the Russian border, houses three MK 41 VLS vertical launch systems, each equipped with eight containers with rockets SM-3 IIA (24 missiles in total), SPY-1D(V) radar and fire control system (FCS). This is the second such facility in Europe; since 2016, the first American ground-based Aegis missile defense base has been operating in the Deveselu area of ​​Romania. The grand opening of the American missile defense base in Redzikowo will not put an end to work on the system being created there. Defense. And this is not just about greater integration with the NATO air defense system of what has already been created near Slupsk, but about expanding the capabilities of the base – including equipping the Mk41 launchers with cruise missiles to attack ground targets.


UVP MK 41 VLS

The announcement of the opening ceremony of the American missile defense base in Redzikowo on November 13, 2024, caused an avalanche of comments. Unfortunately, some of them contained imprecise terms and wording, which, of course, do not make sense to many, but can blur the picture of what the Americans actually did. Therefore, it is worth explaining as simply as possible what the base in Redzikowo is and what it should do, and what it is not and what it cannot do... at least with the note: "for now".



Facts


The Redzikowo base is actually a US AEGIS class missile ship (Arleigh Burke class destroyer or Ticonderoga class cruiser) buried in the ground. This was not done by chance, because the use of a weapons control system, already tested on more than 100 ships, limited the costs of designing and building a land-based installation and guaranteed rapid deployment, without additional time and financial costs. And this is what actually happened: first in Romania – at the Deveselu base, and now a similar system has been deployed in Poland.

Of course, everything used on ships did not have to be installed on land, if only because the Redzikowo base would not have to be moved. However, by choosing “ship-based” systems that would not be transferred to land, it was also decided to limit the combat capabilities of the weapon system itself. And again, some of these decisions are certainly justified. At the Redzikowo base, there is no need for the AEGIS anti-submarine warfare and surface target detection and auto-tracking functions. The same applies to artillery systems, EW, navigation, control aviation etc.

The capabilities of the missile system are limited in comparison with the naval prototype. It was decided to leave on land only those elements that are necessary to combat ballistic missiles. Thus, the AAMDS system (Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System) uses "only" ship basing.

The Ticonderoga-class cruisers were the first US Navy ships to feature the Aegis combat information system. Its core element is the AN/SPY-1A radar with four fixed phased array antennas (PAR), capable of automatically detecting and tracking up to 1000 air and surface targets within a radius of up to 320 km. The former were intercepted by Standard Missile family guided missiles – the AN/SPY-1D(V) radar, an improved version with four fixed antennas mounted on the walls of the building, built very similarly to the superstructures of the Ticonderoga-class missile cruiser. The fixed antenna panels provide adequate airspace coverage, and electronic beam control was provided with omnidirectional surveillance and a very short information update time (no longer associated with the rotation period of the mechanical antenna system). Experts from the Polish resource defence24.pl claim that the station in Redzikowo has a 360-degree view, but in reality this is unlikely to be the case:

- a control center that most likely contains some of the multi-function consoles and software for the AEGIS system from the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers;

- three modules with eight UVP Mk41, buried in the ground, and from which the SM-3 anti-missiles are launched. UVP Mk-41 allows firing various types of missiles: cruise, anti-aircraft and anti-submarine. It can include up to eight modules with eight cells with launch containers. TPK of three sizes: Mk-13 - 209 inches (5,3 m) for the self-defense version, Mk-15 - 266 inches (6,8 m) for the tactical version and Mk-14/21 - 303 inches (7,7 m) for the strike version. The caliber of all TPK is the same - 21 inches (533 mm).

And it should be noted that the SM-3 missiles are not a classic anti-aircraft weapons. Therefore, they cannot be used to combat aerodynamic air attack weapons – cruise missiles, airplanes, helicopters, and even more so drones, and it is technically impossible to implement. They are also not designed to combat tactical ballistic missiles (BRBM) (short-range ballistic missiles - from 100 to 1000 km) - such as the Iskander. According to representatives of the US Department of Defense, the task of the base in Redzikowo is to destroy medium-range ballistic missiles (with a range of 1000 to 5500 km) in space: in the middle and final stages of flight.

Some confusion in the Western press was caused by the similarity in the names of the SM-3 missiles and the PAC-3 missiles that Poland purchased for the Patriot SAM batteries under the Wisla program. However, the SM-3 Block IIA missile used in Redzikowo is something completely different. It has a different design, greater capabilities, interception ceiling, physical size and a much higher price. While the PAC-3 MSE costs $4 million, some estimates indicate that the SM-3Block IIA missile could cost more than $38 million. This would mean that in Redzikowo alone, the Americans would deploy 24 missiles worth almost a billion dollars to ensure European security.


Evolution of the SM-3 anti-missile

The RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) is a derivative of the discontinued RIM-156 design. The SM-2ER Block IV A is based on the Alliant Techsystems Mk 136 Advanced Solid Axial Starge (ASAS) third-stage rocket motor, a GPS/INS guidance section (also called GAINS, for GPS-assisted inertial navigation system), and a LEAP (Lightweight Exoatmospheric Augmented Projectile) kinetic energy warhead. The kinetic energy interceptor has its own thrusters for flight correction and a cooled matrix infrared seeker. Targets can be detected at ranges up to 300 km, and trajectory corrections can be as much as 3-5 km. The carrier ships will be upgraded with the Aegis LEAP Intercept (ALI) computer software and hardware. The missile is based on warships equipped with the Aegis system in the standard universal launcher Mk-41 VLS. Search and tracking of targets in the upper atmosphere and in outer space is provided by the ship's AN/SPY-1 radar.

- RIM-161A (SM-3 Block I) – basic version of the missile (prototype).

- RIM-161B (SM-3 Block IA) – the first production version of the missile for the Aegis BMD 3.6.1 system, equipped with modified control equipment.

- RIM-161C (SM-3 Block IB) – a modified version of the missile for the Aegis BMD 4.0.1 system with a dual-band infrared seeker, increased target distribution capabilities and a new third-stage solid propellant rocket engine.

- RIM-161D (SM-3 Block II) – an improved version of the anti-missile, is a completely new missile with a caliber of 533 mm, a longer range and higher speed.

- SM-3 Block IIA – a version of the anti-missile with a new kinetic interceptor of increased size and new sensor equipment, with high capabilities for discrimination of false targets.

- SM-3 Block IIB – a version of the anti-missile with a new kinetic interceptor of increased size, new sensor equipment and limited capabilities for destroying ICBM warheads.

This price, more than $38 million per missile, should not be surprising at all. In fact, we are talking about a compact three-stage solid-fuel missile 6,55 meters long (all versions) with a solid-propellant rocket engine Mk 72 with a thrust of 35 kN and cruise engines Aerojet MK 104 (DTRM) with a thrust of 15 kN (second stage) and Aerojet Mk 136 with a thrust of 6 kN (third stage), carrying a LEAP (lightweight exoatmospheric projectile) warhead outside the atmosphere. This LEAP warhead, flying at a speed of more than Mach 12 (3600 m / s), does not carry an explosive charge, but a special combat module weighing 17 kg, destroying a target even at a distance of over 3000 km with a direct hit (hit-to-kill). Detection of the attacked object LEAP, in turn, is possible due to the dual-band infrared seeker and the communication system with the guidance center on Earth. The US Navy uses missiles in missile defense systems against short/medium-range ballistic missiles in the initial and cruise sections of their flight trajectory. The launch weight of the SM-3 Block 1B is more than 4000 pounds (1800 kg), retains the main elements, engines of all three stages of the airframe of the previous version Block 1A, but is equipped with an improved dual-band infrared homing head, an improved processor, a new thrust control and spatial orientation system (TDACS), which improve controllability and hit targets with a direct hit of a kinetic warhead, instead of a corrective radio command system, like the SM-2; the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) network correction system is used. While the classic radio command correction system produces an error every 100 km – 100 yards (90 meters), the CEC system is range-independent and produces an error of one foot (500 cm) even at 30 km. The SM-3 Block 1B version is used both in the missile defense systems that are equipped with the US Navy's guided missile cruisers and guided missile destroyers, and in the land-based missile defense system at the Deveselu base in Romania.

Mythology


First of all, it should be clarified that the "official opening of the base" does not mean that the Redzikowo base begins its operational activities. This has already happened before, as this base reached its Basic Operating Capability (BOC) in September 2023. In turn, in December 2023, the Americans announced the commissioning of the entire Aegis Ashore complex in Redzikowo. According to unconfirmed reports, this was due, among other things, to the installation of 24 SM-3 Block IIA interceptor missiles in Mk41 launchers.

The operational responsibilities themselves were to begin in July 2024. This was confirmed by the conclusions of the July NATO summit in Washington, where it was announced that “operational readiness of the missile defense base in Redzikowo».

There is also a problem with determining who exactly controls the Aegis Ashore system. According to the head of the National Security Bureau, Jacek Sewiera,

"It is an American naval base, but it is subordinate to the NATO command - EUCOM, that is, the command of American forces in Europe."

This leads to some confusion because USEUCOM (United States European Command) is not a "NATO command" but the command of American forces in Europe. However, it is true that USEUCOM "works closely with NATO allies and partners", and the Commander of USEUCOM is the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR).

This defiance of NATO is a consequence of the previous policy that European missile defense would be provided solely by the Americans, with their Arleigh Burke-class destroyers deployed periodically to Rota in Spain and Aegis Ashore facilities in Turkey, Romania, and Poland. It was supposed to be an American system operating within the U.S. missile defense system, simultaneously protecting Europe and fulfilling the “transatlantic defense tasks"This was to be implemented within the framework of the European Phased Adaptive Approach idea defined during the administration of President Barack Obama.

However, later, information began to appear in statements from the US Navy that the Aegis Ashore system in Redzikowo would be “fully integrated and launched under NATO command» in July 2024. However, this was most likely just an empty statement, especially since under the Donald Trump administration, a European admiral will certainly not command American destroyers at the Spanish base in Rota, just as a European general will not command the missile launcher in Redzikowo.

"Besides the fact of subordination, it should be honestly said that Europe currently has nothing to defend itself against medium-range ballistic missiles with, other than what the Americans have offered it. Therefore, the Europeans should be satisfied with what has been built, regardless of whose command will be implemented. Without a doubt, the Americans will not give the reins into the hands of others. Only the creation of a European missile defense shield, proposed by Germany in October 2023, within the framework of the so-called European Sky Shield Initiative (ESSI), and its integration with what the Americans have previously built,"

— this is the disappointing conclusion reached by experts from defence24.pl.

But it is not only about the anti-missile shield. It is necessary to remember that the Mk41 VLS (Vertical Launch System) missile launchers are a very versatile solution, allowing the use of a very large number of missile types, and not only anti-aircraft and, moreover, not only American. It is enough to remember that the Polish frigates of the Miecznik guided missiles will be equipped with a similar Mk41 launch system as in Redzikowo (although not the same version), and from it the British CAMM missiles will be launched.

In the case of US destroyers and cruisers, this missile system has much greater strike capabilities. SM-41 and SM-2 anti-aircraft missiles, LRASM anti-ship missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles and VL-ASROC missile-torpedoes can be launched from Mk6 launch containers. Also, each individual cell can be loaded with Mk 25 launch containers (Quad-Pack launch container), which can accommodate a package of four Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (ESSM) short-range anti-aircraft missiles.

However, these capabilities are not officially used at the Redzikowo base, so talking about the ability to shoot down cruise missiles or aircraft from there is somewhat of an exaggeration. The SM-3 missiles are not used to combat standard air attack weapons. In addition, there are too few of them. The Aegis Ashore complexes in Romania and Poland have only three Mk41 vertical launch modules installed on the ground, which allows for the launch of “only” 24 anti-missiles from these two bases.

By comparison, each Arleigh Burke-class destroyer has 96 of these launchers, giving it three times the missile firepower of a land-based Aegis Ashore (in terms of the number of missiles it can launch, not the type). But that could change very quickly.

The Redzikowo base has space to accommodate additional Mk41 vertical launch modules in the ground, which will be able to load other missiles, not just SM-3. This will add not only the ability to independently defend the facility, but also the ability to attack ground targets, for example, with Tomahawk cruise missiles. Theoretically, it would even be possible to supplement the anti-aircraft missiles tested at the Redzikowo base with CAMM missiles, which will be equipped on the Polish Mechnik frigates.

This would require a general change in the narrative regarding the missions assigned to the European Aegis Ashore installations, which were supposedly initially (at least officially) not to be aimed at Russian missiles, but at those launched, for example, from Iran or North Korea. This was confirmed by an official statement from the US Navy on December 18, 2023:

"The acceptance of the Aegis Ashore base in Poland, as well as its sister base in Romania, is an important step in our efforts to prepare for defense against the growing ballistic missile threat from Iran."
21 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    9 January 2025 04: 55
    I wonder if this base will be able to protect itself if we visit with a large and diverse group? request
    1. -2
      9 January 2025 07: 25
      Quote: pudelartemon
      I wonder if this base will be able to protect itself if we visit with a large and diverse group? request

      If we include "Oreshnik" in this company, then it is unlikely.
      1. 0
        11 January 2025 00: 39
        I think this base won't protect itself from a flock of FPVs either. And that's a million rubles versus billions of dollars for a base with missiles! It's all about saboteurs, or the matrix-carrier of FPVs.
    2. +3
      9 January 2025 12: 29
      That's the whole point. Our strategic nuclear forces will have to use up their missiles to break through the missile defense system that the not-so-stupid Americans are building around Russia. And what breaks through will be used up by the missile defense system from the continental United States. The advantage for them is that the shot-down missile blocks will fall on the territory of their allies and that will be their problem, not the Americans'.
      1. 0
        11 January 2025 00: 43
        Quote: T-100
        That's the point. Our strategic nuclear forces will have to use up missiles to break through the missile defense system.

        If you had read carefully, this base is not capable of intercepting aerodynamic targets!
        Therefore, the missiles will not be strategic! Cruise missiles, or short-range ballistics!
        1. 0
          12 January 2025 19: 36
          This base is not capable of intercepting aerodynamic targets!

          Maybe it can't, this is already the tenth question, do you think they laid everything out on the shelves like this about their base??? I haven't read or seen any secret documents from their (American) military and engineers. And what they say is just words, words and more words.
  2. +1
    9 January 2025 05: 03
    Dear author, what do you say about using these interceptors as nuclear-armed strike missiles? There were such rumors, and the physical possibility of re-equipping exists. Then even the small number is not a hindrance at all.
    1. 0
      9 January 2025 07: 50
      If you look closely, the article states that the system was cut down exclusively to the level of air defense/missile defense, everything else was "cut out". But even if not - only air defense/missile defense missiles and "axes" fit into the Mk41. The last axes with a tactical core were written off about 15 years ago, But even if we imagine that this is all lies, the system is capable of launching axes, and it is possible to cram a tactical nuclear baton into the latest modification, then the Americans will be able to launch 24 cruise missiles with a range of 1500 km, which looks ridiculous against the background of the nomenclature and capabilities of the US Air Force ...
      1. +1
        9 January 2025 08: 24
        Quote: parma
        If you look closely, the article states that the system was cut down exclusively to the level of air defense/missile defense

        Be careful, be careful, don't worry.
        Quote: parma
        But even if we imagine that this is all a lie, the system is capable of launching axes, and the latest modification can actually fit a tactical nuclear weapon, then the Americans will be able to launch 24 cruise missiles with a range of 1500 km.
        But you didn't pay attention, because I wrote about interceptors. And here they are, with their hypersonic speed, and with a flight time to Moscow of less than 10 minutes - this is not here... And what kind of warheads the Americans put on their missiles, they don't tell us.
    2. +1
      9 January 2025 07: 53
      That's the whole point: the Mk41 tsimus installations are re-equipped to launch Tomahawks in a matter of minutes...And then...
      In our "underbelly" a stationary launcher for fairly powerful modernized "Tomahawks" is appearing...
      And all this CRAP regarding "defense" from Iranian and North Korean missiles is ZEROED a priori....
      Who wanted to brainwash whom?!
      It is enough to look at the map to understand - WHERE is IRAN, DPRK?! And... why would they shoot (?!) at Europe?!...
      There is only one conclusion: build up strike forces on the borders of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus...
      And...what will comrade Zhukov say??
      1. -1
        9 January 2025 10: 24
        Once again - this facility is capable of launching only 24 missiles at a time, which pales in comparison to the US Air Force (not to mention the air forces of other NATO countries in Europe, or say M270/Himars)... this is a missile defense facility
  3. +2
    9 January 2025 05: 59
    We can also use the idea like in Redzikowo. Not mobile complexes, but stationary ones. With protection like ICBM silos. I would call them air defense forts. This can be done in the Kaliningrad region and in Crimea, on the border with Finland. With their own detection locators and locators along the border perimeter or in the right places. Also install different types of air defense missiles, missile defense, anti-ship missiles. The number of missiles is from 100 to 300 pieces. Forts can operate in automatic mode, with a small number of service personnel. soldier
    1. +8
      9 January 2025 07: 18
      Quote: V.
      We can also use the idea from Redzikowo.

      And who will make such a decision? Not those useless structures, on the maintenance of which tens of billions of rubles are spent annually?
      If the country worked for the army and navy to the required extent, we would not have to deal with the fuss of the VSU and Western efforts every day...
      Your proposal has a rational core, but for now we have unprotected planes parked at our airfields...
      1. +3
        9 January 2025 07: 25
        we wouldn't have to deal with the daily fuss of the VSU and Western efforts...


        while we have unprotected planes parked at our airfields...

        As long as we have planes STANDING at our airfields, we will continue to sort out the fuss and efforts.
        1. +3
          9 January 2025 08: 09
          I am not a pessimist, but a realist...
          Airplanes are AWESOME, but...
          Against the Tomahawks... Yes, they can be shot down, but... the flight time of the Tomahawks to CRITICALLY IMPORTANT objects (not to mention densely populated cities!)...
          Somewhere and sometime we have already HEARD this-
          does the "Dropshot" plan remind you of anything?! Namely, a PREVENTIVE STRIKE on 129 cities of the USSR (during its existence)...
          Let's look at ANOTHER example-
          Israel, without a moment's hesitation, IS STRIKING...allegedly...militant training bases in Syria, Lebanon, Iran, etc...
          And... nothing...
          WHAT'S PREVENTING them from razing Rzeszow, Konstanz?! And so on down the list...
          If the GDP said that we HAVE ENOUGH OF SUCH FUNDS...What's the problem?!
          The eggs aren't made of iron?!
          1. +4
            9 January 2025 08: 30
            One more..."example"...
            In 1976, the yacht "GreenPeace" approached the Mururoa atoll, where, as is known, the Frogs conducted nuclear tests...
            And... the Frogs, without bothering too much, sent in combat swimmers and sank the "yacht" in one go... And... nothing... The "truth lovers" made some noise and shouted at the UN, and... That's it... And no less than 77 people died... And the Frogs didn't give a damn...
            I can give you ENOUGH more "examples"...
      2. +5
        9 January 2025 08: 37
        And what difference does it make how much money you pour into defense, what's the point with such leadership and generals? With the forces we have, our country could bring Ukraine to its knees in 2022.
        1. +5
          9 January 2025 08: 47
          Quote: dimon642
          With the forces we have, our country could bring Ukraine to its knees in 2022.

          This is exactly what most Russian citizens assumed... However, the subsequent epic with mobilization, with providing for the mobilized personnel, with the work of the rear services and supplies, with the organization of the construction of fortifications along the borders... As a result, it turned out that the country does not have a defense minister capable of organizing the work of the ministry in the harsh conditions of confrontation, but there is a kind of parquet army general, adapted to parades, biathlons and wearing embroidered shoulder straps that distinguish him from other army generals... In addition, it turned out that there are more than enough officials willing to warm their hands on human grief and common misfortune, and right under the nose of the minister himself...
    2. 0
      9 January 2025 14: 44
      And how many of these forts will be needed - taking into account the effective, and not the exhibition-brochure range of the SAM? Or will we build them on the assumption that the enemy will advance at medium and high altitudes, to the delight of the missilemen?
      I'm not even talking about the fact that the stationarity of the SAM position is simply a gift for the enemy. No need to look for positions, no need to work with anti-aircraft missiles, no need to calculate the strike time so that the SAM does not have time to roll up. You can simply stupidly throw cheap ammunition with SNS correction at the stationary position, oversaturating the air defense or catching the calculation in error. Or even use cast iron without correction - showering the SAM position in chalk a full salvo from a MLRS division.
      1. 0
        9 January 2025 15: 12
        You probably don't know, ICBM silo covers can withstand a nuclear blast. I suggested building air defense forts like theirs. When the fighting starts, we won't sit around with our hands folded and our legs dangling.
        In addition to the stationary fort, there will be mobile air defense systems such as Pantsir and S-300 around it.
        How many forts? Depends on the radius of our air defense missiles and enemy aircraft. In the Kaliningrad region there are 2-3 forts. Along the border with Finland there are 3-4. In addition to air defense missiles, the fort, as I wrote in the comment above, will have missiles for ground targets and water targets.
        So you suggest not to build such structures because we are not fools, but the Americans, having built in Poland and Romania, are fools?
        Intelligence, knowledge of the time of a possible attack and preemptive strike. This is also from the Strategic Missile Forces by the way.
        1. -1
          10 January 2025 10: 24
          Quote: V.
          You probably don't know that ICBM silo covers can withstand a nuclear explosion.

          And the radar too? wink
          Quote: V.
          How many forts? Depends on the radius of destruction of our air defense missiles and enemy aircraft.

          The radius of destruction of the SAM system on the MW is 40-45 kilometers. Plus, mutual overlap of the destruction zones is required - to cover the time of reloading the launcher or failure of one of the systems.
          Quote: V.
          In addition to the stationary fort, there will be mobile air defense systems such as Pantsir and S-300 around it.

          Why the fort then? It's easier to build a network of firing positions and run DD SAMs between them.
          Quote: V.
          So you suggest not to build such structures because we are not fools, but the Americans, having built in Poland and Romania, are fools?

          The American systems are missile defense systems. And their stationarity is caused not by tactical, but by technical and financial considerations: to speed up and reduce the cost of construction/commissioning, the Yankees simply moved the ship-based "Aegis" to land. If they had their way, they would have simply buried the "Burke". smile