Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2345
    Points : 2343
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Hole on Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:16 pm

    Like the late german chancellor Helmut Kohl once said: "Wichtig ist, was hinten bei rauskommt."

    Rough translation: "Important is, what comes out at the end."

    Which is quite funny in german.


    In the context of military and other spending, Russia will achieve much more with much less than the west. If Russia spends 1 Bill. the west will have to spend 10 or even 20 Bill. The west has already more debt than he can ever repay.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 3902
    Points : 3882
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  miketheterrible on Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:43 pm

    Well, it seems we have professionals on this forum that thinks Russia cannot do anything correctly - We have people believe that Borei's have no missiles. They swim empty. That Borei doesn't work, blah blah blah.

    It is getting to be really tiresome on this forums. This forums seems to gather a lot of morons lately. People who just spew whatever they heard and don't back it up.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8389
    Points : 8473
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  PapaDragon on Thu Dec 06, 2018 8:55 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:..........
    try to focus - Russia (as anybody) has limited amount of resources. More limited than west. Both  people and money.  Investing in arms race will take those resources form elsewhere.

    How many missiles do you think they will need? Because they will need very few of them.

    This is not some mysterious unreachable tech, this is stock stuff that needs to be tweaked. 100 of them and it's job done.

    Iskanders, Zircons or even something brand new, it doesn't matter because price is rock bottom.

    And with lowered nuclear threshold there will be less need for expensive conventional forces which will translate into massive savings down the road.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2345
    Points : 2343
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Hole on Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:41 pm

    Yeah. We´re no longer in the 80´s when you needed five or more warheads to destroy an airfield because half of them would miss it. With todays tech you need one missile with one small warhead and get the same result as back then.

    Or use a f...ing big warhead to scare the shit out of this retarded western "leaders".
    Nibiru
    Nibiru

    Posts : 200
    Points : 202
    Join date : 2018-05-22

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Nibiru on Thu Dec 06, 2018 10:06 pm




    US tells Russia to scrap 9M729 missile or modify it — Department of State


    "Either you rid the system, rid the launcher or change the system where it doesn't exceed the range," a senior diplomat said

    WASHINGTON, December 6. /TASS/. Russia should return to compliance with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty by either scrapping its 9M729 missile system or altering it in a verifiable manner, US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Andrea Thompson said on Thursday.

    http://tass.com/defense/1034798
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 3902
    Points : 3882
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  miketheterrible on Thu Dec 06, 2018 10:35 pm

    lol.

    Russia will be like "yeah, we did" and then all of a sudden everything is back to normal.

    This whole thing is just stupid that it makes even Vann look sane.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8389
    Points : 8473
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  PapaDragon on Thu Dec 06, 2018 10:41 pm

    Nibiru wrote:


    US tells Russia to scrap 9M729 missile or modify it — Department of State
    ........
    http://tass.com/defense/1034798


    9M729 > INF

    59 days left to go thumbsup
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 5288
    Points : 5441
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:28 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:lol.

    Russia will be like "yeah, we did" and then all of a sudden everything is back to normal.

    This whole thing is just stupid that it makes even Vann look sane.

    But then what about Agent Ashore? The Mk-41 cells can fire Tomahawk's with 2,500km range, and the SM-3 which has remarkably similar stats to a IRBM: Mach 16 speed and 2,500km range. Plato's Cave from the Empire of Projection.
    avatar
    Firebird

    Posts : 1013
    Points : 1039
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Firebird on Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:34 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:lol.

    Russia will be like "yeah, we did" and then all of a sudden everything is back to normal.

    This whole thing is just stupid that it makes even Vann look sane.

    That would be one SCARY level of stupid : D

    Moving on, can anyone work out what the agenda is with the cockroaches of Washington?

    I mean they've got a huge amount of neck to complain about ANYONE breaching an agreement.
    Are they terrified that US conventional power is close to being nullified?
    Or are they trying to squeeze Russia by putting offensive missiles in the ABM bases?

    Is it a last gasp effort at World Domination. Bearing in mind numerous powers - China, the EU, Russia, even India are rising?

    Anyone have an idea how this will play out?

    My guess is that America's Establishment is struggling to develop hypersonics and EW tech.
    And they want to reduce hypersonics to a few players and in limited numbers.
    Ofcourse its a huge cheek, given they are the world's biggest bullies and liars by far.

    Is an agreement even reachable. My view is that America crossed the red line with the Ukraine and has to be considered an actively (rather than dormant) rogue state vs Russia. If I was Putin, I'd actively be seeking payback for the Russian blood on US Establishment hands.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  LMFS on Fri Dec 07, 2018 12:46 am

    @Firebird:

    yes they are afraid that their conventional advantage has been eroded, Mindstorm wrote a good post on that regard in this thread.

    My two cents: I think they will keep increasing the tensions by massing troops and offensive means each time closer to the Russian border, until Russia is forced to react in any way or to attack pre-emptively. If Russia does not attack, they will do it, directly or better by proxy under any pretext, it will be accepted by the public opinion after years-long demonization of Russia. If a big conventional war starts in Europe, US will be laughing from the distance, seeing their rivals kill each other. And during the build-up period stoking the tensions allows to keep Europe from establishing normal relations with Russia, which is a existential issue for the empire.

    Thing is, the strategy of increasing provocations can succeed since there is a limit to what Russia can tolerate. But what US maybe is not so capable of controlling is whether Russia will stay conventional or go nuclear, knowing as they do US is behind the provocations and what their real aim is.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8389
    Points : 8473
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  PapaDragon on Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:27 am

    Hole wrote:Yeah. We´re no longer in the 80´s when you needed five or more warheads to destroy an airfield because half of them would miss it....


    Why would they waste nuclear ordinance on trivial nonsense like airfields?

    Only targets that make sense for a military that is not planning nuclear first strike are cities.

    If you plan to attack first then military targets like missile silos make some sense.

    But if you only plan to retaliate after you are attacked and do not plan to be one who started nuclear war of aggression then only possible targets are cities.

    Because if you launch your missiles in second strike at anything other than cities only thing you will hit are empty silos and abandoned bases.

    And there is no guaranteed way to attack missile sites without being noticed and getting those same missiles launched at your in the process.

    Is Russia planning first strike?

    Kill population or don't bother at all
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 5288
    Points : 5441
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:58 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Hole wrote:Yeah. We´re no longer in the 80´s when you needed five or more warheads to destroy an airfield because half of them would miss it....


    Why would they waste nuclear ordinance on trivial nonsense like airfields?


    It depends on who's operating the airfields, and what assets are present there. Simple F-16's and C-130's or B-1B's and B-2 Spirits? In most cases it's simply not worth it, but in some cases a small 5-10 KT warhead would be good, plus the EMP effect would add to the 'fog of war'.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8389
    Points : 8473
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  PapaDragon on Fri Dec 07, 2018 3:24 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:

    It depends on who's operating the airfields, and what assets are present there. Simple F-16's and C-130's or B-1B's and B-2 Spirits? In most cases it's simply not worth it, but in some cases a small 5-10 KT warhead would be good, plus the EMP effect would add to the 'fog of war'.

    Every nuke you waste on BS targets is at least 10000 members of hostile population​ that get to live while yours gets roasted alive

    Fog of war makes as much sense in nuclear war as cavalry charge in WW2
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 5288
    Points : 5441
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Fri Dec 07, 2018 4:07 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:

    It depends on who's operating the airfields, and what assets are present there. Simple F-16's and C-130's or B-1B's and B-2 Spirits? In most cases it's simply not worth it, but in some cases a small 5-10 KT warhead would be good, plus the EMP effect would add to the 'fog of war'.

    Every nuke you waste on BS targets is at least 10000 members of hostile population​ that get to live while yours gets roasted alive

    Fog of war makes as much sense in nuclear war as cavalry charge in WW2

    But you forget a major fact. None of the recent START treaties include tactical warheads, meaning no one has a real restriction on them (5-10 KT), no one has a real idea on how many each side has of them either. So using a tactical warhead on a airfield hosting strategic assets of the aerial part of the triad, that are meant to launch mass saturation attacks of tactical warheads, would in fact be par for the course in maintaining MAD.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22406
    Points : 22950
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  GarryB on Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:07 am

    It's the other way around. Russia can easily afford it. They are in Abundance of cash even right now. It's just they do not want to spend it.

    I disagree... their position means they cannot just piss away money like the US does, or they will be crushed and broken.

    They can't afford to waste money on impractical things that Russians don't benefit from.

    It wouldn't be in their interests to waste 5 billion dollars on IRBMs over the next ten years when that money could have been spent on investing in infrastructure and resource development within Russia.

    Especially if all they get out of it is that the US spends five times more and builds a similar number of undoubtedly inferior missiles to "counter" the threat.

    Anyone with half a brain would realise the counter to IRBMs is SAMs and an IADS with the capacity to intercept theatre ballistic missiles and IRBMs... which the Russians are already building anyway.

    Building new IRBMs for the Russians would save them money because they could use cheaper smaller weapons for the job of pointing nukes at Europe and western dominated asia, and I guess China, but they are not the threat the west is... you can talk to China... you can make deals with China... what is the point with the US?

    They could probably make a lot of money selling IRBMs to allies like China and Iran and North Korea, and IRBMs navalised and able to be launched from there UKSK launchers would be an excellent force multiplier too. Especially hypersonic manouvering IRBMs...

    INF treaty is rubbish then why Russia is defending it?

    For Russia even something as stupid as the CFE treaty was worth following because it was really the only limit on european conventional arms.

    They only decided to stop applying the CFE agreement rules until all other countries that signed it agreed to it and were bound by its rules because only Russia and I think Belarus actually tried to follow the damn thing anyway.

    If the Europeans had had their way the CFE agreement would have forced Russia to remove its peacekeepers from Nagorny Karabakh and also Abkhazia and South Ossetia... what might have happened in Georgia 2008 if that was the case...

    Undefended South Ossetians would have been shelled into extinction and Georgia would be planning their invasion of Abkhazia...

    You also post the news of Russia's budget surplus.

    A surplus is not something to waste on pointless useless things.


    well isnt it what is actually happening now?

    No it is not.

    What is happening now is that Russia is saying that any European country that has US missiles that violate the existing INF treaty based on their territory will be targeted by a Russian response that will mean nuclear explosions on their territory in the case of war.

    What I am suggesting is to expand the threat to include all European countries with ANY US forces based there.

    Right now the countries that would be targeted would be the ones with the AEGIS Ashore ABM system with the Mk-41 launchers with their current policy.

    With my policy it would include all countries with US bases including Kosovo and Turkey and Germany and the UK and Iceland etc etc.


    IMHO neutron bombs better you have clean infrastructure and lands - people hostile to Russia

    Well I agree, but only in the sense that neutron bombs are more efficient at killing people... there will be no invasion or occupation of Europe and no suggestion of that possibility or else the US could say that was evidence of Russian aggression and they really just want to take over and you need to spend more on defence... buy our weapons and keep our forces in your territory so we can control your governments.


    First off, figure out the cost of Iskander missile before commenting. Second, budget surplus this year of over 2 T Rubles

    Again, Mike, he is not saying there is no money for this stuff... he is saying that instead of spending this money on weapons that may never be used, but need to be stored and maintained... which adds further costs to keep them operational, they could spend that extra money on infrastructure... they could pick villages throughout Russia and give them upgrades... proper sewerage and water and electricity supply... high speed internet... make country living more desirable... and comfortable and then expand that model to improve quality of life for everyone in Russia.

    These are all costs within easy range for Russia. Very easy range.

    Agreed, but only if they must.

    It is like laser defence systems replacing Missiles... the reason they don't is because lasers are expensive and new technology that has a long way to go to approach the performance they get from missiles, and even then missiles are cheaper and effective.

    If the US has hypersonic manouvering weapons that the missiles need to be fired in their thousands to deal with then lasers and energy beam weapons start to make sense for the investment and development of.

    They are still developing lasers and energy weapons, but not throwing money at them, and they continue to improve missiles.

    SAM against modern IRBM with MaRV ??

    Easy... move A-235 to near the border and fit it with a big dirty nuke warhead... it is fast enough to intercept the target over enemy territory where the fallout wont be Russias problem.

    Last but not least, ground launcher for Kalibr.

    Enormous numbers of ground launched cruise missiles is cheap and would be very successful against NATO because there is no IADS there.

    Anyway, this debate is pointless cause Putin already proved me right and others wrong. He stated yesterday (or day before) that if US abandons INF treaty and starts building IRBM's, so will Russia.

    To prove you right Putin would have to say we will start building IRBMs even if the US does not withdraw from the INF treaty because we can afford it and they can't. (which is probably true... but still a waste of resources for Russia... america is used to waste... that is the basis of its civilisation... it is the throw away society... ironic that it is in the process of becoming the trash it is so good at creating.

    Well, it seems we have professionals on this forum that thinks Russia cannot do anything correctly - We have people believe that Borei's have no missiles. They swim empty. That Borei doesn't work, blah blah blah.

    It is getting to be really tiresome on this forums. This forums seems to gather a lot of morons lately. People who just spew whatever they heard and don't back it up.

    I think it is more misunderstanding... those "discussing it" with you are not saying Russia is poor and bankrupt and making IRBMs will finish them... nor are they saying the Russians are too stupid or inept to make decent IRBMs...

    They are saying that making a whole new range of weapons and deploying them will cost money they could better spend on other things that actually benefit Russian people instead of creating an arms race that benefits the 1% in the US from the pockets of hard working Americans that are too dumb to care.

    How many missiles do you think they will need? Because they will need very few of them.

    This is not some mysterious unreachable tech, this is stock stuff that needs to be tweaked. 100 of them and it's job done.

    Iskanders, Zircons or even something brand new, it doesn't matter because price is rock bottom.

    And with lowered nuclear threshold there will be less need for expensive conventional forces which will translate into massive savings down the road.

    They need enough nuke warheads pointed at the EU so that every anti Russian dickhead realises there is a Russian nuke pointed at them personally... make my day bitches...  we need a dirty harry emoticon...  



    US tells Russia to scrap 9M729 missile or modify it — Department of State


    "Either you rid the system, rid the launcher or change the system where it doesn't exceed the range," a senior diplomat said

    WASHINGTON, December 6. /TASS/. Russia should return to compliance with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty by either scrapping its 9M729 missile system or altering it in a verifiable manner, US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Andrea Thompson said on Thursday.

    - go fuck yourself   - GarryB russiadefence.net

    That would be one SCARY level of stupid : D

    And all textbook Trump... lets face it... Tomorrow he could post a tweet saying he misspoke and Russia IS in compliance with the INF treaty...  Rolling Eyes


    Moving on, can anyone work out what the agenda is with the cockroaches of Washington?

    If you break all the agreements then you get credit for signing the treaties that replace them.

    Trump sees himself as a business man and an expert in deals... from evidence to date he is actually pretty crap... slimy used salesman you could never trust anyway.

    Also they think the reason things are bad in the US is because all these treaties are holding them back from being the best.... just like it was the politicians that stopped them from winning in Vietnam and Korea etc etc.

    Are they terrified that US conventional power is close to being nullified?

    And that.

    When the treaty was signed the Soviet Union had no conventional land attack cruise missiles at sea or in the air, and very few other long range precision weapons... now they even have them on corvettes and shipping crates and the US is pissing its pants... it thinks IRBM hypersonic glide weapons will be the solution... a development of global strike... you know... where they can hit anything anywhere on the planet within 30 minutes of making the decision... and no one else can do the same...

    Is it a last gasp effort at World Domination. Bearing in mind numerous powers - China, the EU, Russia, even India are rising?

    Their push to save themselves will push the Europeans away and the Europeans are their crutch they need when swinging the bat.

    Ironically when the Europeans get out from under the USs shoulder they might realise they can have a bat themselves...

    And they want to reduce hypersonics to a few players and in limited numbers.
    Ofcourse its a huge cheek, given they are the world's biggest bullies and liars by far.

    When Russia reveals fully combat ready UCAVs America will suddenly demand international rules on their use and deployment...


    Is an agreement even reachable. My view is that America crossed the red line with the Ukraine and has to be considered an actively (rather than dormant) rogue state vs Russia. If I was Putin, I'd actively be seeking payback for the Russian blood on US Establishment hands.

    Putin is the right man for the job.... he wont make the mistake of just pissing money away to the military, he will make sure what they do has the right effect without costing too much money.

    Manouvering hypersonic weapons are coming so developing counters to them needed to come anyway... this will inject more cash into the problem.

    Remember in 2002 the US pulled out of the ABM treaty... the immediate result was that S-300 was improved to the point where it could deal with IRBMs (and called S-400... the 4.8km/s target speed interception capability did not come from nowhere... just like the 7km/s intercept speed of S-500 didn't come from nowhere either), in addition to the S-500 programme that were made public and the other systems that were not until recently like nuclear powered cruise missiles, air launched Iskander, laser systems, and UUVs with nuke payloads as well as hypersonic gliders for ICBMs.

    Wonder what we will see in probably 4-8 years time... Smile

    If a big conventional war starts in Europe, US will be laughing from the distance, seeing their rivals kill each other.

    Till warheads start coming over the south pole at them of course...

    The real purpose is to keep Russia and Europe at each others throats because then the Silk roads and energy supply come under threat... both of which exclude the US.

    Thing is, the strategy of increasing provocations can succeed since there is a limit to what Russia can tolerate. But what US maybe is not so capable of controlling is whether Russia will stay conventional or go nuclear, knowing as they do US is behind the provocations and what their real aim is.

    Russia has wielded power with gas supply... not by cutting it off or using it for blackmail, but by rerouting supplies around one particular problem state.

    It can also do this with the rail links and waterway access over the northern route... it can determine which ports the ships go to and which direction the rail lines go and can go through the ukraine or the baltic states... or it might not...

    If they want to they could turn the rail lines to their own ports instead of into the west so all traffic from Asia and China have to go through a port in St Petersberg... or even Sevastopol... over the new bridge...


    Kill population or don't bother at all

    Exactly.

    And to be effective you need to make it clear to your enemy that you are not targeting their MIC or economy... you are targeting their population centres... this is not imperialism... it is genocide.

    It depends on who's operating the airfields, and what assets are present there. Simple F-16's and C-130's or B-1B's and B-2 Spirits? In most cases it's simply not worth it, but in some cases a small 5-10 KT warhead would be good, plus the EMP effect would add to the 'fog of war'.

    For ground strike or low airbursts the EMP is minimal and not really significant.

    They only noticed the EMP effect when nukes were detonated high up in the upper atmosphere...



    But you forget a major fact. None of the recent START treaties include tactical warheads, meaning no one has a real restriction on them (5-10 KT), no one has a real idea on how many each side has of them either. So using a tactical warhead on a airfield hosting strategic assets of the aerial part of the triad, that are meant to launch mass saturation attacks of tactical warheads, would in fact be par for the course in maintaining MAD.

    The difference between tactical and theatre and strategic nuclear weapons is the delivery system and is completely unrelated to yield.

    Take a 40kg 152mm artillery shell nuke that is a tactical weapon and put it in a 2,000km range cruise or ballistic missile and it is an IRBM, or IRCM that would be controlled by the INF treaty. Take that same warhead and put 1 or 200 of them in the nose of a ICBM and it is a strategic nuclear weapon/warhead...

    There was talk of reducing tactical nuke numbers, but now they can't even agree on strategic nukes, so I suspect there will be no restrictions on the number of nukes... at least while orange boy is in charge.

    Doesn't matter much... the Russias are putting into service breeder reactors.... so called fast neutron reactors... if you put DU around the nuclear pile it gets enriched by the normal operation of the reactor... so by creating electricity you also enrich more fuel to create more electricity, or you can create more enriched material that can be used to make weapons... if the US wants an arms race... Russia is in a very good position to win rather easily... all those Iskanders in service can immediately be armed with nuke warheads just for a start... an extra solid fuelled rocket stage would easily get them to the 2-3,000km range performance... it has been shown with Kinzhal that if you take it to 10km altitude at maybe Mach 2.4 then its range extends to 2,000km and its speed to mach 10...

    With a solid rocket booster it might not get to 10km altitude before it burns out but it could also be moving at mach 4 or 5 when it falls away and the main rocket motor lights up...

    With the ground based launcher you could make it as big as you want... it actually only needs to carry one missile truth be told... replacing two missiles with 480km range with one missile with 3,500km range and mach 15 performance is a fair trade I am sure the Army will be happy to make.
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13909
    Points : 14404
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  George1 on Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:58 pm

    Putin: Russia may create ground-based weapon systems if US quits INF Treaty

    More:
    http://tass.com/defense/1036601
    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 1027
    Points : 1068
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 32
    Location : portugal

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  dino00 on Thu Jan 03, 2019 12:04 pm

    Zirkon has passed the tests on land and will start tests from ship/submarine...so just put them in a ground launcher.

    This could be one of the first answears to the withrawl of the INF treaty

    Miny Avangard for MRBM will be the other more advanced option.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Jan 03, 2019 12:47 pm

    dino00 wrote:
    Miny Avangard for MRBM will be the other more advanced option.

    yup that has been around for a while already: Rubezh/Avangard complex lol1 lol1 lol1
    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 1027
    Points : 1068
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 32
    Location : portugal

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  dino00 on Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:28 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    dino00 wrote:
    Miny Avangard for MRBM will be the other more advanced option.

    yup that has been around for a while already:  Rubezh/Avangard complex lol1 lol1 lol1

    I was thinking iskander(real range)/ mini Avangard:D Very Happy Very Happy i didnt say i invented the wheel:lol1: lol1

    Off Topic or maybe not...

    Perhaps anchar-rv is Avangard from SLBM?

    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2345
    Points : 2343
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Hole on Thu Jan 03, 2019 4:18 pm

    Future ground based launcher for Zirkon:

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 001413
    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 003910

    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 5288
    Points : 5441
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:19 am

    Hole wrote:Future ground based launcher for Zirkon:

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 001413
    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 003910


    Is the top image Yakhont from the Vietnamese armed forces? Also it's interesting to note that as a TEL, there seems to be lots of space for modernization. Looking at the top image, there's easily enough room for a stack of 3 missiles by 2 (3x2), or even 4 missiles by 2 (4x2).
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 5288
    Points : 5441
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:56 am

    Couldn't have said it better myself. This basically confirms what I've been saying for years:

    America itself is driving itself into a trap
    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 Sovetskie_raketyi_rsd10_pioner_v_bukvalnom_smyisle_navodili_uzhas_na_voennyih_ssha_i_nato_risunok_s_saita_wwwdefenseimagerymil-hsp0ukhx-1546499801

    US withdrawal from the INF Treaty is beneficial to Russia

    On December 8, 1987, the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, Gorbachev, and US President Reagan signed the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF). After all the reductions carried out according to its conditions, not a single medium-range missile was sent to the USA, and several hundred missiles from countries allied to America — to the USSR.

    Washington accuses Moscow of violating the INF Treaty, but the United States, bypassing the treaty, is developing and conducting flight tests of ballistic missiles (BR) with a range of 500–5000 km. Moscow has already pointed out several times that Washington is testing missile defense elements using target missiles that mimic a wide range of medium and short-range radar guns (Hera, MRT, Aries, LV-2, Storm, Storm-2, MRBM). It was noted that the development and testing of such missiles "set a precedent for circumventing" the INF Treaty, since they can deliver warhead at a distance limited by this treaty.

    Moreover, it actually violates the contract and the deployment of elements of the American missile defense system in Europe. After all, the Ajis Eshor anti-missile defense system with 24 Standard-3 anti-ballistic missiles with the Mk41 universal launchers (PU) Mk41, which allow using the Tomahawk cruise missiles, are already part of the Romanian Deleuzelu missile system. A similar positional area unfolds near the Polish Redzikow.

    Speaking of cruise missiles.

    During the time that has passed since the signing of the INF Treaty, the balance of forces at sea changed dramatically: if in 1987 the Soviet fleet formally occupied second place in the world, but in fact it was equal in terms of American firepower, today its firepower KR, decreased by several times, and even by orders of magnitude. At the same time, the power of the US Navy has sharply increased, the main component of which, along with the carrier strike groups and strategic rocket carriers, are ships and submarines with the Tomahawk SLCM.

    In our fleet, by 2018 almost all surface ships (NK) and submarines (PL) - carriers of P-5, P-35, "Basalt" cruise missiles and others - were withdrawn from service, and carriers of the new "Caliber" type and "Onyx" can be counted on the fingers.

    But the US Navy has seven types of NK and PL - carriers "Tomahawks": SSGN type "Ohio" - 4 (up to 154 CU each), AUVC type "Virginia" - 16 (series I-IV - 12 CU in the CIP and part in ammunition for 25 units in the torpedo compartment; Series V - 12 КР in UVP, 28 КР in special module VPM and part in ammunition for 25 units in torpedo compartment), Sivulf-type AIDC - 3 (КР in ammunition from 50 missiles and torpedoes fired from torpedo tubes), MTSPL of the Los Angeles family - 32 (30 with a CPS at 12 KP, plus a KV in ammunition of 37 units for firing from torpedo tubes), Ticonderog type URO cruiser (KP in bo Stock of 122 missiles Mk41 OHR) destroyers URO type "Eagle Burke" - 66 (90-96 OHR Mk41 on missiles, including CR), and type "Zumvolt" - 2 (OHR Mk57 80 missiles, including CR).

    In addition, the carriers of the long-range AGM-86 ALCM KR are strategic bombers B-52H, and the AGM-158C LRASM KR carriers with a range of about 1,000 km are B-1B planes.

    According to rough estimates, the cumulative arsenal of the KR sea and air-based in the US Armed Forces can consist of about 10 thousand units. This allows Washington to implement a disarming strike scenario, which should be non-nuclear: firstly, for environmental reasons (even if the Russian Federation does not launch its ICBMs, several hundred thermonuclear explosions on its territory will still cause radioactive clouds to scatter worldwide, including the United States); secondly, if we imagine that the Russian Federation lost, say, 90% of its strategic nuclear forces as a result of a non-nuclear strike, and the US strategic nuclear forces remained intact, then the Russian Federation may not risk applying the remaining 10%, because the response will be destroyed, but if the first strike is nuclear then the Russian Federation will respond with the same blow (and even a single nuclear explosion in the United States is categorically unacceptable for them).

    Moscow’s most effective response to such a challenge can only be the adoption of hundreds or even thousands of MRBMs or CDs. At the same time, the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty will untie the hands of our rocket engineers, who after 1987 created brilliant RSD projects and sent them to ... archives. Now, the Russian Federation can launch relatively cheap RSDs with a range of 5-6 thousand km, which can be disguised as mobile cars and railway cars, installed on barges, in floating containers, on the bottom of rivers and lakes, etc. Such installations will terrify Europe, and missiles with a range of 6,000 km launched from mobile launchers in Kamchatka will be able to reach the eastern states of the United States.

    Fantasy author? By no means. Here is what, for example, told reporters on November 21 of this year. former commander-in-chief of the Russian Aerospace Forces, head of the Council of Defense and Security Committee Viktor Bondarev: "Today we have in our arsenal unique strategic bombers (Tu-160), OTRK [operational-tactical missile systems] with powerful ballistic and cruise missiles (family "Iskanderov"), the Sarmat missile system, air defense systems (S-400), intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear-powered missile cruisers with powerful anti-ship missiles (Zircon hypersonic missile), bottom-launched missiles Skiff (quoted in TA C).

    The Skif bottom missile placed at the bottom in the internal waters of the Russian Federation does not violate any agreements. "Skiff" is, in fact, the usual long-range BR for submarines, it is stored on the seabed in a special container, isolating it from pressure and providing communication with the ground control station. When a signal is given from the coast, the container blows through the tanks, approximately as in a submarine during ascent, and podsplyaet to a depth of 50 m, from which the BR starts on the same principle as from the submarine.

    The advantages of bottom-based over submarines are obvious. The submarine is much more expensive than its BR, and you can try to track it using various means of detection. In the event of a conflict, the submarine can be destroyed. And the bottom rocket is not. It is useless to throw thermonuclear charges into Baikal or the White Sea. The water column effectively weakens the nuclear strike, and Skif will survive even undermining directly above it. In theory, you can work out a miracle rocket that reaches the far Russian lake and drops a deep-sea torpedo with YABC. But finding the Skiff at the bottom of Lake Baikal is not just difficult for the United States - it is a fundamentally unsolvable task. So that miracle rocket will not help. As a result, if it is difficult to deliver a disarming first nuclear attack on submarines and ICBM mines for the United States, it is impossible, but it is impossible to strike such a blow at Skif.

    Is it possible to shove an ICBM into a standard cargo trailer? So such a project has already been developed - this is the “Chain” complex with a three-stage solid-fuel rocket F-22 with a launch weight of 13.5 tons. Themes of research work "Horizon-1". The lead developer is the Leningrad design bureau Arsenal. The complex was supposed to launch a rocket without prior topographic and geodetic binding on arbitrary patrol routes. Correction of topographic equipment was to be carried out for every 100 km of the route. The launch time from the full combat readiness of the complex is up to 2 minutes, and from the constant combat readiness - up to 20 minutes. The firing range is 5-8 thousand km.

    The launcher is self-propelled on a wheeled chassis, made in the dimensions of the universal unified container UUK-30 for the transport of goods of national economy. Transportation was assumed to be standard MAZ-6422 container ships on MAZ-9389 semi-trailers with imitation of technological operations typical of UUK-30 containers. The rocket was launched from a transport and launch container using a powder pressure accumulator. Riverboats, barges and railway platforms were considered as a base option.

    Back in 1962, the development of an anti-ship missile R-27K, capable of hitting moving targets, primarily aircraft carriers, at a range of up to 900 km using a 650kt nuclear warhead, began in the USSR on the basis of the outboard BR R-27, (see Ilya Kurganov’s article Missile threat to aircraft carriers from space"-" NVO "from 04/27/18). On November 3, 1973, two such missiles were launched from the submarine K-102: one hit the target (barge) exactly, and the second fell with a tolerance. However, the missile fell under the prohibition of the SALT treaty -1, and Moscow chose to have extra BR for hitting targets in the US with anti-ship BR. China did not sign the SALT contracts and created an anti-ship BR DF-21D with a range of up to 3,000 km. missiles that will be able to hit aircraft carriers VM From the USA at distances up to 5 thousand km.

    Moreover, on the basis of the MRBD, it is possible to create unique weapon systems. For example, to include them in the "Perimeter" system, known in the West as the "Dead Hand". There are other options.


    Alexander Shirokorad

    Alexander Borisovich Shirokorad - writer, historian.

    https://vpk.name/news/240007_amerika_sama_zagonyaet_sebya_v_lovushku.html
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2345
    Points : 2343
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Hole on Fri Jan 04, 2019 11:02 am

    Yes, Vietnam. There are not many pics out there with the missiles erected. This is one of the best.

    The prototype of the Bastion had three Missiles. Maybe the coastal forces wanted better field performance and one missile was axed to save weight.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 5288
    Points : 5441
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Fri Jan 04, 2019 3:23 pm

    Hole wrote:Yes, Vietnam. There are not many pics out there with the missiles erected. This is one of the best.

    The prototype of the Bastion had three Missiles. Maybe the coastal forces wanted better field performance and one missile was axed to save weight.

    Yeah, if I recall right the Indian Brahmos launcher has 3 launch tubes. Also I feel like a tracked version could justify having 4 or more missiles. Take the S-300V4 for example, just look how enormous its launch tubes and TEL look:

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 S-300VM_SA-23_Gladiator_air_defence_missile_system_Russia_Russian_army_001

    ....They could justifiyably take the S-300V4 TEL and stick 6 or 8 P-800 Onyx/3M22 Zircon launchers on top of it.

    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2345
    Points : 2343
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Hole on Fri Jan 04, 2019 4:49 pm

    The Bastion launchers as part of the coastal forces will carry two Zircon instead of two Onyx. But a "strategic" version as part of the strategic missile forces could carry more. Or take a heavier truck.

    Sponsored content

    INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life   - Page 16 Empty Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Nov 22, 2019 10:04 am