Home
Latest images
Register
Log inI can only hope that this meeting goes horribly, and Russia not only decides to leave the INF treaty, but also the MTCR, to further break NATOs military backbone. (one can dream, can't they?)Russia, US to Discuss Agreement on Mid, Short-Range Missiles in September - Source
MOSCOW, August 21 (RIA Novosti) - Russian and US experts will meet in September to discuss a bilateral agreement on mid- and short-range missiles, a source in the Russian Foreign Ministry told RIA Novosti Thursday.
“A meeting will be held on the expert level. This will be consultations on mutual concerns,” the source said in reference to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.
Washington earlier accused Moscow of “breaching its INF obligations of not testing, producing or developing cruise missiles with a range between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.” The Russian Foreign Ministry said the accusations are unfounded and that the United States has not released any evidence of Russia breaching the agreement.
The Russian authorities have expressed their own complaints about US compliance with the treaty in light of Washington’s plans to deploy Mark 41 Vertical Launching Systems to Poland and Romania.
Last week, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel discussed the necessity of more meetings and open lines of communication on the treaty.
The INF Treaty was signed by the United States and the Soviet Union in 1987 to prevent the use of nuclear and conventional missiles with an intermediate range, defined as 500 to 5,000 kilometers (310 to 3,100 miles).
http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140821/192212639/Russia-US-to-Discuss-Agreement-on-Mid-Short-Range-Missiles-in.html
+47
ult
ATLASCUB
nomadski
Firebird
Nibiru
Isos
Karl Haushofer
Hole
PapaDragon
LMFS
dino00
rrob
T-47
Singular_Transform
miketheterrible
Arrow
hoom
JohninMK
eehnie
Rmf
nastle77
sepheronx
GunshipDemocracy
kvs
Big_Gazza
max steel
flamming_python
Stealthflanker
Morpheus Eberhardt
Vann7
Werewolf
George1
Mike E
zg18
GarryB
Mindstorm
TR1
collegeboy16
navyfield
magnumcromagnon
AlfaT8
Admin
gaurav
SOC
Austin
Cyberspec
Viktor
51 posters
INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life
AlfaT8- Posts : 2488
Points : 2479
Join date : 2013-02-02
Mike E- Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA
I hope so too! MTCR was created just to keep US military "superiority" intact. INF is the same...
GarryB- Posts : 40515
Points : 41015
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The main purpose of the MTCR agreement is to stop the rest of the world from getting the long range precision weapons like cruise missiles and modern short and medium range ballistic missiles.
There was a time when to hit a single factory located in another country you had to send hundreds of bombers over several weeks over and over and even then you might not even hit it directly.
You could do it today easily with a tactical nuke, but obviously there are laws and systems in place to stop the proliferation of even small nuclear weapons, so there is no alternative but to use lots of aircraft in waves several times to ensure success.
For the west that is fine because the countries they fight never have the capacity to mount multiple heavy raids on them because Washington is a long way from the locations of the fighting.
Allow the widespread purchase of long range cruise missiles for instance and the US would have to start spending five or six times more than it already does for all those radars and air defence centres and heavy SAMs...
the amusing thing is that the US breaks the MTCR every time it sells things like a new Trident to the UK, or the various long range weapons it exports.
There was a time when to hit a single factory located in another country you had to send hundreds of bombers over several weeks over and over and even then you might not even hit it directly.
You could do it today easily with a tactical nuke, but obviously there are laws and systems in place to stop the proliferation of even small nuclear weapons, so there is no alternative but to use lots of aircraft in waves several times to ensure success.
For the west that is fine because the countries they fight never have the capacity to mount multiple heavy raids on them because Washington is a long way from the locations of the fighting.
Allow the widespread purchase of long range cruise missiles for instance and the US would have to start spending five or six times more than it already does for all those radars and air defence centres and heavy SAMs...
the amusing thing is that the US breaks the MTCR every time it sells things like a new Trident to the UK, or the various long range weapons it exports.
AlfaT8- Posts : 2488
Points : 2479
Join date : 2013-02-02
Garry, any idea what China's story is, there not under the MCTR so why aren't they exporting long range cruise/ballistic missiles??GarryB wrote:The main purpose of the MTCR agreement is to stop the rest of the world from getting the long range precision weapons like cruise missiles and modern short and medium range ballistic missiles.
There was a time when to hit a single factory located in another country you had to send hundreds of bombers over several weeks over and over and even then you might not even hit it directly.
You could do it today easily with a tactical nuke, but obviously there are laws and systems in place to stop the proliferation of even small nuclear weapons, so there is no alternative but to use lots of aircraft in waves several times to ensure success.
For the west that is fine because the countries they fight never have the capacity to mount multiple heavy raids on them because Washington is a long way from the locations of the fighting.
Allow the widespread purchase of long range cruise missiles for instance and the US would have to start spending five or six times more than it already does for all those radars and air defence centres and heavy SAMs...
the amusing thing is that the US breaks the MTCR every time it sells things like a new Trident to the UK, or the various long range weapons it exports.
Mike E- Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA
Your last point is the reason Russia should leave it... Both sides really don't have much to gain from it, and maybe they lose from it!
GarryB- Posts : 40515
Points : 41015
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Garry, any idea what China's story is, there not under the MCTR so why aren't they exporting long range cruise/ballistic missiles??
Because they don't have GLONASS or GPS to make long range weapons precise enough, and they don't have ballistic missiles accurate enough to give up that tactical nuclear warhead to be able to sell them in large numbers.
Mike E- Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA
Russia, U.S. to discuss INF Treaty concerns in Moscow on Sept 11
Source: Russia Beyond the Headlines - (http://rbth.com/news/2014/09/08/russia_us_to_discuss_inf_treaty_concerns_in_moscow_on_sept_11_39602.html)
Source: Russia Beyond the Headlines - (http://rbth.com/news/2014/09/08/russia_us_to_discuss_inf_treaty_concerns_in_moscow_on_sept_11_39602.html)
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
Mike E wrote:Russia, U.S. to discuss INF Treaty concerns in Moscow on Sept 11
Source: Russia Beyond the Headlines - (http://rbth.com/news/2014/09/08/russia_us_to_discuss_inf_treaty_concerns_in_moscow_on_sept_11_39602.html)
With NATO amassing on Russia's borders, now's the time to leave the INF treaty.
Werewolf- Posts : 5927
Points : 6116
Join date : 2012-10-24
magnumcromagnon wrote:Mike E wrote:Russia, U.S. to discuss INF Treaty concerns in Moscow on Sept 11
Source: Russia Beyond the Headlines - (http://rbth.com/news/2014/09/08/russia_us_to_discuss_inf_treaty_concerns_in_moscow_on_sept_11_39602.html)
With NATO amassing on Russia's borders, now's the time to leave the INF treaty.
It is time to send nuclear missiles to central and south America since russia is already surrounded with NATO dogs willingly die for a terrorist country and the US has nukes right infront of Russia in Germany and builds ABM shields.
Mike E- Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA
magnumcromagnon wrote:Mike E wrote:Russia, U.S. to discuss INF Treaty concerns in Moscow on Sept 11
Source: Russia Beyond the Headlines - (http://rbth.com/news/2014/09/08/russia_us_to_discuss_inf_treaty_concerns_in_moscow_on_sept_11_39602.html)
With NATO amassing on Russia's borders, now's the time to leave the INF treaty.
You bet, and they would have a good explanation for doing so...
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
Mike E wrote:magnumcromagnon wrote:Mike E wrote:Russia, U.S. to discuss INF Treaty concerns in Moscow on Sept 11
Source: Russia Beyond the Headlines - (http://rbth.com/news/2014/09/08/russia_us_to_discuss_inf_treaty_concerns_in_moscow_on_sept_11_39602.html)
With NATO amassing on Russia's borders, now's the time to leave the INF treaty.
You bet, and they would have a good explanation for doing so...
The great thing about Iskander-M is that it has lots of unused internal space. leaving lots of room for modernization potential for larger warheads and or greater amounts of propellant.
Mike E- Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA
More propellant would be the better option... More range, or they could have it burn faster and more powerfully, while achieving the same range. Either way the current model's range is unknown (domestic model), so it might not need an upgrade for all I care!magnumcromagnon wrote:Mike E wrote:magnumcromagnon wrote:Mike E wrote:Russia, U.S. to discuss INF Treaty concerns in Moscow on Sept 11
Source: Russia Beyond the Headlines - (http://rbth.com/news/2014/09/08/russia_us_to_discuss_inf_treaty_concerns_in_moscow_on_sept_11_39602.html)
With NATO amassing on Russia's borders, now's the time to leave the INF treaty.
You bet, and they would have a good explanation for doing so...
The great thing about Iskander-M is that it has lots of unused internal space. leaving lots of room for modernization potential for larger warheads and or greater amounts of propellant.
Mike E- Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA
Kremlin sees no reasons to withdraw from INF Treaty
But it is possible in exceptional circumstances, Sergei Ivanov, the chief of the Kremlin administration, said
MOSCOW, September 21. /ITAR-TASS/. The Kremlin sees no reasons to unilaterally quit the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, but it is possible in exceptional circumstances, Sergei Ivanov, the chief of the Kremlin administration, said on Sunday.
“In principle, each of the parties may withdraw from the treaty in exceptional circumstances,” he said in an interview with the Rossiiskaya Gazeta daily. “So far, and I would like to stress it, I see no such circumstance.”
“As a matter of fact, we adherents of the principle of implementing international liabilities,” he said. “Unless we see that our security interests are seriously threatened.”
He said that prior to 2003 Russia and the United States had had regular consultations on the INF Treaty but later they had been stopped at the initiative of the U.S. side. “Now, the INF Treaty is in the focus of discussion, including in a regime of accusations and counteraccusation. The American side is loudly but groundlessly accusing us of actual violation of the treaty, but we have still more claims to the Americans,” Ivanov said, citing among them target missiles the United States used during tests of its missile system, offensive operations drones and the ongoing implementation of missile defence plans providing for the deployment of MK-41 launch platforms in Europe.
Drawback of this treaty had become evident, he said, adding that the key one was its bilateral character. “It means that any other country of the world is free to do whatever it wants as concerns this type of weapons,” Ivanov noted. As an example, he cited such countries as North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, India, Iran, which did have such type of weapons and which were located near Russia. “By the way, over the time of the Bush administration, the American leaders were fully aware of that; different geographical location requires different approaches to defence,” he noted.
He said that the first round of new Russia-U.S. consultations had been held and the sides had told each other what they thought about it. “Let us wait for the continuation,” he added.
- I don't know what to make of this... He said that they have no interest in withdrawing, just to say that they *might* withdraw at a later time... (Depending on the situation, of course...)
But it is possible in exceptional circumstances, Sergei Ivanov, the chief of the Kremlin administration, said
MOSCOW, September 21. /ITAR-TASS/. The Kremlin sees no reasons to unilaterally quit the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, but it is possible in exceptional circumstances, Sergei Ivanov, the chief of the Kremlin administration, said on Sunday.
“In principle, each of the parties may withdraw from the treaty in exceptional circumstances,” he said in an interview with the Rossiiskaya Gazeta daily. “So far, and I would like to stress it, I see no such circumstance.”
“As a matter of fact, we adherents of the principle of implementing international liabilities,” he said. “Unless we see that our security interests are seriously threatened.”
He said that prior to 2003 Russia and the United States had had regular consultations on the INF Treaty but later they had been stopped at the initiative of the U.S. side. “Now, the INF Treaty is in the focus of discussion, including in a regime of accusations and counteraccusation. The American side is loudly but groundlessly accusing us of actual violation of the treaty, but we have still more claims to the Americans,” Ivanov said, citing among them target missiles the United States used during tests of its missile system, offensive operations drones and the ongoing implementation of missile defence plans providing for the deployment of MK-41 launch platforms in Europe.
Drawback of this treaty had become evident, he said, adding that the key one was its bilateral character. “It means that any other country of the world is free to do whatever it wants as concerns this type of weapons,” Ivanov noted. As an example, he cited such countries as North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, India, Iran, which did have such type of weapons and which were located near Russia. “By the way, over the time of the Bush administration, the American leaders were fully aware of that; different geographical location requires different approaches to defence,” he noted.
He said that the first round of new Russia-U.S. consultations had been held and the sides had told each other what they thought about it. “Let us wait for the continuation,” he added.
- I don't know what to make of this... He said that they have no interest in withdrawing, just to say that they *might* withdraw at a later time... (Depending on the situation, of course...)
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
Mike E wrote:Kremlin sees no reasons to withdraw from INF Treaty
But it is possible in exceptional circumstances, Sergei Ivanov, the chief of the Kremlin administration, said
MOSCOW, September 21. /ITAR-TASS/. The Kremlin sees no reasons to unilaterally quit the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, but it is possible in exceptional circumstances, Sergei Ivanov, the chief of the Kremlin administration, said on Sunday.
“In principle, each of the parties may withdraw from the treaty in exceptional circumstances,” he said in an interview with the Rossiiskaya Gazeta daily. “So far, and I would like to stress it, I see no such circumstance.”
“As a matter of fact, we adherents of the principle of implementing international liabilities,” he said. “Unless we see that our security interests are seriously threatened.”
He said that prior to 2003 Russia and the United States had had regular consultations on the INF Treaty but later they had been stopped at the initiative of the U.S. side. “Now, the INF Treaty is in the focus of discussion, including in a regime of accusations and counteraccusation. The American side is loudly but groundlessly accusing us of actual violation of the treaty, but we have still more claims to the Americans,” Ivanov said, citing among them target missiles the United States used during tests of its missile system, offensive operations drones and the ongoing implementation of missile defence plans providing for the deployment of MK-41 launch platforms in Europe.
Drawback of this treaty had become evident, he said, adding that the key one was its bilateral character. “It means that any other country of the world is free to do whatever it wants as concerns this type of weapons,” Ivanov noted. As an example, he cited such countries as North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, India, Iran, which did have such type of weapons and which were located near Russia. “By the way, over the time of the Bush administration, the American leaders were fully aware of that; different geographical location requires different approaches to defence,” he noted.
He said that the first round of new Russia-U.S. consultations had been held and the sides had told each other what they thought about it. “Let us wait for the continuation,” he added.
- I don't know what to make of this... He said that they have no interest in withdrawing, just to say that they *might* withdraw at a later time... (Depending on the situation, of course...)
The Kremlin proves yet again that it's dominated by the incredibly naive, France and Britain never signed the INF treaty and Russia is surrounded by theater range nukes from it's West, it's East, and it's South...and on top of that the U.S. will invest $1 trillion to "maintain" it's nuclear stockpile:
‘Anti-nuclear’ Obama plans to spend $1 trillion on nukes
zg18- Posts : 888
Points : 958
Join date : 2013-09-26
Location : Zagreb , Croatia
magnumcromagnon wrote:The Kremlin proves yet again that it's dominated by the incredibly naive, France and Britain never signed the INF treaty and Russia is surrounded by theater range nukes from it's West, it's East, and it's South...and on top of that the U.S. will invest $1 trillion to "maintain" it's nuclear stockpile:
Why terminating INF , when you can test and deploy "Rubezh" -barely-an-ICBM-
GarryB- Posts : 40515
Points : 41015
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The INF treaty is a card Russia can play when it is useful.
Right now it is not doing and damage to Russian security, but if that changes they are free to withdraw if they need to.
Right now the INF treaty limits what ground based missile systems the US can deploy to Europe... any weapon... ballistic or cruise, ground to ground or ground to air, is banned by the INF treaty if its flight range is 500km to 5,500km... and if it is greater than 5,500km it is no longer an intermediate range missile... it becomes an ICBM, which comes under the New START treaty...
Right now it is not doing and damage to Russian security, but if that changes they are free to withdraw if they need to.
Right now the INF treaty limits what ground based missile systems the US can deploy to Europe... any weapon... ballistic or cruise, ground to ground or ground to air, is banned by the INF treaty if its flight range is 500km to 5,500km... and if it is greater than 5,500km it is no longer an intermediate range missile... it becomes an ICBM, which comes under the New START treaty...
George1- Posts : 18514
Points : 19019
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
GarryB wrote:The INF treaty is a card Russia can play when it is useful.
Right now it is not doing and damage to Russian security, but if that changes they are free to withdraw if they need to.
Right now the INF treaty limits what ground based missile systems the US can deploy to Europe... any weapon... ballistic or cruise, ground to ground or ground to air, is banned by the INF treaty if its flight range is 500km to 5,500km... and if it is greater than 5,500km it is no longer an intermediate range missile... it becomes an ICBM, which comes under the New START treaty...
Klub-K/M land attack cruise missile system violates INF Treaty?
GarryB- Posts : 40515
Points : 41015
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
No.
Domestic and exportable versions have ranges of less than 500km.
Domestic and exportable versions have ranges of less than 500km.
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
GarryB wrote:No.
Domestic and exportable versions have ranges of less than 500km.
So would a naval and air launched IRBM be perfectly legal?
GarryB- Posts : 40515
Points : 41015
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The INF treaty regards land based cruise and ballistic missiles.
It does not apply to sub or ship launched nor air launched weapons.
Just looking at the 5,500km range of the Kh-101 and Kh-102, perhaps extra fuel tanks and solid rocket boosters to extend its range to say, 8,000km could make a land based cruise missile perfectly legal.
It would then count under new START as a strategic weapon if it was nuclear but with a conventional warhead it might slip through the cracks...
It does not apply to sub or ship launched nor air launched weapons.
Just looking at the 5,500km range of the Kh-101 and Kh-102, perhaps extra fuel tanks and solid rocket boosters to extend its range to say, 8,000km could make a land based cruise missile perfectly legal.
It would then count under new START as a strategic weapon if it was nuclear but with a conventional warhead it might slip through the cracks...
Morpheus Eberhardt- Posts : 1925
Points : 2032
Join date : 2013-05-20
- Post n°96
Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life
Morpheus Eberhardt Wed Dec 03, 2014 9:55 am
George1 wrote:GarryB wrote:The INF treaty is a card Russia can play when it is useful.
Right now it is not doing and damage to Russian security, but if that changes they are free to withdraw if they need to.
Right now the INF treaty limits what ground based missile systems the US can deploy to Europe... any weapon... ballistic or cruise, ground to ground or ground to air, is banned by the INF treaty if its flight range is 500km to 5,500km... and if it is greater than 5,500km it is no longer an intermediate range missile... it becomes an ICBM, which comes under the New START treaty...
Klub-K/M land attack cruise missile system violates INF Treaty?
The domestic version would have a range above 5500 km.
Vann7- Posts : 5385
Points : 5485
Join date : 2012-05-16
Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:George1 wrote:GarryB wrote:The INF treaty is a card Russia can play when it is useful.
Right now it is not doing and damage to Russian security, but if that changes they are free to withdraw if they need to.
Right now the INF treaty limits what ground based missile systems the US can deploy to Europe... any weapon... ballistic or cruise, ground to ground or ground to air, is banned by the INF treaty if its flight range is 500km to 5,500km... and if it is greater than 5,500km it is no longer an intermediate range missile... it becomes an ICBM, which comes under the New START treaty...
Klub-K/M land attack cruise missile system violates INF Treaty?
The domestic version would have a range above 5500 km.
Klub have 5,500 km range? source?
GarryB- Posts : 40515
Points : 41015
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Technically Klub is an export missile and has a flight range of less than 300km.
Kalibr is the modern version of Granat (SS-N-21 cruise missile... nuclear armed because CEP was 250m) that can be conventionally armed because of its sub 10m CEP.
The main reason it got a conventional warhead capability is because enormous improvements in terminal accuracy, but I see no reason why the improvements in propulsion over 20-30 years could not result in an increase in flight range too like the Kh-101 and Kh-102 over the Kh-55.
Kalibr is the modern version of Granat (SS-N-21 cruise missile... nuclear armed because CEP was 250m) that can be conventionally armed because of its sub 10m CEP.
The main reason it got a conventional warhead capability is because enormous improvements in terminal accuracy, but I see no reason why the improvements in propulsion over 20-30 years could not result in an increase in flight range too like the Kh-101 and Kh-102 over the Kh-55.
Morpheus Eberhardt- Posts : 1925
Points : 2032
Join date : 2013-05-20
- Post n°99
Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life
Morpheus Eberhardt Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:10 am
Vann7 wrote:Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:George1 wrote:GarryB wrote:The INF treaty is a card Russia can play when it is useful.
Right now it is not doing and damage to Russian security, but if that changes they are free to withdraw if they need to.
Right now the INF treaty limits what ground based missile systems the US can deploy to Europe... any weapon... ballistic or cruise, ground to ground or ground to air, is banned by the INF treaty if its flight range is 500km to 5,500km... and if it is greater than 5,500km it is no longer an intermediate range missile... it becomes an ICBM, which comes under the New START treaty...
Klub-K/M land attack cruise missile system violates INF Treaty?
The domestic version would have a range above 5500 km.
Klub have 5,500 km range? source?
What do you mean by "source"? Do you think I personally know the designer, or do you think the designer reports to me?
Just use deduction and calculate.
Last edited by Morpheus Eberhardt on Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:14 am; edited 1 time in total
Morpheus Eberhardt- Posts : 1925
Points : 2032
Join date : 2013-05-20
- Post n°100
Re: INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life
Morpheus Eberhardt Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:13 am
Actually Kh-55SM and Kh-102 have ranges that are well above 10000 km.