New russian MRBM projects

The simplest way to create a cheap easy to produce IRBM is to remove the bottom stage of an ICBM and go with two stages instead of three.

The INF treaty might be in force for some time yet however.

Does russia have no choice to leave the treaty and has to wait until it expires or do the politicians simply have no interest in leaving it?

The INF treaty bans ground based missiles, cruise or ballistic with a range of 500km through to 5,000km, which are classed as intermediate range missiles. The treaty was between the Soviet Union and the US only and does not apply to any other NATO members except the US, nor does it apply to China or Israel or Iran.

The definition was extended to include 5,500km range missiles so that the SS-20 Saber mobile system could be included.

The purpose was to make Europe safer because these short range missiles placed in Turkey could hit Moscow in time periods as short as 5 minutes and at the time there was no reliable defence against them.

The result was that the Soviets had to have their forces on a hair trigger because they might have less than 5 minutes to detect a missile, determine whether it is a real missile or computer error and then react with their own missile or full scale attack.

This was seriously dangerous so both sides agreed to withdraw these weapon types.

Currently however the Russians (who inherited lots of treaty obligations including the INF treaty) do have missiles that can defend against IRBMs and cruise missiles, and obviously it would be much cheaper for the Russians to make IRBMs instead of the much larger and much heavier ICBMs for targets in Europe and China and Asia etc.

There is no expiry date for the INF treaty but like the ABM treaty either side can give warning and withdraw if they feel they need to.

The main point is that from the Russian perspective is that the INF treaty keeps US cruise missiles out of Europe.

The negative point is that now that most of what was the warsaw pact is now NATO means that missiles with ranges of less than 500km could be used against strategic targets in western Russia from lots of potential launch locations and also that any european nation could make IRBMs and are not bound by that treaty.

Equally instead of storing all its nuclear warheads in big expensive ICBMs, it could put some in cheaper IRBMs and cruise missiles and save a bit of money.

Equally IRBMs would sell rather well on the international arms market... a version of Iskander with a range of 1,000km would be very useful with conventional guided warheads.

If the US goes ahead with an ABM system in Europe it will be cheaper building thousands of ground launched cruise missiles to fly low and hit targets than to build more ICBMs that are limited by START treaty.

Probably neither side would need one for a long time to come as advancement in Cruise Missile technology specifcally Hypersonic Cruise Missile would makes BM in those ranges not absolute necessary

A ballistic missile with a flight range of 6,000km could be made much smaller than older missiles, but I suspect it would be much easier to make a hypersonic missile with a scramjet engine to fly even 10,000km with extra external fuel tanks... it might be launched from a protected facility in central Russia and fly subsonically at high altitude gradually accelerating as it gets lighter and drops fuel pods so that when it reaches the Russian border it is supersonic and not an easy target that is rapidly accelerating to very high speeds... of course by the time it gets to the target area ICBMs and SLBMs will have done their damage and they can finish the job.

Being ground launched they can be cheap and simple and always ready and with conventional warheads and terminal guidance they can be used against a range of targets of strategic and tactical natures.

Practically it does NOT make sense because of the following reasons :

(A)Russia has no program in place to design IRBMs .

An IRBM is an ICBM with two stages instead of three... they would be smaller and lighter and easier to deploy and cheaper to make and to operate and with modern guidance could be fitted with conventional warheads as well as strategic nuclear.

(B)The only country that can threaten Russia with IRBMs is China but a Russian retaliation will be in the form of SLBMs launched from the North Pacific and White Sea against which China will have no answer.

The only two countries bound by the treaty are the Russians and the US and the US can place missiles on NATO territory that is within 500km of Moscow... something the Russians can't do in return.

Very simply because the US can base these weapons in Europe they are called IRBMs for Russia, but they are strategic weapons for the US.

(C) S 300V4 and S 400 guarantee adequate protection against any hostile IRBMs.

So the hair trigger destabilisation reason for the INF treaty is removed...

They should ensure all the new weapons they make could also be adapted to sea or air launch so that in a couple of years time when someone with brains gets into the white house and wants a new INF treaty that Russia wont have to destroy all the new weapons and systems it develops until then...

I have a sneaky suspicion that the west will demand all hypersonic new weapons be included... certainly at least until they get some...

My shortcut would be fitting the Iskander with a new first stage of different sizes, just like the missiles of the S-300V system. The Iskander would be Standard, fitted with the small "booster" it could achieve a range of close to 1.000km, the larger one would give a range of 1.500km and the largest one a range of 2.500km.

Putting ballistic missiles onto ships was banned in SALT I or so to prevent another arms race.

With hypersonic missiles close to service there is no need for IRBM´s on ships anymore.

AFAIK the only treaty that really stopped any work on IRBMs was the INF treaty and also AFAIK the only reason they didn't put them on ships was because the US might think they are working on land based models too.

All of Russian strategic nuclear missiles are to destroy cities and population centres... their might be a couple intended to destroy ABM sites, but as the Russians have a no first strike rule any launch of strategic nuclear weapons will be after the US has initiated an attack so Silos and military bases will generally be empty.

The exceptions would be major SAM bases, major radar sites, major airfields and probably the pentagon and white house, but the vast majority of their nukes will be aimed at killing as many Europeans and Americans as they possibly can.

Regarding a big ship of the US coast with lots of missiles on board... have you heard of a container ship?

The container launched Calibr systems would be ideal for penetrating US airspace, even from a large distance from the US coastline... with the support of a few depressed trajectory SLBMs from SSBNs nearby... maybe in Venezuela... there will be nothing working to stop those subsonic missiles entering US airspace.

Cruise missiles are cheap to mass produce and the nuclear armed ones don't even need to be very accurate... a 2km CEP would be perfectly fine to attack large cities and could be inertial guidance only... super cheap... the only real cost would be the nuclear warhead... and with new breeder reactors production of nuclear warheads will be quick and relatively easy.

Container-launched long-range drone dropping nuclear versions of Grom. Like a cruise missile with multiple warheads.