Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Share
    avatar
    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1233
    Points : 1242
    Join date : 2013-02-02

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

    Post  AlfaT8 on Fri Feb 26, 2016 3:24 pm

    max steel wrote:Russia Developes INF Treaty-Breaking Cruise Missile - US Intelligence Chief

    Russia has developed a new ground-launched cruise missile that breaks the 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the House of Representatives Permanent Select Intelligence Committee on Thursday.

    Clapper reiterated a claim he previously made in earlier testimony to Congress on February 9.In that earlier testimony, Clapper acknowledged that Russia had denied it was violating the INF Treaty.

    Pray tell, what is this new missile he's referring to, Zircon is the only new one that i am aware of.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16107
    Points : 16798
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 27, 2016 5:37 am

    Probably thinking they are making a land based Kalibr with a range of 1,500 - 3,000km Plus for the land based launcher


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2799
    Points : 2930
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs on Mon Feb 29, 2016 11:26 pm

    Yankee turdlets better be careful trying to smear Russia with their retarded lies. A nuclear free for all does not
    guarantee Yankee turdlet success. In fact, they can find themselves f*cked six ways to Sunday.

    Really, Americans have too many delusions about the Cold War with the USSR. Military spending is not what "brought
    down the evil empire". America itself relies on GDP stimulus generated by military spending. The command economy GDP
    experiences a similar stimulus but does not require vast sums of money since money does not function the same
    way as in a capitalist economy. Negative impacts are diversion of resources away from consumer production, but
    this was not a serious problem for the USSR. Serious problems were cases such as whole trainloads of produce
    left to rot in marshalling yards (I know one such case from personal family experience). Clearly such negligence
    transcends any particular focus of the economy. The USSR imploded out of long term social processes that had
    zero to do with military production.

    So Yankee turdlets should not expect Russia to go under from a buildup of various classes of nuclear missiles and
    ABM systems. It is also cheaper to deploy nuclear ICBMs than it is to deploy a dozen tanks which have vastly less
    deterrent potency.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6023
    Points : 6435
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Wed Mar 02, 2016 5:58 am

    max steel wrote:Russia Developes INF Treaty-Breaking Cruise Missile - US Intelligence Chief

    Russia has developed a new ground-launched cruise missile that breaks the 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the House of Representatives Permanent Select Intelligence Committee on Thursday.

    Clapper reiterated a claim he previously made in earlier testimony to Congress on February 9.In that earlier testimony, Clapper acknowledged that Russia had denied it was violating the INF Treaty.



    They are making this claim for long time and Russian POV is they are not doing that and US needs to back up its claim with evidence.

    US says its depending on some source/spy information inside the system and disclosing evidence would put him in danger

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6023
    Points : 6435
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Sat Mar 26, 2016 7:04 am

    Good Read


    Kalibr: Savior of INF Treaty?

    http://fas.org/blogs/security/2015/12/kalibr/
    avatar
    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3015
    Points : 3049
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

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

    Post  max steel on Sat Apr 02, 2016 8:37 am

    America’s Working on Its Next Nuclear Deal


    The Obama Administration wants to alter a plutonium-disposal pact. What will Russia demand in return? Wink

    Fresh off last year’s deal to limit Iran’s nuclear development, the Obama administration is mulling another nuclear deal — this one with Russia. Washington wants to change course on a plan laid with Moscow 16 years ago to dispose of its share of 68 metric tons of plutonium.

    “Clearly, we do have some diplomatic work to be done in this area,” Rose Gottemoeller, undersecretary of State for arms control and international security, said Tuesday at a Defense Writers Group breakfast in Washington.

    In 2000, Washington and Moscow agreed to dispose of nuclear weapons waste through a process that mixes waste plutonium with uranium oxide. This creates mixed oxide fuel pellets, known as MOX, which can be burned in commercial nuclear power plants. The transformation of America’s 34 metric tons of plutonium to MOX was supposed to happen at the Savannah River Site, a multibillion-dollar facility in South Carolina. But after 16 years and $4 billion, the plant is only about 70 percent complete. (Russia is burning its own plutonium in a fast reactor.)

    So in 2013, the White House began to look at alternatives. Last month, as part of its 2017 budget proposal, the Energy Department announced it would “pursue a dilute and dispose approach as a faster, less expensive path to meeting the U.S. commitment to dispose of excess weapons grade plutonium.” This would involve storing the diluted plutonium in New Mexico.

    Some have cheered this search for alternatives to the expensive MOX plant. Others say that too much has already been spent to simply walk away. These include Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., whose state stands to get jobs and revenue from the plant.

    Still others point out the foreign-policy aspects to changing course. “The Russians have long opposed burying the plutonium because it doesn’t really destroy the material, as burning the MOX in a reactor does—it can be retrieved and reused for nuclear weapons purposes,” former Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., wrote in Politico last year. “Given current tensions with Russia, any renegotiation of the plutonium agreement could require us to make costly or damaging concessions.”

    Frank Klotz, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, the arm of the Energy Department that oversees the MOX project, said at a March 16 Senate appropriations energy and water subcommittee hearing that once the U.S. government decides on a new plutonium disposal plan, it would be presented to the Russians. That did not sit well with Graham.

    “That is absolutely the dumbest frickin’ plan I could think of: to change course and hope the Russians would agree and not know what they’re going to charge you for it,” Graham said.

    Pentagon leaders have spent the past year labeling Russia as America’s top threat, in the wake of Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine and more recent support of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad.

    But even with Washington-Moscow relations at an ebb, Gottemoeller said the two superpowers still cooperate on projects to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, citing Russia’s role in Iran deal and another pact to remove chemical weapons from Syria.

    “I think … we do seem to be able to develop good cooperation in areas that are related to weapons of mass destruction,” she said. “I would think that this [plutonium disposal] matter could be one where we could have some good, solid cooperation, but I don’t want to talk further about diplomatic efforts.”
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1513
    Points : 1553
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Death of INF

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon May 16, 2016 5:49 pm

    Death of INF?


    looks like Russians did not waste time when US was pushing for PGS and ABM. Rubezh seems to be modular, multiple MIRVs, two stages were also tested on 2000km range...

    Light version is between 36-20t depending on source. So +/- size of Pioneer IRBM...


    http://missilethreat.com/a-looming-crisis-of-the-intermediate-range-nuclear-force-treaty-sources-and-consequences/

    "
    Russian experts usually portray the “Rubezh” as a modernized version of the Yars ICBM. However, in March 2015 an anonymous source from the Russian Defense Ministry revealed that it has fewer stages and a shorter range than the Yars.[14] The Russian expert Pavel Podvig believes that “if true, this appears to confirm that [the] RS-26 is a two-stage missile based on [the] RS-24 (a three-stage missile – YF) very much in the way [that the] SS-20 was a two-stage version of [the] Temp-2S”.[15] Thus, since the maximum flight range of the “Rubezh” is 200–300 kilometers longer than 5500 kilometers it is not covered by the INF Treaty. However, as it is a two-stage version of the Yars ICBM and was tested mainly at distances of about 2000 kilometers, this missile is designed to be used mainly in the INF mode, including against targets in Europe. Or to put it differently, the development and deployment of the “Rubezh” missile is nothing but an effective circumventing of the INF Treaty.


    The crisis of the INF Treaty and security interests of the Central-Eastern European states

    Albeit at the moment of writing it would be too early to make any definite forecasts about Russia’s behavior there are grounds to believe that Moscow will deploy its new GLCMs and “Rubezh” missiles and aim them at targets in Europe. This will essentially strengthen Moscow’s ability to blackmail and threaten European states with a view to

    • undermine the unity of the Atlantic alliance;

    • deter NATO’s potential intervention in a possible war in the Southern Baltics that would be caused by Russian aggression against the three Baltic States, or in the war in Ukraine, if the Ukrainian crisis is nоt resolved in a reasonably short period of time;

    • defeat NATO troops by a limited use of nuclear weapons if an armed conflict between Russia and NATO in the Baltic region breaks out.

    In actual fact, Moscow wants to put NATO member-states in a grim position: they could either defend the three Baltic States, thus facing the risk of being the victims of a nuclear attack by Russia, or refrain from any involvement in such a conflict, thus undermining the very raison d’être of the North Atlantic alliance.

    russia russia russia

    hELL YEAH !!!

    welcome welcome welcome
    This, in many ways, replicates the strategic situation in Europe that emerged in the late 1970s, when the USSR deployed its highly effective SS-20 missiles with a view of decoupling the USA and the European NATO members in the security sphere. Then the NATO members were forced to make the “double-track decision” – to deploy American intermediate-range missiles in Europe to restore the nuclear balance on the continent and to offer negotiations aimed at banning the INF weapons from Europe. In the late 1980s, however, the Kremlin signed the INF Treaty, which banned the intermediate range nuclear missiles, since Soviet leaders and military commanders had realized the threat of a very short-warning attack on several critical strategic targets, including several national command and control centers that were started by the American INF forces.

    Thus if Russia deploys its intermediate-range missiles and aims them at Europe the prospect of American INF forces appearing in Europe becomes real. This may challenge the states of Central-Eastern Europe (CEE) with a dilemma: they could either support the deployment of US nuclear missiles in Europe, possibly on their soil, or face the risks caused by Russia’s aggression against the Baltic States. Public opinion and political establishments in CEE may then be deeply split into two camps – those of supporters and opponents of the new American missiles – just as a similar situation had sprung up in the 1980s, when mass anti-missile movements had arisen in Western Europe; and the Kremlin will no doubt capitalize on it. Yet if the USA and the European states refuse to deter the threat caused by the new Russian nuclear missiles Russia’s potential aggression against the three Baltic States may become real. Russia’s invasion of Georgia, its annexation of Crimea, its “hybrid” war in Donbas, its explicit threats to use nuclear weapons in case of the West’s involvement in the war in Ukraine and its regular war games and military drills near the borders of the three Baltic States prove that the Kremlin, if not deterred, is prone to realize the worst case scenarios.

    Conclusions and recommendations

    Development and testing of the new Russian intermediate range missiles GLCM P-500 and GLBM “Rubezh” is an element of Moscow’s strategy aimed at threatening European states with a nuclear attack or actual use of nuclear weapons with a view to disable NATO and deter it from supporting the three Baltic States and/or the countries of the north-western segment of the Black Sea region against probable Russian aggression.

    If Russia starts to deploy the missiles just mentioned, a deployment of new American intermediate range nuclear forces may become necessary, just as such a deployment was necessary in the 1980s. At the same time we may expect that this will engender hot political debates in the CEE countries.

    In view of this the CEE countries are to:

    • Develop, preferably within the NATO framework, a coherent strategy that would presume to send a clear and strong signal to Moscow saying that if it deploys its new intermediate-range missiles the USA and the European states will deploy the American intermediate-range systems;

    Reproduce the “double-track” policy, which led to the banning of intermediate-range nuclear missiles in the 1980s, if Moscow ignores this signal.

    "

    go Russia go!!!
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1513
    Points : 1553
    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 May 19, 2016 8:29 pm

    My educated guess is: suddenly Rubezh turns out to have lightweight version with intermediate range and Iskander around 1000km...

    what do you think?
    avatar
    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 10142
    Points : 10636
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

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

    Post  George1 on Sat Oct 22, 2016 1:43 pm

    Russia Welcomes US Offer to Hold Special INF Treaty Commission in November

    Russia welcomes the United States' offer to to convene a Special Verification Commission (SVC) of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty next month, the Russian Foreign Ministry's head of Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Department said Friday.

    MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Mikhail Ulyanov told RIA Novosti that the SVC is envisioned in the 1987 INF Treaty, with its functioning parameters outlined in a Soviet-US memorandum followed by a five-party memorandum with the participation of Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus.

    "In accordance with the rules, any party may convene the SVC meeting. The US took advantage of their right, we have responded positively, that is their right. They have now decided to use this platform to continue the conversation 13 years after the previous meeting, when the US curtailed the work of this commission," Ulyanov said.

    He added that Moscow plans to discuss three topics with the US at the SVC session in Geneva sometime in mid-November.

    "The first two are combat drones and target drones. These questions have been 'stalled' since 2001, when we first voiced concerns to the US and are yet to receive a satisfactory response," Ulyanov said.

    "The third question is about Mk-41 launchers, which arose in connection with the construction of missile defense components in Romania. It is relatively new at two-three years, but here we have not received convincing answers. The US reacts very superficially, and that creates problems," the official stressed.

    The 1987 INF treaty prohibits the development, deployment or testing of ground-launched ballistic or cruise missiles with ranges between 300 and 3,400 miles.

    In May, the United States activated its Aegis ashore ballistic missile defense system (BMDS) in Romania equipped with the Mk-41 launcher. The Russian Foreign Ministry called the deployment of Mk-41 Vertical Launching Systems (VLS) in Europe "a relatively new and rather serious violation of the INF Treaty." Moscow claims Mk-41 is capable of launching the Tomahawk long-range cruise missiles. Such a capability is prohibited by the INF Treaty.

    Another Aegis ashore site is under construction in Poland. These sites are parts of the US-designated ballistic missile defense system in Europe, approved in 2010 during a NATO summit in Lisbon.

    Read more: https://sputniknews.com/military/201610211046581736-russia-us-inf-commission/


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3839
    Points : 3894
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

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

    Post  JohninMK on Thu Oct 27, 2016 8:05 pm

    Article on Putin's comments today. Couldn't resist linking it to this thread Very Happy

    today, Putin explains:

    *PUTIN: INTERMEDIATE NUCLEAR FORCES TREATY SHOULD BE OBSERVED
    *PUTIN: RUSSIA, U.S. MUST BREAK VICIOUS CIRCLE OF CONFRONTATION
    *PUTIN: RUSSIA HAS TO DEVELOP ITS NUCLEAR ATTACK SYSTEMS
    *PUTIN: U.S. PUSHED RUSSIA TO ARMS RACE IN NUCLEAR SPHERE


    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-27/putin-warns-us-has-pushed-russia-back-nuclear-arms-race
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1513
    Points : 1553
    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 Oct 27, 2016 9:42 pm

    JohninMK wrote:Article on Putin's comments today. Couldn't resist linking it to this thread  Very Happy

    today, Putin explains:

       *PUTIN: INTERMEDIATE NUCLEAR FORCES TREATY SHOULD BE OBSERVED
       *PUTIN: RUSSIA, U.S. MUST BREAK VICIOUS CIRCLE OF CONFRONTATION
       *PUTIN: RUSSIA HAS TO DEVELOP ITS NUCLEAR ATTACK SYSTEMS
       *PUTIN: U.S. PUSHED RUSSIA TO ARMS RACE IN NUCLEAR SPHERE


    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-27/putin-warns-us-has-pushed-russia-back-nuclear-arms-race

    you have nice awatar there but your task is easy there too many guys supporting Russia not enough neocons Razz Razz Razz

    I like thtis one other I liked there would be not possible to quote on this forum Twisted Evil

    Unreliable Narrator's picture
    Unreliable Narrator pot_and_kettle Oct 27, 2016 1:13 PM
    The difference betwen Putin and Hillbama is that Putin follows through. Hillbama just farts. Sometimes the farts sound like words. Sometimes not.

    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3839
    Points : 3894
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

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

    Post  JohninMK on Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:04 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    you have nice awatar there but your task is easy there too many guys supporting Russia not enough neocons  Razz  Razz  Razz

    I like thtis one other I liked there would be not possible to quote on this forum  Twisted Evil

    Thanks, I quite like their default paper bag and I enjoy adding, as far as I can, useful information to the site.

    I know its a pretty pro Putin site, although I think that is primarily because many of them there are anti the US Government rather than pro Russia. But there is a lot of respect expressed for Putin himself.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1513
    Points : 1553
    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 Oct 27, 2016 10:22 pm

    JohninMK wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    you have nice awatar there but your task is easy there too many guys supporting Russia not enough neocons  Razz  Razz  Razz

    I like thtis one other I liked there would be not possible to quote on this forum  Twisted Evil

    Thanks, I quite like their default paper bag and I enjoy adding, as far as I can, useful information to the site.

    I know its a pretty pro Putin site, although I think that is primarily because many of them there are anti the US Government rather than pro Russia. But there is a lot of respect expressed for Putin himself.

    Well said, I wish normal Americans or Brits have something to say in their Orwell states.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16107
    Points : 16798
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Article on Putin's comments today. Couldn't resist linking it to this thread

    Post  GarryB on Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:44 am

    The INF treaty limits nuclear missiles in Europe so it is good, but it only restricts Russia and the US, but not any other NATO country, which is bad.

    If the US pushes forward with land based AEGIS sites in Europe no doubt Russia will leave the INF treaty because of that violation.

    I am sure Russia would rather keep the INF treaty but if the US persists in breaching the treaty what else can Russia do?


    _________________
    “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

    nastle77
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 185
    Points : 237
    Join date : 2015-07-25

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

    Post  nastle77 on Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:25 pm

    In the late 80s when the INF treaty with signed and the IRBM were scrapped how did the ussr plan to compensate for their loss in the short term ?
    I mean they were only left with SCUD and FROg rockets for delivering TNW
    I've heard that the AS 15 of bear H and SSN 6 Serb of Yankee class were a way to compensate for them ?
    Or am I missing some other missiles they had in the IRBM category at that time ?
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16107
    Points : 16798
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:21 am

    They still had thousands of ICBM warheads able to complete the task of obliterating the west.

    The short range of the IRBMs made them destabilising and therefore rather dangerous and so it was useful to remove them from service then.

    There were few systems able to intercept such threats so with less than 5 minutes to decide it was a real attack or a mistake everything was on a hair trigger for a while.

    The INF treaty solved those issues.

    Now of course with IADS and new SAMs able to engage all sorts of very high speed targets things have changed as the chance of shooting down an IRBM is much better.

    Also the shift of balance of power where all of the warsaw pact is now part of NATO and even former parts of the soviet union are now enemies of Russia things become rather different.

    treaties limiting missiles are one thing but when the other side builds ABM systems right on your doorstep things change and priorities change with 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
    avatar
    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 10142
    Points : 10636
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

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

    Post  George1 on Sun Feb 19, 2017 2:19 am

    In the US Congress introduced a bill that would lead to the termination of the Treaty on the Elimination of INF

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2442801.html


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    hoom
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 381
    Points : 383
    Join date : 2016-05-06

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

    Post  hoom on Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:05 am

    Whole thing is really odd.

    Russia has been complaining of 3 different US breaches for years but US refuses to address them.
    I actually read the treaty & came to the conclusion US is clearly in breach for 2, not clear about the 3rd.
    Specifically:
    Article II
    2. The term "cruise missile" means an unmanned, self-propelled vehicle that sustains flight through the use of aerodynamic lift over most of its flight path. The term "ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM)" means a ground-launched cruise missile that is a weapon-delivery vehicle.

    1988 note from US to USSR
    the Parties share a common understanding that the term "weapon-delivery vehicle" in the Treaty means any ground-launched ballistic or cruise missile in the 500 kilometer to 5500 kilometer range that has been flight-tested or deployed to carry or be used as a weapon -- that is, any warhead, mechanism or device, which, when directed against any target, is designed to damage or destroy it. Therefore, the Treaty requires elimination and bans production and flight-testing of all such missiles tested or deployed to carry or be used as weapons based on either current or future technologies
    This is clearly & undeniably breached by US armed drones like Reaper.
    Reaper is:

    • Unmanned
    • Self propelled
    • A vehicle
    • Which flies with aerodynamic lift
    • And carries weapons to destroy ground targets


    From recollection the US claims Drones are excluded because:
    They aren't 'launched' -but launch method isn't defined in the treaty presumably specifically to exclude clever work-arounds. Many (admittedly smaller & probably sub 500km) drones do use launch rails & even canisters.
    They are ground piloted -but guidance method isn't defined in the treaty presumably specifically to exclude clever work-arounds. Many missiles are manually guided eg Maverick & TOW.
    They fire missiles but don't themselves have a warhead -but the treaty & 1988 US note clearly envisage multi-stage missiles & missiles which deliver their warhead as sub-munitions.


    AEGIS Ashore with Mk 41 launchers is clearly a breach of the launcher clauses.
    US claims it doesn't count because they don't have Tomahawk guidance software or missiles present, but the physical launcher & electronic equipment is the same, only needs a software change to enable.
    Just because a launcher doesn't currently have missiles doesn't exclude it from the treaty, its the physical existence of the launcher that is a breach.

    The 3rd one is US ABM test ballistic target, US claims its 'scientific' & there is an appropriate clause for that in the treaty.
    Question is if 'scientific' can reasonably include military weapon testing, I'd have thought the intent of the 'science' clause would be civilian science.
    It's hard to see it as a serious breach but forcing US to destroy them would be handy politically for Russia since it would hurt US ABM development.


    Meanwhile US is currently complaining about Russian Iskander-M which appears to be using essentially the same Calibr missile as used in ships, with reported & proven range well within the INF range.
    The existing missile is shorter with 500km range but it's not clear to me that the longer new missile necessarily matches the ship launched Calibr in range: they could be using the extra length for a bigger warhead & a bit of extra fuel to come out with an equal range.
    Doubtful that full range would be over 5500km.

    If it is the full range missile its hard to fathom exactly WTH Russia is doing? It would be an obvious, complete breach.
    Arguably its a response to US breaches but if so surely Russia should publicly say 'this is our response to US clear & persistent breaches'.
    Maybe the intent is to provide leverage for negotiations with US around ABM/bringing other countries in to INF?
    But if they just want to build missiles in that range they should surely have pulled out of the treaty like US did with ABM treaty.
    avatar
    hoom
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 381
    Points : 383
    Join date : 2016-05-06

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

    Post  hoom on Sat Apr 01, 2017 9:32 am

    Reading this http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/7449/more-details-on-kratos-optionally-expendable-air-combat-drones-emerge
    Even if you don't think the ones that take off from runways count as 'missiles' the XQ-222 is absolutely an INF breach
    it can fly a 3,000 mile one way trip when being used as in a disposable manner.
    ...it launches via rocket assisted takeoff from a stand

    Arrow
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 136
    Points : 136
    Join date : 2012-02-12

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

    Post  Arrow on Sat Apr 01, 2017 10:28 am

    The 3rd one is US ABM test ballistic target, US claims its 'scientific' & there is an appropriate clause for that in the treaty. wrote:

    So Russia doesn't use ABM test balistic target again S-400, S-300V4 and S-500 ?
    avatar
    hoom
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 381
    Points : 383
    Join date : 2016-05-06

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

    Post  hoom on Tue Apr 11, 2017 9:23 am

    No idea what Russia uses for targets dunno
    Its definitely the weakest of the 3 breach claims.

    Unimportant compared to development, production, deployment & repeated use of intermediate range UCAV missiles.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6023
    Points : 6435
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Thu Apr 27, 2017 6:53 am

    Hans Kristensen‏ @nukestrat   https://twitter.com/nukestrat/status/857064930826219523

    US Treaty Compliance Report https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/270603.pdf … says Russian INF violation "is distinct from the R-500/SSC-7 GLCM or the RS-26 ICBM."

    From the Full report Page 18 https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/270603.pdf


    avatar
    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2799
    Points : 2930
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs on Thu Apr 27, 2017 7:52 am

    Austin wrote:Hans Kristensen‏ @nukestrat   https://twitter.com/nukestrat/status/857064930826219523

    US Treaty Compliance Report https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/270603.pdf … says Russian INF violation "is distinct from the R-500/SSC-7 GLCM or the RS-26 ICBM."

    From the Full report Page 18  https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/270603.pdf




    But of course no actual evidence of such a launcher, other than "trust us it exists".

    As I have said before, America wants to break the INF treaty by using nuclear warheads on its ABM rockets.
    So Russia has a case against the US with its dual use ABM system.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16107
    Points : 16798
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 28, 2017 9:13 am

    The existing missile is shorter with 500km range but it's not clear to me that the longer new missile necessarily matches the ship launched Calibr in range: they could be using the extra length for a bigger warhead & a bit of extra fuel to come out with an equal range.
    Doubtful that full range would be over 5500km.

    I would suspect they have made its conventional warhead to be rather big to limit range below 500km.

    If they want to attack targets at 5,000km with a cruise missile it would not take much to get an aircraft to launch it.

    The likely issue is that flying 5,000km takes too long at subsonic speed over enemy airspace within a few minutes of a war breaking out.

    For strategic bomber launched cruise missiles those missiles will enter enemy airspace several hours after ICBMs and SLBMs have obliterated major air defence assets like major airfields and HQs and comms centres... etc.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16107
    Points : 16798
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 28, 2017 9:36 am

    Actually having thought about it it makes a lot of sense to put a cruise missile on an Iskander launcher...

    The US is clearly violating the INF treaty already so it is only a matter of time before one side gets tired of that and withdraws... developing a short range cruise missile able to be deployed close to NATO bases on Russias border makes a lot of sense and if they can take out the ABM radar and launch systems in times of tension that is even better.

    The time and complication of integrating a cruise missile into Iskander units can be done and paid for now and in the near future if the INF treaty goes tits up then it would be fairly simple to replace the 500km range missiles with 4,000km range missiles.

    In a few years time if the INF treaty stays in effect then Russia can build a hybrid missile that uses a scramjet engine and lots of fuel tanks to initially climb and then fly at high altitude and high speed with a tiny nuke warhead to take out ABM systems at much greater distances much quicker.


    _________________
    “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

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Apr 30, 2017 2:57 pm