European Missile Defense Tour 2010

In September 2009, the "kényian d’Indonésie" scrapped the plans of the George Bush administration to deploy elements of the shield in the Czech Republic and Poland aka the New Europe. Over the course of the recent weeks, there was a plethora of news related to quest for a new missile defense architecture. Let’s try to cast some light on this obfuscated issue by taking off to a trip through Eastern Europe.

Poland – the old ally

Under the duumvirate of the Kaczynski brothers, Poland was a steadfast yea-sayer in the framework of the GBMD plan and accepted willfully to host ten interceptor missiles. This attitude has changed when Donald Tusk took over the position as prime minister. He remained noncommittal: “We must know the answer to the question whether [missile defense] increases or decreases Poland’s safety,” he said upon assuming office.

Poland tried to extract concessions from the Bush administration, including the deployment of Patriot missile batteries and in early December 2009 after some hiccups, Poland and the United States signed a deal that paved the way for the deployment of a PAC battery in Morag in northern Poland. The site is about 50km southeast of the Baltic Sea and 65km southwest of the Russian city of Kaliningrad. The choice of site is said to have everything to do with infrastructure and nothing to do with Russia.

While the 10 interceptor missiles negotiated under the Bush administration found their way only into history books but not to Redzikowo where they were inteded to be deployed, Poland is on schedule for its deployment of Patriot missiles, despite grumblings from Moscow. American troops should be manning the new missiles sites by the start of April.

The Russian reaction to this was not hard to predict: saber-rattling and mawkishness! Nikolay Makarov, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation complained that the Europeans are ungrateful because Russia “actually carried out the demilitarization of Kaliningrad Oblast [while] the countries of the West began to increase their arsenal, including batteries of Patriot air defense complexes in Poland.”

The purpose of the interceptors was in between discussed by RIA Novosti which came up with a very poignant argument: “Given the lack of critical facilities in the vicinity, the current position of the [Morag] Patriot battery renders it essentially useless as a means of missile defense, which confirms that Warsaw's foreign policy is directed against Russia and that Washington backs this policy.”

Viktor Litovkin, Editor-in-Chief of the Независимое Военное Обозрение (Nezavisimoye Voyennoe Obozreniye, Independent Military Review), elaborated further on that:

“Iran does not have missiles that could fly to Poland. It is not likely that [such missiles] will emerge in the Islamic Republic of Iran in the next 20-30 years. There is a technological gulf between the missiles, which Teheran has at the present time, and missiles that would be able to strike the territory of Poland.”

Litovkin definitely had a point when he asserted:

“Patriot missiles are used against air targets and tactical and operational-tactical missiles that fly over distances from 150 kilometers to 300 kilometers. Consequently, it is clear that the Patriot batteries are intended for counteracting missiles which may fly to Poland from territories of its immediate neighbors—Kaliningrad Oblast and Belarus.”

This viewpoint is also shared by Riki Ellison, Chairman and Founder of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, who said in a statement:

Contrary to the [U.S.]Administration's decision, the President's new missile defense plan and its sensitivity to Russia to withdraw long-range ballistic missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic to defend Europe and the United States from Iran, this decision is directly providing Poland a capability with deployed U.S. troops to defend Polish military against Russia with no intention of the future threat from Iran to Europe. [...] This decision would also seem to be against the Administration's goodwill and intention to move forward with Russia on the START Follow-On Treaty.

Aleksandr Khramchikhin, Deputy Director of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis in Moscow, kept cool(er) than Litovkin and said that

“...it is necessary to keep in mind that [the PACs] are exclusively defensive in nature. Simply put, they can be used against Russia only if Russia attacks Poland. I do not understand why the General Staff is overreacting to the sending of American missile interceptors to Poland.”

While the PACs are ill-suited to defend Poland or the United States from a hypothetical Iranian attack with (currently non-existing) IRBMs or ICBMs, the SM-3s that are scheduled to be deployed in 2015 are better suited to do so. Warsaw agreed on March 2 to a new version of a deal on stationing SM-3s, a government statement said, adding it would be aimed essentially at potential threats from Iran. Other sources report that the missile silos in northern Poland are not likely to come online before 2018.

The necessary Status of Forces Agreement has already been signed by President Kaczynski on February 27. The agreement will make it possible to establish a periodic, and then – in accordance to U.S. declarations, by the year 2012 – permanent base of a Patriot air defense missile battery, and in the future also a base of SM-3 missiles.

In short: in spite of the change from the Bush to the Obama missile defense architecture, nothing has changed in terms of the role that Warsaw plays in this system. It is still a reliable partner. Let’s see what the next country has to offer.

Czech Republic – vacillating but on board

Originally, the Czech Republic was chosen as partner to host the X-band radar in Brdy, southwest of Prague. In March 2009 the Czech government withdrew treaties committing the country to the US' missile defense shield from parliament. In the recent weeks the Czech Republic has appeared to be sidelined from missile-defense developments which was perceived by Czech officials as a payback for the withdrawing.

Senior U.S. and Czech officials discussed in January 2010 Prague's potential role in the updated U.S. plan for European missile defense. In February, a high-level defense policy expert with ties to Washington D.C. said the Czech Republic is in discussions with the Obama administration to host a command center for the United States’ altered missile-defense plan. However, these discussions are in the early stages. A Foreign Affairs Ministry spokesman refused to come up with detailed information and simply said that “no concrete proposal has been mentioned yet.”

The Czech Foreign Minister Kohout was more outspoken when he praised the fact that the new U.S. project of anti-missile defense embraces all NATO allies and that the Prague will play an active role in it. He said on March 4, however, he does not expect a command post to be established in the Czech Republic, but rather a post serving information exchange.

“We are expected to shoulder responsibility for our own security and Europe to invest means into becoming a partner of the United States,” not a client, Kohout said.

We will have to wait for more information to see whether Kohut’s statement will have a real impact or if it was only a kind of re-labeling intended to soothe the Czech population that vehemently opposed the original missile shield plans. What other tasks does a command post have than the exchange of information?

However, there was only one source that reported recently that Czech participation would exceed the role of a information broker / command center host: according to UPI SM-3 systems will also be based in the Czech Republic from 2015 on.

Romania –new best buddy

After having scrapped the Bush missile defense plan, Obama came up with a scaled-back successor plan called for Mediterranean Sea-based radars to monitor potential projectiles launched by Iran, and shorter-range missiles to be deployed in an southeast European country, that was at the time of the announcement undisclosed. This changed in February 2010 with a beat of the drum: the Romanian President Traian Băsescu announced on February 4 that he had received a formal proposal from U.S. President Barack Obama to participate in the deployment of an American missile defense system. Romania’s Supreme Defense Council has already approved the plan to host 20 SM-3 interceptors (other sources speak of 24 interceptors) but according to Foreign Minister Teodor Baconschi, negotiations alone might last a year and a half and the agreement will be implemented after it is ratified in Parliament. The installations are scheduled to become operational by 2015.

Ellen Tauscher, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, specified the new proposal and highlighted that it is limited to hosting a land-based site SM-3. She said the U.S. had no plans to deploy Aegis ships and there are no sea-based missile defence elements in the Black Sea.

MDAA’s Rikki Ellision analyzed the capabilities of Romanian site:

Placing the proposed capability by 2015 in Romania with the current sea -based defensive missiles (SM3 Block 1A) [...] can only technically provide fixed protection of a few nearby countries from an Iranian ballistic missile threat. Iran’s intermediate-range missile system currently in development, the Shahab-3 (with a 1200 mile range), will severely challenge the system in Romania as projected. This is due to the narrow defended area that its capability can provide. Requirements for the proposed site in Romania and the Land -based Aegis Ashore system have not been set. [...] Future adoption and integration of remote sensors coupled with the future capabilities of faster and more adept interceptors could lead to a much more enhanced site. This could lead to a system with the potential to have more capability than the canceled site in Poland or the current capabilities our country now has in place. Because of time and development this would most likely be a decision made by the next Administration.

Romanian officials are delighted by the increased attention their country receives. Gabriel Obrea, Romania’s Defense Minister, said: "Romania becomes an important landmark within NATO and EU and brings more security not only to the Romanian people but also to the entire south-east Europe.” While Romanian Foreign Minister Teodor Baconschi said the defense system will provide the protection of the entire national territory and it will not have significant costs for the Romanian side, rumors emerged that Romania would have to pay half of the allegedly €4 billion cost ($5.4 billion).

It is surprising that even a couple of days after Băsescu’s announcement the topic hardly made it into the news in spite of all the controversial issues that it contains. One analyst noted that the response in Romania will clearly depend on the stance of the various political parties. Chances are that only marginal nationalistic parties, plus pacifist groups, will vocally oppose the missile system.

In spite of all the excitement of Romania’s new grandeur, Bucharest is aware of the fact that the United Sates has also other options:

“Romania is closer to Iran, of course, than Poland or the Czech Republic,” the channel said. "However, Turkey, an old member of NATO, is even closer,” [Romania’s NTV channel] noted, adding that the Americans are negotiating the issue with the Turkish authorities.

Regardless of how far these negotiations with Ankara have matured, the adoption of the Armenian Genocide Resolution by the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee on March 4 deferred the discussions indefinitely.

As always, there is also a grain / pinch / package of salt. Vesti TV Channel highlighted that it is still unclear if the new missile shield system will be effective, how real the Iranian threat is, and how the news plans will influence relations of the U.S. and Romania with other countries, first of all, with Russia. Moscow indicated what kind of impact the new plans might have on international relations. Russian officials reacted coolly to the news that Romania had agreed to host American missile interceptors, with a top envoy saying that the announcement could directly affect Moscow’s position as negotiations to replace START reach their conclusion. Though the general outlines of the new missile defense plan were made public months ago, Russian officials made it clear that they were taken aback by the announcement of Romania’s role. Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov said the Russian and American presidents had agreed that the “threats and risks of missile proliferation will be assessed jointly as a first step.”

Aleksandr Khramchikhin doubted that the Romanian president’s words could guarantee that “the U.S. missiles will be deployed in that country.” He continued: “I think Băsescu statement does not mean anything. [...] It is clear that such decisions are taken in Washington rather than in Bucharest,” the analyst noted, adding that the case of Warsaw and Prague shows that the decision may be reversed.

RIA Novosti came up with its own theory of what will be deployed: “...it is reasonable to assume that the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) mobile ground-based radar system will be deployed in Romania instead of the SM-3 missile system, which hasn't been created yet.” But THAAD is not all:

One has to admit that deploying elements of the U.S. missile defense system in Romania will neither pose a threat to Russia nor change the strategic balance between Moscow and Washington. However, the U.S. plans to deploy more powerful anti-ballistic missiles in Europe by 2018-2020. These will probably be silo-based missiles, for example upgraded SM-3 missiles with high runway speeds and interception altitudes exceeding 1,000 kilometers, making it possible to destroy not only ICBM warheads but also ballistic missiles launched by Russia.

We will see what half-life the current plan has and if it will be reversed just to become a footnote in the Molvanîa guidebook.

Bulgaria

Bulgaria was also among the list of countries that expressed interest in hosting a base. This interested was welcomed inter alia by U.S. ambassador to Bulgaria, James Warlick who said that Bulgaria "has a place in the U.S. missile defense shield”. Bulgarian Prime Minister Boiko Borisov stressed he would not be alone in making the decision on whether his nation would play a role in the missile shield, but said that, as a European Union and NATO member, Sofia should "show solidarity."

Russia reacted surprised when Bulgaria was named as a potential interceptor host and has submitted a formal request to Bulgaria for information on reports that it is in talks with the United States on hosting elements of a planned European missile defense shield: "We have already asked our partners in Washington ... what does this all mean and why after the Romanian 'surprise' there is a Bulgarian 'surprise' now," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an RIA news agency report.

Bulgaria's president, Georgi Parvanov backpaddled somewhat trying to soothe Russia’s concerns. He was quoted saying that there had been no official talks between Bulgaria and Washington on hosting the missile shield. This was echoed by the United States that said it has not yet asked Bulgaria to host any missile interceptors.

Again, RIA Novosti’s assumptions of what will be deployed in Bulgaria are “special”: the news agency reported that Bulgaria could host a THAAD radar station with a direction range of 1,000 kilometers.

One has to wait for the official talks to get more insight … unless RIA Novosti provides us with more information ahead of these meetings.

Russia – on the other side of the iron curtain

Like his counterparts in the other countries, Romanian President Traian Băsescu highlighted from the very beginning that the new system is not directed against Russia but “against other threats.” Unfortunately, he did not elucidate which other threats he had in mind. Mr. Băsescu reiterated this peaceful character several times and added recently that the system is only “offensive [for] propaganda reasons.”

These reassurances obviously had an effect on some analysts who believed that Moscow might not be irritated with the new deployment plans:

When the U.S. wanted to deploy elements of the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, “Russia stressed that if they are still to be deployed somewhere, then Romania and Bulgaria could be the best place,” Aleksandr Khramchikhin, deputy director of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis [in Moscow], told Gazeta daily.”

In retrospect, this analysis was definitely far out. If Russia indeed said such things, Moscow obviously forgot about it. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergey Ivanov said the new plan is very familiar to the old one from the Bush-era:

“It is still unclear what infrastructure and weapons systems are concerned. If they are identical to those the Bush administration planned to deploy in the Czech Republic, then it's just trading one problem for another,” Ivanov said.

Dmitry Rogozin, the head of Russia’s mission to NATO, even said that Romania’s decision only confirms the fact that “there is no difference between the race for anti-ballistic missiles and strategic offensive weapons.” This is a quite bizarre line of the thought of the ambassador who is not known for a restraint way of speaking. It seems that his skills lie rather in the field of the use of metaphorical language: on his Twitter feed he said that the proverbial Russian bear would "kick the ass" of the United States and its allies if cornered by a new U.S. missile shield.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev referred already last November to one element of what Rogozin referred to as “ass-kicking”: Medvedev threatened to retaliate if the U.S. missile shield plans go ahead by deploying Iskander-M missiles in the country's westernmost exclave of Kaliningrad, which borders NATO members Poland and Lithuania. Russia's foreign minister Lavrov reiterated this threat by saying that Moscow would be forced to position missiles on the EU border if U.S. missile defense components were deployed in Central Europe. The Russian defense minister Anatoliy Serdyukov also echoed the threat but came up with one condition for the deployment: if Moscow felt directly threatened. It was not the first time the threat has been reiterated. This is the reason why some analysts take do not take it overly serious:

In politics, failure to appreciate the importance of acting quickly invariably creates problems, the above situation being a vivid example. The Iskanders are a remarkably potent weapon but it appears that Moscow risks playing the card as a minor element in the diplomatic game. One gets an impression that the threat to deploy the missiles in the Kaliningrad region has been aired too long for NATO on the whole or even Poland and the Czech Republic to take it seriously.

It seems that either not even the own military is convinced by the constantly reiterated threat or that – once again – there is a lack of coordination inside the Russian military. Col. Gen. Alexander Postnikov, Russia's newly appointed chief of Ground Forces, denied that his country's plans to equip units in the northwestern military district with Iskander missiles later this year have anything to do with U.S. missile deployment in Europe. Maybe someone should have told him...

Kaliningrad is not the only region where Russia could deploy missiles. Luckily, the cornered and threatened Russia has powerful allies: Moldova's rebel region of Transdniestria said on February 15 it was ready to host Russian Iskander missiles if the Kremlin were to ask. Some analysts already said that the deployment of Iskander missiles would serve as the guarantee of normal coexistence of Russia and the “Atlantist Europe”. Hooray, happy cold-waring. And so the story continues: if you deploy your missiles in your satellite state, I will likewise deploy my missiles on the soil of my satellite state. Maybe nowadays sattelite states should be called partners, but that is a side issue for those people. However, Transdniestria linked the offer to the possible deployment of U.S. interceptor missiles to neighboring Romania.

Another rumor came up but was revoked: RIA Novosti news agency had quoted a high-ranking official in the Baltic Fleet as saying Russia would be boosting the weaponry of the fleet's ships, submarines and aircraft in response to the Polish announcement. The Russian Defense Ministry stated shortly afterwards that Russia had such plans.

If one reads some more extreme comments, the Iskander deployment in the Kaliningrad Oblast or the boosting of the navy seem totally harmless: Alexander Pikayev, a government employed expert, announced that Russia may respond to a launch of a BMD interceptor with a nuclear attack on Romania, believing it is not an interceptor, but a ballistic missile aimed at Russian territory.

Another way that Russia uses to put pressure on the United States is to threaten to walk away from the START+ negotiations. Armed forces chief of staff Makarov said differences over missile defense were among reasons "why we have not yet reached a signing of this agreement," RIA-Novosti reported. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said in an Interfax report that the planned Romanian involvement in the U.S. missile shield is "influencing" final talks on the START successor agreement "In the most immediate sense”.

A senior Russian lawmaker indicated that Russia's parliament is unlikely to ratify a START successor deal that does not include a link to missile defenses. Earlier, his U.S. colleagues warned such a link would not get past the Senate. This seems to be another sheer show of non-existent force. Despite the warnings of obstacles in getting a treaty through the Russian parliament, Konstantin Kosachyov, head of the State Duma committee for international relations, hinted that the concerns of the U.S. Senate meant the linkage between arms cuts and missile defense was unlikely to be included in the new pact.

However, not everyone is convinced by the threat scenario that Russian comes up with:

Former President George W. Bush’s plans for a limited strategic BMD deployment in the Czech Republic and Poland did not actually threaten Russia, but Russian political and military leaders deliberately created a standoff. The same process appears to be unfolding with the potential Romanian and Bulgarian BMD deployment plans.

It seems that this perception is shared by several U.S. officials. The United States is – or pretends to be – optimistic that the Russian rumbling will not last for a long time. Alexander Vershbow, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, believes that discussions with Bulgaria and Romania about future missile sites should not have a long-lasting adverse affect on US-Russia negotiations.

Epilogue

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov summed up the present state of U.S.-Russian relations: “I will not say we are enemies, and I will not say we are friends.” Russian-U.S. friendship is not conditio sine qua non for having a working relationship based on trust and mutual interests. Washington took a step into the right direction when it called on Russia to participate in the missile defense endeavor. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview: "While Russia faces challenges to its security, NATO is not among them […] We want a cooperative NATO-Russia relationship that produces concrete results and draws NATO and Russia closer." Building a chain of missile defense bases around Russia’s borders and confronting Moscow with a fait accompli – like it seems that Washington did especially in the case of the Romanian base – is detrimental to the effort to build cooperative relationships. This is what irked Moscow most.

Likewise, Russia’s Rocket Rumbling does not help Moscow to be perceived as a partner on an equal footing. It only cements what the former German chancellor Helmut Schmidt once said: "The Soviet Union is like Upper-Volta with missiles."

Missile defense race in the Persian Gulf

The United States shifted gears in its efforts to upgrade its current defenses against possible Iranian missile attacks in the Persian Gulf. General Petraeus said the United States was now keeping Aegis cruisers on patrol in the Persian Gulf at all times in order to shoot down medium-range Iranian missiles.

A second line of defense is formed by the deployment of antimissile systems in at least four Arab countries on the Arabian Peninsula, according to administration and military officials. The U.S. deployments include PAC-3 systems, which would be used against short-range missiles.

Military officials said that the countries that accepted the defense systems were Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait. They said the Kuwaitis had agreed to take the defensive weapons to supplement older, less capable models it has had for years. Saudi Arabia and Israel have long had similar equipment of their own.

The cooperation does not stop at the delivry of missile defense hardware. Lieutenant General Mike Hostage, commander of US Air Force Central Command, stated recently that the U.S. would be sharing early-warning missile launch intelligence with the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, which is formed by the five abovementioned Arab countries: UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Qatar.

Several reaons are being provided for the deployment of the anti-missile systems:

Firstly, the systems are intended to act as a buffer against potential Iranian retaliation to new economic penalties related to its atomic activities and as an answer to growing perceptions that Tehran is the region's ascendant military power.

The second stated goal is to prevent a nuclear arms race in the region. If the Arab states are reassured that they are protected from a potential Iranian aggression, they do not feel they have to go nuclear themselves.

Thirdly, the same argument but a different angle: The U.S. is furthermore trying to show Israel that there is no immediate need for military strikes against Iranian nuclear and missile facilities, according to administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

However, the build-up, which is touted by U.S. officals as a strictly defensive action, is a sword that cuts both ways. One can also take a different approach:

[Assuring Israel] and Gulf states Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia which host U.S. infantry, air and naval forces that they are invulnerable to retaliation after attacks on Iran is to increase the risk of unprovoked Israeli and U.S. assaults.

Yeah, yeah: if you have the shield, it is easier to use the sword…

Naturally, Teheran has – or pretends to have – a different viewpoint than the United States: "[Washington does not] want to see good and growing relations between Iran and its neighbors in the Persian Gulf and thus started a psychological war," Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, the chief of staff of Iran's armed forces, was quoted.

But do not expect to catch the competition napping. The Iranian ambassador in Moscow has meanwhile said that Russia has assured Iran that it still intends to deliver long-range S-300 air-defense missiles. A top Russian arms trade official recently signaled the delivery may go ahead in spite of strong Israeli and U.S. objections.

In short, we can see a situation that is only too familiar: the arms race is on and everybody has only peaceful thoughts.

Topol, Bulava and arts

Last week Russia conducted two missile tests and the results are mixed. On December 10, a Topol missile was launched without any problems from the Kapustin Yar site and hit the designated target in Sary-Shagan, Kazakhstan. Everything ran smoothly as we have seen it many times before. Things looked totally different the day before: On December 9, Russia test-launched a Bulava SLBM. The Russian Ministry of Defense confirmed that the test was a failure - like the one before, like the one before, like … - and said in a statement:

"It has been determined in analyzing the launch that the missile's first two stages performed as planned, but there was a technical malfunction at the next, the third, phase of the trajectory," the ministry said in a statement on Thursday.

Last week’s test has only been one of many failures. Here is a brief chronology of the Bulava test-launches which counts – according to RIA Novosti – seven failures out of the 13 tests:

1. 24.06.2004 - failure: solid-propelled engine exploded during the test
2. 23.09.2004 - success: a test of automated systems on board of Dmitry Donskoi nuclear involved the ejection of a full mockup of the Bulava missile from submerged position to a height of about 40 meters
3. 27.09.2005 - success: the missile flew for 14 minutes and covered a distance of 5,500 km. Warheads hit all designated targets at the testing grounds
4. 21.12.2005 - success: all targets at the Kura testing grounds after a launch from a submerged submarine
5. 07.09.2006 - failure: a glitch in the program caused the missile to deviate from the trajectory and fall into the sea before reaching the target
6. 25.10.2006 - failure: the missile deviated from the trajectory, self-destructed, and fell into the White Sea
7. 24.12.2006 - failure: malfunction of the third-stage engine 3-4 minutes into the flight caused the missile to self-destruct
8. 29.06.2007 - success: warheads hit targets at the Kura testing grounds after a launch from a submerged submarine
9. 18.09.2008 – success: Subsurface launch at 18:45, warheads hit target at 19:05
10. 28.11.2008 - success: a successful launch during the state-run technical tests
11. 23.12.2008 - failure: the missile self-destructed
12. 15.07.2009 - failure: the missile self-destructed during the separation of the first stage
13. 09.12.2009 - failure: a technical failure in the third stage engines rendered them unstable

But some analysts suggest that in reality the number of failures has been considerably greater: According to Russian military expert Pavel Felgenhauer, of the Bulava's 11 test launches, only one was entirely successful.

Against the background of these dire results RIA Novosti demands that “we must now assess the entire project's status and the implications of the latest abortive test on the future development of Russia's strategic nuclear forces.” Well, it seems that perceptions of the state of the Russian missile arsenal vary. Andrei Shvaichenko, commander of Russia's Strategic Missile Forces (SMF) said on December 8 that Russia will complete the development of advanced missile systems by 2016:

"The future missile group will consist of two components -- standby stationary missile systems with a high level of combat readiness and long-endurance missile systems. […] By the end of 2016, the missile systems with extended service life will account for no more than 20 percent of the total, while the share of new missile systems will be about 80 percent."

If one considers the performance of the Bulava one can call these plans very … naïve ambitious. Of course one realistic option would be to continue with the slow introduction of the new missiles and a rapid decline of old missiles. But I assume that this was not what commander Shvaichenko was bragging about. ..

On a final note: if Russia should drop out of the missile building business it might still go into arts. The failed missile test of Russia illuminated the Norwegian sky on Wednesday morning: The spiral even caused speculations about a UFO causing bluish-white sky to pop up. The NewScientist reported that it looked like a time-travelling vortex fit for Doctor Who.

For a better hypnotic effect take a look at this video.

Missle Defense Aftermath

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Saturday lashed out at critics of a new missile defense plan for Europe and insisted it was not a concession to Russia, as some charge. This is something that Senator John McCain, ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, accused the plan to be. Since when is making concessions a crime? Well, we already know for some time how McCain prefers to solve conflicts. Maybe he should take a conflict resolution class to learn that making concessions is neither a taboo nor a capital sin. Anyhow, I digress, let’s get back to business:

Concession or not, shortly after President Obama announced his decision to scrap plans to base the missile defense components in Poland and the Czech Republic, it was reported that Russia will abandon plans to deploy Iskander SRBMs in Kaliningrad. Luckily some people in Russia are not as narrow-minded as certain U.S. senators.

Two days before President Obama made his announcement rumors came up that Russia and the United States might cooperate on the Gabala Radar Station. While this idea has been under discussion for already some time and was only recycled, the rumor mill has also something new to offer. NTI’s Global Security Newswire reported on September 14:

Recent news reports have indicated that the Obama administration is considering Israel as one alternative location if it chooses not to pursue the planned deployment of missile interceptors in Poland and a radar base in the Czech Republic. Some U.S. systems might remain in Israel after the two nations conduct a joint missile defense exercise scheduled for October, the Jerusalem Post reported last week.

A senior U.S. State Department official hinted that reports of plans to deploy missile defenses in Israel might be incorrect. They might be incorrect? A strong refusal sounds differently.

Even though the original missile defense plans for Europe were scrapped, this does not mean Washington will limit itself to the Vandenberg Air Force Base and Fort Greely. Under Obama's new plan, the United States would initially deploy ships with missile interceptors and in a second phase would field land-based defense systems. To “tip the balance back just slightly towards the wonky”, make sure to read Joshua Pollacks post “Testing European Missile Defense” over at the Arms Control Wonk.

Picture © Reuters

A step ahead in the missile-defense-maze

The meeting of the two presidents in Moscow was not only about counting warheads and delivery systems – the issue of missile defense was also discussed. It is time to catch up with the developments:

While visiting Russia, U.S. President Barack Obama and his counterpart, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, have signed a joint statement on missile defense. It reads in between:

“Russia and the United States plan to continue the discussion concerning the establishment of cooperation in responding to the challenge of ballistic missile proliferation. […] We have instructed our experts to work together to analyze the ballistic missile challenges of the 21st century and to prepare appropriate recommendations, giving priority to the use of political and diplomatic methods.”

At a speech at a Moscow university President Obama elaborated further on this and highlighted the purpose of the missile shield and the condition under which the program could be scrapped:

"I want us to work together on a missile defense architecture that makes us all safer. But if the threat from Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs is eliminated, the driving force for missile defense in Europe will be eliminated. That is in our mutual interest."

However, some Russian actors are reluctant to make a linkage between the two issues of missile defense and Iran. These topics should be considered separately from each other, believes the head of the international affairs committee of the State Duma lower house of Russia’s parliament Konstantin Kosachev. “The missile defense issue and Iran should not be mixed, no matter how the Americans insist on this,” the lawmaker said on the Echo of Moscow radio station commenting on President Obama’s speech.

Also in the Washington the question is deliberated whether this linkage can be made and if the presumptions on which it is based are watertight. Already back in January a review of the proposed European missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic was announced in order to see if this is the best solution to defend Europe and the United States from long-range ballistic missile threats of third sources. The United States expects to finish the review by the end of the summer.

Moscow hopes that at the end of this review Washington will realize the counter-productivity of its plan to deploy elements of U.S. missile shield in central Europe. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said earlier this week.

"I hope that the revision [of the missile shield plans] in Washington... will result in an understanding that unilateral steps in this sphere are counterproductive."

This viewpoint is shared by Russia’s Federation Council Speaker Sergei Mironov. He told Ekho Moskvy radio that he has reasons to believe that “ultimately, this thoughtless and very dangerous step will not be made - there will be neither radar nor missiles”.

Naturally, Russia cannot assume that Washington will follow its line of thought and it keeps all options open: on the one hand it has already expressed its willingness to collaborate with the United States on missile defense if Washington first dropped the Europe proposal, Interfax reported. On the other hand Russian President Dmitry Medvedev reaffirmed on July 10 Moscow's threat to deploy short-range missiles near Poland if Washington moved to field the European defense system. Russia is also cautious to put off Iran. It has therefore broadened the scope of the missile shield’s purpose. Vladimir Yevseyev, senior research associate with the renowned Institute for World Economy and International Relations, said that:

"Iran is not the only missile threat because there are many countries in the vast Middle East area which have developed missile programs and arms. Some of them would like to create a nuclear infrastructure.”

Yevseyev proposed to deploy missile defense systems in other places than sites proposed by the United States and use, for instance, Russia's S-400 air defense system and the U.S. Patriot system, which are both capable of intercepting missiles from the Middle East.

Some people were less creative – rather a bit off – and recycled an idea from the 1980’s: Space systems designer Boris Chertok recommended building a U.S.-Russian missile defense system in outer space, Interfax reported. Chertok should take a look at the draft PPWT, the “Treaty on Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects” proposed by his own government and China. The draft’s article II starts off with the sentence:

“The States Parties undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying any kinds of weapons.”

Russia is not the only player waiting for the outcome of the review. Also Poland wants a clear answer from Washington on its plans to deploy the interceptors on Polish soil under a 2008 deal, the government spokesman Pawel Gras said on July 12.

"We're still lacking an essential, clear response as to whether the U.S. will go ahead with the shield plan. It's a fundamental question to which we need a definite answer."

Gras underlined furthermore that Warsaw was still waiting for the "U.S. to make good on the promise by the new administration, independently of the shield plan, to deploy a battery of Patriot missiles."

In summary: all options are on the table – and we will have to wait for the outcome of the review to see if the options narrow down.

© picture: Xinhua

July 4, Scrabble, and whales

You know the story: excuse me for not writing for a long time. I hope I can make up for that with a brief post on our missile-madness poster child: DPRK.

North Korea will likely fire short- or mid-range missiles off its east coast from which it has banned shipping, a senior South Korean government official said last week. South Korean government sources were quoted saying that the Norks are expected fire Scuds with a range of up to 500 kilometers or ground-to-ship missiles with a 160-km range into the Sea of Japan (East Sea).

Another rumor says that Kim Jong-il intends to turn the test launch into a strange July 4 congratulation by firing a long-range missile towards Hawaii. Japan's defense ministry believes that North Korea might now be planning to launch a two-stage or three-stage Taepodong-2 missile towards the U.S. state. With a range of 4,000-6,500 kilometers the missile would fall into the ocean before reaching Hawaii, which is located more than 7,000 kilometers from the Korean peninsula. However, besides killing a few fish or disturbing a stray whale, this would send a strong signal that the DPRK is trying to intensify the intimidation tactics and that it is going to continue to up the stakes in the standoff. The vice chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff is quoted by the LA Times that the West Coast of the United States may be vulnerable to such an attack within three years. However, North Korea is unlikely to be able to develop a nuclear warhead by then.

With all the attention paid to Pyongyang, Russia reminded the world that it wants to have its share of the limelight. North Korea is unlikely to fire a missile rocket in the direction of Russia, but if it does, the anti-missile defense system would destroy the missile in seconds, Russia's General Staff of the Armed Forces said. Thank you for mentioning that. One has to admit, that the comment made by President Obama was equally helpful: “I do want to give assurances to the American people that the T’s are crossed and the I’s are dotted in terms of what might happen,” Obama said in an interview.

Defense Secretary Gates has joined Obama on the Scrabble front. He ordered the deployment of a ground-based, mobile missile intercept system and radar system to Hawaii. North Korea reached new levels of absurdity by criticizing the U.S. for positioning missile defense systems, calling the deployment part of a plot to attack the regime and saying it would bolster its nuclear arsenal in retaliation.

While Obama and Gates work on calligraphy and the alphabet, other U.S. officials are downplaying any imminent threat of a North Korean missile strike. The U.S. intelligence community does not believe North Korea intends to launch a long-range missile in the near future, a U.S. intelligence official told CNN.

If the launch will not occur on July 4, another option for the launch is July 8, because the 15th anniversary of the former North Korean president Kim Il-Sung's death will fall on this day. The test launch could officially be interpreted as a tribute of Commander Kim’s tribute to his grandfather. Soon we will know more…

Air-launched BrahMos in 2010

The BrahMos has already been inducted by the Indian Army and the Navy. While the Navy version was the first to be inducted in 2006, the Army ordered $2 billion worth of land-based BrahMos missiles last month. Now increased efforts are being made to develop the air-launched version.

Domain-B refers to reports which quote unidentified ministry of defense officials as saying that the modification work on the aircraft is expected to be complete by early 2010, though no deadlines have been set.

The aerial version of the BrahMos will be shorter in length than the standard land or marine versions and will have the capability to auto-launch towards the target after being released from the aircraft by the pilot. It will be integrated on Ilyushin Il-38 maritime surveillance planes and the Su-30 MKI. India has already dispatched two of its Sukhois to Russia for modification of the aircraft's fuselage so that they will be able to carry the BrahMos.

to-do list for the weekend

Dear reader,

once again, I can only supply you with a brief list of links to missile-related articles. As announced, this will be the last article for a while. I will be back online in April. It would be great to see you back then.

GMD

• Obama Likely Flexible on Missile Shield
• Poland, Czech Republic Worried by Obama's Intentions on Missile Defense
• Poland ready to conclude U.S. missile shield negotiations: FM
• No timetable exists for radar on Czech soil - U.S. source
• Biden hints at compromise with Russia on missile defense plan
• Obama's arms reduction idea a threat to missile defense in Europe?
• Missile shield plans delayed, but not discontinued?
• UK backs missile defense shield
• Russian missile plans depend on US
• Ballistic Missile Defense Efforts Tied to Iran, Gates Says
• Belarus says air defense pact with Russia not aimed at missile shield
• Iran denies claim its missiles can hit anywhere in world
• Iran, Russia, U.S.: the BMD link

Missile Defense

• Kinetic energy weapons may be best way to intercept missiles
• Kinetic Energy Interceptor shows promising flexibility
• Airborne Laser offers new era for ballistic missile defense
• NATO keen on missile shield in Europe
• South Korea to complete missile defense system by 2012
• South Korea May Join U.S. Missile Shield
• Geopolitical implications of missile defense
• Missile Defense in the Obama Budget
• India Working Towards LASER Based Missile Defense System
• US in talks with India for providing missile defence

DPRK

• North Korea Prepares Missile Near Launch Site
• South Korea says DPRK’s missile test would violate UN resolutions
• A look at DPRK's missile arsenal
• North Korea eyes disputed sea border for missiles-media

Miscellaneous

• U.S. urges Russia to consider missile offer
• U.S.-Russia: Missile Diplomacy
• Kissinger calls for missile cuts
• France transfers more anti-tank missile technology to India
• Russia and Iran's missiles
• Russia expands production of precision guided weapons, see also here
• Iran builds S-300-style anti-aircraft missile defense system
• Iran's Missiles: Don't Go Ballistic
• Black Market Missiles Still Common in Iraq
• Brahmos field testing today, February 20
• China can't stop India's missile system

It is time for another round-up of reading

First some articles concerning our good old European GMD base:
• U.S. eager to search dialogue with Russia on missile defense
• While some say that Russia offers Obama olive branch on missiles other media reports that Russia denies missile suspension. The Warsaw Business Journal brings it to the point: Conflicting rumors surround Kaliningrad missiles
• Russia says missile threat [to deploy its Iskander missiles] stands, only as response
• Czech minister hails freezing of Russian missile plans
• Poles, Czechs wary on Russia missile move, eye Obama
• Czech adamant on missile shield referendum
• Czech lawmakers postpone missile defense vote
• Rethinking U.S. missile defense: “Between 1985 and 2008, America has spent $116 billion on missile defense, with an additional $50 billion envisioned over the next six years”. Taken together, this incredibly big sum makes up more than one fourth of the U.S. package intended to bring up the economy back up to its feet. And it was spent for a project which is “an expensive insurance policy whose payoff remains doubtful”
• Missile shield could boost U.S.-Russia ties
• German Foreign Minister Steinmeier seeks U.S. missile defense shift

And here something on the itsy bitsy rest of the world:
• Iran says 'self-sufficient' in missile production
• Iran's slow but sure missile advance
• India rushes to buy anti-tank missiles
• Failed test and rocketing costs: Army says no to BrahMos missile
• Second phase of BrahMos missile program to be launched Feb 10
• India lags behind Pakistan in missiles (an Indian perspective)
• Pakistan surges well ahead of India in missile technology (from a Pakistani viewpoint)
• Russian space agency to support Bulava project
• Russia boosts targeting tech for Iskander missiles
• Russia wants new START and BMD bases scrapped
• DPRK space ambitions raise missile concerns, analyst warns
• DPRK set to test long-range missile as tension rises in region
• China will create a versatile missile force
• Missile Defense in Japan

A positive step

Every now and then there are also some good news: Russia's military has announced it will halt its plans to deploy short-range missiles in its Baltic enclave Kaliningrad, Interfax news agency says.

Sign of life

Hello everybody,

There is no need to order wreath and flowers, the Missile Monitor is by no means dead. I am back – kind of. I am still very busy with other projects so that the blogging will be rather light over the next weeks. Therefore I will continue with the reading-list-style. Sorry about that. So let‘s start with the first list, catching up from mid-December.

Russia:

· Russia hopes for deal on START-1, missile defense by 2010
· Bulava missile fails a 5th test
· Russia to hold more test launches of Bulava ICBM in 2009
· Russia to get 70 nuclear missiles in 3 years
· Topol-M ICBMs enter service with new missile regiment in Russia
· Russia to deploy new missile systems by 2020
· Russia deploys 2nd S-400 missile system
· Russia's S-400 air defense system may be world's best
· Russian S-300 deal with Iran 'on the go’
· Tehran Says It’s Getting Russian Missiles
· Russia denies sales of sophisticated missiles to Iran
· Russians deny selling S-300s to Iran; U.S. skeptical
· Russia says Iran weapons buys 'defensive'
· Israel urges Russia not to sell missiles to Iran
· Russia selling surface-to-air missiles to Libya, Syria

Missile Defense:

· Poland hopes for continuation of anti-missile project
· U.S. could review missile shield plans
· Russia hopes U.S. will review missile defense plans
· Moscow says offer to U.S. on joint radar use still stands
· Airborne Laser Blasts Off
· Belarus backs Russia's missile plan to counter U.S. shield
· Japanese missile defense system cleared despite test failure
· U.S. Promotes Middle Eastern Missile Shield
· UAE is to acquire advanced interceptor Patriot missiles
· Aiming high: Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense
· U.S. to place Aegis missile defenses on several warships
· US missile defense system will be unable to destroy Russian nuclear potential
· Northrop Grumman begins testing 'cold-launch' system that makes kinetic energy interceptors mobile, global, flexible
· India 'eyes' U.S. missile defense system
· Pentagon denies missile defense sales talks with India

Other:

· India successfully test fires anti-tank missile
· Rockets are again at the heart of a Mideast war
· Poland to buy naval strike missile from
· China’s ‘missile reduction’ is fantasyChina's missile plans put U.S. naval power in a weaker spot

No time and too much on my plate

Ok, here comes the announced entry. I had a pretty tight schedule over the recent days due to some other projects which are still ongoing. So I am unfortunately not able to catch up in a due level of detail. Instead, I will just provide you today with a reading list:

Russia:
• Russia seeks new missiles due to U.S. shield plans
• Russian Military Says Sea-based Bulava Missile Tested Successfully (November 28)
• Russia starts production of Bulava missile
• Bulava SLBM problems teach lessons to Russia, U.S.
• Russia acted wisely in sticking with Bulava SLBM
• Russia to Test Bulava Missile Again This Month
• Putin says no need for Cuban, Venezuelan bases
• Russia, U.S. Plan Strategic Arms Talks

Missile Defense:
• Missile Defense: Putin says Obama will make concessions
• Russian defense chief reiterates concerns over U.S. missile shield
• Russia Against U.S. Missiles in Any European Anti-Missile Plans
• Russia to Spend $2 Billion More on Missile Shield Countermeasures, Other Defenses
• U.S. Fires Missile Defense Laser Through Aircraft Turret
• Abandoning Third-Site Missile Defenses Would Threaten Transatlantic Security
• US stages successful missile-defense test over Pacific and here (December 5)
• NATO Reaffirms Support for US Missile Shield
• Financial Crisis Might Delay U.S. Radar, Czech Foreign Minister Says

Other:
• Iran develops air-to-air missile
• South Korea Takes Delivery for Patriot Missiles from Germany
• Pakistan to acquire 100 air-to-surface missiles from Brazil
• India’s Shaurya only a variant of ballistic missile K-15

Unfortunately, this will already be my last post for this year. I will be out of town next week without any time for further posts. For that reason the blog will be put again to a pre-Christmas hiatus. I wish you all a Merry Christmas or whatever you may or may not celebrate and a Happy and Joyous New Year. Thank you for following the Missile Monitor this year. I hope to see you back in the next year.

Russia tests RS-24

Just quick and dirty: Russia successfully test-launched on Wednesday, November 26, for the third time its RS-24 ICBM. Read Pavel Podvig’s postings here and here for more information.

Waiting selflessly

Earlier this month it was celebrated (by some) as a major breakthrough that Washington and Prague signed a framework agreement outlining terms for deploying a planned missile-tracking radar station on Czech territory. I already mentioned in earlier postings that the deployment agreements still have to be ratified despite by the Czech Parliament which faces resistance from the parliamentarians. This was confirmed by the speaker of the lower house of the Czech parliament, Miloslav Vlcek, who said last Friday, November 21, that he is certain that the U.S. missile defense radar would be deployed in the Czech Republic. Vlcek elucidated that the Social Democratic Party and the Communists, which hold 96 of the 200 seats in the lower chamber, and also some members of the ruling Civic Democratic Party would vote against the deployment of the U.S. radar. The ruling Civic Democratic Party of Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek has only 81 seats.

The situation does not look any better northward (taking a U.S. administration’s perspective). Poland's Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski said that his country will wait for the Obama administration to make up its mind on basing missile defense interceptors in his country and will not lobby to have the project proceed. He also explained how selflessly that the Warsaw government is – it only agreed ‘out of friendship’. Right, and the U.S. government finances only out of friendship the reinforcement of the Polish air defenses like the 96 Patriots that will be dispatched in Poland next year. It is always good to have such friends.

If you take the recent statements of French President Nicolas Sarkozy on this matter it seems that it is time to rename the French Fries into Freedom Fries again: On November 14 Sarkozy questioned the value of U.S. missile defense plans in Europe, but later appeared to step back from his criticism, the Associated Press reported. Initially he said that the ‘deployment of a missile defense system would bring nothing to security in Europe ... it would complicate things, and would make them move backward’. He was joined by Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini who suggested in La Republica that the Obama administration should sacrifice the location of the missile defense shield in Poland and the CzechRepublic for the sake of good relations with Russia.

In his article for MWCNews Jacob Hornberger makes a similar point. He dreams of a speech of President-elect Obama in which he extends the change also to the missile defense policy:

'The missile interceptors will not be installed in Eastern Europe. I can understand why the Russian regime would consider this a provocative act. If Russia were installing the same type of system in Cuba or in Mexico along the U.S. border, that would concern us. Such a project will accomplish nothing more than to increase tensions unnecessarily between our two countries, which it is already succeeding in doing. It’s time we reduced such tensions, […]'

However, NATO reaffirmed on November 17 its backing for a planned missile shield in Europe. NATO spokeswoman Carmen Romero said the alliance's position had not changed. During its last summit in Bucharest in April NATO leaders agreed upon that the missile shield makes ‘substantial contribution to the protection of allies’.

The Asterixian wars

It is great to see that not only cartoons depict reality, sometimes it is also the other way round: I just felt reminded of the "Asterixian Wars". At the end of ‘Asterix and the Goths’ all clans of the Goths are allied with each other in various opaque configurations and they also fight each other. It is a huge mess and nobody knows who started it.

One can get a similar impression from the current debate about the use or nonsense of the current missile deployments and defense systems by reading the headlines of the recent days. NATO is concerned over Russia’s missile plan to station Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad. Russia picks up this ‘blame your eastern neighbor’-game: Lavrov expressed his worries over Asian missile programs. One of his addressees – China – strikes back by announcing that global missile defense systems do not aid world stability. Moscow takes the same line by calling the alleged Iranian missile threat a ‘fairy tale’. At the same time Russia made the tremendously generous offer that it would not rush to deploy its tactical missiles near the Polish border if Washington scrapped plans to station a missile shield in east Europe (oddly enough Reuters speaks of ’a softer stand’). It should come to no surprise that the U.S. rejected these proposals. A MDA spokesperson counters that the Russians know that the missile shield is no threat.
So who was blamed by whom and why? Let’s hope this mess finds a different end that that in the Asterix cartoon.

Sorry for the long pause. I will write again on Tuesday.

another treaty-signature and a strange congratulation

Right before the presidential elections there were are major news in to report on: last Friday the United States and the Czech Republic signed a framework agreement outlining terms for deploying a planned missile-tracking radar station on Czech territory.

The signed agreement does not come for free: U.S. Missile Defense Agency chief Henry Obering announced that the United States would provide $600,000 for Czech scientific research in exchange for agreeing to host the station – a sum that reminds of fire sale prices. It is a far cry from the $20bn that the Polish neighbors originally demanded.

The treaty still awaits parliamentary ratification which should – according to Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek be put off until the next U.S. administration. So it sounds more like: “Okay, you get your signature but we will wait until the next president comes into office. Then we will (quietly) renegotiate.”

AFP reports:

"We want a delay to make sure about the attitude of the new American administration," said Topolanek. Initially, the Czechs were planning to ratify the missile shield agreements without waiting for the US presidential election results.

Some have no doubts about Obama’s attitude: Czech unsuccessful presidential candidate Jan Svejnar told the press that the missile shield project will go on despite the financial crisis even during the term of President Barack Obama. Poland shares this expectation.

In the meantime the Czech opposition Social Democratic Party demanded on November 3 that the Constitutional Court examines the legality of two deployment-agreements.

Faced with all these uncertainties the United States’ Missile Defense Agency is not getting tired to reiterating one of its old threats in order to increase the pressure on Warsaw and Prague. MDA Chieftain Trey Obering said that the United States has a fall-back plan for its European missile defense project should either Poland or the Czech Republic choose not to house key installations. However, he did not elaborate on this mysterious Plan B.

General Obering mentioned already last week that he is worried that delays in Poland's ratification could upset a tight timetable for deploying American missiles here to ward off attacks from so-called rogue states. He expects that interceptor base to be in operation in 2013 or 2014. The original deadline was set to 2012. Given the progress – or the lack of it – in the Czech Republic, it will not take long before we can hear a similar MBA addressing Prague.

The Russian President Medvedev came up with his own form of congratulating the newly elected U.S. President: he ordered the deployment of short-range missile systems in the Kaliningrad region on the EU's eastern border to counter the planned US missile defense installations in Eastern Europe.

"There will also be radio-electronic neutralisation of the new US missile defence installations from the Kaliningrad region," he added.

The idea of deploying Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad oblast is not new. Russia has been threatening to move Iskander missiles to Kalinigrad since April last year, but until now no specific order had been given.

We will see if Medvedev really lives up to his announcement or if this just an attempt to deviate the Russian public's attention from the difficulties caused by the financial crisis by providing them with an option be proud of the wannabe-strong and in military terms powerful country.

SS-19 tested

On October 22 the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces successfully performed a test-launch of a UR-100NUTTH/SS-19. The test was part of the checks needed to extend the service of the weapon until 2010.

The Rocket Forces are expected to conduct two more launches this year, one of which would be a test of the RS-24 missile. Moscow is highly optimistic that the upcoming RS-24 test will be successful; it already plans to put this type of missile in service in 2009.

Image © Риа Новости

We can do it!

We can do it! That might have been the motto of the recent days of the Russians. The military conducted its Stabilnost-2008 exercise.

The show started on Saturday, October 11, when the Tula submarine successfully launched a R-29RM Sineva SLBM. Officials bragged that the missile reached its target after flying 11,547 km which was reported to be the longest range demonstrated by the missile.

On the following day, October 12, the Northern Fleet’s Ekaterinburg and the Pacific Fleet’s Zelenograd joined the shooting. While the Zelenograd fired a R-29R missile (SS-N-18 Stingray) the Ekaterinburg test-launched a R-29RM. Pavel Podvig writes on his blog:

Unlike the test a day before, on October 11, 2008, this one was not reported to be a test of the Sineva modification of the R-29RM missile. It appears that Ekaterinburg normally carries older R-29RM missiles, but can be used to launch Sineva as well.

However, the Russian First Channel reported that it was a the Sineva-type of the R-29RM. Have you recently improved your Russian? Give it a try here:



For a few notes on a comparison between the original and the Sineva-type of the R-29RM take a look at an earlier post.

Also on October 12, Russia test-launched a Topol ICBM which hit a target on Russia's Pacific coast.

It seems that attending missile launches is becoming the new favorite hobby of president Medvedev. He was not only present at the launches of the Sineva on Saturday but also at the one of the Topol on the following day. On September 26 he attended the firing of the Tochka-U (SS-21 Scarab) short-range tactical ballistic missile. The Tochka-U is a 1989 modification of the Tochka missile system that went into service with the Soviet military in 1976. It has an effective range of 120 km.

Reuters India reports further that:

Over the course of the weekend, 12 Tu-160 and Tu-95MS strategic bombers took off for an exercise that involved launching multiple cruise missiles to pulverise a dummy town on a testing ground in the Arctic.

Pavel reports that in the course of the exercise, some bombers launched full complement of their missiles. Tu-160 never fired full complement of their missiles before.

Reuters also quoted analysts saying that the Stabilnost exercise was a show of military preparedness for domestic consumption and not a Kremlin warning shot to the West. President Medvedev added to this PR-campaign by saying that two new systems were being developed. However, he provided no details.

RIA Novosti cited Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov as stating that plans were already under way for a follow-up exercise with a joint strategic command-and-staff exercise called Zapad-2009 next year.

Besides playing with its own missiles, Russia is optimistic to sell its Iskander-E to a number of countries. Rosoboronexport-official Nikolai Dimidyuk said that Syria, the UAE, Malaysia, India and some other countries have shown an interest in the missile system and that Russia will also seek to export the missile to Algeria, Kuwait, Singapore, Vietnam, and South Korea.

But it is not all offensive. There are also some developments on the defensive side. UPI came up with the news that mobile air defense units around Moscow planned to conduct live-fire exercises on this Thursday, October 17, using Buk-M1 surface-to-air missile systems. Apart from this announcement I have not found any post-firing news.

Moscow is also keen to extend its missile defense to other areas. Russia and Belarus will sign an agreement creating a joint missile defense system, secretary of the Union State Pavel Borodin told journalists on October 8. He added: "Military speaking, it is virtually a shield against NATO”. Belarus has several Russian-made S-300 air defense divisions on combat duty and is negotiating the purchase of advanced S-400 systems from Russia, which will be made available by 2010. The signing of the agreement will take place on November 2.

At the same time Russia tried to present itself as a responsible global actor and nonproliferator. Its Foreign Ministry suggested that Moscow would not sell advanced anti-aircraft missiles such a S-300 to Iran, a possibility that has alarmed Israel:

We have declared more than once at the very highest political level that we do not intend to supply those types of armaments to countries located in regions that are, to put it mildly, uneasy," he said. "This is not in the interests of our country's policy or the interests of preserving stability in one region or another of the world."

© Medvedev, Topol: Reuters
© Iskander: Kommersant