Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Share

    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1558
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

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

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Jun 06, 2015 12:43 am

    sepheronx wrote:

    Then more cruise missiles are needed as those ABM's cannot deal with Cruise missiles.  At the same time, more S-300V4's, S-400s and S-500's eventually to help protect Russia from NATO Missiles.  At same time, striking hard and lots at military instillations that would be protecting ABM sites would be needed, so missiles like cruise missiles would be enough, especially with modern high explosive warheads.  Hopefully systems much like Iskander but carrying more than 4 or 6 Klub missiles could be considered to strike the positions.  Having enough of them with the ability to work remotely, I would say would give Russia the benefit of being able to strike very hard.  Since they would be based within the country or Kaliningrad, they could effectively strike at any country in eastern Europe, that would be basing these ABM sites and missiles sites.  Poland for example.  In Crimea, they would be able to strike Romania quite easily.

    As well, hopefully Russia goes for non nuclear based ICBM systems carrying special type of warheads of heavy high explosives to be able to build them, store them and use them much cheaper than nuclear.

    Cruise missiles to hit ABM make little sense - US nuke salvo is already half way to Russia and you prey so at lease one club hits ABM?

    I strongly believe that multi warhead IRBM/MRBM/SRBM flying on non ballistic trajectory with maneuvering warheads is bet option. Fast delivery (iskander 8-9 Ma vs 0,9 Ma Klub) makes it weapon of choice.

    And yes Russia must watch also budget but I am pretty sure that Rubezh is modular and Iskander had in construction phase option to grow on steroids Smile


    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

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

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Jun 06, 2015 1:10 am

    The crucial point here is really that Russia is so lazy and so careful or maybe hesitating with reactions. It is bound to have a limited amount of Cruise Missiles, IRBM's and Tactical Nukes. This limitation makes the entire situation and plan or lets call it for what it is Operation Unthinkable, a numbers game. Lets be very generous to NATO's ABM and Anti-Aircraft capabilities. Let us awesome the US has made its preperations since years and have build up entire ABM shield in sufficient numbers (sufficient numbers i will come to that), let us be another time generous of the capability of those SAM's and ABM shields against IRBM and Cruise Missiles is good enough to be almost immune to older generations without advanced ECM and flight trajectory changing to avoid interception. MEaning...they have planned the attack for decades, all their Meatshields are on alert and ready, the US initiates its proxy move and at some point, unlikely to be early from the start of the hot war, russia will have to respond, it will fight for quite some time this proxy war (ukraine) is first wave and 2nd wave will be poles looking at their political sphere and russian hatred, so after some years of slow depleting proxy war, Russia with an unknown leader will have enough of this shit and do what they would do in such situation, trying to overcome ABM shields in europe and trying to destroy key points of logistics which are concentrated almost only in Germany. Germany strategically is absolutley crucial and important for both sides, Projection over Europe of west and east goes always through Germany it was like that during 18th century it is the same case in 20th and 21ct century. So losing entire germany for russia is not an option. They will rely on strategy of defeating ABM shields and logistical key points in Europe and essentially germany.

    Some numbers before here have been posted of the IRBM and ICBM's in russian inventory, for this kind of operation we can only suggest IRBM's and Cruise Missiles. Right now there is only one type of IRBM useful to overcome ABM and SAM without first dealing with ABM/SAM itself that would be Iskander-M which can change its flight trajectory, the rest of the current in active service missiles have no such feature, so giving the american Euromeatshield generoustiy to defeat any other type of missile would leave Russia with less then 100 IRBM's for this job. Statistically speaking this ABM shields can indeed cripple russia to such an extent it would need to rely on ICBM use in Europe against countries which are not possible to lose for short nor long term future. Nuking military assets is one thing, using Strategic weapons there were designed to be used against US is a total different thing, that will only bring more russophobia to europe and it would defeat its own future with Germany, since the greatest threat to the US is not China and Russia united but Germany and Russia united. The projection of political and economical power of these so called 1st World is Germany, call it indoctrination, call it self-evident century old perception whatever, that are the circumstances.

    I guess it was franco who has posted a short list of Russias inventory of ICBM's, IRBM's /SSBM's and Cruise Missiles and the numbers of advanced BM's is very short, short enough to deal even with a backwarded ABM and SAM sytems like the Americans.

    If franco could provide again the numbers, we could see it even clearer what i mean. One of those numbers was just as 88 high of advanced Ballistic Missiles. So if this circumstances and reluctant reaction of russia stays the same with the same low numberes of advanced IRBM's,ICBM's, SSBM's and Cruise Missiles then it will end in a totalitarian war and exchange of ICBM's or a decade long war with only one benefiter, once again...

    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1558
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

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

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Jun 06, 2015 2:32 am

    There will be no winner in 3rd world war except cockroaches I am afraid. But there is also good news. As long as MAD is in place no major war can take place. In case of total war bombing Germany or other countries do not matter. That´s why US wants to scale down Russia´s nuclear arsenal and use combination PGS/ABM and possibly bio-warfare (guess why Russia has put so much effort in Ebola vaccine?) to disarm Russia. The only way I can see in military dimension is to build up nuclear deterrent.

    - large numbers of relatively cheap, nuclear capable missiles flying at non ballistic trajectories with maneuvering warheads (say either Iskander on steroids 1000-1500km Romania and Poland till Germany in reach) or modular system like Rubezh with scaled down range (till Cabo de Roca) and as many as to making EU part of MAD.

    - build up hypersonic missiles with if not global then continental reach (EU ABM and US fleet with ABM)

    - return to FOBS concept with Sarmat instead of Voevoda
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System

    - increase investments into info warfare (RT on steroids suporting local civil rights and ethic divisions in West:)

    - invest in Sarmats to ensure erasing US from map just in case

    About Russofobia I would not care so much, as hate propaganda is controlled by corpo news form one place. Then EU citizens would still have little chance to vote for different govts... to avoid Armageddon. Besides ere RT is best weapon.

    I am not sure if before financial collapse of US all this can be implemented. Surging wave of hatery in US led media is best proof that collapse is closer and closer

    http://www.usdebtclock.org

    officially 61 trillion USD. They cannot and will not pay back. EU is not worse really . Money after looting Eastern Europe run out...that´s why IMHO Uncle Pu is spending so heavily on rearmament programme. the only thing that keeps bandits at bay.

    As for Germany, with all my sympathy to Germans they are no match to power of Asia. Germans under US occupation 70 yrs ar on suicide course where Germans are being replaced by non-integrable immigrants who seem hate local culture and traditions. Besides Germany is way to small market to live only form Russia an German but China itself is enough not to mention India/Iran or Latin America. west in not really needed in this equation.

    China is partner not to be replaced for foreseeable future ideally when Iran and India join the club.










    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

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

    Post  sepheronx on Sat Jun 06, 2015 5:53 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:

    Then more cruise missiles are needed as those ABM's cannot deal with Cruise missiles.  At the same time, more S-300V4's, S-400s and S-500's eventually to help protect Russia from NATO Missiles.  At same time, striking hard and lots at military instillations that would be protecting ABM sites would be needed, so missiles like cruise missiles would be enough, especially with modern high explosive warheads.  Hopefully systems much like Iskander but carrying more than 4 or 6 Klub missiles could be considered to strike the positions.  Having enough of them with the ability to work remotely, I would say would give Russia the benefit of being able to strike very hard.  Since they would be based within the country or Kaliningrad, they could effectively strike at any country in eastern Europe, that would be basing these ABM sites and missiles sites.  Poland for example.  In Crimea, they would be able to strike Romania quite easily.

    As well, hopefully Russia goes for non nuclear based ICBM systems carrying special type of warheads of heavy high explosives to be able to build them, store them and use them much cheaper than nuclear.

    Cruise missiles to hit ABM make little sense - US nuke salvo is already half way to Russia and you prey so at lease one club hits ABM?

    I strongly believe that multi warhead IRBM/MRBM/SRBM flying on non ballistic trajectory with maneuvering warheads is bet option. Fast delivery (iskander 8-9 Ma vs  0,9 Ma Klub)  makes it weapon of choice.

    And yes Russia must watch also budget but I am pretty sure that Rubezh is modular and Iskander had in construction phase option to grow on steroids Smile


    Gunship

    ABM's cannot counter cruise missiles or at least not effectively as ABM systems fly at a very high altitude but not low altitude.  Cruise missiles fly at a low altitude.  They are cheap too, and would be able to build enough in shorter time period than a BM.  That is why Russia is investing in new anti radiation cruise missiles.  Kh-58 I believe is the model.

    US ABM system isn't going to be deployed in large numbers, and even if they do, it wont be effective anyway.  Especially if the BM in Russia are located far away anyway.  Iskanders is ideal but they lack the range at the moment.  And if in case the INF treaty does go bunk, they will most likely invest far more money in Iskanders and advancing them with much longer ranges.

    ICBM's are Russias main deterrent.  And if Russia gets a glimps that US launches their BM (Which they will detect as soon as they are launched) they will launch theirs and no ABM system will protect them 100%.  So yeah.

    Cruise missiles are actually a major threat to most countries and only few have abilities to counter them, Russia being one of them.  So yeah.  And that is the other thing, the US will have their (which will be Tomohawks of course), and Pantsir's and Tor's will be stationed to deal with them.  They may not be able to deal with a swarm of it, but that goes for US systems as well.

    Let us also add, they can overwhelm the systems at time they launch their ICBM's as well.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

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

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Jun 06, 2015 7:49 am

    sepheronx wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:

    Then more cruise missiles are needed as those ABM's cannot deal with Cruise missiles.  At the same time, more S-300V4's, S-400s and S-500's eventually to help protect Russia from NATO Missiles.  At same time, striking hard and lots at military instillations that would be protecting ABM sites would be needed, so missiles like cruise missiles would be enough, especially with modern high explosive warheads.  Hopefully systems much like Iskander but carrying more than 4 or 6 Klub missiles could be considered to strike the positions.  Having enough of them with the ability to work remotely, I would say would give Russia the benefit of being able to strike very hard.  Since they would be based within the country or Kaliningrad, they could effectively strike at any country in eastern Europe, that would be basing these ABM sites and missiles sites.  Poland for example.  In Crimea, they would be able to strike Romania quite easily.

    As well, hopefully Russia goes for non nuclear based ICBM systems carrying special type of warheads of heavy high explosives to be able to build them, store them and use them much cheaper than nuclear.

    Cruise missiles to hit ABM make little sense - US nuke salvo is already half way to Russia and you prey so at lease one club hits ABM?

    I strongly believe that multi warhead IRBM/MRBM/SRBM flying on non ballistic trajectory with maneuvering warheads is bet option. Fast delivery (iskander 8-9 Ma vs  0,9 Ma Klub)  makes it weapon of choice.

    And yes Russia must watch also budget but I am pretty sure that Rubezh is modular and Iskander had in construction phase option to grow on steroids Smile


    Gunship

    ABM's cannot counter cruise missiles or at least not effectively as ABM systems fly at a very high altitude but not low altitude.  Cruise missiles fly at a low altitude.  They are cheap too, and would be able to build enough in shorter time period than a BM.  That is why Russia is investing in new anti radiation cruise missiles.  Kh-58 I believe is the model.

    US ABM system isn't going to be deployed in large numbers, and even if they do, it wont be effective anyway.  Especially if the BM in Russia are located far away anyway.  Iskanders is ideal but they lack the range at the moment.  And if in case the INF treaty does go bunk, they will most likely invest far more money in Iskanders and advancing them with much longer ranges.

    ICBM's are Russias main deterrent.  And if Russia gets a glimps that US launches their BM (Which they will detect as soon as they are launched) they will launch theirs and no ABM system will protect them 100%.  So yeah.

    Cruise missiles are actually a major threat to most countries and only few have abilities to counter them, Russia being one of them.  So yeah.  And that is the other thing, the US will have their (which will be Tomohawks of course), and Pantsir's and Tor's will be stationed to deal with them.  They may not be able to deal with a swarm of it, but that goes for US systems as well.

    Let us also add, they can overwhelm the systems at time they launch their ICBM's as well.

    It should also be noted (and GarryB can back me up on this) that Russian manpad's such as Igla-S, and soon to be unveiled June 15-16 at 'Army-2015', the next gen manpad 'Verba', are capable of destroying low flying cruise missiles (like the ones the US will redeploy to Europe), and that Russia also developed (I posted Rostec articles on this development) low-horizon radars (such as 'Outpost') that have signal processing that are capable of tracking 50 low-flying targets at a time, at 20 km distance, and only needs a minimum of 30 centimeters to differentiate between two low flying targets, that are likely capable of being integrated in to manpad teams:

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t2547p210-russian-radar-systems#69712

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

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

    Post  max steel on Sat Jun 06, 2015 8:24 am

    1) what all low flying cruise missile usa posses except tomahawk ?
     

    2) If usa is deploying them in europe then why cant ruussia deploy it in cuba ? lacking balls perhaps .

    3) Does US posses igla , verba like manpad ? can you compare the efficiency of both rus and usa manpads .

    Cucumber Khan
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 84
    Points : 85
    Join date : 2015-04-12

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

    Post  Cucumber Khan on Sat Jun 06, 2015 9:31 am

    max steel wrote:2) If usa is deploying them in europe then why cant ruussia deploy it in cuba ? lacking balls perhaps .

    Well, there is something called the "host country". Contrary to what some people think, Russia can't just place nuclear weapons in this country or a Tu-22M3 regiment in that country unilaterally. They need to get consent first. And that will not be easily had. Do Cuba even want to host nuclear weapons when they are working on developing better relations with the US? Not to mention Russias pretty strongly expressed demand that nuclear weapons should only be deployed in their own countries.

    "Lack of balls" has little to do with it. Too much balls and you risk having them cut off and stuffed in your mouth...

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

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

    Post  max steel on Sat Jun 06, 2015 10:11 am

    Cucumber Khan wrote:

    Well, there is something called the "host country". Contrary to what some people think, Russia can't just place nuclear weapons in this country or a Tu-22M3 regiment in that country unilaterally. They need to get consent first. And that will not be easily had. Do Cuba even want to host nuclear weapons when they are working on developing better relations with the US? Not to mention Russias pretty strongly expressed demand that nuclear weapons should only be deployed in their own countries.




    US, Cuba Will Take a Long Time to Normalize Ties . Not until THEY return G'bay . If US deploys missile in Europe ( because europe is a prey and usa is host ) russia has right to retaliate and it can place missiles in cuba with cuban govt consent only . They didn't park nukes in cuba unilaterally in 1960s , it was done after taking their consent .


    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1558
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

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

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Jun 06, 2015 10:22 am

    max steel wrote:
    US, Cuba Will Take a Long Time to Normalize Ties . Not until THEY return G'bay . If US deploys missile in Europe ( because europe is a prey and usa is host ) russia has right to retaliate and it can place missiles in cuba with cuban govt consent only . They didn't park nukes in cuba unilaterally in 1960s , it was  done after taking their consent .


    So far Nicaragua agreed to hosts Russian military and Chinese canal a bit longer distance than Cuba (to Florida in virtually no time for Clubs or Iskanders) Smile

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

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

    Post  max steel on Sat Jun 06, 2015 10:59 am

    RUSSIAN SPY BASES IN CUBA ARE ACTIVE ALREADY .

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 06, 2015 12:17 pm

    Regarding Igla vs cruise missiles the critical thing would be warning... with enough warning they should be effective.

    Note that they tested Igla against Malyutka (AT-3) ATGMs which are tiny missies and the results showed that of 9 attempts to engage 5 direct hits were achieved, which is impressive with such a small target. Of course that means that 4 out of 9 times the missile missed and because it does not have a proximity fuse then there was no interception.

    To correct this problem they developed the Igla-S which adds a proximity fuse, which one would assume would mean 9 out of 9 interceptions for small targets at low altitude.

    Verba presumably also has a proximity fuse so would also be very effective at shooting down small targets like cruise missiles with the appropriate warning... which would be provided by new radar and IADS.


    _________________
    “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

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

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

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Jun 06, 2015 6:59 pm

    Cucumber Khan wrote:
    max steel wrote:2) If usa is deploying them in europe then why cant ruussia deploy it in cuba ? lacking balls perhaps .

    Well, there is something called the "host country". Contrary to what some people think, Russia can't just place nuclear weapons in this country or a Tu-22M3 regiment in that country unilaterally. They need to get consent first. And that will not be easily had. Do Cuba even want to host nuclear weapons when they are working on developing better relations with the US? Not to mention Russias pretty strongly expressed demand that nuclear weapons should only be deployed in their own countries.

    "Lack of balls" has little to do with it. Too much balls and you risk having them cut off and stuffed in your mouth...

    Your exaggerating the reconciliation of US/Cuba relations, the US still refuses to return Guantanamo Bay back to Cuba (it turns out the US is o.k. with annexation of land, if they're doing the annexation lol1 ), in fact the whole reconciliation of relations smells incredibly fishy. Both the reconciliation and the first talks of US vacating the INF treaty happened within weeks of each other, no mere coincidence there, it's pretty obvious what the true goal is. I find it funny that you consider a 'carrot-on-a-stick' such as the U.S./Cuba reconciliation to be a huge deal, but not Russia possibly turning off the gas supplies to Europe if they harbor offensive nuclear weapons against them, or Russia declaring a 'debt payment moratorium' (maybe even supporting other European countries to follow) on European banks. Those are two options Russia could pull that would hold more gravitas than the 'carrot-on-a-stick' that the U.S. is offering to Cuba.

    Russia doesn't actually have to place any missiles in Cuba, they could just as easily place strategic jamming/ECM complexes such as 'Murmansk-BN' which is ridiculously powerful with a 5000 km range (covering a radius of 10,000 km's), in fact so powerful that it can jam/spoof any system in any part of the continental U.S.

    BTW Russia has options outside of Cuba, they have Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Ecuador, all countries with very hostile anti-American leadership/govts. So theoretically speaking Russia could place thermonuclear cruise missiles, IRBM's in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, and Murmansk-BN's strategic ECM systems in Cuba, where the strategic ECM systems jam/spoof radars, SAM's, ABM's in U.S. territory (and in the Gulf of Mexico), while the cruise missiles and IRBM's are attacking from South America.

    P.S. the quickest way for Russia to change it's attitudes and positions on nuclear weapons is for the U.S. to abruptly abandon a 'strategic' treaty, such as the ABM treaty for example.

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

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

    Post  max steel on Sat Jun 06, 2015 7:48 pm

    btw do us posses murmansk alike EW/ECM system ? they can deploy it in latvia or estonia isnt it ?

    Do americans work indigenously on their EW/ECM systems ? never heard much about yankees making revolution in EW field with new weapons jammers etc .

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

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

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Jun 06, 2015 7:57 pm

    max steel wrote:btw do us posses murmansk alike EW/ECM system ? they can deploy it in latvia or estonia isnt it ?

    Do americans work indigenously on their EW/ECM systems ? never heard much about yankees making revolution in EW field with new weapons jammers etc .

    Murmansk-BN is a one of kind of system, and the field of ECM/ECCM is actually a field Russia leads the world in, which is no surprise considering that Russia had a several decades head-start in the field, over any other country for that matter. The earliest account of ECM tactics being employed in war was in 1904, Russo-Japanese war, the 'Defense of Port Arthur' where the Russians first demonstrated such ECM tactics:




    ...So basically the Russian military invented ECM warfare back in 1904.

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

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

    Post  max steel on Sat Jun 06, 2015 8:04 pm

    and what about usa ew capabilities ? except neutron bomb do they have khilbiny murmansk etc etc like stuff ?

    their naval hornets posses jamming pods . other than yanks i guess israeli are good in ew systems . s-300 primitive model jamming in syria was a great move .

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

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

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Jun 06, 2015 8:22 pm

    max steel wrote:and what about usa ew capabilities ? except neutron bomb do they have khilbiny murmansk etc etc like stuff ?

    their naval hornets posses jamming pods . other than yanks i guess israeli are good in ew systems . s-300 primitive model jamming in syria was a great move .

    That never happened, and the S-300's were never delivered to Syria...in fact if you want to see how effective Israeli ECM systems are, then look no further than when Bibi Nitwit-yahoo took a emergency trip to Moscow to beg Putin not to sell S-300's to Syria, the same ones he claimed could be easily defeated by Israeli ECM, and let's not forget the NATO exercises with Slovakians and their antiquated S-300 PMU's, in which NATO forces struggled (even in ideal conditions) to jam and spoof a living fossil of a system (and export version in fact) from the 1980's.

    The US MIC excels at 'power-projection' whether it be with tactical and strategic airlift, or with megacarriers, but has been falling behind the past few decades in fields such as SAM's, and ECM equipment. Almost all the US ECM equipment are fighter-plane based.

    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1558
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

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

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Jun 06, 2015 8:34 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote: That never happened, and the S-300's were never delivered to Syria...in fact if you want to see how effective Israeli ECM systems are, then look no further than when Bibi Nitwit-yahoo took a emergency trip to Moscow to beg Putin not to sell S-300's to Syria, the same ones he claimed could be easily defeated by Israeli ECM, and let's not forget the NATO exercises with Slovakians and their antiquated S-300 PMU's, in which NATO forces struggled (even in ideal conditions) to jam and spoof a living fossil of a system (and export version in fact) from the 1980's.

    The US MIC excels at 'power-projection' whether it be with tactical and strategic airlift, or with megacarriers, but has been falling behind the past few decades in fields such as SAM's, and ECM equipment. Almost all the US ECM equipment are fighter-plane based.

    What ECM do you need when bombing civilian Bedouins? To jam their radios so no music is in Oasis? Twisted Evil
    BTW If S-300 is soo bad what was problems with Iran Smile

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9443
    Points : 9935
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

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

    Post  George1 on Tue Jun 09, 2015 12:09 pm

    Russian Defense Ministry asks Pentagon for explanations over Dempsey’s statements

    Deployment of cruise and ballistic missiles in Europe and Asia would be tantamount to the United States’ walkout from the INF treaty

    MOSCOW, June 9. /TASS/. The Russian Defense Ministry has requested explanations from the Pentagon over recent statements by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, to the effect the United States might deploy in Europe and Asia its cruise and ballistic missiles that might be targeted against Russia, Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said.

    "The Russian Defense Ministry is conducting scrupulous analysis of information regarding compliance with the INF treaty coming from different sources. Certainly, we took note of these publications in the Western press. In order to obtain official reaction from the American side we have dispatched a request through military-diplomatic channels for explanations of the Pentagon’s positions regarding statements reportedly made by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey.

    "The measures mentioned by US sources would be tantamount to the United States’ walkout from the INF treaty," he added.

    According to last week's reports by Associated Press quoting unclassified extracts from a report by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey the deployment in Europe or Asia of ground-based missiles targeted at Russia’s nuclear potential was one of the likely responses to Russia’s alleged failure to fully comply with the INF treaty of 1987.

    Moscow has repeatedly dismissed all US charges it had breached the terms of the INF treaty.

    The head of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s non-proliferation and arms control department, Mikhail Ulyanov, described Washington’s claims as groundless.

    "The United States refuses to provide facts to back up the charges. Or, which is more likely, it is unable to do that. One has the impression that the real aim is to discredit Russia and to make it look like a state that violates its international obligations," Ulyanov said.

    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1558
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

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

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Jun 10, 2015 2:26 pm

    The Ministry of defense is developing a new operational-tactical complex so 1000km class SRBM?

    http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20150610/1069233228.html

    The principles laid out in the operational-tactical complex "Oka", determined the path of development of individual weapons systems, told reporters on Wednesday, Deputy defense Minister Yuri Borisov.

    MOSCOW, 10 Jun — RIA Novosti. The reconstruction of operational-tactical complex "Oka" is not planned, on his shift, told reporters on Wednesday, Deputy defense Minister Yuri Borisov.

    "Why recreate the old one? We're already doing new. The principles laid down in the "Oka", determined the path of development of individual weapons systems," said Borisov during the opening ceremony in Moscow the memorial in honor of the legendary designer managed missile Sergey Invincible.

    "Technology can improve the performance, range and accuracy, combat effectiveness," added Borisov.


    I wonder why they talked about technical OKA is Iskander exists? maybe that´s why
    In the early 2000s, experts BGTU "Voenmech" suggested the use of missiles, "Oka" for use as a life-saving support. The payload of the rocket can reach 230 kg at a distance of 840 km with an average flight time of 410 seconds.

    http://bastion-karpenko.narod.ru/Oka.html


    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9443
    Points : 9935
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

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

    Post  George1 on Thu Jun 11, 2015 2:16 pm

    Russia warns US against jeopardizing viability of INF treaty — Foreign Ministry

    The Foreign Ministry said of great concern in the INF context were "the United States’ plans for deploying in Romania and Poland vertical launching systems"

    MOSCOW, June 11. /TASS/. The United States has addressed Russia with a fresh portion of groundless charges it is ostensibly in breach of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force (INF) treaty, the Russian Foreign Ministry said on Thursday about the latest US Department of State report regarding the observance of arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament commitments.

    The Foreign Ministry said of great concern in the INF context were "the United States’ plans for deploying in Romania and Poland vertical launching systems capable, according to our estimates, of firing Standard-3 interceptor missiles and medium-range cruise missiles Tomahawk."

    "Their deployment will be a direct violation of the INF treaty," the Foreign Ministry said.

    "Also, certain questions arise why in testing its missile defence weapons the United States uses targets having parameters similar to those of intermediate and shorter range missiles. There are reasons to believe that in this way the United States may be testing a number of aspects of production and combat use of prohibited ballistic missiles," the Foreign Ministry said.

    It drew attention to the fact that the attack drones the United States has manufactured for years fall under the INF Treaty’s definition of ground-based cruise missiles, in particular, in view of the specified understanding of the term ‘delivery vehicle’ formalized in the notes the Soviet and US governments exchanged on May 132, 1988.

    "Quite noteworthy are statements by Pentagon officials to the effect the United States has been considering options of a military response to Russian ‘violations’, including the possibility of deploying near our borders the intermediate and shorter range missiles outlawed under the INF treaty," the Foreign Ministry said. "It is clear that such action would be tantamount to complete destruction by the United States of the INF treaty’s regimen with all the ensuing consequences.".

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

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

    Post  max steel on Thu Jun 11, 2015 2:45 pm

    US has deployed SM-3 Interceptors in Romania already . i saw the pictures you posted few days back . So what is Russia waiting for ? muricans crusaders are not interested in solving this issue amicably .

    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1558
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

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

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 3:05 pm

    max steel wrote:US has deployed SM-3 Interceptors in Romania already . i saw the pictures you posted few days back . So what is Russia waiting for ? muricans crusaders are not interested in solving this issue amicably .

    nope, Iskander-M new missile, OKA technology to create NEW tactical missile. So there are IMHO serious design work on SRBM or even IRBMs. Maybe really ¨short¨ Rubezh can be IRBM. Question how much cheaper it can be.

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

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

    Post  max steel on Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:40 pm

    As I understand, the U.S. goal is just the opposite - keep Russia from leaving the treaty. I don't think there should be any doubt that the violation is real (although it seems to be very minor), but now that there is a claim of noncompliance, it's very difficult for Russia to withdraw. Unless it can demonstrate that it is indeed in good standing. But by not releasing any details about the issue, the U.S. makes Russia's defense quite complicated.


    Aegis Ashore is most likely a violation of the treaty , since it is an exact copy of the Mk 41 VLS, which has been used previously to launch Tomahawk ASCM (a version of Gryphon GLCM) . Also, Russia is arguing that deployment of Mk-41 launchers as part of the missile defense sites in Poland and Romania would violate the treaty. This case is not quite clear cut, but Russia seems to have a point. Mad

    The Mk-41 Vertical Launch System is capable of launching a range of missiles, including Tomahawk SLCM. There is nothing wrong with that - the INF Treaty does not limit SLCMs and, indeed, allows testing SLCMs from a ground-based launcher as long as this launcher is fixed and located at a designated test site. Unless the United States tested a GLCM from an Mk-41, these launchers are not considered GLCM launchers for the purposes of the INF treaty and, strictly speaking, the treaty does not limit them in any way. But deploying these launchers on land does seem to go against the spirit of the treaty - deployment of a bunch of SLCM launchers on land would be a way to deploy a bunch of GLCMs. And yes, fixed launchers are GLCM launchers in the INF Treaty (Article II.4):

    The term "GLCM launcher" means a fixed launcher or a mobile land-based transporter-erector-launcher mechanism for launching a GLCM.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 6085
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    INF Treaty

    Post  Austin on Sat Jul 18, 2015 12:23 pm

    Pavel write up on INF verification issue between Russia and US , Interestingly he fills the article with US POV and how reveling any information will revel US Sources etc but he does not put Russia concern on using Launchers as part of ABM deployment in Europe ......but neverthless interesting article

    Sorting fact from fiction on Russian missile claims

    nastle77
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 137
    Points : 179
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    SS-20 Saber in 1990

    Post  nastle77 on Sun Aug 02, 2015 12:10 am

    The intermediate range missile was to be destroyed according to the 1987 treaty but the Military balance 1990 still lists 174 of these missiles operational then

    SO was this missile just withdrawn gradually from 1987 onward or did all of them were disarmed overnight as soon as the treaty was signed ?

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 9:07 pm


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:07 pm