INF Treaty. It’s more profitable for Russia than for the USA

Without regret


On August 2, the INF Treaty officially ceased to operate. Both parties that concluded the agreement in December 1987 of the year reacted without particular regret to this event. Both sides have plenty of reasons for this.




The Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty) is an agreement between the USSR and the USA, signed by Gorbachev and Reagan on December 8 1987 of the year during the Soviet-American summit in Washington. The Agreement entered into force on June 1 1988 of the year. First time in stories a whole class of nuclear missile weapons was eliminated: all complexes of ground-based ballistic and cruise missiles of medium (from 1000 to 5500 km) and shorter (from 500 to 1 000 km) ranges. The parties pledged not to produce, test, or deploy such missiles in the future. According to the terms of the contract, the following were subject to destruction: medium-range missiles - Soviet RSD-10, P-12, P-14 (NATO classified SS-20, SS-4 and SS-5, respectively) and ground-based cruise missiles RK-55 (according to NATO Classifications - SSC-X-4 Slingshot); American Pershing-2 and BGM-109G (ground-based Tomahawk cruise missile); shorter-range missiles: Soviet OTP-22, OTP-23, (SS-12М and SS-23); American "Pershing-1A." By June 1991, the treaty was completed: the USSR destroyed 1846 missiles (of which about half were reserve missiles that were not on combat duty), the United States destroyed 846 missiles.

A formal reason for the United States to denounce the treaty was a violation of the terms of the treaty by Russia. “Culprit of the celebration” was the KR 9М729 (SSC-X-8). Allegedly, the missile passed tests at a distance exceeding 500 km, which is a formal violation of the terms of the contract. Of course, this is an outright lie, the test rocket never flew further than 480 km. But, to be honest, you can understand their concerns. КР 9М729 is longer than 9М728 by 530 mm. It is clear that the 1000 kilogram high-explosive fragmentation warhead equipped with the 9M729 is larger than the 500 kilogram 9M728. And even if the Russians are telling the truth that they are prevented from installing a lighter warhead on a “long missile” and occupying the freed up volumes with additional fuel tanks? .. Now that we have our hands untied, this is exactly what should be done, a technologically very simple task. Probably, this is exactly what will happen the implementation of the presidential order “On the landing of the Caliber.”

Hands untied


During an hour of flight in cruise mode, the rocket consumes about 280 kg of fuel, most likely it is equipped with the D-95TM-300 DTRD with 360 kg thrust or its variants, or the TRDD-50BE, created on the basis of the TRDD-50 family. The specific fuel consumption of the engines is approximately equal, within 0,685 — 0,710 kg / kgf per hour of flight. During this time, the rocket will fly 850-880 km. It is easy to conclude: 500 kg of additional fuel will add an aerodynamic range of 1500-1700 km to the rocket. With the replacement of the conventional warhead with a nuclear warhead, with the rational use of the released internal volumes of the rocket, it is possible to place up to 360 kilograms of additional fuel, which will give an additional range of 1000 km more.

Soviet nuclear warheads can easily be withdrawn from storage, mothballed, and mounted on new missiles. The assortment is rich. First of all, these are almost “native” TCs 66-02 with a capacity of 200 kilotons. They were installed not only on the 3M10 Grenades, but also on the X-55 air-based KR and 3M12 Terrain-based KR, more commonly known as RC-55. An improved model of the 66-05 TC increased to 250 kilotons of power was installed only on X-55СМ missiles. Both warheads have the same weight - 140 kilograms. Another “candidate” is the lighter 90-kilogram TK-60 of low power (10 ct), specially designed for the 3M55 Onyx RCC. It is possible to use modern RAMs, they are more powerful (250-500 ct) and weigh less.

Both missiles, 9М728 and 9М729, are placed on the universal wheeled SPU 9П78-1 on the MZKT-79305 chassis in 2 or 4. The installation is completely identical to the basic control system of the OTR Iskander-M complex. The Russian armed forces deployed 12 full-blooded missile brigades of the Iskander-M and Iskander-K complexes. The brigade includes three missile battalions for 2 batteries for the 2 complex (PU) in each. Total 288 missiles: ballistic 9М723 and cruise 9М728, 9М729.

32 years ago, the INF Treaty took away from the army striking weapons of operational depth (from 500 to 1000 km) - the 9K76 Temp-S missile system. The absence of these medium-range and medium-range assets is partially offset by the assault and bomber aviation. But everyone perfectly understood that this was not an equivalent substitute.

Initially, the design of the American Pershing-2 infantry missile system provided for the possibility of launching at shorter ranges, missile launch was possible in a shortened configuration, without one of the stages: the Pershing 1B variant, only the first stage with a starting weight of 5480 kg, thrust 172,00 kN, 800 range km; Pershing 1C variant, only the second stage, with a starting mass of 3950 kg, thrust 122,00 kN, range 500 km. The most famous shot of the Pershing-2 BRDS, walking on the Internet and on the pages of many print media, actually portrays the Pershing 1B, an attentive viewer will definitely notice this.

The need for the BRDS is obvious, you need to "land and" Dagger ". It is clear that the use of the obsolete 3-fly interceptor as the first stage of the ersatz-BRDS is a necessary measure. It's time to start creating a full-fledged BMD based on the Iskander by adding a second stage from the same 9X820 engine as in the single-stage version. The benefit of his traction is enough in excess - 175,00 kN. Despite the fact that the rocket will recover up to 7500-7600 kg and will become longer up to 11 meters. The missile will receive at the end of the active section the same 4000 m / s, as in the case of a launch with the MiG-31, necessary to achieve a range of 2000 km.
Author:
Photos used:
Ministry of Defense of Russia
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

97 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. vasilii 7 August 2019 15: 09 New
    • 3
    • 21
    -18
    Of course, this is an outright lie, the test rocket never flew further than 480 km. But, to be honest, you can understand their concerns

    So, on whose mill is the author pouring water? AND? Is it time for the UK to check its funding sources?
    1. Aleksandre 7 August 2019 15: 26 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      The author does not "pour" anywhere, it is exclusively "here we read, here we do not read, here the fish was wrapped" from the consumer of the text.
    2. Nikolai 7 August 2019 16: 08 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      There is nothing new in the text.
  2. Professor 7 August 2019 15: 24 New
    • 19
    • 11
    +8
    INF Treaty. It’s more profitable for Russia than for the USA

    And why is it more profitable? The content of the article does not match the title.

    From Lithuania to Moscow 600 km. From Romania 1000 km. Burzhuins can place their missiles there. Russia cannot reach such a distance to Washington. So who benefited from the contract?
    1. KCA
      KCA 7 August 2019 15: 38 New
      • 9
      • 9
      0
      The Americans will deploy the INF in these countries, but will not transfer them to possession, which means that if they are launched, the Pentagon will produce it, and of course, all the consequences arising from this, in America, they will be able to give an alarm during the flight of our ICBMs, but what's the point ? Even where our missiles are not directed and will not fly, panic will do everything for them, and maybe even with great destruction and casualties
    2. Vladimir61 7 August 2019 15: 55 New
      • 4
      • 4
      0
      Quote: Professor
      So who benefited from the contract?

      There are other pies for Washington, but for those who are trying to conduct a course in Europe in the interests of their "patron", this is it! You ordered a fight, get it - you yourself paid for everything, although at the expense of the USA!
    3. Nikolai 7 August 2019 16: 06 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      The author had in mind parity with China, North Korea, and Iran.
      1. Fan-fan 7 August 2019 17: 13 New
        • 12
        • 3
        +9
        We do not need parity with Iran and Koreans, they do not threaten us. With China, we can get it if we make new missiles, but why, like the supreme considers them friends. But for Japan such missiles would be very good for us. But the main problem with the United States is Oleg Sokolov’s rights, it’s more profitable for them to withdraw from this treaty, since our infantry fighting vehicles are not a threat to the US territory, and their same missiles in Europe are deadly for us.
        Khrushchev at one time with the help of Cuba firmly resolved this problem, and Putin clearly did not have enough spirit.
        1. Nikolai 7 August 2019 17: 43 New
          • 3
          • 3
          0
          Partners are equal when they are equally strong, and the RF in this regard is weaker, but should be stronger. Do not forget that S. Korea has nuclear weapons and medium-range carriers. The same applies to Iran. Want peace, get ready for war. Khrushchev cannot be an example.
        2. Vadim237 7 August 2019 23: 47 New
          • 1
          • 3
          -2
          Why the heck against us, the INF missile defense - Russia has 85 bombers that can launch more than 700 cruise missiles X 101 and X 555 in one raid.
    4. YOUR 7 August 2019 16: 22 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Under the agreement, only short- and medium-range ground-based missile systems were eliminated. Remained air and sea based. The United States has much more sea and air-based KR. The US motivated the exit not only by the fact that Russia has Iskander whose missiles are banned, but also by the presence of such missiles in China. The threat of his exit hoping that Russia will somehow affect China.
      Do we need to act on it?
      In addition to the United States, rocket engines are available in England and France. Let them be without nuclear charges, but they are.
      Having the opportunity to build or adapt air-based missiles to ground launches, Russia is able to launch short- and medium-range missiles in European countries.
      Well, as they say themselves are to blame.
    5. chenia 7 August 2019 19: 39 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Professor
      And why is it more profitable?


      The USA has multiple superiority of air and sea based INF. And the launch from the Baltic coast or airspace did not fall under the contract. And they have, but we have much less. I dare to assume that in the event of the liquidation of the contract, the proportion will slightly change in our direction. moreover, delivery vehicles are almost there.
      Well, the use of tactical IDs is unlimited.
      Politically, in Europe (old) there will be a terrible opposition, they do not need such problems (well, the "new" Europeans will understand it in advance-- their nature is this).
      The states came up with these games more against China, I think so. They want to draw China into the new treaty, such a multi-way.
      1. lopvlad 7 August 2019 20: 01 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: chenia
        Politically, in Europe (old) there will be a terrible opposition


        made fun of.
        1. chenia 7 August 2019 20: 06 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: lopvlad
          made fun of.


          Good. let it be your way - an unprecedented wave of delight and joy will rise, and Europeans will rush again to thank the Americans, as during the "Marshall Plan"
          1. lopvlad 11 August 2019 00: 37 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            there will be no terrible opposition or unprecedented enthusiasm, but behind-the-scenes discontent that will never turn into a public political opposition. In occupation since 1945.
      2. DimDimych 7 August 2019 21: 39 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: chenia
        The states came up with these games more against China, I think so. They want to draw China into the new treaty, such a multi-way.

        China will not be part of the INF Treaty 2.0., I suppose, the Chinese Foreign Ministry has already hinted ... But the Chinese, they can deliver their missiles to Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba ... We also hinted to the United States about the option of deploying missiles to close to US territories, right? That's what the Americans will get! There will be a Caribbean crisis 2.0 !!! sad
        1. Vadim237 7 August 2019 23: 53 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          And Russia has the Far East and Kamchatka - the new infantry-infantry fighting systems with separate individually guided warheads with a range of 5500 kilometers deployed in this territory will add Washington's headache.
        2. Professor 8 August 2019 06: 37 New
          • 4
          • 3
          +1
          Quote: DimDimych
          We also hinted to the USA about the option of our deployment of missiles in the territories close to the USA, right?

          Let me ask. and these "territories" are not against the deployment of your missiles? wink
          1. DimDimych 8 August 2019 09: 21 New
            • 2
            • 3
            -1
            Sleep and see! winked Ours are not resolved until ... déjà vu (groundhog day) of the Caribbean crisis ...
            But, if the US rudeness will go off scale, then ... highly likely (as the mother expresses - Teresa May)
            Yes, and the debt is red by payment, they have forgiven everything, they have already accumulated it again, haven't they?
          2. Cyrus 14 August 2019 11: 19 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            I think not against it.
    6. kapitan92 7 August 2019 20: 12 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Professor
      Russia cannot reach such a distance to Washington.

      To Washington it may not, but to the advanced military bases and industrial centers of West America, yes!
      All the same, we waited for the moment when the Kremlin turned to the Far face, and not backwards. Moscow Region is expanding its group in the Far, the construction of a military component in the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin is proceeding at a serious pace. By deploying operational systems there with a range of up to 2000 km, you can quickly and cheaply balance the situation. hi
    7. unsinkable 7 August 2019 20: 36 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Our submarines off the coast of Americos AROUNDAY. Do not panic!
    8. My doctor 7 August 2019 21: 07 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Professor
      The content of the article does not match the title.

      Congratulations on what you could read, I could not.
      Quote: Professor
      So who benefited from the contract?

      the treaty is currently not beneficial for Russia because of the presence of missile defense in Europe.
    9. Setrac 7 August 2019 21: 15 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Professor
      So who benefited from the contract?

      The contract is beneficial to Russia. It is possible to target the INF Treaty against Europe, and intercontinental ballistic missiles can all target the USA.
    10. Fedor egoist 8 August 2019 14: 01 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Professor
      Russia cannot reach such a distance to Washington.

      It may not be possible to get to a short range, but our BRDS from Chukotka quite reach 2/3 of the continental United States yes
      And, unlike the American BRDS, we have a nuclear warhead for our missiles))
    11. Sanichsan 8 August 2019 17: 26 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Professor
      From Lithuania to Moscow 600 km. From Romania 1000 km.

      hmmm ... Lithuania you say ... what, in this situation, makes it difficult to deploy Russian missiles in Venezuela and Cuba?
  3. parusnik 7 August 2019 15: 25 New
    • 4
    • 13
    -9
    We left the INF Treaty and left .. Now there are no restrictions for both countries .. Such missiles, in principle, can be produced only by two countries, Russia and the USA, now we will be rivals in the international arms market for this type ...
    1. Nikolai 7 August 2019 16: 04 New
      • 10
      • 0
      +10
      Such missiles are not produced only by the lazy, see below.
  4. KVU-NSVD 7 August 2019 15: 31 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Soviet nuclear warheads can easily be withdrawn from storage, mothballed, and mounted on new missiles.
    Taught in the form of an approval. The fact that thirty or forty years ago was a nuclear warhead cannot be stored in the form of a full-fledged warhead for newly produced ammunition and is suitable (do not spit specialists in peaceful nuclear power) only in a reactor. Unfortunately, the medium range will soon occupy the planet, and the small one will appear even where its location was not even in the rotten brains of the treaty dugouts ..
  5. Ezekiel 25-17 7 August 2019 15: 42 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Yes, this gives Russia the right: to produce infantry and infantry fighting systems with special combat units not only in the Kaliningrad region, but also in other regions of Russia and aim them at Europe, thus freeing up additional capacities in the Strategic Missile Forces for a more powerful strike against the United States. Moreover, START-3 will also soon order a long life, since it is objectively not beneficial to either Russia or the United States.
    1. kjhg 7 August 2019 16: 50 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Ezekiel 25-17
      Moreover, START-3 will also soon order a long life, since it is objectively not beneficial to either Russia or the United States.

      Let me find out why it is not beneficial to Russia?
      1. Vadmir 7 August 2019 17: 12 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Let me find out why it is not beneficial to Russia?
        Now the number of missiles and warheads is such that it does not guarantee complete mutual destruction, which is why a lot of “wise men” have appeared in the USA who are talking about the possibility of winning the global nuclear war. American missile defense creates the illusion of security. If there are no restrictions, the ABM can simply be overloaded with false targets. Therefore, START-3 is more beneficial to the US than to Russia.
        But the INF Treaty, perhaps, Russia was more profitable than the United States. We cover only sparsely populated Alaska from Kamchatka, and they have the ability to deploy missiles in Europe.
        1. vasilii 7 August 2019 18: 26 New
          • 2
          • 5
          -3
          Quote: Vadmir
          a lot of "wise men" appeared in the USA who talk about the possibility of winning the global nuclear war

          There are no such wise men there. All that is said in the United States about the capabilities of missile defense in a nuclear war is that the missile defense system is not able to intercept a massive strike with existing ICBMs and is not intended for this. It is from the opposite side that you hear statements about radioactive ashes, or about going to heaven, and they will die.
      2. Fan-fan 7 August 2019 17: 21 New
        • 5
        • 7
        -2
        Do you think they will explain what is not profitable? They grind with tongues and they don’t understand that if the powerful USSR did not pull the arms race, then the impoverished Russia will not pull. There is nothing to pay pensions to the people, but where does the money for new missiles come from? But the rich West does not cost a thousand of these missiles riveted. So who benefited from the contract? I answer - we were at least a little, though not absolutely, but was profitable.
        1. Vadim237 8 August 2019 00: 08 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          The USSR had an army of 4,5 million, Russia 1 million - so it will pull, especially with a GDP of 106 trillion rubles a year. A medium-range cruise missile costs 36 million rubles, and a BRRShka will cost about 500 million. If the first 3000, and the second 400 to do it, the country will cost 308 billion rubles in 6-8 years - 42 billion rubles a year, such spending will not affect anything.
  6. Vadmir 7 August 2019 15: 50 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    The installation is completely identical to the basic control system of the OTR Iskander-M complex. The Russian armed forces deployed 12 full-blooded missile brigades of the Iskander-M and Iskander-K complexes.
    This is where I see the problem. Europe will raise a howl that all the Iskanders have turned into medium-range complexes. Russia promised not to place such complexes near Europe. Even if Russia fully fulfills its promise, NATO will argue the opposite.
    Thus, you will either have to remove the Iskanders away from Europe, or put up with US medium-range missiles in Europe.
    1. g1washntwn 8 August 2019 06: 37 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Vadmir
      Russia promised not to place such complexes near Europe.

      Nothing of the kind has ever been promised to anyone; you are clearly dreaming about it. The last thing I saw in the official media was that Russia promised to target all those who would host American or their own missiles reaching the Russian Federation. The mutual non-accommodation agreement near Europe has so far been proposed in words by the United States, but by their silence the United States has its own plans for the placement of "new pershing."
  7. Nikolai 7 August 2019 16: 00 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Missiles of medium and shorter range are in NATO (USA), China, S. Korea, (may appear in Japan), India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran, (may appear in Ukraine). The new agreement should take all this into account or it will not be.
    1. vasilii 7 August 2019 18: 18 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      There will be no global agreement, China has already said that it will not sign it.
      1. Setrac 7 August 2019 21: 20 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Quote: vasilii
        There will be no global agreement, China has already said that it will not sign it.

        As a couple of thousand short- and medium-range ballistic missiles are deployed at the Chinese borders, China will have to compromise.
  8. Nestorych 7 August 2019 16: 08 New
    • 9
    • 4
    +5
    That only propagandists do not invent.)) "More profitable" of the Russian Federation, but the USA left it!
  9. Ezekiel 25-17 7 August 2019 16: 09 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Vadmir
    The installation is completely identical to the basic control system of the OTR Iskander-M complex. The Russian armed forces deployed 12 full-blooded missile brigades of the Iskander-M and Iskander-K complexes.
    This is where I see the problem. Europe will raise a howl that all the Iskanders have turned into medium-range complexes. Russia promised not to place such complexes near Europe. Even if Russia fully fulfills its promise, NATO will argue the opposite.
    Thus, you will either have to remove the Iskanders away from Europe, or put up with US medium-range missiles in Europe.

    This will not happen: in addition, promising ballistic missile complexes will be located only as a retaliatory measure, but the truth will be found quickly.
    1. Vadmir 7 August 2019 16: 30 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      An occasion has already been found - the 9M729 missile.
      The problem is different:
      9M729, placed on universal wheeled SPU 9P78-1 on the chassis MZKT-79305, 2 or 4. The installation is completely identical to the basic SPU of the OTR Iskander-M complex

      So they will argue that each Iskander-M carries 9M729.
      And Western propaganda will say that Russia does not keep its word and that they will have to host American medium-range missiles as reciprocal measures.
      1. vasilii 7 August 2019 16: 37 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        What is the word? There is no longer any word that needs to be kept - the contract is broken. Russia can deliver 9M729 to at least all Iskanders, just like the United States can force Pershing to at least all of Europe.
        1. Vadmir 7 August 2019 16: 42 New
          • 3
          • 3
          0
          There is no agreement, but Putin promised not to deploy medium-range missiles near Europe, and Trump promised not to deploy missiles in Europe. It is clear that these are just words, not documents. But Russia traditionally takes such words seriously.
          1. vasilii 7 August 2019 16: 46 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Vadmir
            There is no agreement, but Putin promised not to deploy medium-range missiles near Europe

            And where, then, will Russian medium-range missiles be aimed at?
            1. Vadmir 7 August 2019 16: 51 New
              • 1
              • 2
              -1
              It is believed that there are none at all. In general, Russia is big, it can be set up so that it doesn’t reach Europe.
          2. Nikolai 7 August 2019 17: 51 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            It would be better not to produce and not to place, but to have a global agreement. And then I want to eat and sleep peacefully.
  10. Pavel57 7 August 2019 16: 13 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    It’s time to remember that not only the USA has nuclear weapons in Europe, but also England and France. But the most interesting thing is to place missiles in the East again. To start, restore the base in Gudyma.
  11. svp67 7 August 2019 16: 14 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    INF Treaty. It’s more profitable for Russia than for the USA
    More profitable? In any case, after so many years and in the absence of the USSR, for Russia this treaty has become of little use. Since the countries bordering with us that have not signed such an agreement, MiSD missiles are already in service and they are a direct threat.
  12. EXPrompt 7 August 2019 16: 40 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    Well, it’s wonderful to cover Berlin with medium-range missiles and not spend intercontinental on such tasks.
    From St. Petersburg to Berlin 1330 km
    From St. Petersburg to Londonsk 2100 km
    From St. Petersburg to Lisbon 3600 km

    From Crimea to Lisbon 3500km
    From Crimea to Rome 1750km

    I just why our European friends became more accessible on our missiles.
    You give heat to the European masses on cheaper SD missiles.
    1. Doctor 7 August 2019 17: 11 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      From St. Petersburg to Berlin 1330 km ....

      From Havana to Seattle 4500 km.
      Soon we will see the resumption of friendship with Cuba.
    2. Vadmir 7 August 2019 17: 20 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      From St. Petersburg to Berlin 1330 km
      If American missiles are deployed there will be parity. That's only they will not be launched by Germans, Portuguese or Italians. And those who keep their finger on the button will easily survive the loss of population in vassal countries.
      But we can only get a medium-range missile to Alaska.
      1. Sanichsan 8 August 2019 17: 32 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Vadmir
        That's only they will not be launched by Germans, Portuguese or Italians.

        and you probably missed the new military doctrine of the Russian Federation? there is something about the "centers of leadership of aggression" and retaliatory strikes against them. as if they hinted that if he flies from Berlin, then the khan not only to Berlin but also to the United States as a whole.
    3. Fan-fan 7 August 2019 17: 30 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      But to think before you say such a thing or not? What is so beautiful about it?
      Is it really not clear that if we threaten Rome and Berlin with medium-range missiles, then the Europeans themselves will begin to beg the United States to install the Pershing analogues at home for parity.
      1. EXPrompt 7 August 2019 18: 55 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: Fan-Fan
        But to think before you say such a thing or not? What is so beautiful about it?
        Is it really not clear that if we threaten Rome and Berlin with medium-range missiles, then the Europeans themselves will begin to beg the United States to install the Pershing analogues at home for parity.

        And to think ... we are doing this .... Who left the INF Treaty ... and why ..

        If the states put Pershing in Germany, the answer would be logical - Poseidons on constant combat alertness off their shores, and RSD in Venice or Cuba.


        And it’s wonderful that our continental missiles will all have a course for another continent .. And closer targets will be crushed by more cheap RSDs.
        1. Kalmar 16 August 2019 11: 42 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          This is all, of course, touching: a bunch of cheap RSD, Poseidons and other joys. That's just an immodest question: where can I get money for all this splendor? For the United States, this whole story is a great way to drag Russia into another devastating arms race. And there is little doubt that our leader will joyfully fit into this race: rattling new military toys is one of the foundations of our current domestic policy.
  13. Quote: EXPrompt
    Unread

    Yes, only, unfortunately, and in the opposite direction the same distances ... or further?
    1. Nikolai 7 August 2019 18: 25 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      And he doesn’t care. Bravery and stupidity.
      1. EXPrompt 7 August 2019 18: 56 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: Nikolai Aleksandrovich
        And he doesn’t care. Bravery and stupidity.


        You interpret everything incorrectly ..
        A clean economy - there are fewer expensive intercontinental ones .. And Berlin can be covered with cheap missiles.
    2. chenia 7 August 2019 19: 52 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Lieutenant Colonel USSR Air Force in stock
      and in the opposite direction the same distances ... or further?

      Not no further, but our "otvetka" is now generally miserable. And the star-striped guys with air and sea carriers (and their filling) still have no problems, complete superiority (and we are completely losing to them now). And everything can start from the same areas now, having the same distances.
  14. Fan-fan 7 August 2019 17: 37 New
    • 2
    • 4
    -2
    Well, the headings in the article - "do not regret the exit," "the exit is more profitable for us than the United States." Why such stupid headlines, maybe to justify the same stupid policy that allowed the collapse of the treaty?
    I understand that the partners are "difficult", but everything was done by our great strategist, because he had so many tricky plans and that’s the fly. What, now we have to get involved in an expensive arms race?
    1. Cat man null 7 August 2019 17: 53 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Quote: Fan-Fan
      Is it all that our great strategist did, because he had so many cunning plans, and now - flight. What, now we have to get involved in an expensive arms race?

      Well, how not to poke here laughing
    2. Setrac 7 August 2019 21: 28 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: Fan-Fan
      I understand that the partners are "difficult", but everything was done by our great strategist, because he had so many tricky plans and that’s the fly.

      The withdrawal from the contract will allow the mass placement of calibers on land. So not a "span" at the great strategist, but a brilliant move.
  15. rocket757 7 August 2019 18: 44 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    In this topic, it’s scary to talk about the benefits .... not only to the shoggy "neighbors", but also to ourselves ....
    Justification, we didn’t start it, so-so ... it doesn’t inspire.
    1. Vadim237 8 August 2019 00: 11 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      These missiles will soon be around the world - so a better balance of power is everywhere.
  16. Quote: EXPrompt
    Quote: Nikolai Aleksandrovich
    And he doesn’t care. Bravery and stupidity.


    You interpret everything incorrectly ..
    A clean economy - there are fewer expensive intercontinental ones .. And Berlin can be covered with cheap missiles.

    ***
    A clean economy when they do not make additional weapons to existing ones. And additional defensive armaments from them .... And here you have to ....
    “And Berlin * with deshovy ** missiles can be covered" equivalently "And Moscow * with deshovoy ** missiles can be covered"
    * City names are capitalized.
    ** cheap "spelled" ё (е) "
  17. I remember the reminders of commanders and political workers about these SMD missiles, which in a few minutes reach important political and economic centers of the USSR.
    Well, and certain hopes for all these treaties on the limitation of the INF Treaty and strategic offensive arms ...
    But then the borders were further.
    Termination of the INF Treaty and Strategic Offensive Arms (1, 23) is no good.
    But it so happens that severe need as a response.
  18. lopvlad 7 August 2019 19: 58 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The missile will receive at the end of the active section the same 4000 m / s, as in the case of launch with the MiG-31, necessary to achieve a range of 2000 km.


    He began for American health and ended up in a frank delirium about the characteristics of the Dagger rocket.
    1. Sergey to 8 August 2019 19: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Mr. Colonel, unfortunately, the laws of PHYSICS are as follows: If the BR wants to fly 2000 km, it needs to accelerate to 4 km per second, I regret nothing I can help and the second - what is "American health"?
  19. Old26 7 August 2019 21: 12 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Quote: Professor
    INF Treaty. It’s more profitable for Russia than for the USA

    And why is it more profitable? The content of the article does not match the title.

    From Lithuania to Moscow 600 km. From Romania 1000 km. Burzhuins can place their missiles there. Russia cannot reach such a distance to Washington. So who benefited from the contract?

    In fact, this agreement was more beneficial to Russia than the United States. You are right, Oleg, wrote that now nothing prevents to place such missiles not only in Poland, Romania, but also in Estonia. Flight time to Moscow / Leningrad will be scanty - about 3 minutes plus or minus ....
    Moreover, those who write that the agreement is not beneficial to Russia forget only that we have only one missile production plant left. The same Votkinsk plant produces both ICBMs, SLBMs, and Iskanders (meaning the 9M723 missile) and most likely the Dagger. Now the deployment of their missiles by the Americans will lead to the fact that we are forced to postpone (reduce) something in order to start the production of new infantry-fighting ballistic missiles. As a result, the rearmament of the Strategic Missile Forces of the same fleet will be hindered ...

    Quote: KCA
    The Americans will deploy the INF in these countries, but will not transfer them to possession, which means that if they are launched, the Pentagon will produce it, and of course, all the consequences arising from this, in America, they will be able to give an alarm during the flight of our ICBMs, but what's the point ? Even where our missiles are not directed and will not fly, panic will do everything for them, and maybe even with great destruction and casualties

    Kamrad! And they never transferred their BDSD to anyone. Even the nuclear Pershing-1A with a range of 700 km was considered to be in service with the FRG, but the control was over the Americans ...

    Quote: YOUR
    Under the agreement, only short- and medium-range ground-based missile systems were eliminated. Remained air and sea based. The United States has much more sea and air-based KR. The US motivated the exit not only by the fact that Russia has Iskander whose missiles are banned, but also by the presence of such missiles in China. The threat of his exit hoping that Russia will somehow affect China.

    In principle, it was to the Iskander, as to the complex, that they had no objections. But they have to the 9M729 missile. a missile half a meter longer than 9M728, which is part of the Iskander-M complex (with a flight range of 500 km). In principle, "nitpicking" was expected. I don’t know for sure, but this missile (729th) is 65 cm longer than the Iskander ballistic. and whether it fits into the arrester is difficult to say, the gaps may be small. Not without reason, at the briefing, another launcher, rather than a launcher of the Iskander 9P78-1 complex, was shown

    Quote: YOUR
    In addition to the United States, rocket engines are available in England and France. Let them be without nuclear charges, but they are ..

    No, the namesake. Neither France nor England has such missiles. And no difference with charges or without. And if in France they would have been - S-2 BRSD with a range of 3000 km and S-3 and S-3D BRDS with a range of 3700 km, then in England they NEVER WAS FROM THE WORD AT ALL. All French medium-range missiles were deactivated and removed from the database in 1998

    Quote: chenia
    Quote: Professor
    And why is it more profitable?


    The USA has multiple superiority of air and sea based INF. And the launch from the Baltic coast or airspace did not fall under the contract. And they have, but we have much less. I dare to assume that in the event of the liquidation of the contract, the proportion will slightly change in our direction. moreover, delivery vehicles are almost there.
    Well, the use of tactical IDs is unlimited.


    The proportion will change, but not as fast as we would like. Unfortunately, we cannot produce such rockets in the quantities that we want. Production does not allow.

    Quote: parusnik
    We left the INF Treaty and left .. Now there are no restrictions for both countries .. Such missiles, in principle, can be produced only by two countries, Russia and the USA, now we will be rivals in the international arms market for this type ...

    Such missiles - BRDS are produced by North Korea, China, Iran, Pakistan, India, Israel. In the process of creating such missiles, Turkey and South Korea. Do you all think that only the USA and Russia can

    Quote: Ezekiel 25-17
    Yes, this gives Russia the right: to produce infantry and infantry fighting systems with special combat units not only in the Kaliningrad region, but also in other regions of Russia and aim them at Europe, thus freeing up additional capacities in the Strategic Missile Forces for a more powerful strike against the United States. Moreover, START-3 will also soon order a long life, since it is objectively not beneficial to either Russia or the United States.

    Okay, you can still understand with KLNB, but how can you tell me how to free up capacities in the Strategic Missile Forces? All solid fuel ballistic missiles are now manufactured by Votkinsk. Start now we are producing there, too, and the BRSD will have to reduce the time for re-equipping the Strategic Missile Forces and the Navy. Logic is not visible. Syechas is replacing the “Poplar” on “Yars”. Begin to produce also the BRSD, which means that the rearmament of the Strategic Missile Forces and the Navy will be slowed down. And we will have 6 Boreevs in service, and only 4 missiles will be enough. What will the capacities in the Strategic Missile Forces become free of? Especially when some missiles will be decommissioned, and nothing will be delivered for replacement or will be in miserable quantities

    Objectively, the START-3 treaty was beneficial to Russia, because at the time of its conclusion, we had a landslide reduction in Topol missiles, as they had exhausted their resources. The Americans had more carriers than ours, and as a result of this treaty, they began to reduce their means of attack. If there weren’t a contract, we would have reduced it, but they would have remained at the level until the signing of the contract. To whom was he profitable ???

    Quote: Nikolai Aleksandrovich
    Missiles of medium and shorter range are in NATO (USA), China, S. Korea, (may appear in Japan), India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran, (may appear in Ukraine). The new agreement should take all this into account or it will not be.

    Please give us the names of medium-range missiles from the United States and NATO. With other countries - I agree
    1. Vadim237 8 August 2019 00: 16 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Medium-range missiles can begin to produce a group of tactical missile weapons
    2. Wildcat 8 August 2019 14: 35 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Gee!
      Where does this sane comment come from among .....?!
    3. Sergey to 8 August 2019 23: 35 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Vladimir, not a single rocket will reach anywhere in three minutes. TR Lens at a range of 120 km flies 200 sec. Pershing 2 at a maximum range of 1800 km flies 12 minutes, RSD-10 (SS-20) at a range of 5000 km - 19 minutes.
  20. Nitarius 8 August 2019 05: 02 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    States shot themselves in the leg .. oh, and fools!
  21. The comment was deleted.
  22. kos2cool4u 8 August 2019 06: 24 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Hmm ... in vain, "Oku" destroyed, "thank you" Humpback ... a hole from the west sex !!)))
    1. Vadim237 9 August 2019 00: 11 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Oka is already outdated - the time has come for new missiles.
  23. Plague doctor 8 August 2019 06: 29 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    What a catch fool sanctions are beneficial to such patriots. The United States can overlay Russia with missiles located in eastern Europe, and Russia does not have missiles on the American continent. And if you place hypersound in Europe, then you can immediately cite.
    1. Vadim237 9 August 2019 00: 16 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Russia already has hypersound, in the form of a Dagger on MiG 31, soon this complex will be put into series, and against medium-range OTRK Russia has air defense systems - ABM 300B4 missiles With 400, a C 500 with a radar will join them in a year, including overseas on the European expanse in Russia, everything is also in order.
  24. wave 8 August 2019 07: 03 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Funny.
    Although Putin said that they would not get involved in the arms race with America. So here it is :-)
    Exactly on what the USSR turned its neck.
  25. Operator 8 August 2019 09: 02 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    The agreement on the elimination of intermediate and shorter-range missiles was clearly beneficial exclusively to the United States, because only land-based missiles were eliminated under the treaty. The American sea-based RSD in the amount of several thousand units remained in service with the main enemy of the USSR.

    To date, the United States has increased its ability to use sea-based RSDs by building dozens of their carriers in the face of the Arly Burke destroyers, each of which carries about 80 missiles.

    In connection with the US statement on the deployment of its new RSDs in Asia, Russia also needs to deploy its new RSDs in the Asian region, namely in Chukotka at the Soviet Anadyr missile base. PC-26 with the RCGIN with a flight time from 5 to 15 minutes will ensure the defeat of targets throughout Canada, as well as on the 1 / 2 territory of the United States (northern and western states up to the US-Mexican border).

    The eastern states of the USA, including the capital Washington, can be attacked by medium-range Zircon cruise missiles with a flight time of 6 minutes deployed on strike submarines.
  26. tnk1969 8 August 2019 10: 18 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    When this Agreement was concluded, there was an ATS. And our troops were in East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland. So when launching American missiles, these missiles first flew over the areas that controlled the USSR air defense. And they could work on anticipation and liquidate some of the missiles over these areas. Moreover, there were also control points for air and outer space. Now the same structure, but already American, is located in this territory. And even closer, in the Baltic states, and possibly in Ukraine. Therefore, the situation for Russia is very unprofitable. Technically. I think that a change in the Military Doctrine, the adoption of a preemptive strike, the installation and deployment of Poseidons off the western and eastern coasts of the United States can be a worthy alternative. And in the future, the development of self-propelled deep-sea container systems with the same Poseidons, their modifications or other nuclear weapons in the kit and their installation there, as well as off the coast of the closest US allies (for example, on the east coast of Japan). hawks will constantly look back at Russia, "filter their bazaar" and think before doing anything.
  27. Wildcat 8 August 2019 14: 30 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Very bad article. And the conclusions are also frankly far-fetched. Why this agreement arose, what it gave and why its end is very bad - it is well known.
    Why do such articles appear at all, someone explain?
    1. Sergey to 8 August 2019 21: 07 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Starley (sorry, I don’t know your name) is not so simple as it seems at first glance, the roots (or how you put it in your ears) of this problem go back to the distant 1945 year. Then, hundreds of B-29 deployed in Europe acquired the first nuclear bombs - B-3 (Mk-3). By 1956, the U.S. Air Force had 28 B-47 bomber aviation wings and five RB-47 reconnaissance aircraft. Bombers were part of the first line of US strategic nuclear deterrence, deployed at advanced air bases in the UK, Spain, Germany and Italy. 2000 B-47 bombers on high alert, fueled under a traffic jam and loaded with nuclear weapons, with crews on standby, were ready to attack the USSR in a short time. In a 2 bomb bay, a bomber is capable of carrying Mk15 nuclear bombs with a power of 3,8 megatons each, or one B41 with a power of 25 megatons, or one B53 with a power of 9 megatons. The bomber had a subsonic flight speed of up to 977 km / h and a range of up to 3240 km, therefore, unlike the intercontinental B-36 and B-52, it could only operate from leading airfields in Europe. All this armada of bombers has been consolidated into three air armies - 3, 16 and 17. In addition to bombers in Europe, the United States deployed a large number of ground-based medium-range cruise missiles. The MGM-13A Mace missiles have been deployed in the troops since 1959, in 1964, in addition to them, the MGM-13B modification with an increased range of up to 2400 km was introduced. Missiles were deployed in the 38 tactical missile wing in Germany. In total, about 200 Mace missiles were deployed in Europe. To these strategic forces it is necessary to add the strike capabilities of the carrier-based aircraft of the 2 (North Atlantic) and the 6 (Fleet) (Mediterranean Sea) of the US Navy. And these are 240 A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7 attack aircraft and F-4 fighter bombers capable of delivering the B-480, B-43 nuclear bombs in one departure to the 57.
      The Soviet Union needed to neutralize the nuclear threat hanging over the socialist countries and here ballistic missiles, which are called “inexpensive and cheerful”, were the best suited. Two design bureaus were engaged in ballistic missiles in the 1950 years: OKB-1 Sergey Pavlovich Korolev and OKB-586 Mikhail Kuzmich Yangelya. The first to enter service was the Korolev rocket.
      R-5M (SS-3 Shyster) - the world's first medium-range ballistic missile 8K51, equipped with a nuclear warhead appeared in the year 1956. First shown at the 7 parade on November 1957 in Moscow, it was a single-stage ballistic missile using unguarded liquid fuel - 92% ethanol, liquid oxygen oxidizer, RD-103 LPRE engine, which is essentially a more boosted version of the R-1 rocket engine ( FAA-2). Radio-controlled, it had a range of 1200 km, twice that of the P-2 (SS-2 Sibling). The deployment began in 1956 and was deployed on PU -24 rockets in two missile divisions of the 72th RVGK engineering brigade in the German Democratic Republic near Fürstenberg, 80 kilometers from Berlin, the same number was deployed in the next. The missile stood in service until the 1968 year. With the deployment in 1958 of the year, the P-12 (SS-4 Sandal), the first Soviet long-life liquid fuel rocket, the USSR was able to deliver nuclear strikes at operational depth regardless of strategic long-range forces. The P-12 was soon supplemented by the P-14 intermediate-range ballistic missile, which went into operation in the 1960 year. The deployment of infantry-fighting ballistic missiles in the Soviet Union went at an accelerated pace by 1965 with 28 SS-3, 608 SS-4, 97 SS-5 launchers throughout the country, with all but 100 missiles targeting targets in Western Europe.
      PGM-17 Thor (SM-75) is a single-stage rocket equipped with one Rocketdyne S-3D liquid fuel engine (LRE) (designation adopted by the US Air Force LR79-NA) operating on kerosene (fuel) and liquid oxygen (oxidizing agent). Thor could deliver a W-49 / Goodyear RV thermonuclear warhead with an 1,44 MT power range of 1500 miles (2400 km). W49 had a diameter of about 0,5 m and a length of 1,35 ... 1,45 m, depending on the modification, the mass of the warhead ranged from 745 to 762 kg. The inertial control unit achieved accuracy somewhere between 1000 feet (300 m) and 2 miles (3200 m) KVO (various sources indicate both optimistic estimates and close to real ones). The missile is “dressed” in a long skirt made of high-strength aluminum alloy, which begins to narrow as it enters the atmosphere, which makes braking smoother. At launch sites, missiles were stored horizontally in special hangar shelters that were not able to protect them even from attacks by bomber aircraft armed with conventional free-falling bombs, protection was provided only from adverse weather conditions. After receiving an order to launch, the rocket is transferred to a vertical position by a special erector device for refueling and launch. The total reaction time is about 15 minutes. Non-equipped training missiles were designated USM-75. Deploying the Navy ballistic missile fleet in Europe turned out to be more troublesome than expected, since not a single member of NATO, except Great Britain, accepted the proposal to deploy Thor missiles on their territory. Italy and Turkey agreed to accept Jupiter rockets. Thor have been deployed in the UK since August 1958, 20 RAF Bomber Command squadrons, each with 3 missiles controlled by the "two keys" of the United States (warheads) and Great Britain (missiles). The size of the RAF missile squadrons is very different from the regular structure of NATO and corresponds to the battery. The first active unit was the 77th RAF Squadron based on Feltwell in the 1958 year, and the remaining units became combat ready in the 1959 year. All of them were deactivated by September 1963.
      The PGM-19 Jupiter (called the SM-1962 until 78) is a medium-range, single-stage liquid-propellant ballistic missile developed by order of the US Army by a team of rocket engineers from the Redstone missile arsenal under the leadership of Werner von Braun.
      The first launch of the "Jupiter" ASBM simulated by the trained air force personnel from the Atlantic Rocket Test Range was carried out in October 1960. By this time, for several months (since July 1960), missiles as part of two squadrons - 865 and 866 - were put on combat duty in Italy, on the basis of the Italian Air Force Joya dell Collie. Each squadron included 15 combat missiles, divided into five launch batteries. The full combat readiness of all 30 "Italian" infantry-fighting infantry regiments was achieved in June 1961. The base in Italy received the code designation NATO I. The full combat readiness of the 15 “Turkish” missiles was achieved in April of the 1962 of the year, the first missiles went on duty in November of the 1961 of the year. The missiles were deployed on the basis of the Turkish Air Force Crucible, the base was code-named NATO II. As in the case of Italy, at first rockets were serviced only by American personnel, Turkish personnel replaced most of the American by May 1962. Just like in Italy, Turkish personnel carried out missile maintenance, but nuclear charges were controlled and equipped by US officers. The first combat training launch of the infantry fighting infantry by Italian personnel was carried out in April 1961 of the year. The first combat training launch of the BRDS by Turkish personnel was carried out in April 1962 of the year. SM-78 did not remain in service for long. In January 1963, the United States announced the withdrawal of all Jupiters from Italy and Turkey, and by July of the same year the last rocket was removed.
      Oxygen-kerosene P-5M, PGM-19 Jupiter, PGM-17 Thor - first generation rockets, P-12, P-14-RBSD more advanced second generation. In 1962, the world was on the brink of nuclear war. A crisis erupted as a result of the negative development of the military-political situation in the Caribbean after the Cuban revolution, which dealt a tangible blow to the economic interests of North American companies. There was a real threat of American intervention in Cuba. Under these conditions, the USSR decided to provide assistance, including military assistance, to the Cuban government. Given that American Jupiter missiles from Turkey can reach the vital centers of the Soviet Union in just 15 minutes, and the Soviet ICBM R-16 needed from 30 to 32 minutes, to retaliate against American territory, Khrushchev ordered the deployment of Soviet BRSD with Soviet military personnel. In accordance with the plan of Operation Anadyr, it was planned to deploy three regiments of R-12 missiles on the Cuban territory (24 launchers are the 3 regiment of the 13th Strategic Missile Division.) And two regiments of R-14 missiles (16 PU), which it was ordered to be ready at the signal from Moscow, to strike at the most important facilities in the United States, which caused without exaggeration a panic in the Pentagon and the White House. By the end of October, half of the 36 R-12 missiles delivered to the island was ready for refueling, oxidizing agent and docking with nuclear warheads. Due to the sea blockade of the Cuban coast, the R-14 missiles could not be delivered to the island. It was at this time that the leaders of the USSR and the USA came to the conclusion that the conflict must be resolved peacefully. During the negotiations, the parties agreed to remove the Soviet infantry-fighting infantry from Cuba, and the American from Turkey, Italy and the UK. An exchange of 40 Soviet missiles for 105 American took place. Khrushchev won without firing a shot.
      Until 1976, everything was temporarily quiet. ...... Then it began.
  28. Old26 8 August 2019 14: 48 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: Vadim237
    Medium-range missiles can begin to produce a group of tactical missile weapons

    Throughout the history of its existence, the TRV group has never produced medium-range missiles. They simply have no experience for this. But operational-tactical missiles, he always turned out well. But even now, the TRV concern is creating the same Iskanders, and the Votkinsk Machine-Building Plant produces them ...
    The only one who can begin to design and manufacture BRDS is MIT and the Votkinsk plant ...
    1. Sergey to 8 August 2019 18: 00 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Vladimir Greetings. Initially, the INF Treaty was not profitable for us; Roni pushed the “Zero Option” of the 1981 year in the 1987 year. The main target is the Russian RSD-10 (SS-20), they represented a threat to the 500 000 American soldiers, 20 SSBNs in the bays of Rota and Holi Loch and practically 100% of tactical bombers in the USA, I am silent about the nuclear forces of France and England. The American Pershing and Tomahawks did not pose a military threat to us (I can explain, but the topic is a separate conversation). In the end, they got their way. But events developed further very strangely, they turned in our direction. In the autumn of 1991, George W. Bush (Sr.) and Mikhail Gorbachev concluded a "gentleman's agreement" on dismantling tactical nuclear weapons as an addition (annex) to the INF Treaty already implemented by that time. This supplement is tightly tied to the INF Treaty.
      On September 27 of 1991, George W. Bush announced that the United States was exporting its ground-based tactical weapons, including missiles with a range of up to 300 miles (500 km) from the territory of third countries, as well as tactical nuclear weapons deployed on ships of the US Navy, and dismantle it. A total of 2150 "non-strategic" nuclear chargers were removed from third countries - 850 W-70 warheads of the Lance tactical missiles and 1300 artillery shells of the caliber 155 mm M451 / W-48, M-785 / W-82 and 203 mm 422 / W-33, M-753 / W-79. All tactical nuclear warheads W-80 and their missile carriers - nuclear tomahawks, total 367 (Tomahawks TLAM-N according to the American classification relate to tactical weapons), anti-submarine missiles SUBROC and ASROC - only about 500 warheads W-55 (UUM -44A) and W-44 (RUR-5A), the nuclear cellars of ten aircraft carriers of the Nimitz type, as well as about 900 B43 and B57 bombs, were also devastated. According to American plans, 4000 Tomahawks of which -755 nuclear were to be deployed on ships. True, ours, too, did not stand still by the end of September 1991 of the year we had 240 KR 3M10 on the submarines. Now, when their hands are untied, they will deploy nuclear Tomahawks on nuclear submarines and surface ships, they don’t need ground-based KR and infantry fighting systems.
    2. Vadim237 9 August 2019 00: 20 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Well, now he has everything for this - a new tactical air-launched hypersonic missile with a range of 1000 kilometers, their new brainchild, in 2021 they promise to deliver the product.
  29. Quote: DimDimych
    Quote: chenia
    The states came up with these games more against China, I think so. They want to draw China into the new treaty, such a multi-way.

    China will not be part of the INF Treaty 2.0., I suppose, the Chinese Foreign Ministry has already hinted ... But the Chinese, they can deliver their missiles to Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba ... We also hinted to the United States about the option of deploying missiles to close to US territories, right? That's what the Americans will get! There will be a Caribbean crisis 2.0 !!! sad

    ***
    Neither Venezuela, nor Nicaragua, nor Cuba have yet familiarized themselves with your plans ... I do not think that they will be delighted ... because they did not voice such scenarios .... Yes, and the PRC leadership, our RF leadership, too. ..
  30. Old26 9 August 2019 16: 28 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: sergey k
    Vladimir, not a single rocket will reach anywhere in three minutes. TR Lens at a range of 120 km flies 200 sec. Pershing 2 at a maximum range of 1800 km flies 12 minutes, RSD-10 (SS-20) at a range of 5000 km - 19 minutes.

    Good day, Sergey! Alas, but I have to upset you, now this is not so. You are right to write about how many minutes a product flies. We remove “Lance” from the list, it’s still a tactical weapon, but as for “Pershing-2” and “Pioneer” - here you can talk.
    You voiced the time of firing at maximum range. No questions. The speed of Pershing is 2,5, and that of Pioneer is 4,4 km / s. But if we take into account that now NATO countries directly border with us (Latvia, Estonia), what prevents, if necessary, launching from the territory of these countries?
    Take for example a few points.

    To Leningrad
    1. Estonia. Kotla-Järve (not bad, by the way the town was, the memories of business trips there are the best and always cheer you up). The distance to the border with Russia is 50 km. Saint Petersburg is 188 km away. The flight time of the rocket with the characteristic "Pershing" (2,5 km / s) - 75 seconds, "Pioneer" - 43 seconds

    2. Estonia. Tallinn. The distance to St. Petersburg is 317 km. The flight time of a rocket with the Pershing characteristic (2,5 km / s) - 2,1 minutes, Pioneer - 1,2 minutes

    3. Estonia. Tartu The distance to St. Petersburg is 266 km. The flight time of a rocket with the Pershing characteristic (2,5 km / s) is 1,7 minutes, and the Pioneer 60,45 seconds.

    4. Latvia. Riga (took, frankly from the lantern, it could have been closer). The distance to St. Petersburg is 485 km. The flight time of a rocket with the Pershing characteristic (2,5 km / s) - 3,2 minutes, Pioneer - 1,8 minutes

    Now to Moscow (we restrict ourselves to two points)
    1. Estonia. I will die. The distance to Moscow is 663 km. The flight time of a rocket with the Pershing characteristic (2,5 km / s) - 4,4 minutes, Pioneer - 2,4 minutes

    2. Latvia. The distance to Moscow is about 620 km. The flight time of a rocket with the Pershing characteristic (2,5 km / s) - 4,1 minutes, Pioneer - 2,3 minutes

    As you can see, Sergey, that even using the parameters of the missiles created in the 70s, we still get minutes. Pershing-2 was still based on the design of the 50s, periodically modernized and reached the level of Pershing-2. Modern medium-range missiles in their speed parameters will be closer to Pioneer than to Pershing-2, so even having speeds within 4,5 km / h, Moscow will be less than 3 minutes. To Peter and even less


    Quote: sergey k
    Vladimir Greetings. Initially, the INF Treaty was not profitable for us; Roni pushed the “Zero Option” of the 1981 year in the 1987 year. The main target is the Russian RSD-10 (SS-20), they represented a threat to the 500 000 American soldiers, 20 SSBNs in the bays of Rota and Holi Loch and practically 100% of tactical bombers in the USA, I am silent about the nuclear forces of France and England. The American Pershing and Tomahawks did not pose a military threat to us (I can explain, but the topic is a separate conversation). In the end, they got their way. But events developed further very strangely, they turned in our direction. In the autumn of 1991, George W. Bush (Sr.) and Mikhail Gorbachev concluded a "gentleman's agreement" on dismantling tactical nuclear weapons as an addition (annex) to the INF Treaty already implemented by that time. This supplement is tightly tied to the INF Treaty.
    On September 27 of 1991, George W. Bush announced that the United States was exporting its ground-based tactical weapons, including missiles with a range of up to 300 miles (500 km) from the territory of third countries, as well as tactical nuclear weapons deployed on ships of the US Navy, and dismantle it. A total of 2150 "non-strategic" nuclear chargers were removed from third countries - 850 W-70 warheads of the Lance tactical missiles and 1300 artillery shells of the caliber 155 mm M451 / W-48, M-785 / W-82 and 203 mm 422 / W-33, M-753 / W-79. All tactical nuclear warheads W-80 and their missile carriers - nuclear tomahawks, total 367 (Tomahawks TLAM-N according to the American classification relate to tactical weapons), anti-submarine missiles SUBROC and ASROC - only about 500 warheads W-55 (UUM -44A) and W-44 (RUR-5A), the nuclear cellars of ten aircraft carriers of the Nimitz type, as well as about 900 B43 and B57 bombs, were also devastated. According to American plans, 4000 Tomahawks of which -755 nuclear were to be deployed on ships. True, ours, too, did not stand still by the end of September 1991 of the year we had 240 KR 3M10 on the submarines. Now, when their hands are untied, they will deploy nuclear Tomahawks on nuclear submarines and surface ships, they don’t need ground-based KR and infantry fighting systems.

    Sergei! it is very difficult to talk about the profitability or non-profitability of the contract. Over the years, so many layers of sometimes outright lies, sometimes fakes, have been done on him for the sake of political expediency, that this problem requires a separate, serious independent investigation. Were our "Pioneers" the main purpose of this treaty? Yes they were. Moreover, we ourselves have set them a priority goal. Imagine old medium-range missiles that everyone has put up with for nearly 2 decades as inevitable evil. But now the Soviet Union decides to modernize them. Changes from a proportion of 3: 2, that is, it removes from service 3 stationary missiles and put into service 2 mobile ones. The total number seems to be decreasing, but the number of warheads doubles. Of course, the reaction was not long in coming. The Americans and NATO decided to deploy their missiles in Europe. But here, not everything turned out to be unambiguous. The range of Pershing-2 missiles from their places of deployment did not allow to strike at Moscow, the range was corny. This was confirmed by the research work carried out by MIT when they, based on open data, theoretically reproduced the "virtual" Pershing-2 rocket and received data corresponding to the US. But this was not politically beneficial for the Politburo, and we have always stated that it has a range of 2500 km. at the same time, the Politburo frightened itself. In addition, control tools unfortunately did not allow tracking the flight path of the Pershing along its entire length. By the time of the conclusion of the contract, we certainly received such a means of observation, EMNIP NIR had the code "Pereskop"
    Even the zero option was to some extent beneficial to the USSR, since a 100% guarantee to intercept the Pershing then simply did not exist. And all that you wrote above, the removal of nuclear weapons from Europe, the removal of nuclear weapons from ships - all this played into our hands. Now the termination of this agreement may have negative consequences. Yes, we will keep Europe at gunpoint, but Europe will also keep us.
    You are right about the fleet. Now the Russian fleet in power is significantly inferior to the Soviet fleet (not to mention the American one). By deploying nuclear weapons on ships, Americans will gain an advantage, not to mention the deployment of missiles on land

    Sergei. You once wrote me about my address. Now I’m going to reinstall everything, and the box has been hacked, so if you have interesting questions for mutual discussion - write in a personal
    1. Sergey to 9 August 2019 17: 05 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Vladimir Greetings. Thanks, I realized through a personal.
    2. Sergey to 9 August 2019 17: 41 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Vladimir, you’ll excuse me, I guess who you are, not many leading experts on nuclear missile weapons on this planet can be counted on the fingers of one hand, so it’s not difficult. Thomas Cochrane, William Arkin, Hans Christensen, you and a couple of ours and EVERYTHING.
    3. Sergey to 9 August 2019 17: 47 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      For a long time there were no your articles in two very popular military publications, why?
  31. Old26 9 August 2019 17: 56 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: sergey k
    Vladimir, you’ll excuse me, I guess who you are, not many leading experts on nuclear missile weapons on this planet can be counted on the fingers of one hand, so it’s not difficult. Thomas Cochrane, William Arkin, Hans Christensen, you and a couple of ours and EVERYTHING.

    Thank you for such a flattering assessment, but to me before them (to their resources) as to Beijing in a kneeling state. the rest is in PM
  32. Klim chugunkin 9 August 2019 18: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The Americans pushed us out of the INF Treaty to strengthen our military presence in Venezuela (including the deployment of missiles). Caribbean Crisis 2.0 if you want. INF Treaty, Guaido, "5000 soldiers in Colombia" are all links in one chain. They were looking for a reason for a military invasion of the camp with the largest oil reserves on the planet. Ours did not fall and Glory be to God!
  33. Old26 9 August 2019 18: 56 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Klim Chugunkin
    The Americans pushed us out of the INF Treaty to strengthen our military presence in Venezuela (including the deployment of missiles). Caribbean Crisis 2.0 if you want. INF Treaty, Guaido, "5000 soldiers in Colombia" are all links in one chain. They were looking for a reason for a military invasion of the camp with the largest oil reserves on the planet. Ours did not fall and Glory be to God!

    I think that ours never even thought of deploying missiles in Venezuela. First, in our General Staff, not suckers sit at all to import nuclear missiles into a country in a state of almost civil war. Secondly, they are well aware (in the General Staff) how many dozens, if not hundreds of billions, will result in this placement and how it can end.
    1. lelik613 10 August 2019 06: 26 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      It should be borne in mind that the exit from the INF Treaty is not accidental - it is the stage of the American long-term game to eliminate our atomic potential. Since at least 1972, they have "bred" our small-town Talleyrands to present "steps of goodwill," bit by bit nibbling our capabilities. A certain commotion is associated with the way Trump does business. They need a way out even in Asia rather than in Europe. America will create in one step a threat to China, Kim and us from the territory of South Korea.
  34. certero 10 August 2019 06: 55 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: KVU-NSVD
    The fact that thirty or forty years ago was a nuclear warhead cannot be stored in the form of a full-fledged warhead for newly produced ammunition and is suitable (do not spit specialists in peaceful nuclear power) only in a reactor

    Too non-operational statement.