INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

Reminds me of that saying "Don't let your mouth write a check your ass can't cash!"

The US Department of Defense decided to terminate the contract with Boeing Corporation, which provided for the development of the kinetic interceptor Redesigned Kill Vehicle (RKV), designed to destroy warheads of ICBMs outside the atmosphere in the middle of their flight path.



The US Department of Defense terminates ABM contract with Boeing  

...All that agit-prop from the F-16 missing chromosome crowd...gone to waste!

kvs wrote:As I predicted the US will use nuclear warheads on its ABM missiles.  That is one of the reasons it killed off the INF.  

Pure kinetic kill is nonsense.   At least with a nuclear warhead there is a chance to fry the electronics of the ICBM warhead and
prevent it from properly detonating.  This goes together with large increase in the radius of interception.   No point on point
hit is necessary when a 100+ meter diameter volume on point makes the job vastly easier.

It is still not easy to achieve. Manoeuvring warheads going at mach 20 are still almost not possible to intercept. The destruction range should be some km rather than 100m.

And they are probably protected from nuclear electromagnetic pulse.

When using nuke warheads you can then change tactics and launch several spaced missiles to detonate a pattern around where the incoming warhead might be... obviously pointless with kinetic or HE warheads, but with nukes there is a better chance... plus of course being objects designed to fly at mach 10 plus they will already be resistant to heat, but there are limitations there... an SR-71 could fly all day at mach 3 without over heating, but the heat from a nuclear blast is something else and when added to the friction heat of moving at three times the speed of sound then structural failure or even just surface damage is a real issue... and we just need to look at space shuttles to see that when the outer heat resistant layer is damaged when flying at very high speeds the air and atmosphere can do the rest.

So Pavels Dogvig just recently whitewashed and defended the Mk.41 cells in Agent Ashore on his twitter page as compliant with the INF Treaty....yes his twitter page is as cancerous as you think it would be, complete regurgitation of RFERL (and fellow traveler) horse dung. This is beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Pro-West Russians are indeed promoters of the Federations destruction, and not the 'Salvation' that they so claim.

Somewhere Pavels Dogvig is half-naked in a cage, salivating over the stale dog food left in his food dish. He'll do anything for his masters so long as they leave dog treats by his grubby fecal covered paws.

Non white Americans call them uncle toms don't they?

That guy who will curry favour with the bosses even if it means betraying his own in the process...

So Pavels Dogvig just recently whitewashed and defended the Mk.41 cells in Agent Ashore on his twitter page as compliant with the INF Treaty....

The INF treaty banned all land based cruise and ballistic missile launchers... the Mk.41 is a cruise missile launcher, when placed on land it directly violates the INF treaty.

Of course the really funny thing is that Iskander and the shipping crate Club missiles were all downrated to 480km range and less than 500kg payload to comply with the INF treaty and it will actually be rather simple to develop missiles that fit exactly the same launch platforms that have much much better flight range performance.

So in effect Russia can massively increase its firepower over the EU and the ME and the far east very easily, very quickly, and relatively cheaply... the only stumbling block will be making enough nuclear warheads for the job and guess what... Russia is introducing breeder reactors for producing energy which greatly reduces the nuclear waste to almost nothing and allows uranium enrichment as a byproduct of generating energy... so making a lot of nuclear bombs will be very quick and very cheap.

But even now the Europeans are blaming Russia for the INF treaty falling over.

How many more signals does Putin need to realise there is no point in communicating with these people. They are fucking idiots.

The tone of his "articles" gave him away from the moment I saw my first one several years ago. NATO thinks it is sooooo smart when it uses
phony "independent" voices such as BellingCat to spread its BS around.

The British alone spent almost 2 million pounds on that NGO run by exUK spies on framing Russia for everything and for demonising any EU politician that suggested better ties with Russia... so I suspect this guy is probably being well paid for his service. Of course if he isn't then he is being used which would be just as funny.

Leaving a part the clumsy attempts to "parry" the possible ,for its committers, by part of the poor and unprepared P. Podvig (i remeber vividly how it escaped at light speed from elaborating from a series of titanical self-embarrassing technical mistakes, about the difference of standard measure for precision and accuracy of ballistic missiles between western and Soviet testing literature, that it had employed in a interchangeable way like it was the last of elementary school kids) also taking into account that if someone want to control what was already the reasons for abandon the INF Treaty can read this very interesting piece titled "A Cold War missile treaty that’s doing us harm" wrote by John R. Bolton himself (and A. De Sutter) in the far 2011, much before the ridicule excuse of the NATO designated "9M-279",


http://www.aei.org/publication/a-cold-war-missile-treaty-thats-doing-us-harm/


The bulk of the question is centered at today around the attempt by USA to "employ" the potential placement of INF systems on foreign soil as an "exchange money" to gain the inclusion of the new type of Federation weapons among the banned ones in the formulation of the renovated START.

We must take into consideration that Federation's authorities are perfectly aware that all the new class of perspective weapons do not technically fall under any agreed characteristics of limited systems contained in the START, that is clear from December 2018 confidential missive concerning START related issues envoyed by Federation specialists to US Congress (the translation of which was obtained by the Wall Street Journal)

You can read it at point V ,pag 9

https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Russia.pdf

How clearly imaginable, at the moment USA cannot put on the other plate of the balance startegic systems with the same, or even similar, technical characteristics and capabilities in order to exert the necessary pressure on the Federation to lead it to come to an agreement using the procedure contained in the first paragraph of the article XV of the START.

Therefore like happened for the technological gap in new gun and tube artillery, MBTs, IFVs, theatre range missiles, point/medium and long range AD systems, anti-ship missiles anti satellites and space defence systems etc.... US response usually consist in the mass deployment of modifications of inferior existing systems rendered in some way relevant thanks to the..........transitory..........complacency of its allies/vassals; this happened already in the '80 years and is reproposing itself today with theirs attempts with low yield warheads on theirs outdated ballistic missiles and possibly the placement of technically largely inferior CM of the BGM-109 family (and may be also a variation of AGM-154 that in its LRASM iteration has been already tested from MK-41 launchers ) in Poland, Japan and Sud-Korea.

“To tell here what our step will be in response to the step of the Americans - you probably all saw on TV when you used it - about the same X-101 (long-range aviation cruise missile). Our competitor cannot reach the range today. If we we can fly to such a range, which means we have technical capabilities, "he said.
When asked about the possibility of "landing" X-101, the creation of a ground-based complex on the basis of this missile, Obnosov replied: "Maybe it, or maybe something else."

https://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=516035&lang=RU

kvs wrote:

dino00 wrote:“To tell here what our step will be in response to the step of the Americans - you probably all saw on TV when you used it - about the same X-101 (long-range aviation cruise missile). Our competitor cannot reach the range today. If we we can fly to such a range, which means we have technical capabilities, "he said.
      When asked about the possibility of "landing" X-101, the creation of a ground-based complex on the basis of this missile, Obnosov replied: "Maybe it, or maybe something else."

https://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=516035&lang=RU

All of this is cheap and easy for Russia.  NATO is for the shock of its existence if it thinks it can bankrupt Russia with a missile
arms race.  

Exactly. This doesn't create the arms race they expect because Russia already has the arms. Now it is just expanding its stock and increasing ways to launch them.

miketheterrible wrote:

kvs wrote:

dino00 wrote:“To tell here what our step will be in response to the step of the Americans - you probably all saw on TV when you used it - about the same X-101 (long-range aviation cruise missile). Our competitor cannot reach the range today. If we we can fly to such a range, which means we have technical capabilities, "he said.
      When asked about the possibility of "landing" X-101, the creation of a ground-based complex on the basis of this missile, Obnosov replied: "Maybe it, or maybe something else."

https://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=516035&lang=RU

All of this is cheap and easy for Russia.  NATO is for the shock of its existence if it thinks it can bankrupt Russia with a missile
arms race.  

Exactly.  This doesn't create the arms race they expect because Russia already has the arms.  Now it is just expanding its stock and increasing ways to launch them.

It should be added that Kalibr-M is basically already developed, so it will only really need a stealth shaping exterior shell to get an Kh-101/102 version, which shouldn't take too long, however because it is ground launched it lost about 1000km in range (4,500km as opposed to the 5,500km air launched model) but still plenty of range.

But the think is that with a ground launcher you could make them double tube launchers and fit an enormous external fuel tank to these missiles to restore as much range as you need.

Also considering their role a compact nuclear warhead can be much smaller and lighter than a conventional HE warhead so extra fuel tanks could be fitted there...

I mean the missiles the west claimed had too much range because they looked the same as their other long range missiles lacked long range because they had enormous warheads... so it isn't the first time they scaled back fuel capacity and scaled up warhead capacity to manipulate range performance... they can also do it in reverse because modern nuke warheads are small and relatively light... nuclear rounds for 152mm artillery shells are about 40kgs each... you could put 3-4 in a subsonic cruise missile with a five minute delay fuse for each except the last and still have about 300kgs of space for more fuel... the nuclear warheads might weight 160kgs for four but they will be made of metals and be much denser than the HE they replace, so there should be room for quite a bit of fuel up there.

As the missile flys across europe it can follow waypoints carrying it over populated areas where it can drop warheads at selected points... five minutes later boom, with the missile well on its way to the next target, and the last target just boom.

Remember in the first 10 minutes the hypersonic Russian missiles will be taking down military air strips and major radar sites and comms centres and HQs, so low flying subsonic missiles would be a serious threat and problem for the EU in general.

This requires a relevant quote "Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad!"

U.S. Nuclear Bombs Defective



The United States will suspend the assembly of B61-12 thermonuclear bombs and W88 warheads due to the fragility of their components.

The release of B61-12, the latest modification of the nuclear bomb for B-1, B-2, and B-52, F-16, and F-22 aircraft, has been postponed for a year and a half. Production of the W88 - a warhead mounted on Trident II ballistic missiles for U.S. Navy submarines - was delayed for a shorter time, Defense News reported citing a senior official from the National Nuclear Safety Administration (NNSA). This organization is in charge of the US nuclear arsenal.

The production of the B61-12 variable power and 455-kiloton W88 is part of the US nuclear arsenal modernization program.

- The release of ammunition was supposed to begin in 2020, but by this time not a single sample will be manufactured. Nuclear weapons have been on combat duty for 20-30 years, but stress tests have revealed the fragility of bomb and warhead components, said Charles Verdon, deputy head of the NNSA. At the same time, he suggested that the aforementioned deadlines could be shorter, since his department received many proposals for replacing questionable parts.

According to Kingston Ref of the Arms Control Association, the delay in the bombing will increase the cost of the rearmament program by $ 7.6 million and prevent the NNSA from implementing several other projects to upgrade its nuclear arsenal.

https://translate.yandex.com/translate?url=https%3A%2F%2Frg.ru%2F2019%2F09%2F08%2Fiadernye-bomby-ssha-okazalis-s-defektom.html&lang=ru-en

Poland and Romania tense over Saudi Arabia’s American air defense missile defense

The story of strikes against oil production and oil refining facilities in Saudi Arabia continues to be discussed in various countries of the world. At the same time, a certain generality is traced in the statements of experts. It consists of the following: if Iran is really behind the attack on Saudi Aramco’s facilities, why didn’t it protect the American-made air defense system from Iran, having failed? The tension in this regard manifests itself in expert circles in Poland and Romania, relying on American means of "defense against missile attack."




The multilevel air defense missile defense system of American production in Saudi Arabia in this situation at least raises doubts about the degree of its effectiveness, presenting rather an ultra-expensive "sieve".

Experts in China, in particular, recalled that for a number of years, Americans have also built a missile defense system in Eastern Europe - in the Romanian Devesela and the Polish Redzikovo. As rightly noted, these systems are not so much multi-stage as in Saudi Arabia, and therefore at the “critical moment” their effectiveness may be even lower than in the Saudi kingdom. Although much less effective ...

Indeed, the United States, starting the creation of a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, insisted that it was “against Iran.” Now in the USA they constantly say that it was Iran that attacked targets in Saudi Arabia. Thus, Washington drove itself into a stalemate: it turns out that American systems "will not save Europe from a formidable Iran."

And for the Romanian and Polish sides, the situation turns completely unhappy (even with the name Deveselu in the Russian language correlates): after all, these objects, which can easily be converted into offensive weapons systems, by definition will become targets for Russian missiles in a situation requiring which Moscow has repeatedly warned. The Russian authorities noted that the conversion of missile defense targets into potential targets would have to go, since the United States did not provide any evidence that the US and Polish and Romanian missile defense targets were not directed against the Russian Federation.

That is, after the “echo of the Saudi bombings”, Bucharest and Warsaw now need to live with the realization that American systems not only do not protect them, but also set them as their primary goals. Moreover, Poland and Romania are also tense due to the fact that the missiles in the Russian arsenal are exactly more powerful than the Iranian missiles and drones, which the US is talking about.



https://topwar.ru/162764-v-polshe-i-rumynii-naprjazheny-v-svjazi-s-fiasko-amerikanskoj-pvo-pro-saudovskoj-aravii.html

Also...

Shoigu: Caliber rocket modernized after Syria



Russian Defense Minister General of the Army Sergey Shoigu spoke about the changes in the arsenal of the Russian army after the Syrian campaign. A number of systems were modernized taking into account the experience of combat use, while others were discontinued

- High-precision cruise missiles "Caliber" after their use in Syria have been modernized. Previously, loading a flight mission into a rocket required so much time that the target could go. Now the loading time of a task into a rocket has been reduced, I emphasize, by several times. This work to reduce the transmission time of target designation is ongoing, ”said Shoigu in an interview with MK .

In total, according to the results of tests in Syria, about 300 types of weapons were modernized. 12 samples, which were considered promising, were discontinued from production and weapons.
Recall, for the first time, the Caliber cruise missile strike on the positions of terrorists in Syria was launched in October 2015 from the ships of the Caspian flotilla. In the future, surface ships and submarines repeatedly fired on the militants with “Caliber”.


https://rg.ru/2019/09/22/shojgu-raketu-kalibr-modernizirovali-posle-sirii.html

Would be interesting to know what the 12 weapon technologies that were considered promising but found wanting and were discontinued were.

kvs wrote:

GarryB wrote:Would be interesting to know what the 12 weapon technologies that were considered promising but found wanting and were discontinued were.

Indeed.  But Russia should not give the yanqui "masters of the universe" any ideas.  Let these self-anointed ubermenschen figure it out
by themselves.  LOL.

They were probably just shelved until later data same as predecessors of Poseidon and Avangard were back in the 90s

They will reappear down the road

No, I don't think so.

The way they refer to them it seems like before their experience in Syria they thought these 12 things were good ideas... useful weapons or equipment that was going to be useful and effective, but they turned out to not do the job.

There was a lot of negative talk about their robotic fighting vehicles that had limited range and other issues, but they are working on those programmes and projects to make them better, so I don't think that is what they are talking about.

It sounds more like technology areas they thought would be useful but are shown in combat to be dead ends.

Discontinued suggests they were in production and stopped production.

But of course are they talking about brand new designs, or designs that have been in service for a while and only now with testing they have decided to go in a different direction.

It might be a new type of small arm, or new type of rocket or missile, new types of ammo for different weapons... we have no easy way to tell really...

Or long underpants that were no good for the syrian enviroment.

Your joking because the suggestion is that Syria is a hot place... but you might not be wrong...

They might have developed some systems for war in flat open spaces and they have been found to have fundamental problems in such an environment... ie desert camo that doesn't work. Or a vehicle that is not as useful as they thought it might be like that Vestryl vehicle or whatever it was called.

I guess in time they might release the information or not.

U.S. Nuclear Bombs Defective

And thus we have the reason why a few months back I think it was assistant Secretary of State or similar did a press conference claiming that Russia is 'certainly' breaching the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Fortunately there were one or two actual Journos who asked for some evidence -> a couple of steps of prevarication & rolling back the claim via 'probably' and 'maybe' to 'we have no evidence at all but they have the capability'.

Many years ago I came to the conclusion that whenever the US is publicly accusing some other country of doing something nefarious you will find that infact the US either just started doing that nefarious thing or is about to start.

Its clear that they've been trying to find an excuse to let off a nuke/restart testing but aside from the general 'we haven't actually tested one for ages' I hadn't seen the 'what they just started doing or about to start' bit & there it is


Fascinating though: its my understanding a big series of mega-supercomputers they've been buying over the last couple of decades has been to enable complete simulation of their new design warheads right down to every individual atom.
How the do you spend so many Billion$ to run that level of simulation without noticing you're using components without sufficient shock strength to be carried on a plane???

hoom wrote:

U.S. Nuclear Bombs Defective

And thus we have the reason why a few months back I think it was assistant Secretary of State or similar did a press conference claiming that Russia is 'certainly' breaching the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Fortunately there were one or two actual Journos who asked for some evidence -> a couple of steps of prevarication & rolling back the claim via 'probably' and 'maybe' to 'we have no evidence at all but they have the capability'.

Many years ago I came to the conclusion that whenever the US is publicly accusing some other country of doing something nefarious you will find that infact the US either just started doing that nefarious thing or is about to start.

Its clear that they've been trying to find an excuse to let off a nuke/restart testing but aside from the general 'we haven't actually tested one for ages' I hadn't seen the 'what they just started doing or about to start' bit & there it is


Fascinating though: its my understanding a big series of mega-supercomputers they've been buying over the last couple of decades has been to enable complete simulation of their new design warheads right down to every individual atom.
How the  do you spend so many Billion$ to run that level of simulation without noticing you're using components without sufficient shock strength to be carried on a plane???

This is easy to answer: corruption!