INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

ATLASCUB wrote:
In a vacuum, given today's geopolitical realities, Russia is at a significant disadvantage vis-a-vis the United States when its comes to the balance of power. If we run scenarios of all else being equal, the U.S will always come out on top.

What Russia has is 1: hope, 2: room for maneuver while peace exist, 3: a chance to outsmart its opponent if it plays its cards right. Stumble, and they'll probably fall.... and who knows what comes out of it.

Im not a fan of underestimating impact of INF treaty on Russia's security and economy but you are way to pessimistic.

1) Time in economy is not working for US/UK but against them. They re loosing ground fast (in geopolitical terms) so for Russia keeping peace = geopolitical victory

2) Keeping peace means - ability to destroy USA, regardless on first close-border attack Russia bought 10-15 years to develop next tech before USA get to level to cope with Avangards, Poseidons or hypersonic missiles. However so far since 1990s they didn't to much to cope even with supersonic ASch missiles which Soviet Union started to developed in early 70s.

3) Russia doesn't have to answer in symmetrical level. example: ABM you dont need to use kinetic kill, tactical nuke can do the job from reasonable distance so you need by order (or two) of magnitude less AB missiles.

Russ can use sea-bed based ICBMs close to US borders. So no I would not panic.

As for spending 1 CSG = 20 blns $? 12 nuclear tipped Kinzhals + carriers? 100 mln $? BTW 12 nuclear tipped Kinzhals is more less the world without UK.



So no situation is not better without INF but not hopeless either.

ATLASCUB wrote:  Like I said when Putin unveiled his new toys... he only bought time and he better make the most of it (and I have serious reservations about his performance in that regard).

The best is that this time might be enough to live till US cannot spend anymore on toys...

The only thing that can negate the strategic advantages the U.S has over its two major adversaries today is an economic collapse. So do pray for that. That's a much better tale to digest - an impending economic collapse. You can even ground it on several facts....but mostly as always -- the decadence and corruption of political life and the interdiction of economics and politics today in the U.S. Other than that, they're very well off. Or you can pray they negotiate some treaties down the line but we're way way off that...... unless other powers make an offer the hegemon can't refuse - unconditional surrender perhaps? At the very least, when and if they come back to the table, it will be for a simple reason only - to sign a treaty that furthers their interests.[/quote]

This is not matter if they will but when they will. Time is against US s I said. History teaches that  each and  every empire has its  expiry date. Hittite empire lasted ~600 years yet little people now  know it existed. US exists as empire exists less than 100 years now.

AC wrote:A last edit: We'll be needing a new term for the "IRBMs" of the future, since they won't stick necessarily to a ballistic flight path.... should be outdated tech in the not so far future.

IRaBMs      

PapaDragon wrote:
And they say Germans don't have sense of humor...
German MPs Claim Russia Should Move 9M729 Missiles to 'the Other Side of the Urals' to Preserve INF Treaty

why wonder? Russia has aggressively built its cities near NATO bases last hundreds of years

The more I think about it the more I think the INF treaty is in fact tying Russian hands more than American, and the sooner it goes the better.

Having unlimited IRBMs covering targets in Europe and the north Pacific ocean and the Arctic ocean is actually a huge advantage for Russia to deal with Americas new ABM systems on land and at sea...

Big_Gazza wrote:

I want to see Russia develop anti-ship IRBM/MRBMs and deploy them in the Far East to bolster Chinese capabilities against the USN and their various satraps (espec. the Nips).  Also work with the Chinese to develop remote sensing capabilities and provide real-time tracking data on a continuous basis so that long-range "carrier-killer" missiles can be fully effective and create a MORTAL threat against flat-tops.

but it is already done. Such IRaBM is called Kizhal Those capabilities also exist are called OTH Radars and Liana sat system. Both exist too.

As high-ranking sources in government agencies told Kommersant, the range of a sea-based Kaliber-NK rocket, if transferred to land, will be up to 2.6 thousand km (approximately equal to the distance from Moscow to Paris). As for the intermediate-range hypersonic rocket, it will be created on the basis of the 3M22 Zircon product (developed by the NPO Mashinostroenia), the Kommersant source stated in the military-industrial complex. This rocket will be launched from the same launchers that are used for Caliber missiles, so the cost of research and development will not be so great, said the source

https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3873393?from=four_mir

How can a intermediate-range Zirkon be launched from the same launchers than calibr?

Ok, time for my 2cents on this issue.

From what i can see, the situation probly has more to do with the "full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine and the "Prompt Global Strike" initiative.

When the U.S pursued these initiatives Russia was still on it's knees, China wasn't much of a concern, and the new Millennia came in, with memories of the defeat of the USSR, the successful 1st gulf war and even the "successful" Kosovo war still being fresh.

Simply put, the belief in the Wests technological primacy was at it's zenith..
And so the U.S dropped the ABM treaty and began development of weapon systems that would guaranty absolute supremacy in the near future, but as we can see today these programs have almost completely failed.
From the Future-Combat-Systems (FCS) to Project Falcon, X-51 WaveRider, THAAD, Zumwalt and even the F-22, all these systems either failed to deliver or didn't delivered what was promised.

And now, the Russians and Chinese are closing whatever gap there once was and succeeding where the U.S had failed.
It has dawned upon those in the States that the Prompt Global Strike capabilities that they had desired is now going to be used against them.
For this reason, the U.S must pull out of the INF treaty in order to desperately salvage some strategic position to maintain their military Primacy.

On a further note, the U.S has also begun trying to replicate the cold war.
By that, i mean they are using their sanctions and financial institutions to try and separate the Western aligned and the Non-Western aligned countries form each other.
Forcing countries to align themselves in a manner that would not be too dissimilar to what it was in the Cold War era.
But this would also lead to the creation of alternative financial institutions that could undermine the Wests economic primacy.
I am not sure what the U.S is trying to do here, since the other side doesn't use Communism anymore, ergo their wont be a guaranteed economic collapse for the U.S to take advantage of this time.

I think Trump admires Reagan too much...
I think this is the first wave of Russian answear to Inf withdraw: kalibr and bigger Zirkon, not deployed
Second wave, if US deploys missiles close to Russia will be to deploy de above, modifyed iskander, plus new Kalibr-M. And ``Iskander-2``
Was Smart of Russia to develop but dont deploy, if they insist...

dino00 wrote:I think Trump admires Reagan too much...
I think this is the first wave of Russian answear to Inf withdraw: kalibr and  bigger Zirkon, not deployed
Second wave, if US deploys missiles close to Russia will be to deploy de above, modifyed iskander, plus new Kalibr-M. And ``Iskander-2``
Was Smart of Russia to develop but dont deploy, if they insist...

The problem here is time between start and hitting target. From Poland to Kaliningrad is like 60km. Tallinn to St. Petersburg is 350km...3minutes of flight. I wonder if US placement of missiles in Estonia triggers war?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

dino00 wrote:I think Trump admires Reagan too much...
I think this is the first wave of Russian answear to Inf withdraw: kalibr and  bigger Zirkon, not deployed
Second wave, if US deploys missiles close to Russia will be to deploy de above, modifyed iskander, plus new Kalibr-M. And ``Iskander-2``
Was Smart of Russia to develop but dont deploy, if they insist...

The problem here is time between start and hitting target. From Poland to Kaliningrad is like 60km.  Tallinn to St. Petersburg is 350km...3minutes of flight.  I wonder if US placement of missiles in Estonia triggers war?

For those timings to matter you have to believe that the US, if it activates first strike, will do so in a limited manner with just theatre or near theatre weapons in the hope that Russia seeing the incoming will not fire at the US. That to my mind is not realistic, it might have been, just, the case before the INF back in the 80s but not now. If Russia is going down then they will take the US with them as well so any US first strike has to be with everything.

Not mentioned I think so far is that this is going to drive up the cost of QRA systems and assets on both sides.

How can a intermediate-range Zirkon be launched from the same launchers than calibr?

Presumably they mean the same launcher as this land based 2600km Calibr which should be longer than the existing ones & possibly because Zircon is designed to be fired from 533mm torpedo tubes same as Calibr?
I there have been some indications Zirkon is too big for UKSK which would make it too big for torpedo tubes too but perhaps not.

hoom wrote: possibly because Zircon is designed to be fired from 533mm torpedo tubes same as Calibr?
I there have been some indications Zirkon is too big for UKSK which would make it too big for torpedo tubes too but perhaps not.

not really, they recently even announced "lightweight" Zircon for MRK like Buyans/Karakurts (i.e. to fit to UKSK) so its even bigger then Onyx.

Some remarks to the warning time. Back in the 80´s the small distance between launch site and target would have made a difference. At that time the guy sitting in front of a radar screen had to use a radio to give information and data to an air defence system. Even with a computer it would have taken some time. Today all this systems are automatic and much, much faster. Russia will position modern radars (new film on Zvezda TV about Kasta, Gamma and Podlyot radars) and defence systems at the border, if a missile is launched it will be seen instantly and shot down.

How can a intermediate-range Zirkon be launched from the same launchers than calibr?

Zircon is a replacement for Onyx, and will be used in UKSK launch tubes. The same as Calibre and Onyx and Yakhont and Brahmos and the Club family of anti ship, land attack, and anti submarine weapons.

I think this is the first wave of Russian answear to Inf withdraw: kalibr and bigger Zirkon, not deployed
Second wave, if US deploys missiles close to Russia will be to deploy de above, modifyed iskander, plus new Kalibr-M. And ``Iskander-2``
Was Smart of Russia to develop but dont deploy, if they insist...

The cleverness goes further... by basing new weapons on existing types, it means they can fully develop an IRBM but choose when to deploy it... if they standardise land and sea launchers for missiles like the UKSK launcher, then they can produce ship and land based launchers to launch current missiles but can also launch newer more capable weapons that would violate the INF treaty if it was in force.

But now Russia does not need the INF treaty... Europe does... and if IRBMs are going to cover the north Pacific and entire arctic ocean and most of the Med then if the US wants to locate their ships there they will want these new IRBMs gone too... so Europe and the US will want this treaty more than Russia will... which puts them in a position of power because even if land based models are banned again... the air launched and sea launched models could still enter service.

If there is no replacement for the INF treaty... ie the US demands China is included and China refuse, or Russia demands all of NATO is included and the UK and France refuse, then Russia can spend as much money as they think is worth it to make these new weapons... because the launch platforms will already be in service and paid for... the land based system could be the UKSK-M that could also launch S-400 and S-500 and S-350 SAMs as well as Iskander and super Iskander etc etc etc.

The problem here is time between start and hitting target. From Poland to Kaliningrad is like 60km. Tallinn to St. Petersburg is 350km...3minutes of flight. I wonder if US placement of missiles in Estonia triggers war?

Such a short distance has always been a problem... they could have M109 artillery guns with nuclear shells in Poland aimed at Kaliningrad, or ATCAMS in Estonia today with nuke warheads... that is why the INF treaty is not relevant... right now if they wanted they could put missiles in the Ukraine... the Anti Rus Ukrainians would love that... nothing in the INF about where they base their missiles... put some in Georgia too...

Presumably they mean the same launcher as this land based 2600km Calibr which should be longer than the existing ones & possibly because Zircon is designed to be fired from 533mm torpedo tubes same as Calibr?
I there have been some indications Zirkon is too big for UKSK which would make it too big for torpedo tubes too but perhaps not.

When they talk about Calibr they are talking about the Russian domestic model land attack cruise missile with a 2,600km range. In export configuration it is one of the Club members with a flight range of less than 300km.

Some remarks to the warning time. Back in the 80´s the small distance between launch site and target would have made a difference. At that time the guy sitting in front of a radar screen had to use a radio to give information and data to an air defence system. Even with a computer it would have taken some time. Today all this systems are automatic and much, much faster. Russia will position modern radars (new film on Zvezda TV about Kasta, Gamma and Podlyot radars) and defence systems at the border, if a missile is launched it will be seen instantly and shot down.

This, plus what John mentioned... a first strike with weapons... nuclear or conventional... will not be a tiny slap to the face... it will be an attempt to decapitate so it will try to destroy as much of Russias strategic nuclear weapons capability as possible in the hope than any ABM defence will be enough to stop anything that survived.

The point is that the Russian strategic nuclear capability is enormous so nothing short of an enormous strike would be worth the retaliation and such massive strikes need a lot of planning and coordination and management on the fly... there is no way such preparations could not be noticed or mistaken... more importantly many inside this loop will have families that might want to stop what was happening so there is a risk of whistleblowers giving the game away in the hope that it stops the attack in its tracks.

Syria has been a pretty good example that shows when used as they were intended that Russian weapons do work... even when pitted against the west and all its technological glory. The Ukraine also shows soviet equipment can fail if you are a zealot nazi wannabe that doesn't know what they are doing and just acts in anger and bigotry...

Western experience in Syria show that even with the latest high tech stuff and the best trained personel they can take a job to eliminate a group like ISIS and add politics and make it long and slow and drawn out and cost an absolute fortune without really seeming to get the job done... the focus changes between the cover story of dealing with ISIS and the real goal of getting rid of Assad... the real goal failed and was expensive and the fake goal wasn't acheived either... with the US and their Kurdish allies operating openly in ISIS held areas suggesting there is no conflict between them...

GarryB wrote:

How can a intermediate-range Zirkon be launched from the same launchers than calibr?

Zircon is a replacement for Onyx, and will be used in UKSK launch tubes. The same as Calibre and Onyx and Yakhont and Brahmos and the Club family of anti ship, land attack, and anti submarine weapons.

it doesnt seem UKSK is able to fit Zircon, UKSK-M should. That's IMHO why recently lightweight Ziorcon is announced.

GB wrote:

The problem here is time between start and hitting target. From Poland to Kaliningrad is like 60km. Tallinn to St. Petersburg is 350km...3minutes of flight. I wonder if US placement of missiles in Estonia triggers war?

Such a short distance has always been a problem... they could have M109 artillery guns with nuclear shells in Poland aimed at Kaliningrad, or ATCAMS in Estonia today with nuke warheads... that is why the INF treaty is not relevant... right now if they wanted they could put missiles in the Ukraine... the Anti Rus Ukrainians would love that... nothing in the INF about where they base their missiles... put some in Georgia too...

meh, in Georgia there is already biological warfare. You dont put all eggs into one basket

Defense chief: Russia needs to develop ground-based cruise and hypersonic missiles by 2020

Shoigu has ordered to start experimental design work

MOSCOW, February 5. /TASS/. The ground-based version of the sea-launched Kalibr system with the long-range cruise missile has to be developed in 2019-2020 and the same timeframe is required for creating a ground-based long-range hypersonic missile system, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said at the ministry’s conference call on Tuesday.

"The General Staff has submitted to the supreme commander-in-chief a list of measures, which he has approved. In 2019-2020, we need to develop the ground-based version of the sea-launched Kalibr system with the long-range cruise missile, which has proven its worth in Syria," the defense minister said.

"Within the same time limits, we need to develop the ground-based system with the long-range hypersonic missile," the defense minister said.

These measures will be implemented in the wake of the US decision to suspend from February 2 its obligations under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

"At the same time, they [the United States] are actively working on creating ground-based missiles with the range capability of over 500km, which is outside the treaty-stipulated limitations. In this situation, the Russian president has set the task for the Defense Ministry to take tit-for-tat mirrored measures," Shoigu said.

As the Russian defense minister pointed out, "the use of sea-and air-borne missiles in their ground-based version will help considerably cut the time of manufacturing new missile weapons and the volume of their financing."

"Besides, it is necessary to increase the firing range of ground-based missile systems being developed today," the defense minister said.

Shoigu instructed Deputy Defense Minister Alexei Krivoruchko "to start the corresponding experimental design work within a short period of time within the appropriations allocated under the defense procurement plan for 2019 and for the planned period of 2020-2021 by re-distributing funds for the fulfillment of this work.

More:
http://tass.com/defense/1043280

Air-borne??? Interesting...

Kh-101?

dino00 wrote:"At the same time, they [the United States] are actively working on creating ground-based missiles with the range capability of over 500km, which is outside the treaty-stipulated limitations. In this situation, the Russian president has set the task for the Defense Ministry to take tit-for-tat mirrored measures," Shoigu said.

"tit-for-tat"

I hate it. It's Russia's whole policy, on anything. Just tit-for-that. They do something, we do the exact same.
Is that how you defeat your opponent? When in Judo someone comes at your with a move - do you mirror with the exact same move, in order to counter him? Is that how you win the fight?

The INF treaty is dead. That means that Russia can do what it wants.
It doesn't mean though that Russia has to do something just out of spite, or as a hollow political move meant to move the other side back to dialogue, or just to show that it can.
Russia should still do and only do what improves its own fighting ability and defence.

If that's ground-based Kalibrs then so be it. Lord knows why though, we have corvettes capable of moving through rivers and inland waters that can already fire dozens of them.
Maybe it's better instead to just keep expanding the long-range air-launched cruise missile inventory?
Or how about air defences and fighter regiments?

flamming_python wrote:..........If that's ground-based Kalibrs then so be it. Lord knows why though, we have corvettes capable of moving through rivers and inland waters that can already fire dozens of them.

That's the thing, corvettes are result of INF. They are expensive and have limited payload.

Trucks however are cheap and plentiful. Which is now allowed.

Amount of money saved on ships alone will be massive, it will cover price of both trucks and missiles while allowing Russia to put hundreds of missiles into service instead of dozens all without any extra costs.

flamming_python wrote:.....Maybe it's better instead to just keep expanding the long-range air-launched cruise missile inventory?
Or how about air defences and fighter regiments?

Airplanes need time to take off and can be vulnerable to first strike. Trucks are easy to hide and can fire instantly.

dino00 wrote:  Air-borne??? Interesting...

Iskander -> Kinzhal

PapaDragon wrote:

flamming_python wrote:..........If that's ground-based Kalibrs then so be it. Lord knows why though, we have corvettes capable of moving through rivers and inland waters that can already fire dozens of them.

That's the thing, corvettes are result of INF. They are expensive and have limited payload.

Corvettes have also naval strike capability what matters too. Perhps Byuns wond be continued but 22800? Of course better would be focus on 22160

PapsD wrote:

flamming_python wrote:.....Maybe it's better instead to just keep expanding the long-range air-launched cruise missile inventory?
Or how about air defences and fighter regiments?

Airplanes need time to take off and can be vulnerable to first strike. Trucks are easy to hide and can fire instantly.

[/quote]

Trucks are vulnerable too, they re cheaper and can be mass produced though.

higurashihougi wrote:On my opinion, the vital question here is whether the US still have sufficient tritium to maintain their nuclear warhead.

They dont need tritium, they have MUSK!

I think Trump admires Reagan too much...

Trump admires Trump too much...

it doesnt seem UKSK is able to fit Zircon, UKSK-M should. That's IMHO why recently lightweight Ziorcon is announced.

Well it could be that Zircon was designed for Destroyer sized and larger ships and also for subs and the plan was always to have a slightly bigger system for larger vessels called UKSK-M.

Anything that does not fit in the smaller UKSK could have reduced performance models developed to allow compatibility...

Or... in my opinion... at some point after the deployment of the UKSK launcher they decided to unify all missiles, but came to the problem that the naval S-500 wont fit the standard UKSK launcher, along with a few other select types, so they decided to split the design for smaller and larger ships to allow the bigger ships to carry the larger more potent weapons.

A corvette might be useful launching a 2,600km missile from the Caspian sea into Syria using data from other platforms, but it is not likely you want to fill the 8 launch tubes with S-500 missiles...

meh, in Georgia there is already biological warfare. You dont put all eggs into one basket

If they want to be guinea pigs... they will find out the sort of friends the Americans can be...

I hate it. It's Russia's whole policy, on anything. Just tit-for-that. They do something, we do the exact same.
Is that how you defeat your opponent? When in Judo someone comes at your with a move - do you mirror with the exact same move, in order to counter him? Is that how you win the fight?

The INF treaty is dead. That means that Russia can do what it wants.
It doesn't mean though that Russia has to do something just out of spite, or as a hollow political move meant to move the other side back to dialogue, or just to show that it can.
Russia should still do and only do what improves its own fighting ability and defence.

If that's ground-based Kalibrs then so be it. Lord knows why though, we have corvettes capable of moving through rivers and inland waters that can already fire dozens of them.
Maybe it's better instead to just keep expanding the long-range air-launched cruise missile inventory?
Or how about air defences and fighter regiments?

I totally agree... they are ripping up good agreements that helped keep the peace... they should be punished for not sticking to them... not matched in their discretions...

The best way to act is a way that will make Trump realise the INF treaty was a good thing for everyone... but obviously without being too expensive for Russia.

They need to talk about new IRBMs in the arctic targeting US and UK and NATO ships in the arctic ocean... and of course ships near Alaska and ABM sites in Alaska and the northern pacific ocean and also in western europe targeting EU capitals and any country with US soldiers based... to counter the US occupation of Europe...

That's the thing, corvettes are result of INF. They are expensive and have limited payload.

Removing the INF treaty means they can carry weapons much more suited to their role like anti ship and anti sub missiles... all those land attack cruise missiles can be in trucks or on trains even...

Amount of money saved on ships alone will be massive, it will cover price of both trucks and missiles while allowing Russia to put hundreds of missiles into service instead of dozens all without any extra costs.

Well, they can still make ships, but arm them differently and use them differently...

Iskander -> Kinzhal

Actually more the reverse.... Granit and Vulcan turned into land based missiles with much greater ranges and higher flight speeds... GZUR missiles launched from trucks and trains... Kh-101 and Calibre launched from trucks... perhaps even a ground launched Kh-32 or other new missiles that would previously be banned because of their range from being ground launched.

Trucks are vulnerable too, they re cheaper and can be mass produced though.

With a range of 500km they are relatively vulnerable... with a range of 3,000km or more and they can be deployed all through Russia to hit all sorts of targets....

They dont need tritium, they have MUSK!

More like Old Spice... Musk doesn't really come across to me as a real genius... some of his ideas seem actually pretty silly, and a lot of his businesses only seem to work when heavily subsidised by the US government... which is to say they don't really work.

not really, they recently even announced "lightweight" Zircon for MRK like Buyans/Karakurts (i.e. to fit to UKSK) so its even bigger then Onyx.

Yes we discussed in the Zircon thread but I'm not convinced that the lightweight version means UKSK can't handle full size.

There have been multiple previous quotes that imply Zircon is designed for UKSK, especially given there are not even any ships being built with UKSK-M but the missile is supposed to be going into service with the navy this year or next, how can that be if the navy has no launchers for it?