Boost.

This is coolbert:

From the controlled [?] Russian media outlet Sputnik a very dull, repetitive and misleading headline

"More Bang, More Buck: US Considers Adding ICBM Interceptors to F-35"

"In all likelihood, adding more bells and whistles to the F-35 can only make its $1.5 trillion program price more expensive, while experts have questioned if the plan is even realistic."

"The Pentagon's top research official is mulling whether to add air-to-air interceptors to the F-35's weapons arsenal in order to give the stealth fighters anti-ballistic missile capabilities, a new report says."

F-35 a POSSIBLE mission of missile interceptor but ONLY indirectly so.

The sensors of the F-35 have a POTENTIAL anti-missile capability. Those highly advanced sensors as embedded in the F-35 able to detect and track the boost-phase launch of an ICBM, providing to GROUND BASED anti-ballistic-missiles of the THAAD variety valuable data essential to a successful intercept.

This very topic as was discussed in a previous blog entry:

https://militaryanalysis.blogspot.com/2017/12/f-35-icbm.html

Please Sputnik, do not be so alarmist or misleading. Stick to reality and watch your headlines.

coolbert.

29B6.

This is coolbert:

First there was the Russian Woodpecker, Duga and Steel Yard. Now we have Container! Soviet/Russian anti-ballistic-missile over-the-horizon-radar [OTH]. Container mobile and a much improved version of the Woodpecker.

Thanks to the Russian controlled [?] media outlet Russian Times [RT].

"Spot on: Russia to track future US missiles with upgraded over-the-horizon radar"

"In response to US plans to pull out of the INF Treaty and the active development of its hypersonic technology, Russia is building a network of radar stations best suited to detect missile launches from afar."

As seen at the Global Security Internet web site an idealized radar coverage pattern of Duga? According to the RT article Duga able to detect missile launches from Cape Canaveral but not able to detect missile launches from Vandenberg AFB on the Pacific coast of the United States. Click on image to see an enlarged view.

WE ARE RETURNING TO THE DAYS OF THE WOODPECKER? SEGMENTS OF THE HIGH-FREQUENCY RADIO BANDS TO BE INTERFERED WITH BUT EVEN MORE INTENSELY SO? WE HOPE AND PRAY NOT.

coolbert.

Rant III.

This is coolbert:

Conclusion!

Rant yet further and final.

Draw your saber partner!

For clarification sake those intermediate-range ballistic [IRBM] missiles as were part and parcel of the controversy as existing originally almost forty years ago and essential to an understanding of the INF treaty [Intermediate-range nuclear forces]. Details of the missile as most germane to current events also described.

From Forty years ago:

1. SS-20 “Saber” (RSD-10).

"The SS-20 Saber was a Soviet intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) that entered service in 1976. Its wide-scale deployment was a key driver behind NATO’s 1979 decision to station U.S. Pershing II IRBMs in Europe. The Soviet Union retired the SS-20 from service following the ratification of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 1987."

2. Pershing II.


3. BGM-109G GLCM.

SS-20 [NATO code name Saber] five-hundred missiles deployed by Soviet ground forces [developed and fielded totally in secret] with a range at least twice of the American counter-part IRBM. Each SS-20 carrying three thermonuclear warheads of 250 kilotons each.

American Pershing II and GLCM [ground-launched cruise missile] missiles range and numbers both only about half that of a Soviet SS-20. Each American Pershing or GLCM equipped with a single atomic warhead the explosive force of which considerably less significant than those devices as mounted on a SS-20. 

And as it is now:

4. 9M729 - SSC-8. Ground-launched. Russian.

"Russia has deployed a cruise missile in violation of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, complicating Trump's approach to Russia. ... the Russians now have two battalions of the prohibited cruise missile .. Each missile battalion is believed to have four mobile launchers and a larger supply of missiles."

The SSC-8 is a ground-launched cruise missile. A naval version of this cruise missile exists and apparently is in the inventory of the Russian navy and has been for some time.

The naval version as ship-mounted not covered by the INF Treaty. SS-8 a threat that now cannot be ignored.

SSC-8 apparently also developed, tested and now fielded totally in SECRET! As it was with the SS-20 so it is now with the SSC-8?

coolbert.

Rant II.

This is coolbert:

Rant continued!

More headlines the hysterical response to the announcement that the USA will withdraw from the INF Treaty. In these cases the sources not Russian media.

1. "INF treaty: Russia 'will respond' to new US missiles in Europe"

"Russia denies building missiles that violate the deal"

"President Vladimir Putin has warned Russia will respond 'in kind' if new US nuclear missiles are placed in Europe."

2."Poll: Americans oppose Trump’s withdrawal from a US-Russia arms control deal"

"By a margin of 18 percentage points, most Americans would rather stay in the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty with Russia, according to a poll taken after news broke that the Trump administration is abandoning the accord"

3. "Trump’s latest blunder: Withdrawal from the US-Russian INF Treaty"

"It appears that President Donald Trump’s hard-line security advisor, John Bolton, has persuaded him to renounce the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty signed by Presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987."

4. "Bolton: U.S. position 'is that Russia is in violation' of INF treaty"

"National Security adviser John Bolton spoke Oct. 23 in Moscow about the U.S. decision to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia."

This all reminds me so much of the media frenzy and stir from almost forty years ago now. American Pershing II and ground-launched cruise missiles as deployed to Europe seen as threatening war. European based American intermediate-range missiles nuclear capable only as a response to the secret testing and deployment in great numbers of the Soviet era SS-20 missile.

I can also see where this is all going. Trump is mentally unstable and possibly even deranged. Trump is a warmonger. Trump cannot be trusted with his finger on the nuclear trigger. This is an escalation of hostilities and unwanted ill-will vis-a-vis the Russians. Etc.

All this because the Russian has secretly tested and deployed a ground-based missile of intermediate-range in violation of the existing INF treaty? Place blame where blame is due?

Again, cooler heads will prevail?

coolbert.

Rant I.

This is coolbert:

Normally I greatly fear and hesitate to rant. But here goes.

"rant - - verb 1. speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way. synonyms: fulminate, go on, hold forth, vociferate, sound off, spout, pontificate, bluster, declaim"

Within context to the previous blog entries here and here.

As proclaimed by the Russian media outlets [controlled?] with alarmist headlines to a degree even displaying a hysteria!

1. "US Exit From INF Treaty Threatens to Trigger Arms Race - ScholarsCC0 / Pixabay"

"MOSCOW (Sputnik) - The US proposed withdrawal from the landmark Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, signed in 1987 with the Soviet Union, threatens to unleash a new arms race globally and take the world away from disarmament goals by weakening other arms control regimes, experts told Sputnik."

2. "US sticking to INF Treaty withdrawal, to be filed in due course – Bolton after Moscow visit"

"Washington is determined to withdraw from the INF arms control treaty no matter what, but has not done so yet, US national security adviser John Bolton said after meetings with the Russian leadership in Moscow."

3. "Without the INF Treaty the World Is a Far More Dangerous Place, Here Is Why"

"To understand why dumping the INF Treaty is so dangerous, it’s important to understand why the treaty was signed in the first place"

THE INF TREATY AND AMERICAN WITHDRAWAL

Intermediate-range nuclear forces. Missiles not having a range of more than three-thousand miles [five-thousand kilometers]. Forbidden under the treaty between the USA to test or deploy ground-based weapons of this variety.

American withdrawal from the INF Treaty understand full well a response to secret Russian testing and now deployment of a cruise missile with intermediate-range. SECRET!

DO NOT BLAME THE AMERICAN SIDE FROM ABANDONING THE TREATY. BLAME THE RUSSIAN FOR VIOLATING THE TREATY! YET THE RUSSIANS ARE AFRAID?

Perhaps cooler heads with prevail. I hope so.

coolbert.

Kay Bailey II.

This is coolbert:

Take them out!

Conclusion!

The intermediate-range Russia missiles as possessed and as also alleged a violation of the INF treaty. [Intermediate-range Nuclear force]

As extracted from the NATO press briefing of Ambassador Hutchison and for your perusal:

"October 2, 2018: Press Briefing by Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchison"

"Question: [Inaudible] in Norway. Ma’am, can you be more specific what kind of new information that you are bringing to the table regarding the breach of the INF Treaty? And more explicitly also, what kind of countermeasures that you are considering."

"Ambassador Hutchison: The countermeasures would be to take out the missiles that are in development by Russia in violation of the treaty. So that would be the countermeasure eventually. We have documented on numerous occasions that Russia is violating. We have shown Russia that evidence. Some of our allies have seen that evidence. All of our allies have seen some of that evidence."

. . . .

"Question: Thanks, Ambassador. Lorne [Inaudible], Associated Press. Just to clarify a little bit when you said to take out the missiles that are in development, we are a little excited here. Do you mean to get those withdrawn? You don’t mean to actually take them out in a more [inaudible]?"

"Ambassador Hutchison: Well, withdrawing, yes. Getting them to withdraw would be our choice, of course. But I think the question was what would you do if this continues to a point where we know that they are capable of delivering. And at that point we would then be looking at a capability to take out a missile that could his any of our countries in Europe and hit America in Alaska."

AMBASSADOR HUTCHISON IT CAN BE REASONABLY INFERRED IS SUGGESTING AN AMERICAN PREEMPTIVE MILITARY STRIKE ON THE RUSSIAN MISSILES THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE USA AND RUSSIA??

AN ATTACK OF WHICH SURELY WOULD LEAD TO WORLD WAR THREE AND GLOBAL THERMONUCLEAR CONFLICT, THE APOCALYPSE SO GREATLY FEARED!

You the devoted reader to the blog read and decide this all for yourself. It should be noted the  pronouncements of the Ambassador have been very quickly clarified as to mean no preemptive military action contemplated!! But the damage done?

coolbert.

Kay Bailey I.

This is coolbert:

As reported by the Internet web site G2mil:

"Oct 7, 2018 - Ambassador Threatens to Attack Russia"

"No one in Congress or our corporate media uttered an objection after a senior Trump administration official threatened a sneak attack on Russia that would ignite a nuclear war over a minor treaty dispute. She was not fired, forced to resign, nor even criticized."

"U.S. ambassador to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchison said Washington remained committed to a diplomatic solution but was prepared to consider a military strike if development of the medium-range system continued."

THIS IS HOW WARS START! INADVERTENT AND ILL-CONCEIVED STATEMENTS BY HIGH OFFICIALS THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHICH ARE CONFLICT NO ONE WANTS BUT GETS!

See the article thanks to Reuters the press conference of Ambassador Hutchison and her pronouncements:

"U.S. would destroy banned Russian warheads if necessary: NATO envoy"

Within the historical context I am also thinking of two events declarations by "high officials" also alleged to have sent a wrong message that led to war.

1.  Ambassador April Glaspie her famous/infamous meeting with Saddam Hussein, 1990. Statements as misinterpreted leading to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the First Gulf War.

2. American Secretary of State Dean Acheson his famous/infamous speech, 1950.  Statements as misinterpreted the result the Korean War. [such an assertion is highly disputed and should be.]

Dean Acheson in 1950, April Glaspie in 1990 and now Ambassador Hutchison in 2018, This sorta thing does occur from time to time.

coolbert.

Two-stage.

This is coolbert:

Here with the Chinese answer to the MQ-25?

PL-XX!

"How China's New Missile Concept Could Cripple American Air Power"

"The PL-XX has an very long range [air-air missile] to target the tankers and other support aircraft that form the backbone of American air power."

"PL-XX appears similar in concept to the Soviet K-100 missile. Developed by Novator, the K-100 was unique among air-to-air missiles in being a two stage missile, using a booster rocket from the ground-based S-300 surface-to-air missile to give it range of 186 miles."

With regard to the K-100: "The Novator KS-172 is a Russian air-to-air missile designed as an 'AWACS killer' at ranges up to 400 km. [250 miles]. The missile has had various names during its troubled history, including K-100"

A CHINESE AIR-AIR MISSILE AS USED TO INTERCEPT AND DESTROY AT LONG-RANGE AMERICAN AEW [Airborne Early Warning], AWACS [Airborne Warning and Control System], AND TANKER WARPLANES. TANKERS TO INCLUDE CARRIER-BORNE MQ-25.

Deny the American aircraft-carrier combat aviation units in a Sea-Air battle access to air-refueling tankers and you have a war-winning measure for the Chinese?

coolbert.

Unified.

This is coolbert:

C^3 = Command, control. communications.

Again belatedly so from that latest edition of the DEBKAfile news letter:

"Syria's S-300s will be integrated in Russia's national nuclear C^3 command and control system"

3 October.

"When Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said on Oct. 2 that the 'unified' S-300 air defense systems in Syria will be installed in Syria by Oct. 20, he meant its integration in the Russian homeland system. That is the real import of Moscow's response to the downing of its Il-20 spy plane on Sept. 17 . . . Putin seized on the disaster to establish in Syria an advanced air defense weapons system linked not only to the Russian Khmeimim Air Base in Latakia, but integrated in Russia's own C^3 command, control and communications system against nuclear attack."

During the era of the Cold War Soviet air defense referred to as PVO Strany. Air Defense of the Homeland. That combined force of surface-air missiles, manned interceptors, radars and anti-aircraft -artillery.

PVO now gone since the time of having merged with the Russian Air Force.

Syria and Russian air defense now a combined and unified entity with robustness that cannot be denied. A regional threat beyond mere borders!

Unprecedented and ominous and obviously of concern to the Israeli primarily so?

coolbert.

Reach.

This is coolbert:

Dress rehearsal? A show of force? Iranian missiles and drones with an impressive demonstration of regional reach and capability.

Belatedly from that latest edition of the DEBKAfile news letter:

1. "Rev Guards fire 8 missiles from Iran against ISIS in E. Syria"
   
1 October.

"Tehran state media reported that on Monday, Oct. 1 IRGC missiles targeted the 'headquarters of the terrorists' [Islamic State] east of the Euphrates in Syria in reprisal for their attack on a military parade in Ahvaz on Sept. 8, which killed 30 people and injured scores. The missiles were fired from the Iranian Kurdish region of Kermanshah. It was the second time in three weeks that the Revolutionary Guards had fired surface missiles from their base in Kermanshah at a target outside Iran."

2. "Strategic breakthrough for Iran in unimpeded drone-missile attack on E. Syria"
   
2 October.

"Neither Israel nor the US intervened when Iran broke new strategic ground on Monday, Oct. 1 by sending a squadron of 11 stealth UAVs to attack ISIS [Islamic State] in E. Syria . . . The attack drones were greater cause for concern than the 8 surface missiles the Revolutionary Guards launched from their base in Kermanshah in western Iran. Like the missiles, the assault drones cut through Iraqi air space to their targets in Syria without asking Baghdad for permission, but, unlike the missiles, they also returned to home base by the same route unhindered."

THIS IS ALL A WARNING TO THE ISRAELI? THE IRANIAN SENDING A MESSAGE LOUD AND CLEAR?

See also this War is Boring Internet web site article the topic of which is the Iranian UAV program.

coolbert.

Sarmat.

This is coolbert:

"First Sarmat ICBM flight tests to begin in early 2019 — source"

Sarmat. Son of Satan. Satan-2. But has yet to be born? Hey! I thought this was a done deal!

From the Russian media outlet TASS and thanks to the tip from Jeff.

"Sarmat is a promising silo-based missile complex with the heavy liquid-propellant ICBM capable of carrying nuclear charges"

"MOSCOW, October 2. /TASS/. The first flight tests of the promising Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) are expected to be conducted in the beginning of next year, a source in the Russian defense industry sector told TASS on Tuesday."

Yet one more Russian super-weapon as touted. One of these liquid-fueled ICBM with a multiplicity of nuclear warheads of prodigious size as carried and as boasted could wipe out all of Texas!

SO HAS THE THREAT BEEN SPECIFIED!

But the missile has yet to even be tested once!

As in the Cold War. We Soviets/Russians have these enormous and unstoppable super-weapons for which there is no defense and for which you American capitalist running dogs have no equivalent counterpart and never will! Etc.

But the missile has even yet to fly?

Devoted readers to the blog draw your own conclusions!! Don't count your chickens before they hatch.

coolbert.

Arrow.

This is coolbert:

More scare tactics from the Russian? Yet one more hypersonic missile designed to put the fear of GOD into the Americans and NATO? Arrow [NATO codename]! R-37M.

From Freeper and Deagel:

"Putin's latest weapon: Hypersonic air-to-air missile fired from Russian stealth jets"

"...Russia is set to add a hypersonic missile to its arsenal which can hit targets almost 200 miles away, Moscow's official media outlet has reported. The R-37M missile, which is designed to target enemy aircraft and can travel at Mach 6 - more than 4,500mph - is an upgrade on a Soviet-era weapon first launched in 1985"

Arrow not a new weapon. R-37 has been around for at least thirty years. A long-range air to air missile originally as conceived to be employed strictly [?] by Soviet Air Defense [PVO Strany].

Missile in the configuration R-37M hypersonic and an improved version of the original missile but NOT a whole lot more than that? Formidable YES but not a brand-new system. Hypersonic YES but that is all the rage isn't it? Advertise everything as hypersonic for the purpose of hype. A play on words not unintended!

Nothing to worry about or see folks, move along?

coolbert.

601B

This is coolbert:

Came across this quite by accident. My instantaneous reaction was spawn of Project Pluto.

Think that Russian Status-6/Kanyon/Poseidon nuclear-powered/nuclear-armed torpedo AND the yet unnamed Russian nuclear-powered and unstoppable cruise missile.

Think also 601B! American "outboard" naval nuclear power plant.

"This Nuclear Outboard Motor Was a Really Terrible Idea"

Thanks to the Internet Web site War is Boring and the article by Steve Weintz.

Inboard motor internal to the ship. Outboard motor external to the vessel and self-contained.

"Podded atomic propulsion was leaky and noisy"

"In the early 1960s the U.S. Navy could have gotten a disposable, atomic-powered outboard motor that would have made America’s warships a Hell of a lot more efficient. But there was the little problem of all that noise and radiation."

Not the best of images but illustrates the concept. American Skipjack class submarine with two "outboard' motors for propulsion. Interior nuclear reactor removed and replaced by the two 601B. Conventional propeller also no longer needed or present.

On paper this concept had great merit. ANY existing, major and conventionally-powered warship in the American naval arsenal could potentially become nuclear-powered. Strap-on "outboards" providing at a slight increase in weight twice the power WITH a more or less unlimited range!

Impressive!! Drawbacks however mitigating the gain. Plus far outweighed by minus. Minus to include: * Noise. * A radioactive spew. * Danger to the crew.

See an additional Internet web site with further discussion of the 601B and the potential plus and minus thereof.

IF IT SOUNDS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT PROBABLY IS NOT TRUE!!

coolbert.

Defective.

This is coolbert:

Came across this quite by accident. Also consider this yet more instance American military high-technology as defective.

SRAM! Short-Range-Attack-Missile. That replacement for the Hound Dog SEAD missile. SRAM a weapons system with nuclear warhead as carried by American  B-52 bombers.

American Short-Range-Attack-Missiles [SRAM].

"SRAM entered service in 1972 and was carried by a number of aircraft, including the B-52, FB-111A, and the B-1B. In September 1980 a ground fire raised concerns about the safety of the warhead, and in 1990 they were temporarily removed from service while safety checks were carried out. These revealed a number of the missile's rocket motors had developed cracks that could have resulted in them exploding when launched."

CONCERNS RAISED FIRST IN 1980 BUT NOT INVESTIGATED UNTIL 1990?? CONCERNS VALID BUT NOT AS ORIGINALLY PERCEIVED, EVEN MORE ACUTE IN RETROSPECT! WEAPONRY INDEED ARMED WITH ATOMIC WARHEADS!

Read further and as had been relied upon "American military high-technology" found to be defective, more or less useless if not downright dangerous to the user. Technology too having an atomic weapon application:

http://militaryanalysis.blogspot.com/2018/08/tubes.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W47#Reliability_controversy"

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/hyunmoo.htm 

coolbert.