Military Review

Bolton: If I were a Chinese, I would oppose the US withdrawing from the "missile" treaty

55
John Bolton, US presidential adviser on national security, who arrived in Moscow the day before, is trying to explain to Moscow that Trump’s statement about the United States’s withdrawal from the treaty on the elimination of medium and short-range missiles is not directed against Russia. In released on the radio station Echo of Moscow Bolton's interview tells about his lengthy discussions with the Russian side.


Bolton: If I were a Chinese, I would oppose the US withdrawing from the "missile" treaty


Bolton:
We had very serious intensive discussions today on the issue of limiting armaments today. And today there were comments on Nevada. We had very serious statements on our position. We have consulted on this issue, and we will continue these consultations with other participants in this negotiation process. The questions that we have now clarified, they have been discussed for some time, for a long time, so to speak. Maybe even 5 years in the US, these issues are, because Russia has violated the treaty on strategic offensive arms, on missile defense. And this was the position of the Obama Administration that it is necessary to change relations with Russia in this matter.


In the US, they believe that the target's range, for example, with Iskander missiles, exceeds the declared 500 km.

Further Bolton stated that the next step is to consult with our friends in Europe and in Asia.

At the same time, the US official does not hide the fact that the United States is concerned that today the INF Treaty remains a working document for only two states - the Russian Federation and the United States. At the same time, a certain number of states that develop rocket technologies have appeared. First of all, we are talking about China, which Washington is included in the list of major threats.

Bolton:
The Chinese very much hope that the Americans will not withdraw from the ABM treaty. If I were Chinese, I would say the same thing. The Chinese are not parties to this treaty, and they want it to persist.


Another question is: if the US is going to make Beijing connect to the INF Treaty, is there any practical sense in breaking the agreements with Russia?

It should be noted here that a majority in Congress, including Republican leaders and the US Democratic Party, opposes withdrawing from the INF Treaty.
Photos used:
Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
55 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. alex-s
    alex-s 23 October 2018 06: 03
    +11
    Not a Bolton, but a talker!
    1. Vard
      Vard 23 October 2018 06: 06
      +2
      The kind of announcer who yesterday read the reaction of the Chinese to this initiative was slightly stunned ... Like in the elderberry garden ... In Kiev, uncle ... And we have to do with it!
      1. Thrall
        Thrall 23 October 2018 06: 15
        +5
        This is not an announcer, but the previous Chinese "Zakharova" (press secretary of the PRC Foreign Ministry) smile
        1. For example
          For example 23 October 2018 07: 23
          +7
          ... because Russia violated the START, ABM Treaty.

          VO reprinted Bolton’s words stating that we (Russia) are violating the START and ABM Treaty.
          Well done love
          I do not see a refutation of these words in this article. It turns out that VO is a distributor of lies about my country.
          The mouthpiece of the State Department. That's it. Conscious or not, but it is a fact.

          "In the radio station" Echo of Moscow "" - the source of this chatter is a longtime hater of everything Russian. There is nothing to be surprised at. The station was marked, their idol arrived.

          And so they impose the opinion that we violate, attack and others. And this site has joined the chain of distributors of unproven information about us. You're lying gentlemen. negative
      2. Chertt
        Chertt 23 October 2018 06: 58
        +4
        Quote: Vard
        Ipa in the elderberry garden ... In Kiev, uncle ... And we have to do with it!

        Most of the experts (real ones) just think that this is a "message" to China, and Russia is accused like that, out of habit. As long as the INF treaty restricts the United States and Russia, the PRC does what it wants. Therefore, the position of the striped is logical, "either all, or no one." Here are just to implement their idea, the Americans again began to clumsily.
    2. GRF
      GRF 23 October 2018 06: 21
      +9
      Well, Cho Gorbachev, should have been liquidated, eh? Your "achievements" go into existence during your lifetime.
      Each selected politician should be responsible for his election program, for this the people (who chose) should give an assessment at the end of the term (where is this law ?!), and as a result either glory with fat or oblivion on the bunks ...
      1. 210ox
        210ox 23 October 2018 06: 30
        +1
        Only Bolton to Moscow - "Echo" to him ... Will be noted by the reportage ..
  2. Observer2014
    Observer2014 23 October 2018 06: 06
    +6
    John Bolton is trying to explain to Moscow that Trump’s statement on the US withdrawing from the treaty on the elimination of intermediate and shorter-range missiles is not directed against Russia.
    belayNo, of course. We understand everything. This is not against us. This is for our good. laughing
    In the US, they believe that the target's range, for example, with Iskander missiles, exceeds the declared 500 km.
    At the tractor itself? bully Or specifically the missiles that he uses? So there is their whole line, so to speak. So goodbye. By the way, what about the destruction of chemical weapons. USA? That money has not yet been found.
    1. venik
      venik 23 October 2018 08: 18
      +3
      Quote: Observer2014
      In the US, they believe that the target's range, for example, with Iskander missiles, exceeds the declared 500 km.
      At the tractor itself? bully Or specifically the missiles that he uses?

      ========
      And they (the Americans) simply added to the range of the missile’s flight the power reserve of the tractor !!! laughing wassat So we got more than a thousand km !!! (A clear "violation" of the contract bully)
  3. Kerensky
    Kerensky 23 October 2018 06: 07
    +2
    the majority in Congress, including the leaders of the Republicans and the US Democratic Party, are opposed to withdrawing from the INF Treaty.

    Then they will definitely come out .... Under talk about a "new format" ...
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 23 October 2018 07: 59
      +3
      Quote: Kerensky
      Then they will definitely come out .... Under talk about a "new format" ...

      And in your opinion, why were all these Maidans and revolutions multicolored around our borders? Why are monuments to a Soviet soldier demolished throughout the territory of the former Warsaw Pact, why did all this hysteria about the evil Russian bear begin many years ago? Just for hype and fun. Every year we are popularly identified as a threat to US national security. Despite the fact that we are separated by three oceans. 800 bases around the world, why? Endless wars, the struggle for resources, the unipolarity and multipolarity of the world is all to what?
      They will come out, they will also designate us as guilty.
      And in this regard, I want to ask, is it not enough to be guilty of everything? Or maybe it's time to do what you need without looking at the screams of the US and the EU? We are all to blame for everything, so what's the difference?
      The withdrawal from this agreement will free the United States hands for placing axes on the territory of the states bordering us: Georgia, Ukraine, the Baltic states, Moldova.
      And what are we? What countermeasures do we have in stock? The first thing that comes to my mind is the resumption of work on the BARZD project Barguzin and the adoption of the ICBM Frontier in a mobile wheeled version. An increase in the production of the Caliber and the speedy adoption of the Dagger complexes, with the subsequent adaptation of this missile to other carriers.
  4. Fedorov
    Fedorov 23 October 2018 06: 10
    0
    In the US, they believe that the target's range, for example, with Iskander missiles, exceeds the declared 500 km.

    However correctly consider. Some types of missiles are classified. And for what they are intended and how much they fly in the public domain there is no information.
    Another thing is that if the striped ones come out of the treaty - Russia already has everything new, and in the United States there is no longer the old too .. So hello "to Uncle Sam and Europe.
    1. venik
      venik 23 October 2018 08: 33
      +1
      Quote: Fedorov
      Another thing is that if the stripes withdraw from the treaty, Russia already has everything new.

      ============
      And here is an example


      It remains to replace 3M-14Э on 3M-14 (without "E") and - "Hello" ..... Business then ...
      PS And how many such containers were "riveted" - this is only known to Allah (well, those who are supposed to know this too !!) ... The funny thing is that this system in no way violates the INF Treaty, since it was officially created for placement on ships (container ships and PC pr. 22160)
  5. faiver
    faiver 23 October 2018 06: 18
    +1
    John Bolton is trying to explain to Moscow that Trump’s statement on the US withdrawing from the treaty on the elimination of intermediate and shorter-range missiles is not directed against Russia.
    - As well as missile defense in Europe from Iran, isn’t it yourself funny? in the agreement there are only two parties to the United States and Russia, and the okazka is sent somewhere to the left. Indeed, it is necessary to include the Chinese in the agreement, but why terminate the existing agreement for this?
  6. Fedorov
    Fedorov 23 October 2018 06: 24
    +2
    A simple example is if you replace the warhead with a nuclear one (and it is much easier at times), then obviously Iskander will fire it much further ... And there - goodbye flapping ...
  7. bald
    bald 23 October 2018 06: 34
    0
    This is what I want to say. But this is so. Any ballistic missile fired, no matter where it comes from, will save anyone — three to five minutes to the west — even less by an overseas — they’ve completely gone dumb. but complete stupidity.
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 23 October 2018 09: 55
      +4
      Well, there is still a psychological point. If you create a new ballistic missile system in the style of Pershing and place it on the new borders of NATO (not in West Germany, but in Poland, Georgia, Ukraine, the Baltic states). That is for the population of the European part of Russia - the war will look Once and All, they won’t even have time to get scared.

      For John / Beale and others in the USA - there will be 20 + minutes to escape to the shelter.

      Plus - the build-up itself. They are in theory (again, the question is, how much do they have experience with the new BRDS) - they can significantly increase the shock potential in the main industry and megacities of the Russian Federation. Moreover, relatively cheap missiles with a flight time of 3-5 minutes (that is, = complete defeat of targets).

      In response - on them (the USA - vassals in Europe do not mind) will fly ICBMs that will fly so over them. That is, nothing changes here. Even in purely military dispositions.

      As a bonus - an opportunity spin the arms race. Where they have cheat codes for money, but others do not.
      1. bald
        bald 24 October 2018 01: 48
        0
        I'm there, by the problem - a frequent guest. There are restaurants, cafes, I’ll draw my attention for a long time, the generic chambers went in - a modest room - one thing was impressive - the mother-of-pearl bed was admitted to more than one from above, the generals drained so that there would be a peephole. ..... solidly of course -50 meters above the ground, they won’t save from the nuclear one --- I said that I know everything about the power of warheads - and no one will hide
  8. Mih1974
    Mih1974 23 October 2018 06: 39
    -3
    Yes, stop listening to these scum - to melt the "unnecessary waste in the Atlantic", if they don't surrender right away - to burn Norway with the same nuclear weapon, and then Denmark. They won't crawl again - to burn Bulgaria and it won't help - to destroy Canada !! am If this doesn’t clear the brains of the Merikas, then they’ll break it!
    And I don’t need to scream "they will destroy us," but now what is going on - preparations for a "disarming strike" and you have to be an IDIOT - so as not to see it !! am
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 23 October 2018 10: 07
      +1
      stop
      In gives ... even brotherly Bulgaria did not regret it, a pyromaniac in kind - burned everyone. negative
      1. Mih1974
        Mih1974 24 October 2018 04: 29
        0
        THREE times to fight AGAINST us, not for us !! am am negative
  9. ANCIENT
    ANCIENT 23 October 2018 06: 41
    0
    what is the use of his visit, since the usa is still blatantly lying to the whole planet about alleged systematic violations of all possible international treaties negative
  10. pru-pavel
    pru-pavel 23 October 2018 06: 50
    0
    It is especially pleasing how local patrons love to say that in fact the Iskander shoots much further than 500km.
    But in the topics about the INF Treaty, they always change their shoes and claim that Russia does not violate anything.
    Although really of course violates. If the ballistic iskander is still in question, and only with a half-ton conventional warhead, when installing a lighter special warhead there is also a violation due to increased range (the laws of ballistics are still known). Well, the winged iskander clearly shoots no less than 2000km, and most likely even a little further
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 23 October 2018 07: 09
      +4
      On the one hand, allegedly violations based on posts from the Internet. On the other hand, the most concrete real violations: launcher in Romania and heavy shock UAVs.
      But of course Russia is to blame
      1. pru-pavel
        pru-pavel 23 October 2018 07: 14
        -3
        I do not claim that they do not violate anything. I spoke only about Russia. Romania, by the way, cannot violate anything; it is not a signatory to the INF Treaty. Well, about posts on the internet you can write for a long time, if you pretend that you do not know the elementary laws of physics. If the missile defense is located at an American military base then yes this is a violation. If this is not US military property, there is no violation until the INF Treaty is signed by Romania. If Mexico or Cuba has BRDS, then there will also be no violation until Russia places them at its bases.
    2. venik
      venik 23 October 2018 09: 21
      0
      Quote: pru-pavel
      Although really of course violates. If the ballistic iskander is still in question, and only with a half-ton conventional warhead, when installing a lighter special warhead there is also a violation due to increased range (the laws of ballistics are still known).

      =========
      And they ARE (in the sense of being built in series) versions of the 9M723 missile with a "lightweight" warhead ?? Can you name the modifications ??? No?? Well - "tady - OH!" Why talk about "violations of the INF Treaty? Another thing is that 9M723 has a GREAT modernization potential and it is not so difficult and not so difficult to create such a version !!! But this (modernization potential) - in the Treaty - is NOT SPECIFIED !!!
      ----------
      Quote: pru-pavel
      Well, the winged iskander clearly shoots no less than 2000km, and most likely even a little further

      =========
      Yah??? Then compare the mass-dimensional characteristics of the R-500 and 3M-14 !!! The latter is much bigger and heavier !!! On the "regular" cars for the R-500 - her (3M-14 - so easy DO NOT SIGN UP !!!). But even here there is a great potential for modernization !!! (although there is no DIRECT violation of the Agreement!
      Paul! You could also give an example of the container version of the "Caliber" known as "Club-K", which is generally placed in standard 40-foot containers that can be placed not only on ships (both civilian and military):

      but also on road and railway platforms .... But this is already a direct violation of the Agreement .... But !!! Alas - a violation - MUTUAL !!! For, the Americans have long ago placed their missile defense systems near the borders of Russia (in Romania and Poland). What does the missile defense have to do with it? Yes, because these systems use universal Mk-48 TLUs, designed to launch not only interceptor missiles, but also the Tomogavk missile launcher (including those with nuclear warheads) .... And excuses that they say there is no necessary for this software - look at least STUNNY !!!
      That's somewhere like that !!!
      1. pru-pavel
        pru-pavel 23 October 2018 11: 10
        -1
        You'd better look at the mass-dimensional characteristics and range of the S-10 "grenade" missile, on the basis of which it was made, and the Kh-101, which is considered an air-based winged Iskander. And you would understand everything immediately
    3. alexmach
      alexmach 23 October 2018 10: 39
      0
      . If the ballistic iskander is still in question, and only with a half-ton conventional warhead, when installing a lighter special warhead there is also a violation due to increased range (the laws of ballistics are still known).

      So, as far as I understand, when installing a special warhead, its range is exactly 500, with a conventional 300. This kind of information was received earlier.

      And about Iskander winged, but did anyone see him at all? What rocket is there, with what characteristics, after all, nobody really knows. In terms of size, yes - they can shove something the size of a Calliber or an Ax, and what it really is, even in size, is not entirely clear.
      1. Romario_Argo
        Romario_Argo 23 October 2018 11: 11
        0
        And about Iskander winged, but did anyone see him at all?

        P-500 is like two drops of water similar to С-10 Garnet and to 3М54 Caliber
        The 9M723 rocket has solid fuel with a specific impulse 3000 SI, with the principle of detonation rather than combustion. (RDX - detonation speed 9000 m / sec.)
        9M723 has a range of not more than 500 km.
        rocket mass 3800 kg, solid fuel mass ~ 2500 kg. fuel consumption - 4,5 kg / s; burn-out time - 555 s. Speed ​​at altitude 50 km = 1 km. / Sec.
        * anti-ballistic maneuvers reduce range
        BUT (!) There is a solid fuel with a specific impulse 15000 SI
        * less consumption, speed and range increases multiple (!)
  11. jonht
    jonht 23 October 2018 06: 59
    0
    In pure theory, any long-range ballistic missile can be sent much closer than its TTX, but there is no economic benefit from this, and the flight time will be longer than that of a specialized missile. In addition, this rocket will not be able to breed blocks if there are more than one of them. But you can hit.
    1. venik
      venik 23 October 2018 09: 28
      0
      Quote: jonht
      In pure theory, any long-range ballistic missile can be sent much closer than its TTX

      ========
      In your statement, Eugene - the key concept is "PURE theory "!!! The problem is what to create intercontinental a missile capable of hitting targets and at short range is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT !!! (completely different flight algorithms!). Until now, only Russia has succeeded in this! (I forgot the name of the rocket itself there, the maximum range is 11 thousand km, and the minimum - in my opinion - 200 km !!! So .... hi
  12. ltc35
    ltc35 23 October 2018 07: 08
    +1
    Exactly! This phrase: "Not directed against Russia" - sounds everywhere where Russia cannot be seen good. Be it missile defense or NATO expansion.
  13. C-10000
    C-10000 23 October 2018 07: 38
    -7
    Putin announced to the whole world about the new Russian weapon, in fact he himself withdrew from the treaty. The same "Vanguard" violates the agreement on the range above 5000 km. like.
    1. Bykov.
      Bykov. 23 October 2018 07: 52
      +3
      Quote: C-10000
      Putin announced to the whole world about the new Russian weapon, in fact he himself withdrew from the treaty. The same "Vanguard" violates the agreement on the range above 5000 km. like.

      It seems to be in the garden. Less is not possible, but more than 5500 is possible. Restrictions on small and medium-range missiles.
    2. vit357
      vit357 23 October 2018 07: 53
      +3
      Putin did everything right - this is a response to the "non-proliferation of NATO to the east", in my opinion it is stupid to comply with the "do not hit in the jaw" agreement when your head is cut off laughing
    3. Vanek
      Vanek 23 October 2018 08: 45
      0
      Their ax, tomahawk in the sense, .. Well, in general, read the TTX.
  14. vit357
    vit357 23 October 2018 07: 48
    +2
    Not a fan of Khrushchev, but I would place the Iskander with a nuclear warhead in Mexico and go to Washington to say that this is not against the United States.
  15. Bykov.
    Bykov. 23 October 2018 07: 50
    +1
    What does China have to do with it? The contract between us and the Amegikos, and they are also flying in the Chinese. Something muddied.
    1. keeper03
      keeper03 23 October 2018 08: 18
      0
      The US wants a new treaty, possibly in a multilateral format! But here is the extension НАТО it doesn’t fit here! No. They have access to the hand and the creation of a new agreement, because they did not observe it and are not going to comply! angry soldier
      1. Bykov.
        Bykov. 23 October 2018 08: 24
        +1
        Quote: keeper03
        The US wants a new treaty, possibly in a multilateral format !:

        And also "Vanguard" with "Dagger" to attach to this agreement.
    2. engineer74
      engineer74 23 October 2018 08: 21
      +3
      In addition to China, on our planet there are also England and France, Israel, which also did not sign anything ... Or have the Americans traditionally forgotten about them?
    3. Avior
      Avior 23 October 2018 08: 34
      0
      It is obvious. when the contract was concluded, the Chinese factor was insignificant, and now China is far from the same
  16. rocket757
    rocket757 23 October 2018 08: 17
    +1
    It is logical to tie up China to the topic. Can anyone else ... just negotiate with the striped ones, it's like trying to play with a sharpie, and even his manners are cowboy, i.e. Colt "peacemaker" is always at hand!
    Anyway, an attempt to reach a comprehensive agreement to limit ALL, immediately added to this world a bit of hope and tranquility!
    Dreams, fantasies! Let's see how it goes!
    1. Vanek
      Vanek 23 October 2018 08: 41
      +2
      Quote: rocket757
      how to try to play with a sharpie


      His same cards.

      757 hi
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 23 October 2018 10: 04
        0
        Quote: Vanek
        His same cards.

        Everything is correct. If you play, you must have YOUR cards !!!
        With this, somehow not ah, I hope !!! till???
  17. Avior
    Avior 23 October 2018 08: 33
    0
    the Chinese have relatively few ICBMs, the main carrier for their nuclear weapons is medium-range missiles.
    as for medium-range missiles, they are dangerous in that they will be in minimal proximity to Moscow and the position areas of Russian ICBMs, with a minimum flying time, which does not give time to decide on an answer.
    Russia, the withdrawal of their US treaty is not clearly profitable.
    Will have to spend heavily on missile defense additional
  18. Vanek
    Vanek 23 October 2018 08: 41
    +1
    In an interview on Echo of Moscow, Bolton’s interview


    Interestingly, will there be an interview on other radio stations?
  19. true_rover
    true_rover 23 October 2018 09: 19
    0
    Well, if the Americans want the Chinese to sign the agreement, then let the French, Jews, British, Germans and all other NATO henchmen sign under the same agreement so that we couldn’t place their nuclear bombs there
  20. maw
    maw 23 October 2018 09: 26
    +1
    because Russia violated the START, ABM treaty.

    No, we did not dig the Black Sea. But the strait between Mexico and Canada is desirable to build. winked
  21. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 23 October 2018 10: 36
    0
    There were complaints about the main Iskander rocket .... it’s not difficult to lengthen it (you don’t need to change anything in the chassis itself) and the range will already be about 1000-1200 km
  22. Ros 56
    Ros 56 23 October 2018 10: 39
    0
    American, like all Western figures, ordinary chatterboxes, sweep their tongues like a janitor with a broom. Any contract is not an article in the icteric press, but a set of provisions, articles, paragraphs and subparagraphs numbered in a certain way. When they make claims about violation of the provisions and articles of a contract, indicate which specific clause or provision of the contract is violated. And when the president of a powerful country and his representatives turn into boisterous women, as in a bazaar, then what can one talk about with them at all.
  23. Chichikov
    Chichikov 23 October 2018 11: 11
    +1
    Yes, the Chinese INF is a problem not only for the United States ....! But it is also necessary to look at who the Americans are trying for and who benefits from breaking this Treaty. In the context of the current, according to the West, conflict between Ukraine and Russia, this is Ukraine. Withdrawal from the treaty will allow Ukraine to start developing and equipping SMD missiles. No wonder, recently, after Volcker's visits, Ukrainian politicians, "experts" and nationalists have started talking about the fact that Ukraine needs missiles capable of reaching Moscow!
    To not talk about the collapse of the rocket and space complex in Ukraine, there are technical capabilities, experience and production facilities! So, all this mouse fuss was started precisely to aggravate the opposition of the West against Russia, but by the forces of Ukrainian nationalism.
  24. Old26
    Old26 23 October 2018 11: 34
    0
    At the same time, the US official does not hide the fact that the United States is concerned that today the INF Treaty remains a working document for only two states - the Russian Federation and the United States. At the same time, a certain number of states appeared that are developing rocket technologies. This is primarily about China

    Well, and how sideways is China to the INF Treaty ??? Yes, it develops rocket technology, but even with very great desire, the ballistic missile defense will not be able to hit the United States. So the excuse that it is because of China that the Americans withdraw from the treaty does not fail. Not a single country on the American continent has missiles capable of hitting the United States, especially medium-range missiles

    Quote: Observer2014
    In the US, they believe that the target's range, for example, with Iskander missiles, exceeds the declared 500 km.
    At the tractor itself? bully Or specifically the missiles that he uses? So there is their whole line, so to speak. So goodbye. By the way, what about the destruction of chemical weapons. USA? That money has not yet been found.

    Well, in principle, you can understand it. With the existing mass-dimensional characteristics of the Iskander ballistic missile, it can actually fly 700-800 km. Another thing is that there are "restrictive measures" in the fuel charge. And the accusations against the Iskander ballistic missile are of about the same order as our accusations of the Americans deploying MK-41 launchers. Yes, it is possible to shoot Tomahawks from them, as well as from the Iskander SPU with missiles that will fly more than 500 km, but so far the Axes are not in those launchers, and on the Iskander SPU 723 missile is all it's just talk. There is even such a term. "Breaking the spirit of the contract." Not "letters of the Treaty", that is, a direct article, but a certain spirit, a certain ephemeral idea that "there may be a violation." But so far there is no such violation - you can continue blah blah ...

    By the way, the fact that Bolton accuses Russia of violating the INF treaty must be said to all our "experts" and especially to the media (including the Military Review), which publishes materials showing that cruise missiles from Iskander reach targets at a distance of 2500 km. And they enthusiastically place pictures of cards with such radii. True, then they resent the accusations of the other side.

    Quote: NEXUS
    The first thing that comes to my mind is the resumption of work on the BARZD project Barguzin and the adoption of the ICBM Frontier in a mobile wheeled version.

    Andrew! I already answered you in another topic. You probably just didn’t read it all, because you’re writing the same thing again. The resumption of work on the Barguzin will not give us any special gain. It will only slow down the process of rearmament of the Strategic Missile Forces and the Navy. In addition, it is stupid to pump billions into this project, while deploying one division. Easier and more cost-effective to deploy one additional regiment in existing divisions
    As for the "frontier". then nothing is clear there either. There is a rocket - there is no complex. It was not heard that there were mass deliveries from Minsk of chassis for these complexes. And we don't have our own yet. Therefore, there is no sense in deploying the complex yet. Moreover, it needs to be altered, changes must be made to satisfy the MRBM. Deploying it like an ICBM does not seem to have any particular advantages. Maxim can be used as a counterweight to China.

    Quote: Fedorov
    Some types of missiles are classified.

    "That is, they are, but they are secret and therefore we will not show them to you" ???
    Iron excuse. There are only two missiles for Iskander. A ballistic missile with a missile part 9M723 (there are many different modernization options that our media consider to be new missiles) and a cruise 9M728 (R-500) ...

    Quote: venik
    It remains to replace 3M-14E with 3M-14 (without "E") and - "Hello" ..... Business then.

    And at the same time have a decent fleet of container ships. In this case, a civilian vessel becomes, in which case, a legitimate target for the enemy. Moreover, despite all the marketing efforts, no one ordered a single such system, well aware of what the use of such disguised weapons would result in for them ... In addition, exhibitions clearly indicated that this weapon system was intended exclusively for anti-ship rockets. To shoot along the shore, the container ship must come close to the coast so that the missile does not miss the first correction section

    Quote: faiver
    - As well as missile defense in Europe from Iran, isn’t it yourself funny? in the agreement there are only two parties to the United States and Russia, and the okazka is sent somewhere to the left. Indeed, it is necessary to include the Chinese in the agreement, but why terminate the existing agreement for this?

    Actually, with the ABM Treaty - everything was done there by law. For in the corresponding article of the treaty it is written that a country can withdraw from this treaty if there are threats to it. However, it is not indicated by the second signatory of the contract or by a third party. But the Americans argued that they would exit the missile defense system precisely because there were threats against countries with which the United States had allied relations. Iranian missiles can actually reach the territory of individual NATO countries and some military bases.

    Quote: Fedorov
    A simple example is if you replace the warhead with a nuclear one (and it is much easier at times), then obviously Iskander will fire it much further ... And there - goodbye flapping ...

    In general, all parameters are usually based on the minimum load. The Rubezh ICBM tested in Russia, the tests of which the Americans considered a violation of the INF Treaty, flew 6000 km away. It is clear that by installing a heavier warhead, we will reduce its range and it will become an MRBM, but we have used it with this BO, which means it does not violate the agreement, since it flew to a distance of over 5500 km. The same is with the Iskander. By changing the weight of the warhead and the characteristics of the fuel (using a more energetic one) and the configuration of the fuel charge, a range of 1000 km can also be achieved. But not yet - all talk of abuse will not be accepted

    Quote: Spade
    On the one hand, allegedly violations based on posts from the Internet. On the other hand, the most concrete real violations: launcher in Romania and heavy shock UAVs.
    But of course Russia is to blame

    Comrade! These are violations of "From the same opera" as "Iskander". the MK-41 launcher was not declared as a launcher subject to the INF Treaty restrictions. Therefore, the placement cannot be called "the most specific violation" (a little higher I already explained why).

    Quote: venik
    The problem is that creating an intercontinental missile capable of hitting targets at short range is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT !!!

    What are the difficulties? Each ICBM has a minimum firing range. EMNIP for UR-100 missiles it was about 900 km, for UR-100N UTTH missiles it was about 1100-1200 km. Yes, when shooting at short range, given the specifics of the flight and the algorithms are different, and accuracy drops. But anyone can shoot at short range. Approximately this ee effect when shooting on flat (quasi-ballistic) trajectories. Approximately three times the range and the cast weight drops, and the KVO becomes very large. True, there is a big plus - it is more difficult to detect ....

    Quote: C-10000
    Putin announced to the whole world about the new Russian weapon, in fact he himself withdrew from the treaty. The same "Vanguard" violates the agreement on the range above 5000 km. like.

    What exactly is this Vanguard violating? This BO is designed for intercontinental missiles, and they have a range of over 5500 km. Moreover, the dimensions of this product are such that it cannot be put on either Iskander or Rubezh ... So what is the violation ????

    Quote: vit357
    Not a fan of Khrushchev, but I would place the Iskander with a nuclear warhead in Mexico and go to Washington to say that this is not against the United States.

    Indelicate question. And Mexico wants Russia to deploy nuclear missiles on its territory? Or the same Cuba? Fidel is not in power there right now. That he could take such a step ...
  25. razved
    razved 23 October 2018 16: 18
    0
    US Presidential Adviser on National Security John Bolton is trying to explain to Moscow that Trump’s statement on the US withdrawing from the agreement on the elimination of intermediate and shorter-range missiles is not directed against Russia

    They told us the same thing when Zhora Bushes Jr. was withdrawing from the ABM Treaty. And then suddenly, after a few years, they confessed that they were against Russia ...
  26. Romario_Argo
    Romario_Argo 23 October 2018 17: 29
    0
    perfectly (!)
    We will load our enterprises with orders for another 10-20 years
    to the brigades with the OTRK Iskander add the OTRK with the Kyrgyz Republic Caliber and the brigades will become Missile divisions (!)