Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues

INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life 553

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Share

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 3876
    Points: 4331
    Join date: 2009-08-26
    Age: 33
    Location: Croatia

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Viktor on Sat Jun 22, 2013 1:53 am

    Interesting article and interesting topic. 

    Ivanov made some good points. (google translator does some wired translation but you can easily catch the idea)

    The INF Treaty can not operate indefinitely, said Ivanov wrote:Open-ended contract on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) signed December 7, 1987 in Washington, Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan. Parties to the treaty pledged not to develop, produce, test or deploy ballistic and cruise missiles and land-based intermediate-and shorter-range missiles.

    MOSCOW, June 21 - RIA Novosti. head of the presidential administration Sergei Ivanov said that the agreement between the U.S. and the USSR on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-range land-based - a controversial, and states that the infinite can not continue, given that other countries such weapons may have.

    Open-ended contract on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) signed December 7, 1987 in Washington, Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan. Parties to the treaty pledged not to develop, produce, test or deploy ballistic and cruise missiles and land-based intermediate-and shorter-range missiles.

    "The controversial (decision), to say the least, because I honestly did not understand earlier and now I do not understand, especially why it was done. Americans this class of weapon is not needed at all, did not need not before, not now. Because with the help of such weapons, they could theoretically fight only with Mexico or Canada, because the radius of action will not reach to Europe, "- said Sergei Ivanov, the TV channel" Russia-24 "on the sidelines PMEF.

    According to him, the military in their calculations when planning always come from the worst scenarios.

    "Why is everything anyone can have this class of weapons, and we and the United States - can not? Question arises, on the one hand, we signed the Soviet-American. We perform, but to infinity can not go on," - said the head Kremlin administration.

    LINK

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 10401
    Points: 10977
    Join date: 2010-03-30
    Location: New Zealand

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 22, 2013 11:44 am

    As pointed out it is more limiting for the Russians because the US can actually forward deploy missiles with a range of 500km or less and still hit strategic targets within Russia from NATO countries, while for Russia it means that NATO targets in Europe and China and indeed Japan further than 500km from Russia territory can only be engaged with weapons with a flight range of 5,500km+.

    Moreover it means that Russia basically can only have ICBMs as land weapons to defend its territory when in actual fact a range of smaller and cheaper weapons in the 2,000-4,000km range would be much better and not limited by treaties like new Start.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Cyberspec
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts: 723
    Points: 831
    Join date: 2011-08-08
    Location: Terra Australis

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Cyberspec on Sat Jun 22, 2013 1:25 pm

    Sounds like signal that they'll be abandoning the treaty

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 3876
    Points: 4331
    Join date: 2009-08-26
    Age: 33
    Location: Croatia

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Viktor on Sat Jun 22, 2013 1:47 pm

    Cyberspec wrote:Sounds like signal that they'll be abandoning the treaty

    I think so too. Speculations about it have been circling around for too long. This is I think first official confirmation of what is coming. 

    It will be interesting thing to see results (political and military) of cancelling INF treaty implications.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 10401
    Points: 10977
    Join date: 2010-03-30
    Location: New Zealand

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 23, 2013 11:14 am

    At the time it was signed it removed a real threat that was short range missiles forward deployed that could hit targets in single figure minutes with precision and nuclear warheads which was very destabilising and meant important decisions had to be made rapidly to ensure decisions could be implemented in time.

    Ironically at the time it was the Soviets that gave up the most as they had to remove the SS-20s from service and a range of other relatively cheap but effective weapons.

    Withdrawing from the INF treaty will mean the Russians can build as many short and medium range ballistic and cruise missiles to deal with any ABM system the US would likely to build in Europe or anywhere else without it effecting their strategic missile forces.

    It is also an area of huge export potential... an Iskander with a range of 2,500km and a conventional 500kg warhead with a CEP of less than 20m would be a very useful tool... the west wouldn't develop it because their air force would perform such missions, but for the Russian Army they have traditionally prepared for situations where there is no air cover or air support so it makes a lot of sense for them...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Cyberspec
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts: 723
    Points: 831
    Join date: 2011-08-08
    Location: Terra Australis

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Cyberspec on Sun Jun 23, 2013 2:11 pm

    They also had to destroy all R-400 OKA (SS-23 Spider) missiles as well. Probably the best missile of it's class at the time. The Iskander is the successor to it but has less range

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 4631
    Points: 4871
    Join date: 2011-12-07

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  TR1 on Sun Jun 23, 2013 10:55 pm

    Cyberspec wrote:They also had to destroy all R-400 OKA (SS-23 Spider) missiles as well. Probably the best missile of it's class at the time. The Iskander is the successor to it but has less range

    Iskander's real range is at least on Par with Oka, and it is a much more advanced system all around.

    Good for Russia on the treaty, it is not advantageous at this point.

    However if the ICBM arsenal works, I hope they don't spend too many resources on a full spectrum of IRBM weapons. Yes the flexibility would be nice but the whole point of a nuclear arsenal is a safety net cheaper than giant conventional forces.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 10401
    Points: 10977
    Join date: 2010-03-30
    Location: New Zealand

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jun 24, 2013 12:52 pm

    However if the ICBM arsenal works, I hope they don't spend too many resources on a full spectrum of IRBM weapons. Yes the flexibility would be nice but the whole point of a nuclear arsenal is a safety net cheaper than giant conventional forces.

    It could go one of two ways... either smaller shorter ranged missiles will be developed to hit targets in Europe and China/Asia and the Middle East that previously needed ICBMs. This will allow more ICBMs to be targeted at long range targets in the US, or it could lead to a reduction in the ICBMs needed by Russia to defend her territory as the ICBMs pointed at China and Europe could be replaced by smaller shorter ranged cheaper missiles.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 4018
    Points: 4368
    Join date: 2010-05-08
    Age: 38
    Location: India

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Austin on Mon Jun 24, 2013 1:51 pm

    Replacing INF treaty has its own pitfalls because US could develop an IRBM and deploy in Europe in support of allies or Europe to can develop its own IRBM to target Russia.

    So it will severely complicate BMD for Russia since Tactical Weapons dont come under any treaty and hence can be deployed in Numbers.

    Its like opening a can of worms with effects unknown.

    The best thing for Russia is to develop Hypersonic Cruise Missile  and Supersonic/Subsonic Cruise missile to target Europe and China and keep some percentage of existing ICBM to be targetted at Europe and China.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 10401
    Points: 10977
    Join date: 2010-03-30
    Location: New Zealand

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jun 25, 2013 1:57 pm

    Replacing INF treaty has its own pitfalls because US could develop an IRBM and deploy in Europe in support of allies or Europe to can develop its own IRBM to target Russia.

    They certainly could, but what real difference would that make?

    Europe can already do this as they have not signed the INF treaty... it only applies to Russia and the US. In fact the French and British ballistic nuclear arsenal largely consist of IRBMs anyway.

    A US ABM shield in Europe already consists of lots of missiles that when fitted with a nuclear warhead could be used as IRBMs anyway and there is no restriction on their deployment, no requirement for inspections by Russia or anyone, no limitation on their performance.

    So it will severely complicate BMD for Russia since Tactical Weapons dont come under any treaty and hence can be deployed in Numbers.

    Not really... the numbers of things such weapons could be used to target are finite and most Russian Army and Air Force SAMs can engage ballistic weapons to one extent or another... the shorter range targets are slower and therefore easier to engage for the more numerous smaller model SAMs.

    Its like opening a can of worms with effects unknown.

    The fact is the the INF treaty is binding or limiting only Russia and the US... in fact the US has little to care about Russian IRBMs as they can't reach the US, so it really only limits the Russians to using ICBMs to do a job smaller cheaper weapons could achieve.

    The best thing for Russia is to develop Hypersonic Cruise Missile  and Supersonic/Subsonic Cruise missile to target Europe and China and keep some percentage of existing ICBM to be targetted at Europe and China.

    The INF treaty covers all ground launched weapons whether they are ballistic or cruise missile.

    But I agree a 6,000km range cruise missile family would be cheaper and simpler than an ICBM... some form of rocket booster launched scramjet powered cruise missile of 6,000km range would be ideal as it would be easy to hide (rail cars or shipping crates) and easy to produce in large numbers.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 4018
    Points: 4368
    Join date: 2010-05-08
    Age: 38
    Location: India

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Austin on Tue Jun 25, 2013 8:41 pm

    Making Air Launched Hypersonic Cruise Missile like Zircon-S and Subsonic cruise missile like Kh-101 is best option , plus develop naval variant thats can be launched from conventional/nuclear submarine.

    US will just take INF scrapping as an opportunity to deploy 100's of IRBM on Europe along ABM systems already planned to be deployed.

    China is the only major concern but China can be dealt with asymetric Nuclear Weapons detterent which means few weapons like ICBM and Hypersonic missile targetting key cities with mega ton warhead.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 4631
    Points: 4871
    Join date: 2011-12-07

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  TR1 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:10 am

    What IRBMs would US place in Europe?

    It certainly is in no financial position to develop anything significant in this field, nor do they have any requirement to do so. No political will either.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 3876
    Points: 4331
    Join date: 2009-08-26
    Age: 33
    Location: Croatia

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Viktor on Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:19 am

    I was thinking in line what TR1 wrote. Today is totally different political situation in EU. 

    Russia has moral right to respond to US ABM shield in EU. On the other hand US can in no way justify deployment of IRBM with nuclear or conventional 

    warheads in EU. Russia is no SSSR and there are no 60 000 tanks on its borders sitting and waiting for political hint to roll over EU. 

    Different set of problems would represent:

    1. Amount of money needed to develop and deploy those missiles

    2. Amount of money needed to develop protection (SAM systems) that could deal up to some point with this newly emerged threat 

    3. In some wild calculations I would imagine that Russia would suit situation where US is put on defensive with massive amount of money being spend on defensive 

       systems.


    More on INF Treaty from VPK

    LINK

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts: 10401
    Points: 10977
    Join date: 2010-03-30
    Location: New Zealand

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:34 pm

    Making Air Launched Hypersonic Cruise Missile like Zircon-S and Subsonic cruise missile like Kh-101 is best option , plus develop naval variant thats can be launched from conventional/nuclear submarine.

    Ground launched missiles are much cheaper to operate and store... these large missiles would require large aircraft to deploy... aircraft that could be better used for other purposes.

    Personally I would think a large 3-4 ton cruise missile with a very long range... perhaps 6-8,000km range and a payload of half a dozen small compact nuclear devices of 5-10KT. For the first part of the flight the missile will use a large wing with external fuel tanks to climb to medium altitude using rocket boosters and jet engines to get airborne. Once in flight it can accelerate and climb dropping fuel tanks as they empty. After it has travelled 3-4K KM then it will be much lighter and the large high lift wing can be jettisoned and the jet engine can adapt to a scramjet to continuously accelerate the missile to hypersonic speed as it approaches enemy territory where it can release warhead payloads over 6 target areas.

    US will just take INF scrapping as an opportunity to deploy 100's of IRBM on Europe along ABM systems already planned to be deployed.

    Why would the scrapping of the INF treaty as such require US deployed IRBMs or cruise missiles in Europe? If they did it would be clearly to target Russian interests and the ABM system in Europe would be revealed for what it really is.

    I rather suspect only former eastern european countries would agree to have US offensive missiles based in their countries anyway.

    China is the only major concern but China can be dealt with asymetric Nuclear Weapons detterent which means few weapons like ICBM and Hypersonic missile targetting key cities with mega ton warhead.

    But that is the point... for the cost of an ICBM targeting Chinese or European cities they could have 500 cruise missiles or 200 IRBMs for the same price with much better coverage... which they don't really need so in actual fact it means they will likely have the missiles they need and save the difference in cost.

    3. In some wild calculations I would imagine that Russia would suit situation where US is put on defensive with massive amount of money being spend on defensive

    systems.

    The US wasting money on things that don't actually make Americans safer is the game isn't it? That is what the US likes to do to Russia... put military forces around their border and directly interfere in the politics of their neighbours so they need a strong military and to increase military spending...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts: 597
    Points: 656
    Join date: 2011-09-13
    Age: 36
    Location: Indianapolis

    Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  SOC on Fri Jun 28, 2013 12:30 am

    Viktor wrote:Russia has moral right to respond to US ABM shield in EU.

    Not this again. Russia's objection to ABMs in Europe, especially when you consider the actual number of ABMs to be deployed, is a bit of an oxymoron given that they are also developing ABM systems of their own.Meaning that it's OK for Russia to be able to shoot down a US ICBM, but not the other way around. This was never about nuclear deterrence and all about political influence over Eastern Europe.

      Current date/time is Tue Sep 02, 2014 8:13 am