Air launch remains in the plans of the Pentagon

14
Air launch remains in the plans of the PentagonThirty years ago, a new MX intercontinental ballistic missile (LGM-118 “Pikiper”) was put on combat duty in the United States. The grouping of these missiles, as envisioned by the American military-political leadership, was to eliminate the superiority that the Soviet Union had at that time received in land-based strategic missile armaments. As part of the program to create an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) of a new generation, the American leadership, among other things, considered the possibility of creating a modification of a new missile system with an air-launched missile.

In particular, during 1966 – 1967, at the initiative of US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, a grandiose secret conceptual study was carried out without exaggeration on the possible future directions for the development of American strategic nuclear deterrent forces. The grandeur of this study, known as STRAT-X (Strategic-Experimental), can be appreciated at least by the fact that the volume of the final report on its results was 20 volumes. The latter, among other things, contained a recommendation to explore the possibility of creating a strategic air-launched missile system with a ballistic missile of an air launch based on an ICBM of the MX type and a carrier aircraft based on a wide-body airliner, military transport aircraft or bomber.



"ZERO FOURTEEN" - IN READINESS

In order to confirm this possibility, tests of an experimental air launch system were carried out as part of a bunch of ICBMs of the Minuteman type IA and of the Galaxy C-5A military transport aircraft.

As part of this experimental program, one of the C-5A military transport aircraft, namely the first C-5A, transmitted by the manufacturer in 1971 to the Dover air force base in the USA and having the serial number 69-0014, was converted into an intercontinental ballistic carrier rockets. The plane, which thus received the call sign "zero fourteenth" (Zero-One-Four), was equipped with additional systems for fastening ICBMs inside the cargo compartment of the aircraft, parachuting the ICBM and controlling its launch. The tests were conducted by employees of the Space and Missile Systems Organization (SAMSO) Department with the assistance of experts from relevant organizations and were conducted mainly at the State testing ground for parachute systems in El Centro, California.

The preparatory process for testing an air launch ICBM prototype turned out to be difficult, since the prospective MX intercontinental ballistic missile in the air launch variant had to have a starting mass in the 22 – 86 t range (this allowed it to provide a range to 9 – 10 thousand km), its length was to be from 10 m to 22 m, and the diameter of the rocket was about 1,5 – 2,3 m. It was a real challenge for American specialists, since the missiles with such weight and size characteristics previously had airborne La never run. The largest rocket launched from an aerial platform at that time was the American “Skybolt” launch mass of “only” about 5 t, having a length of 11,66 m and a case diameter of 0,89 m.

After the conversion of the C-5A military transport aircraft allocated by the Air Force command, the American specialists first began to test the exhaust parachutes, and then from the carrier aircraft the paratrooper-made weight simulators (analogues) of intercontinental ballistic missiles, the weight of which, initially being 20, were parachuted t, was gradually brought to the required 38,7 t. At the same time, as indicated in foreign sources, not everything went smoothly - there were a hitch and a breakdown.

After completing the test phase of reinforced concrete weight imitators, American specialists began to drop the MiniMan IA type aircraft from the carrier aircraft, which were not equipped with fuel. In total, two such tests were carried out, which were recognized as successful and allowed to proceed to the next stage of the experimental program, namely, the test with the landing of the rocket and its subsequent launch.

This test - Air Mobile Feasibility Demonstration - was the latest in the series and was conducted on 24 on October 1974. In the course of it, the standard ICBM of the “Minuteman” type IA was used, in which only one was equipped with fuel - the first stage. The rocket was placed inside the cargo compartment of the aircraft carrier on a special dumped platform (rocket mass - 31,8 t, launch vehicle with platform - 38,7 t), while it was oriented with its upper part towards the cargo hatch of the aircraft - the missile’s landing forward".

The exhaust parachute landing system of the Minuteman IA IA was a two-domed one — the exhaust parachutes were attached directly to the platform on which the rocket was located. For the orientation of the rocket after discharge in the vertical starting position, three stabilizing parachutes were additionally used, which were attached to the upper (nose) part of the ICBM. All parachutes had the same diameter of the dome - 9,76 m. After some time, after the exhaust parachutes dumped the rocket on the platform from the cargo compartment of the aircraft carrier, the locks of the ICBM-to-platform attachment locks were activated, and the rocket was separated from the latter by three stabilizing parachutes (the rocket, as it were, “moved down” from the platform down and to the side), after which it continued to descend in a vertical position “nose up” until the moment of its launch.

TEST

The departure of the C-5A carrier aircraft with the IA Minuteman rocket took place from the Vandenberg Air Force Base, Santa Barbara, California. There were 13 people aboard the aircraft, including the 2 pilot and 11 test engineers, including specialists from Lockheed and Boeing (commander of the ship - Rodney Moore). A special “test” aircraft of type A-3 “Skywatch” was used as an escort aircraft, which was taking photographs and filming.

The launch vehicle was dropped over the Pacific Ocean, about 25 km west of the Vandenberg base. At the time of the landing of the ICBM, the aircraft was at an altitude of about 20 thousand feet (about 6 km) and flew horizontally. One of the test participants, sergeant-technician Elmer Hardin, in an interview with the magazine Hangar Digest published by the Air Force Command of the US Air Force, recalled the moment when the rocket left the carrier compartment: "I was even thrown a little over the cockpit floor" .

After dumping and separating the platform, the rocket dropped vertically, “nose up”, to an altitude of about 8 thousand feet (about 2,4 km), after which, in accordance with the test program, the first stage engine was turned on, which worked on the order of 10 s (according to other data , based on the memory of one of the test participants, Chief Master Sergeant James Sims, the engine continued 25 c).

During the operation of the first-stage engine, the rocket managed to rise to an altitude of about 30 thousand feet (about 9,1 km), that is, it was even higher than the echelon on which the C-5A aircraft carrier was located, and after the engine was turned off, it fell into the ocean. It should, however, be pointed out here that in various foreign sources there are two options with an indication of the height to which the rocket launched in the air could climb: 30 thousand feet and 20 thousand feet. Moreover, the sources in both cases are quite authoritative, including those that refer to the participants of the test. Which of them is still true, unfortunately, the author has not yet managed to find out. On the other hand, in a report by CNN correspondent Tom Patterson on 9 in August 2013, citing one of the participants in the 24 test in October 1974, chief master sergeant James Sims, it was stated that the C-5А was not flown from the base on board Vandenberg, and from the US Air Force Base Hilly, Utah.

FROM NATIONAL GUARDS - TO THE MUSEUM

In total, the American experts performed the test under the experimental 21 experimental program. Mikhail Arutyunovich Kardashev in the book "Strategic weapon of the future ”, published in 2014 year and reissued this year, indicates that, according to experts, the cost of testing amounted to approximately 10 million dollars.“ The next day, all materials on the tests were laid on the table of US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, ”writes Michael Kardashev. - The tests were planned to be used during the upcoming negotiations on strategic offensive weapons as a weighty argument for imposing restrictions on Soviet mobile missile systems. The test participants were awarded the Meritorious Service Medal (Medal for Outstanding Merit. - B.SH.) ”.

As for the C-5A aircraft that took part in the tests, it is currently on display at the Museum of Command aviation transportation located at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware. The aircraft, which at that time belonged to the Tennessee National Guard and was based at the Memphis Air Force Base, was transferred to the museum on October 20, 2013. It is noteworthy that retired pilot Rodney Moore, who took part in the test with the release of the ICBM "Minuteman" IA in 1974 as a ship commander, wished to join the crew of his aircraft during his last flight, but the command did not allow him.

In general, the 1974 tests of the year confirmed the technical and practical feasibility as well as the safety of launching the ICBM with the launch weight 31,8 t from the C-5A military transport aircraft using its parachute landing through the rear cargo hatch. As a result, a real opportunity arose, after carrying out a set of relevant measures in a relatively short time, to create and adopt a strategic missile system with an intercontinental air-launched ballistic missile in which it was possible to promptly use the available serial military transport aircraft (as carriers) and intercontinental ballistic missiles (as a combat weapon). This made it possible to significantly reduce the financial costs and technical risks that would have occurred if a new specialized aircraft carrier was developed for such a complex. However, since the tests of air-launched ballistic missiles were prohibited by the SALT-2 and START-1 treaties, this project was not further developed and lay "on the shelf". True, not for long.

NEW ATTEMPT

The second time the Americans tried to deploy the MiniMB family “Minuteman” on an airplane already in the 1980s. This time, as part of a study on the possibility of increasing the survival rate of the United States Air Force intercontinental ballistic missiles “Minuteman” III, Boeing experts proposed a variant of a strategic air-based missile system, which should include an unmanned aerial vehicle (ICBM) and an ICBM type "Minuteman" III (combat means). The project, promulgated in 1980, received the code name Cruise Ballistic Missile, which can be translated from English as "Patrolling a ballistic missile."

Briefly, the essence of Boeing's proposal was as follows. A reusable jet unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) with one ICBM on board will be at the land airfield in standby readiness for take-off, which it will perform on command based on a missile attack signal received from the national missile attack warning system. After entering a given area, such a UAV with an ICBM could patrol in the air at an altitude of about 7 km for up to 12 hours - waiting for a command to launch a missile or return to its home airfield. Boeing experts saw the main advantage of such a complex as its almost complete invulnerability from enemy nuclear weapons. It was proposed to deploy a group of up to 250 such "drones» with ICBMs that would have a subsonic flight speed and could land on the airfield, refuel and then take off to continue patrolling.

“If we proceed from the definitions of the terms given in the annex to the START-1 Treaty, the missile in question is not the BRVZ, since this class includes ballistic missiles that are launched from a manned aircraft,” indicates Mikhail Kardashev in the previously mentioned work. “Nevertheless, the technical design and operation of the“ airborne patrolling ICBM ”has a greater similarity to the complex with BRVZ than with traditional ground-based ICBMs”. At the same time, he particularly emphasizes the serious flaw that the project had and which probably did not allow it to go beyond the “paper” one: “It should be noted that at the beginning of the 1980s there were no systems providing take-off and landing on the take-off landing strip of an airfield of heavy unmanned aerial vehicles. Creating a reliable reusable unmanned aircraft carrier ICBM was an extremely difficult technical task. In the event of a false alarm, the missile warning system would cause a massive takeoff of unmanned carriers with ICBMs equipped with nuclear warheads, which would be associated with the risk of an accident with serious consequences at any stage of the flight (taking off, patrolling in the air, waiting for the crew, landing on the airfield). ”

And in conclusion, we will talk about one more, not very well-known general public episode from the American program to investigate the possibility of creating a strategic missile system based on airborne ICBMs.

The fact is that, even despite the existing ban on the implementation of work in this direction, 7 of October 2005 was carried out by experts from the Defense Development Agency of the United States (DARPA), the United States Air Force and other interested agencies and organizations in the Edwards air base Above the desert test site, a missile launch vehicle test known as Airlaunch or also QuickReach Booster from the C-17 Military Transport Plane III.

The aircraft with a tail number 55139 was assigned to the US Air Force Reserve and was based at the air base in March, California. The rocket model was reset from a height of 6 thousand feet (approx. 1829 m), and the C-12 “Huron” was used as an escort plane. The layout length was 65 feet (approx. 19,8 m), and the weight - 50 thousand pounds (approx. 22,67 t), which accounted for two thirds of the calculated mass of the launch vehicle.

The layout was hollow and filled with water. Unlike the test with the “Minuteman” IA in 1974, this time the platform was not used - the rocket was ejected from the cargo compartment using one exhaust parachute and a system of rollers and guides mounted on the cabin floor. Moreover, the landing of the missile was carried out "nose back", that is, to the aircraft.

According to the published information, this test was carried out under the FSLV (Falcon Small Launch Vehicle) program, jointly implemented by DARPA and the US Air Force and aimed at developing a system for launching cargo up to 1000 lbs (about 453,6 kg) into low near-earth orbit. However, in whose interests the Americans actually conducted such an experiment - either the military to use an air-launched ICBM, or civilians to use a non-military launch vehicle in this way - is not entirely clear. In fact, the launch vehicle is the same ballistic missile, which, after completion, can also be used for completely non-peaceful purposes. Officially, in a press release, it was claimed at all that the “new capabilities of the C-17 aircraft” were studied in this way.

The persistence of the Pentagon in this matter is still alarming. In addition, 14 in May 2013 was conducted by experts from the United States Missile Defense Agency and the United States Air Force, as well as Lockheed Martin, with the participation of specialists from US Army and Orbital Technologies and Dynetics, conducted another similar test. This time, a prototype of a ballistic missile, the eMRBM air launch target (extended medium-range ballistic missile), which the Americans were landing from the cargo compartment of the C-17 military transport aircraft at an altitude of 25 thousand feet (7620 m) at the Yuma test site. decided to use for better and more effective development of the actions of combat crews and test the destruction systems of their global missile defense system.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

14 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    2 October 2016 07: 56
    Contracts with them are not worth the paper on which they are written
    1. +2
      2 October 2016 10: 58
      In their mines, ICBMs developed in the 70s, and Russia is constantly updating types
      their ICBMs. In different stages, both the Mace and the replacement of Satan.
      1. +1
        2 October 2016 12: 00
        At the same time, Russia from some kind of Budun observes treaty restrictions, and the Americans frankly slap on them. At the same time, managing to permanently accuse Russia of "violations".
  2. 0
    2 October 2016 09: 14
    Interestingly, and our similar developed? It is generally possible (in theory) to launch two missiles from the Ruslan.
  3. +5
    2 October 2016 09: 39
    Quote: Spade
    Contracts with them are not worth the paper on which they are written

    For instance? Specifics plz. What contracts and how specifically they violate. And then everyone who is not lazy is just writing it. probably the most intelligent, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that the USSR, that Russia are only suckers, since they nevertheless conclude agreements

    Quote: Corporal
    Interestingly, and our similar developed? It is generally possible (in theory) to launch two missiles from the Ruslan.

    Such work, at least in the paper stage, was carried out in our country. The topic was called EMNIP "Air Launch". But since an ICBM of this weight, we did not plan to use an SLBM of the R-29 type as a missile (I apologize for a specific model I do not remember). Of course, all this took place under the "sauce" of the peaceful use of outer space, and the rocket was designed to launch satellites
    1. +4
      2 October 2016 12: 08
      Quote: Old26
      For example? Specifics plz. What contracts and how specifically they violate.

      Have you decided to post without bothering to read the article?
      Squeeze personally for you, if you read laziness. The Americans continue to develop airborne launch methods for ICBMs, which are prohibited by the START Treaty.

      A similar picture with the INF Treaty. The presence in Europe of heavy attack UAVs and a universal launcher in Romania clearly violates the Treaty. At the same time, they manage to accuse us of something, using the "argumentation" "you yourself know what it is about" (c)
      1. +2
        2 October 2016 15: 14
        Quote: Spade
        Quote: Old26
        For example? Specifics plz. What contracts and how specifically they violate.

        Have you decided to post without bothering to read the article?
        Squeeze personally for you, if you read laziness. The Americans continue to develop airborne launch methods for ICBMs, which are prohibited by the START Treaty.

        A similar picture with the INF Treaty. The presence in Europe of heavy attack UAVs and a universal launcher in Romania clearly violates the Treaty. At the same time, they manage to accuse us of something, using the "argumentation" "you yourself know what it is about" (c)


        1. Well, as far as previously discussed - they have an air launch only to simulate medium-range missiles. It is piece-wise and not for arming. and for testing missile defense. And this is known to the whole world.

        2. How sideways you pulled the "heavy UAVs" here is generally not clear.

        3. Mk-41 - the only missile launcher for Standard SM-3 missiles. There are simply no others. ...
        1. +2
          2 October 2016 16: 25
          Quote: mav1971
          Well, as previously discussed - they have an air launch only to simulate medium-range missiles

          Uh ... didn’t you bother reading an article? What is it ...
          There were two experimental programs violating the ban. The first is FSLV (Falcon Small Launch Vehicle). The second is eMRBM. The second program also violates the INF Treaty

          does not produce any medium-range missiles, does not conduct flight tests of such missiles and does not produce any stages of such missiles and no launchers of such missiles; and


          Quote: mav1971
          And this is known to the whole world.

          Hehe ... Again, "the whole world" (c) Clearly smelled of the State Department's demagogy.

          Quote: mav1971
          With what side you pulled the "heavy UAVs" here - it is not clear at all.

          At the time of the signing, the Americans were so impressed with the success of the Soviet UAV program that the article was amended as follows:
          The term "cruise missile" means an unmanned, self-propelled vehicle that is powered by aerodynamic lift for most of its trajectory.

          I agree, at that time there was no particular problem in installing a nuclear warhead on the same Tu-141. And the Americans were right in their own way. However, now shock UAVs with a flight range of more than 1000 km are a violation of the INF Treaty

          .
          Quote: mav1971
          Mk-41 is the only missile launcher for Standard SM-3 missiles. There are simply no others. ...

          I'm so sorry for them. However
          If the launcher was tested to launch a particular type of BRNB or KRNB or was used to launch them, then all launchers of this type are considered as launchers of this type of BRNB or KRNB
  4. 0
    2 October 2016 21: 25
    A very expensive and dangerous undertaking, as aircraft will have to carry a database during the threatened period. PGRK and BZHRK are much more powerful, reliable and cheaper.
  5. 0
    2 October 2016 21: 28
    We also worked on an air launch, but things did not go further than paper research. Already at the stage of pre-design calculations, problems were identified with ensuring the accuracy of determining the coordinates of the launch, aiming the rocket (determining the azimuth of the base direction) and subsequent accuracy of shooting. Therefore, the work stopped.
    And the Americans stopped all work on mobile launches of MX missiles altogether. Initially, one of the main methods of basing was worked out the option of placement in underground tunnels with random movement. But in the end, they found it both overly expensive and inappropriate. Moreover, with modern reconnaissance equipment, the coordinates of launchers are known almost in real time.
  6. 0
    2 October 2016 21: 37
    I consider the creation of an air transportable PGRK with ICBMs weighing about 15 tons, carrying one medium-power warhead more efficient.
  7. +1
    2 October 2016 21: 51
    Quote: Spade
    Quote: Old26
    For example? Specifics plz. What contracts and how specifically they violate.

    Have you decided to post without bothering to read the article?
    Squeeze personally for you, if you read laziness. The Americans continue to develop airborne launch methods for ICBMs, which are prohibited by the START Treaty.

    Yah? Does it prohibit the development of air launch methods? Then we violate the Agreement, because we are also developing methods of air launch.

    Or maybe it's just better to read the contract? And there it is written in black and white in Article 5, paragraph 18, subparagraph d following:

    Each of the Parties undertakes do not produce, test, or deploy air-to-surface ballistic missiles (BRVZ);
    Alas, the Americans do not manufacture, test or deploy air-to-surface ballistic missiles. What they sometimes experience does not relate to ballistic "air-to-surface", but are missiles intended for testing missile defense systems, which is not prohibited by treaties.

    Quote: Spade
    A similar picture with the INF Treaty. The presence in Europe of heavy attack UAVs and a universal launcher in Romania clearly violates the Treaty. At the same time, they manage to accuse us of something, using the "argumentation" "you yourself know what it is about" (c)

    if you read the INF Treaty, and did not use what our media write, you would know that there is a ban on specific launchers. Namely PU BR "Pershing-1B", "Pershing-2" and "Griffin". Everything else can be interpreted at best as a violation of the "spirit", but not the "letter" of the Treaty.
    Heavy attack UAVs are generally not limited by any contracts. And what about the fact that the Americans can put into the PU not "Standards", but "Tomahawks", then again. While this is not there, there is no violation of the treaty, since the Mk.41 launchers are not limited by the INF Treaty

    Quote: Spade
    Uh ... didn’t you bother reading an article? What is it ...
    There were two experimental programs violating the ban. The first is FSLV (Falcon Small Launch Vehicle). The second is eMRBM. The second program also violates the INF Treaty

    does not produce any medium-range missiles, does not conduct flight tests of such missiles and does not produce any stages of such missiles and no launchers of such missiles

    The first program cannot be strapped to a breach of contract. Our 4202 program is basically the same. But you do not consider it a violation. She is ours.

    The second program is not a violation either. It is considered by the analysts of our media, who are too lazy to read the INF Treaty. There you are. A fragment of the article of the agreement was cited, but only that part of the text that confirms your point of view. And for some reason you decided to omit the part that refers to target missiles. And it clearly says that if a medium-range missile is tested and used exclusively for the needs of missile defense, then it is not a violation of the Treaty.

    Quote: Spade
    At the time of the signing, the Americans were so impressed with the success of the Soviet UAV program that the article was amended as follows:
    The term "cruise missile" means an unmanned, self-propelled vehicle that is powered by aerodynamic lift for most of its trajectory.

    I agree, at that time there was no particular problem in installing a nuclear warhead on the same Tu-141. And the Americans were right in their own way. However, now shock UAVs with a flight range of more than 1000 km are a violation of the INF Treaty


    Reading you and you understand that the Americans were so impressed by the Soviet UAV program that they forgot about their cruise missiles such as Navajo, Matador, Mays and did not know how to classify a cruise missile.

    That's just any missile system is a UAV, but not every UAV is a cruise missile. There are certain differences, what to consider and what not to consider a cruise missile. Therefore, do not repeat the stupid things that the media is circulating. UAVs are not a violation of the INF Treaty. And why, by the way, does your range start at 1000 km? The INF Treaty has a lower limit of 500 km. Or then we will be intruders, having such UAVs ???
    And do not come up with. The INF Treaty does not mention a word about heavy UAVs

    Quote: Spade
    I'm so sorry for them. However
    If the launcher was tested to launch a particular type of BRNB or KRNB or was used to launch them, then all launchers of this type are considered as launchers of this type of BRNB or KRNB

    But the treaty dealt with purely land-based launchers, not sea ones. And the launcher, in principle, was primarily tested for missile defense missiles. And so far we can only talk about a violation of the "spirit" of the Treaty. True, no one knows what it is, the "spirit" of the Treaty. Here "Rubezh" flew at a distance of 2500 km. violation of the "spirit" of the Treaty? After all, "Frontier" does not violate the "letter" of the Agreement.

    Until the Americans have placed their CDs in these launchers on the territory of Romania, we cannot present them with anything. Otherwise, it will be like in that joke about a man who is tried for a fight, but they also try to "sew" an article on moonshine brewing. Citing the fact that a moonshine still was found at his house.
    His objection that he didn’t cook, he was told: “but the apparatus is.”
    Then he offered to try him also for rape. After all, he has an "apparatus" that is. So it is here.
    Alas, for the time being we cannot say that the Americans placing the Mk-41 launcher violate the agreement ...
    1. 0
      2 October 2016 23: 05
      Quote: Old26
      Alas, the Americans do not manufacture, test or deploy air-to-surface ballistic missiles.

      In this case, on what grounds are eMRBM and especially FSLV programs not a breach of contract? The start is air? Aerial Ballistic Missiles? Ballistic. What sign?
      Or are you going to argue that a rocket capable of putting a payload into orbit is not capable of flying more than 5500 km?

      Quote: Old26
      if you would read the INF Treaty, and not use what our media write

      Uh ... I wonder how I was able to quote from the Treaty without reading it ??? This is not even demagoguery of the class "The whole world knows"

      Quote: Old26
      And for some reason you decided to omit the part that refers to target missiles. And it clearly says that if a medium-range missile is tested and used exclusively for the needs of missile defense, then it is not a violation of the Treaty.

      Can you confirm your "clearly stated" with a quote? And then there in the text that I "did not read", there is nothing about missile defense. I went through a special search. There is no mention of the target rocket either. Moreover, it is not an accelerator, since it does not put anything into orbit. And this, too, cannot be fastened to test launches, since the plane, well, is never a stationary launcher.
      Quote ...

      Quote: Old26
      That's just any missile system is a UAV, but not every UAV is a cruise missile. There are certain differences, what to consider and what not to consider a cruise missile.

      What are the differences? I have given a definition from the Agreement. Indicate by what signs UAVs do not fall under it.


      Quote: Old26
      But only in the contract it was a question of purely land-based launchers, and not of sea ones.

      I will give another quote from the Treaty, which I have not read.

      Quote: Old26
      3. The term "ballistic missile launcher" means a fixed launcher or a mobile ground-based transport and deployment launcher for launching an ballistic missile ballast.


      Where is it about the fact that stationary launchers located on the ground do not fall under the contract if similar launchers are located on ships?

      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

      In general, I have a question: Are you able to argue on this topic using normal argumentation? And then, damn it, everything is there, and accusations against the opponent, and against the experts, and against the media ... But the specifics are zero. Not a single technical argument. Not a single link or quote from the contracts. Did not find? To help?
  8. +1
    3 October 2016 22: 14
    Quote: Spade
    In this case, on what grounds are eMRBM and especially FSLV programs not a breach of contract? The start is air? Aerial Ballistic Missiles? Ballistic. What sign?
    Or are you going to argue that a rocket capable of putting a payload into orbit is not capable of flying more than 5500 km?


    For many. The FSLV program creates a light launch vehicle for launching satellites weighing up to 450 kg into low Earth orbit of 180 km (inclination 28,5 degrees). Since when and with what agreements have the development of launch vehicles been banned? Based on this logic and the development of our R-29 SLBM air launch launcher is also a violation of the contract?
    The difference is that the FSLV carrier has a "target" in orbit, and the BRVZ rocket is on the ground.

    The eMRBM program is not a violation of the INF Treaty, if only because it was developed in accordance with Article VII, Clause 3 of the INF Treaty. In order not to think that I didn’t read or quote from the contract, please:

    Article VII.
    3. If the BRNB is a type of BRNB designed and tested exclusively for intercepting and combating objects that are not on the surface of the Earth, then such an BRNB is not considered a missile subject to the limitations of this Treaty.


    The missiles created by the eMRBM program were created and are used to test the missile defense system. Our people are constantly trying to blame the Americans for creating medium-range missiles, which, if necessary, can be adapted to ground launchers in violation of the INF Treaty.

    In fact (!) It is so. Such missiles were created on the basis of the Trident and Minuteman stages. But .... Created absolutely legally and without violating the INF Treaty. Therefore, it is foolish to accuse the opposing party that she broke the contract when she did not break it. We missed this article and did not take the opportunity to make target missiles based on RT-2P ICBMs or R-31 SLBMs. so why blame others for your mistake?
    And you have everything simplified: Ballistic. Airy means violation

    As to whether a missile capable of carrying the load is capable of flying over the intercontinental range. Far from being a fact. And not always. Our Kosmos launch vehicle (based on R-12), with approximately 45 tons of launch weight, put into orbit a load of the same 450 kg, but in the version of the MRBM it was capable of throwing a block weighing 1,3 tons at a distance of 2000 km. The rocket created under the FSBM program has an even smaller launch (design order of 34 tons). In reality, it was tested to test the ability to withdraw it from the C-17 compartment weighing 22,67 tons.


    Quote: Spade
    Quote: Old26
    if you would read the INF Treaty, and not use what our media write

    Uh ... I wonder how I was able to quote from the Treaty without reading it ??? This is not even demagoguery of the class "The whole world knows"


    Here I apologize for getting excited in the heat of controversy

    Quote: Spade
    Quote: Old26
    And for some reason you decided to omit the part that refers to target missiles. And it clearly says that if a medium-range missile is tested and used exclusively for the needs of missile defense, then it is not a violation of the Treaty.

    Can you confirm your "clearly stated" with a quote? And then there in the text that I "did not read", there is nothing about missile defense. I went through a special search. There is no mention of the target rocket either. Moreover, it is not an accelerator, since it does not put anything into orbit. And this, too, cannot be fastened to test launches, since the plane, well, is never a stationary launcher.


    I quoted above. That's just the ban on the use as an aircraft launch platform in the agreement on INF. Moreover, although these missiles are actually medium-range missiles, they have nothing to do with military missiles yet. Only tests of missile defense systems.

    Quote: Spade
    Quote: Old26
    That's just any missile system is a UAV, but not every UAV is a cruise missile. There are certain differences, what to consider and what not to consider a cruise missile.

    What are the differences? I have given a definition from the Agreement. Indicate by what signs UAVs do not fall under it.


    If only because the UAV is not a "disposable" vehicle and is capable of landing and reusing. Will that answer suit you? And, alas, it is. All CDs, although they are essentially unmanned aerial vehicles, are a one-time device. I wrote. Any KR is a UAV, but not any UAV is a cruise missile. If this were not the case, then we would also be considered violators of the INF Treaty, since some of our UAVs have ranges prohibited by the treaty. These are TU-141 "Strizh" with a range of 1000 km, "Dozor-85", capable of flying at a speed of 120-150 km for 8 hours. "patrol-600" with a speed of 120-150 and a flight time of 24 hours. Well, shall we consider UAVs as cruise missiles violating the INF Treaty?


    Quote: Old26
    But only in the contract it was a question of purely land-based launchers, and not of sea ones.

    I will give another quote from the Treaty, which I have not read.
    Quote: Spade
    Quote: Old26
    3. The term "ballistic missile launcher" means a fixed launcher or a mobile ground-based transport and deployment launcher for launching an ballistic missile ballast.

    Where is it about the fact that stationary launchers located on the ground do not fall under the contract if similar launchers are located on ships?


    You can find out, and where do the launchers of ground-based ballistic missiles?
    And further. The agreement clearly states which missiles and which launchers are in question. The contract did not concern the marine components. Also. The Mk-41 launcher was designed as a launcher for Standard missiles. Of course, you can put the "Tomahawks" in it. But it will fall under the restrictions only if the CD is placed there. And not earlier. Now this is only a bargaining chip in the political game of the Russian Federation and the United States, when completely unsubstantiated they accuse us, and we accuse them. I cited an anecdote about the "apparatus" as an example. So it is here. It is impossible to "judge" just for what they (launchers) are. With about the same success one can accuse us of violating the treaty on the grounds that we can shoot the Caliber 3M14 from the Iskander launchers. But we're not shooting, are we?

    Quote: Spade
    In general, I have a question: Are you able to argue on this topic using normal argumentation? And then, damn it, everything is there, and accusations against the opponent, and against the experts, and against the media ... But the specifics are zero. Not a single technical argument. Not a single link or quote from the contracts. Did not find? To help?

    Of course I can. With quotes including. And to be honest, I’m glad that we started this pick with you. You, one of the few who have argued their opinion.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"