INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

More evidence the INF treaty was a complete sham from the beginning:

In this context, it is necessary to remind both the State Department and the US Department of Defense that, on December 11, 2018, when testing the effectiveness of their global missile defense system, the US naval forces successfully intercepted a medium-range missile banned by the Elimination Treaty RIAC. This test was the 96th violation of the contract by the American side over the past 17 years. In 2019, the Pentagon intends to break this treaty 12 more times. Are there too many violations of only one treaty in conditions when Russia did not violate it even once?

The above figure suggests that the United States has long been actually withdrawn from this treaty act. But they are trying brazenly accusing the other side of its “non-observance”, misleading the whole world community.

They came out of it and politically , when in December last year they unequivocally spoke at the UN General Assembly against the adoption of a draft resolution in support of the Treaty on the Elimination of the INF.

Therefore, there will never be any exchanges on the Russian side, as suggested by Washington.

The donut hole doesn’t change to donut.

http://eurasian-defence.ru/?q=eksklyuziv/razmenov-budet-dyrka-bublika

It should also be noted that the US Congress never ratified the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) either, further putting things in to context. The next necessary step would be to leave the MTC treaty, and add a stipulation of leaving the Non-Proliferation Treaty such as if IRBM's are deployed in Europe theater, then the Federation exits NPT.

Hahahaha The Russians will continue to beg the US not to withdraw from the INF Treaty

Arrow wrote:Hahahaha The Russians will continue to beg the US not to withdraw from the INF Treaty

I think they are doing exactly the opposite...they made everything they could for the US to want to withdraw, and the US to assume to Europe that responsabillity
This briefing is not for the Americans, is for the Europeans.
Dont se any beg, and why will That be funny?...except if you are trolling...which you are...
In the end more Zirkons on the land launchers, where they passed the tests...That  should be funny.
They are developing miny Zirkons, let develop giant ones.

Arrow is a proven fucking retard. And our mods are lazy allowing such a moron to continue to provide zero benefit to this forums other than being stupid.

US begged Russia for INF because of Pioneer. After they decided to keep breaking the INF rules, they decided to bail out of it thinking now they have an advantage, which they don't. Their systems sucked so much they had to go to Israel to get them to work on their shitty missile defense systems. Now they will have what? Basic IRBM's no better than Iran and threaten Russia? Oh wait, not even that. Just some tomahawk cruise missiles.

Russia will respond first with Navy based Kalibrs on ground launchers. Then better stuff later like the next Kalibr iteration.

Hahaha... the only ones screwed by the failure of the INF treaty is the Europeans... Russia is already well on its way to developing a nation wide IADS to cover Russian air space... the EU and Nato have nothing like it and would need to spend trillions and make a lot of agreements and design changes to their current weapons to get where Russia was 10 years ago...

If anything is going to break NATO it will be this... it shows to the EU that the US really doesn't give a crap about them and their defence and NATO is about controlling the EU in matters of trade with Russia and China.

Personally I think it will be good for Russia... they can make IRBMs to hit intermediate range targets instead of having to rely on using bigger heavier ICBMs at shorter ranges.

BG and Mike... I am not going to ban BG or Arrow... you are entitled to your opinion and to be honest most of the time Arrow is being a dick... I think that is intentional... but I also think it is good for the people here to see that not everyone thinks the same way they do and they have the right to say it.

So big fuckin' surprise, highly politicised US propaganda intel was completely wrong.
Of course, they'll deny it & claim this presentation was a bunch of fake news spread by putinbots or something and tomorrow they'll continue evidence free claims of multiple & repeated violations over decades.

Via the other thread https://www.russiadefence.net/t7666-9m729-ssc-x-8-glcm#245795
Russia has released details about the 9M279 showing that its INF compliant & the US is full of shit.
Turns out its longer because its got a bigger warhead which was what was suggested long ago when that missile was first identified as 'likely culprit'.

Russia is already well on its way to developing a nation wide IADS to cover Russian air space. wrote:

Russian IADS is strong only in a few places. Moscow, St. Petersburg, Crimea. The rest of the location is poorly protected.

WSJ thinks otherwise. They call it the "new iron curtain".

So big fuckin' surprise, highly politicised US propaganda intel was completely wrong.
Of course, they'll deny it & claim this presentation was a bunch of fake news spread by putinbots or something and tomorrow they'll continue evidence free claims of multiple & repeated violations over decades.

The US has decided it wants to make IRBMs for the Pacific region... this was just an excuse to try to blame Russia... whether it works or not does not really matter... it is always going to be Russias fault don't you know...

Russian IADS is strong only in a few places. Moscow, St. Petersburg, Crimea. The rest of the location is poorly protected.

Poorly protected compared with what?

Remember we are not just talking about Army air defence forces and capability... they have a naval (ship and land) based air defence network, an Army one, and an Air Force one that is linked to the Aerospace defence network that includes satellites, OTH radar, aircraft and ground units.

They have four military districts which are all defended by a range of assets old and new, but their overall coverage is pretty damn impressive.

They used to have significant gaps in the Arctic... but there was nothing there to hit so there was little point in putting forces there.

Now with the new trade routes ports will be upgraded and military forces will be stationed there so gaps will be filled so threats coming from over the pole will have another gauntlet to penetrate to get to the targets in the south which will also be protected...

Welcome to the Jungle baby... you gonna die... as the great poet Axle Rose once said...

In comparison in Europe the defences consist of a few major radar bases and some airfields... most NATO armies have pathetic air defence capability... the only real exception would be their navies, but even then it is pretty ordinary considering the types of new threats they will be needing to deal with today and in the near future.

The S-300 had anti theatre ballistic capability when it entered service in the late 1970s and that performance has been dramatically improved by upgrades and other systems that operate with it or are replacing it in service.

Of course the S-400 and S-500 systems would be banned if they entered service in the 1970s or 80s because they violate the ABM treaty... but of course the US scrapped that years ago so there is no issue with the newer parts of S-400 and the entire S-500 system... not to mention the Army S-300V4 system of course...

WSJ thinks otherwise. They call it the "new iron curtain".

But there are big empty spaces that are not being protected...  

Every place important enough to target will have a military unit nearby that could defend it, and there is the air force that can fill gaps and of course much of it is mobile too... so gaps can shift and change and get filled without warning.

The map misses S-300V4 and Buk-M2/-M3. Plus the new S-350 coming into service this year. Plus all those Tor and Pantsir systems covering anything important.

So let's sum up:

Karakurt-class carries 8 cruise missiles.

Price: 30 million bucks. Crew: 39


Two heavy trucks carry 8 cruise missiles as well.

Price: 200.000 bucks, give or take. Crew: 6


Conclusion: ditch this nonsense treaty already!!!

Indeed limiting short and medium range land-based missiles is much more detrimental to Russia as a surrounded land power than to US, that always had a huge navy and just kept building up their SLCMs numbers, and never had any need of MRBM/IRBM to defend the country. Plus their lag in missile technology + stress put on the relationship with their EU "allies" means they are ditching the wrong treaty

BEIJING, January 31. /TASS/. No progress on the issue of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty was made at the meeting with US Under Secretary of State Andrea Thompson, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said on Thursday.

"Unfortunately, there is no progress. The US position remains rather tough and ultimatum-like," Ryabkov said. "We told the US side that it is impossible to hold dialogue in the conditions of attempted blackmailing of Russia," he added.

The meeting in Beijing between Ryabkov and Thompson lasted less than an hour. US not ready for dialogue

According to Ryabkov, Washington is not ready to hold dialogue with Moscow. "The US side is now trying to criticize us that this had been arranged in a wrong way [a briefing of the Foreign and Defense Ministry on 9M729 missile] but it contradicts itself and does not confirm that it is ready to further discuss with us any transparency measures," Ryabkov said.

"Certainly, there has been no reaction to our demands on the US universal launchers as part of the Aegis Ashore systems, which have been already deployed to Romania and will soon emerge in Poland. There is no progress on two other our concerns related to the use by the US of target-missiles, which by their characteristics are nearly identical to intermediate-range ballistic missiles, and there has been no progress on drones either," he said.

The senior diplomat stressed that the US stance signals that its 60-day ultimatum on the INF Treaty is only aimed to cover up the decision to exit the treaty. Washington is fully responsible for the situation, he emphasized. "They have taken an absolutely destructive and a very tough stance, and they imposed themselves a 60-day deadline for us to meet their ultimatum," Ryabkov noted.
Russia to continue its efforts

According to the diplomat, the lack of progress in dialogue with the US arouses deep Russia’s concerns, especially over European security. "Now, as we understand, the next stage, the next phase is beginning, namely the phase of the US suspension of its commitments under the INF Treaty. This will apparently happen this weekend."

"But we will continue the work, we are not giving up. We are ready to look for solutions, but now it will be much more difficult to do this," he noted.
US intention to leave INF Treaty

The United States claims that the 9M729 missile has a range capability that exceeds the 500 km limit stipulated by the INF Treaty and demands that Russia eliminate all these missiles, threatening to withdraw from the treaty. Russia has numerously rejected these claims, saying that the new missile does not violate the INF Treaty with its range capability.

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty was signed between the former Soviet Union and the United States on December 8, 1987 and entered into force on June 1, 1988. The INF Treaty covered deployed and non-deployed ground-based shorter-range missiles (from 500 to 1,000 kilometers) and intermediate-range missiles (from 1,000 to 5,500 kilometers).

On January 15, Russia and the US held inter-agency consultations on the INF Treaty in Geneva. Washington again accused Moscow of breaching the arms control agreement. The US threatens to leave the treaty on February 2 unless Russia destroys its 9M729 missile, which allegedly violates the agreement. Russia told colleagues that during the Zapad-2017 drills on September 18, 2017 this missile was test-launched at the Kapustin Yar proving ground at its maximum range and it covered less than 480 km.


More:
http://tass.com/politics/1042580


http://tass.com/politics/1042580

Call their bluff... even if they do develop IRBMs and cruise missiles... so what... they could base weapons in the Ukraine and the Baltic states and no doubt eventually will which means they don't need IRBMs to threaten Russia directly... effectively the INF treaty ties Russias hands and makes it have to use either enormous ICBMs or allocate a lot of SLBMs to deal with targets in Europe, when smaller lighter cheaper IRBM sized missiles could do the job much more efficiently and also free up SLBMs and ICBMs for pointing at the US.

Of course if they don't give a sht about the INF treaty they probably wont care about new START either so it could just come down to efficient production of nuclear weapons and systems to get them to target... the thing is that Russia just wants a military that can deliver a killing blow to the west, while the west wants the capacity to wipe out the Russian nuclear strike capacity almost completely in a first strike and to build a defence system that can deal with the few weapons left over...

That makes Russian goals much easier and cheaper to achieve but if you really think about it the US is doing the opposite of what it should be doing... the new START agreement limits Russia to 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads, and the INF treaty pretty much means some of those will need to be pointed at Europe and the Middle East and Japan and other targets... with both agreements in place Russia and the US are limited which best suits the US... they don't need IRBMs because in Europe most of their forces are air based or Sea based which is not covered by the INF treaty.

So scrap the INF treaty and let the new START treaty lapse... for the Russians building new missiles can be made rather cheaper than the cost of building a navy or army or air force that can take on all of NATO... their new design fast neutron reactors will allow the rapid production of nuclear weapons grade material, so making bombs will be quick and cheap too.

So yet again... America shoots itself in the foot. Hahahahaha...

Isn't it ironic that US big business is smarter than US politicians... Coca cola doesn't just blunder into a new economy... they look at what sells and who dominates the market and they buy them out... they even sell their former competitors product by adding it to their own range even when it is in direct competition with their own product... here in NZ we have a drink called L&P... basically a lemon flavoured drink... Coca cola own it now but still sell it along side their own lemon drink called Sprite... we get the illusion of choice but the money all goes to the same company...

Arrow wrote:Russian IADS is strong only in a few places. Moscow, St. Petersburg, Crimea. The rest of the location is poorly protected.

you're right!   most of tundra or arctic tiny inhabited  islands are  poorly protected by AAD/ABM  systems

Hole wrote:The map misses S-300V4 and Buk-M2/-M3. Plus the new S-350 coming into service this year. Plus all those Tor and Pantsir systems covering anything important.

I dotn think ABM characteristics of Buk-3 or Pantsir 2 (or whatever is name for 24x lunching version) re just coincidental... this was years go already foreseen.

GarryB wrote:So yet again... America shoots itself in the foot. Hahahahaha...

This is more forcing Russia to distract resources form other directions (people, enterprises, money) then military need for USA

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

GarryB wrote:So yet again... America shoots itself in the foot. Hahahahaha...

This is more forcing Russia to distract resources form other directions (people, enterprises, money) then military need for USA

More like helping them save money, just did a calculation a while back:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t2568p425-inf-treaty-coming-to-the-end-of-its-life#245958

Once they dump the workload on intermediate missiles they will be saving extra on conventional troops

PapaDragon wrote:
More like helping them save money, just did a calculation a while back:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t2568p425-inf-treaty-coming-to-the-end-of-its-life#245958

Once they dump the workload on intermediate missiles they will be saving extra on conventional troops

nope, they wont. IRMBs will be on-top on conventional troops.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
More like helping them save money, just did a calculation a while back:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t2568p425-inf-treaty-coming-to-the-end-of-its-life#245958

Once they dump the workload on intermediate missiles they will be saving extra on conventional troops

nope, they wont. IRMBs will be on-top on conventional troops.

For war with NATO? No conventional troops required.

Naval savings alone for dumping cruise missiles on middle east will be mouth watering.

PapaDragon wrote: For war with NATO? No conventional troops required.

Naval savings alone for dumping cruise missiles on middle east will be mouth watering.

isnt recent Russian doctrine introducing non-nuclear deterrence concept? BTW Armta, Su-57, increasing of VDV is part of it.

So big fuckin' surprise, highly politicised US propaganda intel was completely wrong.

Well we don't really know that is true... the US Intel saw the new weapon... looked at its size and thought that a super large conventional warhead is redundant because you could just use a small compact light nuke warhead to get the same effect... why should the Russians care about European lives when we don't give a fuck and we are their allies... so it must be lots of fuel which means it must have a range that makes it an INF treaty violation... send this report to the boss...

The boss will say... are you sure... and they would say that is what they would have designed it for it it was them making it...

The problem is that when you have a negative stereotype of your enemy then you can suggest any bad potential behaviour and it sticks... not because it makes sense... but because when you think your enemy hates you as much as you hate everyone (including yourself) then you can imagine them being totally irrational about things like you are...

Assad probably used chemical weapons... because we do all the time... Putin personally poisoned the Skripals because we poisoned Castro and Chavez... it is a successful technique we use ourselves so why would we not believe they would do it?

This is more forcing Russia to distract resources form other directions (people, enterprises, money) then military need for USA

Well it is a terrible idea if that is the goal... in comparison with the alternatives... ie ICBMs on depressed trajectories... IRBMs are smaller lighter cheaper and would be much more mobile and easier to hide... you could develop a 4 missile launcher vehicle with relatively long narrow missiles and fly it around the place in an aircraft ready to attack anyone in a moments notice.

Right now as they are beginning to introduce hypersonic scramjet powered missiles is the last time you want to rip up an agreement limiting ground launched short and intermediate range missiles (cruise and ballistic).

Iskander is an excellent weapon and would actually be a rather useful and power naval weapon except one thing makes it useless... the 500km range.

Making a 3,000km range surface launched model would be excellent but would never happen because the US would claim it could also be used in the land based model and therefore violate the INF treaty... no longer a problem now.

They could develop a family of weapons based on the Iskander with a range of ranges and sizes and launch platforms...

Once they dump the workload on intermediate missiles they will be saving extra on conventional troops

The other thing is that they can load them all up with maybe half to three quarters with conventional warheads so they could actually be used in a pinch, but the rest could be nukes... or if the west keeps getting shitty then make them all nukes and make it clear they are all nukes... make them cheaper by not bothering with terminal guidance... INS guidance with 1-2km CEP would be fine for city busting and that would also make it clear these are for self defence and the destruction of NATO countries and not for conquest or invasion.

nope, they wont. IRMBs will be on-top on conventional troops.

About 800m - 1km up is supposed to be optimum...

isnt recent Russian doctrine introducing non-nuclear deterrence concept? BTW Armta, Su-57, increasing of VDV is part of it.

The attitude of the west... trying to economically crush Russia and China... nuke-em...

Mobile high tech forces are intended to make them more effective for their size but they are not really geared to fight and win WWIII... they would need a much bigger force...

Just kidding.