New START Treaty

At the time they clearly thought it was worth it. I doubt much other money was coming in at the time...

American plans for medium-range missile weapons

According to the American publication "Breaking Defense" in the material Sydney J. Freedbeg Jr. "Army Seeks New Mid-Range Missile Prototype By 2023. Meant to target Chinese warships and Russia's rear bases, the new intermediate-range missile will fill the gap between the 500+ km PrSM and the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon" ("US Army wants a prototype of a new medium-range missile by 2023. The new medium-range missile, designed to destroy Chinese warships and Russian rear bases, will fill the gap between the PrSM missile with a range of more than 500 kilometers and long-range hypersonic weapons "),US Army planning for Russia and China has revealed a major gap in its planned long-range precision weapons arsenal, which is now planned to be filled with a new medium-range missile capable of flying up to 2,000 miles [3,700 km]. To speed up development, this weapon is likely to be derived from a missile already in use by another branch of the US military, such as the famous Tomahawk missile. Transport and launcher М1014 of the American mobile ground complex of medium-range cruise missiles BGM-109G Gryphon (GLCM) of the 1980s, created on the basis of the shipborne cruise missile Tomahawk (c) breakingdefense.com

"The Navy SM-6s and Tomahawks are what I see in the future," Chief of Staff of the US Army General James McConville said on DefenseOne this morning [Sep 8, 2020]. “We're working on it, [and] the Marine Corps is doing the same. If you don't need to develop your own system, if you already have something that already works ... It is in our interest to continue and develop it. "

McConville did not specifically consider the medium-range missile, which was first reported to exist.our Defense News colleague Jen Judson just last week. But in an exclusive interview about the new weapon, Army Futures Command's director of artillery modernization, Brigadier General John Rafferty, told me that the US Army is studying "existing missiles capable of flying at different speeds and altitudes."

In this way, Brigadier General John Rafferty told me, prototypes of new medium-range weapons could enter service in 2023, along with several other new weapons, revolutionizing the long-lagging artillery direction of the US Army, allowing them to engage targets previously only available with air blows.

“2023 will be a big year,” said Rafferty. If all the programs in his portfolio go on schedule, which, of course, is never guaranteed, this year the following will be deployed:

- the first division of M109 Paladin self-propelled howitzers upgraded under the Extended Range Cannon Artillery (ERCA) program with a doubled firing range - up to over 65 kilometers (over 40 land miles).

- the first experimental battery of operational-tactical missiles Precision Strike Missile (PrSM), which will replace ATACMS missiles during the Cold War, increasing the range of military MLRS and HIMARS missile systems from 300 km to more than 500 km, with future upgrades in order to achieve a range of up to 700-800 km.

- the first experimental battery of new medium-range missiles to be developed by the Rapid Capabilities & Critical Technologies Office (RCCTO), which is also working on hypersonic and laser weapons. Rafferty told me that the US Army does not want to prematurely impose strict technical requirements, but he said that the range of this weapon could reach 1500 or even 2000 km (of the naval missiles McConville mentioned, the SM-6 cannot reach this range, although it can other missions; the Tomahawk missile definitely can).

- the first full-range firing tests of the experimental strategic long-range cannon Strategic Long-Range Cannon (SLRC), the task of which is to use powder charges and rocket projectiles to achieve a range of more than 1,500 km, previously only achievable with missiles;

- the first experimental battery of long-range hypersonic weapons (LRHW), the range of which, according to Rafferty, will be "thousands of kilometers."

What is this diversity for? Opponents are combining different types of detection and long-range missiles - anti-ship, anti-aircraft and ground - to create an anti-access threat (A2 / AD) for the US military, General McConville said, "This is not to say we cannot do the same." ...

“We want to give arrows in a quiver ... are options for our warlords that will present our opponents with many dilemmas,” he said. "This is how we contain them."

The new PrSM missile on its own will expand the range of army artillery, far exceeding anything it has today, but in the context of future forces, it is relatively short-range. “That's the irony,” Rafferty told me.

At the same time, the PrSM will be the basis of the future missile arsenal of the US Army, Rafferty said. What for? First, it can be used from a large number of existing launchers, both tracked MLRS and wheeled HIMARS. Secondly, it should be cheaper than longer-range and faster hypersonic missiles.

In fact, Rafferty characterizes the LRHW long-range hypersonic system as a "sophisticated" high-performance system that is likely to be reserved for the most critical and challenging targets, such as fortified command bunkers. Much of the appeal of the SLRC long-range strategic cannon lies in its ability to fire a large number of cheaper rounds at similar ranges, but its new technology remains experimental.

As the US Army simulated a future conflict - with extensive involvement of other US forces and JOC commanders around the world - it found that an entire category of targets were too remote to be hit with PrSM, but too numerous to deal with. them hypersonic systems.

“Strategic engagement studies were conducted with the participation of theater commanders and other operational forces,” Rafferty told me. "[It] showed that if we can solve some of the high impact targets in the medium range, then we can actually change the balance of power in the Pacific and in Europe - in really different ways."

In the vast Pacific Ocean, Chinese warships will be the primary target for medium-range weapons, which means they should be able to track and target moving targets, Rafferty said. PrSM should have an anti-ship guidance system in the future, but its range of a little more than 500 km will not allow you to operate at such long distances that are necessary in the Pacific Ocean; hence the value of medium-range weapons.

"If you can mix and match the capabilities of short, medium and long range weapons in different areas, then you can really create a dilemma" for the enemy, Rafferty told me. “He may not know what is on which island,” which means he must view any US outpost as a long-range threat until intelligence proves otherwise.

On the contrary, Europe is a smaller theater of military operations, mainly on the ground, in which medium-range weapons can hit targets deep in Russian territory. In the 1980s, Pershing missiles' ability to threaten Moscow from bases in Western Europe helped lead to the now defunct INF Treaty, which banned such weapons and robbed the US Army of long-range missiles for a generation.

By recreating the potential of medium-range weapons in Europe, Raffeti said, “you begin to put all the enemy’s resources at serious risk. Now he will have no refuge anywhere. "

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4136156.html

It wasn't Pershing that pushed INF treaty. It was the creation of Pioneer due to its range.

All US will be doing is signing its own and Europe's death warrant with this.

Hole wrote:Russia will have refuge behind a wall of A-235/S-500/S-400/S-350/Buk/Tor/Pantsir systems.

Well, S-500 isn't done yet and A-235 is still...dunno where it is at. Rest will have to suffice.

But add in their retaliation strike systems too and I think Russia is well protected. Especially since Urals acts as a natural defense (mountains) and a great place to hide strategic assets.

Yeah, they are talking about 3,700km range Tomahawks... that BUK and Pantsir and TOR can already shoot down... no need to worry about S-500 or Nudol...

By the time they have hypersonic options the Russians will have S-500 in service and likely looking at S-500M upgrades and planning S-600 with hypersonic scramjet powered missiles with a range of 12,000km at mach 15 that can shoot down any target...

They can get away with just building more Yars missiles instead. Yars have been in production for longer, they are cheaper and more mobile launcher systems can be created. Even create more missile silo's in hidden areas (mountainous regions).

There is a lot Russia can do that would allow them to build a large enough arsenal and do so with limited budget.

And they dont need parity either. Just enough missiles to destroy all their enemy nations and thats it. If US wants to build more and more and more, let them as it wont change the end outcome.

If they can combine hypersonic speed with those new nuclear powered ramjets then strategic missiles can be made rather small and compact.... they could mount them on trains and have tens of thousands of them... each missile could carry a dozen 40kg 2 Kt nuke warheads and it could be programmed to fly all over the place dropping bombs here and there...

The Americans developed a mach 3 cruise missile with nuclear propulsion that was supposed to fly at low level. Because it was rather large, flying at that speed at low level actually damaged buildings on the ground as it flew past and spewed out radioactive material and it was propelled along. It was supposed to release multiple nuclear warheads which it would launch upwards with a rocket to then parachute down and then explode... with the idea being that moving at mach 3 the missile itself would be outside the blast radius by the time the bomb came back down and detonated.

Mach 3 at very low altitude is actually rather hard to stop even without other issues like just having been hit by ICBMs and SLBMs and being in a bit of disarray...

With a normal ramjet engine... air is sucked in a tube and the tube narrows down to compress the air and heat it up. Normally fuel is then added and ignited, and it blows out the back generating thrust. With a nuclear reactor creating the heat there is no need to burn fuel to create the heat and if you design it carefully the airflow into the reactor could stop the reactor from over heating and melting down, but just remain hot enough to keep the airflow very hot indeed.

There would be no combustion... fuel does not need to ignite to create the heat so the difference between a ramjet and a scramjet become null and void...

Russia has some brilliant people... I am sure they will come up with some clever ideas... now that all the gloves are off.

They need to work out something that really scares the Americans to get them to the table, but they need to be careful that when they make agreements they don't give up anything that might be really useful.

Hypersonic scramjet powered missiles could become an alternative to pure rockets to get to space... air breathing scramjets could make the rockets lighter and cheaper and properly reusable.... just as one example.

I actually don't think Russia will significantly increase their arsenal post-START.
Maybe increase a bit, mostly increase average quality by replacing older systems within a relatively limited budget but they'll be expecting US to just spend stupid & sooner rather than later 'the invisible hand of the market' will realise that US is actually broke.

If 'the invisible hand of the market' actually worked it would have recognised that a long time ago though -> US will just spend through the roof (whether or not a significant portion of the funded systems actually work) & the rest of the world will pay for it via petro-dollar, austerity, low wages & 'small' wars.

& it doesn't matter whether we have Trump2 or Biden3, this stuff is gonna go the same regardless of which clown is Pres.

Only hope would be if EU leadership finally realise US is constantly acting against them rather than a friend & actually split off.
But again if that was ever going to happen it would have been before now -> they will just keep being lapdogs with the occasional show bark of 'independence'.

hoom wrote:I actually don't think Russia will significantly increase their arsenal post-START.

Well, given the way Russian procurement and supply chains work, for them it should be quite acceptable to keep producing new ICBMs, maybe at the current low rates, but with the final effect of increasing their numbers, which can be ultimately needed if US seriously ramps up their ABM programs. There must be warheads enough for US and any of their potential lapdogs willing to mix in the fray and get vaporized.

Here a surprisingly honest and levelled Western account and analysis of the US attitude in the START negotiation:

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2020/09/washingtons-arms-control-delusions-and-bluffs/168817/

The main problem with EMP is that as a defence the first EMP bomb you use to blind the incoming weapons also blinds your entire defence network... so you wont even see the next wave of attacking missiles let alone be able to radio the target area to warn them of the incoming attack....

The first treaties were SALT... strategic arms limitations treaties that just stopped the numbers expanding and exploding if you forgive the pun, the START treaties were to start reducing numbers down to sensible figures where each side still felt safe... therefore the Limitation became the Reduction... but calls to add other countries will founder on Israel and France and the UK and China not wanting to be included as part of anyone elses allowance... they don't want to lose their independence and control of their nukes... and why would they?

I actually don't think Russia will significantly increase their arsenal post-START.

I agree that normally Russia would not play such silly games, but I suspect the US wont give them a lot of choice... America didn't dispose of their nuclear warheads and could fairly rapidly put them back into service. Russia is just starting some breeder reactors so producing weapons grade material will become much easier soon... but only a fool will waste money massively ramping up nuclear weapons production now only to sign it all away in 5 years time when the US economy collapses. The US will tolerate the US government spending money it can't afford on shit it does not need but no other government could get away with that crap.

The Russians don't keep their military budget at less than 80 billion a year by pissing money away, but of course nuclear weapons grade material can be reprocessed to use as fuel in nuclear power stations and clever design could mean weapons converted to theatre roles with conventional warheads could be alternative options... nuclear propulsion for unlimited range drones during peacetime and drones that carry a dozen nuclear bombs for WWIII... but still a drone so not START countable...

Without a treaty you can make them in large numbers... if a treaty gets signed then those warheads can be called tactical bombs and the drones become UCAV suicide drones...

No matter what happens though you can be sure it will be Putins fault.

kvs wrote:The yanquis are so smart that they are stupid.   By removing warhead and delivery system controls through the tearing up of treaties, they give Russia
and others an easy path to nullify any ABM system.    Crank up the warheads showering on NATzO after NATzO launches it war of nuclear aggression and
no level of sophistication will help.   It is a fundamentally asymmetric problem.  

True, as I have been saying, theirs is increasingly a psychological problem and not a military one. They need to reconcile their need to be intrinsically superior to the rest with the fact that they are progressively loosing their edge, so for them it is very easy to blame arm control treaties, instead of understanding, as anyone with a functioning brain can do, that those treaties were in fact negotiated under very advantageous conditions for them when they were at the peak of their might, and that it has been Russia and China improving their capabilities vs US that is responsible for the current situation. For instance, INF was essentially an unilateral disarmament by USSR and Russia, creating weapons like Kalibr or Kinzhal, has turned that huge advantage US had into practically nothing. But by eliminating INF they have not improved things but rather untied Russia's hands to utterly crush them, Eurasia wide. With START, their bet on ABM systems which would be very questionable even against a reduced number of ICBMs fired in retaliation creates the incentive for Russia of increasing numbers of warheads and launching on warning, plus creating new weapons, effectively increasing the likelihood of US being completely destroyed even as a result of an accident. At this point of their imperial decay their hypertrophied egos have taken over from their brains and every decision they take is more in conflict with their real possibilities and only makes their position weaker, like that retarded charlatan Billingslea issuing ultimatums at Russia will only get Putin's middle finger and a nice boost to their strategic forces in return. It is getting embarrassing to watch...

More proof of what I said above:

https://ria.ru/20201015/voyna-1579968303.html

Russia's possible response to the US nuclear strike has been revealed

Doctor of military science Konstantin Sivkov commented on the joint nuclear exercises of Germany and the United States in an interview with the national security Council.

"If this is really true, then German politics is being directed by very stupid people, perhaps not quite mentally healthy. Working out the issues of conducting nuclear war in Germany is a suicidal step," the expert said.

He called" enemies of the German people "and" complete cretins " those who plan to turn Germany into a theater of nuclear war.

"They can play a small local war on the territory of another state, and we will not stand on ceremony — we will fire all the missiles at once at the States with a full Board," the expert believes.

----------------

They really think they Russians are bluffing and will not dare to turn the Übermenschen of the West into charcoal don't they??

It is rather funny how they do such military exercises.

I mean, Germans should know their country would be turned to glass so I doubt they are unaware of the final events.  Same with America.  It's just how they will continue to have a hold on Germany.

Hell, after start and INF, Russia can build as many cheap nukes they want.

It's funny because the shaved Orangutan man has threatened war against Iran repeatedly, and the Pentagram has heavily suggested lowering the thermonuclear threshold by using nukes as bunker busters against Iran. The Eurasian nuclear powers (such as Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea) should publicly denounce the use of nuclear bunker busters, and threaten adequate reprisals if such weapons are used.

Now it's up to everyone to prevent the Pentagram from rewriting history on who killed the START treaties:

"A failed idea": the US rejected Putin's proposal to extend the start-3 Treaty for a year


The United States rejected Russian President Vladimir Putin's proposal to extend the Treaty on measures for the further reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms (start-3) for a minimum of one year without any additional conditions. This was stated by the national security adviser to the us President, Robert o'brien.

O'brien called Putin's proposal a "failed undertaking" without freezing the nuclear capabilities of both countries. According to him, Washington offered Moscow to extend the Treaty in exchange for freezing the nuclear capabilities of the United States and Russia for a year.

Today's response of President Putin to extend The new start Treaty without taking into account the freezing of the nuclear Arsenal is doomed to failure. The United States is serious about arms control, which ensures the security of the entire world. We hope that Russia will reconsider its position before a costly arms race begins ( ... ) it would be a victory for both sides, and we believed that the Russians were ready to accept this proposal when I met with my colleague in Geneva. - O'brien said.

Earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed to extend the start-3 Treaty for at least one year without any additional conditions. According to him, the signing of the Treaty will give the parties time to conduct meaningful negotiations, discussing all issues related to the limitation of nuclear weapons. Russian foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has been instructed to try to get "at least some clear response"from the US in the near future.

https://z5h64q92x9.net/proxy_u/ru-en.en/https/topwar.ru/176171-provalnaja-ideja-v-ssha-otklonili-predlozhenie-putina-o-prodlenii-dogovora-snv-3-na-god.html