zg18 wrote:My hunch is that US doesn`t actually want to collapse INF but wants to force China to be part of it.
The way they are doing it is incredibly stupid, they should be honest and public about it.
China has nothing to do with the real reasons behind the decision to terminate INF treaty ,it is simply an irrational scapegoat (
in the South Eastern Asian theatre the air and sea based delivery systems are forcibly the unique options for US Forces because no NATO member "covered by art 5 exist there to allow placement of us nuclear offensive weapons within their borders) moreover this decision has been debated in the Pentagon since at least a decade, obviously togheter with other solutions proposed to confront the same problems. - Someone could remember the not-nuclear tipped SLBM propose and, more recently , the propose to create and integrate low-yield nuclear warheads on ICBM to not be accounted for in the New START -
Reason is that US Central Command has, since more than a decade, computed that the PS -Probability of Survival - of theirs primary delivery vehicles - heavily sea-air centric- and of theirs same offensive mean systems , both in its conventional and not-strategic nuclear versions, was plummeting at an impressive rate against the faster growing sophistication of the Federation's IADS ,both at defense of national territory that the mobile one integrated in the Ground Forces , and lastly the growing capabilities of stand-off anti-ship missiles.
The "alarm" shifted from yellow to red around the
years 2011-2012, when the
new lines of ground based EW systems was completed (literally a pair of generation head of any specimen -air-ground or sea based- present anywhere on the globe
) the C-500 and РТЦ-181М feasibility program and technical validation was completed and
X-32 missile and the R&D phase of the new line of Heavy ,Middle and Light unified modular ground vehicles class
"Армата" "Курганец" and "Бумеранг" and the new generation artillery system class
"Коалиция-СВ" was completed.
Capability to contests OPFOR on the ground in the European theatre was projected to fall, in the middle of 2020 decade, to level of beginning of '80 years and to the CVBG naval component would have remained only marginal roles in the event of a limited convetional conflict in that theatre because forced to remain well outside the
authonomy range of its naval Aircraft component to avoid to fall within range of the X-32 delivered by the enemy supersonic bombers.
At the time the response imaged in the middle term by over-ocean planners was the so called
"Prompt Global Strike" project ,a technical intensive effort mostly aimed to, at least partially, resolve the range of engagement and probability of survival problem; this program, togheter with the
"affordable" mass produced LO aircraft program - the F-35 - should have assured a reliable offensive option up to half of the 2030 years.
But ,in the mean time -particularly the last 3 years - some very important events happened at modify one more time the computations of US military planners :
1)
The intervention in Syrian conflict where
Federation's High Command ,for the
first time in the post Great Patriotic War history, decided -committing an
huge mistake in mine opinion as several times in several place said - to
bring and employ some of its most advanced and up-to-date equipment.
If this allowed ,
on the "bright" a side, to
overturn the course of the war in the legitimate Syrian government favour with a ridiculously low amount of military equipment , to
fully validate - often even significantly over what initially calculated -
the efficiency of the air defense sensor suit and interceptors against the most advanced enemy specimen , LO aircraft -such as F-22 Raptor - in war configuration included , the
capabilities of some of the most modern EW samples to completely hinder NATO operations where necessary ,including salvo of cruise missiles directly during an attack and also the
range and precision of the stand-off X-SD ,X-101 and Калибр -both surface and sub-launched and consequently to
rise enormously the export potential at the global level of those systems - it is sufficient to observe the sudden enormous rise of interest for the C-400, also among traditionally western-alligned nations or even NATO members after that the info and data from Syrian theatre have reached the military commad rooms of half world -, but on the "dark side", this allowed US operative to fully realize how theirs conflict projections and system-to-system interaction models was totally wronged and that radical solutions should be urgently taken before the discovered "capability gap" would be too wide to be compensated with economically-feasible countermeasures.
2)
The presentation, at the March of this year at President speech, of a
part of the new generation line of offensive and defensive startegic military systems highlighting mostly
6 different major scientifical breakthroughs without true corresponding anywhere on the planet :
nuclear generators miniaturization,
very-high thermal resistant composites,
long-standing supercavitation,
generation and soliton vector's modulation of high potential coherent beams,
new formula for ballistic rocket liquid-fueled propulsions and
in atmosphere flight management in plasma-dynamic formations .
Those elements togheter with the realization that any attempt to technologically catch-up with Federation's achievements in a purely symmetric way would have been destined almost surely to failure have forced US Command in the last months to attempt to change completely the paradigm of the confrontation
menacing the weaponization of the space - creation of the "Space Forces" and
greatly increasing the ground-based tactical to strategic potential to counterbalance the greatly demoted potential computed for the Air forces - from there derive the latest program such as the Long Range Precision Fires with somewhat very "odd" proposals such as the Strategic Strike Cannon Artillery
and obvioulsy exit from the INF Treaty.
China in this complex technical dynamic of military systems interaction with all its doctrinal implications has literally zero role except to be used as a childish attempt to justify measures that have completely different roots.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Isos