INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

“Russia could shift to preemptive nuclear strike doctrine — ex-chief of RVSN”

“Retaliatory nuclear strike command and control system ‘Perimeter’ has been modernized”

“Moscow. 9 November. INTERFAKS-AVN – Russia could renounce its retaliatory strike doctrine in favor of a preemptive nuclear attack on a potential aggressor, if the U.S. deploys missiles on the territory of European states, said General-Colonel Viktor Yesin, who led the Main Staff of the Missile Troops of Strategic Designation in 1994-1996.”

“‘If the Americans start deploying their missiles in Europe, we have no choice but to abandon a retaliatory strike doctrine and move to a preemptive strike doctrine,’ V. Yesin said in an interview published in the weekly ‘Zvezda.'”

“He also said the Soviet-created ‘command’ missile system ‘Perimeter’ capable of transmitting launch commands to intercontinental missiles after an enemy nuclear strike on Russia has been modernized.”

“‘The ‘Perimeter’ system is functioning, and it is even improved,’ said V. Yesin.”

“Answering the question if the ‘Perimeter’ system can guarantee a retaliatory strike in the case of an enemy preemptive attack, the general said: ‘When it is working, we will already have few means remaining – we can launch only the missiles which survive after the aggressor’s first strike.'”

“The expert also stated that ‘we still don’t have an effective response to American medium-range missiles in Europe.'”

“‘Perimeter’ (in English Dead Hand) is an automated command and control system for a massive nuclear retaliatory strike developed in the USSR. According to open information, the ‘Perimeter’ system was created as a component part of the Airborne Command Post (VKP) system under the codename ‘Link’ developed in the Soviet Union.”

“The airborne command and control post on the Il-86VKP aircraft, airborne radio relay on the Il-76RT, silo-based command missile (KR) ‘Perimeter’ and mobile KR ‘Gorn’¹ were part of ‘Link.'”

“In a crisis period three Il-86VKP would have had the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, Minister of Defense and Chief of the General Staff on board.”

“‘The aircraft didn’t have passenger windows so those on-board wouldn’t be blinded by the flash of nuclear blasts. Computers and communications were located in the nose. Two electrical power generators were hung under the wings. They guaranteed long operation of all aircraft systems,’ it says in a book from the series ‘World of Russian Weapons’ published in 2016.”

“At the determined moment the Il-86VKP would launch an 8 km long antenna which not even impulses from nuclear explosions could affect. Using this antenna the aircraft would transmit commands to launch all the country’s intercontinental missiles even in the event that all underground KP [trans. command posts] were destroyed by the aggressor’s nuclear strike.”

“The radio relay aircraft Il-76RT would transmit commands to launch missiles in distant regions, including those deployed on submarines in the Northern and Pacific Fleets.”

“‘Perimeter’ and ‘Gorn’ missiles could have transmitted missile launch commands when the aggressor had already delivered a surprise first strike and destroyed communications systems. The KR, having launched into space, where no satellite or enemy nuclear explosions could reach them, would transmit radio signals from there. The missiles ‘awakened’ by them would take off and strike the aggressor.

“The ‘Perimeter’ missiles were reliably protected on the ground by concrete silos. ‘Gorns’ deployed on missile transporters permanently on the move.”

“According to expert assessments, the ‘Link’ system, including space KR, was one of the most important factors deterring the U.S. from a nuclear attack on the USSR.”

An interesting piece bringing Perimeter back into the news. Yesin calls the system Dead Hand. But he doesn’t describe how the system is engaged, any atmospheric, seismic, and radiation sensors, or ground-based command, control, and communications link monitors that some claim allowed it to function autonomously. Others assert these elements, though considered, were never incorporated into Perimeter.

Russian military commentator Viktor Murakhovskiy has pointed out that, even if the U.S. quits the INF Treaty, Washington is a long way from deploying new intermediate- or shorter-range nuclear missiles in Europe. So Yesin’s recommendation for a change in Moscow’s declaratory nuclear doctrine is premature.

¹ Command missile Gorn [trans. bugle, trumpet, etc.] had GRAU index 15Zh53 and deployed with Soviet SS-20 IRBMs.

https://russiandefpolicy.blog/2018/11/12/dead-hand-alive-and-modernized/

Said it before and will say it again... the best response the Russians can make is to develop a huge warhead for IRBMs... something in the 50-100MT power range and put them on IRBMs which can pretty much be existing SRBMs like Iskander with an extra stage, or an ICBM or SLBM with one stage removed... and point them at any country in Europe with US force bases... troops or missile bases.

Make it clear to the whole of Europe that Russia is not interested in invading any part of Europe including the Baltic states or the Ukraine or Georgia, but any country that has US troops based within their borders... even just temporarily will get IRBMS pointed at them in large numbers with the intent to obliterate the entire country and her population.

This is nothing to do with invasion or occupation, but everything about obliterating a threat with raw fire power.

Watch the people of europe go out on the street and ask for American forces to leave... and if they don't then that is OK too.

They wont need to worry about living with the consequences... hahahaha.

A missile as big as TOPOL will be expensive, both to make and to operate... they want new missiles that are relatively small but easy to hide and pack a decent punch.

Kinzhal is just an air launched Iskander, so you are suggesting putting four Iskanders on a TOPOL... which they could already do because TOPOL is an ICBM and Iskanders on its top will just extend that range further.

They have spent a lot of money developing new hypersonic gliders... it would make more sense to put them on an IRBM... IRBMs are not covered by the new START treaty, so they can make as many as they like so no need to fit dozens of warheads in each missile... just make more missiles.

If you want to stack Iskanders in TOPOLS then take one stage out of the TOPOL... with the Iskanders it wont need the extra range, so instead of fitting four Iskanders you could stack 8 or 12 in there... in fact some could be put inside the sides to pop out on their way along their flight path like a MIRV warhead is released on a path to its target by the warhead bus...

Still think the final weapon will be too big though...

We want small and easy to hide so they think they are everywhere...

The value of IRBMs for Russia is that currently they have 500km range Iskander and they have ICBMs... so hitting most of Europe means wasting ICBMs, because Iskander does not have the reach for most targets in europe.

Being able to make IRBMs means instead of using a full sized ICBM for targets less than 5,000km away they can save those all for US targets because the new Start treaty limits how many they can have and how many platforms they can operate from.

Making IRBMs means Europe and places in the pacific like Japan and Korea and China and Hawaii can now be targeted by smaller lighter cheaper missiles and the ICBMs can be aimed at things further away.

It doesn't expire until 2021... and to be honest once the Russians have breeder nuclear reactors operational there will be no problem making lots of nuclear warheads very rapidly, so even if Trump wont sign a continuation of new Start, the next government will.

Of course if the democrats put hilary up against trump I could see trump winning.

The democrats have the problem of hilary having too much power and influence... they need to kick those idiots and get someone like sanders that still has some credibility.

Personally I would like to see Oprah Winfrey stand as an independent... she would get the votes... she is black, she is a woman, she will get all the democrat votes, but hopefully she will make americans realise that they can have more than two choices in an election...

Previously we never hear from independents in US elections because they never have the money to be seen... major media companies really don't want to know because they have no money to throw at them and with no big business support people don't know they exist or what their policies are.

Oprah could not possibly do a worse job than Trump or Hilary, and she might just shake things up... imagine the senate or congress saying no to her... is it because they are racist or just hate women.... hahaha... she could do no wrong...

She should throw her hat into the ring no less that 6 months before the election so neither side (democrat or republican) will have time to create dirt on her...

As for IRBM Russia already has one: Rubezh.

If that were true they they would already be violating the INF treaty.

The fact is that any ICBM can be loaded up with a super heavy payload that shortens its range to IRBM range... it could also be fired on a lofted trajectory or depressed trajectory and also be an intermediate range weapon.

You can make all the claims you want but Rubezh will be an ICBM.

The Russian army has Iskanders in service... with the INF treaty gone they will extend the range because the only reason its range was limited to 500km was the INF treaty.

Their C4IR capacity has dramatically improved over the last few years so having IRBMs would be useful... their satellite network is also improving so their ability to find targets at intermediate range should be actually very good.

Regarding hitting China... I am including Taiwan, and regarding Korea I am actually meaning US bases in south korea... and Japan.

Rubezh is bigger then Soviet Kurier but IMHO because its warhead can be Avangard.

Well there you go then... how many other Russian missiles have gotten bigger?

Iskander is tiny compared with the Scud missiles it is replacing and vastly more accurate, not to mention two per vehicle...

Putin, defense ministry’s top officials discuss US’ possible withdrawal from INF Treaty

The Russian leader pledged that Moscow would "naturally" respond to such a step

SOCHI, November 19. /TASS/. The United States’ possible withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty was in focus of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s meeting with senior officials of the Russian defense ministry on Monday.

The president pledged that Moscow would respond to such a step.

"Naturally, the United States’ decision to withdraw from this treaty can not be left unanswered on our part," he said.


More:
http://tass.com/politics/1031577

Russia insists it is in compliance with the INF Treaty



On November 26, 2018, Sergey Ryabkov, Deputy Foreign Minister, held a briefing in Moscow that was devoted to the INF Treaty. As far as I can tell, the briefing was supposed to outline Russia's official position on the INF treaty. Ryabkov made a few interesting statements that seem to add more uncertainty to the dispute about the treaty (although the fate of the treaty seems to be certain at this point - it won't survive).

First of all, Ryabkov strongly rejected U.S. allegations of non-compliance and said that Russia is committed to preserving the treaty (provided that the United States complies with the treaty, he added). On the details of the accusation, Ryabkov largely confirmed what we have already known.

In my view, the most important point made by Ryabkov is that he insisted that Russia hasn't tested the 9M729 missile to the INF range. Moreover, it appears that this is how Russia has built its defense - since the missile hasn't been tested to the prohibited range, it is treaty-compliant. But, unfortunately for Russia, this is not how the letter of the treaty works - for a missile to be in violation it is sufficient that it has the "range capability." And this is exactly what the United States has been saying (in a recent testimony in the Senate, the Pentagon said that Russia tested the missile "well into the ranges covered by the INF Treaty", but I don't trust this statement).

According to Ryabkov, 9M729 is a modification of the 9M728 missile of the Iskander-M system. It was tested to its maximum range at the Kapustin Yar test site on 18 September 2017. In that test the missile flew to the range of "less than 480 km." Interestingly, he said that the modernization "dealt with, first of all, with the missile warhead." This, however, contradicts other data that suggest that the 9M729 is about 1.8 meters longer than 9M728 (so it is a "8-meter missile" similar to Kalibr). But it doesn't rule it out.

Indirectly, Ryabkov confirmed that the United States refer to "range capability" rather than the demonstrated range in its allegations - he said that at some point the United States suggested that the tests were treaty-compliant only because the missile was not fully fueled. To answer that Russia apparently "illuminated specific features of the missile's fuel system that rule out experiments like that." It's hard to tell exactly what this "illumination" involved, though - it is possible that Russia shared some information with the United States, but in general I don't expect that sharing more information would help Russia make its case.

Ryabkov effectively confirmed, although he didn't say it directly, that the United States believes that 9M729 was tested from the Iskander-M launcher (he called it a "universal chassis that is used in a wide range of missile launchers"). This, of course, would make any discussion of returning to compliance extremely difficult.

The bottom line is that we are very much where we were before the briefing. Since Russia hasn't tested the missile to the INF range it believes that it is in compliance or at least that it has plausible deniability. The United States appears to have some pretty solid intelligence data that show that 9M729 has the INF range capability (as I mentioned some time ago, for all we know, the United States has the blueprints of the missile; ironically, this might indeed be the case). But, as a colleague observed, intelligence data cannot be used as a proof for the purposes of the treaty.

I remain convinced that U.S. evidence of the violation is not particularly strong (blueprints notwithstanding). While Russia may be technically in violation, this violation is not nearly as grave as it is portrayed and is definitely not serious enough to warrant dismantlement of the INF treaty

(Ryabkov also described Russia's counteraccusations, but these would warrant a separate post.)


http://russianforces.org/blog/2018/11/russia_insists_it_is_in_compli.shtml

The missile has a greatly enlarged warhead so no level of fuelling would give it a range of more than 480km, so it is treaty compliant.

The AEGIS Ashore system the US has installed in Europe has the Mk-41 launch tubes able to launch SM-3 SAMs, but also Tomahawk cruise missiles that violate the INF treaty.

They also recently revealed information about tests that involve the use of a target that also violates the INF treaty too.

The fact is that the US Navy is leading the US military programme to develop a hypersonic glider that is intended to eventually be compatible with Mk-41 launch tubes and also eventually be used in land and air launched versions that will all break the INF treaty so they want to rip it up now... blaming Russia for violating it is just an excuse... if proved wrong they will just say it is an outdated cold war relic anyway.