INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

I'm reading that in case of US withdrawal of INF, that they will respond asymmetrical. What exactly do they mean by that? I don't know exactly. I'm assuming though they will start procuring kalibr missiles for the Iskander K system that reach about 2,500km.

miketheterrible wrote:I'm reading that in case of US withdrawal of INF, that they will respond asymmetrical. What exactly do they mean by that? I don't know exactly. I'm assuming though they will start procuring kalibr missiles for the Iskander K system that reach about 2,500km.

Iskanders ballistic version got a very nice accuracy with deadly speed and hard to intercept already. Adding a booster with it and extend the range to 1000km+ can be another option as well! It'll scare the shit out of Europe

NASIC Removes Russian INF-Violating Missile From Report

Austin wrote:NASIC Removes Russian INF-Violating Missile From Report

I love the way they say "quietly published"

CSIS PRESENTS



https://www.csis.org/events/debate-future-inf-treaty

Prologue

http://www.interfax.ru/world/583963

Moscow. 19 October. INTERFAX.RU - In the event of the US withdrawing from the treaty on medium-range and shorter-range missiles, Russia's response will be instant and mirror, said Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"We think that we just aligned the situation now, if it does not like it and someone has a desire to withdraw from the treaty in general, from the American partners, from our side the answer will be instant." I want to say about this and warn. "Instant and mirror, - Putin said at the Valdai Forum.

"But we respected and will abide by as long as our partners respect all the conditions of our previous agreements," the president added.

Putin said that in the elimination of medium and short-range missiles, "the chief designer committed suicide, because he considered it a betrayal of his own country."

"But this is a tragic story, we will turn it over," the president added. At the same time, he explained that Russia might be tempted to withdraw from the INF Treaty if Russia did not have the latest air and sea-launched missiles.

"Recently, we have often heard accusations that Russia is violating this treaty, is developing something, maybe there would be such a temptation if we did not have air and sea-based missiles, and now we have," - said Putin.


Main Story





Invisible missile "Courier" can be a response to the US exit from the INF Treaty

https://vpk-news.ru/articles/39640

"If the Americans return to the deployment of the BRDD in Europe, as was the case before the implementation of the agreement, this would mean that the flying time of US ballistic missiles to Russian strategic targets in the European part of the country will be reduced to seven to ten minutes," the expert recalled. According to him, we are not talking about US ground-based missiles, which theoretically can be loaded with anti-missile launchers deployed in Eastern Europe. Most likely they are about the SDBM, which they used in violation of the INF Treaty as target missiles in the ABM system tests. Several dozens of launches of such missiles were carried out, in parallel there was working off, and now nothing prevents to apply them as a shock weapon. A mirror response to such a threat in Russia is: it is sufficient to deploy the appropriate weapons in the Arctic region, from where the flying time to the US strategic facilities will be approximately the same. The cost of this will be minimal, especially if you use island territories, such as the island of Kotelny, where recently one of the four tactical groups of the Northern Flee


Speaking about the technical component of Russia's possible response, the source suggested recalling the 15H59 "Courier" compact solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), developed in the USSR (NATO-SS-X-26), which was supposed to travel around the country in a conventional standard container : its length was only 11.2 meters, and the mass - 15 tons. Several successful launches of this rocket were carried out. But on October 6, 1991, the project was canceled as a result of "mutual agreements with the US on the cessation of the development of light-weight ICBMs."
Wintering with nuclear stuffing
There is every opportunity to quickly return to this development of the Moscow Institute of Heat Engineering, and at a new technological level, the source said. Moreover, formally, the project does not contradict the agreement on the SDBM.
As for the response to a possible US withdrawal from the INF Treaty, the deployment of an additional number of Iskander tactical missiles in the Kaliningrad region, "this is not the step that the United States will be frightened of. "Iskander", even possessing the range assigned to it by the Americans, will never hit objects on the territory of the United States. " At the same time, "our response to Trump" using the heirs of the "Courier" is characterized by a multivariate basing. It is physically impossible to calculate precisely the sea container inside which the rocket is located among thousands of it, especially in the vast expanses of the Russian North. It can be located on any suitable areas of the Arctic islands, guarded by fighters of tactical groups of the Northern Fleet, shuttle-bound to navigate the Northern Sea Route, be on any wintering of Russian polar explorers.
"It is clear that this is not necessary for anyone and, first of all, for Russia. But if the Americans take the first step, they will reap what they sowed. They will receive Operation Anadyr in a modern format, ( )the interlocutor of the Military Industrial Courier summed up, recalling the operation to transfer Russian medium-range ballistic missiles R-12 and R-14 with nuclear charges to Cuba during the Caribbean crisis.

Heh I wonder if this is just a controlled leak or just fantasizing?

Austin wrote:CSIS PRESENTS



https://www.csis.org/events/debate-future-inf-treaty

Thanks now I know that evil Ivans have broken all treaties. Only US is committed to peace.

Never did like any of the salt start inf treaties, to guarantee one's safety. To someone like me, when you reduce the number of missiles and warheads the calculus of a possible successful nuclear strike changes, sometimes to the point of making the unthinkable a distinct possibility.  I admire the Russian ballistic missile systems, and if you are going to copy something, copy something that is successful. The treaties are coming up and looks like a lot of things are about to change.  As an American, I see no reason that the USA should not start producing the tenfold increase in strategic assets being called for now  by this administration, instead of wasting money on things like the multi-billion dollar F-35 "flying cash register" or a B21 bomber when 1000 new MX missiles (never understood keeping the old minuteman and dumping the better MX system) or a heavy ICBM based on the the 3million ft lb thrust solid rocket booster used for the old space shuttle, or 1500 improved Pershing type IRBM missiles put in all those shiny new European bases everyone is squawking about, and putting 17 warheads back on the Trident D5 like it was designed for along with the block 5 and 6 Virginia subs to carry them and a decent ABM system/ S-500 like Russia has will be money far better spent  as 30,000 warheads gives a better guarantee no one will try a first strike far better than an upgraded tank or new camouflage uniforms for the troops or some damn new 10 year to make heavy bomber or another 12 billion dollar Aircraft carrier. At least the Russian military uses it limited budget to get the best bang for the buck and I like the fact that other western countries will be put under a bigger Russian bullseye as far too long they enjoyed a minimum risk at the expense of America.  As the brunt of Russia's arsenal was pointed mostly at the USA about time they get their necks put a little further out on the chopping block and start pulling their share of the defense load. This, of course, will work for Russa too, as 30,000 Russian warheads and deployed IRBMS assures a no first strike for their country as well, and since the relationship has been in decline anyway, and many people even here on this forum quite bluntly pointed out, is a waste of time trying to mend fences and there is little chance the current ways are going to make things better, perhaps it is time for another cold war and arms race with a new status quo, what the hell let the many political and military hawks have their way.  I posted the above to make a point that the road to war is very short, and to maybe let others know that there are many in this country that want a war, with Russia and giving them a reason to rearm to the teeth is a first step to putting our countries on an unavoidable path of collision.  This President and administration ain't anything like the last couple of ones, you better believe it! I assure you those referred to leaders don't care a bloody damn about the cost to them to their country it's people or anyone else anywhere and maybe even less what the final outcome to the planet will be. Push people such as these is a bad idea and everyone better start buying lead umbrellas as what will be falling from the skies won't pass for rain. JMHO

GunshipDemocracy wrote:They will receive Operation Anadyr in a modern format, ( )the interlocutor of the Military Industrial Courier summed up, recalling the operation to transfer Russian medium-range ballistic missiles R-12 and R-14 with nuclear charges to Cuba during the Caribbean crisis.

Heh I wonder if this is just a controlled leak or just fantasizing?

I think they're serious....not sure if basing IRBM's in shiping containers is practicaly feasible, but basing them in the Arctic would no doubt cause a shitstorm in the US

It must be a controlled leak. Russia has had plenty of time to design a new intermediate range missile system to replace the Pioneer.
The USA has been signalling it wants out of the INF for years. Russia can launch production when needed. For Russia nuclear missiles
are deadly serious business. There is no slack.

US development of ground-based cruise missile sparks Moscow's concern over INF Treaty

The Russian diplomat stressed that Russia is committed to the INF Treaty and is determined to implement it in full

MOSCOW, December 8. /TASS/. The allocation of funds to develop a ground-based cruise missile under the US National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year 2018 heightens Moscow’s concerns over Washington’s commitment to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty signed 30 years ago, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said in an interview with Kommersant.

"Certainly, we paid attention to certain provisions of the draft budget for US defense spending, which includes a provision allowing to develop a ground-based cruise missile," Ryabkov told the paper, noting that "this increases our concerns over the true intentions of the US side" regarding the INF.

Moscow notes that the wording in this document allows Washington to claim that "all this is in line with the treaty and there won’t be any violation during the implementation of this provision," the diplomat said.

When asked if Russia plans to challenge this stance, Ryabkov said: "We should wait for the final text before making any statements."

The diplomat stressed that Russia is committed to the INF Treaty and is determined to implement it in full. However, if the Americans take the steps aimed at violating the deal, Moscow will swiftly take tit-for-tat measures.

In November 2017, the US Senate and House of Representatives finalized a $700 bln defense spending plan for 2018. The National Defense Authorization Act allows the Pentagon to develop a non-nuclear ground-based cruise missile with a range of between 500 km and 5,500 km. Some $58 mln is expected to be earmarked for this program.

Disputes around INF Treaty

The United States first accused Russia of violating the INF Treaty back in July 2014. After that, Washington has repeatedly slapped these accusations, while Moscow dismissed them as vague. In response, Russia advanced counter claims to the United States concerning the treaty’s implementation.

The INF Treaty was signed on December 8, 1987 in Washington between the United States and the Soviet Union and entered into force on June 1, 1988. In 1992, following the collapse of the USSR, the treaty was joined by the former Soviet republics - Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine - as successors. The INF Treaty covered deployed and non-deployed ground-based short-range missiles (from 500 to 1,000 kilometers) and intermediate-range missiles (from 1,000 to 5,500 kilometers). In all, the former Soviet Union eliminated 1,846 missiles, while the United States - 846 missiles.


More:
http://tass.com/politics/979801

Foreign Ministry on the INF Treaty: Moscow does not accept the language of ultimatums

https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20171208/1510478939.html

Somehow I am sure Russians were prepared for US withdrawal. My deep belief is that RS-26 Rubezh is not only ICBM. Can be used as advanced IRBM too, although formally does not violate INF. Let's assume info in most of sources is true then we got a missile with

Effective range 1000-12000km (depending n mission and load) - thus can actually fill tasks of IRBM...
Hypersonic liquid fuel renenrty vehicle flying with ~ 7km/s ...
Star navigation

m for each warhead - i.e. small CEP


After wiki
[quote]The missile is equipped with hypersonic maneuvering warheads to break even advanced missile defense systems [7] . According to experts, no less than 50 SM-3 anti- missiles are required to defeat the controlled RS-26 combat unit , which, in fact, makes US missile defense senseless [2] .

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/РС-26




Characteristics: missiles :
western data - nti.org reconstruction of December 22, 2015. reconstruction of 27.12.2015.
Length 18.5 m 15.5 m 15 m
Length of the 1st stage 2.8 m
Length of the 2nd stage 3.3 m 3.3 m
Length of the 3rd stage 5.6 m 5.6 m
Diameter of the 1st stage 2 m 1.8 m 1.8 m
Diameter of the 2nd stage 1.5 m 1.5 m
Starting weight - not less than 40 tons (some sources 20-30 tons)

Range:
- minimum - 2000 km (estimate) (oem sources 1000)
- maximum - not less than 6000 km (estimate)



So what we have then? something lik emerge of Pioneer IRBM and Kourier ICMB. Interesting: not violating INF but still caould be used as IRBM

Putin accuses US of violating INF Treaty

Putin says the target missiles used by the US to test the missile defense system are identical to ballistic missiles of intermediate and shorter range

BALASHIKHA, December 22. /TASS/. The United States is violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) and is taking steps to destroy it, Russian President Vladimir Putin told the expanded meeting of the Defense Ministry’s board on Friday.

The target missiles used by the US to test the missile defense system are identical to ballistic missiles of intermediate and shorter range, Putin said. "They already exist and are used. Their production in the US may signal the development of technologies banned under the INF Treaty."

The Pentagon has allocated funds to create a ground-based mobile missile system with the range of up to 5,500 km, he said.

"If fact, the US is taking steps to destroy the INF Treaty," Putin said. "They are always looking for any our violations, but are consistently doing this themselves," he said. The president recalled that the US had acted the same way and "consistently and insistently took steps to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and in the end did it unilaterally." "Certainly, all this seriously downgrades the security level in Europe and the world in general," he said.


More:
http://tass.com/defense/982535

George1 wrote:Putin accuses US of violating INF Treaty

Putin says the target missiles used by the US to test the missile defense system are identical to ballistic missiles of intermediate and shorter range

BALASHIKHA, December 22. /TASS/. The United States is violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) and is taking steps to destroy it, Russian President Vladimir Putin told the expanded meeting of the Defense Ministry’s board on Friday.

The target missiles used by the US to test the missile defense system are identical to ballistic missiles of intermediate and shorter range, Putin said. "They already exist and are used. Their production in the US may signal the development of technologies banned under the INF Treaty."

The Pentagon has allocated funds to create a ground-based mobile missile system with the range of up to 5,500 km, he said.

"If fact, the US is taking steps to destroy the INF Treaty," Putin said. "They are always looking for any our violations, but are consistently doing this themselves," he said. The president recalled that the US had acted the same way and "consistently and insistently took steps to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and in the end did it unilaterally." "Certainly, all this seriously downgrades the security level in Europe and the world in general," he said.


More:
http://tass.com/defense/982535

American leaders are schizophrenics. When there are not treaties they start clamoring to get them since they realize deep down that their "inferior enemy"
can terminate them. But when there are treaties, these clowns always try to break them.

Let Yankistan leave the INF treaty. But make sure to teach them a lesson. Deploy a full spectrum of nuclear missiles from cruise to regional to
ABM that will make the clowns pine for the good old days. And when they come yelping for new treaties: show them the middle finger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interm..._Forces_Treaty

per this treaty the following missiles were eliminated
SS-4 Sandal
SS-5 Skean
SS-12 Scaleboard
SS-20 Saber
SS-23 Spider
Did this not affect the offensive ability of USSR more than NATO ?

As NATO already had a decisive edge in conventional weapons esp airpower

but lets say in 1987, the USSR enjoyed a tactical nuclear edge as they could easily devastate most NATO bases and military installations before NATO conventional airpower can be brought to bear

so I argue with the help of IR nuclear weapons USSR negated the air superority and first strike capabilty of NATO ? is that a fair assessment ? until ofcourse the pershings and tomahawks were deployed by USA

I think that If the usa withraw from the INF, one of the first measures could be bastion at the border
Great numbers of +600km supersonic Cruise missiles.

The Iskander would be trivial to update to make it a 1.500-2,000km range weapon, and of course quite a few aircraft launched cruise missiles are cheap to make but aircraft launch make them more expensive to operate and launch... a few ground launcher would make them much simpler and cheaper to operate from places that don't have airstrips and don't need to get airborne to use...

Then of course with modularity and dual use systems in Russia... most ICBMs and SLBMs are three stage weapons... make them two stage and they often become IRBMs too... but with much larger payload potential...

GarryB wrote:.

Then of course with modularity and dual use systems in Russia... most ICBMs and SLBMs are three stage weapons... make them two stage and they often become IRBMs too... but with much larger payload potential...

Russia already has IRBM - Rubezh

U.S. to Tell Russia It Is Leaving Landmark I.N.F. Treaty


The Trump administration is planning to tell Russian leaders next week that it is preparing to exit the landmark Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, according to American officials and foreign diplomats.

President Trump has been moving toward leaving the three-decade-old treaty because Russia has been violating it for years and because it is constraining the United States from deploying new weapons to counter the growing arsenal of intermediate-range weapons that China has deployed in seeking greater influence in the Western Pacific.

The White House said that no official decision had been made to leave the treaty, known as I.N.F., which was signed in 1987 by Ronald Reagan and was considered a critical step in defusing Cold War tensions. In the coming weeks, Mr. Trump is expected to sign off on the decision, which would mark the first time he has scrapped a major arms control treaty.

The national security adviser, John R. Bolton, will warn the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, on a trip to Moscow early next week that the United States will leave the treaty, officials said.

For the last four years, the United States has argued that Russia is in violation of the treaty because it has deployed a range of tactical nuclear weapons to intimidate former Soviet states that have aligned with the West. But President Barack Obama chose not to leave the agreement, not wanting to stoke a renewed arms race.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/us/politics/russia-nuclear-arms-treaty-trump-administration.html#click=https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2Fmvgq483Sv3

Let the arms Race beguin

dino00 wrote:U.S. to Tell Russia It Is Leaving Landmark I.N.F. Treaty

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/us/politics/russia-nuclear-arms-treaty-trump-administration.html#click=https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2Fmvgq483Sv3

Let the arms Race beguin

Very bad news indeed, but then when you are putting your ABM missiles inside launchers that can house cruise missiles you are clearly not giving a damn about the INF and rather wanting to have a pre-emptive strike ace up your sleeve...

Will we see a remake of the Cuban crisis in retaliation then?

dino00 wrote:U.S. to Tell Russia It Is Leaving Landmark I.N.F. Treaty

Let the arms Race beguin

it already did long time ago. USA dont care if the whole Europe is dead. Aslong as Russia will suffer. The best answer to thsi is more weapons directed to US territory.

My bet is on sea-bed launched ballistic missiles

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

dino00 wrote:U.S. to Tell Russia It Is Leaving Landmark I.N.F. Treaty

Let the arms Race beguin

it already did long time ago. USA dont care if the whole Europe is dead. Aslong as Russia will suffer.  The best answer to thsi is more weapons directed to US territory.

My bet is on sea-bed launched ballistic missiles

The funny thing is that the U.S. had the advantage by staying in the INF treaty:

1.) Several U.S. allies had nuclear capability, but were not bound by the INF farce. U.K., France, and Israel have this ability.

2.) The U.S. already violated the INF treaty by housing Aegis Ashore/Mk. 41 cells (capable of launching Tomahawk cruise missiles) on land, as well as long-range attack drones. After all, what is a cruise missile in principle? A suicide attack drone on steroids.

The proper response to this by the Russians would be to 1.) To leave the MTCR treaty and 2.) Create the analogue of Aegis ashore, a ABM capable of firing INF violating offensive weapons.

1.) By leaving the MTCR treaty, anybody militarily aligned towards the Federation, can get a hold of playing-field-evening strategic systems (all be it nuclear-free). That means countries like Iran and Venezuela can cause serious problems for the 'world-police-man', if their ever attacked.

2.) I don't mean creating a new ABM capable of firing offensive weapons, I mean creating modified versions of Kalibr cruise missiles and Iskander-M's that could be fired from existing S-300/400 platforms, with extended range of course.

Just put another stage on Iskander, install Zircon on trucks and let 'em rip

magnumcromagnon wrote:

The proper response to this by the Russians would be to 1.) To leave the MTCR treaty and 2.) Create the analogue of Aegis ashore, a ABM capable of firing INF violating offensive weapons.

1.) By leaving the MTCR treaty, anybody militarily aligned towards the Federation, can get a hold of playing-field-evening strategic systems (all be it nuclear-free). That means countries like Iran and Venezuela can cause serious problems for the 'world-police-man', if their ever attacked.

imho not really nt really beneficial for Russia

2.) I don't mean creating a new ABM capable of firing offensive weapons, I mean creating modified versions of Kalibr cruise missiles and Iskander-M's that could be fired from existing S-300/400 platforms, with extended range of course.

This is already in RuArmy . Kalibr "ashore" is called Iskander-K. As for Iskander Im sure there are already made preparations to bit extend the range. However ~ 2,000km (perhaps less)  Rubezh is waiting fro green light to start production. Which one is to be chosen IMHO depends on costs IMHO.

2.) Create the analogue of Aegis ashore, a ABM capable of firing INF violating offensive weapons.

Well actually S-500 will be vastly superior to AEGIS Ashore, though it would lack the universal launch tube set up, but that would be more of a hinderance than being of value for a land based system... I mean at sea you have a limited number of launch tubes so being able to put any weapon in a tube is useful so you can get a weapon loadout that suits any mission.

With a land based system such considerations are not relevant... if you need more cruise missiles just get some more cruise missile trucks and park them where you want...

AFAIK the Russian Army would like an Iskander version with a greater range... 1,500km to 2,000km range or so, for deep strikes into the enemies rear where HQs and comms centres would otherwise operate with impunity.

The real issue with the INF treaty was that the Soviets had S-300s, which in 1987 could deal with scud type targets, but not anything with a greater range, so they would have been rather vulnerable to Pershing and of course cruise missiles.

These days with S-400 and even upgraded S-300s able to engage targets moving at 4.8km/s and 2.8km/s they should be pretty much OK in terms of stopping enemy missiles.

With S-500 on the way with a 7km/s intercept capacity they could probably even stop an attack from either Britain or France or China or Israel... however the opportunity to build IRBMs... which are not strategic weapons and not counted under START treaties, and they are smaller and lighter and cheaper to make.

Why waste big expensive number limited ICBMs for targets like Israel, Japan, and Europe when IRBMs can do the job and are not controlled.

Making cruise missiles is very quick and very easy and very cheap.... like making a light aircraft...

Build this fellas and put them everywhere.
Plus Rubezh and more Kinzhals.
Plus larger brother for Iskander.

The whole thing gives us an inside into the "brains" of politicians in Amiland. Really stupid. The believe they got an advantage. That´s what they thought in the ABM field and now they are starting to cry that the evil russians are putting their ABM systems everywhere, If they scrap the INF treaty, there will be a bad awakening for them in a few years.