INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

If the west starts a war, some hypersonic missiles will destroy really important installations in a matter of minutes. If the west still thinks a war against Russia is a good idea, ballistic and cruise missiles will fly around and time will not be important anymore. That´s why Poseidon and Burevestnik were developed. It could take them days before they hit their targets but they will hit them, which is the important part.

@Hole, GarryB: thanks for answering

Should add that that cluster munition warhead would include their sensor fused MMW radar and IR guided top attack anti armour munitions...



The huge irony is that in a war of ballistic and cruise missile attack the Russians are probably the best defended country on the planet and is getting better every day with new systems being added and introduced all the time.

GarryB wrote:

@Hole, GarryB: thanks for answering

Should add that that cluster munition warhead would include their sensor fused MMW radar and IR guided top attack anti armour munitions...

The huge irony is that in a war of ballistic and cruise missile attack the Russians are probably the best defended country on the planet and is getting better every day with new systems being added and introduced all the time.

You normally escalate in the way that is beneficial to you, not to your enemy right? But as the American elites are military illiterates and emotionally underdeveloped bullies, they think they will out-smart and out-spend the Russians like they think they have always done. Poor idiots, missile technology in Russia is head and shoulders above that of US, AD effort is simply not comparable in scale and intensity and they just freed themselves from the artificial restrictions INF treaty was putting on them. In the short to medium term the exchange would not look well for NATO, at all. And in a high attrition scenario, European population will not fight until their last blood for the financial plutocracy and US exceptionalism, I can guarantee you this.

They can't even decide on a single fighter design so the new NATO air defence network is going to be a shambles and as expensive as they can make it...

These Yankee worms and their sycophants should just STFU. Like the word of the Exceptionalistan government is pure golden honesty never to be contravened. Exceptionalistanis claim that only ABM rockets will be launched. But the same launchers can be used to launch nuclear warhead armed cruise missiles. Thus they violate the INF. Period.

The treaty is pretty clear... you are not allowed the missiles or the launchers the missiles can be launched from...

So AEGIS Ashore clearly is a violation of the INF treaty...

LMFS wrote:You normally escalate in the way that is beneficial to you, not to your enemy right? But as the American elites are military illiterates and emotionally underdeveloped bullies, they think they will out-smart and out-spend the Russians like they think they have always done. Poor idiots, missile technology in Russia is head and shoulders above that of US, AD effort is simply not comparable in scale and intensity and they just freed themselves from the artificial restrictions INF treaty was putting on them.

About the truly surprising illiteracy,technical incompetence and infantile aptitude of not only political American elites but even supposedly professional military analysts there are by now no doubts whatsoever; if someone want to have some laughs can read this void, childishly irrational, article by Rebecca Grant (the supposed analyst that each year come out with a new simplicistic and technically ungrounded piece on the "stealth" and "anti-stealth" subject ) and see the video where Peter Brookes , another supposed big name among US military analysts with a past of very high level charges in CIA and USA's military planning and administration, respond to the question of the TV journalist about the Russian weapons "light years" head of theirs and the "catch-up" by part of the US, clearly refered to the new generation of offensive and defensive systems presented by Federation's President В.В. Путин, pretending to not having understood the reference and saying that this lag pertain only to the weapons where the Russians broke the INF Treaty !!!! (like the technology for subsonic long range ground based cruise missile was not something already old by half of '70 years both for USA that СССР and the latter had by beginning of '80 years IRBM with multiple warheads with parameters multiple of times superior to the best US counterpart.....but obviously admiting that would render even more evident the total irrationality of theirs allegations against us about the 9M729 missile ,used as justification for theirs unilateral exit from INF).

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/russia-will-pay-a-big-price-for-arms-control-treaty-violations

If the average US reader and media observer would get a minimum of "out-of-the-box" critical thinking, specific knowledges and human-like IQ rational inference capacity, at the end of similar comic pieces, there would be a titanic wave of exortations for the two "experts" to abandon theirs places toward the nearest open-air-market as sellers of lower quality tomatos.

That said i think that is more interesting to analise the real reasons that have driven (maybe even forced) the US to unilaterally exit from INF at conditions, as well observed by LMFS, not favourable to them , those are mainly two :

- A very huge as unexpected military scientifical gap against us in perspective strategic related offensive and defensive technologies ,corresponding to a lag of no less than a decade and half of R&D efforts in very different physics and engeenering fields.
- A numerical computation of the opposing strategic delivery means, that would surpass of several times theirs, whitout the breaking of any of the bilateral strategic weapons control treaties in force (...and that not even accounting for the effects that would produce on the balance the expected completion,within the next decade, in the Federation of a fully mobile multilayered strategic defense network enjoying the same, if not greater, technological superiority in comparison with that planned by the US and with some elements based on so called "new physical principles" ).


Leaving for now outside of the discussion the effects of the new defensive systems, disclosed and not, on the future strategic balance -including the already presented "Пересвет"- about which ,in the coming years, will be a wide chance and several new elements for reasoning, and the sub-strategic systems -"Циркон" and "Кинжал"- we can put into center of the attention the strategic offensive means that has been presented : "Буревестник" , "Авангард" and "Посейдон".
The key requirement for those weapons was the following:

1)Not violate ANY of the bilateral strategic and sub-strategic weapon control agreements in place with the US.
2)Having global range and the destructive potential to represent a very heavy survival risk for the potential enemy.
3)Greatly surpass or having the chance to circumvent the actual and in-development capabilities of strategic defense systems of NATO's partners (both sensor networks and active elements).
4) To be innovative enough to require by part of competitors the development ,from zero, of different perspective counter-systems for each of those weapons, each costing several orders of magnitude more.

Requirement one and four are of particular importance in understanding the chain of reactions that lead ultimately to the unilateral exit by part of the US from the INF Treaty (a move fully expected by Federation's analysts); over-ocean planners in facts had received since at least 2013 info on some of the new weapons in-development and theirs overall cababilities and since at least 2015 was preparing the scapegoat for the exit from INF.

Reason is that, against the serial production of those weapons with planetary range the US couldn't respond :

1) Neither claimimg the breaking of any of the treaties in place, because them has been purposely developed to be outside of banned weapon classifications.
2) Neither putting in place any working defensive counter systems because those weapons are so innovative that even the counter for only one of them should be developed literally from zero, at prohibitive costs, and in an enormous timeframe.
3) Neither similar strategic weapons to maintain symmetrical deterrence, because them are a full decade and half behind in some the technologies at the basis of theirs development and in others even further.

All of that in a first half of a century where the offensive and deterrence value of ballistic missiles with classical layout and in the today numbers is expected to fall sharply (maybe almost to the irrelevance) against the emergence of new aero-space strategic defense systems.

In substance the US and its vassals has been caught in a true military geo-strategic bottleneck, at its own time generated by an unexpected and deep military science lag the unique response to which was to exploit the remaining geo-strategic influence on its "allies", because the US, from now on, will literally depend for its deterrence on the compliance of allies that it will directly and purposely put in thermonuclear arms way (IRBM created from scratch and even less cruise missile with US level of technology placed in CONUS would obviously have zero strategic and even substrategic value) and in doing that Americans will quickly erode the basis of this influence and promote and feed the already growing will for defensive authonomy and independence among the not controled European political forces.

USA analysts , like ours, are perfectly aware of those geo-strategic dynamics and that the actual exit from INF greatly penalize them while opening other enormous opportunities for us ,also and above all in the conventional struggle and not only for the effect that on this balance will produce the grounding of the sub-strategic "Циркон" and "Кинжал" but above all because any future IRBM equiped with an Авангард vehicle will attain global reach while not being limited by START, but them lack any credible alternatives.

What can these new principles of physics be? Where they made such breakthroughs. I understand miniature nuclear reactors, but where else? Scramjet engine?

uture IRBM equiped with an Авангард vehicle will attain global reach while not being limited by START, wrote:

How is it possible for HGV on IRBM to have global reach?

Mindstorm wrote: future IRBM equiped with an Авангард vehicle will attain global reach while not being limited by START[/b],  but them lack any credible alternatives.  

That will give Russia the hegde but START Will disapear, dont understand the importance of khynzal ground.
Superb post!

Long-Range "Daggers"

On the destruction of the INF Treaty, Russia will respond with surgical precision

https://vpk-news.ru/articles/48616

Arrow wrote:What can these new principles of physics be? Where they made such breakthroughs. I understand miniature nuclear reactors, but where else? Scramjet engine?



How is it possible for HGV on IRBM to have global reach?

A powered HGV, beyond the initial throw-weight moment from it's subsequent launch stages, with the help of it's independent fuel and engine would be able to fly in to Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) giving it unlimited range. The engine would probably be shut off by the time Avantegard enters LEO (to conserve fuel, and low atmosphere), and could probably dive with the help of retro-thrusters, and bomb the target, or use the remainder of it's fuel to maneuver in atmosphere before hitting ground zero, or possibly fake a dive and fly back in to LEO.

Arrow wrote:What can these new principles of physics be? Where they made such breakthroughs. I understand miniature nuclear reactors, but where else? Scramjet engine?

like HGV where US keeps filing tens of years now.  Poseidon drones.

A wrote: How is it possible for HGV on IRBM to have global reach?

6,000 IRBM + 6-8,000km Avangard

dino00 wrote:Long-Range "Daggers"

On the destruction of the INF Treaty, Russia will respond with surgical precision

https://vpk-news.ru/articles/48616

I just wonder why everybody seems to forget bout RS-26 Rubezh? It can carry Avangard, was tested 2000-5800km... redy for production.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

dino00 wrote:Long-Range "Daggers"

On the destruction of the INF Treaty, Russia will respond with surgical precision

https://vpk-news.ru/articles/48616

I just wonder why everybody seems to forget bout RS-26 Rubezh?  It can carry Avangard, was tested 2000-5800km... redy for production.

Until START is in Rubezh is out. But later he could be needed.
What could be the performance of khinzal launched from the ground, could he achive Mach 10?

dino00 wrote:............
What could be the performance of  khinzal launched from the ground, could he achive Mach 10?

Should be pretty straightforward, just add extra stage to get it off the ground and up to speed

'Put everything on trucks' is my motto

A ground-launched Kinzahl could also be called Iskander-M2 or so.

Hole wrote:A ground-launched Kinzahl could also be called Iskander-M2 or so.

Kinzhal is derivative of Iskander but they are hardly identical

I'm pretty sure you could fit more than 2 double-stage Kinzhals on same truck they use for Iskander

You know what is really funny? Bush the lesser, loudly announced Prompt Global Strike in early 2000s, if Im not wrong. after 20 ye ars of continuous successes X-51 c an fly 50 seconds!

meantime in Russia Evil Putin announced Avangard, which is de facto PGS weapon. Trust me it is only becsue Russian hackers have stolen US tech that was not yet developed !

dino00 wrote:
Until START is in Rubezh is out. But later he could be needed.
What could be the performance of  khinzal launched from the ground, could he achive Mach 10?

is not necessarily out, Rubezh procurement was cut just due to budget cuts not treaty reasons. US were accusing Russians that at Rubezh is IRBM anyway.


BTW New START ends up in less then 2 years.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

A wrote: How is it possible for HGV on IRBM to have global reach?

6,000 IRBM + 6-8,000km Avangard

Actually I would argue unlimited range, via LEO. Take the MiG-31DZ ASAT, it could launch objects in to 120-600km orbits (with a second stage of development allowing it to fly at 1500km altitude), nothing will stop an Avantegard warhead flying at higher altitudes and speeds (by comparable launch platforms with a powered flight) from doing the same.

Remember the only thing preventing FOBS was the largely (now) defunct Outer Space Treaty, which (you guessed it) the US refused to agree with the Russia/China UN Security Council proposal back in 2016 (Obama admin) to prevent a space arms race. Yes even before Trump, the Obama admin had plans of vacating treaties (Prompt Global Strike killed the Outer Space Treaty, like Aegis Ashore killed the INF-Treaty), even before that George W. Bush vacated the ABM-Treaty.

dino00 wrote:
Until START is in Rubezh is out. But later he could be needed.
What could be the performance of  khinzal launched from the ground, could he achive Mach 10?

Nonsense, START is effectively dead....remember the last START Treaty was done under the largely laughable 'US-Russia Reset' (which they launched the Syria de-stabilization soon after), under Killary Clinton which she blatantly negotiated under bad faith, so there's no barrier in to finishing Rubezh's (aka 'Pioneer-2') development. I can't honestly foresee any 'REAL' arms treaty being successfully negotiated within the next 10 years, or 15 for that matter.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

dino00 wrote:
Until START is in Rubezh is out. But later he could be needed.
What could be the performance of  khinzal launched from the ground, could he achive Mach 10?

Nonsense, START is effectively dead....remember the last START Treaty was done under the largely laughable 'US-Russia Reset' (which they launched the Syria de-stabilization soon after), under Killary Clinton which she blatantly negotiated under bad faith, so there's no barrier in to finishing Rubezh's (aka 'Pioneer-2') development. I can't honestly foresee any 'REAL' arms treaty being successfully negotiated within the next 10 years, or 15 for that matter.

Nonsense, you Said what i Said for others words START is alive until is dead...from what i remember Rubzeh development, and testing was finished, just didnt went to deploy because of the treaty/budget.

Hard to say a lot for Rubzeh they only showed a night test.

dino00 wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

dino00 wrote:
Until START is in Rubezh is out. But later he could be needed.
What could be the performance of  khinzal launched from the ground, could he achive Mach 10?

Nonsense, START is effectively dead....remember the last START Treaty was done under the largely laughable 'US-Russia Reset' (which they launched the Syria de-stabilization soon after), under Killary Clinton which she blatantly negotiated under bad faith, so there's no barrier in to finishing Rubezh's (aka 'Pioneer-2') development. I can't honestly foresee any 'REAL' arms treaty being successfully negotiated within the next 10 years, or 15 for that matter.

Nonsense, you Said what i Said for others words START is alive until is dead...from what i remember Rubzeh development, and testing was finished, just didnt went to deploy because of the treaty/budget.

Hard to say a lot for Rubzeh they only showed a night test.

Development =/= Deployment.

Yury Solomonov in an interview on one of the videos posted on this board claimed the Pioneer was overkill. I kind of agree with him.
It is better to have two or more smaller missiles than one oversized one. But the critical detail is that thanks to a factor of 2+ energy
density improvement in Russian solid rocket fuel since the 1980s, Russia can have its cake and eat it too. Pioneer-2 can be smaller
in size with the same payload.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Actually I would argue unlimited range, via LEO. T{}, nothing will stop an Avantegard warhead flying at higher altitudes and speeds (by comparable launch platforms with a powered flight) from doing the same.

perhaps  FOBS would not yet look good the news        but I would not exclude that FOBS Avangard could be potentially easier target for orbital lasers/interceptors.  in space it cannot use control spaces but only  RCS thrusters.

kvs wrote:Yury Solomonov in an interview on one of the videos posted on this board claimed the Pioneer was overkill.   I kind of agree with him.
It is better to have two or more smaller missiles than one oversized one.   But the critical detail is that thanks to a factor of 2+ energy
density improvement in Russian solid rocket fuel since the 1980s, Russia can have its cake and eat it too.   Pioneer-2 can be smaller
in size with the same payload.  

BTW Skorost and Kurier look fine s lightweight  but IMHO Pioneer's  task was not Europe but CONUS. Chukotka - US (Andyr  - LA ~5,500km, Chicago ~6,000)



With Avangard (27Ma ~7,6 km/s on ~80km) it takes 13 min to LA

Two thirds of all SS-20 were stationed in Europe to deter against english and french nuclear weapons and also the bombers/nuclear bombs that Amiland had in Europe. The rest was based in Asia against China.

Mindstorm wrote:
- A numerical computation of the opposing strategic delivery means, that would surpass of several times theirs, whitout the breaking of any of the bilateral strategic weapons control treaties in force  (...and that not even accounting for the effects that would produce on the balance the expected completion,within the next decade,  in the Federation of a fully mobile multilayered strategic defense network enjoying the same, if not greater, technological superiority in comparison with that planned by the US and with some elements based on so called "new physical principles" ).
+
USA analysts , like ours, are perfectly aware of those geo-strategic dynamics and that the actual exit from INF greatly penalize them while opening other enormous opportunities for us ,also and above all in the conventional struggle  and not only for the effect that on this balance will produce the grounding of the sub-strategic "Циркон" and "Кинжал" but above all because any future IRBM equiped with an Авангард vehicle will attain global reach while not being limited by START,  but them lack any credible alternatives.  

I assumed the means of delivery of strategic US forces were more than enough to ensure deterrence. So US side would not be "forced" to play the card of deploying their weapons closer to Russia, even more by upsetting their remaining "allies". But then and apart from the newer Russian offensive weapons, first training for S-500 starts already this year and the system itself is expected for 2020. Together with the tests of the new interceptors for A-135, it looks like Russia is not only managing to keep deterrence but actually turning the tables and sending a nuclear check-mate back to those who tried to impose one on them. All the pieces of the puzzle are coming together nicely and in a very short period of time both in the offensive and defensive sides, so US has no time for equivalent systems that can be deployed on short notice. This is surprising but could be actually the underlying phenomenon happening right now. It would go against the stated aim to warrantee deterrence without threatening anyone. Does Russia want to forcefully convince US they are vulnerable? Do they want to have leverage for negotiating? Are they convinced those idiots want to actually perform a strategic attack against Russia, so defensive means are needed?

If the case is that US perceives their deterrence capabilities have been substantially eroded, we can expect START to go down the drain exactly like INF did