Icelands president offers Keflavik airbase to Russia

[Sea Skimmer]

And what, the F-15s are somehow useless at intercepting Backfires?

Yeah it pretty much is if the Russians attacked with stand off weapons. The F-15s would be left attempting to hunt down the individual nuclear cruise missiles, and the plane is not well suited to that mission. A Tu-22M doesn’t need forward basing to attack the US with cruise missiles either, and the US has given up many of the assets it needed for early warning of that kind of attack. Keflavik was one of them.

And 184 F-22s may be "nothing" to you, that's still as many as the Russians have Tu-22Ms and Tu-160s in active service.

179, and you need like ~30 aircraft to keep 2 on 24/7/365 readiness for takeoff in under 15 minutes. Even in a time of heightened readiness that number doesn’t go up very much. This is one of the reasons why people who actually give a damn about strategic air defence (like say Russia) still buy surface to air missiles even though they aren’t too cost effective at all.

Personally though, I don’t see this is very relevant at all unless the US goes through with scaling up NMD to have at least several hundred interceptors and more then one discriminator radar. I’d also be incredibly surprised if Iceland would actually vote to allow the Russians to use the base, let alone to use it as a base for nuclear weapons. The base is still used for civilian aircraft too, which would be a huge disadvantage from the Russian perspective.

[Cecelia5578]

I somehow seriously doubt anything will come of this, but turnabout is fair play, so how bout we base nuclear B-1Rs (or whatever the proposed new B-1 variant is) in Turkey?

[Beowulf]

And 184 F-22s may be "nothing" to you, that's still as many as the Russians have Tu-22Ms and Tu-160s in active service.

179

187. The order got increased by an extra four, minimum, in order to defer the actual decision on whether to order even more to the Obama administration.

I somehow seriously doubt anything will come of this, but turnabout is fair play, so how bout we base nuclear B-1Rs (or whatever the proposed new B-1 variant is) in Turkey?

B-1s are no longer considered to be nuclear bombers. They have been oriented towards the conventional strike role, and treaty limitations keep them from being reoriented back. We can't really make new B-1s either, IIRC. Any B-1Rs would be rebuilds of existing B-1s.

[Stark]

I somehow seriously doubt anything will come of this, but turnabout is fair play, so how bout we base nuclear B-1Rs (or whatever the proposed new B-1 variant is) in Turkey?

This sort of thing never ceases to amuse me. Remember the Cuban missile crisis? lol.

[Cecelia5578]

Well geez I know that, the Russians actually purchasing Keflavik is a bit speculative anyways, why not go all the way?

Anyhoo, Iceland is a part of NATO, so why not pay the Icelanders more than the Russians are, lets say, to station a US Army brigade there! Can a Backfire taking off outrun artillery? Hehe.

[Axis Kast]

It would be utterly hilarious if the years we've endured of the Bush administration's irrational hard-on for beating on Russia with no plausible cause has the sole "result" for the United States of a Russian air base within medium bomber striking distance of Boston...

What, exactly, has the Bush administration done that is so unreasonable?

ABM? We gave our required notice, then pulled out.

Georgia? We urged Saakhasvilli not to toy with the Russians -- who did plenty of baiting of their own. They were waiting for the opportunity to clean up shop in Georgia.

The expansion of NATO? That's in our strategic interest. The Russians do the same, when they get the chance.

Bush was often criticized for being too soft in his relations with Russia.

[thejester]

Bush was often criticized for being too soft in his relations with Russia.

By who? Everything I've read last two or so years has been highlighting how Bush's ultrarealism towards Russia has blown up in his face.

[Axis Kast]

By who? Everything I've read last two or so years has been highlighting how Bush's ultrarealism towards Russia has blown up in his face.

The only problem I'm aware of is criticism over expansion of NATO to Russia's borders, which some have contended is needlessly aggressive.

The ABM isn't a threat to Russia's strategic capabilities; the Georgian debacle had some relation to the encouragement Tbilisi received vis-a-vis cooperation with NATO, but the U.S. worked hard to preempt the conflict; American basing in Central Asia naturally arises as an objective due to our involvement in Afghanistan.

Russia isn't exactly a paragon of decent behavior, either. I won't fault Bush for calling spades spades.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Duchess, while an irradiated shipyard would aid in illuminating my nightly commute over the Claiborne Pell Bridge, The boys in Moscow, would have to be on one hell of a Stolichaya fueled bender to nuke New England. Seriously Woman! You sound like Stuart on bad 'shrooms sometimes.

If we massively expanded BMD, this would be an effective counter which allowed them to still threaten the United States with brutally severe damage from their nuclear strikes. That is no more or less implausible than any nuclear war scenario between the USA and Russia today. In short, quite implausible, but still something that must be planned for.

[hongi]

I somehow seriously doubt anything will come of this, but turnabout is fair play, so how bout we base nuclear B-1Rs (or whatever the proposed new B-1 variant is) in Turkey?

Even if this was technically possible, Turkey probably wouldn't allow it. Nukes on Turkish soil? Yet another evidence to Turkey's population and the general Middle East that the government likes to take it in the arse from the Americans. Too much trouble domestically for the Turks.

[K. A. Pital]

And what, the F-15s are somehow useless at intercepting Backfires? And 184 F-22s may be "nothing" to you, that's still as many as the Russians have Tu-22Ms and Tu-160s in active service.

Recently we tested low-group penetration with a few bombers, and those reached within 90 seconds to border region without being even under intercept attemps. This is far beyond the minimal ALCM launch range, and at this range, the flurry of Kh-55 or Kh-22s would have devastated quite a bit of the target region. That's how badly British IADS worked that day.

I'm not saying it won't cope in case of a real war, but in any case a base that close is awesome

P.S. I see Skimmer already noted the problems with hunting down standoff ALCMs. Should've went to page 2 before replying

The ABM isn't a threat to Russia's strategic capabilities

It is, and it's beneficial to us to stop it's deployment whenever possible and by whatever methods possible. If you want to debate that bit, I'm all open.

[thejester]

The only problem I'm aware of is criticism over expansion of NATO to Russia's borders, which some have contended is needlessly aggressive.

Sorry, I meant who has criticised Bush for being 'too soft' to Russia.

The ABM isn't a threat to Russia's strategic capabilities; the Georgian debacle had some relation to the encouragement Tbilisi received vis-a-vis cooperation with NATO, but the U.S. worked hard to preempt the conflict; American basing in Central Asia naturally arises as an objective due to our involvement in Afghanistan.

Russia isn't exactly a paragon of decent behavior, either. I won't fault Bush for calling spades spades.

Bush can call spades spades but saying from day 1 'I view you as an enemy' doesn't help. ABM is the perfect example - you can argue till you're blue in the face that ABM isn't a threat to Russia's strategic capabilities but the fact will remain that from its inception they have been bloody unhappy about it. There's a limit to how much you should give - basing in Central Asia being a perfect example - but the Bush Administration's policy has been conducive to confrontation.

Having said that, I think the massive disclaimer on that is that Putin's foreign policy has been aggressive enough that some deterioration in relations was inevitable; I guess it's what happens when realists clash.

[Axis Kast]

It is, and it's beneficial to us to stop it's deployment whenever possible and by whatever methods possible. If you want to debate that bit, I'm all open.

ABM is a threat only inasmuch as obtaining proof-of-concept would represent a valuable step toward larger deployments. As it stands right now, however, the joint program with E. Europe is a problem only for Iran. Russia can satisfy security concerns with liaison officers.

There's a limit to how much you should give - basing in Central Asia being a perfect example - but the Bush Administration's policy has been conducive to confrontation.

ABM isn't some unnecessary canard. The charge is that Bush has riled the Russians unnecessarily, not that he picked "good" fights, which is what ABM is.

Having said that, I think the massive disclaimer on that is that Putin's foreign policy has been aggressive enough that some deterioration in relations was inevitable; I guess it's what happens when realists clash.

On that, we are in complete agreement.

[K. A. Pital]

As it stands right now, however, the joint program with E. Europe is a problem only for Iran.

Bullcrap. Do you realize how fucking potent and expensive ABM early-warning radars are? Once a radar is in place, not only can it provide early warning of launches from within Russian territory, but also guide ABM missiles to intercept targets inbound for Europe (in case of major war an inevitable necessity to decimate US military infrastructure within NATO members). Large amount of ABM missiles can be guided by a single such radar - no matter how many you installed initially.

We spent billions to place radars all around the USSR territory (Daryal, Daryal-U and UM, Volga, Don-2N, Dnepr and Dnestr, and three Duga radars to detect ICBM launches from US, European and Chinese territory). Freaking billions.

Now you just place a massive OTH radar in Europe to detect inbounds, and you are saying this is not a problem for us. Bullcrap. It can give you early warning directly after launch. Which means you have the time to gear for intercepting inbounds heading your way.

Our solution to that (Iskander 500 km ranged nuclear depressed-trajectory semiballistic missiles placed in Kalinigrad and Belorus) are adequate and will allow us to take out the fucking radar quickly, but you will still have warning even if we manage to take the place out very quickly - the very fact of it's destruction would give warning to you. Coordinating SRBM lauches to take out OTH radars in Europe will remain a new problem for our Strategic Command precisely due to your placing them right on our borders - we didn't have anything like that before and our massive Eastern European buffer ensured ABM assets and OTH radars were far away from Russia.

[Kane Starkiller]

Our solution to that (Iskander 500 km ranged nuclear depressed-trajectory semiballistic missiles placed in Kalinigrad and Belorus) are adequate and will allow us to take out the fucking radar quickly,

Brdy, base in Czech republic where the radar is supposed to be constructed, is over 650km away from the nearest point in Kaliningrad and over 700km away from Belarus so you'll need something with greater range right?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Our solution to that (Iskander 500 km ranged nuclear depressed-trajectory semiballistic missiles placed in Kalinigrad and Belorus) are adequate and will allow us to take out the fucking radar quickly,

Brdy, base in Czech republic where the radar is supposed to be constructed, is over 650km away from the nearest point in Kaliningrad and over 700km away from Belarus so you'll need something with greater range right?

There's always the option of throwing a few cruise missiles with 3000km range in that direction.

[K. A. Pital]

For the Czech radar, we would utilize a few cruise missiles or the Iskander complex fitted with a cruise missile instead of a ballistic missile most probably, which would cover the range quite well. For the radars and emplacements in Poland, the SRBMs would suffice as 500 km from either Belarus border or Kalinigrad cover the territory of Poland in entirety.

[Sea Skimmer]

187. The order got increased by an extra four, minimum, in order to defer the actual decision on whether to order even more to the Obama administration.

Last I heard the extra money, saved by retiring various support planes, for the 4 to make it 183 got spent making the F-15s not disintegrate. New funding for another four was requested but not granted in FY2009, the military now intends to seek it in the next defence supplemental, and its been suggested this may include as many as 20 additional planes. However with calls to cut the defence budget from all sides the only hope that has of happening is if Obama decides it’s a way of preserving jobs. Since all kinds of defence cutting kill jobs, that’s no sure defence.

For the Czech radar, we would utilize a few cruise missiles or the Iskander complex fitted with a cruise missile instead of a ballistic missile most probably, which would cover the range quite well. For the radars and emplacements in Poland, the SRBMs would suffice as 500 km from either Belarus border or Kalinigrad cover the territory of Poland in entirety.

AN/TPY-2 mobile radar for THAAD will slated to be integrated with GBI missiles in this coming year. That means missile defence in Europe will not be totally dependent on a single fixed radar by the time it’s deployed. No deployment plans for THAAD battery have been announced yet, but it’s not hard to see one showing up in Germany, allowing the US to form a triple layer of protection.

[Ma Deuce]

Yeah it pretty much is if the Russians attacked with stand off weapons. The F-15s would be left attempting to hunt down the individual nuclear cruise missiles, and the plane is not well suited to that mission.

Yeah, but Marina also mentioned the use of gravity bombs. Any bomber that attempted that would be quite vulnerable to interception from just about anything that could carry AMRAAMs.

[Sarevok]

I interpreted her statement as more along the lines of just how dangerously within the combat range of Russian bombers American cities would fall if they can take off from Iceland. I don't think anyone would consider dropping iron bombs from sluggish bombers on America of all places.

[Ma Deuce]

I interpreted her statement as more along the lines of just how dangerously within the combat range of Russian bombers American cities would fall if they can take off from Iceland.

Still doesn't matter. The Backfire can easily deliver cruise missiles to US soil from bases in Russia, so having a forward base in Keflavik changes nothing. It's a moot point anyway, as previously mentioned, even if Iceland allowed it, the Russians would never operate nuclear-armed strategic bombers from a base that also serves as Iceland's main international airport.

[Sea Skimmer]

Yeah, but Marina also mentioned the use of gravity bombs. Any bomber that attempted that would be quite vulnerable to interception from just about anything that could carry AMRAAMs.

The Russians simply wouldn’t use gravity bombs; that makes no sense for a first strike, at the minimal they’d use Kh-15, and even that weapon just risks the bombers getting caught up in nuclear blasts from other weapons. If the Russians are anything like SAC, they’d also train to use Kh-15 against enemy fighters, and in surviving encounters with that kind of weapon F-22 would be a huge advantage over F-15s, though most fighters assigned to NORAD missions are F-16s anyway.

For a second strike, after the surviving bombs return home and rearm and refuel from dispersal bases that survived US strikes… then they might load up with gravity bombs, however by that point most US fighter bases would be wiped out anyway, and a Russian occupied Keflavik would be a collection of overlapping smoking craters.

[Axis Kast]

Bullcrap. Do you realize how fucking potent and expensive ABM early-warning radars are? Once a radar is in place, not only can it provide early warning of launches from within Russian territory, but also guide ABM missiles to intercept targets inbound for Europe (in case of major war an inevitable necessity to decimate US military infrastructure within NATO members). Large amount of ABM missiles can be guided by a single such radar - no matter how many you installed initially.

Large amounts of ABM missiles cannot be installed without inevitably giving the Russians considerable forewarning, whether we intended to or not.

At this point in time, the cost of strategic offense is substantially less than that of defense. Not only does Russia possess more than enough firepower to obliterate Europe many times over, the planned ABM site notwithstanding, but the cost of "just one more" nuclear warhead is significantly less than "just one more" kinetic-kill interceptor. For all the hemming and hawing about the high cost of C3I for atomic weapons, price tags on highly maneuverable, highly accurate kill vehicles are far higher.

Now you just place a massive OTH radar in Europe to detect inbounds, and you are saying this is not a problem for us. Bullcrap. It can give you early warning directly after launch. Which means you have the time to gear for intercepting inbounds heading your way.

The United States is not looking at potential neutralization of the Russian arsenal within the near future, and certainly not without ample warning. It's just not possible.

Not to mention that, if Russia's complaint is, "We can no longer hold you so completely at risk once this infrastructure is built," we've got every reason to do it, don't we? (Just like you've got every reason to oppose it.) The ABM is certainly no immediate danger to Russian strategic capability, however.

Our solution to that (Iskander 500 km ranged nuclear depressed-trajectory semiballistic missiles placed in Kalinigrad and Belorus) are adequate and will allow us to take out the fucking radar quickly, but you will still have warning even if we manage to take the place out very quickly - the very fact of it's destruction would give warning to you.

The new radars are valuable strictly for intercept plotting; we have plenty of early-warning systems aimed at Russia, and have had them for a long, long time. Often in countries right on your border.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yeah, but Marina also mentioned the use of gravity bombs. Any bomber that attempted that would be quite vulnerable to interception from just about anything that could carry AMRAAMs.

The Russians simply wouldn’t use gravity bombs; that makes no sense for a first strike, at the minimal they’d use Kh-15, and even that weapon just risks the bombers getting caught up in nuclear blasts from other weapons. If the Russians are anything like SAC, they’d also train to use Kh-15 against enemy fighters, and in surviving encounters with that kind of weapon F-22 would be a huge advantage over F-15s, though most fighters assigned to NORAD missions are F-16s anyway.

For a second strike, after the surviving bombs return home and rearm and refuel from dispersal bases that survived US strikes… then they might load up with gravity bombs, however by that point most US fighter bases would be wiped out anyway, and a Russian occupied Keflavik would be a collection of overlapping smoking craters.

Hmm, well, wouldn't it extend the range of targets? I can't imagine that the Tu-22M can hit all of the United States with standoff missiles from its current bases, just some parts. In particular I was thinking that the long-range standoff missiles could be used against King's Bay from Keflavik.

Granted, that's based on the assumption I've always had that there was some kind of plan for the SSBNs in port to try and launch their missiles if they could before they were destroyed, which could be unfounded, but with Trident at least it seemed plausible that the ranges would be sufficient.

[Sea Skimmer]

Hmm, well, wouldn't it extend the range of targets? I can't imagine that the Tu-22M can hit all of the United States with standoff missiles from its current bases, just some parts. In particular I was thinking that the long-range standoff missiles could be used against King's Bay from Keflavik.

If Kh-102 really has 5000km range then on paper the Tu-22M can hit almost any point in the US flying from a staging base anywhere along the Russian Artic coastline. More realistically, cruise missile effective ranges are less because they can’t fly straight paths, but most of the US is still within range. A couple Tu-22Ms could be in-flight refueled to make up the difference for hitting the most distant targets, and Kings Bay should still be within range even without that.

But really, the Tu-22M has always been a theater weapon, if WW3 occurs it would be employed against China and European NATO states, not attacking the US. That’s the job of Tu-95 and Tu-160 and they’ve got plenty enough firepower to worry about if we actually cared one bit about bomber attacks. Thanks to the tremendous range of Russian cruise missiles, which are much larger and much less stealthy then US models a Russian bomber can strike any point in Eurasia without leaving Russian airspace. In all probability though Tu-22Ms would fly out over the Atlantic in ordered to nuke the UK and France without having the missiles attempt to fly completely through NATO airspace.

If the Russians want to kill Kings Bay BTW, they’ve already got a really means of doing that, launch a nuclear armed SS-N-16 off an SSN lurking offshore. Warning time would be infinitesimal and such attacks could also hit Washington DC and other key targets. The only way to defend against this would be to have either an AEGIS ship or an army Patriot battery not only in the proper location but also actually using its radar and with rules to engagement to let it shoot freely.

Granted, that's based on the assumption I've always had that there was some kind of plan for the SSBNs in port to try and launch their missiles if they could before they were destroyed, which could be unfounded, but with Trident at least it seemed plausible that the ranges would be sufficient.

We have two crews for each sub exactly for this kind of situation. However if the Russians launch a surprise attack, that wont matter, the SS-N-16 will strike too quickly to finish manning battle station missile. If its not a surprise attack, well then nuclear war just becomes far less likely in general, and the US would have already surged any and all SSBNs fit to sail. Those that can’t sail are likely to be in major refits and unarmed.

Back when we first designed Trident with enough range to reach the Soviet Union from pier side it was proposed to build semi hardened land launchers for the missiles at our SSBN bases. That way missiles unloaded from subs but not being refurbished themselves could always be fired… but this ran afoul high costs, not to mention the arms limitation treaties which would have counted each launcher as the same as an ICBM silo.