INF Treaty - coming to the end of its life

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???

Well, computers are all about GIGO. Garbage in = garbage out. Real physics experiments can never be replaced by models. This is pure
conservation of information. Every model is some approximation to reality and all models have to be perpetually improved to ingest
new empirically obtained information. The process is never ending.

Of course for some simple things, a model will be good enough. But nuclear bombs are just too complex to develop inside existing
models. That is, every new bomb requires a new model since all the variables are not represented and there are many empirical
parameters. Simulating nuclear explosions via fluid dynamics equations does not give you bomb device development. You need to
figure out how your new device actually detonates and what sort of neutron cascade properties it has. No amount of fluid dynamics
simulations will tell you that. That is why experimentation is non-negotiable in such tech creation.

I guess we see the sort of detachment from reality that afflicts US decision makers. Some clown committee concluded in the 1970s
that simulating nuclear bombs based on the existing stock of devices was good enough to replace real world testing. The clowns clearly
did not understand that new information cannot be extrapolated from old archived information. Especially in complex nonlinear systems
lacking "convergent" characterization (i.e. all the essential variables are known and processes understood). Building a nuclear bomb
is not like building a car. You can actually model every component of a car even if you design new parts.

As several sources in the Ministry of Defense told Izvestia, in the tested version the prototype does not pose a serious threat. Such missiles will be an easy target not only for the S-400 and promising S-350 Vityaz air defense systems, but also for the upgraded Pantsir-SM systems.

https://iz.ru/954169/anton-lavrov-bogdan-stepovoi/zakon-ne-pisan-kak-ssha-ispytali-ballisticheskuiu-raketu-srednei-dalnosti

About the american ballistic missile test with more than 500 km range.

But more fundamentally that missile is based on the MLRS chassis which is deployed in Europe and from the outside you can't tell what missile or rocket is fitted so you have to assume they could all have them.

A 500km+ range missile from MLRS based vehicles means the US has not just torn up the INF treaty they are actually openly building missiles that violate it... which is fine... that is likely what they intended to do all along, but Putin said even though the INF treaty no longer applies that Russia will not deploy missiles that violate the treaty while the US does not either.

Well now they are so Russia can develop new versions of the Iskander with much much better performance and range because the gloves are now off.

In fact the 4,500km range air launched cruise missiles they have can now be ground launched too...

This is really big news, but bad news for Europe... they are getting screwed by the US again, but of course it will all be Russias fault...

GarryB wrote:But more fundamentally that missile is based on the MLRS chassis which is deployed in Europe and from the outside you can't tell what missile or rocket is fitted so you have to assume they could all have them.

A 500km+ range missile from MLRS based vehicles means the US has not just torn up the INF treaty they are actually openly building missiles that violate it... which is fine... that is likely what they intended to do all along, but Putin said even though the INF treaty no longer applies that Russia will not deploy missiles that violate the treaty while the US does not either.

Well now they are so Russia can develop new versions of the Iskander with much much better performance and range because the gloves are now off.

In fact the 4,500km range air launched cruise missiles they have can now be ground launched too...

This is really big news, but bad news for Europe... they are getting screwed by the US again, but of course it will all be Russias fault...

They can set up multilaunch Kalibr Cruise missile system, which they have already showcased. Just introduce that and boom, US screwed itself horribly (ground launch should have longer range than sea launch so 2K km).

These short range BM's are what S-300V were built for during the cold war. S-350 would be ideal.

It's basically an upranged ATACMS ballistic missile, hilarious  that American General John Rafferty just recently said "The rocket developed by Lockheed Martin was primarily designed to overcome Russian air defense in the European theater of operations." He must not of seen this video:






KM-SAM used to defeat ATACMS missile, and S-350 will be a vastly upgraded/superior version of KM-SAM.

LOL.

But US leaders (including the generals) just love the taste of their own koolaid.

The point is that before this missile the Russians would have kept existing INF abiding Iskander batteries in place, but now they can go ahead and put anything they like into them because you can bet your ass the European MLRS batteries could easily be fitted with these weapons too.

Putin has kept his word, but he can also put very long range missiles that would have violated the INF treaty because the US is doing it first...  

As I keep saying, the best defence against IRBMs is an IADS, and Russia is in a much better position than Europe is in that regard, so returning to using IRBMs and IRCM and even strategic range cruise missiles is not such a big deal for Russia but will be very very expensive for NATO countries to set up an air defence network to protect them...

https://twitter.com/PararamTadam/status/1216099179677831169


Evgeniy Maksimov
@PararamTadam
The INF Treaty ended in time. The wreckage of the Iskander launched from the Russian Federation fell on the territory of Kazakhstan outside the missile range, this is +620 km from the border of the Russian Federation.

owais.usmani wrote:https://twitter.com/PararamTadam/status/1216099179677831169


Evgeniy Maksimov
@PararamTadam
The INF Treaty ended in time. The wreckage of the Iskander launched from the Russian Federation fell on the territory of Kazakhstan outside the missile range, this is +620 km from the border of the Russian Federation.

The usual low IQ Twitter drivel. They are not even scratching the surface of the facts of the case.

Anyone dick stroking about 120 km "violation" of the range is a retard. Tell me about it when it lands 2000 km off course.

Not a violation because the INF treaty is dead.

They have always said they could easily extend the range of Iskander if required but its range is restricted to comply with the INF treaty... well guess what... when the INF treaty doesn't apply they can make them go any range they like...

GarryB wrote:Not a violation because the INF treaty is dead.

They have always said they could easily extend the range of Iskander if required but its range is restricted to comply with the INF treaty... well guess what... when the INF treaty doesn't apply they can make them go any range they like...

Very true, but the wankers in this little Twitter circle-jerk try to make it sound like Russia was violating the INF. A 120 km range extension is of
no importance for IRBMs. They need a range in excess of 1500 km.

kvs wrote:

GarryB wrote:Not a violation because the INF treaty is dead.

They have always said they could easily extend the range of Iskander if required but its range is restricted to comply with the INF treaty... well guess what... when the INF treaty doesn't apply they can make them go any range they like...

Very true, but the wankers in this little Twitter circle-jerk try to make it sound like Russia was violating the INF.    A 120 km range extension is of
no importance for IRBMs.   They need a range in excess of 1500 km.  

For that is Kinzhal. for 2000km is Rubezh

The INF treaty now being dead there's nothing wrong with this being longer than INF treaty 550km.
Especially if its not a standard version but one modified since the INF treaty ended.

But if its an unmodified missile then it proves that Russia had been in breach.
So its a bit surprising that there doesn't seem to have been any immediate move by Russian Govt/Military to claim it as a modified version.

hoom wrote:The INF treaty now being dead there's nothing wrong with this being longer than INF treaty 550km.
Especially if its not a standard version but one modified since the INF treaty ended.

But if its an unmodified missile then it proves that Russia had been in breach.
So its a bit surprising that there doesn't seem to have been any immediate move by Russian Govt/Military to claim it as a modified version.

Seriously, for going over 50km lol? Atmospheric conditions could of easily played a factor. It's not a 'real' violation, like if it exceeded it's max range by 1,500km or something. It's like comparing someone who's 3 minutes late for work with someone who is 1 hour 30 minutes late for work, not really comparable.

There is no margin of error in the treaty.

And yes 50k over the treaty limit is clearly not just a marginal wind-conditions thing, its overshooting by 9%.

On the other hand I guess its not actually a breach afterall even if it is an unmodified Iskander-M:

Article VII
4. The range capability of a GLBM ... shall be considered to be the maximum range to which it has been tested.

So technically even if it was always capable of longer than 500km its not a breach as long as it was never tested over 500km until after INF withdrawal.

Which is dumb legalese but its what the text of the treaty says
I dunno why they didn't use the same/nearly same language as the Cruise missile range definition which would have caught this situation.

The range capability of a GLCM ... shall be considered to be the maximum distance which can be covered by the missile in its standard design mode flying until fuel exhaustion, determined by projecting its flight path onto the earths sphere from the point of launch to the point of impact.

The US placement of Mk41 launchers designed to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles to 1,500km is already a clear violation of the INF treaty. The US also tested a BRAND NEW GROUND LAUNCHED CRUISE MISSILE LAST YEAR which to not violate the treaty would have had to have been designed and built to operational prototype stage in a month or two. The ground launched ballistic missiles they used to test their ABM systems in Europe and Alaska also were clear violations of the INF treaty, not to mention the ABM missiles themselves... the original missiles were quoted as having a range of over 2,000km against ground targets with an air burst nuke warhead... and finally of course their various UAVs and UCAVs basically equate to armed cruise missiles many of which had flight ranges in the intermediate range and some with intercontinental range that should be counted as weapons in the START treaty too...

The US does not have a leg to stand on.

So technically even if it was always capable of longer than 500km its not a breach as long as it was never tested over 500km until after INF withdrawal.

Which is dumb legalese but its what the text of the treaty says dunno
I dunno why they didn't use the same/nearly same language as the Cruise missile range definition which would have caught this situation.

If they wanted to I am sure they could easily fly the Iskander to ranges exceeding the legal limit, but if they did it would just be a ballistic path following weapon that was easy to shoot down... the non ballistic path and manouvering uses energy that could instead have been used to maximise flight range, but would have added range but effectively made it an ineffective missile against any targets protected by PAC-3 or THAAD.

You could of course increase the flight range of most jet engined cruise missiles simply by flying them at medium altitude at a lower thrust setting... but in such a flight mode it would be totally useless as a weapon being easy to detect and intercept even by an Su-25...

They didn't include air launched or ship/sub launched missiles because the whole treaty was designed to get rid of the SS-20 Sabre which would have been a devastating system. From the Soviet perspective they wanted to get rid of cruise missiles which would have required enormous amounts of spending on ground and air based radar as well as point defence SAMs able to hit small low flying targets. Today they have that capability even in their MANPADS... so it is not a problem now.

Intermediate range missiles offered very short decision windows and were destabilising... the equivalent of a hair trigger on a gun firing a bullet your could not stop... these days it is different however, and there are not many bullets that can't be stopped these days by Russian Air defence systems.

If they wanted to I am sure they could easily fly the Iskander to ranges exceeding the legal limit, but if they did it would just be a ballistic path following weapon that was easy to shoot down... the non ballistic path and manouvering uses energy that could instead have been used to maximise flight range, but would have added range but effectively made it an ineffective missile against any targets protected by PAC-3 or THAAD. wrote:

Why perform ballistic missile maneuvers.Mindstorm recently wrote that most NATO / US bases are very poorly protected. Even primitive missile,drons are able to destroy their bases. If so, no sophisticated maneuvers are needed. Iran sent 20 primitive balistic missiles to the center of the US base.Since NATO and US anti-aircraft and missile defense are so weak, there is no need for advanced offensive systems

Arrow wrote:

Why perform ballistic missile maneuvers.Mindstorm recently wrote that most NATO / US bases are very poorly protected. Even primitive missile,drons are able to destroy their bases. If so, no sophisticated maneuvers are needed. Iran sent 20 primitive  balistic missiles to the center of the US base.Since NATO and US anti-aircraft and missile defense are so weak, there is no need for advanced offensive systems

Patriots so far, indeed, showed poor performance. But this will change. Sooner or later with new missiles. Why Russia needs to wait then untill it is too late?

BTW, what is the evidence of the alleged 120 km "beyond range" claim? Twitter, bloggers and the fake stream media do not get
automatic truth in whatever the spew.

kvs wrote:BTW, what is the evidence of the alleged 120 km "beyond range" claim?   Twitter, bloggers and the fake stream media do not get
automatic truth in whatever the spew.

What, you don't believe Bell-End Cat? Your right, claims of WMD's in Iraq had more credibility than this nonsense.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

kvs wrote:BTW, what is the evidence of the alleged 120 km "beyond range" claim?   Twitter, bloggers and the fake stream media do not get
automatic truth in whatever the spew.

What, you don't believe Bell-End Cat? Your right, claims of WMD's in Iraq had more credibility than this nonsense.

The only source for such information would be foreign governments (e.g. their spies). Amateurs would not have the resources to track the
launch point and the alleged impact point. Lots of room for all sorts of BS claims in such an environment. I am not going to give
US instigated information any credibility. The US was refusing to reveal its alleged top secret evidence for the MH-17 shootdown
and was regularly passing off combines harvesting fields as howitzers with grainy pictures supposedly taken from satellite.
To anybody with functional brain there is no way that howitzer cannons would have such shapes and be positioned in a staggered
equally spaced diagonal on the field. The US and its minions also never cared about Kiev regime shelling of civilians in the Donbas.

Anyway, yanqui misinformation campaigns will not make the termination of the INF any less moronic on the part of NATzO. They
got the original treaty from the comprador Gorbie who gave up way more than was asked like a good little bootlick. Russia is not
going to be so generous now and the yanqui hubris-filled exceptionalists have not realized this yet.

Arrow wrote:Mindstorm recently wrote that most NATO / US bases are very poorly protected. Even primitive missile,drons are able to destroy their bases.

Exact to the letter

Arrow wrote:Why perform ballistic missile maneuvers.........................Since NATO and US anti-aircraft and missile defense are so weak, there is no need for advanced offensive systems

Because the Federations had since almosy 15 years very precise informations about the development plans for the silo based MDA ballistic defense systems to be placed, both in its sensor and interceptor component, on foreign soil (initially in Europe and subsequently in Japan and even later, with the three decade plan going as planned, in India) that should had allowed, thanks mostly to optimized geographical placement of the BMD's elements for 2030 a boost-phase interception of majority of the strategic ballistic missiles of the Federation aimed at CONUS.

What you have seen instead in those years in the Federation is the realization of part of a titanic and very complex research and development plan (having top priority among any other) long more than 13 years aimed at develop a completely new class of weapons - all not covered or limited by existsing bi-lateral treaties-all capable to render worthless more than a trillion dollar investment and a decade and half research efforts by part of Pentagon in BMD.

Obvioulsy exist also a defensive component of this Federation's strategic research and development program that ,like for the revealed offensive part, rely exclusively on superior and at now unavailable anywhere else, technological solutions to achieve its result ; it will be entirely compliant with international law in term of placement in its own territory, to the exact contrary of the BMD plan of the US that meanly put several dozen of millions of lives of supposed "allies" in thermonuclear danger and toward a certain death in the event of a full scale conflict only to attempt to gain an unilateral advantage over its enemy.

Mindstorm how is it possible? Even if the US has deployed a boost phase interceptor in Europe, Japan, etc.It is not possible to intercept the ICBM missile launch from Russia territory in the boost phase. ICBM solid fuel missiles have an engine phase of about 3 minutes. Modern maybe even shorter. There is no physical possibility for such a missile to reach these ICBMs in the engine phase. The boost phase interceptor would have to be incredibly fast. Well, unless the US has made a breakthrough in rocket technology. It's even harder to capture SLBM because you don't know where the submarineare.The concept of boost phase capture is a failure for a country the size of Russia. Only laser weapons on satellites or the SDI Star Wars program. Russia is developing the Sarmat liquid fuel missile. Apparently, liquid fuel engines have a longer boost phase?



What unavailable anywhere else, technological solutions? S-500? 53T6M ?

Interesting article
https://russianmilitaryanalysis.wordpress.com/2020/01/29/russian-maritime-a2-ad-strengths-and-weaknesses/
https://warontherocks.com/2019/09/its-time-to-talk-about-a2-ad-rethinking-the-russian-military-challenge/

What are You think about these analyzes? Are they worth something?

Russia to produce intermediate-range missile in 6 months, depending on US steps — senator

The senator believes that the option to re-negotiate the INF Treaty persists

https://tass.com/defense/1120795