Hans has a post up at FAS on this.

I saw that an old Reuters article said that the MIRV'ed RS-24 was built in response to US BMD plans:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/11/28/us-russia-missiles-usa-idUSTRE4AR3S120081128?sp=true

RS-24 was built to increase the number of warheads Russia can deploy (ICBM warheads in particular). Missile defense was an excuse, but no more than that.

Indeed, missile defense was -- and is -- a useful tool for those hawkish elements in the Russian polity arguing for increased and more portent nuclear weaponry. Too bad it not effectively defend the US and its allies against nuclear attack.

Ted and I commented on the physics and politics of the situation at:

www.fas.org/pubs/_docs/2011 Missile Defense Report.pdf

A MIRV'ed Topol-M (RS-24) won't help at all for getting past either boost or mid-course phase ABM interceptors: it is actually worse because now 3 or 4 warheads instead of one are lost.
This defies logic.
With a strict limit on warheads, the number of launchers needs to be increased and MIRV's need to be done away with. Russia is on a course to put itself in a position where it has the mandated 1550 warheads but possibly only 3-400 launchers (even fewer if the new heavy ICBM is MIRV'ed). That number of launchers is low enough to make it feasible for the US/NATO to all but eliminate Russia's strategic deterrent capability.
Russia really needs to be focusing on ICBM/SLBM survivability measures for boost and mid-course phases and a workable MARV system.

MIRV's also have their own problems. The packaging requirements (for anything but super-heavy ICBM's) always result in (relatively) low yield, highly inefficient, and very dirty nuclear weapon designs.

Jon,
you assume that the BMD system NATO is planning (i.e. a midcourse system) cannot be outfoxed with simple countermeasure. This is a bad assumption as the latest (rigged) test failures of both the sea and land based systems would also indicate.

MIRV'ing helps confuse the BMD system: in fact, the US MDA has never had a successful test when countermeasure were used: 0% success rate.

For further details see:

www.fas.org/pubs/_docs/2011 Missile Defense Report.pdf

That's a very informative report Yousaf, thank you. Clearly then , the SM-3 block 2 presents the most serious threat, assuming it works. A couple of questions, however:

-You mentioned lofted trajectories as a possible, though not necessarily effective, countermeasure- what about depressed trajectories?

-I thought decoys were only ever used for the beginning of the terminal phase -do they deploy in the early part of the mid-course phase?

I believe the whole concept of Iran as a nuclear threat to NATO or the US is seriously flawed. Does the US and NATO really believe that Iran does not understand the concept of deterrence or mutually assured destruction? I don't see how Iran, even if it someday acquired nuclear weapons and IRBM's/ICBM's to deliver them, could ever consider using even one against established nuclear powers. They would have to expect massive nuclear retaliation. A terrorist sacrificing himself to kill others is one thing, but sacrificing an entire nation? I don't think so.

So what really, is the point of the US breaking the ABM treaty? How can anyone be surprised at Russia's hostility to this plan? From the Russian perspective, the actual capability of said ABM system is only part of the picture when its very purpose is questionable.

Gentlemen:

I always love these discussions on ballistic missile defense and the “decline of Western Civilization”. Ballistic missile defense isn’t some panacea military solution designed to absolutely protect the United States, or Russia, from any and all nuclear attacks. It’s just a weapon system. As a weapon system, ABM only changes battlefield tactics; no more or less. Historically, think of it in the same way as antiaircraft missile systems have changed the way fighter aircraft are used in today’s combat. It’s just a weapon system.

The GBI system in Alaska and California is really just a big research & development project. It will take twenty years of future work to actually see if the Boeing GBI system can be turned into a “weapon system”. First you must detect the launch, track the inbound missile, define warhead separation, target the warhead(s), gain command & control permission to engage the target, and last and certainly not least, hit the target with an interceptor. A study out of the Pentagon suggest a launch by North Korea with a 25 minute window to impact, couldn’t gain approval to launch through the national command & control layers in time. Much work to be done there.

The SM-3 systems shows promise as battlefield ABM weapon. It has the best testing record on intercepts, including test where countermeasures were used, is modular and very upgradable. In fact, a version was modified and used to knock down a wayward US intelligence satellite a few years back. It’s versatile. Plans to introduce the SM-3 system to defend American interest in Europe proceeds. Today, an Aegis destroyer equipped the the SM-3 system is on deployment in the Mediterranean Sea. Spain has agreed to home-port four Aegis destroyers to ensure one such ship is always available for such patrols. X-Band Radars are being installed in Turkey. In 2015, ground-based versions of the SM-3 are scheduled for installation in Rumania at Deveselu Air Base; the updated SM-3s to Poland in 2018. The US Navy and the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force have a destroyer constantly watching the DPRK. Can ground based SM-3s in Japan or the ROK be far behind?

The only nation on earth that has an operational ABM system is Russia.

However, remember, it’s just a weapon system.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank,
can you tell us more about the SM-3 tests that were successful "including test where countermeasures were used" ?

If you can, please contact the MDA, they would love to know also.

Yes, missile defense has always been just 20 years away, ever since the 1960s.

As we explain in our FAS study BMD is a net negative for US security.

I also argue it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/opinion/21iht-edbutt21.html?pagewanted=print

yousaf butt

I would be delighted to enlighten you on the history of the the SM-3 missile defense system. Remember, the SM-3 Standard missile was originally envisioned to be the “weapon of choice” in two separate US Navy research projects. One project focused on developing a “short range” system to protect ships at sea and a second project to develop a "long range" system that might be able to protect naval bases from a long range ballistic missile attack. Tests were run using existing target missile technology of the day, complete with counter measures, and the results were analyzed by the US Navy. Two conclusions were reached. One, the Navy was surprised to discover the existing Lockheed Aegis radar on US Navy cruisers, the Ticonderoga-class cruisers to be precise, could be software modified to actually track ballistic missiles in flight. (the Navy thought a new type and class of shipboard radar would be necessary) The second thing they learned was the existing fragmentation warhead of the Standard missile wouldn’t work and a new “interceptor warhead” would need to be built and integrated with the system. As a sidebar, the US Navy also realized the same system could answer both needs and the “short range” and “long range” research projects were combined. As the GBI system being run by the Generals at MDA continued to struggle with issues, the US Navy project being run by the Admirals posted a string of milestone successes; both technological and fiscal. Only when the real scope, the potential of what might be future possible with the “SM-3 System” began to be realized and funding began to drive the project was the SM-3 moved to MDA. After all the MDA is really “all about the funding”. The Commander-in-Chief wants a land based SM-3 and here we are.

your NYT quote:

[...In large part, the renewed tension between Russia and the United States is about missile defense. Were we to abandon this flawed and expensive idea, our ties with Russia — and China — would naturally improve.]

Just think how our relations with Russia and China would “improve” if the United States gave up all nuclear weapons. Or, mothballed the carriers. Or, abandoned our military bases in Europe and the West Pacific. Or,...

Yousaf, you and Ted do good work and frame an excellent debate on issues. However, remember, “it’s just a weapon system”.

Frank Shuler
USA

Yes, Frank, it is a weapon system -- like many many others -- that does not work.

It is a waste of US tax dollars.

It decreases US security.

And you did not tell me about that countermeasures test with the SM-3 that you say "worked"

I think Pavel wrote an article titled "The Fallacy of Missile Defense" once.

yousaf butt

my quote:

[...The SM-3 systems shows promise as battlefield ABM weapon. It has the best testing record on intercepts, including test where countermeasures were used, is modular and very upgradable...]

your quote:
[... And you did not tell me about that countermeasures test with the SM-3 that you say "worked"...]

And where did I exactly say the test "worked"? (grin)

Forget teflon coated balloons for a moment. The Navy tests were on a “wired” battlefield, think a China Lake for example, where the Aegis system was subjected to a wide range of electronic jamming (ECM) and “aggressor” ballistic missiles had “pen aids” when the “ship-based SM-3 system” was tested. Perhaps the attacking warhead package only used chaff. (?)

Just as a interest point, do you know if the basic SCUD-type missile uses penetration aids with its HE warhead? Also, where in the inventory of Russian ballistic missiles does “pen aids” go from the “basic” to “sophisticated”? Or, do all Russian ICBM and SLBMs use the same technology? Is the pen aid package for the SS-27 Topol-M the same as Bulava, for example. Just curious.

What defense project in your opinion isn’t a waste of US tax dollars? Just name a couple to frame the debate.

Why does it decrease US security? What weapon system does the United States field that “increases” US security”? Again, give me a framework to work with.

Yes, I disagreed with Pavel as well. However, his argument was always well stated. “It is always easier to sharpen the sword than polish the shield”.

Good exchange of views.

Frank Shuler
USA

I see your argument is that BMD is sensible since there are other wasteful and non-functional Pentagon initiatives. You should run for congress.

I'm glad we agree that the SM-3 record against countermeasures is 0% success rate.

I agreed with Pavel and disagree with you.

Here is some detailed work on how CMs will outfox midcourse missile defense:

A. Sessler et al., “Countermeasures: A Technical Evaluation of the Operational
Effectiveness of the Planned U.S. National Missile Defense System,” Union of Concerned Scientists
and the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (April 2000).
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nwgs/cm_all.pdf

yousaf butt

Actually, not one time have I ever said, in any postings, ever, that ABM systems are “sensible”. The US spends billions of dollars each year on R&D projects that are interesting but never make the cut to becoming a “weapon system”. ABL, hypersonic Blackswift/HTV, FALCON and, let’s say, the X-37 for a very short list. As stated, I would also put the GBI system in that group. The naval SM-3 system seems something different. I do believe in time it has the potential to become an effective weapon system.

Whether the land-based MDA SM-3 version, integrated with the AN/TPY-2 radar system, new data links and revised command & control systems, actually is built and is “successful” in the future is well beyond my knowledge. In any event, the MDA will pour non-Navy monies by the buckets into this project at the direction of our President and perhaps only the US Navy and its Aegis destroyers will be the real beneficiaries. Sounds like an investment worth making to me. I mean, what’s a few billion dollars a year to the Pentagon, right?

Just curious. How do you know if the US Navy SM-3 tests had a 0% success rate against countermeasures?

Do you have any knowledge on Russian ballistic missile “pen aids” to share? Not “calling you out” if you don’t but just interested in any open-source data.

Every time I read the MIT paper, I’m struck by the simple solution to decoys and US ballistic missile defense. Have Los Alamos dust off the designs for the old W-30 or 31 warheads. Build a thousand or so and upgrade the SM-3. At that point, teflon balloons and such are no longer an issue; you just need to get “close”. Simple and frightening solution, don’t you agree?

Congress? Lord no. It’s too hard a job. All those cocktail fundraising parties and endless hands to shake. Not for me. I much rather be a “think tank” kinda guy like you. Much better job.

Frank Shuler
USA

I'm think that this ABM debate is only political game.SM-3 is only a non-nuclear terminal interceptor .Terminal ABM ,even nuclear not have any sense-because its possible to bypass defended perimeter around city and explode warheads in ground bursts upwind to the cities.Only an area ABM have a sense.

Anonymous

I completely agree the proposed land-based SM-3 system for Europe is only a political game; it’s unclear to me how such a system would exactly work even if it is ever built. (I have my doubts it ever will be)

The naval SM-3 system is different. I do believe the “military experts” think this system can continue to be developed into a boost phase weapon system and in such a capacity might well be “effective” again North Korea or Iran. That is taking into consideration a missile launch from Iran would still be in boost phase over the Black Sea. Perhaps Yousaf Butt could comment for clarification.

Terminal defense? Yes, in defense of a naval ship. Better than nothing in defense of a city I guess. Nuclear option for the SM-3? While I believe it is technically possible, of course, I oppose even the consideration. My comments were only made in an academic sense; not practical. The United States has chosen to spends billions of dollars on ballistic missile defense at the expense of spending monies on new nuclear weapons. I generally support that decision.

Frank Shuler
USA

Terminal and area-interceptors(nuclear ,of course) -are technical terms ,as for-example ICBM,pit,core....
,they are not related to the ships and other such things.

See,for example : DOD History of the strategic arms competition 1945-1972 end refs.therein for a general discussion.
In one option to defend 30 largest cities deployment of 20000 Sprints has been considered but even this not have any sense,since as fatalities in these cities could be inflicted by fallout.
But 15 batteries with 700 Spartan missiles,it was estimated could cover Entire US.

I just think having ABM's in a world with nuclear weapons is a serious mistake. The end result will always be escalation in the form of having to counter the ABM's. I would be all for ABM's if ballistic missiles only carried conventional warheads, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. If the goal is to rid the world of nuclear weapons, it would seem the first step is to rid the world of ABM's. If we did, launcher and warhead numbers could drop to well below 1000. Possibly even below 500, with no effect on deterrence.

Jon Grams

Jon, my argument would be you’re only thinking in the historical context. If Russia and the United States were the only nuclear super-powers and China, France, Israel and Great Britain supporting players, I would agree. However, think ahead twenty years. In the next twenty years, we will live in a world where North Korea, Iran, India, Pakistan, and potentially Brazil, Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia will all have nuclear weapons and intercontinental delivery systems. Everyone will have cruise missiles; nations and nation-states; (and I mean everyone). As the United States lessens it direct military influence in Europe and Asia, will Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan seek the nuclear option? Australia, Singapore? Generals and politicians are always accused of “fighting the last war”. Today, nuclear weapons are an oxymoron. You have to have them to be a “great power” but once you have acquired them, you can’t use them. That is the historical truth. Will that be the truth in the next twenty years?

Frank Shuler
USA