Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15858
    Points : 16563
    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

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2669
    Points : 2800
    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 : 5830
    Points : 6242
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    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 : 5830
    Points : 6242
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    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/

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2987
    Points : 3021
    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.”

    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1519
    Points : 1561
    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?

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2987
    Points : 3021
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

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

    Post  max steel on Wed Jun 22, 2016 10:41 pm

    Hill leaders look to block upgrade in Russian surveillance gear

    Russia is looking to upgrade the digital cameras used in surveillance overflights of the U.S. permitted under the Open Skies Treaty. However, some key House leaders are hoping to block U.S. approval of the new gear, which is required under the terms of the treaty.

    "In recent years, instead of using the Treaty for its intended purpose, Russia has been using its Open Skies flights to expand its espionage capabilities," House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.), Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) wrote in a June 14 letter to President Obama.

    Admiral Cecil Haney, the commander for U.S. Strategic Command, has alleged that Russia has been using the treaty as a key "component" for collecting intelligence information used against the U.S.

    The members of Congress, citing such opinions, expressed concern that the administration will allow Russia to "significantly upgrade the sensors" on such flights, allowing them to collect more data and information on U.S. activities.

    "Allowing Russia to upgrade the sensors used in these flights to digital technology would only make this worse… We urge you to heed the advice of senior military personnel and other officials and reject this Russian request while examining modern alternatives to these flights," the lawmakers said.

    Russia is proposing to upgrade from film-based surveillance cameras to digital. President Obama must agree to the changes before any upgrades can take place. An inter-agency review process that includes the State Department, the Pentagon, and the intelligence community is expected to produce a recommendation later this month.


    The Open Skies treaty spans 34 countries, and allows participants to conduct aerial surveillance on one other. The goal is to give countries mutual understanding and transparency about ground-level military activity.

    However, Russia has not always played by the rules, according to U.S. officials. Rose E. Gottemoeller, the State Department's undersecretary of arms control and international security, testified in December 2015 that the U.S. is troubled by Russia's Open Skies implementation, "in particular, with Russia’s continued denial or restriction of observation flights over portions of Russian territory."

    Military officials are concerned that Russia will use more advanced camera and mapping capabilities to conduct espionage on the U.S. homeland.

    "The things you can see, the amount of data you can collect, the things you can do with post-processing using digital technologies allows Russia in my opinion to get incredible foundational intelligence on critical infrastructure, bases, ports, all of our facilities," Lt. General Vincent Stewart, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said in March 2 testimony on Capitol Hill.

    The lawmakers urged the president to deny Russia's request on upgrading sensors and instead, transition over to commercial satellite imagery which "may provide the confidence building measures and level of transparency that all signatories, including our allies and partners, envisioned at the outset of the Treaty while minimizing Russia’s opportunities for abuse and obstruction."

    When contacted for comment, administration officials would say only that "the White House is aware of the letter and will respond through appropriate channels."

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2669
    Points : 2800
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs on Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:30 pm

    You can rest assured that when some US politician, functionary or pundit accuses Russia of spying it is the USA that is engaged
    in full bore espionage.   This is a common ploy in politics: accuse your opponent of your own sins.   I find this "concern" over digital
    camera resolution to be a joke.  Digital cameras can't see through walls and ground.  And the USA would have exactly the same
    rights to upgrade its cameras under the terms of the treaty.   Pure political propaganda theater from Yankee turds.

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2987
    Points : 3021
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

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

    Post  max steel on Tue Aug 02, 2016 11:57 pm

    US Monitoring Plane Makes Emergency Landing in Russia


    A US surveillance plane was forced to make an emergency landing in Russia Wednesday, following an issue with the landing gear.

    Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. Michele Baldanza told Defense News that the plane initially took off from a Russian airfield in Ulan Ude to begin an observation flight, but discovered the landing gear would not fully retract.

    "The crew, in cooperation with the Russian escort crew on-board, terminated the treaty observation mission and diverted to Khabarovsk to drop off the escort crew and to exit Russia using the most direct route possible to facilitate inspection and repair at a US base in Japan," Baldanza said. "Khabarovsk is a frequently utilized Open Skies Airfield, designated by Russia for treaty purposes, but it is not normally a 'point of exit' for treaty missions."

    She added that because the mission was terminated, no imagery was collected during the flight. The aircraft has since left Khabarovsk — located in southeastern Russia, about 77 km from the Chinese border — and transited to Kadena Air Base in Japan to undergo maintenance, and is expected to return to Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska once the problem is corrected.

    The aircraft was identified as a Boeing-made OC-135B, in an initial report from the Express newspaper in the UK.

    Concern over the treaty spiked in February, however, when Russia announced plans to add a new digital electro-optical sensor to its Tupolev Tu-154 aircraft used for Open Skies flights. Pentagon officials and lawmakers alike raised the alarm that the new sensors would give Russia an informational edge over what can be gathered by the equipment used by the US.

    According to a US Air Force fact sheet, the plane comes equipped with one vertical and two oblique KS-87E framing cameras for low-altitude photography, and one KA-91C panoramic camera, which scans from side to side to provide a wide sweep for each picture at a height of approximately 35,000 feet. It has a crew of up to 35.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9777
    Points : 10269
    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


    nastle77
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 184
    Points : 236
    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 ?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15858
    Points : 16563
    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

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9777
    Points : 10269
    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


    hoom
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 323
    Points : 325
    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.

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Feb 22, 2017 2:55 am