I honestly wonder about that, since it's not a dedicated sea based platform, but the INF doesn't say it needs to be a dedicated sea based, at least from what i can make out from that blob of text.
The INF treaty defines banned systems as ballistic or cruise missiles launched from ground based launchers... it does not include Mk-41 vertical launch systems the US Navy uses when they are mounted on ships, but when mounted on a land base in eastern europe such launchers are not only able to launch SAMs but Tomahawk cruise missiles so they represent a violation of the INF treaty.
I don't see the US dismantling those launchers meaning Russia would be free to build land based or truck based UKSK launchers where they want on the land too... making the INF treaty not worth the paper it is printed on.
Why not, considering Russia's lack of major surface vessels it makes sense to put cruise missiles in everything possible (containers for example).
Because most of their new vessels will carry plenty of launch tubes... why waste space on conventional subs... of course UKSK tubes in a conventional sub are useful because they can carry anti ship and anti sub missiles as well as land attack cruise missiles.
They could build a cruise missile carrier boat that is just hundreds of UKSK tubes for land attack roles in conventional conflicts. In other types of conflict they could have perhaps S-500s fitted in the large tubes of the UKSK launchers, and also perhaps develop UAVS that can be launched from such tubes...
And there lies the question, is a corvette really cheaper then a midget sub, if so than there's still the aspect of a midget sub being much more difficult to search&destroy.
A sub is a sneak attack weapon... a corvette is a multi purpose vessel with a much wider range of overt uses. They are different enough for both to be useful.
True, which is good, although i wonder how many container have been procured?
If that happens than i have nothing to worry about, no sane adversary would dare launch an attack, unless they went full retard.
No doubt, hell if that happens it may even force the western dogs to sign a new treaty.
The INF treaty is useful in that it limits US weapons in europe and eliminates an entire class of weapon from the ground in europe.
When it was signed the SS-20 was a potent powerful weapon that was very destabilising... weapons in Turkey also meant there might be 2-5 minutes between launch and a direct attack on Moscow... that is a real hair trigger... 2 minutes to decide if it is a mistake or WWIII... no real time to talk to anyone... just destroy the world or not.
Today however the radar coverage of Russia and europe is much much better and the air defence capabilities are also much better so most missiles fired could be intercepted...
It remains a limit on US missiles in europe so Russia does not withdraw, but when tomahawk launch tubes are being built as part of an ABM system in europe then they will have to say enough if enough and withdraw... which would allow development of the IRBM range of weapons which are cheaper and very effective in theatre conflicts like europe, the ME and Asia.
Of course in the near future there will be hypersonic cruise missiles on the table and you can bet they wont have super long range, but will have a range greater than 500km... they will be like Ballistic missiles in speed, but with the manouver capability of an aircraft they will be much harder to intercept than a BM.. . I suspect they will become the new IRBMs and kill the INF treaty for good.