Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Share
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 1303
    Points : 1303
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

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

    Post  Hole on Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:50 pm

    According to Wiki Rubezh has a range of 5.800km+.

    The old IRBM´s had an INS system for navigation. The Pioneer (SS-20) had a CEP of 1.000m. The new systems will be capable of hitting a single building. They will be effective even with conventional warheads.

    The flightpath of an Iskander was shown in one doc on Zvezda. It looks like a circle drawn by Michael J. Fox. Cool
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 2835
    Points : 2817
    Join date : 2016-11-06

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

    Post  miketheterrible on Wed Oct 24, 2018 4:52 pm

    while ago someone posted and showed the flight path of a Topol-M which was not exactly a ballistic trajectory.  More like Quasi with maneuvering.  That same tech that existed for so long has been applied to most modern missiles now.

    Hole wrote:According to Wiki Rubezh has a range of 5.800km+.

    The old IRBM´s had an INS system for navigation. The Pioneer (SS-20) had a CEP of 1.000m. The new systems will be capable of hitting a single building. They will be effective even with conventional warheads.

    The flightpath of an Iskander was shown in one doc on Zvezda. It looks like a circle drawn by Michael J. Fox. Cool

    You can find that doc?

    Also, Arrow is a lying moron, so ignore him.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 725
    Points : 719
    Join date : 2016-11-13

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

    Post  Singular_Transform on Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:24 pm

    Arrow wrote:Is. Scram jet gives you maneuverability. The ballistic missile does not maneuver. Iskander only in the final phase of the flight

    Ballistic missile can manoeuvre too, if has big enough control surfaces and aerodynamics body.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1704
    Points : 1699
    Join date : 2013-02-02

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

    Post  AlfaT8 on Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:08 pm

    Hole wrote:The anti-ship version 3M54 has an supersonic stage, not the LACM.

    The west is not very good in defeating cruise missiles.

    How unfortunate, i though the Missile could handle both ships and land targets, isn't that why Russia deployed them all over the place??
    Why would they remove the Supersonic stage from the land attack variant, very odd?
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 1303
    Points : 1303
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

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

    Post  Hole on Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:26 pm

    The anti-ship version has an active radar seeker. The LACM doesn´t need one.

    PS. My 1.000 post! Very Happy cheers sunny bounce

    PPS. wasted for such an answer. angry cry
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4592
    Points : 4751
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

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

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Oct 24, 2018 11:32 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:while ago someone posted and showed the flight path of a Topol-M which was not exactly a ballistic trajectory.  More like Quasi with maneuvering.  That same tech that existed for so long has been applied to most modern missiles now.

    Yes, the photos (published by the Ministry of Defense) that you are talking about are the flight trajectory of Topol-M/Yars, suggesting that the warheads were actually hypersonic gliders:



    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3907
    Points : 3945
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

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

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Oct 25, 2018 12:43 pm

    Arrow wrote:Is. Scram jet gives you maneuverability. The ballistic missile does not maneuver. Iskander only in the final phase of the flight

    wrong again, control spaces or gas rudders give you maneuverability. nothing to do with scramjet. Care to elaborate how Iskader works? with sources.



    Arrow wrote:Currently, there are no maneuvering hypersonic missiles with a range of 4000km.

    true, Yars MIRVs have 11,000km range.




    Zirkon will have a range of around 400-800 km as it will be in use for the next 10 years.They still have problems with the scramjet drive.

    and your source is? I love to learn.




    Traditionally, Zirkon is like Yeti. Nobody has seen it but it supposedly exists.There are no photos from the tests. It can also be a product of Russian propaganda.


    and here we have proof of US advancements as plastic mock-up(made in China of curse) ! lol1 lol1 lol1
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18885
    Points : 19441
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Thu Oct 25, 2018 1:56 pm

    The Pioneer (SS-20) had a CEP of 1.000m.

    No way... if it had a CEP of 1km then they would not have cared about it at all...

    Its CEP was more like 150-200m.

    How unfortunate, i though the Missile could handle both ships and land targets, isn't that why Russia deployed them all over the place??
    Why would they remove the Supersonic stage from the land attack variant, very odd?

    The Club family of missiles includes several different weapons... a subsonic all the way missile in two models... one for land attack, one for anti ship use, and a subsonic most of the way and rocket propelled supersonic terminal attack model to penetrate the targets defences... it has been described as an anti ship missile, but with most of their anti ship missiles being converted to allow land attack capability I don't see why this missile could not also be used against ground targets.

    There are also the supersonic anti ship missiles... Onyx/Yakhont/Brahmos that are soon to be replaced with the hypersonic Zircon, and the rocket propelled ballistic missile that delivers a torpedo to a target area to sink subs.

    The whole purpose of the subsonic cruise missile is range... the subsonic land attack missile is often called Calibr and is a 2,500-3,000km range land attack cruise missile.

    The subsonic missile with terminal supersonic rocket stage is supposed to have a range of about 1,500km.

    The export models all have ranges of less than 300km of course.

    The anti-ship version has an active radar seeker. The LACM doesn´t need one.

    It would be ideal for use against a well protected land target however... a mach 3 missile at very low altitude would be tricky to stop...


    Karl Haushofer

    Posts : 732
    Points : 727
    Join date : 2015-05-03

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

    Post  Karl Haushofer on Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:03 pm

    The US could now put nuke launch sites in Narva and Kharkov?
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 1303
    Points : 1303
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

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

    Post  Hole on Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:31 pm

    CEP 450 to 550 m. 1.000 m is maximum error (whatever that means). Source: Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces.
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 1303
    Points : 1303
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

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

    Post  Hole on Thu Oct 25, 2018 5:32 pm

    Karl Haushofer wrote:The US could now put nuke launch sites in Narva and Kharkov?

    It they are stupid enough to do that the russian army could destroy all those sites with conventional artillery.

    Karl Haushofer

    Posts : 732
    Points : 727
    Join date : 2015-05-03

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

    Post  Karl Haushofer on Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:46 pm

    Hole wrote:
    Karl Haushofer wrote:The US could now put nuke launch sites in Narva and Kharkov?

    It they are stupid enough to do that the russian army could destroy all those sites with conventional artillery.

    Do you think Russia would destroy them with a pre-emptive strike?

    Because if not, then the US could use them to attack Russia first.

    Karl Haushofer

    Posts : 732
    Points : 727
    Join date : 2015-05-03

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

    Post  Karl Haushofer on Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:51 pm

    But knowing Putin, Russia will not attack pre-emptively to destroy them. With another leader maybe, but not with Putin.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7346
    Points : 7440
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

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

    Post  PapaDragon on Thu Oct 25, 2018 9:33 pm


    For the record, I am pretty sure that INF treaty prohibits both sides from deploying any land-based intermediate ballistic missiles even if they are designed for anti-ship operations.

    This is why China has developed stuff like DF-21 while USA and Russia didn't even though Russia definitely needed something like that. And why USA wants to terminate the treaty now.

    But now with INF gone Russia can for example mount several Kinzhals on Topol or Yars solid rocket, put it on truck and park it somewhere deep inland where it's completely safe thus putting entire North Atlantic or Pacific in the crosshairs and saving huge amounts of money in the process.

    And that's just simplest quickest approach. Imagine what they would make from scratch?
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2489
    Points : 2483
    Join date : 2015-11-06

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

    Post  Isos on Thu Oct 25, 2018 9:48 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    For the record, I am pretty sure that INF treaty prohibits both sides from deploying any land-based intermediate ballistic missiles even if they are designed for anti-ship operations.

    This is why China has developed stuff like DF-21 while USA and Russia didn't even though Russia definitely needed something like that. And why USA wants to terminate the treaty now.

    But now with INF gone Russia can for example mount several Kinzhals on Topol or Yars solid rocket, put it on truck and park it somewhere deep inland where it's completely safe thus putting entire North Atlantic or Pacific in the crosshairs and saving huge amounts of money in the process.

    And that's just simplest quickest approach. Imagine what they would make from scratch?

    They should have tried to include China in the treaty before leaving it.

    Russia could make naval medium range BM and put them on cheap ships build for that purpose. They decided not to because this treaty somehow brings stability in europe and peace.

    Topol with kinzhal and topol without has no difference for US satelittes and radars. Once they fire one its done. No more world so they won't risk a total war to destroy a carrier. If you want to use it for nuclear war, no need for kinzhal, Topol is mach 24+ and has longer range.

    Cruise missiles + UKSK on all ships is enough.

    They should put pressure on US and CHINA to make a new treaty all togather. An arm race isn't good in a periode where there are wars everywhere with most powerfull countries involved.

    Trump is more stupid than they though in Kremlin.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7346
    Points : 7440
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

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

    Post  PapaDragon on Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:06 pm

    Isos wrote:..........
    Topol with kinzhal and topol without has no difference for US satelittes and radars. Once they fire one its done.........


    Then neither does DF-21, same result on radars and yet it's in use

    Besides, they can always mount them on different missiles, it's about making land-based anti-ship system that gives you control of ocean and saving loads of cash on Navy in the process


    Arrow

    Posts : 278
    Points : 278
    Join date : 2012-02-12

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

    Post  Arrow on Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:08 pm

    true, Yars MIRVs have 11,000km range. wrote:

    MIRV warheads do not maneuver. They fly on a designated trajectory after PBV separation.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2489
    Points : 2483
    Join date : 2015-11-06

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

    Post  Isos on Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:29 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Isos wrote:..........
    Topol with kinzhal and topol without has no difference for US satelittes and radars. Once they fire one its done.........


    Then neither does DF-21, same result on radars and yet it's in use

    Besides, they can always mount them on different missiles, it's about making land-based anti-ship system that gives you control of ocean and saving loads of cash on Navy in the process


    Depend of the range, tge missile won't have the same path. Also it won't be fired in the direction of US or europe but in direction of the south china sea or Japan where carrier would be.

    They still need to be able to detect the carrier that far in north atlantic. Better use the 40 vls on yasen for low flying antiship missiles than launch multi million dollars missiles at something you can't locate precisly. Specially that zirkon will be just as good as kinzhal if not more since it can manoeuvre better in the athmosphere.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4592
    Points : 4751
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

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

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Fri Oct 26, 2018 1:13 am

    Arrow wrote:

    MIRV warheads do not maneuver. They fly on a designated trajectory after PBV separation.

    The 'bus' that carries the MIRV warheads on the RS-24 Yars is very maneuverable:


    Arrow

    Posts : 278
    Points : 278
    Join date : 2012-02-12

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

    Post  Arrow on Fri Oct 26, 2018 9:28 am

    The 'bus' that carries the MIRV warheads on the RS-24 Yars is very maneuverable: wrote:


    Bus as in every modern missile maneuvers to determine the trajectory of the RV. RV, flies on a ballistic trajectory, which is easy to calculate. This drawing is fake.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18885
    Points : 19441
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:03 am

    The US could now put nuke launch sites in Narva and Kharkov?

    Such a short range missile could easily be dealt with using an S-400 battery located close by... and a few dozen very powerful tactical nuke armed missiles to return the favour by vapourising all those US bases and population centres nearby in the country that hosted such a hostile weapon.

    CEP 450 to 550 m. 1.000 m is maximum error (whatever that means). Source: Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces.

    Maximum error is 99% likely... normally the CEP is the 50% error which is four times less than the 99% error... so if the 99% error is 1,000m, that means the 50% error is 250m... which is pretty much what I said.

    For those who don't have math skills... a CEP is a circular error of probability... in other words something like the Vikhr ATGM with a range of 10km has a CEP (50%) of 80cm, or 0.8m. That means if you fire 1,000 missiles at the target at least 500 of them will land within 80cm of the point of aim at 10km. If you multiply the CEP by four, that gives you a 99% probability... so 990 of the missiles will hit within a circle of 2.4m around the aim point.

    It doesn't mean you are guaranteed to hit the target, and it only counts missiles that make it to the target so it will never be 100%.

    If you remember the bell curve shape where most of the body of samples are around the middle, while the high and low scores drop away and have fewer examples... that is why you have to multiply the CEP by 4 times to go from 50% confidence to 99 percent confidence...

    Do you think Russia would destroy them with a pre-emptive strike?

    Because if not, then the US could use them to attack Russia first.

    No, they would monitor the site very very carefully and any launch will be a hair trigger away from oblivion...

    But knowing Putin, Russia will not attack pre-emptively to destroy them. With another leader maybe, but not with Putin.

    He is not insane. But he is not stupid either... what I would do is get Russian scientists to develop these 100MT doomsday bombs and put them on IRBMs and target them at all EU countries with US forces or ABM sites or IRBMs or SRBM. Make sure those countries know that not just the ABM sites will be vapourised, but all their major population centres will be targeted too.

    With the US withdrawing from the INF treaty and the new Start treaty not including IRBMs and SRBMs they they can have as many as they need...

    They should have tried to include China in the treaty before leaving it.

    The vast majority of Chinese missiles are IRBMs... why would they want that? They have nothing to gain and everything to lose... you might as well demand they stop trading with anyone except who the west allows them to trade with...

    They should put pressure on US and CHINA to make a new treaty all togather.

    China wont give up pretty much all its ballistic missile force...

    MIRV warheads do not maneuver. They fly on a designated trajectory after PBV separation.

    They do manouver, but only minor course corrections for accuracy... these new Russian warheads are more accurately called MARVs. And do manouver...

    They still need to be able to detect the carrier that far in north atlantic. Better use the 40 vls on yasen for low flying antiship missiles than launch multi million dollars missiles at something you can't locate precisly. Specially that zirkon will be just as good as kinzhal if not more since it can manoeuvre better in the athmosphere.

    Carrier groups are easy to track with satellites... if they submerge then you can stop tracking them because they wont be coming back up...

    Bus as in every modern missile maneuvers to determine the trajectory of the RV. RV, flies on a ballistic trajectory, which is easy to calculate. This drawing is fake.

    Normal warhead bus design for MIRV weapons only manouvers to release the individual warheads on a path to allow it to hit separated targets... the RS-24 was designed at a time when US ABM systems had come in to the picture so adding more fuel so the warhead bus could do a lot more manouvering is not that hard, but the warheads themselves have manouver capability too... and more accurately should be called MARVs.

    Arrow

    Posts : 278
    Points : 278
    Join date : 2012-02-12

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

    Post  Arrow on Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:38 am

    Normal warhead bus design for MIRV weapons only manouvers to release the individual warheads on a path to allow it to hit separated targets... the RS-24 was designed at a time when US ABM systems had come in to the picture so adding more fuel so the warhead bus could do a lot more manouvering is not that hard, but the warheads themselves have manouver capability too... and more accurately should be called MARVs. Back to top Reply with quote wrote:

    MaRV maneuvers only after entering the atmosphere in the terminal phase. The US ABM system operates in the middle phase of the flight. Only HGV will maneuver in the middle phase of the flight. RS-24 has traditional MIRV and not MaRV. MaRV is not needed by Russia.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3907
    Points : 3945
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

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

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Oct 27, 2018 3:40 am

    Arrow wrote:MaRV maneuvers only after entering the atmosphere in the terminal phase. The US ABM system operates in the middle phase of the flight. Only HGV will maneuver in the middle phase of the flight.

    That's interesting observation, is this is so easy why Kim's missile flying over Japan US ABM wasn't able to touch at all? too easy or what? I dontthink anybody really knows how many interceptors you need to shoot 1 maneuvering warhead? All I've heard is 30 SM3s + vs 1 Avangard


    Let's get back to Russian missiles, shall we?

    Well as you can see in Yars drawing warhead can go up down. Perhaps because it has independent post-boost vehicle (IPBV) (as US intel says). So actually goes high and since it'snot an escape velocity can maneuver actively before passing Karman line.

    US ABM can operate whenever they want but boosting on territory o Russia afterwards all you have is descent with post boost maneuvering and then atmospheric gliding.




    RS-24 has traditional MIRV and not MaRV.

    and source of your information? since this is contrary to Ru MoD. To me Russians tested Yars with 3 IPBV config already in 2017. Diplomat says US intel wants sure if ti was first time tested then.




    MaRV is not needed by Russia.
    seriously and what makes you think that?

    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3907
    Points : 3945
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

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

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Oct 27, 2018 3:42 am

    Arrow wrote:

    MIRV warheads do not maneuver. They fly on a designated trajectory after PBV separation.

    yup, IPBV do however.



    Arrow wrote:Bus as in every modern missile maneuvers to determine the trajectory of the RV. RV, flies on a ballistic trajectory, which is easy to calculate. This drawing is fake.

    lack of your knowledge doesnt render IPBV nonexistent.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 819
    Points : 986
    Join date : 2011-07-20

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

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Oct 27, 2018 1:47 pm

    zg18 wrote:My hunch is that US doesn`t actually want to collapse INF but wants to force China to be part of it.

    The way they are doing it is incredibly stupid, they should be honest and public about it.


    China has nothing to do with the real reasons behind the decision to terminate INF treaty ,it is simply an irrational scapegoat (in the South Eastern Asian theatre the air and sea based delivery systems are forcibly the unique options for US Forces because no NATO member "covered by art 5 exist there to allow placement of us nuclear offensive weapons within their borders) moreover this decision has been debated in the Pentagon since at least a decade, obviously togheter with other solutions proposed to confront the same problems. - Someone could remember the not-nuclear tipped SLBM propose and, more recently , the propose to create and integrate low-yield nuclear warheads on ICBM to not be accounted for in the New START -


    Reason is that US Central Command has, since more than a decade, computed that the PS -Probability of Survival - of theirs primary delivery vehicles - heavily sea-air centric- and of theirs same offensive mean systems , both in its conventional and not-strategic nuclear versions, was plummeting at an impressive rate against the faster growing sophistication of the Federation's IADS ,both at defense of national territory that the mobile one integrated in the Ground Forces , and lastly the growing capabilities of stand-off anti-ship missiles.

    The "alarm" shifted from yellow to red around the years 2011-2012, when the new lines of ground based EW systems was completed (literally a pair of generation head of any specimen -air-ground or sea based- present anywhere on the globe) the C-500 and РТЦ-181М feasibility program and technical validation was completed and X-32 missile and the R&D phase of the new line of Heavy ,Middle and Light unified modular ground vehicles class "Армата"  "Курганец" and "Бумеранг" and the new generation artillery system class "Коалиция-СВ" was completed.

    Capability to contests OPFOR on the ground in the European theatre was projected to fall, in the middle of 2020 decade, to level of beginning of '80 years and to the CVBG naval component would have remained only marginal roles in the event of a limited convetional conflict in that theatre because forced to remain well outside the    
    authonomy range of its naval Aircraft component to avoid to fall within range of the X-32 delivered by the enemy supersonic bombers.
       
    At the time the response imaged in the middle term by over-ocean planners was the so called "Prompt Global Strike" project ,a technical intensive effort mostly aimed to, at least partially, resolve the range of engagement and probability of survival problem; this program, togheter with the "affordable" mass produced LO aircraft program - the F-35 - should have assured a reliable offensive option up to half of the 2030 years.

    But ,in the mean time -particularly the last 3 years - some very important events happened at modify one more time the computations of US military planners :

    1) The intervention in Syrian conflict where Federation's High Command ,for the first time in the post Great Patriotic War history, decided -committing an huge mistake in mine opinion as several times in several place said - to bring and employ some of its most advanced and up-to-date equipment.
    If this allowed ,on the "bright" a side, to overturn the course of the war in the legitimate Syrian government favour with a ridiculously low amount of military equipment , to fully validate - often even significantly over what initially calculated - the efficiency of the air defense sensor suit and interceptors against the most advanced enemy specimen , LO aircraft -such as F-22 Raptor - in war configuration included , the capabilities of some of the most modern EW samples to completely hinder NATO operations where necessary ,including salvo of cruise missiles directly during an attack and also the range and precision of the stand-off X-SD ,X-101 and Калибр -both surface and sub-launched and consequently to rise enormously the export potential at the global level of those systems - it is sufficient to observe the sudden enormous rise of interest for the C-400, also among traditionally western-alligned nations or even NATO members after that the info and data from Syrian theatre have reached the military commad rooms of half world -, but on the "dark side",  this allowed US operative to fully realize how theirs conflict projections and system-to-system interaction models was totally wronged and that radical solutions should be urgently taken before the discovered "capability gap" would be too wide to be compensated with economically-feasible countermeasures.

    2) The presentation, at the March of this year at President speech, of a part of the new generation line of offensive and defensive startegic military systems highlighting mostly 6 different major scientifical breakthroughs without true corresponding anywhere on the planet : nuclear generators miniaturization, very-high thermal resistant composites, long-standing supercavitation, generation and soliton vector's modulation of high potential coherent beams, new formula for ballistic rocket liquid-fueled propulsions  and in atmosphere flight management in plasma-dynamic formations .
    Those elements togheter with the realization that any attempt to technologically catch-up with Federation's achievements in a purely symmetric way would have been destined almost surely to failure have forced US Command in the last months to attempt to change completely the paradigm of the confrontation menacing the weaponization of the space - creation of the "Space Forces" and greatly increasing the ground-based tactical to strategic potential to counterbalance the greatly demoted potential computed for the Air forces  - from there derive the latest program such as the Long Range Precision Fires with somewhat very "odd" proposals such as the Strategic Strike Cannon Artillery Razz and obvioulsy exit from the INF Treaty.


    China in this complex technical dynamic of military systems interaction with all its doctrinal implications has literally zero role except to be used as a childish attempt to justify measures that have completely different roots.

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:26 am