Russian rocket alerted NATO

129
Over the past few years, the United States has regularly accused Russia of violating the existing Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles, and in recent months we are talking about a possible break of this document. One of the reasons for criticism from Washington is a promising Russian rocket, known under the symbol 9М729. This product attracts the attention of foreign politicians and the press. For example, the other day the German edition Die Welt published its own vision of the problem.

10 January The German edition has published a new material called “Russland: Flugkörper 9M729 alarmiert die Nato” (“Russia: the 9М729 rocket alarmed NATO”) by Gerhard Hegmann. The article also received the subtitle “Die Waffe, die das atomare Gleichgewicht erschüttert”: “Weaponwhich shakes up the nuclear balance. ” As is clear from the headlines, the topic of the publication in Die Welt was the Russian 9М729 rocket, its capabilities and potential in the context of current international agreements.





The author points out: the product 9М729 is a rocket, the existence of which may violate the terms of the existing INF Treaty. Moscow denies such accusations. At the same time, the Russian defense industry is keeping secrecy around this rocket.

The United States clothe all existing threats in specific combinations of letters. So, under the indexes 9М729 or SSC-8 (NATO designation) the promising Russian missile is mentioned. With this product, Russia may violate the terms of the INF Treaty, but it denies such accusations. According to G. Hegmann, there is a dispute in which experts refer to the existing contradictions and discrepancies between the terms of the Treaty and the characteristics of real arsenals with weapons possessing certain characteristics.

The author recalls that the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles was concluded in 1987 by the United States and the Soviet Union. The agreement obligated the countries to remove from armament and destroy nuclear missile systems with medium-range and short-range launch ranges from 500 to 5500 km.

However, the Treaty had an important feature, it affected only ground-based weapons. Rockets for aviation, surface ships or submarines did not fall under its action. Thus, as noted by G. Hegmann, in the Treaty on the INF Treaty for several decades there was actually a loophole that its participants could take advantage of. This circumstance is especially acute because the early tests of air or sea-based missiles can be carried out at landfills.

Die Welt recalls the most important statements of recent times. In November, the head of the US National Intelligence, Daniel Coates, voiced information that has long been “the well-known secret.” He said that since the mid-2000s, Russia has been developing a new ground-based missile weapon capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

According to D. Coates, this rocket was developed by the Russian company Novator and is called 9М729. This is not about developing a standalone system. Prospective missile belongs to the operational-tactical missile complex "Iskander."

The author notes the importance of this circumstance. He recalls that the Iskander complex is understood not just as a ballistic missile, but as a whole system, including a set of components. It includes a heavy four-axle vehicle with the functions of transport and launcher, as well as those or other weapons. A combat vehicle can carry a SS-26 short-range ballistic missile or a 9М728 / SSC-7 short-range cruise missile. The latter is an additional armament of the complex, corresponding to the requirements of the INF Treaty.

The Iskander cruise missile has a length from 7 to 8 m with a diameter of about 500 mm. The main charge in the context of the Treaty is that Moscow has developed a new more powerful cruise missile called the 9М729, and this product can allegedly be used with the Iskander launcher.

G. Hegmann turned to Markus Schiller, the general director of the ST Analytics analytical organization, a lecturer at the University of Bundeswehr (Munich) and a rocket weapons specialist, for advice on the capabilities of promising missiles. M. Schiller considers it not surprising if the new cruise missile 9М729 is really capable of showing a range over 500 km, established by the terms of the INF Treaty. In addition, he notes that, from the point of view of a technical specialist, the terms of this agreement are inaccurate and unfortunate.

M. Schiller gives an example affecting the technical characteristics of missiles. So, the Russian side claims that the SS-26 ballistic missile is capable of flying at a distance of 480 km, and therefore in compliance with the INF Treaty. However, if we reduce its payload, the range can be extended to 500 km - the lower limit of the Treaty’s limitations.

The expert believes that the new rocket, allegedly representing a particular danger, should take off from a standard launcher using a solid-fuel starting engine. Then the work should include a turbojet engine, similar to the power plant of the aircraft. With it, the rocket must fly to the target. Unlike a ballistic missile, the cruise does not have to climb to a great height. It will probably fly to a target near the surface of the earth, perhaps even at altitudes less than 100 m.

Russian rocket alerted NATO


The missile weapons specialist also notes the specifics of such weapons. With a flight speed of about 1000 km / h, the flight of the cruise missile to the target takes longer than when firing a ballistic missile. So, a ballistic missile is able to reach the target at a distance of 5000 km in just a quarter of an hour. In this regard, ballistic missiles pose a greater threat in comparison with cruise missiles. In addition, M. Schiller recalled that intercontinental ballistic missiles that meet the requirements of the INF Treaty can be converted into medium-range missiles that violate it.

* * *

Discussion of compliance with the Treaty on Medium and Shorter-Range Missiles has been going on not for the first year, but has become particularly active in recent months. Referring to the alleged violations of the Russian side, official Washington intends to break the agreement. Moscow does not agree with the American accusations and in response points to possible violations by the United States. The intention of American President Donald Trump to withdraw from the Treaty complicates an already not very simple situation.

The proceedings on the INF Treaty, primarily related to Russia and the United States. Nevertheless, various foreign countries, primarily European, including Germany, are showing interest in this situation. Their concern is well justified. If the Treaty is terminated, and its former participants again begin to develop areas of medium- and short-range missiles, the main risks will manifest themselves fully in Europe. To effectively accomplish the objectives, the United States will have to deploy short- and medium-range missiles on European territory, which will put it at risk of a retaliatory strike from Russia. In general, the situation of the past decades, which was observed before the signing of the INF Treaty, can be repeated.

For all this, foreign politicians and specialists proceed from the fact that the Russian armed forces already have weapons that violate the Treaty, although Moscow does not admit this. One of the main accusations of Russia in violation of the agreement concerns the promising cruise missile 9М729, which recently became the topic of publication in Die Welt.

In foreign media, the version according to which the 9М729 cruise missile was developed at least on the basis of the developments in the Caliber ship armament project is particularly popular. The possibility of adaptation of the “sea” missile for use on the land platform is also not excluded. In this regard, it is believed that the product 9М729 has a range of up to several thousand kilometers. The version of the firing range and the fact of ground-based are considered sufficient grounds for accusing Russia of violating the Treaty.

There is also another version of the origin of the product 9М729. According to this assumption, the new missile for the Iskander was rebuilt from the air-launched cruise missile X-101. In this case, the maximum range can exceed 5500 km - this removes it from the category of short-range and medium-range missiles. Being developed on the basis of X-101 and showing similar characteristics, the 9М729 rocket does not violate the Treaty. However, this version is not very popular abroad. This is probably due to the fact that it does not allow to make claims to Russia - in contrast to the version of the 9М729 as a modification of the "Caliber".

Discussion of the 9М729 rocket in the context of the prospects of the Treaty on Medium and Small-Range Missiles continues, and not so long ago there was another exchange of statements. For example, in early December last year, US Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Andrea Thompson urged Russia to abandon the 9М729 rocket, allegedly violating the existing Treaty. As an alternative solution, she proposed to recycle the rocket in accordance with the requirements of the agreement. It was noted that the solution of the issue of 9М729 missiles "should be verifiable."

A few days later, Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Ryabkov responded to such proposals. He pointed out that the inspection regime under the INF Treaty at the time "was fitted to the task of destroying specific weapons." All procedures for these systems have long been completed and confirmed. The Treaty does not commit any activities around the new missiles. In addition, the demonstration of the 9М729 missiles to the American side may be a manifestation of excessive transparency, going beyond a bilateral agreement.

As was to be expected, the December exchange of statements and opinions did not lead to the cessation of disputes and did not contribute to the search for a mutually beneficial solution. The two countries continue to exchange not quite friendly allegations of violations of the terms of the still valid Treaty, and also to remind that the accusations are unsubstantiated. Such tensions between Moscow and Washington naturally and expectedly attract the attention of foreign states, whose security is directly related to the relations between Russia and the United States.

For example, the German edition of Die Welt in its article “Russland: Flugkörper 9M729 alarmiert die Nato” examines the features of the current situation in the light of a promising Russian-developed missile. It is noted that the new 9М729 rocket is able to increase the combat potential of the Iskander complexes and pose a threat. At the same time, the German press points out the comparative simplicity of improving the characteristics of missile weapons, as well as the imperfection of the current INF Treaty.

However, all this should be considered only as a perception of the situation by an outside observer. Russia and the United States argue around the Treaty on Medium and Shorter Range Missiles, while European states, including NATO countries, are forced to observe these processes from the outside. With all this, they can face real threats to their own security, without having any real means of influencing the situation.

The article “Russland: Flugkörper 9M729 alarmiert die Nato”:
https://welt.de/politik/deutschland/article186641682/Russland-Flugkoerper-9M729-alarmiert-die-Nato.html
.
Our news channels

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

129 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +16
    15 January 2019 06: 03
    The demons began to whirl ... they were spinning like a frying pan ... it became scary ... now in the radius of defeat all of Europe, including Anglo-Saxony, Russia's worst enemy ... smile approvals.
    1. +1
      15 January 2019 10: 50
      Quote: The same LYOKHA

      The demons began to whirl ... they were spinning like a frying pan ... it became scary ... now in the radius of defeat all of Europe, including Anglo-Saxony, Russia's worst enemy ...

      everything is back to square one ... like Europe went through like that (in 80's). forgot?!
      1. +1
        15 January 2019 12: 56
        We, too, were targeted by the Peshings. Forgotten .... or don't know because of your age? But I remember that intensity well ... and teachings at school, well, if anything was called. Everyone was told where to go and what to do. The "Pershing" flight time from Germany was very small. ((((Therefore, I was not happy with the word at all.
        1. +1
          15 January 2019 13: 40
          Quote: Kent0001
          Forgot .... or don’t know due to age?

          read the comments thoughtfully or something ...
          like Europe was like this (in 80's). forgot?!

          passed ... but did not forget ... everything returns and its own circles (simpler - the story develops in a spiral - the events are similar, but with some corrections for a while hi )
        2. 0
          15 January 2019 19: 16
          But I don’t remember any panic and no school teachings. So that’s enough.
    2. 0
      20 January 2019 14: 26
      To indicate to a sovereign state what and how to do on its territory not a single European mongrel has the right, especially their diplomats and defenders. And so let them spin, maybe they will press their tails properly and their overseas owners will not be able to get to the European ahedrons with attempts to cover them.
  2. +16
    15 January 2019 06: 10
    The Germans did not say anything new about the 9M729. All the same "allegedly violates", "seemed to be tested", "it seems like there is evidence, but it seems like no" and so on. Banal replication of the American fake.
    1. +1
      15 January 2019 13: 45
      Quote: g1washntwn
      Banal replication of the American fake.

      "Hiley Likely"as I understand it. wassat today it is better than any prosecutor in court laughing
      1. -1
        15 January 2019 13: 48
        By the way: ATTEMPT ATTEMPT by American femida is judged stricter than her perfect FACT. Therefore, long live the Soviet Court, the most humane Court in the World! )))
  3. +4
    15 January 2019 06: 28
    It would be strange if Russia didn’t respond to missile defense in Europe in any way !!! And now excuse me, we asked for it ourselves! hi
  4. +1
    15 January 2019 07: 03
    Is that what Israel gets 80 warheads?
    1. +7
      15 January 2019 07: 10
      Is that what Israel gets 80 warheads?

      Someone is talking about two hundred ... the truth about the sanctions against Israel for these things no one is talking about ... not North Korea.
  5. +2
    15 January 2019 08: 03
    I don’t know if we have a problem with secrecy, or if there was an "accidental leak" on this missile, as in the case of "Status-6", remember? In the first case we are in the ass, in the second, as they say in Odessa: - "I know myself, but you think for yourself!"
    1. +2
      15 January 2019 08: 29
      Quote: Chichikov
      Oh, there was an "accidental leak" on this missile, as in the case of "Status-6", remember?

      It is believed that this is a targeted leak. Due to the fact that the United States refused to discuss its own direct violations of the INF Treaty.
  6. +5
    15 January 2019 08: 22
    That is, they can "screw" the 729 to the Caliber, but they are not able to see the already installed MK41 on the territory of Europe? Like no one knows which of them can run Tomahawks?
    The most common pulling of an owl on a globe occurs to accuse an opponent of something that he has already violated.
    1. 0
      15 January 2019 08: 39
      Quote: Wedmak
      That is, they can "screw" the 729 to the Caliber, but they are not able to see the already installed MK41 on the territory of Europe? Like no one knows which of them can run Tomahawks?

      Well, yes, the usual policy of double standards.
    2. -5
      15 January 2019 12: 38
      land mk41 cannot shoot tomahawks
      1. +2
        15 January 2019 13: 09
        Why would you? Is the firmware of the control systems different?
        1. -2
          15 January 2019 16: 56
          they simply do not have control systems and preparation for launch.
          and not so simple as you wrote, I abandoned the program and that's it.
          for example, not all Arly Berks are capable of shooting ESSMs; will they change everything in any way?
          1. 0
            15 January 2019 16: 57
            Programs, control units, not the essence. The main thing is the ability to quickly remake.
            1. -3
              15 January 2019 17: 26
              It is doubtful that fast - you need to mount the cabinets, connect with Aegis and check the operation by starting.
              There are no reports that the Americans did this.
              I don’t know who invented that supposedly booted from a floppy disk, and shoot.
              in any event, "rework" is not a breach of contract.
              1. +1
                15 January 2019 18: 05
                in any event, "rework" is not a breach of contract.

                Well, then the assumptions about the range of 9М729 are not a violation of the contract. In my opinion it is logical.
        2. 0
          15 January 2019 16: 59

          for Tomahawks - a separate subsystem
        3. -1
          15 January 2019 17: 03
          To start the Tomahawks, just installing MK41 is not enough.

          need a separate control unit, check and prepare for launch and flight.
          1. 0
            15 January 2019 17: 15
            the yellow blocks are Aegis himself, the rest is external to him systems.
            Tomahawks launch and control system - external
            1. 072
              +6
              15 January 2019 17: 19
              Another American counterargument is that the Aegis Escher launchers are not similar to sea-based Mk-41 launchers, but differ significantly from them. Such a statement contradicts the primary information received from the US military, as well as the developers and testers of the Aegis Ashore complex. Then it was reported that the land and sea versions of this PU are "almost identical."

              The US attempts to present PU as part of the Aegis Ashore complexes, as Tomahawk missiles incapable of launching, do not convince us at all. According to the external characteristics of the differences between the specified PU is not visible. The possible absence of separate elements of the Mk-41 shipboard launcher designated by the American side in the internal layout of the Aegis Escore launcher is not critical. Firstly, we do not have the opportunity to reliably verify and confirm the presence of significant changes in the design of the PU and to be sure that these hypothetical characteristics will continue in the future.

              Secondly, the elements declared by the USA as absent in the Aegis Escore launcher in comparison with the marine version of the Mk-41 launcher are insignificant in terms of the structural integrity of the installations, and the corresponding changes are likely to be reversible in a short time. Accordingly, the absence of such elements is not a sufficient basis for recognizing that the launcher, originally designed to launch medium-range cruise missiles at a distance in the range from 500 to 5500 km, is in principle incapable of solving these problems. In connection with the foregoing, we consider the Mk-41 launchers deployed on offshore platforms and the launchers in the Aegis Escor complexes as identical. Briefing by the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation S. A. Ryabkov on the situation around the INF Treaty, Moscow, 26 November 2018
              1. -2
                15 January 2019 17: 23
                the preparation and launch system of the Tomahawks is not and has never been an integral part of Ajis; it is an additional system, unlike, say, the anti-aircraft missile control system, which is part of Ajis.
                MK41 itself is not enough for launch, a training and launch control system is needed.
                but on land it’s not.
                1. +2
                  15 January 2019 18: 42
                  What prevents her from delivering? In fact, this is a box with electronic filling. Mount such a control unit on the chassis of the SUV, cables with connectors and the problem is solved. I can not believe that America did not provide for such an opportunity.
                  1. 0
                    16 January 2019 00: 32
                    it is not flogged, talk of violating the contract does not make sense.
                    and put it in - not five minutes, this is a rather serious reconstruction of the installation, which does not make sense besides - there are too few launchers, it is easier to fit the destroyer
                    1. +1
                      16 January 2019 00: 43
                      Do you personally report to the Minister of Defense? American? What is not set? Modularity means quick installation and configuration changes.
                      1. 0
                        16 January 2019 00: 56
                        Tomahawk management system is not delivered there; it is not included in Aegis.
                        I explained everything above.
                      2. +1
                        16 January 2019 02: 27
                        The fact that she is not included in Ajis is not proof that she (the equipment) was not delivered! It is part of an easily compatible system.
                      3. 0
                        20 January 2019 00: 29
                        she was not delivered.
                        however, you can give a proof to the contrary
                      4. +1
                        20 January 2019 00: 26
                        Seriously? Do you really think Americans are fools? If Aegis uses standard containers and is theoretically capable of using tomahawks, be sure that this is possible in practice. And you don’t have to fill in about the need for test launches, which gives such confidence that they did not carry them out in the process of adapting Aegis to ground based in their territory, for example, where there is a firm belief that there is no possibility of quick installation of the control module, moreover, why this Aegis’s version does not have a simplified system, goals can be predetermined, and the coordinates are simply stored in the ax’s memory, then it’s enough to just put a container with tomahawks and give a command to start.
                      5. 0
                        20 January 2019 00: 30
                        I think for smart.
                        and you, it seems, have no idea about the possibility of using Tomahawks from launchers mk41
                      6. 0
                        22 January 2019 09: 43
                        Why, then, have no idea? You yourself have proved the possibility with the help of the above diagrams, if you have an additional control module - a fundamental possibility exists. The fact that the control unit is not installed now does not mean at all that when the US exits the INF Treaty, they will not be installed immediately.
                2. +3
                  15 January 2019 22: 11
                  Are you familiar with the concept of "open architecture of a complex"?
                  1. 0
                    16 January 2019 00: 34
                    familiar.
                    This is an external device for Aegis, if you understand what I'm talking about.
                    no plug-and-play is created programmatically.
                    1. +1
                      16 January 2019 09: 35
                      Quote: Avior
                      familiar

                      Then the concept of "universal bus" should also be familiar. Adjust the KUNG, connect the cables and work for your own pleasure. No?
                      1. 0
                        16 January 2019 09: 54
                        bus for internal devices.
                        and where did you get that Aegis architecture is like your home computer?
                        This is not a plug and play to you.
                      2. +1
                        16 January 2019 11: 41
                        Quote: Avior
                        bus for internal devices

                        And external too.
                        Quote: Avior
                        and where did you get that Aegis architecture is like your home computer
                        Well, you, it is much cooler and more complicated, which does not exclude the possibility of rapid modernization.
                      3. 0
                        16 January 2019 11: 58
                        relatively fast. not plug and play
                        this is not a household computer for you
                        Yes, and there are no control units in the kung.
                        in any case, the start-up check should be
            2. 0
              15 January 2019 22: 27
              according to your GDP, when I said that it’s preventing the axes from sticking in the pu in Europe that they put
              1. +1
                16 January 2019 00: 58
                he also said that they would not raise the retirement age.
                You can put Tomahawks there, only you can’t shoot them, there is no fire control system
                1. 0
                  16 January 2019 11: 55
                  Quote: Avior
                  You can put Tomahawks there, only you can’t shoot them, there is no fire control system

                  What, the red button is not of the same diameter, or is there a wire for a missile stretching out like an ATGM of the 1-2 generation and control goes through the launcher?
                  1. 0
                    16 January 2019 11: 59
                    I wrote everything.
                2. 0
                  16 January 2019 19: 28
                  how are you tired of the nonsense - go to Poland next to the mk settle
          2. 0
            15 January 2019 22: 32
            To start the Tomahawks, just installing MK41 is not enough.
            Have you personally written software for cells installed in Europe? Can you vouch for them?
            1. 0
              16 January 2019 00: 36
              For this, I can.
              in principle, it is impossible to provide a start by Aegis from MK41 purely programmatically; I explained why above.
              spare parts are not enough.
      2. +1
        15 January 2019 22: 23
        hahaha what land mk41-ship rifle complex mk41-what shoots?
        1. 0
          16 January 2019 00: 37
          different mk41 launchers fire different missiles.
          Not everyone can shoot Tomahawks.
          1. +1
            16 January 2019 10: 34
            and you put in Europe those who do not shoot with axes, no and not me, so there’s a gap about what they can’t
            1. 0
              16 January 2019 12: 01
              they do not have the blocks necessary for firing Tomahawks.
              and in general on land MK41 they are not. on no.
  7. +2
    15 January 2019 08: 36
    Around the Treaty on intermediate and shorter-range missiles, Russia and the US argue, while European states, including NATO countries, are forced to observe these processes from the outside.

    Having at the same time by no means zero arsenals with the very same SMD missiles and do not "buzz".
    Although the countries are members of the NATO bloc directed against Russia and, accordingly, should have participated in this INF Treaty.
    On the other hand, it is possible to launch a long-range missile from beyond the Urals at Geyrop if the country is threatened. As the saying goes: "you want to live and you will not be so upset." In this context, in order to inflict damage on the enemy unacceptable, at least, and it is better to spend it for centuries, all means are good and it is not necessary to engage in unnecessary "hemorrhoids" with the development of new SMD missiles.
    1. 0
      17 January 2019 10: 50
      Quote: K-50
      Having at the same time by no means zero arsenals with the very same SMD missiles and do not "buzz".
      Although countries are members of the NATO bloc,
      Which NATO countries have medium- and short-range missiles?
      1. +1
        17 January 2019 10: 57
        Quote: Mimoprohodil
        Which NATO countries have medium- and short-range missiles?

        Enough of Britain and France?
        Perhaps also Italy.
        1. 0
          17 January 2019 11: 43
          Quote: K-50
          Enough of Britain and France?
          Not enough, they have in service only SLBMs on submarines. And about Italy it’s funny
  8. 0
    15 January 2019 08: 45
    The main charge in the context of the Treaty is that Moscow has developed a new, more powerful cruise missile called 9M729

    It has already been stated that the range has remained within the scope of the contract, and the speed in the final section has increased. Previously, only one of the anti-ship missiles had such characteristics.
    1. +2
      15 January 2019 08: 54
      and the speed in the final section increased

      What can be indirectly interpreted as an increase in range. The Yankees are capable of creating conditions for accusations from scratch, but here in general .. you don’t even have to think much. )))
      1. -6
        15 January 2019 12: 45
        this is not an empty place, this is a real violation of the contract
        1. +4
          15 January 2019 13: 09
          this is a real breach of contract

          Facts in the studio. If the Russian Federation can directly point to the already installed naval MK41 in Europe and the possibility of launching the Tomahawk CD from them by simply changing the program, then the United States has nothing on the CD 729. In general. Only "possible" and "acceptable".
          1. 0
            15 January 2019 16: 30
            not all marine mk41s can even launch Tomahawks, a preparation and verification subsystem is required before launch, so the mk41 itself is not a violation without this subsystem.
            they are only with the Americans and the British on ships, others are not.
            allegations that they are on the ground MK41 not seen, including from the Russian side. and even more so, I did not see allegations about the launch of the Tomahawks from land installations as an indispensable element of the verification of such subsystems. and you ?
            1. +2
              15 January 2019 16: 40
              and even more so, I did not see statements about the launch of the Tomahawks from land installations, as an indispensable element of the verification of such subsystems

              And thereby sign in their own violation? Americans are far from fools.
              1. -2
                15 January 2019 16: 52
                and without this, how to use as intended, if there was no verification?
                1. +1
                  15 January 2019 16: 55
                  and without this, how to use as intended, if there was no verification?

                  Was there no verification at the PU factory? Yes you are kidding probably.
                  1. 0
                    16 January 2019 00: 38
                    not of course.
                    This particular modification of MK41 does not have such a function.
            2. 0
              15 January 2019 22: 29
              Well, yes, the Americans stuck them in Europe from Iran they defend themselves they said so
        2. -1
          15 January 2019 18: 48
          And you are aware that any UAV capable of carrying weapons and flying further than 500 km is also a violation of the contract. Especially if this UAV is not only tetecontrolled, but also capable of autonomous flight according to a given program.
          1. -1
            16 January 2019 00: 39
            It is not, if it is a UAV and is capable of returning and landing.
            cruise missiles are disposable with one-way flight.
            1. +1
              16 January 2019 00: 48
              By what criteria is a UAV different from a cruise missile? What class are Kamikaze UAVs?
              Most wartime UAVs will be exactly one-time.
              1. 0
                16 January 2019 00: 53
                It is not, if it is a UAV and is capable of returning and landing.

                sort of clearly wrote
                1. +1
                  16 January 2019 02: 25
                  And it doesn't matter if he carries tactical nuclear weapons or not? And if the "ax" at the software level is given the opportunity to return to the starting point, it will cease to be a cruise missile and become a UAV? RAVE DEAR.
                  1. 0
                    16 January 2019 02: 29
                    There are currently no versions of the Tomahawks carrying nuclear weapons.
                    Obama destroyed everything.
                    They will not return to the starting point, you still need to have the ability to land and re-take off, then it will be UAVs.
                    and if not, a cruise missile.
                    WALK DEAR.

                    I don’t see much point in communicating at such a level hi
                    1. -1
                      16 January 2019 02: 39
                      You can’t even reach the troll. Study the manuals better. Yes, and on the technical side of the issue, sort it out. Well, and the contract about which you so boldly argue, also look.
                      And also think about why in land PU use exactly MK 41. At the same time, you obviously refuse a lot of other things. Including modernization potential. By the way, some reconnaissance UAVs do not make a landing at the end of the mission, on an airplane, do we also write them in cruise missiles?
  9. +1
    15 January 2019 09: 12
    We must silently do our job. They will withdraw from the agreement anyway, but here, once, and immediately the answer is ready.
  10. 0
    15 January 2019 09: 38
    Gerhard Hegmann clearly lagged behind life - at Caliber-M, the range is 4500 km bully
    1. -1
      15 January 2019 12: 46
      or you are ahead of life, no Caliber - M is not in nature .... lol
      1. 0
        15 January 2019 14: 01
        Andrey probably meant "make up", since this is only an R&D project. IMHO, it is this project that will be based on the X-101/102, and not the existing "caliber". It will be hard for a conventional "caliber" even for an empty one to exceed 500, a completely different concept and filling is needed.
  11. +2
    15 January 2019 10: 34
    hi .. 9M729 long-range cruise missile (SSC-X-8, SSC-8)
    Developer: OKB "Novator" (Russia)
    9M729 - a long-range cruise missile is made according to the normal aerodynamic configuration with the wings folded into the missile fuselage in the transport position. The rocket is equipped with a launch solid propellant, which fires back after the start. Probably the missile will be used in the new modernization of Iskander-M with significantly improved characteristics.
    The 9P701 launching device and the 9T256 transport-charging vehicle, developed and manufactured by the Central Design Bureau "Titan", are located on the MZKT-7930-0000200 chassis.
    Features:
    Diameter - 533 mm.
    The range is 500 - 5500 km.
    Warhead weight - 500 kg.
    Type of warhead - conventional or nuclear ... soldier
    https://vpk.name/library/f/9m729.html
  12. -7
    15 January 2019 12: 44
    a hybrid trick with a 9M729 missile range seems to be leading to a big problem - Americans demand to ensure parity not only in strategic charges, but also in tactical ones, which is very disadvantageous for Russia.
    again, the Americans were convinced that they undermined the treaty on medium-range missiles, nobody in the world was convinced that it was impossible to launch Tomahawks from the MK41 land and the Americans invited the Russian military to be convinced of this at any time.
    but with the Americans demanding to confirm that the 9M729 is not a medium-range cruise missile, embarrassment occurred - they are afraid to show it to the Americans.
    no wonder that in Europe they support Americans.
    1. +8
      15 January 2019 13: 23
      no wonder that in Europe they support Americans.


      In Europe, Americans will support, even if they declare that the moon is made of green cheese ...
      1. -4
        15 January 2019 13: 28
        you want to believe it.
        in practice, there are enough sane people and the dependence on the United States is not so great.
        And if they see that one side is ready to immediately present the ground MK41 for inspection, and the other does not want to show 9M729, then they make a completely logical conclusion.
        1. +2
          15 January 2019 13: 32

          you want to believe it.
          in practice there is enough sane people and dependence on the States is not that big.




          And here is one of them ....
          1. -1
            15 January 2019 13: 46
            Yes Yes.
            believe further ....
    2. +6
      15 January 2019 13: 30
      Americans demand to ensure parity not only in strategic charges, but also in tactical

      Americans generally require a lot of things, if all their Wishlist fulfill, the whole world will be their raw material colony.
      Americans accused of undermining the medium-range missile treaty convince no one in the world

      Also, no one in the world was convinced by the US arguments about 9М729. In addition to vassals of the United States.
      Americans invite the Russian military to see this at any time.

      Something did not hear such statements. And even if it was like that - MK41 is a universal control unit, now the preparation module for the Kyrgyz Republic is disabled, tomorrow it was taken out of the storage and delivered. This is if figuratively. A module, firmware, a set of switches - it does not matter. Important 2 things - a) the United States pulled marine universal launchers onto the ground and b) loaded them with missiles. What configuration there is currently in the PU is known to very few people.
      Further, in the United States mass-produced target missiles with the characteristics of the BRRS. It is not too difficult for the USA to remake them or make a new based on them real military missiles and will take very little time.
      1. +1
        15 January 2019 13: 34
        Also, no one in the world was convinced by the US arguments about 9М729. In addition to vassals of the United States.


        Of which, strictly speaking, NATO consists of ... belay
      2. -4
        15 January 2019 13: 46
        the accusations that you wrote about the Americans, they’re just awkward, so no one believes them.
        The accusations of using the MK41 are ridiculous - on a single US destroyer there are more launchers for the Tomahawks than on all land MK41 in Europe, and the combat stability of the destroyer is not comparable with stationary launchers - try to find it with a rugged coastline in the area of ​​heavy shipping.
        similar situation with targets.
        where did you get the idea that they can easily be converted into military missiles?
        But the situation with 9M729 is completely different. a real military missile in service.
        1. +5
          15 January 2019 14: 08
          accusations of using μNUMX are ridiculous

          Yes, they are few, but the flight time of these missiles is calculated in minutes, they are secretive and can bring a lot of destruction in an unexpected place. Yes, and for provocation fit perfectly. The destroyer still needs to approach the coastline, which in a threatening period will suddenly bristle with coastal defenses. And these missiles are already standing. But seriously, what prevents to supplement the PU with a dozen more of the same?
          where did you get the idea that they can easily be converted into military missiles?

          Do not remake, but pile new ones based on them. With the US budget, it will take a couple of years.
          but the situation with 9М729 is completely different. real military missile in service

          I repeat - the facts in the studio.
          1. -2
            15 January 2019 16: 21
            MK41 ground installations are not secretive, unlike ship installations, their place is well known.
            the destroyer does not need to approach the Russian coastline, it can easily shoot from the tervodes of the same Poland or from neutral waters and it can go there secretly.
            it will be closer to the goal, by the way, than from a land installation, and the flight time is less
            Do not remake, but pile new ones based on them. With the US budget, it will take a couple of years.

            that is, there is no breach of contract under this paragraph
            I repeat - the facts in the studio.

            nobody seems to deny the fact of the presence of this rocket. or do you have other information?
            1. +2
              15 January 2019 16: 35
              MK41 ground installations

              Track start is more difficult due to the terrain. And the ship is actually detected when leaving the port.
              that is, there is no breach of contract under this paragraph

              Are you sure that all missiles are targets?
              nobody seems to deny the fact of the presence of this rocket

              So where does the availability, all hi-wai because of alleged characteristics.
              1. -1
                15 January 2019 16: 39
                as far as I understand, Americans want evidence that a real missile in service does not violate the treaty.
                and how did you imagine that they should provide evidence to the contrary as in court?
                so this is not a court, and there is no one to disassemble such evidence.
                1. +4
                  15 January 2019 16: 54
                  Americans want evidence that a real missile in service does not violate a treaty

                  You understand poorly. The Americans did not require evidence, they directly stated that they assumed such characteristics and demanded to remake the rocket in another / or destroy it and provide them with evidence of what was done. Now we look at the feint with our ears: in fact, the United States wants to gain access to the production of these missiles, partly to their device and technologies. And at the maximum, also destroy missiles and this production.
                  Do you really think that the Yankees are so straightforward?
                  1. -2
                    15 January 2019 17: 12
                    Americans gave two months to provide evidence that this rocket does not violate the treaty
                    1. +3
                      15 January 2019 18: 10
                      They demanded, presented an ultimatum. Trying not only to remove missiles dangerous to them, but also to humiliate our country. They were expectedly sent in the right direction. Do you want to negotiate, do not bull.
                      1. -2
                        16 January 2019 00: 40
                        now they will create their own.
                        they have enough money.
                        and who will feel good from this?
                2. +2
                  15 January 2019 22: 38
                  they have already proved that Iraq has chemical weapons and much more
            2. +1
              15 January 2019 22: 58
              Quote: Avior
              nobody seems to deny the fact of the presence of this rocket

              As they say, there would be a desire to break the contract - and there will always be a rocket ...
              1. -2
                16 January 2019 00: 41
                interesting logic.
                this is how criminals usually reason, they want to plant, they will plant, regardless of who they robbed or not.
        2. +1
          15 January 2019 22: 37
          they convinced the Romanians and the Poles, but Hitler didn’t succeed, he also said I won’t attack
      3. -6
        15 January 2019 13: 55
        by the way, targets are not a breach of contract.
        The agreement allows the use of RSD as targets for testing missile defense systems (Article VII, paragraphs 3, 11–12) with certain conditions.
        The US does not violate them. And on point 1, pay attention.
        http://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/pdf/treaty.pdf
        1. 0
          15 January 2019 14: 22
          Oh, come on. Imagine the level of American infrasound if, hypothetically, Russian Iskanders appear in Mexico to spray cacti and target missiles with a range of 2500 km ...
          1. -2
            15 January 2019 16: 22
            but what does this have to do with the current situation? no banned American missiles appeared near Russia
    3. 072
      +1
      15 January 2019 15: 28
      Independent Romania doesn’t let Russian inspection into the base territory only
      1. -3
        15 January 2019 16: 25
        I read that the Americans offered mutual inspections, as it was originally envisaged by the agreement, but the Russian side refused, saying that 9M729 does not fit the agreement.
        I’ve heard about Romania for the first time.
        how did you know that it was romania that foiled the inspection?
        1. 072
          +3
          15 January 2019 16: 45
          NATO deployed missile defense in Romania: what will it lead to. Russian Air Force service May 12, 2016.
          "Russia clearly understands that the missiles that are supposedly supposed to shoot down other missiles can be replaced with missiles with nuclear weapons within XNUMX hours," Anatoly Tsyganok, head of the Center for Military Forecasting, Corresponding Member of the Academy of Military Sciences, expresses a popular point of view in Moscow.
          The expert claims that Russia tried to get the right to test missile defense systems in order to establish this documented, but earlier it was refused. There is little hope, he believes, that such verification will now be carried out in Romania.
          1. -6
            15 January 2019 17: 13
            sets out a popular point of view in Moscow
        2. +4
          15 January 2019 16: 45
          what the Americans suggested mutual inspections

          And they have already put forward an ultimatum only on the basis of their suspicions. Not so much an inspection as a one-sided control of the Americans over the destruction of this missile. And there you see, they will reach the destruction of the entire Iskander complex as the possible carrier of similar missiles in the future.
          This we have already passed.
    4. +2
      15 January 2019 22: 33
      Yes, who will believe them your Americans, they like they have been lying all their lives and will be lying
  13. +1
    15 January 2019 13: 53
    Several questions arose, to begin with, how many missiles and launchers are needed to guarantee the destruction of the entire offensive and strike potential of a potential enemy on ETVD? So I suppose not a little, not even a very small amount, while all of them should be "shoved" into the 200x400 km area, and even to the existing units and formations, and then deployed into battle formations, in 2-3 tiers? this good with such a concentration of troops and assets from air defense forces and having a front along the entire perimeter of the area, without even having an operational depth of defense? A conversation about nothing, they would say at once simply and intelligibly, - Give me some money, I want to eat.
  14. +1
    15 January 2019 13: 55
    In this regard, ballistic missiles are a big threat in comparison with cruise missiles.


    Starting a ballistic missile and its trajectory is easier to detect and calculate, unlike a cruise missile, which goes above the ground, enveloping the terrain and can change targets during the flight.

    The earth is round! What is below the horizon is below the horizon.

    The Russian missile attack warning system is sharpened by a warning about the launch of ballistic missiles that fly through space.
    1. 0
      15 January 2019 14: 02
      winged is flying slowly compared to ballistic
      1. +3
        15 January 2019 14: 09
        Slowly, but faster than the speed of a passenger Boeing or Airbus, but imperceptibly and without the ability to calculate its trajectory. A missile can be reprogrammed to another target during flight.

        Since the Earth is round, it is possible to detect such a missile only from the air with AWACS planes.
        It flies slowly, but imperceptibly, and when it is discovered, the time for destruction is already extremely short. Especially with mass launch. Most of all, it is invisible in the front plane (from where it flies), but on top they are clearly visible and for fighters are an easy target. But only if the fighters were induced by an AWACS aircraft.
  15. +2
    15 January 2019 16: 56
    And what immediately to draw around Kaliningrad? We need circles around the Caspian Sea, the Black Sea, the Japanese Sea
    . Of the North Sea ... and the permanent Mediterranean Sea, Baltic.
    1. +1
      15 January 2019 23: 22
      Bad newspaper)))
      Crimea is not marked by ours, but if you draw a circle from there, everything turns out to be more interesting tongue
  16. +5
    15 January 2019 17: 13
    Quote: g1washntwn
    The Germans did not say anything new about the 9M729. All the same "allegedly violates", "seemed to be tested", "it seems like there is evidence, but it seems like no" and so on. Banal replication of the American fake.

    There is an old saying: "My tongue is my enemy". Or another: "The word is silver, silence is gold".
    In the current situation with mutual accusations in relation to the treaty, we must thank our home-grown "military experts" from the media, and those who wished to promote themselves after the retirement of generals and senior officers. Who suddenly became academicians of academies, presidents of fonts, etc., etc. But in order to maintain their importance, almost immediately after the introduction of the R-500 (9M728) rocket of the Iskander-M complex, they began to broadcast from the pages of the media and TV screens, what if something - "we'll show them." And that in fact the same cruise missile 9M728 can fly not for 500 km, but for all 2000, if not 2500. All this was accompanied by colorful graphs and diagrams indicating the radius of destruction in Western Europe.

    And as they say, "What we fought for, we ran into it." Have you decided to show your importance? Have shown. And the fact that it was a banal lithium of water on an enemy mill - none of these experts even thought about it. And propaganda is not just a talking shop. This is holding events when the other side is forced to "make excuses". What we are doing now with success.

    Was it not these experts who said that from the Iskander launcher the 9M728 missile can hit targets at a range of 2000 km. So the new, improved version of it - 9M729 is capable of doing the same? Violation? If you believe these homegrown expert politicians, it turns out that it is a violation. And now we are trying to prove that "we are not a camel", that we do not violate anything. And the word is not a sparrow. And after all, if you paid attention mainly to the violation of what politicians say, even if they hold the post of defense minister. The military keep quiet about this, because they know very well that none of the agreements is 100% perfect. there are always loopholes that can be exploited ...

    Quote: Wedmak
    That is, they can "screw" the 729 to the Caliber, but they are not able to see the already installed MK41 on the territory of Europe? Like no one knows which of them can run Tomahawks?
    The most common pulling of an owl on a globe occurs to accuse an opponent of something that he has already violated.

    Yes, they all perfectly understand. But they are fulfilling their task - to present Russia as violators of the treaty. And if in relation to MK-41 it is impossible to directly link this installation with the violation, there are no "tomahawks" in them. That is easy with regard to this missile and the launcher based on the Iskander. Thanks to our expert analysts. Who have speech incontinence. Well, even if you know that some of our weapons system violates the treaty - why shout about it at the top of your voice, declaring - "and we'll show you Kuzka's mother" ... Itching ???

    Quote: alma
    It has already been stated that the range has remained within the scope of the contract, and the speed in the final section has increased. Previously, only one of the anti-ship missiles had such characteristics.

    That's right. Such characteristics were in 3M54 with a supersonic combat stage. What prevented the show and show it? And do not just say that it does not violate.
    Personally, I would not have believed if the Americans had declared that such a missile would not violate anything, but would have refused to show it.

    Quote: Wedmak
    What can be indirectly interpreted as an increase in range. The Yankees are capable of creating conditions for accusations from scratch, but here in general .. you don’t even have to think much. )))

    You can interpret everything. But simple enough to demonstrate.
    And its range (9M729) can be comparable with the range of 9M728. Just the last 30-40 km warhead can fly at a speed that excludes its interception. For example. 9M728 missile range let it be 480 km. The range of the 9M729 may also be 480 km, but at a distance of 420 km from the launch point, its third stage begins to accelerate to a speed of 2-2,5M. And the last 40 km it will pass not in 3,5 minutes, but for example in 45 seconds ...

    Quote: g1washntwn
    Andrey probably meant "make up", since this is only an R&D project. IMHO, it is this project that will be based on the X-101/102, and not the existing "caliber". It will be hard for a conventional "caliber" even for an empty one to exceed 500, a completely different concept and filling is needed.

    It's not even R&D, but only R&D. There are still OCD and testing ahead. And as for whose base this missile will be, then each design bureau that creates this or that weapon has its own niche. In particular, the Raduga firm has never made sea and land cruise missiles. This is what Novator has always done. Therefore, "Caliber-M" cannot be based on the Kh-101/102. These are missiles of a completely different design bureau

    Quote: Wedmak
    Also, no one in the world was convinced by the US arguments about 9М729. In addition to vassals of the United States.

    True, such is the majority. But who were convinced by our arguments that the 729th is not a violation?

    Quote: Wedmak
    Yes, they are few, but the flight time of these missiles is calculated in minutes,

    Is it possible that the Tomahawk, which, at a subsonic and with a cruising speed of 700 km / h, is able to cover the distance to the border with Russia - and the distance there is about 1400-1500 km from bases in Poland and Romania in a few minutes?

    Quote: Wedmak
    Further, in the United States mass-produced target missiles with the characteristics of the BRRS.

    According to the article of the agreement on the INF Treaty. Nobody bothered us to do the same.

    Quote: Wedmak
    It is not too difficult for the USA to remake them or make a new based on them real military missiles and will take very little time.

    It’s quite complicated and takes a long time. Will have to create a new rocket. The configuration of these target missiles is such that, as a payload, they carry telemetry equipment having a weight of 2-3 tens of kilograms. To put nuclear warheads, missile defense systems, missile defense systems and the combat stage on these missiles - we will not talk about a dozen other kilograms, but about a ton and a half. As a result, that target rocket which now has a range of 1100 km with such a load will fly 300-400 kilometers.

    Quote: g1washntwn
    Oh, come on. Imagine the level of American infrasound if, hypothetically, Russian Iskanders appear in Mexico to spray cacti and target missiles with a range of 2500 km ...

    In this case, you are fantasizing, Zhora! Kamrad absolutely gave you the article of the treaty. And he was absolutely right when he said that the contract was not violated. Well, and excuses like "Iskander" for spraying cacti in Mexico - leave these arguments for some kindergarten. The level of reasoning is just right for this level
    1. 0
      15 January 2019 23: 00
      Quote: Old26
      What prevented the show and show it? And do not just say that it does not violate.
      Personally, I would not have believed if the Americans had declared that such a missile would not violate anything, but would have refused to show it.

      Vladimir, you know very well that inspections for compliance with the INF Treaty in accordance with paragraphs 5,6 and 13 of Article IX are possible within 2000 years from the date of signing the agreement. Those. already in 2 they stopped. You shouldn't voluntarily show anything to the Americans. Better to expand production capacities - to build Votkinskiy-3, Votkinskiy-3, counting on the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty and START-XNUMX.
  17. 0
    15 January 2019 17: 13
    Quote: seacap
    A few questions arose, for starters, how many missiles and launchers are needed to guarantee the destruction of the entire offensive and striking potential of a potential enemy on an ATV?

    Nobody will tell you this, but I think that it would be about several thousand nuclear warheads for various purposes and several hundred carriers ...

    Quote: Horse, people and soul
    Starting a ballistic missile and its trajectory is easier to detect and calculate

    It is easier to detect the launch of a ballistic missile and calculate its trajectory, but do not forget that the reaction time to such a threat is an order of magnitude shorter. For example, in the 80s, the "Griffons" located in the Federal Republic of Germany walked to the Moscow region for about 2,5-3 hours, and the Pershinges - from 5 to 7 minutes

    Quote: Horse, people and soul
    unlike a cruise missile that goes above the ground, enveloping the terrain and can change targets during flight ..

    Of course, the CD can change targets during the flight, especially the latest modifications of the same "tomahawks". However, the range decreases. In addition, the rocket must pass through the correction zones, which must be fundamentally different from the surrounding terrain in order for the rocket not to confuse the terrain. There cannot be very many such zones, and they can be calculated with a sufficient degree of probability. And the main thing. The cruise missile goes through the territory saturated with air defense systems. Starting from short-range anti-aircraft missiles and MANPADS and ending with barreled artillery and large-caliber machine guns. And the rocket can stumble upon such an impromptu air defense line long before the target

    Quote: Horse, people and soul
    The earth is round! What is below the horizon is below the horizon.

    The Russian missile attack warning system is sharpened by a warning about the launch of ballistic missiles that fly through space.

    Any early warning system is "sharpened" to warn about the launch of a ballistic missile. But in addition to early warning systems, there are also conventional air defense detection stations, there are over-the-horizon stations, in the end there are AWACS aircraft. In addition, it is much more difficult to concentrate carriers for mass launch of cruise missiles than launching ballistic missiles.

    Quote: Horse, people and soul
    Slowly, but faster than the speed of a passenger Boeing or Airbus, but imperceptibly and without the ability to calculate its trajectory. A missile can be reprogrammed to another target during flight.

    Passenger Boeing / Airbus speeds are comparable to the speed of the Kyrgyz Republic. Approximately 700-800 km / h. Redirect to another target (if this one is already hit) KR can. But this target should be relatively close, since all these barrages and retargeting devour the range.
    The approximate direction is calculated. Intelligence everyone has a reason to have their own bread. So you can calculate the approximate direction and cover it with air defense

    Quote: Horse, people and soul
    Since the Earth is round, it is possible to detect such a missile only from the air with AWACS planes. It flies slowly, but imperceptibly, and when it is discovered, the time for destruction is already extremely short. .

    Not only from the air and not only by AWACS aircraft, but also by air defense radars, albeit at a shorter range. An AWACS aircraft of the "HOCAI" type with a flight altitude of 10-11 km has a radio horizon for a low-flying target of about 450 km. Cars like E-3 and our A-50 - the radio horizon could be even larger. Modern locators are capable of target selection against the background of the underlying surface. A cruise missile will cover a distance of 400 km in more than half an hour. There is enough time. Especially if the enemy has a well-built layered air defense system.
  18. 0
    15 January 2019 20: 17
    Since 2007, the wise old Russian Cat Leopold has been advising European warlike mice - "Guys, let's live peacefully and amicably - then we don't need missiles either!"
    1. 0
      15 January 2019 22: 14
      Quote: LeonidL
      advises European militant mice - "Guys, let's live peacefully and amicably - then we don't need missiles!"


      European mice are driven to slaughter by the overseas star-striped rat king. And therefore "the mice cried, injected, but still continued to eat the cactus"
  19. +1
    15 January 2019 22: 01
    We must honestly tell the world about the superiority of the West in the number of warheads reaching our national territory and demand negotiations to eliminate this imbalance. In addition, the armaments of England and France are outside the scope of the SALT. It is logical to demand an exception to the agreement and Russia's permission on the INF Treaty to balance their potential. Similarly, the US-based missiles are strategic against Russia. We must demand the same exclusion from the SALT agreements and permission to deploy additional ICBMs to balance the nuclear potential of the Amer Navy.
    .
    It is clear that the Americans will not want to part with their advantages, and we cannot turn a blind eye to their superiority. Conclusion: The basis for negotiations can only be secretly deployed a couple of thousand ICBMs in disguised and inaccessible BSU positions.
    1. 0
      16 January 2019 06: 48
      All the secret becomes clear - you can't hide an awl in a sack. Especially in the modern world. Therefore, once again harnessing Russia into the arms race is not only an empty task, but an extremely dangerous one. The mountains have already accumulated such mountains that it is possible to incinerate the earth, if not 10, but 5 times. More than enough. Because - "Guys, let's live together - then we don't need weapons either." Putin and Lavrov are pursuing the correct policy of sufficient self-defense, warning potential aggressors with the presence of new high-tech and high-intelligence weapons, much less expensive than a dull race in the number of missiles. The policy of containing a potential aggressor is an asymmetric, calculated and reasonable response and the only possible alternative.
  20. +1
    15 January 2019 22: 11
    At the same time, the Russian defense industry respects the secrecy surrounding this missile.


    Naturally, no one puts out breakthrough technologies and innovations in armaments for everyone to see.
    For them, the 9M728 was "unbreakable" and here in Russia the new 9M729 arrived in time. The United States strives to force the destruction of everything that poses a threat to it. After all, at one time they saw the OTRK "Oka" cut down not only by the complexes in service in the USSR, but also by the OTRK " Oka "standing in service in the armies of the Warsaw Pact countries, where by force threats and pressure, and where by allocating real money for it.
  21. +1
    15 January 2019 22: 30
    In exchange for a proposal by the Americans to inspect 9M729 missile, to offer them to remove their nuclear weapons from other countries as violating the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. At the same time, record the fact of violation by the American side of this violation.
  22. +1
    15 January 2019 22: 40
    but I probably guessed it was the same Vasya who recently sang there that we don’t need Crimea and now it’s scratching the ground
  23. 0
    15 January 2019 23: 02
    someone from Europe attacks us every hundred years and more than once — and someone tries to convince that it is not against us — eat the Poles with the Romanians, convince us that we won’t touch them if we don’t rock and believe, you can shake everything with schemes and knowledge, for me personally, let it be better than not, let them sit there and shake like mice
  24. 0
    15 January 2019 23: 07
    half of the world was armed with the Nazis and right now the Europeans praise them
  25. +1
    15 January 2019 23: 56
    US SMD missiles do not threaten. Therefore, leaving this agreement they do not risk anything. They will install SMD missiles in Europe and will be satisfied. Of course, in the USA they understand that they will put Europeans at risk. But does such a trifle excite anyone?
    And the whole fuss is due to the new weapons of Russia, which theoretically will soon be able to deliver an instant global disarming blow to the United States itself, which they are very afraid of, especially since they themselves developed such a concept. And there will be nothing to answer, unless of course you push a rocket into every hole in Europe in advance. In general, the exit from the INF Treaty for the United States is a 100% resolved issue.
  26. +1
    16 January 2019 12: 14
    Depraved American lackeys from Europe, you are primarily guilty of escalating military rhetoric by approaching the borders of Russia, drawing all the countries of Europe into NATO. Do not squeak now, bastards, that Russia is violating something. Russia protects itself from your lackey inability to assert its rights to free territory from the Americans with their missile defense at the borders of Russia.
    1. 0
      20 January 2019 14: 44
      Plus, but I think that our leaders provoked the United States. The withdrawal from the contract is also beneficial for us. Medium-range ballistics solves a lot of issues. And with Japan, and with China, and with Europe and the Middle East. It seems cheaper to me than to play catch-up for building up the SV, VKS and Navy with countries whose economic potential is much higher.
    2. The comment was deleted.

"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"