Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15994
    Points : 16645
    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 : 15994
    Points : 16645
    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
    avatar
    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2998
    Points : 3030
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

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

    Post  max steel on Fri Apr 28, 2017 3:18 pm

    Read this: http://smoothiex12.blogspot.in/2017/04/one-can-feel-desperation.html

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6000
    Points : 6402
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Sun Apr 30, 2017 7:04 am

    kvs wrote:
    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.

    Thats right

    PACOM: U.S. Should Renegotiate INF Missile Treaty to Better Compete with China


    https://news.usni.org/2017/04/27/pacom-u-s-should-renegotiate-inf-treaty-that-limits-conventional-mid-range-missiles
    avatar
    hoom
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 411
    Points : 411
    Join date : 2016-05-06

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

    Post  hoom on Sun Apr 30, 2017 8:25 am

    Lol from that report when reporting on US compliance (pg8)
    Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles,
    also known as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty

    All U.S. activities during the reporting period were consistent with the obligations set forth in the INF Treaty.
    Lies, damn lies & complete absolute utterly dishonest hypocrisy.

    Not even an acknowledgement of the existence of Russian concerns let alone any attempt to address them Rolling Eyes

    From the bit on Russian alleged non-compliance (pg12)
    A GLCM is defined as a ground-launched cruise missile that is a weapon delivery-vehicle.  
    Lies to obfuscate the US armed drone breach. The definition in the treaty is as I posted on the previous page.


    Pg13
    In an effort to resolve U.S. concerns, the United States requested to convene a session of the INF Treaty’s implementation body, the Special Verification Commission (SVC).  Prior to 2016, the SVC had last met in October 2003 following the conclusion of the INF Treaty’s inspection regime in 2001.
    Its my understanding that Russia repeatedly requested the SVC to be convened to discuss US breaches but US refused to discuss the possibility of such.

    And thats just the bullshit in the INF treaty sections, there is a bunch of complete trash in the other bits too eg on the PMDA suspension by Russia
    The decree did not articulate a valid basis under the PMDA or international law for such a “suspension.”  
    Russia has nearly completed all their disposal, US has failed to even start construction of the facility, repeatedly pushes back their timeline & that was clearly stated.
    From recollection US has even been busted having 'disposed' of a bunch of treaty relevant plutonium by storing it in short term 'low hazard' storage facilities from which it could potentially be recovered in future.

    Edit: Also I still like the idea I've seen around the place that if Russia wants a bunch of Intermediate range cruise missiles they should just stick a heap of UKSK on a bunch of river barges which can be dispersed (or quickly concentrated) around the huge Russian river/canal system & sheltered coastal areas completely free of any treaty breach claims.

    Edit2: from the UNSI.org link
    “We adhere to the INF treaty religiously, as we should – it’s a treaty we signed on for,” PACOM commander Adm. Harry Harris told the Senate Armed Services Committee today.
    “Russia has violated the treaty in the conventional sense, with a conventional cruise missile. So at the end of the day what you have is you have a treaty that binds theoretically two countries: one of them violates it without being held to account, the other adheres to it rigidly as it should.
    Isn't it a crime to lie to a Senate Committee? Because that is a lie.
    And the proof he knows full well that its a lie is 'in the conventional sense' which means he is fully aware that UCAVs are an 'unconventional' breach.

    Oh lol and he complains about DF-21? Dedicated land -> sea missiles are allowed under INF  Razz

    Quite sure that Russia would be fully down with INF being expanded to include other countries since its something they've repeatedly publicly stated.

    Edit3: here's an interesting wrinkle to the 'drones aren't missiles because they take off from a runway' http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2579199.html
    As for the drones, the US argument is that they do not fit the definition of steerable - for the reason that the drones do not "run" (launch; this term is used in the text of the agreement in English) and "take off" (take -off; and if it was a drone in English in the text of the treaty would be so), and then, consequently, land. Cruise missiles can not do this. However, in the Russian language in the definition of steerable difference between "running" or "take-off" is not done
    silent
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15994
    Points : 16645
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:57 pm

    Actually that is an interesting point... cruise missiles on land are banned by the INF treaty but put those cruise missiles in a standard shipping container and load them up on a barge on a river and all of a sudden they are legal... you could float thousands on barges up and down rivers in Russia perfectly legally... how many are loaded with cruise missiles and how many are just empty containers who can tell...


    _________________
    “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 : 15994
    Points : 16645
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:58 pm

    Even better... does a maglev train count as a ground based vehicle... when it is moving it is technically flying so any carriages with standard shipping containers are not only very fast moving targets but they are also not ground based launchers any more...


    _________________
    “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 May 28, 2017 10:20 pm