Military Review

The United States proposes to abandon the division of missiles into ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles and create a new classification

77

The American Aerospace Corporation has published a report that talks about the accelerating pace of development of missile weapons. The report, in particular, indicates that modern missiles have such characteristics that it is becoming increasingly difficult to bring them under the existing classification.


Representatives of the corporation came up with an initiative to abandon the division into types of missile weapons used today.

From the report:

The boundaries between the types of missiles are increasingly blurred today. Clearer classification options are needed. It is proposed to abandon the use of such missile classification as cruise, ballistic and hypersonic. It is necessary to move to a more precise taxonomy to describe the characteristics of both American missiles and foreign ones.

As a specific example, the US cites the Chinese anti-ship missile DF-100. In the PLA, she is presented as winged. However, as they say in the United States, it is capable of flying at such distances and at such speeds that correlate with the performance of ballistic missiles. Moreover, the Chinese DF-100 uses a large rocket booster, which is typical for modern ballistic missiles.

If you just call it winged, then it is impossible to determine its real capabilities.

The presented report says that the new classification (taxonomy) of missiles is extremely important today, since the content of treaties between countries directly depends on it.

The authors of the report analyzed 77 missiles and missile systems, including weapons from China, Iran, North Korea and Russia. It is stated that only one in three missiles fits its current description.

From the American report:

Many missiles described as ballistic are not, as they have a trajectory that cannot be calculated at certain stages of flight. They deviate significantly from the classical ballistic trajectory, which additionally indicates the need to reclassify missile weapons.

The new taxonomy from the American corporation proposes to divide the missiles into five categories by range, five categories by payload, which is believed to give significantly more information about weapons.
77 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Victor_B
    Victor_B 28 August 2020 07: 18 New
    14
    The United States proposes to abandon the division of missiles into ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles and create a new classification

    Profitable / convenient to the states!
    And we and China just scattered ...
    1. Sergey_G_M
      Sergey_G_M 28 August 2020 07: 22 New
      20
      We need to cram heavy UAVs into this classification - after all, in fact, it is a half-plane-half-cruise missile.
      1. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 28 August 2020 07: 34 New
        +2
        Quote: Sergey_G_M
        We need to cram heavy UAVs into this classification - after all, in fact, it is a half-plane-half-cruise missile.


        This question is not easy. It needs to be carefully analyzed and thought out ..
        1. Yves762
          Yves762 28 August 2020 07: 46 New
          +2
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          This question is not easy. It needs to be carefully analyzed and thought out ..

          laughing laughing laughing

          - in a figurative / allegorical sense ...
          1. SRC P-15
            SRC P-15 28 August 2020 08: 09 New
            +6
            The United States proposes to abandon the division of missiles into ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles and create a new classification

            Aha, and call them: wrong Russian, wrong Chinese and right American! fool
        2. Hagen
          Hagen 28 August 2020 09: 49 New
          +2
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          It needs to be carefully analyzed and thought out ..

          And then discuss and agree to reach a common understanding by all countries that have missile technologies. A clear classification of the objects of the contract is the key to the success of the contract itself.
          1. Cyril G ...
            Cyril G ... 28 August 2020 10: 32 New
            +1
            You need to understand what we want to start with. If you lose in a splash, then, for example, you can dance on a rake and agree not to unlimited placement of CDs on sea carriers ... If it is really itching to agree, then in my opinion it is necessary to divide the missiles exclusively by range and by purpose - otherwise there is simply no point even sitting on the table. ...
            As for the strategic nuclear forces, if we are to limit strategic weapons, then again only in bulk by the number of warheads. No priority for NSNF. No limitation on the number of media. Shtob did not come out as a profanation as with OSV-2, they twisted 3 warheads from a trident - bang we fulfilled the contract !!!!!!
            Similarly, in terms of tactical nuclear weapons, establish a threshold and be done. In peacetime, store in special bases, with access to inspections there ...
            1. Hagen
              Hagen 28 August 2020 13: 53 New
              0
              Quote: Cyril G ...
              You need to understand what we want to start with. If you lose in a splash, then, for example, you can dance on a rake and agree not to unlimited placement of CD on sea carriers ... If you really want to agree ...

              In the heat of our couch patriotism, we sometimes consider ourselves the most honest and reasonable, at least possessing these qualities more than the officials responsible for these events. This is not always correct, because they are also the same people, worried about the country and the quality of the work performed. I think we need to negotiate. A detailed classification of rocketry is necessary. Actually, the shortcomings of the existing classification were the reason for the collapse of the INF Treaty. We are most likely faced with a different approach in assessing the range of the 9M729 missiles. I would venture to suggest that we consider their range as the distance from the launch point to the target, and the United States calculated this range as the length of the missile's flight path. Considering that in flight the missile performs an anti-missile maneuver in the form of a quasi-chaotic change in the trajectory of movement, then this trajectory will in any case be greater than the range to the target. If this is not taken into account in the agreement and the protocols to the agreement, then everyone is right, but the agreement flies into the bin. The Americans are concerned about this classification, I think, because they will still have to negotiate the placement of missile technology. The hour is not far off when Iran will reach with its own (maybe not only its) intelligence the intercontinental ranges for its missiles. Given the irreconcilable enmity between the United States and Iran, the outcome of their irreconcilability can be in two versions - a treaty or a war. Over time, the chances of the United States of avoiding unacceptable damage from Iran will become less obvious, and real problems may arise in the states. I do not think that this is the only motive for the United States to start negotiating, but clearly not without it. IMHO.
              1. Mwg
                Mwg 29 August 2020 07: 54 New
                -1
                It seems to me that the question needs to be posed differently: for whom is such a classification necessary in the first place? Obviously, first of all for the US state. All suggestions for new ways to classify something is a suggestion to create new rules of the game. All US proposals on the rules of the game have always been exclusively in the interests of this country. And, given its influence on the politics of other states through its currency, the United States always pushes its proposals invariably. In terms of concepts in rocketry, they are lagging behind and are trying to adjust other people's technological processes to their own standard. After all, new prohibitions and restrictions will lead to the need to adjust existing products and control and placement systems to the new standard. And these are insane expenses. At the same time, the United States does not even pretend that it is going to remove its missiles from the borders of the Russian Federation. And they will not be removed, and they will not incur expenses. And we will pour in our billions to implement ideas from the United States. This country has never fought fair, they always fight with money and intrigue. Therefore, the proposal is crafty and its place is in the trash can.
          2. orionvitt
            orionvitt 28 August 2020 11: 09 New
            +4
            Quote: Hagen
            A clear classification of the objects of the contract is the key to the success of the contract itself.

            In order to negotiate something with someone, you need to be confident in the negotiability of the parties. And when they come to an agreement, some "especially smart" ones, then unilaterally, under absolutely far-fetched pretexts, they come out of these agreements, there will be no case. And no classifications, no missiles, will help here.
        3. ccsr
          ccsr 28 August 2020 11: 22 New
          +2
          Quote: Cyril G ...
          This question is not easy. It needs to be carefully analyzed and thought out ..

          And why, if at any moment they can unilaterally refuse to fulfill any agreement? I think we just need to take this into account, and be prepared for the fact that this is a purely propaganda trick in order to delay the conclusion of new START treaties, because it will take several years of work of commissions from different countries to create a new classification and agree on it, and not a fact that they will come to a consensus.
    2. Deniska999
      Deniska999 28 August 2020 07: 25 New
      -15
      Can you refute their arguments? Or it itches because the Americans suggested it?
      1. Victor_B
        Victor_B 28 August 2020 07: 26 New
        +6
        Quote: Deniska999
        Can you refute their arguments?

        And what does the current classification do not suit you?
        1. Deniska999
          Deniska999 28 August 2020 07: 29 New
          +1
          Let's just say I don't care what it will be. But here in the comments everyone will discuss not the essence of the proposal, but the personality of the proposer.
          1. Victor_B
            Victor_B 28 August 2020 07: 31 New
            23
            Quote: Deniska999
            But here in the comments everyone will discuss not the essence of the proposal, but the personality of the proposer.

            They will discuss here - what the hell did the Americans want to change the classification and what benefits they want to receive for themselves.
            And the personalities there ... yes - filthy!
            1. Ryusey
              Ryusey 28 August 2020 09: 09 New
              0
              You have a strange question, most likely some of the missiles will be reduced, of course.
          2. Gardamir
            Gardamir 28 August 2020 08: 00 New
            -16
            but the personality of the proposers.
            Have you decided to shove against the crowd? Now patriotism is not when you love your Motherland - Russia, but when you hate everything around you.
            These haters of everything and everyone, condemners of America, do not even know that rallies in Khabarovsk and protests in Bashkiria continue. Finally the elections in Russia on September 13th.
            1. Ka-52
              Ka-52 28 August 2020 08: 24 New
              10
              These haters of everything and everyone, condemners of America

              worried that you have offended your favorite light of democracy - the United States? lol
              rallies in Khabarovsk, protests in Bashkiria. Finally the elections in Russia on September 13th.

              this is very important to write in the comments to the article on the classification methods for offensive missile weapons. It's a pity that the admins are loyal to flooders - you wouldn't get out of the ban
            2. Ryusey
              Ryusey 28 August 2020 09: 10 New
              0
              Why should I pay attention to the screeching of a corrupt libre. opposition and its fooled hamsters.
          3. Sidor Amenpodestovich
            Sidor Amenpodestovich 28 August 2020 08: 01 New
            -1
            Quote: Deniska999
            But here in the comments everyone will discuss not the essence of the proposal, but the personality of the proposer.

          4. alexmach
            alexmach 28 August 2020 09: 02 New
            +4
            Let's just say I don't care what it will be. But here in the comments everyone will discuss not the essence of the proposal, but the personality of the proposer.

            The thing is that this classification has absolutely no practical meaning, and therefore no sense.
            The presented report says that the new classification (taxonomy) of missiles is extremely important today, since the content of treaties between countries directly depends on it.

            What other such contracts then? The Americans were confidently going to bury the last treaty, and after that there will be no more treaties since the Americans are not negotiable at all. And yes, in this regard, the proposals for classification from the Americans look especially funny. Why such a classification is needed if there will be no treaties anyway, and if the Americans will not comply with them?
            Many missiles described as ballistic are not, as they have a trajectory that cannot be calculated at certain stages of flight.

            And these problems would be left to those who are engaged in air defense systems, and empty even though each manufacturer will have its own classification.
      2. Mitroha
        Mitroha 28 August 2020 07: 34 New
        +4
        Quote: Deniska999
        Can you refute their arguments? Or it itches because the Americans suggested it?

        Are you a proctologist and monitor itching in the population? Or have the Americans trusted you to accept counter-argument?
        1. Deniska999
          Deniska999 28 August 2020 08: 49 New
          +2
          Yes, of course, Mike Pompeo already personally wrote me a check for some amount. In currency, of course)
      3. Cypa
        Cypa 28 August 2020 08: 09 New
        -3
        What are the enemy's arguments for us?
      4. sleeve
        sleeve 28 August 2020 08: 29 New
        +4
        Yes, the proposal is correct and not new. Ours have already stuttered about this with drones and ballistic missiles with flight correction, as well as universal launchers. Only I'm afraid that such a booth will begin now that only wooden catapults will allow us with the Chinese. And what have they gotten into now? Are you far behind? Here's the same question. Based on what will they offer? And for what? Quantitative or qualitative limitation? For example, "Sarmat" with three planning "avant-garde and" how will it be classified?
      5. Ka-52
        Ka-52 28 August 2020 08: 33 New
        0
        Can you refute their arguments? Or it itches because the Americans suggested it?

        arguments are all nonsense. The reason is completely different - START-3 restricts ICBMs. The Americans want to withdraw some of their own from the treaty. Minuteman III will be called a cruise missile and voila
    3. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 28 August 2020 07: 30 New
      11
      Without a piece count of the Mk41 launchers of the American fleet and hordes of cruise missiles based on ships, there can be no conversation.
      Attempts to put the fleet out of brackets, or to muddle with classification, must be strictly suppressed.
      If they are so itchy, let them classify the missiles according to exactly one parameter - the launch range.
      1. antivirus
        antivirus 28 August 2020 07: 38 New
        +3
        they will take into account the Poseidons, which means that we must remember them "not missiles"
      2. Cyril G ...
        Cyril G ... 28 August 2020 11: 03 New
        0
        By the way, if you think about it, then all the RCCs should also be taken into account in the contract
        The missile treaty may look like this.
        Missiles can be divided exclusively into categories by launch range -
        Short range - from 50 to 500 km.
        Medium range - from 500 km to 2000 km
        Long range - from 2000 km to 5000 km
        Strategic missiles - from 5000 km.
        Nuclear weapon. We agree strictly on the number of nuclear charges by power category and it's over ...
        ultra-small (less than 1 kt)
        small (1 - 20 kt);
        medium (20 - 100 kt);
        high power (100 kt - 1 Mt);
        extra-high power (over 1 Mt).
        1. Mikhail Ya2
          Mikhail Ya2 29 August 2020 20: 51 New
          0
          This is correct, and roughly what they are proposing. But where are the attacking kamikaze UAVs?
    4. Peter is not the first
      Peter is not the first 28 August 2020 08: 39 New
      +3
      Profitable / convenient to the states!

      That's right, two types of missiles: "Democratic" (carrying freedom and light, and of course these are American missiles) and "Totalitarian" for all who do not support the United States.
    5. Piramidon
      Piramidon 28 August 2020 14: 10 New
      +1
      Quote: Victor_B
      The United States proposes to abandon the division of missiles into ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles and create a new classification

      Profitable / convenient to the states!
      And we and China just scattered ...

      So what? After all, they came up with these "generations" for aircraft, and everything was led. Now pisyunami are measured - whose generation is longer.
    6. vVvAD
      vVvAD 28 August 2020 17: 06 New
      -2
      Of course, they would not have thought about their own benefits.
      But perhaps the new classification makes sense. It should only be developed not in one person, but jointly. Discuss, negotiate.
      Specifying the very concept and types of UAVs and how they differ from missiles, for example, would be very useful for everyone.
  2. svp67
    svp67 28 August 2020 07: 20 New
    +2
    They have some kind of an itch, at first they introduced a lot of gender classification signs, now they came to rockets ...
  3. Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. 28 August 2020 07: 22 New
    +5
    smile The arms race is in full swing ... the United States is to blame for throwing the ABM Treaty into the trash can. Missile weapons will be improved for objective reasons ... this process cannot be stopped.
  4. Andrey83
    Andrey83 28 August 2020 07: 35 New
    +2
    5 categories for range and 5 categories for payload ... Also, somehow not quite a complete description ...
  5. Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 28 August 2020 07: 36 New
    +2
    Democratic and non-democratic.
  6. Ka-52
    Ka-52 28 August 2020 07: 41 New
    +2
    In the PLA, she is presented as winged. However, as they say in the United States, it is capable of flying at such distances and at such speeds that correspond to those of ballistic missiles.

    what kind of vinaigrette do they want to make? A ballistic missile flies along a ballistic trajectory, most of which goes to extra-atmospheric flight. Most often, the warhead flies at hypersonic speed. A cruise missile, firstly, in most cases, subsonic. Secondly, it flies at low altitude. Thirdly, it carries out a controlled flight along almost the entire trajectory.
  7. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 28 August 2020 07: 47 New
    0
    The new taxonomy from the American corporation proposes to divide the missiles into five categories by range, five categories by payload, which is believed to give significantly more information about the weapon
    . Baby talk, to justify the changes beneficial to them, but we need it? We have no problem with classification. request
  8. tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 28 August 2020 07: 50 New
    +1
    The devil is in the details. The Americans need to be rechecked a thousand times. Russia will not survive another "humpback"! negative drinks
  9. rocket757
    rocket757 28 August 2020 07: 57 New
    -1
    The technique is developing, the previous classification does not correspond to reality ... it happens, nothing unusual.
    The specialists need to get together and discuss, they need to change, they don't need to ... there are NO fundamental contradictions here!
    1. Pereira
      Pereira 28 August 2020 08: 35 New
      +2
      There is only one contradiction - meaning.
      How should Russia and China benefit from this? Let the Americans answer this first.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 28 August 2020 08: 41 New
        +2
        Quote: Pereira
        How should Russia and China benefit from this?

        After all, I have to ask, and what benefit will be brought by refusing to DISCUSSION?
        This is not CONSENT, the signature under the agreement, according to which we must cut something, refuse to develop / manufacture. This is just a DISCUSSION.
        To argue that you can't sit at the table with a cunning / sharper ... true when you place your bets! But in this event, no bets are made, by definition.
    2. Fedorovich
      Fedorovich 28 August 2020 09: 10 New
      +1
      The proposed "classification" is frankly meaningless.
  10. Doccor18
    Doccor18 28 August 2020 08: 01 New
    0
    The Americans are quietly preparing the ground for SALT-4, as well as an excuse, if anything, to abandon it.
    And I want, and pricks ...
  11. The comment was deleted.
  12. Crash
    Crash 28 August 2020 08: 28 New
    +2
    The presented report says that the new classification (taxonomy) of missiles is extremely important today, since it directly depends on it. content of treaties between countries

    The point is to fence in a garden, if they are all the same wiped with all the contracts? what
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 28 August 2020 08: 43 New
      +2
      It will not be harmful to find out what they want, what they have muddied ... it will be necessary to send for negotiations / councils, tables of all kinds, experienced / smart people.
      1. cniza
        cniza 28 August 2020 08: 53 New
        +4
        Greetings hi
        I know one thing, they definitely did not plan anything good, but yes, I must say ...
        1. rocket757
          rocket757 28 August 2020 09: 01 New
          +4
          Welcome soldier
          Such a cunning sharper must be kept in front of your eyes, anyway! You need to train your specialists and keep them in good shape ... that's the reason for that.
          1. cniza
            cniza 28 August 2020 11: 57 New
            +2
            And also to be ahead of them in terms of development, otherwise they will be devoured.
            1. rocket757
              rocket757 28 August 2020 12: 07 New
              +1
              That's right ... but if you scout in advance, you can move in a particularly important direction! that's how it works.
              1. cniza
                cniza 28 August 2020 12: 10 New
                +1
                It works for now, but they woke up and realized that Russia was not killed, as they thought ...
                1. rocket757
                  rocket757 28 August 2020 12: 12 New
                  +1
                  love their overheads to make loud statements ... empty, as a rule.
                  However, there are so many places!
                  1. cniza
                    cniza 28 August 2020 12: 18 New
                    +2
                    This Trump loves to show off and brag, he is a great master ...
                    1. rocket757
                      rocket757 28 August 2020 12: 24 New
                      +1
                      Come on, Obama there, too, tore to shreds ... they even gave a prize for that!
                      1. cniza
                        cniza 28 August 2020 12: 32 New
                        +2
                        Yes, Obama also boasted, but this is from ignorance, and Trump is a show man and this is his element and lies for him how to cross the road ...
  13. cniza
    cniza 28 August 2020 08: 42 New
    +3
    The new taxonomy from the American corporation proposes to divide the missiles into five categories by range, five categories by payload, which is believed to give significantly more information about the weapon.


    There's something about it...
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 28 August 2020 09: 03 New
      +2
      There is nothing harmful here ... you have to bargain harder, well, this is also useful for training your specialists!
      1. cniza
        cniza 28 August 2020 11: 59 New
        +2
        They are looking for options on how to limit us, where they do not have time and no more ...
        1. rocket757
          rocket757 28 August 2020 12: 08 New
          +1
          It is clear that fair play is not expected there ... well, you don't need to yawn!
          1. cniza
            cniza 28 August 2020 12: 11 New
            +2
            So far, it seems to be working out and I really hope that we still have some trump cards up our sleeve, not everyone announced ...
  14. Prisoner
    Prisoner 28 August 2020 08: 47 New
    0
    The Yankees began to fuss. Looks like they started to lag behind the main competitors.
    1. cniza
      cniza 28 August 2020 08: 52 New
      +1
      It seems they don't know what to do, soon everyone will start sending them, so they are looking for a topic for discussion.
  15. 7,62h54
    7,62h54 28 August 2020 08: 47 New
    +2
    There should be two types of missiles: a super duper missile, and an enemy missile.
    1. cniza
      cniza 28 August 2020 08: 51 New
      +3
      Quote: 7,62x54
      There should be two types of missiles: a super duper missile, and an enemy missile.


      Trump is. lol
  16. tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 28 August 2020 09: 07 New
    -1
    I wonder what the Americans know that we don’t know? It’s not casual. drinks
  17. Lesorub
    Lesorub 28 August 2020 09: 10 New
    +1
    The United States proposes to abandon the division of missiles into ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles and create a new classification

    Instead of making changes to the classification, the Americans will speak to everything that flies - just a rocket))
  18. pechv
    pechv 28 August 2020 09: 25 New
    +1
    The goal is clear - to introduce a new classification, then agree on the limits for each group. Leave all existing ones in the old restrictions, and restrict new types (for which they lag behind) as much as possible. In this case, they will beat on the "unconventionality" of new ones. Then comes the accusation of barbarism and the squeezing of partners by the international community.
  19. evgen1221
    evgen1221 28 August 2020 09: 25 New
    0
    Is it like an invitation to talk about drsmd?
  20. Berber
    Berber 28 August 2020 09: 30 New
    0
    Quote: SRC P-15
    The United States proposes to abandon the division of missiles into ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles and create a new classification

    Aha, and call them: wrong Russian, wrong Chinese and right American! fool

    You, comrade, very accurately expressed the main idea of ​​this event. laughing
  21. iouris
    iouris 28 August 2020 12: 05 New
    0
    Bottom Line: The United States will withdraw from all carrier agreements one of these days or sooner and quickly gain unilateral advantages. What to do? Carry out a high-power warning nuclear explosion without warning. This is called an "asymmetric response".
  22. Old26
    Old26 28 August 2020 13: 35 New
    +4
    Quote: Victor_B
    Profitable / convenient to the states!
    And we and China just scattered ...

    Have you read this document ?? It is unlikely, but you give an assessment immediately and definitely one-sided. But in principle, a fairly balanced decision. Replace dozens of classes and subclasses for determining missile range with a fairly simple system based on
    1. Flight range
    2. On flight functionality.
    Otherwise, we use a classification that is half a century old, or even more ancient, without taking into account the fact that the means of attack and the capabilities of missile systems have changed ... I see nothing wrong with this material, especially since there is not a word about it being just like that and not otherwise ... In fact, several dozen missile systems are being considered, which no longer fit the old classification.

    Quote: Sergey_G_M
    We need to cram heavy UAVs into this classification - after all, in fact, it is a half-plane-half-cruise missile.

    Just keep in mind that you will have to "cram" not only state-owned UAVs into this category, but also your own ...
    And there will be restrictions on the same "Hunter" or some other UAV, and not only on the American "Global Hawks"

    Quote: SRC P-15
    Aha, and call them: wrong Russian, wrong Chinese and right American!

    With your post, dear Alexander, you now remind me of a textbook literary character who was asked: "What do you think about Boris Pasternak's book Doctor Zhevago? And the answer, they say, was:" I have not read the book, but I know that it is anti-Soviet ". So, alas, you too. You have not read the document, but you know that it is about" correct "American and" wrong "Russian, Chinese, Indian, Israeli missiles

    Quote: Hagen
    Quote: Cyril G ...
    It needs to be carefully analyzed and thought out ..

    And then discuss and agree to reach a common understanding by all countries that have missile technologies. A clear classification of the objects of the contract is the key to the success of the contract itself.

    laughing good
    Plus for your balanced comment

    Quote: Victor_B
    Quote: Deniska999
    Can you refute their arguments?

    And what does the current classification do not suit you?

    And find the common, for example, between missiles:
    1.tactical
    2. Operational and tactical
    3. Operational-tactical extended range
    4. Medium range
    5. Intercontinental range
    6. Global range

    and missiles
    1. Battlegrounds
    2. Tactical
    3. Theater missiles (which, in turn, are divided into short-range and medium-range missiles)
    4. Intermediate range
    5. Intercontinental range (divided into limited and full range ICBMs)
    6. Subcontinental range
    Where is the common denominator ???

    Quote: sleeve
    And what have they gotten into now? Are you far behind? Here's the same question. Based on what will they offer? And for what? Quantitative or qualitative limitation?

    In a document that no one has read, but everyone is discussing in unison, there are no quantitative or qualitative limitations. There are only proposals for a new classification, which is based on the range and flight functionality of warheads.

    Quote: sleeve
    For example, "Sarmat" with three planning "avant-garde and" how will it be classified?

    You really asked an interesting question and there is a place for it in this classification proposal. At the same time, without restrictions, since this is not a proposal for a treaty, where it will be decided specifically "how much" and "what", but a classification ...

    Quote: alexmach
    And these problems would be left to those who are engaged in air defense systems, and empty even though each manufacturer will have its own classification.

    And in the case of an agreement, will we agree again, each according to his classification and look for points of contact ??

    Quote: Cyril G ...
    By the way, if you think about it, then all the RCCs should also be taken into account in the contract
    The missile treaty may look like this.
    Missiles can be divided exclusively into categories by launch range -
    Short range - from 50 to 500 km.
    Medium range - from 500 km to 2000 km
    Long range - from 2000 km to 5000 km
    Strategic missiles - from 5000 km.
    Nuclear weapon. We agree strictly on the number of nuclear charges by power category and it's over ...
    ultra-small (less than 1 kt)
    small (1 - 20 kt);
    medium (20 - 100 kt);
    high power (100 kt - 1 Mt);
    extra-high power (over 1 Mt).

    The classification of nuclear weapons by capacity assumes exactly this, but the capacity was never taken into account in the contract.
    The range classification looks somewhat different. It is now that this is proposed to be standardized.
  23. Vladimir61
    Vladimir61 28 August 2020 14: 43 New
    +1
    The Americans, as always, are cunning. Taking into account their new concept of limited nuclear war, it is allowed to use a non-strategic nuclear strike with low-yield (tactical) nuclear weapons in local conflicts. and not only in conflicts with the owners of nuclear weapons.
    And the deployment of such ammunition has already begun in the Navy and the Air Force. All this increases the risks of a nuclear conflict. Trying to give themselves a head start, they practically began deploying 1-2 low-yield warheads on the nuclear submarines on the same missiles as their “brothers”, which have strategic charges. And this is understandable, they have more carriers in the Navy and in the Air Force, under the control measures of START-3, these charges do not fall, and they "bring democracy and peace throughout the world."

    In fact, they proceed from the principle that the whole world is ours and we can do everything! But, with a non-nuclear country, this number may and will pass, but with a nuclear one, everything will develop into a global conflict! No warning system will "sort" what "Trident" or "Tomahawk" flies with, tactical or strategic. And the answer of such a country will be in full, and then, and then one thing - the whole world is in dust.
  24. Old26
    Old26 28 August 2020 15: 21 New
    +3
    Quote: Vladimir61
    Trying to give themselves a head start, they practically began deploying 1-2 low-yield warheads on the nuclear submarines on the same missiles as their “brothers”, which have strategic charges. And this is understandable, they have more carriers in the Navy and in the Air Force, under the control measures of START-3, these charges do not fall, and they "bring democracy and peace throughout the world."

    Read the START III treaty and don't write nonsense. These low-power charges hit the STV-3 ceilings in the same way as all the others. Under the contract, it doesn't matter what power your charges are, it's important how much. And if earlier it was, for example, that there were 3 charges on the rocket during the test, then 6 was considered in service. Now, control is carried out for each rocket. Therefore, out of 6 missiles on "Ohio" 20 can carry, for example, 18 or 4 BB, and two - 6-1. Accordingly, the real amount is summed up ...
    1. Vladimir61
      Vladimir61 28 August 2020 19: 11 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Read START III and don't write nonsense

      You read this and do not write nonsense! Low-yield ammunition is a tactical weapon. And the agreement "On measures to further reduce and limit strategic offensive weapons "and it clearly defines delivery vehicles and carriers.
      The signed agreement regulates the number of warheads on deployed ballistic ICBM and SLBM missiles.
      In OSV-2, the development and deployment of ballistic missiles based on watercraft were prohibited, Besides: submarines, and on the seabed; mobile heavy ICBMs; MIRVed cruise missiles; the maximum throw weight for SLBMs was limited.
  25. Old26
    Old26 28 August 2020 20: 46 New
    +1
    Quote: Vladimir61
    You read this and do not write nonsense! Low-yield ammunition is a tactical weapon. And the treaty "On Measures for Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms" and it clearly spells out the means of delivery and carriers.
    The signed agreement regulates the number of warheads on deployed ballistic missiles ICBMs and SLBMs.
    In OSV-2, the development and deployment of ballistic missiles based on watercraft, except for: submarines, and on the seabed were prohibited; mobile heavy ICBMs; MIRVed cruise missiles; the maximum throw weight for SLBMs was limited

    Namesake, don't write nonsense. Power - this is only in order to understand to which class this or that ammunition belongs. The division is very arbitrary. And whether this weapon is strategic or tactical is determined only by means of delivery. Tactical ammunition can be in power, for example, 40-60 kt and if it is delivered by a missile with a tactical range, it is a tactical weapon. If the carrier has a strategic range, then the charge is considered strategic. For example, the Poseidon SLBM warhead, which was a strategic weapon, had an EMNIP power of 40 kt. FORTY kilotons.
    And the contract does indeed clearly state the delivery vehicles (carriers), but not the ammunition capacity. And the carriers (strategic) under the treaty are the American Trident SLBMs. And it is they and the number of warheads on them that are taken into account in the calculation of the ceilings.

    The signed START-3 treaty does not regulate the number of warheads on deployed carriers. From the word at all. There is a limit on the number - no more than 14 for SLBMs and no more than 10 for ICBMs. But each side determines the structure of its strategic nuclear forces for itself. Not now SUB-LEVELas it was in earlier contracts. Moreover, they consider not the number of warheads with which the same SLBM passed flight tests (for Trident, in particular, it is 14 units), but how many such warheads are installed on each missile

    The United States currently has a maximum of 14 boats in combat.

    According to previously concluded agreements (START-1, START-2), the total number of BB on American SLBMs should have been equal to 14 x 24 x 14 = 4704.
    In order to enter the START-3 levels, the Americans on each boat dismantled the launching equipment at 4 mines, which are "neutralized" and are not able to have missiles inside. As a result, their total number of SLBMs is now 280 units. (maximum). At the same time, how many BBs on each missile are determined by the Americans themselves. And if now, for example, there are 18 W-4 units for 88 SLBMs and 2 miniature W-2-76 units for 2 4, then the total number of BB on the boat is 20 x 2 + 2 x 84 = 84. There are XNUMX in total. ...
    For I will repeat myself. A characteristic feature of the START-3 treaty is that each of the parties determines the structure of its strategic nuclear forces. Likewise, our Yars ICBMs carry fewer BBs than they can carry. And when calculating the number of BBs for the Bulava, not 6 blocks are taken, as provided for by the dilution stage, but the amount that it costs.

    What you brought the provisions of the SALT-2 agreement to is completely incomprehensible. Throw-weight restrictions for SLBMs were purely arbitrary. It sounded like this: "the throw weight is not greater than the throw weight of the heaviest SLBM." There was a limit in percentage terms, but not in absolute numbers
  26. Pavel57
    Pavel57 28 August 2020 23: 34 New
    0
    Quote: Hagen
    Considering that in flight the missile performs an anti-missile maneuver in the form of a quasi-chaotic change in the trajectory of movement, then this trajectory will in any case be greater than the range to the target.

    The missile can fly without maneuvers, the range in this case will increase by 20%.