New russian MRBM projects

The simplest way to create a cheap easy to produce IRBM is to remove the bottom stage of an ICBM and go with two stages instead of three.

The INF treaty might be in force for some time yet however.

Does russia have no choice to leave the treaty and has to wait until it expires or do the politicians simply have no interest in leaving it?

The INF treaty bans ground based missiles, cruise or ballistic with a range of 500km through to 5,000km, which are classed as intermediate range missiles. The treaty was between the Soviet Union and the US only and does not apply to any other NATO members except the US, nor does it apply to China or Israel or Iran.

The definition was extended to include 5,500km range missiles so that the SS-20 Saber mobile system could be included.

The purpose was to make Europe safer because these short range missiles placed in Turkey could hit Moscow in time periods as short as 5 minutes and at the time there was no reliable defence against them.

The result was that the Soviets had to have their forces on a hair trigger because they might have less than 5 minutes to detect a missile, determine whether it is a real missile or computer error and then react with their own missile or full scale attack.

This was seriously dangerous so both sides agreed to withdraw these weapon types.

Currently however the Russians (who inherited lots of treaty obligations including the INF treaty) do have missiles that can defend against IRBMs and cruise missiles, and obviously it would be much cheaper for the Russians to make IRBMs instead of the much larger and much heavier ICBMs for targets in Europe and China and Asia etc.

There is no expiry date for the INF treaty but like the ABM treaty either side can give warning and withdraw if they feel they need to.

The main point is that from the Russian perspective is that the INF treaty keeps US cruise missiles out of Europe.

The negative point is that now that most of what was the warsaw pact is now NATO means that missiles with ranges of less than 500km could be used against strategic targets in western Russia from lots of potential launch locations and also that any european nation could make IRBMs and are not bound by that treaty.

Equally instead of storing all its nuclear warheads in big expensive ICBMs, it could put some in cheaper IRBMs and cruise missiles and save a bit of money.

Equally IRBMs would sell rather well on the international arms market... a version of Iskander with a range of 1,000km would be very useful with conventional guided warheads.

If the US goes ahead with an ABM system in Europe it will be cheaper building thousands of ground launched cruise missiles to fly low and hit targets than to build more ICBMs that are limited by START treaty.

Probably neither side would need one for a long time to come as advancement in Cruise Missile technology specifcally Hypersonic Cruise Missile would makes BM in those ranges not absolute necessary

A ballistic missile with a flight range of 6,000km could be made much smaller than older missiles, but I suspect it would be much easier to make a hypersonic missile with a scramjet engine to fly even 10,000km with extra external fuel tanks... it might be launched from a protected facility in central Russia and fly subsonically at high altitude gradually accelerating as it gets lighter and drops fuel pods so that when it reaches the Russian border it is supersonic and not an easy target that is rapidly accelerating to very high speeds... of course by the time it gets to the target area ICBMs and SLBMs will have done their damage and they can finish the job.

Being ground launched they can be cheap and simple and always ready and with conventional warheads and terminal guidance they can be used against a range of targets of strategic and tactical natures.

Practically it does NOT make sense because of the following reasons :

(A)Russia has no program in place to design IRBMs .

An IRBM is an ICBM with two stages instead of three... they would be smaller and lighter and easier to deploy and cheaper to make and to operate and with modern guidance could be fitted with conventional warheads as well as strategic nuclear.

(B)The only country that can threaten Russia with IRBMs is China but a Russian retaliation will be in the form of SLBMs launched from the North Pacific and White Sea against which China will have no answer.

The only two countries bound by the treaty are the Russians and the US and the US can place missiles on NATO territory that is within 500km of Moscow... something the Russians can't do in return.

Very simply because the US can base these weapons in Europe they are called IRBMs for Russia, but they are strategic weapons for the US.

(C) S 300V4 and S 400 guarantee adequate protection against any hostile IRBMs.

So the hair trigger destabilisation reason for the INF treaty is removed...

Proposals on new MRBM/IRBMs

The ground-based Calibers are some truly long-range analogs of the 9M728 and 9M729 type missiles from the Novator design bureau. Yes, it is logical. And with a probability of 100%, this measure will be implemented as quickly as possible. Meaning? In a non-nuclear variant, missiles are good for local conflicts, and in a nuclear one, they can serve both for the first and for retaliatory strikes against stationary objects of a potential enemy.

The improved Iskander is a full-fledged 9M723-1 missile with a range of up to 700 km, I think it may also appear as part of the updated (and maybe old) missile launchers of Iskander-M missile systems. And, most likely, a rocket with new energy capabilities OR (most likely) just with a modified flight program will be able to fly to a distance of more than 500 km. Maybe due to some reduction in anti-missile capabilities - maneuvering, trajectory steepness, etc.

Big Iskander. If an extended body of the launcher is required for the 9M729 + cruise (which may have already been done on SPU 9P701), then a two-stage rocket of the 9M733 type (index taken from the ceiling) is automatically requested for such a body. A kind of analogue of the Volga 9K716 missile complex. The first step is a somewhat sub-engine from 9M723, the second is its truncated version (for example). The range of action, I think, to 1000-1200 km. Flight time 4-5 minutes. Accommodation - in all rocket brigades with new SPU, and potentially - in all rocket brigades of ground forces.

New "Speed". Porting the project BRSD 15Zh66 "Speed" in a modern way, it would seem, it seems quite reasonable. New fuel, new engines from Topol-MP (aka Yars) and up to 6 light ballistic combat units or, for example, 3 controlled combat units from MIT. Moreover, there is a possibility that this rocket system can be created in a relatively short time - taking into account the advance on the “Speed” complex and the availability of the MWTP chassis. The range of up to 4000 km. Of course, such missile systems, if they appear, will be included in the structure of the Strategic Missile Forces.

RS-26-2 "Rubezh-2" - this is the case - the resumption of work on the Rubezh complex will probably also be among the immediate measures in life after the INF. Intermediate range - BRSM / ICBM. Combat equipment - type "Yars". Chassis - 6-axle new MZKT or “Platform” from KAMAZ. Incidentally, there was the idea that the suspension of work on the Rubezh complex occurred just under pressure from KAMAZ, with the goal of reorienting the complex to their new chassis. But the chassis lingered and "Frontier" stood up. The exit from the INF may give a new impetus and a second life to this project.

And the thing is small - all this is produced in sufficient quantities. Let me remind you that in Soviet times, 60 medium-range Pioneer missile systems were deployed annually. This is in addition to the deployable ICBMs, the missile systems of the ground forces, the Fleet, the new "Beckfire" for the DA Air Force, etc. Of course, economically it will be a very difficult task.

https://militaryrussia.livejournal.com/#militaryrussia432410

They should ensure all the new weapons they make could also be adapted to sea or air launch so that in a couple of years time when someone with brains gets into the white house and wants a new INF treaty that Russia wont have to destroy all the new weapons and systems it develops until then...

I have a sneaky suspicion that the west will demand all hypersonic new weapons be included... certainly at least until they get some...

AFAIK the only treaty that really stopped any work on IRBMs was the INF treaty and also AFAIK the only reason they didn't put them on ships was because the US might think they are working on land based models too.

All of Russian strategic nuclear missiles are to destroy cities and population centres... their might be a couple intended to destroy ABM sites, but as the Russians have a no first strike rule any launch of strategic nuclear weapons will be after the US has initiated an attack so Silos and military bases will generally be empty.

The exceptions would be major SAM bases, major radar sites, major airfields and probably the pentagon and white house, but the vast majority of their nukes will be aimed at killing as many Europeans and Americans as they possibly can.

Regarding a big ship of the US coast with lots of missiles on board... have you heard of a container ship?

The container launched Calibr systems would be ideal for penetrating US airspace, even from a large distance from the US coastline... with the support of a few depressed trajectory SLBMs from SSBNs nearby... maybe in Venezuela... there will be nothing working to stop those subsonic missiles entering US airspace.

Cruise missiles are cheap to mass produce and the nuclear armed ones don't even need to be very accurate... a 2km CEP would be perfectly fine to attack large cities and could be inertial guidance only... super cheap... the only real cost would be the nuclear warhead... and with new breeder reactors production of nuclear warheads will be quick and relatively easy.