INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

Maybe Zircon was planned for the UKSK but during the development grew a bit in size/weight so it doesn´t fit anymore.

Maybe Zircon was planned for the UKSK but during the development grew a bit in size/weight so it doesn´t fit anymore.

But the point is that when the Zircon programme started they had already decided on the UKSK launch system, so the plan was pretty much for every new ship and every upgraded ship in the Russian Navy to have a UKSK launcher fitted... so you would expect standard requirements for the design of all new naval surface ship launched missiles (anti ship, anti sub, and land attack) to fit the new standard launcher.

But perhaps they decided to make a new really universal launcher design... so rather than just anti ship and anti sub and land attack missiles they also added the tiny right up to the huge surface to air missiles too.

Now in my opinion that is only likely if they have figured a way of stacking multiple smaller missiles in larger weapon tubes... it is not that outlandish... they have a triple missile adapter to fit in Granit tubes on an Oscar class sub that allows three Onyx missiles to be loaded into each Granit tube... which means they must have sorted out the issues of rocket blast on missile launch as well as wiring for three missiles in each tube...

If they can do that then stacking 20 tiny CIWS missiles like the 9M100 into one UKSK-M launch tube able to carry missiles 750mm plus wide and 9-12 metres long is the real goal so instead of having 6-8 UKSK launchers on their new destroyers plus 96 or 128 launch tubes for SAMs (ie 3-4 x 32 tube launchers)... they could have 9-12 UKSK-M universal missile launchers and have even more flexibility in terms of missile loads.

Of course the cost of new missiles means they might operate with half loads most of the time...

Will be interesting...

And missiles from Russia will just fly a few minutes to all ami bases around europe and asia. Until now Russia had to reserve a few ICBM´s/SLBM´s for that role, now this long-range missiles will be free to destroy more citys/military installations in Trumpistan.

GarryB wrote:

Maybe Zircon was planned for the UKSK but during the development grew a bit in size/weight so it doesn´t fit anymore.

But the point is that when the Zircon programme started they had already decided on the UKSK launch system, so the plan was pretty much for every new ship and every upgraded ship in the Russian Navy to have a UKSK launcher fitted... so you would expect standard requirements for the design of all new naval surface ship launched missiles (anti ship, anti sub, and land attack) to fit the new standard launcher.

But perhaps they decided to make a new really universal launcher design... so rather than just anti ship and anti sub and land attack missiles they also added the tiny right up to the huge surface to air missiles too.

Now in my opinion that is only likely if they have figured a way of stacking multiple smaller missiles in larger weapon tubes... it is not that outlandish... they have a triple missile adapter to fit in Granit tubes on an Oscar class sub that allows three Onyx missiles to be loaded into each Granit tube... which means they must have sorted out the issues of rocket blast on missile launch as well as wiring for three missiles in each tube...

If they can do that then stacking 20 tiny CIWS missiles like the 9M100 into one UKSK-M launch tube able to carry missiles 750mm plus wide and 9-12 metres long is the real goal so instead of having 6-8 UKSK launchers on their new destroyers plus 96 or 128 launch tubes for SAMs (ie 3-4 x 32 tube launchers)... they could have 9-12 UKSK-M universal missile launchers and have even more flexibility in terms of missile loads.

Of course the cost of new missiles means they might operate with half loads most of the time...

Will be interesting...

Yes, they wanted to put them into the UKSK, but sometimes you can´t achieve the set goals (speed, range) within the given limits. That´s why they (possibly) came up with this Zircon light missile.

Arrow wrote:

But not to the USA.

Bulavas are really close and fly really fast!

Arrow wrote:Russia will be in a dramatic position. Missiles USA will be a few minutes flight from Moscow, St. Petersburg and other important regions. Russia is tethered to the wall.

Thats the job for pantsyr, tor, buk, S-350, S-400, S-300V4, S-500, Peresvet, krakusha 2/4.You know all the analogues of the Americans IADS

And retaliation strike will be max 7 mins to US.

Arrow and his morons would all be vaporized.

To be honest, it does sound good.

Arrow wrote:But not to the USA.

Not really, US west coast is in range of such missiles.

Hole wrote:And missiles from Russia will just fly a few minutes to all ami bases around europe and asia. Until now Russia had to reserve a few ICBM´s/SLBM´s for that role, now this long-range missiles will be free to destroy more citys/military installations in Trumpistan.

That is why US proponents of INF are against withdrawal.

For a decapitating attack to make sense it should eliminate the Russian nuclear weapons, not only Moscow and St. Petersburg which are close to the borders. The weapons on the other hand can be placed thousands of km away from the new threat, and make their way to US via North Pole. The retaliation would concentrate then on US cities and infraestructure, no need to use warheads to attack ICBM silos anymore. Coupled with some EMP over the country that would eliminate military and industrial capability for months, it may be worse for US than for Russia in the end.

Arrow wrote:Russia will be in a dramatic position. Missiles USA will be a few minutes flight from Moscow, St. Petersburg and other important regions. Russia is tethered to the wall.

Missiles are already minutes away from Moscow, St. Petersburg and other important regions, nothing changed there. Ever heard of Ohio-class SSBNs?

Difference​ is that now entire Europe will go back to being nuclear meat shield as it should be. That gangrene riddled parasitic craphole had it way too easy for 3 whole decades.

Setup now is that should at any point USA go full retard Russia can roast the whole continent in record time and simply say: "Rodents are gone, now you can either back off or we take this to natural conclusion"

One opinion about the issue. What do you think ?

Could Russia maybe base IRBMs in Cuba and South America in response to missiles in eroupe?

To thing-next-door: No need to. Till the end of the INF treaty Russia would have to use ICBM´s like Topol-M, Yars and so on or SLBM´s like Bulava to destroy the french and english nuclear weapons or target NATO installations in Europe. Now they can develop smaller missiles and can use all their ICBM´s to target Trumpistan.

To Arrow: no need to connect to the subs. In such a case the commanders will launch their missiles according to their plans and orders.

Hole wrote:To thing-next-door: No need to. Till the end of the INF treaty Russia would have to use ICBM´s like Topol-M, Yars and so on or SLBM´s like Bulava to destroy the french and english nuclear weapons or target NATO installations in Europe. Now they can develop smaller missiles and can use all their ICBM´s to target Trumpistan.

To Arrow: no need to connect to the subs. In such a case the commanders will launch their missiles according to their plans and orders.

Not just the subs. Its very unlikely all the air or ground based systems will nave been hit. Very difficult to do a first strike and keep it totally secret. Spys etc.

They could start positioning IRBM's and other mid range missile systems in far east and Siberia region to strike US. European route can be for specifically targeting....Europe. first strike is a pointless task as a huge part of Russia's ICBM fleet is mobile. All their IRBM and MRBM missile systems will all be mobile.

higurashihougi wrote:One opinion about the issue. What do you think ?

Personally I have no idea, but I find this tritium issue very interesting. Maybe any of our nuclear experts (and I mean it seriously since there are people with good knowledge among us) can shed some light?

Russia may have violated the INF Treaty. Here’s how the United States appears to have done the same - Theodore A. Postol

U.S. disarmament ambassador Robert Wood told a U.N.-sponsored Conference on Disarmament in Geneva on Tuesday that the United States would reconsider its withdrawal from the INF treaty “should Russia return to full and verifiable compliance.”

“This is Russia’s final opportunity to return to compliance,” Wood said.

https://en.news-front.info/2019/02/06/russia-plans-new-missile-systems-to-counter-u-s-by-2021/

Nice try, but this time around you will have to reap what you sowed. Russia is moving forward with their new missiles, among them CMs with which they can cheaply put under threat the whole Europe. This will be indeed more than welcome by Russia, since it allows them to disable, conventionally, the build-up of forces that would precede the best NATO option against Russia in the form of a conventional attack.

Putin said not to bother with engaging and negotiating in INF. I think the Russians had it up to their heads with US shitty tactics.