Thanks for the article Matthew!
via Washington Times.
via Washington Times.
Russia will test launch a controversial missile over the next several weeks that U.S. officials say is raising new concerns about Moscow’s growing strategic nuclear arsenal and Russia’s potential violations of arms treaties.The desire by the current administration to denuclearize the US is making us vulnerable. I can't even properly express my anger at this news. Between actions by China and now Russia, we're shriveling up just like the "dick and his two balls" in the video above. The bad news is that the Russians are holding the "Desert Eagle .50"...they just named it the RS-26.
The RS-26 missile is expected to be deployed with multiple supersonic, maneuvering warheads designed to defeat U.S. missile defenses in Europe, U.S. officials told Inside the Ring.
A House defense aide said the new missile appears to violate the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, based on recent tests and Russian statements that it is designed to thwart U.S. defenses. The treaty bans missiles with ranges of between 310 and 3,400 miles.
“The Russians are advertising this as a system capable of defeating U.S. missile defenses in Europe,” the aide said. “At the same time, the State Department is accepting Russia’s claim that this is an ICBM and doesn’t violate INF. It can’t be both.”
If we had a real leader that represented the US and not some mythical "world leader" this could be turned to our advantage.
ReplyDeleteThe US response should be a warning that if Russia and China continue to develop IRBM conventional systems the US hand will be forced. Then develop our own IRBM conventional systems to be used as our prompt global strike system. It would be allot cheaper than the hyper sonic system we trying now. It could be developed and deployed on our converted boomers and maybe even some of the surface forces in a decade, SOLD to our allies in a land mobile or silo system. Being able to hit chicom targets at will within very short strike times from hidden subs off the coast would keep those chicom sabers in sheath.
Russia I don't really see as a future threat they are in a populations death spiral even worse than Europe and in realty they probably need these missiles more to defend the Russian east from China than to hit BMD systems in the EU (neither Europe or US are going to go to war with Russia). China is already pushing a underground sinofication of the Russian East by business and illegal immigration, just need a flash for China to see the need to "protect" those russian-Chinese. Beside I am sure they can find some ancient chicom maps showing Siberia as a northern Chinese territory stolen illegally by those evil white/European colonialist during the great humiliation period.
agree on all counts. our leadership has baby balls.
Delete"Russia I don't really see as a future threat they are in a populations death spiral even worse than Europe"
DeleteExcept the current numbers show that to be not the case.
Anyway, The russian Desert Eagle .50 is basicly Topol-M and Yars. and both already have maneuvering warheads. Though RS-26 missile seems to going to have a scramjet powered ones. Previously Topol-M has been tested with Ramjet and Scramjet powered warhead. Though .Topol-M in service have only booster-glide warhead.
SS-26 missile i'm very curious about if it's related to a previous test missile named Avangard which was of bus-less design. Which is the real holy grail.
what does bus less mean? google is not my friend
DeleteThe warhead bus.
Deletehttp://wpcontent.answcdn.com/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Minuteman_III_MIRV_path.svg/660px-Minuteman_III_MIRV_path.svg.png
This explains it better. D is the warhead bus. The Russians want to make the post-boost (or bus) stage less vulnerable. They already have a manuvrable bus on the Topol-M. But a bus-less design would be more ideal.
They also want make decoys be able travel along with the warheads. They've been working on that since 2007 from what is rumoured around Russian military insiders.
Russian are also looking for better laser protection and faster boost phase.(Topol-M for one goes mach 20+ in it's boost phase) other ICBM's (or their warheads to be precies only do that in terminal phase.
But all this will make ICBM's very expensive. So it's a good bet that Russians will be fielding IRBM's sooner or later and or a succesor to Russian midget man equivalent RSS-40 "Kruyer"
Russia is so concerned about the US's Eastern Europe Missile Shield, I could ask why but it is important to point out what is happening economically in the former soviet blocks of eastern Europe. The US has been increasingly undercutting Russia's prices of natural gas in the regional as the shale revolution at home is taking place. Russia used to be able to charge whatever they wanted because they were the only fish in the sea supplying virtually all of the natural gas in the region. Now we are in their backyard and giving customers flexibility on price, virtually driving down Russias unreasonable fixed gas prices. Russia balked at the Shale Revolution and still think its still a bubble, but they are losing out on a lot of revenue to something that makes up a massive part of their GDP. Its also important to think if these ex soviet blocks want our gas, do they want our military goodies too?
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I think geo politically wise they might feel threatened in their own back yard and feel the need to act like bullies. They cannot afford to lose revenue, especially easy money like gas orders in their former territories. No one likes being left out in the cold.
Don't be fooled by so called shale revolution. US oil and gas production went up rapidly and yet last time I checked oil is still trading above 100 dollars per barrel. What does that tell you?
DeleteI don't think so. GazProm apparently isn't worried about US shale gas, which in any case hasn't really gotten to Europe yet.
Deletefrom The Barrel:
US gas is no threat to Russia’s hold over the international gas trade, nor will it have much of an impact on Gazprom’s looming export plans, these officials have argued in recent interviews with Platts in Moscow.
US gas prices are poised for a severe price jump, US exporters have underestimated the high costs they will soon face and European and Asian markets will continue to see Russia as their best supply choice, Gazprom officials have said.
When it comes to the nearing wave of new US LNG suppliers, these Gazprom officials are quick to claim, at least publicly, that they have nothing to worry about. US LNG exports, they contend, will be limited, and what US gas does get shipped likely won’t be cheap.
http://blogs.platts.com/2013/10/17/lng-gazprom/
US oil production will have little effect on the price of oil. The price of oil is pretty much judged by OPEC. It's also priced in US dollars, and when goods are priced in US dollars and the US Dollar is currently shitting the bed because we print our way out of everything it will contribute to a price influx (a little bit anyways). We also aren't known to ship our oil supplies because we use so much, thats why its a big deal we are shipping out in mass to customers in Europe. They would rather do business with the US than Russia, because Russia won't budge on the price and they are corrupt.
DeleteThats not what the analysts say:
DeleteWSJ 10-2-13 'U.S. Is Overtaking Russia as Largest Oil-and-Gas Producer'
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303492504579111360245276476?KEYWORDS=US+shale
Also, the Saudis are all shook on US Shale:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323854904578635500251760848?KEYWORDS=US+shale
In contrast to Prince Alwaleed, Mr. Naimi, the Saudi oil minister, has so far played down the significance of rising shale-oil production, despite the fact that some OPEC members, such as Nigeria and Algeria, have seen a sharp drop in their exports to the U.S. At an OPEC meeting in late May, he said it wasn't the first time OPEC has had to compete with a surge in output from countries outside the group.
The International Energy Agency expects demand for OPEC crude to decline again in 2015 to 29.2 million barrels a day, before starting to rise gradually in the following years.
Prince Alwaleed also warned in his letter that competition from shale oil means Saudi Arabia won't be able to increase its crude production capacity to 15 million barrels, adding to a rare public disagreement over whether Saudi Arabia should expand its current production capacity of 12.5 million barrels a day.
You do realize that shell gas and oil is harder and more expensive to extract. And hence why US oil and gas is no threat to Russia.
DeleteThat is arguable, the start up costs are large but once you are extracting huge reserves of crude and have a pipeline to pump it through its no more costly than most types of oil. Deep sea rigs are far more expensive.
DeleteIt's the other way round Matt, once you punch through an oilfield's "dome", it's just a huge bubble of oil, where as fracking is a continuous process, you draw out the rock, hydraulically fracture it for oil extraction, and repeat for the next rock. There is no point where shale oil stops demanding a serious production cost.
Delete[The Russians] just named it the RS-26 -- and China named it DF21-D.
ReplyDeleteTreaties don't mean jack these days. We abandoned ABM treaty to pursue missile defense, Russia was really upset about it. Russia can void INF as she choose to do so. I don't have a problem with that.
ReplyDeleteNow why doesn't Russia trust the U.S. when it says:
ReplyDelete“The NATO missile defense in Europe will not undermine strategic stability. NATO missile defense is not directed against Russia and will not undermine Russia’s strategic deterrence capabilities.”
Breaking Defense has a technical piece on the situation.
"America wants to use policy — talks on missile defense cooperation — to make Russia feel better about the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA). But the Russians, who say they think EPAA threatens their ICBMs and thus creates all sorts of arms control problems. say technology — not policy — is the problem."
http://breakingdefense.com/2013/10/17/why-russia-keeps-moving-the-football-on-european-missile-defense-politics/