Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+47
ult
ATLASCUB
nomadski
Firebird
Nibiru
Isos
Karl Haushofer
Hole
PapaDragon
LMFS
dino00
rrob
T-47
Singular_Transform
miketheterrible
Arrow
hoom
JohninMK
eehnie
Rmf
nastle77
sepheronx
GunshipDemocracy
kvs
Big_Gazza
max steel
flamming_python
Stealthflanker
Morpheus Eberhardt
Vann7
Werewolf
George1
Mike E
zg18
GarryB
Mindstorm
TR1
collegeboy16
navyfield
magnumcromagnon
AlfaT8
Admin
gaurav
SOC
Austin
Cyberspec
Viktor
51 posters

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Viktor
    Viktor


    Posts : 5796
    Points : 6429
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 43
    Location : Croatia

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 2 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Viktor Fri Jun 28, 2013 12:34 am

    SOC wrote:
    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.

    1. Russia is building ABM on its own territory
    2. Russia does not object to US ABM on US soil
    3. I agree with you. US started this ABM venture purely for political reasons. They knew Russia will react in a way they said they will (because they have no other option) and the US (protector of freedom and democracy) will have every excuse to once again show to the whole world how aggressive and violent that nation is.
    By doing so they will divide the EU once again. Sabotaging CFE Treaty was in the light of all that happened necessity.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38765
    Points : 39261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 2 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  GarryB Fri Jun 28, 2013 1:49 am

    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.

    How many ABM systems is Russia building in Canada?

    Russia has no problem with US based ABM systems... it is systems in Europe to give the US depth and of course the supporting radars looking deep into Russian air space that is the real problem.

    The number is irrelevant as that can be changed at the stroke of a pen without consultation with anyone.

    Meaning that it's OK for Russia to be able to shoot down a US ICBM, but not the other way around.

    It was not OK for the Soviets to base nuclear weapons in Cuba, but it is OK for the US to base nukes in Europe... this double standard is not new.

    The US need not worry and certainly does not need to understand.

    Any move Russia makes will be painted as aggression and a slide back to the cold war, so there is no real point in discussing it, but these actions are logical for Russia whether the US understands it or not.

    This was never about nuclear deterrence and all about political influence over Eastern Europe.

    Eastern European countries are hostile to Russia at a very low grass roots level... they don't need US ABMs based there to get independence from Russian influence... they already have it.

    This is really about pushing Russia into a corner... containment.

    After containment restraint you generally then try to disarm and subdue... then you steal their wallet...

    They knew Russia will react in a way they said they will (because they have no other option) and the US (protector of freedom and democracy) will have every excuse to once again show to the whole world how aggressive and violent that nation is.

    All part of the plan... divide and conquer.


    Last edited by GarryB on Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:05 am; edited 1 time in total
    SOC
    SOC


    Posts : 565
    Points : 608
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 46
    Location : Indianapolis

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 2 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  SOC Fri Jun 28, 2013 2:50 am

    GarryB wrote:Russia has no problem with US based ABM systems... it is systems in Europe to give the US depth and of course the supporting radars looking deep into Russian air space that is the real problem.

    What. Both sides have ample surveillance systems and methods to see what the other is doing, be they land, air, or space-based. Plus, we can do fun things like this with space-based assets: http://www.mda.mil/news/13news0002.html

    GarryB wrote:The number is irrelevant as that can be changed at the stroke of a pen without consultation with anyone.

    The number is certainly relevant when the systems are silo-based. If we say 10 silos and put in 10 silos, you're damn sure going to notice if we decide to start dropping fifty more holes in the ground. Except you won't notice holes in the ground, I forgot...because the GMD system is not deploying in Europe. Just AEGIS Ashore, which isn't going to kill an ICBM in its current iteration. PAA-IV proposed for 2021 may give it actual ABM capability, but that's 1) not even tested, yet alone ready for deployment, and 2) not even guaranteed (it might've been cancelled?).

    GarryB wrote:It was not OK for the Soviets to base nuclear weapons in Cuba, but it is OK for the US to base nukes in Europe... this double standard is not new.

    Totally agree there, US IRBMs in Europe were a driving factor behind moving nukes to Cuba.

    GarryB wrote:The US need not worry and certainly does not need to understand.

    I'd argue that neither side needs to worry. I'm not sold on Postol's calculations either, I don't think the Topols from Western Russia are anywhere near as "vulnerable" as he wants the world to think. At any rate, they've got the range to shoot the western ones on eastbound trajectories, and the eastern ones on western trajectories, making the whole argument pointless before you even factor in SLBMs.

    Do I think the Iranian threat was over-hyped to get systems built in Europe? Yes, although I do buy that they were basically playing preventative defense.

    Do I think the most current idea they had for Europe had any sort of realistic impact on the Russian nuclear deterrent? No. Not even PAA-IV. PAA-IV integrated with the at-sea AEGIS BMD though, that'd be a far, FAR different equation.

    All this says is that the political arguments thrown around by both sides are lacking in realism to various degrees.

    Maybe this really is related to the INF/CFE treaties, but not in the assumed context. Maybe the US wanted an ATBM complex in Europe all along, believing that Russia would drop INF since we dropped the ABM treaty, and doing it in this fashion allowed it to basically preempt Russia's INF withdrawal by getting a potential countermeasure for future SRBM/MRBM systems in place.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38765
    Points : 39261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 2 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  GarryB Fri Jun 28, 2013 5:08 am

    What. Both sides have ample surveillance systems and methods to see what the other is doing, be they land, air, or space-based. Plus, we can do fun things like this with space-based assets: http://www.mda.mil/news/13news0002.html

    If the radar coverage was sufficient then why does the ABM system need a new set of radars?

    The number is certainly relevant when the systems are silo-based. If we say 10 silos and put in 10 silos, you're damn sure going to notice if we decide to start dropping fifty more holes in the ground. Except you won't notice holes in the ground, I forgot...because the GMD system is not deploying in Europe. Just AEGIS Ashore, which isn't going to kill an ICBM in its current iteration. PAA-IV proposed for 2021 may give it actual ABM capability, but that's 1) not even tested, yet alone ready for deployment, and 2) not even guaranteed (it might've been cancelled?).

    That is OK because the Russians haven't withdrawn from the INF treaty either it is only planned and might be cancelled too.

    The point is that the future plans for the system show a growth toward a system capability that will become something that needs to be countered by the Russians if they want to retain deterrence.

    Right now it is no threat at all, but future plans and changes could make it a real problem so the Russians are doing you the courtesy of telling you now what the effect of your progress and development will be.

    The US claims its goals are security and peace and yet if Russia is forced to developed IRBMs and build more missiles to assure its safety then the reverse of those goals will actually be achieved.

    The fact that the US will go ahead with its plans just shows its stated goals are a ruse and its real goals are simply to move US bases in Europe east out of old europe and into new europe closer to Russian borders.

    I'd argue that neither side needs to worry. I'm not sold on Postol's calculations either, I don't think the Topols from Western Russia are anywhere near as "vulnerable" as he wants the world to think. At any rate, they've got the range to shoot the western ones on eastbound trajectories, and the eastern ones on western trajectories, making the whole argument pointless before you even factor in SLBMs.

    You aren't getting it... noone will know 100% whether these ABMs are effective or not till they are used and by then it is too late, it will mean little to the Russians if every one of their missiles gets through in a war started by a US leader who thinks they are safe behind an ABM system that is fundamentally flawed.

    The Russians aren't after the capability to destroy the west, they are after the capability to deter the west from attacking them in the first place. Being able to destroy the west does not mean Russia will survive... on the contrary they know both sides will suffer horrendously... do you think they don't know what it is like to suffer in war?

    A US ABM system will directly result in no further nuclear weapon reductions by Russia... theatre or strategic.

    Ask most westerners about Scud and they think the Patriot defeated it... we know better, but that doesn't matter.

    After decades of building it do you think the politicians are going to be honest about the performance of the ABM system to the people who will likely spend trillions on it?

    Do I think the Iranian threat was over-hyped to get systems built in Europe? Yes, although I do buy that they were basically playing preventative defense.

    Preventative defence was Germanys' attack on Europe and Japans attack on Pearl Harbour. Spending trillions making an ABM system for a threat that might happen is delusional... if you want to kill someone and they buy a brand new state of the art bullet proof vest that will stop any known projectile... you set them on fire. Money well spent on that vest BTW.

    Do I think the most current idea they had for Europe had any sort of realistic impact on the Russian nuclear deterrent? No. Not even PAA-IV. PAA-IV integrated with the at-sea AEGIS BMD though, that'd be a far, FAR different equation.

    It doesn't matter what you or I think... it just takes one idiot to get into office in the US (and you seem to have a queue of those Razz) to think an ABM system will do what it says on the box and we can escalate anything to any level because we are safe... take the BMs out of the equation and our uber stealth fighters should be able to take on 16 Blackjacks and some WWII bombers.

    Maybe this really is related to the INF/CFE treaties, but not in the assumed context. Maybe the US wanted an ATBM complex in Europe all along, believing that Russia would drop INF since we dropped the ABM treaty, and doing it in this fashion allowed it to basically preempt Russia's INF withdrawal by getting a potential countermeasure for future SRBM/MRBM systems in place.

    Except that if they had stayed in the ABM treaty then they could not build ABM systems in Europe or on their AEGIS cruisers so the Russians would not have any reason to want IRBMs... ICBMs on very high trajectories can still do the job of hitting targets at intermediate ranges... even if smaller shorter range weapons can do it cheaper and more efficiently.
    SOC
    SOC


    Posts : 565
    Points : 608
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 46
    Location : Indianapolis

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 2 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  SOC Fri Jun 28, 2013 5:46 am

    GarryB wrote:If the radar coverage was sufficient then why does the ABM system need a new set of radars?

    Because an engagement radar is a nice thing to have to actually, you know, blow something up?

    As far as the rest, I had a nice reply, and then lost it when I confused the Favorites bar in Chrome with individual tabs angry So, more on this later.
    SOC
    SOC


    Posts : 565
    Points : 608
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 46
    Location : Indianapolis

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 2 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  SOC Fri Jun 28, 2013 10:23 pm

    GarryB wrote:The point is that the future plans for the system show a growth toward a system capability that will become something that needs to be countered by the Russians if they want to retain deterrence.

    OK? It doesn't matter where you hit the ICBMs from, if you've got an ABM to take out ICBMs then that eats into deterrence. Hence, the S-500 comparison. If the US system lets us take out 10% or Russian missiles, but S-500 deployment and A-235 lets Russia take out 50% of ours, how much is what we're doing really causing Russia a problem.

    GarryB wrote:Right now it is no threat at all, but future plans and changes could make it a real problem so the Russians are doing you the courtesy of telling you now what the effect of your progress and development will be.

    And that's how it should be. Russia should do more acting in its interest and less trying to pander to the US. Reference the lack of S-300s in Syria and Iran.

    GarryB wrote:The US claims its goals are security and peace and yet if Russia is forced to developed IRBMs and build more missiles to assure its safety then the reverse of those goals will actually be achieved.

    Debatable. If IRBMs make Russia more comfortable in its deterrent, and this system makes us more comfortable with ours, then where's the disconnect? How is that not an expensive continuing of the current status quo?

    GarryB wrote:The fact that the US will go ahead with its plans just shows its stated goals are a ruse and its real goals are simply to move US bases in Europe east out of old europe and into new europe closer to Russian borders.

    No. You're looking at two very small complexes, not massive bases housing 14 tank divisions or 6 fighter wings or something. Plus, these are actually what you'd want and where you'd want them for midcourse intercept of an Iranian missile. So the system capabilities and small footprint on the ground is not in line with the idea that the US is trying to move all sorts of bases into Eastern Europe.

    GarryB wrote:You aren't getting it... noone will know 100% whether these ABMs are effective or not till they are used and by then it is too late, it will mean little to the Russians if every one of their missiles gets through in a war started by a US leader who thinks they are safe behind an ABM system that is fundamentally flawed.

    The Russians aren't after the capability to destroy the west, they are after the capability to deter the west from attacking them in the first place. Being able to destroy the west does not mean Russia will survive... on the contrary they know both sides will suffer horrendously... do you think they don't know what it is like to suffer in war?

    You need one missile to be able to get through to make deterrence viable. One. That's thanks to Ulam figuring out radiation implosion. A couple of megatons as a surface burst in D.C., and depending on the weather, you'll kill everyone from D.C. to Boston. That's one warhead, and that's why I really don't think anyone is asinine enough in this day and age to actually push the button. Hell we were basically enemies for decades and relations got a hell of a lot worse than they are now and we're still all here. And that's with one of the worst US administrations ever as far as the military and foreign policy is concerned being in charge until a trip to Dallas.

    GarryB wrote:A US ABM system will directly result in no further nuclear weapon reductions by Russia... theatre or strategic.

    Good for them, that's there prerogative. I have no argument with Russia doing things it wants or needs to do, just with some of the asinine justification that comes from both sides on the issue.

    GarryB wrote:It doesn't matter what you or I think... it just takes one idiot to get into office in the US (and you seem to have a queue of those Razz) to think an ABM system will do what it says on the box and we can escalate anything to any level because we are safe... take the BMs out of the equation and our uber stealth fighters should be able to take on 16 Blackjacks and some WWII bombers.

    Clearly I need to be President. Get out of Europe and the Middle East, concentrate on Asia, and declare terrorism a WMD.

    GarryB wrote:Except that if they had stayed in the ABM treaty then they could not build ABM systems in Europe or on their AEGIS cruisers so the Russians would not have any reason to want IRBMs... ICBMs on very high trajectories can still do the job of hitting targets at intermediate ranges... even if smaller shorter range weapons can do it cheaper and more efficiently.

    Except that the European system and the current AEGIS systems are ATBM systems, and fall within the allowed limits of the old agreement. Just like PAC-3, THAAD, S-300V, etc. All of those were legal, the only problem would potentially be the performance of the associated radars. Illegal would've been the S-225, which actually was an illegal system while being developed into the very early 1980s.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38765
    Points : 39261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 2 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  GarryB Sat Jun 29, 2013 12:05 pm

    OK? It doesn't matter where you hit the ICBMs from, if you've got an ABM to take out ICBMs then that eats into deterrence. Hence, the S-500 comparison. If the US system lets us take out 10% or Russian missiles, but S-500 deployment and A-235 lets Russia take out 50% of ours, how much is what we're doing really causing Russia a problem.


    You are not getting it. Deterrence requires both sides to be able to take out the strategic nuclear capability of the other side and cause immeasurable damage to make thoughts of a preemptive strike seem to be suicide.

    Russia having the capacity to stop 50% or 100% of US strategic nuclear weapons would not stop NATOs conventional arsenal from doing it serious damage.

    Russia knows such systems will never be that efficient however, but that is not even the problem... no matter what their efficiency an ABM system makes nuclear war more plausible as an option rather than less plausible and in that sense it is destabilising. That is why the ABM treaty was signed in the first place because if either side just believed they were safe enough then the risk of mutually assured destruction no longer applied which is what deterrence is based upon.

    Debatable. If IRBMs make Russia more comfortable in its deterrent, and this system makes us more comfortable with ours, then where's the disconnect? How is that not an expensive continuing of the current status quo?

    Because the US will make it so... it has new eastern european allies that will think all these Russian IRBMs will be pointing at them and demand an american equivalent... leading to an arms race... of course the Russian missiles will replace ICBMs doing the same job and will save a lot of money. Equally later ground launched hypersonic cruise missiles will make them more effective at evading any ABM system.

    So the system capabilities and small footprint on the ground is not in line with the idea that the US is trying to move all sorts of bases into Eastern Europe.

    It doesn't need boots on the ground in Europe... even small bases allow tentacles... look at the articles about rendition... in addition to the official military bases look at all the CIA secret ones... makes Hostel look like a documentary... Twisted Evil 

    And that's with one of the worst US administrations ever as far as the military and foreign policy is concerned being in charge until a trip to Dallas.

    I agree, but can you blame the Russians for not wanting to take the word of the west? MAD is foolproof... anything else requires trust and the western record is dire in the post cold war period.

    Clearly I need to be President. Get out of Europe and the Middle East, concentrate on Asia, and declare terrorism a WMD.

    You'd get my vote... Smile

    Except that the European system and the current AEGIS systems are ATBM systems, and fall within the allowed limits of the old agreement. Just like PAC-3, THAAD, S-300V, etc. All of those were legal, the only problem would potentially be the performance of the associated radars. Illegal would've been the S-225, which actually was an illegal system while being developed into the very early 1980s.

    SM-3 Standard hit a satellite... naughty naughty... plus the US AEW system in Flyingdales UK is no where near a US border, and nor is Thule in Greenland... one radar near your capital or ABM base and the rest around your border facing out... naughty naughty again... but you already know that.
    gaurav
    gaurav


    Posts : 376
    Points : 368
    Join date : 2013-02-19
    Age : 44
    Location : Blr

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 2 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  gaurav Sat Jun 29, 2013 1:43 pm

    Something wrong in the U.S assessment of Russian violations

    Intelligence officials said internal assessments identified Russia’s new Yars M missile that was tested earlier this month as an INF missile with a range of less than 5,500 kilometers.

    “The intelligence community believes it’s an intermediate-range missile that [the Russians] have classified as an ICBM because it would violate the INF treaty” if its true characteristics were known, said one official.

    However, Russia is denying its new Yars M missile represents an INF violation.

    This just shows Americans are just watching hollywood movies.Yars-M is 11k PLUS km range ICBM and Americans are saying it 500 plus km range
    intermediate range missile Shocked 


    There now is a broad pattern of INF-related Russian compliance issues being reported in
    the Russian press. In fact, Russia hasrepeatedly threatened to withdraw from the INF Treaty.
    This issue was first raised by then-Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov (now Kremlin Chief of Staff)
    who called the Treaty a “mistake” and a “Cold War relic.”6
    Then-Chief of the General Staff

    General YuriyBaluyevskiy threatened to pull out of the treaty unless Washington decreased its
    missile defense plans. By 2007, President Vladimir Putin threatened to withdraw from the

    Treaty unless it was made universal, which was clearly impossible. In February 2007,

    thenCommander of the Strategic Missile Forces, Colonel General Nikolai Solovtsov said, “If the

    political decision is made to withdraw from this treaty (the Russian-American Intermediate

    Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or INF) the Russian Strategic Missile Forces will be ready to
    fulfill this task.”7

    Now even the Iskander is taken as vilation of INF treaty truly Hilarious Acedemia these..
    You never know what they will say and write and ariticle just to get the sales booming..


    This is a very odd thing to say about a
    missile that is supposed to be short-range. After Mr. Ivanov’s announcement,Russian officials
    went silent about the new missile, which is unusual. Indeed, while President Putin gave the
    developers of the R-500 missile the Russia State Award, their names were not mentioned


    Doctors said this  Cool 

    The first test of the R-500 in 2007 was announced by thenFirst Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov.
    Mr. Ivanov said, “It can be used at long range with
    surgical precision, as doctors say,”11 (Emphasis added)

        Russian ICBM

        Russian exiting from INF ?

                 Very old 2007 Munich security-Ivanov on INF
    SOC
    SOC


    Posts : 565
    Points : 608
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 46
    Location : Indianapolis

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 2 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  SOC Sat Jun 29, 2013 5:41 pm

    GarryB wrote:You are not getting it. Deterrence requires both sides to be able to take out the strategic nuclear capability of the other side and cause immeasurable damage to make thoughts of a preemptive strike seem to be suicide.

    Russia knows such systems will never be that efficient however, but that is not even the problem... no matter what their efficiency an ABM system makes nuclear war more plausible as an option rather than less plausible and in that sense it is destabilising. That is why the ABM treaty was signed in the first place because if either side just believed they were safe enough then the risk of mutually assured destruction no longer applied which is what deterrence is based upon.

    Well, when we get more than 44 actual ABMs in service (that being the number of GBIs deployed in Alaska/California when they finish digging holes), then this might be relevant. Right now AEGIS is an ATBM.

    GarryB wrote:Russia having the capacity to stop 50% or 100% of US strategic nuclear weapons would not stop NATOs conventional arsenal from doing it serious damage.

    The US stopping Russian warheads wouldn't stop Russia from kicking the conventional crap out of Europe, either.

    GarryB wrote:SM-3 Standard hit a satellite... naughty naughty... plus the US AEW system in Flyingdales UK is no where near a US border, and nor is Thule in Greenland... one radar near your capital or ABM base and the rest around your border facing out... naughty naughty again... but you already know that.

    Neither side really played by the rules. The S-225's engagement radar was sent to Kamchatka. Then there was the BMEW radar at Pechora, clearly not along a border. The SM-3 ASAT test, however: not a violation. That was a full six years after leaving the treaty.

    Intelligence officials said internal assessments identified Russia’s new Yars M missile that was tested earlier this month as an INF missile with a range of less than 5,500 kilometers.

    “The intelligence community believes it’s an intermediate-range missile that [the Russians] have classified as an ICBM because it would violate the INF treaty” if its true characteristics were known, said one official.

    However, Russia is denying its new Yars M missile represents an INF violation.

    There is the possibility that Yars M, minus the first stage, could represent a very simple to test and field IRBM. It's not like they haven't done basically the same thing before. The fun part would be that you could stick them onto Yars TELs and nobody would know if it was an IRBM or ICBM inside.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38765
    Points : 39261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 2 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  GarryB Sun Jun 30, 2013 12:00 pm

    Well, when we get more than 44 actual ABMs in service (that being the number of GBIs deployed in Alaska/California when they finish digging holes), then this might be relevant. Right now AEGIS is an ATBM.

    By the time it is an ABM it is already a global coverage ABM system with hundreds if not thousands of mobile silos... kinda think by then it would be too late to start to react or object...

    Neither side really played by the rules. The S-225's engagement radar was sent to Kamchatka.

    Kamchatka is a border area...

    Then there was the BMEW radar at Pechora, clearly not along a border.

    A northern inhabited area for a radar facing north... as opposed to a radar in a foreign country (like UK and Greenland).

    The reasoning behind demanding they were placed at the borders and were facing out was to prevent their direction being over the defending country for use and an air defence battle management radar so Pechora is not a violation in letter or in spirit.

    Krasnoyarsk was a violation and was moved before becoming operational.

    There is the possibility that Yars M, minus the first stage, could represent a very simple to test and field IRBM. It's not like they haven't done basically the same thing before. The fun part would be that you could stick them onto Yars TELs and nobody would know if it was an IRBM or ICBM inside.

    The SS-20 was basically the first two stages of the SS-16 too.
    Viktor
    Viktor


    Posts : 5796
    Points : 6429
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 43
    Location : Croatia

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 2 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Viktor Mon Jul 01, 2013 9:00 pm

    US Officials Say Russia Violating Missile Treaty – Report


    WASHINGTON, July 1 (RIA Novosti) – US intelligence officials believe Russia is violating a Soviet-era arms-control treaty with the United States by building a new medium-range missile banned under the agreement, a conservative US website reported.

    US intelligence officials believe the missile, which the Russian Defense Ministry describes as a new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), is actually a medium-range missile that puts Russia in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) concluded between the United States and the Soviet Union in 1987, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

    “The intelligence community believes it’s an intermediate-range missile that [the Russians] have classified as an ICBM because it would violate the INF treaty,” the conservative website cited one official as saying.

    The Russian Defense Ministry announced earlier this month that it successfully tested a prototype of a new solid-fuel ICBM that is expected to replace the Topol-M and Yars missiles in the future.

    The missile was fired from a mobile launcher at the Kapustin Yar testing range in the Astrakhan region and hit its designated target at the Sary Shagan testing range in Kazakhstan, the ministry said.

    US intelligence officials said that according to internal assessments, the new missile that Russia tested earlier this month was an INF missile with a range of less than 3,418 miles (5,500 kilometers), the Free Beacon reported.

    Victor Yesin, consultant to Russia’s chief of the general staff, told the website that the missile “is a Topol class ICBM, is not covered by the INF Treaty as its range is over 5,500 kilometers,” the website reported.

    “Russia officially informed the US about that in August 2011,” Yesin, a former commander of Russia’s strategic forces, was quoted by the Free Beacon as saying.
    The website noted an April 12 letter that two US Congressmen wrote to President Barack Obama in which they expressed concerns over “a massive Russian violation and circumvention of an arms control obligation to the United States of great significance to this nation and its NATO allies.”

    The Republican authors, Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon and Rep. Mike Rogers, did not specify the alleged violation in question but told Obama that Senate Intelligence Committee members had previously expressed their concern about “clear examples of Russia’s noncompliance with its arms control obligations.”
    The Soviet Union and the United States signed the INF Treaty on December 8, 1987. The agreement came into force in June 1988 and does not have a specific duration.

    The INF treaty banned nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 300 to 3,400 miles (500 to 5,500 kilometers). By the treaty's deadline of June 1, 1991, a total of 2,692 such weapons had been destroyed, 846 by the US and 1,846 by the Soviet Union.

    LINK

    and another Treaty Cheating


    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8


    Posts : 2447
    Points : 2438
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 2 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  AlfaT8 Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:03 am

    "The Washington Free Beacon" is that a joke, Izvestia is a more reliable source.No Rolling Eyes 
    TR1
    TR1


    Posts : 5435
    Points : 5433
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 2 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  TR1 Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:26 am

    Kinda seems to me like replacing an aging ICBM arsenal is a much more logical move for Russia than "maybe possibly" testing an IRBM.

    Russia should pull out of MTCR as well.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38765
    Points : 39261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 2 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  GarryB Wed Jul 03, 2013 3:18 am

    Take the third stage of all of the US ICBMs and they are illegal IRBMs too... the sky is falling the sky is falling.

    Besides I suspect the action Russia should take is hunt through its intel services and find out who might have been a whistle blower and arrest them and put them in jail for revealing this secret that is harmful to Russia... Twisted Evil 
    Viktor
    Viktor


    Posts : 5796
    Points : 6429
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 43
    Location : Croatia

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 2 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Viktor Sat Jul 06, 2013 2:11 am

    This is why US belives new ICBM is actually IRBM

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 2 22kl02

    LINK

    On the other hand Dimi on his blog writes that this truck might be the new carrier of IRBM Frontier

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 2 14j3mu8

    LINK

    8 x 8 wheels - ICBM (Topol/Topol-M)
    6 x 6 wheels - IRBM (Frontier ??)
    4 x 4 wheels - SRBM (Iskander)
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38765
    Points : 39261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 2 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  GarryB Sat Jul 06, 2013 10:34 am

    8 x 8 wheels - ICBM (Topol/Topol-M)
    6 x 6 wheels - IRBM (Frontier ??)
    4 x 4 wheels - SRBM (Iskander)

    Topol is 16 x 16.
    The photo above shows the Frontier is at least 12 x X probably 12 x 12.

    And Iskander is 8 x 8.

    Note the number x number description of a vehicle says how many wheels the vehicle has (the first number) and how many of those wheels are powered (the second number).

    So a normal car is generally a 4 x 2 with 4 wheels and the two front wheels or two back wheels powered. A 4 wheel drive car like a Jeep is a 4 x 4.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38765
    Points : 39261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 2 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  GarryB Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:03 am

    Should point out that the biggest factor regarding the US ABM system in Europe will be the Russian Naval introduction of the UKSK launchers on all their new vessels as the number and type of land attack cruise missiles the Russians will field will grow exponentially over the next decade or so.
    avatar
    Mindstorm


    Posts : 1133
    Points : 1298
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 2 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Mindstorm Sat Jul 06, 2013 3:29 pm



    ................number and type of land attack cruise missiles the Russians will field will grow exponentially over the next decade or so.



    No statement was more on the mark.


    http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20130705/182076980/Russia-to-Field-30-Times-More-Cruise-Missiles-by-2020.html
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38765
    Points : 39261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 2 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  GarryB Sun Jul 07, 2013 11:48 am

    And what is critical is that like the ABM system by 2020 the missiles being fitted to those tubes could be rather different from the missiles they could fit today... including hypersonic...
    Admin
    Admin


    Posts : 2926
    Points : 3798
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 2 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Admin Sun Jul 07, 2013 7:55 pm

    Europe is no longer a threat so that is not needed. The real threat is China where it could see use. Half the population is within range of this weapons class, so we could focus most ICBM on the US and IRBM on China.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38765
    Points : 39261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 2 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  GarryB Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:49 am

    Europe continues to act against Russia and treat Russia like an enemy... having weapons pointed at them will continue to be useful for Russia till that changes.

    China is no more a threat than it ever was IMHO... a war against Russia would be a US wet dream and they would love to see it happen because it would remove two serious problems from their little problem book in one stroke... the amusing question is which horse would the US back in such a conflict?

    There would be benefits to backing both sides... they traditionally back anyone against Russia including Afghans and Al Quada, but in this case China is probably the biggest economic threat to the US and backing Russia against China would be a good way to cancel all their debt owned by China and move western companies back to the US to get their economy going again.

    Of course a snake might change its skin but it is still a snake and would naturally back anyone that is fighting Russia.
    Viktor
    Viktor


    Posts : 5796
    Points : 6429
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 43
    Location : Croatia

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 2 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Viktor Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:54 pm

    Very interesting text and point of vieew

    Does Russia need medium-range missiles
    Viktor
    Viktor


    Posts : 5796
    Points : 6429
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 43
    Location : Croatia

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 2 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Viktor Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:38 am

    President Putin ends Russia/NATO ABM cooperation
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8


    Posts : 2447
    Points : 2438
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 2 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  AlfaT8 Thu Dec 26, 2013 3:19 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    GarryB wrote:They are looking at using trains because the problems for the US in finding specific trains on specific lines would be incredibly difficult as there will be tens of millions of train carriages they would have to examine to keep a track of them all and those train carriages will be moving constantly.

    In comparison fixed silos, fixed strategic bomber air fields, and fixed submarine bases and fixed bases for truck based missiles would be much easier to monitor.

    Later they should withdraw from the INF treaty and fit long range cruise missiles and theatre range ballistic missiles in standard shipping crates as carried in enormous numbers on ships, trucks and trains....

    IMO this may sound controversial but Russia should withdraw from virtually all nuclear treaties due to the fact that NATO is an aggressive force that makes up not just 1 nuclear power (America), but 3 including Britain and France. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the INF treaty doesn't apply to France or Britain, and Russia's long term nuclear ally "India" has been passive in the ABM mess. If the INF treaties do not cover all of NATO than it's a waste of time to sign in to it, and the only nuclear ally of Russia that has stepped up to take the plate and voice concern and protest against NATO's expansion of ABM bases has been China.

    Agreed, the INF treaty is pretty much useless for Russia and in some respects puts there national security at risk, i don't believe they should leave all nuclear treaties for relatively obvious reasons, but instead they should withdraw from those that are counter productive or irrelevant in todays world like the INF treaty.

    Also the range restriction on exported missiles (~300km) isn't going to save any country from a US, UK, French or hell NATO led assault, if the US can't export missiles over 300km then they'll (the US) just let the UK or France export it instead, the treaty has already been bypassed and only serves to assist the west in there expansion, it would be in Russia's best interest and that of its allies/costumers to leave the INF treaty.

    As  for the US global ABM shield we can only hope that this won't end up like the END WAR scenario as foreseen by the now late Tom Clancy.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon


    Posts : 8138
    Points : 8273
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 2 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  magnumcromagnon Thu Dec 26, 2013 7:32 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    GarryB wrote:They are looking at using trains because the problems for the US in finding specific trains on specific lines would be incredibly difficult as there will be tens of millions of train carriages they would have to examine to keep a track of them all and those train carriages will be moving constantly.

    In comparison fixed silos, fixed strategic bomber air fields, and fixed submarine bases and fixed bases for truck based missiles would be much easier to monitor.

    Later they should withdraw from the INF treaty and fit long range cruise missiles and theatre range ballistic missiles in standard shipping crates as carried in enormous numbers on ships, trucks and trains....

    IMO this may sound controversial but Russia should withdraw from virtually all nuclear treaties due to the fact that NATO is an aggressive force that makes up not just 1 nuclear power (America), but 3 including Britain and France. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the INF treaty doesn't apply to France or Britain, and Russia's long term nuclear ally "India" has been passive in the ABM mess. If the INF treaties do not cover all of NATO than it's a waste of time to sign in to it, and the only nuclear ally of Russia that has stepped up to take the plate and voice concern and protest against NATO's expansion of ABM bases has been China.

    Agreed, the INF treaty is pretty much useless for Russia and in some respects puts there national security at risk, i don't believe they should leave all nuclear treaties for relatively obvious reasons, but instead they should withdraw from those that are counter productive or irrelevant in todays world like the INF treaty.

    Also the range restriction on exported missiles (~300km) isn't going to save any country from a US, UK, French or hell NATO led assault, if the US can't export missiles over 300km then they'll (the US) just let the UK or France export it instead, the treaty has already been bypassed and only serves to assist the west in there expansion, it would be in Russia's best interest and that of its allies/costumers to leave the INF treaty.

    As  for the US global ABM shield we can only hope that this won't end up like the END WAR scenario as foreseen by the now late Tom Clancy.

    May'be Russia should stay in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, but then pull out of all INF treaties due to the fact the only NATO nuclear member affected by it is America, while Britain and France will not be affected at all.

    Sponsored content


    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 2 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:00 pm