Military Review

RF Permanent Representative to NATO: NATO naval exercises show the destabilizing nature of missile defense in Europe

29
Alexander Grushko, Russia's Permanent Representative to NATO, said that the anti-missile exercises of NATO countries that use sea-based components are "another demonstration of the destabilizing nature of the US / NATO missile defense systems in Europe."




“The very choice of the region for such maneuvers confirms the justification of our concerns regarding the true direction of the alliance’s missile defense system. It is obvious that the northeastern part of the Atlantic is not the best positional area for covering European countries from missile threats from the regions to which the United States and NATO tied the created missile defense system. And vice versa - in the immediate vicinity of the exercise zone there are frontiers that are critical for Russia from the point of view of nuclear deterrence and the maintenance of strategic stability as a whole, ”the RIA reports. "News".

The US Navy conducted the first tests of the naval component of the missile defense system. In particular, the US destroyer USS Ross (DDG 71) was able to successfully intercept a ballistic missile in the North Atlantic during the Maritime Theater Missile Defense (MTMD Forum) exercise with the participation of allied countries. In a press release, the US Navy notes that during the tests, the SM-3 Block IA guided missile was first released outside the range of American missiles, as well as the Terrier Orion short-range ballistic missile.

The NATO missile defense system in Europe was created in November 2010 during the organization’s summit in Lisbon.
Photos used:
http://www.oceanuslive.org
29 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. Vladimyrych
    Vladimyrych 22 October 2015 10: 05 New
    +1
    NATO and its main component of the GCA, by definition, is a destabilizing factor on a planetary scale. ABM is one of the small elements of destructive influence.
    1. oleg-gr
      oleg-gr 22 October 2015 10: 10 New
      +1
      It is time to answer this missile defense by deploying new ships and submarines with Caliber. Then the lower hemispheres of the brain at NATO will begin to work.
      1. Vend
        Vend 22 October 2015 10: 12 New
        0
        NATO has already outlived itself.
        1. MIKHAN
          MIKHAN 22 October 2015 10: 26 New
          +1
          Quote: Wend
          NATO has already outlived itself.

          After the Caspian flotilla of Russia, this is definitely! The Black Sea, Pacific and Northern Fleet did not say our word yet! Well, I will not say anything about the rest ... bully
          1. _Vladislav_
            _Vladislav_ 22 October 2015 10: 34 New
            0
            They also launched SM-2 missiles from the Sullivans destroyer. Successful interception of the Kyrgyz Republic is reported. It is clear that it is impossible to say for sure whether they can intercept Caliber.
            But in principle, the potential of URO class ships is decent, the ability to launch the same missiles, anti-submarine missiles. And all this will be supported by the launch of the new SM-6 missile defense system from 2016.

            If those performance characteristics that are being laid in the new interceptor missile are confirmed, then theoretically they could block the nuclear potential of the Russian Federation, provided that at least 6% of ships of this class were re-equipped with SM-75.

            I think our Department of Defense is closely monitoring the success of the states in this area. Because an adequate (or asymmetric) answer is sure to be needed.
            1. shtanko.49
              shtanko.49 22 October 2015 11: 01 New
              +3
              To hit at predetermined targets is not the same as hitting a target in the face of real opposition, there is a lot of advertising.
              1. _Vladislav_
                _Vladislav_ 22 October 2015 11: 20 New
                0
                Quote: shtanko.49
                To hit at predetermined targets is not the same as hitting a target in the face of real opposition, there is a lot of advertising.

                Where are the guarantees that in a real battle the missile defense will not hit the target?
                Both here and here there is enough advertising, and in principle this is a common thing, everyone praises himself and interprets other people's achievements differently.

                In reality, in order to confirm or refute the effectiveness of American interceptor missiles, we need to launch Topol, say, and an anti-missile will try to get it. And only in this case we will definitely know what and how.

                That would be an interesting test.
                1. Falcon
                  Falcon 22 October 2015 12: 04 New
                  +1
                  Quote: _Vladislav_
                  In reality, in order to confirm or refute the effectiveness of American interceptor missiles, we need to launch Topol, say, and an anti-missile will try to get it


                  SM-3 cannot shoot down Topol class ICBMs. This is what GBMD is for.
                  1. _Vladislav_
                    _Vladislav_ 22 October 2015 12: 46 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Falcon
                    SM-3 cannot shoot down Topol class ICBMs. This is what GBMD is for.

                    In this case, we are talking about RIM-174 SM-6 ERAM
                    1. Falcon
                      Falcon 22 October 2015 13: 11 New
                      +1
                      Quote: _Vladislav_
                      Quote: Falcon
                      SM-3 cannot shoot down Topol class ICBMs. This is what GBMD is for.

                      In this case, we are talking about RIM-174 SM-6 ERAM


                      The article talks about using SM-3.

                      RIM-174 SM-6 ERAM - and still not able to intercept the ICBM!
                      It can’t even intercept medium-range missiles and is an air defense missile, and the missile defense function is just an option to the same controversial effectiveness, and even more so, it can’t be compared even with the SM-3
                      1. _Vladislav_
                        _Vladislav_ 22 October 2015 13: 42 New
                        0
                        Quote: Falcon
                        RIM-174 SM-6 ERAM - and still not able to intercept the ICBM!

                        The following capabilities are included in a missile defense:
                        1. The ability to simultaneously intercept any number of targets
                        2. The possibility of hitting low-flying targets, sheltered from the radars of the carrier ship beyond the horizon
                        3. The ability to effectively defeat stealth targets at long distances
                        4. The possibility of more effective counteraction by means of electronic warfare
                        5: The ability to intercept ballistic targets - That is, the interception of tactical missiles and ballistic warheads of short- and medium-range missiles at the entrance to the atmosphere.

                        During a series of exercises on June 20, 2014, August 14, 2014, October 24, 2014, the SM-6 was highly effective against all types of modern weapons.

                        P.E. if you have any other info, well, I will listen with pleasure.
                      2. Falcon
                        Falcon 22 October 2015 13: 49 New
                        +2
                        Quote: _Vladislav_
                        5: The ability to intercept ballistic targets


                        Many air defense have the opportunity, but this does not mean that they are focused on pro.

                        Ballistic missiles need to be intercepted on an atmospheric path.



                        SM-6 has aerodynamic rudders and high-explosive interception. Which limits its height to 35 km. Further, it is not controllable and not effective.



                        SM-3 3-x rocket with KINETIC atmospheric interceptor with gas-dynamic control



                        and she intercepts on a marching stretch in space.

                        It’s hard for her to reach the mbr. and sm-6 is not possible

                      3. _Vladislav_
                        _Vladislav_ 22 October 2015 15: 30 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Falcon
                        SM-3 3-x rocket with KINETIC atmospheric interceptor with gas-dynamic control

                        Well, that’s really interesting.
                        In addition, the SM-6 also has a kinetic warhead. And actually, SM-3, whose interception height is something around 250 km. leaves the question open, the probability of interception of Russian ICBMs in the European part.

                        And for a detailed description of the capabilities of the TTX SM-3 (SM-6) with many thanks. Clearly understood.
                        Perhaps you are right about the narrower range of CM-6 actions. Or maybe maybe, but from a closer distance.
                      4. Falcon
                        Falcon 22 October 2015 16: 07 New
                        +2
                        Quote: _Vladislav_
                        In addition, the SM-6 also has a kinetic warhead.


                        Kinetic warfare and kill kinetic vehicle are very different things.

                        KKV I think is 90% of the cost of the rocket and the complexity of the technology. By the way, we have not yet been able to implement it.



                        Quote: _Vladislav_
                        Perhaps you are right about the narrower range of CM-6 actions. Or maybe maybe, but from a closer distance.


                        Given that the launch of the BR and the fall of the warhead is almost vertical - and lasts a second. What you need is practically in tight to the place of launch or hit.

                        In the case of launches, also try to catch up with the BR ...
                  2. The comment was deleted.
    2. viktorrymar
      viktorrymar 22 October 2015 10: 36 New
      +2
      ABM - Anti-Russian Defense)))))
      1. _Vladislav_
        _Vladislav_ 22 October 2015 10: 40 New
        +1
        Quote: viktorrymar
        ABM - Anti-Russian Defense)))

        Which is not directed against Russia)))))) Well, at least they declare it so)
  • vovanpain
    vovanpain 22 October 2015 10: 33 New
    +8
    I recall an episode from the film 72 meters, Our boat surfaced in the midst of NATO exercises, and it began: -Dear American friends, we begin the transfer of the pioneer dawn; Here is the answer so the answer.
  • Magic archer
    Magic archer 22 October 2015 10: 06 New
    +3
    We need more Caliber carriers to the Baltic. Let them sit and consider its radius. And then the exercises have become too frequent. Especially with the baldons
    1. Kostyar
      Kostyar 22 October 2015 10: 12 New
      0
      Duc, everything has been in order for a long time ................
    2. hydrox
      hydrox 22 October 2015 10: 13 New
      +1
      Quote: Magic Archer
      And then the exercises have become too frequent


      Are you sorry?
      Yes, let them herd :: it’s easier to deal with them when they are going to a bunch, and in Baltluzh it’s easier to control the results of hits ... ;-))
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Andrea
    Andrea 22 October 2015 10: 18 New
    +3
    All of the above is not news, moreover, just a fact.
    The test conditions were much more interesting. Was the target maneuvering? Did it have false targets? Was there interference?
    All the tests that I heard about were carried out in greenhouse conditions and not all ended successfully. To downplay the capabilities of the missile defense is, of course, ridiculous, but it is not worth exaggerating, but if they bring it to mind, it will really not be good.
  • rf xnumx
    rf xnumx 22 October 2015 10: 19 New
    +1
    NATO naval exercises show destabilizing nature of missile defense in Europe
  • Same lech
    Same lech 22 October 2015 10: 20 New
    +2
    RF Permanent Representative to NATO: NATO naval exercises show the destabilizing nature of missile defense in Europe


    This topic has already covered all ears and eyes in the media.
    How much can we say that the US State Department will not do it just like that and will not deviate from its plan ...

    Our leadership in KREMLIN should take this as an inevitable evil and respond to this evil with adequate and symmetrical ... and the statements of the Permanent Representative and the Russian Foreign Ministry, to be honest, look like babble.

    But if, near by, the United States would create a threat to them on the same scale as missile defense in EUROPE, it would be a different conversation for us ... on an equal footing.

    I must say that the US leadership did not get rid of the cowboy habits of the WILD WEST, relying on its
    SMITH & WESSON smile it is logical that on their revolver we should have our MAGNUM, preferably of the 44th caliber .... figuratively speaking.
    1. stas132
      stas132 22 October 2015 10: 32 New
      0
      We have a Mosin rifle, it's cooler.
    2. skrabplus.ru
      skrabplus.ru 22 October 2015 10: 38 New
      +2
      But if, near by, the United States would create a threat to them on the same scale as missile defense in EUROPE, it would be a different conversation for us ... on an equal footing.
      получим новый "карибский кризис" из которого В.В.П. по любому выйдет победителем
      1. The comment was deleted.
  • skrabplus.ru
    skrabplus.ru 22 October 2015 10: 35 New
    +1
    The main result of the program for creating small missile ships and corvettes is the inclusion of inland waterways in the western part of Russia in the strategic forces maneuver system. in the next ten years, the fleet will receive at least two dozen military units with similar weapons capable of navigating inland waterways and shooting off both from the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea, and even, if desired, directly from the Volga River somewhere in the region Tver.
  • rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 22 October 2015 10: 42 New
    0
    Why and against whom this missile defense system is being created has long been clear to everyone. They carried out tests, so they had to do so anyway, and today they are still trying to somehow respond to Russia with its increased power. Now we should wait for the asymmetric response of Russia to these tests.
  • Lecha57
    Lecha57 22 October 2015 11: 01 New
    0
    The US does not realize that the leaders of Russia (the USSR), like Gorbachev and Yeltsin, will never be again. - That's why they are trying by all available means to discredit Russia. But they understand very well the current state of affairs, whose advantage lies with Russia. They also do not understand that this advantage is not only for a long time, it is for all time. - Regardless of the class system.
  • roskot
    roskot 22 October 2015 11: 37 New
    0
    Let them rejoice. Our calibers will get them there too.
  • slizhov
    slizhov 22 October 2015 11: 40 New
    +1
    Надобно провести учения... Мы пуляем по Янкам, а они уничтожают наши "пули"!!!
    Just hint about it, they will be swept away in a swoop from your decks!
  • gomer
    gomer 22 October 2015 14: 16 New
    -1
    They decided to respond to our volley of the Caspian flotilla with exercises. Show your missile defense.
    Ну и что?