Author Topic: NORAD, Russian bombers, cruise missiles and nuclear weapons  (Read 7442 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 52,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,462
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Three pieces:

1) Why Russia calls a limited nuclear strike "de-escalation"
http://thebulletin.org/why-russia-calls-limited-nuclear-strike-de-escalation

2) [NORAD Commander] U.S. admiral raises alarm over Russian military threat
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/12/politics/us-russia-military-threat-alarm-norad/

3) Northcom: Russian Cruise Missile Threat [KH-101, -102--5,000 km range] to U.S. Grows: U.S. defenses ‘over-matched’ for missile threats
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/northcom-russian-cruise-missile-threat-to-u-s-grows/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Schindler's Lift

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 18,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 799
  • http://goo.gl/1E5Ez0
Re: NORAD, Russian bombers, cruise missiles and nuclear weapons
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2015, 15:25:26 »
And

Russia's Massive Military Exercise in the Arctic Is Utterly Baffling
https://news.vice.com/article/russias-massive-military-exercise-in-the-arctic-is-utterly-baffling

Offline S.M.A.

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 132,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,515
 Yikes.  :o

Reuters

Quote
Russia threatens to aim nuclear missiles at Denmark ships if it joins NATO shield

OPENHAGEN (Reuters) - Russia threatened to aim nuclear missiles at Danish warships if Denmark joins NATO's missile defense system, in comments Copenhagen called unacceptable and NATO said would not contribute to peace.

Denmark said in August it would contribute radar capacity on some of its warships to the missile shield, which the Western alliance says is designed to protect members from missile launches from countries like Iran.

Moscow opposes the system, arguing that it could reduce the effectiveness of its own nuclear arsenal, leading to a new Cold War-style arms race.

(...SNIPPED)

Our Country
--------------------------------
"A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: We did it ourselves."   - Lao Zi (老子)
-------------------------------------------
"Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm."
- Winston Churchill

Online jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 126,682
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,293
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: NORAD, Russian bombers, cruise missiles and nuclear weapons
« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2015, 16:17:14 »
Some concerns their upgraded Blackjack (Tu-160M) bombers might start testing British airspace.  I suppose we could possibly see them test NORAD too.  Full story, photos at link below.

Quote
Revealed: Russia's new supersonic bomber can outrun Britain's best fighter jet... and Vladimir Putin could soon send them our way
Russian President Putin is about to unleash a new supersonic bomber

The Blackjack will be able to outrun the RAF's fastest fighter jets
Last month Russian Bear aircraft were spotted on sorties near Cornwall
But Blackjack is three times faster than the Bear and can fly four times further than the fighters that make up UK's Quick Reaction Alert squadrons
The Russian aircraft has a range of 7,600 miles without refuelling

By Mark Nicol Defence Correspondent For The Mail On Sunday

Published: 23:18 GMT, 21 March 2015  | Updated: 10:49 GMT, 22 March 2015

Russian President Vladimir Putin is ready to unleash a supersonic bomber towards Britain which can outrun the Royal Air Force’s fastest fighter jets.

The introduction of the Blackjack follows sorties by other Russian aircraft near Cornwall last month which disrupted commercial flights and sparked major security fears.

On that occasion, RAF pilots flying Typhoon jets easily caught up with two propeller-driven Bear bombers and directed their crews away from UK airspace.

The incident led to Russia’s ambassador to Britain being summoned to the Foreign Office to explain the mission.

But the Blackjack (Tu-160M) is three times faster than the Bear and can fly four times further than the fighters that make up Britain’s Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) squadrons, according to experts.

The bomber, also known as the White Swan because of its shape and huge wingspan, has just re-entered service in the Russian air force following a design overhaul.

Experts say it is now more than a match for any UK aircraft, including the Typhoon, which is used to protect British airspace.

Like the Blackjack, the Typhoon can reach Mach 2 – about 1,500mph.

But while the Russian aircraft has a range of 7,600 miles without refuelling, the Typhoon’s limit is 1,800 miles, meaning the Blackjack could maintain its maximum speed for much longer than its British counterpart without air-to-air refuelling.

Dr Igor Sutyagin, Senior Russian Research Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in London, said: ‘The Tu-160M now has greater thrust and fuel efficiency and it can carry a larger payload of conventional missiles.

‘The test flights were successful and the aircraft is now very potent. There is simply no British aircraft of its calibre or purpose. It is the largest bomber in the world.’

The first two revamped Blackjacks passed a series of test flights last December and have now been passed for service.

They are being prepared for possible action at air bases in Russia that are within easy striking distance of Britain.

One, Monchegorsk air base near Murmansk, northern Russia, is just 1,000 miles from the British Isles.

Ten more Blackjacks will be modernised before 2020.

Dr Sutyagin added that the Blackjacks’ revamp was part of a plan by President Putin to boost both Russia’s arsenal of military hardware and its troop numbers.

It comes at a time of heightened tension between Russia and the West, and while Britain’s Armed Forces are shrinking due to spending cuts.

‘President Putin has prioritised areas of defence where he thinks he can be superior to the West,’ said Dr Sutyagin.

‘He has also improved his long-range nuclear missiles such as the Bulava, which is now very hard to detect on launch. It is lighter and more compact, too, so more warheads can be fitted into a submarine.

'He has also committed to the T-50 low-visibility jet. This stealth jet could lead to potentially massive changes in the distribution of military power around the world.

'He is doubling the number of his Special Forces troops, as well.’

Between now and 2020, the size of the Spetsnaz (Special Forces) regiments will increase from 15,000 to 32,000.

Trained to the same level as Britain’s Special Air Service (SAS), they were used in Chechnya and, most recently, in eastern Ukraine where they are understood to have organised a guerilla campaign by Russian separatists.

Experts also believe Putin could send the Spetsnaz to the Baltic states of Latvia and Lithuania, both Nato members, to organise resistance among ethnic Russians.

Dr Sutyagin added: ‘Military activity in Crimea and eastern Ukraine has borne all the hallmarks of the special Russian units – it would be a mistake to believe the same tactics might not be applied elsewhere.’

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has been following the Blackjack and Russian stealth-jet programmes. But while the Typhoon cannot match the Blackjack’s range, RAF sources insist it is a superior aircraft overall given its set of air-to-air weapons and its agility.

An MoD spokesman said: ‘The primary role of the Royal Air Force is to defend the UK. We are aware of recent Russian military activity.

'RAF Typhoon fighters will continue to routinely intercept, identify and escort Russian aircraft that travel through international airspace within the UK’s area of interest.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3005961/Russia-s-new-supersonic-bomber-outrun-Britain-s-best-fighter-jet.html#ixzz3V9D1vAie
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 52,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,462
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: NORAD, Russian bombers, cruise missiles and nuclear weapons
« Reply #4 on: March 24, 2015, 16:10:24 »
More on "nuclear de-escalation" doctrine:

Quote
The deadly chaos behind Putin’s mysterious acts
ERIC MORSE
...
The problem with Mr. Putin’s Russia is: you really do not know anything. The same sense of entitled grievance combined with KGB-rooted addictions to secrecy and misdirection and a penchant for extreme violence characterized the Soviet Union, but were kept under some kind of control by the collective and innately conservative authority of the Communist Party. There is no such moderator in the reactor now, only shifting and virulent power-bloc rivalry.

The unmistakeable impression of chaos lurking beneath the surface, combined with an economy that is manifestly in trouble, makes it even more disturbing that the Russian armed forces also have a long-standing doctrine with the Orwellian term of ‘nuclear de-escalation. [emphasis added]’ Basically what that means is that a political objective (a de-escalation) is attainable by the graduated application of nuclear force, in six neat steps, from an attack on a single unpopulated target to a massive continental strike. As often happens in any nation’s war scenarios, the enemy’s vote is not always given its due weight. The scenario simply assumes that the enemy must capitulate at one of the stages. The consequences of its failing to do so seem not to have been seriously weighed.

It remains that an exercise is only an exercise until suddenly it isn’t one. But there is one other point worth bearing in mind: since Mr. Putin’s accession to power in Russia in 2000, he has never yet encountered a problem – excepting the economy – that he could not resolve satisfactorily by force. His world includes ‘military solutions.’
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/SOMNIA/article23595418/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline TCBF

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,931
Re: NORAD, Russian bombers, cruise missiles and nuclear weapons
« Reply #5 on: April 10, 2015, 22:29:31 »
- Scenario: November 2017;

On the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution, a Tu-160 sleds across the Canadian wasteland undetected, pops up over Kansas City, parachutes a large bust of Lenin over the town, and sneaks into Venezuela without being intercepted successfully.

You do not need a nuke to prove your point.
"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda."   - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.


"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")

Offline S.M.A.

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 132,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,515
RAF scrambles Typhoon jets to escort Russian bombers
« Reply #6 on: May 14, 2015, 13:27:41 »
Bears keeping the RAF busy:

Reuters

Quote
Britain scrambles Typhoon jets to escort Russian bombers
Thu May 14, 2015 11:29am EDT

LONDON (Reuters) - British Royal Air Force (RAF) Typhoon fighter jets were scrambled to intercept two Russian long-range bombers near UK airspace north of Scotland, Britain's Ministry of Defence said on Thursday.

Intercepts of Russian aircraft by NATO have increased over the last year amid heightened tensions between the West and Moscow over the Ukraine crisis.

(...SNIPPED)
Our Country
--------------------------------
"A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: We did it ourselves."   - Lao Zi (老子)
-------------------------------------------
"Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm."
- Winston Churchill

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 52,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,462
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: NORAD, Russian bombers, cruise missiles and nuclear weapons
« Reply #7 on: June 30, 2016, 16:05:38 »
Latest, note also Russian navy subs' SLCMs (further links at original):

Quote
NORAD and Russian Cruise Nukes: “de-escalation”? Part 2

Further to this 2015 post, more on an aspect of Russian nuclear doctrine to which we should be paying considerable attention–and an aspect that emphasizes the centrality of the NORAD mission for the RCAF’s new fighter...
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/mark-collins-norad-and-russian-cruise-nukes-de-escalation-part-2/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 52,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,462
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: NORAD, Russian bombers, cruise missiles and nuclear weapons
« Reply #8 on: July 01, 2016, 11:56:50 »
More on Russian sub threat (note can launch cruise missiles)--implications for RCN's future priorities/vessels?

Quote
Biggest Threat US Navy and NATO Face: Russian Subs and A2/AD Bastions
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/biggest-threat-us-navy-nato-face-russian-subs-a2-ad-bastions-16808

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 52,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,462
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: NORAD, Russian bombers, cruise missiles and nuclear weapons
« Reply #9 on: February 24, 2017, 17:14:00 »
NORAD chief hightlights Russian cruise missile threat, ALCMS and SLCMs--need to upgrade North Warning System:

Quote
US, Canada Eye Ways to Counter Cruise Missile Attacks

The head of U.S. Northern Command last week said the U.S. and Canada are working on upgrades to protect against cruise missile threats posed by countries such as Russia and North Korea — the first substantial buildup in more than two decades.

Gen. Lori J. Robinson, also the commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command, told audiences at the Conference of Defence Associations Institute in Ottawa that the two countries have established a “binational steering group to manage the eventual replacement of the North Warning System, which is our network of surveillance radars across Alaska and northern Canada.”

“For the first time ever, the United States has agreed to do a binational analysis of alternatives with Canada to explore surveillance systems for all domain situational awareness of the northern approaches to the continent,” she said Feb. 16.

“Because we need to create persistent long-range surveillance to enhance our indicators and warnings against air breathing and sub-maritime threats, we also need to increase our ability to detect, track, ID and if necessary engage cruise missiles,” she said.

Robinson said the defense strategy comes at a time when “Kim Jong Un is unpredictable and volatile,” and that Russia remains a “game changer” because “Russian cruise missiles can reach us from ranges we’re not used to. No longer do they have to enter or come close to North American air space and hold us at risk.”

Additional adversaries such as China and Iran are also “constantly probing and looking for chinks in our armor” to dismantle both hardwired and intangible defenses, she said.

The Pentagon in recent years has been quietly working on a network defense system plan to intercept and shoot down low-flying missiles, according to a 2015 DefenseOne analysis. The plan would access additional radars that — in a blitz-style attack — would tip fighter jets, surface-to-air missiles or sea-based missile to locate and “shoot down fast and low-flying missiles,” DefenseOne said.

Simultaneously, the radars would communicate with sensor-equipped aerostat balloons, such as the JLENS, or Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System, which could have more eyes on the target. A JLENS, for example, could hover near U.S. cities to detect and lock onto the cruise missile, passing critical data to a fighter jet, for instance, DefenseOne said.

The U.S. and Canada together operate the North Warning System — formerly the Distant Early Warning, or DEW, line — consisting of 47 unmanned long- and short-range radar stations that stretch across Newfoundland to Alaska. The DEW line was established during the 1950s to protect the northern territories from Russian missile advances.

The latest analysis “will inform decisions in both Washington and Ottawa on appropriate technology investments to give NORAD the next generation of multi-domain surveillance capabilities,” Robinson said.

“We’re looking at things such as what should the next investment in infrastructure be. We’re also considering non-material solutions. We’re trying out new strategies and new concepts, and together we’re conducting binational exercises based on those plans,” she said.
https://www.defensetech.org/2017/02/24/us-canada-eye-ways-counter-cruise-missile-attacks/

Lots more on Russkie cruise missiles (and nuclear doctrine) here:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/?s=cruise

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 52,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,462
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: NORAD, Russian bombers, cruise missiles and nuclear weapons
« Reply #10 on: March 01, 2017, 12:24:22 »
Some in US taking threat of limited Russian nuclear strike with cruise missiles seriously (further links at original):

Quote
Build Limited Missile Defenses Against Russian, Chinese Strikes: Experts



It’s time to build up missile defenses against limited attacks from Russia and China, leading experts gingerly suggest in a forthcoming study. While we can’t stop an all-out nuclear barrage, they say, we can and should reduce the temptation for Moscow or Beijing to risk a small strike. Such limited nuclear strikes are an important part of modern Russian military doctrine in particular, which prescribes them as a way to quickly end a losing conventional war — a technique incongruously called “escalate to deescalate.”

...“it is time for America to prioritize homeland cruise missile defense,” writes former MDA deputy director Kenneth Todorov. Historically, missile defense has focused on ballistic missiles flying high and fast; cruise missiles are lower, slower, and a distinctly different problem. “The threat to the U.S. homeland from cruise missiles, predominantly from China and Russia, is increasing at an alarming rate,” writes Todorov, and “the use of these weapons in such scenarios has been part of Russia’s publicized doctrine for years.”

...“(while) the United States should not seek homeland missile defense against Russia and China,” writes Lawrence Livermore’s Brad Roberts, “the protection against limited ballistic missile strikes (should) be extended to protection against limited cruise missile strikes on the homeland.”
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/03/build-limited-missile-defenses-against-russian-chinese-strikes-experts/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 52,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,462
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: NORAD, Russian bombers, cruise missiles and nuclear weapons
« Reply #11 on: March 01, 2017, 13:56:37 »
As for ALCMs (further links at original):

Quote
Why America Should Fear Russia's Bombers (And Their Cruise Missiles)

The bottom line for the Russian military is that while its current bomber fleet is a fraction of the size of its Soviet-era predecessor, the Soviet Union’s investments in advanced cruise missile technology is finally paying off. Missiles such as the [stealthy] Kh-101 and Kh-102 likely would have entered service in the early 2000s had the Soviet Union remained intact. The new missiles afford Russia’s truncated bomber fleet a long-range precision strike capability that was until recently the sole purview of the Pentagon. Thus while the Russian bomber force of the future might utilize the same airframes as they have in decades past, those aircraft will carry ever more capable weapons as time goes on.

While the Kremlin makes grand pronouncements about developing a new PAK-DA stealth bomber, the Russian Air Force will likely continue to rely on its force of Tupolev Tu-95MS Bears for its long-aviation force for the foreseeable future. Eventually, the Bears will likely give way to new-build versions of the Mach 2.0 capable Tu-160 Blackjack, but the chances of the PAK-DA ever materializing are fairly remote...

Russia has 16 remaining original model Tu-160 airframes left, of those perhaps 11 are used for operational missions with about half of those available for operational missions. The remainder of the Russian strategic bomber force is based around 63 surviving Tu-95MS Bear bombers of which perhaps 55 are operational.

Though the quad-turboprop Tu-95 is an elderly design, the aircraft has been upgraded many times and carries modern long-range conventional and nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. The Russian bomber force showed off its capabilities over Syria—launching long-range Kh-101 cruise missiles  while supporting out of area operations. “It’s really the missiles,” Kofman said. “The Tu-95 is old, but it works, just like the B-52.”

Eventually, Moscow will have to replace its bomber fleet. The replacement aircraft may not be the PAK-DA, Kofman said. Rather, a new Tu-160M2 variant is the most likely candidate. Using a new version of the Tu-160 airframe would save the Russians a huge amount of development money since most of the upgrades would focus on mission systems and weapons. But while a new Tu-160 will likely replace the current Blackjack and Bear fleets, it’s somewhat of a mystery as to what will take the place of the Tupolev Tu-22M3 Backfire medium bomber force...
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-america-should-fear-russias-bombers-their-cruise-19627

I maintain that the NORAD mission is the only crucial one for RCAF fighters (I include being able to deal with rogue aircraft, cf. 9/11)--all others are optional.

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 85,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,659
Re: NORAD, Russian bombers, cruise missiles and nuclear weapons
« Reply #12 on: March 01, 2017, 14:51:55 »
Problem is, Mark, that the Russians could come barely past the North Pole and shoot their Kh-101 to hit something all the way down to Washington. What are the chances that we could detect their bombers in time to actually intercept them, on their side of the North pole, before they could launch and turn around? Basically just about none.

It's even worse with the Kh-102. They could just pop up over their home bases in Northern Russia, launch and land again, and hit targets anywhere in the continental US or Canada.

Now we could (and probably would) try and intercept the missiles themselves, they are after all subsonic and defenceless so they are easy kills. However, they are tree huggers and stealthy and we have a great big ("huge" to be presidential) empty space where they would travel, so finding them is incredibly hard.

That's why (1) NORAD will treat any launch of Kh-101 or Kh-102 at North America as a first nuclear strike and (2) will retaliate "in force" accordingly. As it is MAD we are talking about, the actual fighter jets of NORAD don't matter as much for that specific threat (Russian bombers).

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 32,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,372
Re: NORAD, Russian bombers, cruise missiles and nuclear weapons
« Reply #13 on: March 01, 2017, 15:21:34 »
So does that mean we should invest in a low level arctic interception system?
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 52,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,462
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: NORAD, Russian bombers, cruise missiles and nuclear weapons
« Reply #14 on: March 01, 2017, 16:42:04 »
Oldgateboatdriver: Well, the US takes the cruise missile threat seriously and if we don't...guess who will take over continental air defence in RCAF areas of responsibility?  And ask us to pay them--see this recent post:
http://milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,118455.msg1477862.html#msg1477862

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 52,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,462
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: NORAD, Russian bombers, cruise missiles and nuclear weapons
« Reply #15 on: March 01, 2017, 17:25:40 »
Oldgateboatdriver:

Quote
That's why (1) NORAD will treat any launch of Kh-101 or Kh-102 at North America as a first nuclear strike and (2) will retaliate "in force" accordingly. As it is MAD we are talking about, the actual fighter jets of NORAD don't matter as much for that specific threat (Russian bombers).

But if one doesn't know if ALCMS are nuclear or conventionally armed until they hit would the US launch a retaliatory nuclear strike in advance of impact?  Hence the importance of doing one's best to get the missiles and even more so the bombers if one can.

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Online Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 198,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,320
Re: NORAD, Russian bombers, cruise missiles and nuclear weapons
« Reply #16 on: March 01, 2017, 17:31:38 »
Oldgateboatdriver:

But if one doesn't know if ALCMS are nuclear or conventionally armed until they hit would the US launch a retaliatory nuclear strike in advance of impact?  Hence the importance of doing one's best to get the missiles and even more so the bombers if one can.

Mark
Ottawa

That is for the Russians to ponder, and to realize that the Americans would assume any attack would be nuclear and react accordingly. 

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 52,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,462
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: NORAD, Russian bombers, cruise missiles and nuclear weapons
« Reply #17 on: March 01, 2017, 18:56:04 »
Old Sweat: Even if a Russian ALCM or SLCM strike was nuclear, but obviously limited given that the number of warheads would not threaten most of US second-strike capabilities, would the US retaliate with nukes or rather stop doing whatever caused the Kremlin to act in the first place?

It seems to me that that is what Russian "nuclear de-escalation" thinking is all about and is essentially equivalent to NATO's tac nuke first-use doctrine vs a Soviet/Warsaw Pact ground attack during the Cold War.

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Online Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 198,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,320
Re: NORAD, Russian bombers, cruise missiles and nuclear weapons
« Reply #18 on: March 01, 2017, 19:19:27 »
I would not bet against the Americans "out-yielding" whatever the Russians shot at them.

Online GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 45,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 535
Re: NORAD, Russian bombers, cruise missiles and nuclear weapons
« Reply #19 on: March 05, 2017, 15:06:37 »
Oldgateboatdriver:

But if one doesn't know if ALCMS are nuclear or conventionally armed until they hit would the US launch a retaliatory nuclear strike in advance of impact?  Hence the importance of doing one's best to get the missiles and even more so the bombers if one can.

Mark
Ottawa

According to this article (http://www.rense.com/general35/crussde.htm) on March 21st, 2003 the US launched 1,000 cruise missiles on the first day of the air war against Iraq (plus 1,000 air strike sorties).  A devastating attack to be sure, but against a nation that had its military ravaged in the First Gulf War in 1991 and crippled by years of sanctions. 

I'd imagine that any conventional cruise missile attack by Russia (or China) against the USA would have to be of at least as large a scale to have any significant military effect.  It makes for some pretty big questions mark I'd think.  Would the US be willing to absorb a first strike of such a scale against the continental US to confirm if it is conventional or nuclear before responding?  Are they ABSOLUTELY 100% certain that a 1,000 missile nuclear first strike by Russia couldn't disrupt a US counter strike (how would you even be able to test that with certainty?).  If not, then wouldn't that make waiting for the missiles to hit a non-option?

What if the Russian strike is much smaller in scale?  Ironically that might be taken by the US as evidence that the strike MUST be nuclear rather than conventional.  If the number of missiles incoming is so small that a conventional attack wouldn't be crippling then wouldn't that suggest that the weapons MUST then be nuclear? 

Don't get me wrong Mark, none of this is to suggest that I don't think we should take Russian cruise missiles very, very seriously.  I however don't agree with the scenario of our primary role being to prevent Russian cruise missiles from coming over the pole against North American targets.  As I stated earlier, I think that such an event would mean that there is now a general strategic nuclear exchange taking place between NATO and Russia and that at that point what type of fighter we have is frankly irrelevant. 

Politically, that MAY be the role that is required for Canada to state as THE primary purpose of the CF but I don't think in reality it is actually the case.  To my mind, a much more likely use of Russian cruise missiles would be against the ships attempting to bring US military reinforcements, equipment and ammunition to Europe to defend against a more limited Russian aggression against it's immediate neighbours.  Or against European ports, airfields, transportation hubs, etc. which would be used to move those reinforcements/supplies to the front.

Does that change the type of fighter that Canada requires?  Or the mix of assets we require? 

Offline Jungle

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 34,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,181
Re: NORAD, Russian bombers, cruise missiles and nuclear weapons
« Reply #20 on: March 05, 2017, 18:40:04 »
That's why (1) NORAD will treat any launch of Kh-101 or Kh-102 at North America as a first nuclear strike and (2) will retaliate "in force" accordingly. As it is MAD we are talking about, the actual fighter jets of NORAD don't matter as much for that specific threat (Russian bombers).

NORAD has a strictly defensive mandate, and no means to retaliate.

The NORAD missions are the following:

Quote
In close collaboration with homeland defense, security, and law enforcement partners, prevent air attacks against North America, safeguard the sovereign airspaces of the United States and Canada by responding to unknown, unwanted, and unauthorized air activity approaching and operating within these airspaces, and provide aerospace and maritime warning for North America.

USNORTHCOM, on the other hand, has access to USSTRATCOM ressources, but these can be employed without consulting Canadian authorities. Maybe if we joined missile defence, we would have a say...
"I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind."
- John G. Diefenbaker. July 1, 1960. From the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Offline Jungle

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 34,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,181
Re: NORAD, Russian bombers, cruise missiles and nuclear weapons
« Reply #21 on: March 07, 2017, 20:44:22 »
Looks like we may finally join:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/wanting-to-ditch-reputation-as-natos-cheap-date-liberals-looking-at-ballistic-missile-defence-sources

Quote
The joint statement from the two leaders said both countries want to “modernize and broaden our NORAD partnership”, as well as relations in cyber and space.

As the Senate defence committee found in its report on BMD two years ago, the decision not to participate has harmed Canada’s position in the continental defence organization, NORAD. The decision on when, where and whether to intercept an incoming missile is not made under the NORAD structure but, rather, by the U.S. alone under its domestic defence body, United States Northern Command. If a missile is heading towards Calgary, the Canadian military representative at NORAD has to leave the room while those decisions are made.

As the committee said in its unanimous recommendation to partner with the U.S. on BMD: “Canada cannot simply assume that all its territory will be protected by default under the existing U.S. BMD system.”

Expert testimony from Lt. Gen. Alain Parent said the threat from North Korea, Iran and others is real. The committee concluded it’s time Canada join 27 other nations, including NATO partners, Australia, Japan and South Korea in BMD, allowing Canadian officials to be at the table when decisions are made.
"I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind."
- John G. Diefenbaker. July 1, 1960. From the Canadian Bill of Rights.