INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

Engagement Required to Resolve US-Russian Mutual Charges of INF Violations

US lawmakers and military officials, including Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, have proposed that the US consider withdrawing from the INF Treaty .




http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150515/1022154652.html#ixzz3a9hnoGqi

max steel wrote:Engagement Required to Resolve US-Russian Mutual Charges of INF Violations

US lawmakers and military officials, including Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, have proposed that the US consider withdrawing from the INF Treaty .  




http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150515/1022154652.html#ixzz3a9hnoGqi

Let's hope they're stupid enough to pull out of it. Ballistic technology (civil and military) is the field where Russia excels above everyone else, Russian strategic SAM's are rather superior than NATO's equivalents, so letting Russia have IRBM's will be more of an advantage than a disadvantage considering how the U.S. has no neighboring countries that have IRBM arsenals, while Russia has several neighboring countries that do (China, North Korea, Pakistan, India, Iran).

It's just like NATO's push for a coup in Ukraine that ended up giving Russia Crimea, this will also backfire and help Russia more than hurt it.

Indeed if the plan is to allow nuclear armed ABMs then they are wasting their time...

With an operational ABM system in Europe I rather doubt the Russians would consider arms limitations treaties on IRBMs... START only covers SLBMs, cruise missiles, and ICBMs.

Which means Russia could simply build an enormous number of conventionally and nuclear armed IRBMs and medium range cruise missiles to deal with any ABM system in Europe or any where else...

Are there any missiles except ICBM's with which Russia can hit US mainland without getting intercepted ?

I think 152mm was the smallest calibre artillery nuke the Soviets developed... at about 40-50kgs you could fit a few on a SLBM warhead bus...

Russian deputy FM says no progress with US on Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty

The INF Treaty was not discussed during the recent visit to Moscow by US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland

MOSCOW, May 26. /TASS/. There has been no progress in implementing the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF)Treaty with the United States, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov told reporters on Tuesday, answering a question from a TASS correspondent on whether contacts with the American side on the issue were planned.

"In the US Department of State, the INF issues are overseen by Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller," he said. "We are in constant contact with her. However, there is no progress indeed in this area."

Ryabkov added the INF Treaty was not discussed during the recent visit to Moscow by US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. "She does not deal with the issue, that’s not her competence," he said.

"

George1 wrote:


Ryabkov added the INF Treaty was not discussed during the recent visit to Moscow by US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. "She does not deal with the issue, that’s not her competence," he said

Ofcourse her competence is in bringing different color revolutions . Just tell her your favorite colour .

US may deploy land-based missiles in Europe

The move would be a response to Russia's alleged violation of a Cold War-era intermediate nuclear force (INF) Soviet-US treaty

NEW YORK, June 5. /TASS/. Washington is weighing an opportunity of installing land-based that could pre-emptively destroy the Russian weapons in Europe or Asia, says a report by US Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen Martin Dempsey revealed by the Associated Press.

The move would be a response to Russia's alleged violation of a Cold War-era intermediate nuclear force (INF) Soviet-US treaty of 1987. The treaty outlawed the intermediate and shorter range missiles.

Russia has repeatedly dismissed US accusations of violating provisions of the treaty. The director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s department for nonproliferation and armaments control, Mikhail Ulyanov, said on Monday at a review conference on observance of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that Washington’s claims are totally ungrounded and Washington pursues the goal of discrediting Russia.

"The American side has again made totally unfounded charges against us claiming we’re violating the INF," Ulyanov says. "Along with it, the US refuses or, most probably, is unable to substantiate these claims with any concrete facts."

"One gets an impression the actual objective is to try and discredit Russia and to profile it as a state encroaching on its international commitments," he said a response to a speech by the US Secretary of State, John Kerry.

max steel wrote:Are there any missiles except ICBM's with which Russia can hit US mainland without getting intercepted ?

There was Pioneer in times of USSR AFAIK was to be stationed massively on Chukotka region.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-20_Saber



But I d presume now due to modular design Rubezh/Yars derivative with less stages can be employed. And as SRBM Iskander on steroids with over 1000km range



Skorost my fav way to cool down EU Rusophobes.
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/index-515.html

George1 wrote:US may deploy land-based missiles in Europe

The move would be a response to Russia's alleged violation of a Cold War-era intermediate nuclear force (INF) Soviet-US treaty

This aggresive bankrupt on clay legs already has hundreds of Tomahawks around Russia. They need war and the whole EU/Turkey/Japan is an acceptable loss but not mainland US. Where golden billions´ HQ is.

Thus with no INF Russia wins actually. Mass of nuked IRBMs/SRBMSs can ¨cover¨ EU till Spain and Turkey. IRBM as Pioneer can focus on Alaska and Canada and ICMB can exclusively focus on friend and family of US around the globe .

max steel wrote:"

George1 wrote:


Ryabkov added the INF Treaty was not discussed during the recent visit to Moscow by US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. "She does not deal with the issue, that’s not her competence," he said  

Ofcourse her competence is in bringing different color revolutions . Just tell her your favorite colour .

Currently red and black as in IIIrd Reich. But after $ collapse will be sh!tty

Russia may withdraw from the INF Treaty with the deployment in Europe of US missiles

The Ministry of defense is developing a new operational-tactical complex so 1000km class SRBM?

http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20150610/1069233228.html

The principles laid out in the operational-tactical complex "Oka", determined the path of development of individual weapons systems, told reporters on Wednesday, Deputy defense Minister Yuri Borisov.

MOSCOW, 10 Jun — RIA Novosti. The reconstruction of operational-tactical complex "Oka" is not planned, on his shift, told reporters on Wednesday, Deputy defense Minister Yuri Borisov.

"Why recreate the old one? We're already doing new. The principles laid down in the "Oka", determined the path of development of individual weapons systems," said Borisov during the opening ceremony in Moscow the memorial in honor of the legendary designer managed missile Sergey Invincible.

"Technology can improve the performance, range and accuracy, combat effectiveness," added Borisov.

I wonder why they talked about technical OKA is Iskander exists? maybe that´s why
In the early 2000s, experts BGTU "Voenmech" suggested the use of missiles, "Oka" for use as a life-saving support. The payload of the rocket can reach 230 kg at a distance of 840 km with an average flight time of 410 seconds.

http://bastion-karpenko.narod.ru/Oka.html

Russia warns US against jeopardizing viability of INF treaty — Foreign Ministry

The Foreign Ministry said of great concern in the INF context were "the United States’ plans for deploying in Romania and Poland vertical launching systems"

MOSCOW, June 11. /TASS/. The United States has addressed Russia with a fresh portion of groundless charges it is ostensibly in breach of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force (INF) treaty, the Russian Foreign Ministry said on Thursday about the latest US Department of State report regarding the observance of arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament commitments.

The Foreign Ministry said of great concern in the INF context were "the United States’ plans for deploying in Romania and Poland vertical launching systems capable, according to our estimates, of firing Standard-3 interceptor missiles and medium-range cruise missiles Tomahawk."

"Their deployment will be a direct violation of the INF treaty," the Foreign Ministry said.

"Also, certain questions arise why in testing its missile defence weapons the United States uses targets having parameters similar to those of intermediate and shorter range missiles. There are reasons to believe that in this way the United States may be testing a number of aspects of production and combat use of prohibited ballistic missiles," the Foreign Ministry said.

It drew attention to the fact that the attack drones the United States has manufactured for years fall under the INF Treaty’s definition of ground-based cruise missiles, in particular, in view of the specified understanding of the term ‘delivery vehicle’ formalized in the notes the Soviet and US governments exchanged on May 132, 1988.

"Quite noteworthy are statements by Pentagon officials to the effect the United States has been considering options of a military response to Russian ‘violations’, including the possibility of deploying near our borders the intermediate and shorter range missiles outlawed under the INF treaty," the Foreign Ministry said. "It is clear that such action would be tantamount to complete destruction by the United States of the INF treaty’s regimen with all the ensuing consequences.".

As I understand, the U.S. goal is just the opposite - keep Russia from leaving the treaty. I don't think there should be any doubt that the violation is real (although it seems to be very minor), but now that there is a claim of noncompliance, it's very difficult for Russia to withdraw. Unless it can demonstrate that it is indeed in good standing. But by not releasing any details about the issue, the U.S. makes Russia's defense quite complicated.


Aegis Ashore is most likely a violation of the treaty , since it is an exact copy of the Mk 41 VLS, which has been used previously to launch Tomahawk ASCM (a version of Gryphon GLCM) . Also, Russia is arguing that deployment of Mk-41 launchers as part of the missile defense sites in Poland and Romania would violate the treaty. This case is not quite clear cut, but Russia seems to have a point.

The Mk-41 Vertical Launch System is capable of launching a range of missiles, including Tomahawk SLCM. There is nothing wrong with that - the INF Treaty does not limit SLCMs and, indeed, allows testing SLCMs from a ground-based launcher as long as this launcher is fixed and located at a designated test site. Unless the United States tested a GLCM from an Mk-41, these launchers are not considered GLCM launchers for the purposes of the INF treaty and, strictly speaking, the treaty does not limit them in any way. But deploying these launchers on land does seem to go against the spirit of the treaty - deployment of a bunch of SLCM launchers on land would be a way to deploy a bunch of GLCMs. And yes, fixed launchers are GLCM launchers in the INF Treaty (Article II.4):

The term "GLCM launcher" means a fixed launcher or a mobile land-based transporter-erector-launcher mechanism for launching a GLCM.

Pavel write up on INF verification issue between Russia and US , Interestingly he fills the article with US POV and how reveling any information will revel US Sources etc but he does not put Russia concern on using Launchers as part of ABM deployment in Europe ......but neverthless interesting article

Sorting fact from fiction on Russian missile claims

The intermediate range missile was to be destroyed according to the 1987 treaty but the Military balance 1990 still lists 174 of these missiles operational then

SO was this missile just withdrawn gradually from 1987 onward or did all of them were disarmed overnight as soon as the treaty was signed ?

nastle77 wrote:The intermediate range missile was to be destroyed according to the 1987 treaty but the Military balance 1990 still lists 174 of these missiles operational then

SO was this missile just withdrawn gradually from 1987 onward or did all of them were disarmed overnight as soon as the treaty was signed ?

they were withdrawn gradually May 1991 (until treaty's deadline of 1 June 1991)

George1 wrote:

nastle77 wrote:The intermediate range missile was to be destroyed according to the 1987 treaty but the Military balance 1990 still lists 174 of these missiles operational then

SO was this missile just withdrawn gradually from 1987 onward or did all of them were disarmed overnight as soon as the treaty was signed ?

they were withdrawn gradually May 1991 (until treaty's deadline of 1 June 1991)

ok so the Military balance 1990 still lists 174 of these missiles operational is probably quite accurate ?

US claims Russia tests missile threatening Europe, Northeast Asia

WASHINGTON, August 13. /TASS/. Russia has "tested" a state-of-the-art ground-launched cruise missile at ranges capable of threatening most of European continent and US allies in Northeast Asia, namely Japan and South Korea, a US State Department official claimed on Wednesday.

"We continue to insist that Russia meet its legal obligations and return to compliance with this Treaty," the official said.

"We are consulting with Allies and reviewing a range of appropriate options — diplomatic, economic, and military — to respond to Russia's continuing violation of its treaty obligations," he said, stressing that there have been no decisions regarding military responses to "the Russian violation."

Last July, the United States announced that Russia was in violation of the INF Treaty, which bans manufacturing and tests of missiles with ranges of between 500-5,500 km (300-3,400 miles).

"We have reminded Russia of this and have pressed Russia repeatedly to engage constructively and return to compliance. We do not want a repeat of the escalatory cycle of action and reaction that marked much of the Cold War," the official said.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry said the US claims that Moscow is violating provisions of the INF treaty are totally ungrounded and Washington pursues the goal of discrediting Russia.

The ministry has in its turn voiced concerns about the US plans for deploying in Romania and Poland vertical launching systems that are capable of firing Standard-3 interceptor missiles and medium-range cruise missiles Tomahawk.

"Their deployment will be a direct violation of the INF treaty," the Foreign Ministry said.

Interesting...

Another possibility is that it might be based on the Kh-101/102 missile family and with minor modification and a decent solid rocket booster it could have a range of more than 5,500km.

Some official comments mention 10,000km range cruise missiles... a ground launched missile with a range of 10,000km with a high high high flight profile with a low subsonic initial flight speed that gathers speed in flight as it gets lighter to high subsonic would not be covered by the INF treaty which only applies to intermediate range weapons (ie 500km to 5,500km).

They could have as many ground launchers as they want...

Besides even a 2,500km range weapon might only reach 400km with reduced fuel load... what can't you test in such a state without treaty violation?