Military Review

State Department: Consultations with Moscow on the INF Treaty continue

51
Diplomats of the Russian Federation and the United States continue consultations on the INF Treaty, which is very important for both parties, reports RIA News Statement by Under Secretary of State for Arms Control Rose Goethemuller.




“This is a very important contract. We are talking about US national security. And I am glad that Russia has officially declared in recent months that this is in its interests. But while there are closed diplomatic negotiations, and I can not tell their details ",
said Goethemuller.

The agency recalls that the INF Treaty signed at 1987 g "prohibits the parties to have ground-based ballistic missiles and cruise missiles with a range from 500 to 5,5 thousands of kilometers (medium range - from 1000 to 5500 km, short range - from 500 to 1000 km) ". The United States and the Russian Federation periodically accuse each other of violating the terms of this document.
Photos used:
RIA News. Anton Denisov
51 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. avvg
    avvg 15 June 2016 08: 29
    +11
    In my opinion, it is time to withdraw from this treaty when NATO is located near the Russian border.
    1. techie
      techie 15 June 2016 08: 43
      +16
      This treaty was concluded with a hunchback. Against ground-based missile-based, tk. this meant destroying our launchers, and the treaty did not apply to Tomahawks (sea-based). And then everyone in the West was fine with it. And now, when ours lit up the sea-based "Calibers", it immediately began to swell and began to cause "concerns", "concerns" and other desires for peace initiatives. Frankly speaking, I don't really believe in the sincerity of such "peace-loving" initiatives.
      1. donavi49
        donavi49 15 June 2016 09: 06
        +4
        It will take years, or rather decades, to parity.

        If we discard different things, then Caliber = Ax.

        The Americans have under a hundred carriers of axes, each taking 60 + in the version for ground targets, while still leaving the air defense system.

        The Navy has a dozen carriers and at the same time 8 / 16 missiles per ship.

        Under water, the Americans have an arava of Elk, Virginia and Ohio specialized underwater missile arsenals.


        The agreement of the RMND is beneficial for the Russian Federation for a simple reason, if it is canceled:
        1) In Poland, the Baltic states, Romania, and Turkey, ground-based missile bases with Axes will be deployed as soon as possible. They will cover the whole European part of Russia.
        2) Retaliatory measures by Gauges and Iskander-M / K - will cover only US allies who have no opinion and will burn with a smile on their faces in a future war, however, these missiles cannot do any direct harm (except to crush the bases) .
        3) The USA will reanimate Pershingili with a new missile in this class. Again for the purpose of p1.

        In fact, withdrawal from the treaty will allow the United States to legally build up offensive opportunities for a global attack on the Russian Federation, while retaliatory measures cannot directly extend to the United States, for geographical reasons, and ICBMs limit START-3 from which no one can withdraw.
        1. Darkmor
          Darkmor 15 June 2016 09: 43
          +7
          Quote: donavi49
          RSMD agreement is beneficial to the Russian Federation

          I doubt it ...
          They will cover the entire European part of Russia

          Nothing prevents the United States from deploying a network of ground-based cruise or ballistic missiles in Europe, bypassing the INF Treaty.
          If this missile does not formally belong to the United States, then the treaty does not apply to it.
          In general, the expansion of NATO bases and the missile defense system (under the mines of which just these missiles can be used) is designed for this.
          And we will not be able to inspect these bases and these missiles in order to prove that there really is a short-range ballistic missile in the mine, and not an interceptor missile "against Iran."
          Retaliation with Gauges and Iskander-M / K - will cover only US allies

          It is necessary, therefore, to rebuild the base on Cuba under the pretext of installing missile defense against missiles from the "omnipotent Mexican terrorists", or from the invasion of the Martians. Or develop other long-range strike methods (such as a nuclear-powered submarine that appeared in the news)
          will allow the US to legally build up offensive opportunities for a global strike on the Russian Federation

          Legality has never stopped the United States. They do not do this not because of the INF, but because of economic or political inappropriateness.

          The INF Treaty is a fiction, under which both we and the US cut the budget in due time. At the same time, the United States lost almost nothing, forcing us to lose almost everything.
          Why build up your own, not really necessary ground-based ballistic missiles, when you can pay the enemy to cut 2/3 of his missile weapons into needles? Ingenious!

          And now they want to crank up this genius again.
          Surely at meetings, our American friends say something like: "times have changed, new technologies - now Iskanders fall under medium range, and s400 can be recorded under short range, and bastions / redoubts can be reduced."
        2. Sars
          Sars 15 June 2016 10: 08
          +2
          Quote: donavi49
          In fact, withdrawal from the treaty will allow the US to legally build up offensive opportunities for a global strike

          The United States is still doing everything they need.
          By the way, they are not going to strike a global strike with nuclear weapons, judging by some information in the state media that there are big technical problems with increasing the number of nuclear weapons, they (states) cannot ensure the circulation of nuclear weapons already in service, from which Obama constantly suggested that Putin Sign a new strategic offensive arms with a 50% reduction in the number of nuclear weapons.
          And Russia, I think it is necessary to withdraw from all the Gorbachev-Yeltsin treacherous arms limitation treaties. What weapons are needed - put into service.
          And then you can get to the jokes - we will begin to place barges with calibers in the Neva.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 15 June 2016 10: 20
            +3
            They have a means of launching a global strike - it’s not yet in series in X 37, but it has already broken a record for arriving in orbit and it will not hinder production vehicles to place two, three W88 warheads in the cargo compartment, development and testing of hypersonic weapons in The USA continues to X 51, HTV2, HTV3, HVC, SR 72.
          2. Alex_Tug
            Alex_Tug 15 June 2016 10: 21
            +1
            Sars
            And then you can get to the jokes - we will begin to place barges with calibers in the Neva.

            On the Neva is not original, will have to set in the Kal-th region. But sea-based barges.
        3. The comment was deleted.
    2. Monos
      Monos 15 June 2016 08: 53
      +7
      Quote: avvg
      In my opinion, it is time to withdraw from this treaty when NATO is located near the Russian border.


      Why go out? In the presence of "Calibers", it suits us perfectly, I think.
  2. megafair
    megafair 15 June 2016 08: 48
    +2
    Given the fact that Natka places additional battalions in eastern Europe, it is necessary to place the same "Calibers" performed by the Kh-102 (nuclear warhead) at the MZKT vehicle base.

    And more often conduct demonstration exercises;)
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 15 June 2016 09: 09
      +1
      Well, in response, they will place the finished MK-41 with SBCH Axes, but if the Caliber can take only all sorts of Vilnius, Warsaw and bases, then the Axes of St. Petersburg, Moscow, Astrakhan, Severodvinsk.

      As a result, the United States will triple the offensive capabilities of a constant presence and global impact, literally in a matter of years (axes available, MK-41 in mass production).

      And Russia will not be able to retaliate against the United States, except for the removal of their bases in Europe, as well as any Baltic states / Poles / Romanians, for purely geographical reasons.
      1. andj61
        andj61 15 June 2016 09: 22
        +2
        Quote: donavi49
        Well, in response, they will place the finished MK-41 with SBCH Axes, but if the Caliber can take only all sorts of Vilnius, Warsaw and bases, then the Axes of St. Petersburg, Moscow, Astrakhan, Severodvinsk.

        This race is meaningless: now Russia has enough strategic means to destroy the USA, and the USA, respectively, has enough of them to destroy Russia. On their side are the strategic forces of England and France, on our side a large territory. Basically, there is parity.
        But if they can destroy us two or three times, then, do you think the United States will benefit from this? repeat There can be only one advantage: our nuclear tactical forces - except for the Tu-22M3, and now also the "Caliber", but these are European strategic means - do not reach the positional areas of deployment of American forces in Europe - and nothing more.
        But this advantage is ephemeral, especially after - and in the case - of the use of "strategists".
        Conclusion: the security of Russia after withdrawing from the INF Treaty will not practically change. Only to us this agreement is beneficial on the other hand - we do not get involved in the arms race by European strategic means. We cannot compete with NATO and the United States in terms of financial capabilities, we need to ensure our security, but not at all parity in all types of weapons.
      2. megafair
        megafair 15 June 2016 09: 48
        +1
        Quote: donavi49
        Well, in response, they will place the finished MK-41 with SBCH Axes, but if the Caliber can take only all sorts of Vilnius, Warsaw and bases, then the Axes of St. Petersburg, Moscow, Astrakhan, Severodvinsk.

        Specialists have been talking about 10 years ago that cruise missiles with missile defense systems can be deployed in the place of defensive interceptor missiles, in missile defense systems located in eastern Europe.

        Who interferes with us in the same S-400 or S-500 TPK — put the X-102, in some TPKs there will be 40N6E, in others (outwardly identical) X-102, in which case - they will gouge all the bases in Europe.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 15 June 2016 10: 23
          0
          These subsonic ground-based cruise missiles are not dangerous for Russia, since the terrain is flat - they will be an easy target for our air defense systems.
    2. Alex_Tug
      Alex_Tug 15 June 2016 09: 32
      0
      megafair
      Taking into account the fact that Natka is deploying additional battalions in Eastern Europe, it is necessary to place the same "Calibers" in the performance of the Kh-102 (nuclear warhead) at the MZKT automobile base.


      No use dubbing Iskander. No further 500 km.
  3. valent45
    valent45 15 June 2016 08: 49
    +6
    This contract is completely disadvantageous to us. The NATO military bloc is on our borders. In which case, their
    what to peel? Intercontinental? We need in response to the withdrawal of Americans from the ABM Treaty
    unilaterally, you need to withdraw from the agreement on the INF Treaty. The only way! West of this is very
    fears. So in this direction it is necessary to push.
    1. VP
      VP 15 June 2016 09: 02
      +1
      In the case of an exit, we get a cloud of the same along the borders. From directions from Scandinavia to Turkey.
      Do you think that we really need it?
      At present, the Kyrgyz Republic will fly from somewhere in the Baltic to Moscow for at least an hour. Those. time is enough for both detection and taking action.
      In the event that RSD from the Baltic countries is plopped in Moscow, then oh, the time for detection, reaction and action will be extremely short.
  4. okunevich_rv
    okunevich_rv 15 June 2016 08: 50
    +2
    These are traded only in their favor, they treat the compromise as a sailor’s cat, it unites work for my benefit.
  5. Alex_Tug
    Alex_Tug 15 June 2016 08: 51
    +3
    Rather, they will now insist on editing the geographic dictionary. Consider the Caspian Sea as a lake.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 15 June 2016 09: 11
      +3
      Quote: Alex_Tug
      Rather, they will now insist on editing the geographic dictionary. Consider the Caspian Sea as a lake.

      And what to edit it? This, if you follow the geography of the lake.http: //fb.ru/article/146479/kaspiyskoe-ozero-pochemu-kaspiyskoe-ozero
      -nazy
      ivayut-morem # image441191. Although this is a unique lake that does not fit into any framework. According to the main sign, access to the ocean is a lake, but to all other signs it is the sea. Actually, until the Yankees return to the ABM Treaty It’s useless to discuss the INF Treaty. It only plays into the hands of the United States, because the entire ground-based missile defense infrastructure in Europe will be swept away before strategic missiles are used. That’s why they roll the barrel that we are violating the INF Treaty.
      1. Alex_Tug
        Alex_Tug 15 June 2016 09: 48
        +1
        If the Caspian Sea is renamed Lake Caspian (linguistics), then the calibers there are illegal under the INF.
        1. Yura
          Yura 15 June 2016 11: 51
          0
          Alex_Tug
          If the Caspian Sea is renamed Lake Caspian (linguistics), then the calibers there are illegal under the INF.
          If the Caspian Flotilla is "called" part of the Black Sea, Baltic, Northern or Pacific Fleets, then everything will be fine, well, and the second Caspian Flotilla is a part of the Navy, which has access to the Black, Mediterranean, theoretically the Baltic Sea. Quite a marine fleet. Third, if there is still no shouting about this in the world, then everything is within the limits of agreements. The opinion may be subjective, but it does not seem to distort the truth.
  6. L. A. A.
    L. A. A. 15 June 2016 08: 53
    +1
    Many countries are developing and improving medium-range missiles, and Russia, having fulfilled the INF Treaty, has lost many systems of these weapons.
  7. arane
    arane 15 June 2016 08: 54
    +3
    The contract is beneficial to the United States, and only to them. Between us is the ocean. We get them mbr. Plus, two NATO members have yao, but they do not participate in the agreement.
    Therefore, in the event of a continental conflict, we may have problems. It’s easier to use the RDMD, and their dumb
  8. iliitchitch
    iliitchitch 15 June 2016 08: 58
    +2
    So I understand that if instead of missile defense the states can stick winged ones into the drum, then they have already de facto withdrawn from the treaty, and what can we talk about then. What, again we want to run a rake? At the time, pacts with Hitler were concluded. Let diplomats pedal the time until Shoigu puts mattresses close to the knife to the tomatoes, so that they would sweat completely, then you can sign it. ABM dismantling agreement.
  9. Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 15 June 2016 09: 11
    +1
    Iskander-K - version using cruise missiles, firing range 500 km, warhead weight 480 kg. The flight height of the rocket is about 7 meters when reaching the target, and not higher than 6 km, the rocket is automatically adjusted all the time during the flight and automatically goes around the terrain. For the Iskander-K OTRK, R-500 cruise missiles with a range of 2000 km are also produced.
    1. Corsair0304
      Corsair0304 15 June 2016 10: 00
      0
      And everything again rests on the Kaliningrad region. How many Iskander can we place there in order to guarantee to demolish the foe from the face of the earth throughout the entire range? Moreover, it seems to me that it is the areas of concentration of the Iskander that will be hit in the first place. We're not going to launch a preemptive strike, are we?
      There is something to think about this ...
      Like to detonate the "Tsar Bomba" over the sea between Spain and Italy "oops, we accidentally, and in general she flew there herself." Can you imagine what a howl will immediately rise ?! Well, on this wave, Mr. Shoigu (God forbid health) to drop that it was like we planned with SBS, but oh well, what flew in, flew in. And, as usual, reward slobs (see "Peculiarities of national fishing", missile launch).
      1. TOR2
        TOR2 15 June 2016 11: 14
        0
        Quote: Corsair0304
        There is something to think about this ...
        Like to blow up the "Tsar Bomb" over the sea between Spain and Italy "oops, we accidentally,

        It will be more logical between Britain and Scandinavia. Over the sea it is not very effective. But under water is already more interesting. Ammunition must explode exactly at a given depth to cause a wave of maximum height which will be the main damaging factor. Without coastal infrastructure, all of NATO’s supply logistics will be overturned. By the way, Her Majesty is already taking a note on this subject. Will you fall if you spray on foggy Albion, but not champagne.
    2. Alex_Tug
      Alex_Tug 15 June 2016 10: 03
      0
      This is already a violation of the INF Treaty. You have incorrect data.
      1. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 15 June 2016 10: 42
        0
        Yes, okay, Colonel Nikolai Donyushkin, an official representative of the Ground Forces, told this back in 2012. I know that development is even forbidden, but why did he say that, isn’t it? Although I think that withdrawing from the contract is not even profitable for us .
        1. Alex_Tug
          Alex_Tug 15 June 2016 10: 57
          +1
          Thunderbolt
          I know that development is even forbidden, but for some reason he said this, isn't it?


          maybe a sea-based option?
    3. Vadim237
      Vadim237 15 June 2016 10: 25
      0
      The P 500 rocket has a launch range of 500 kilometers.
      1. Alex_Tug
        Alex_Tug 15 June 2016 10: 35
        0
        For the Iskander-K OTRK, R-500 cruise missiles with a range of 2000 km are also produced.

        Incorrect data about it. Iskander-K did not hear about the ship version.
  10. ARES623
    ARES623 15 June 2016 11: 38
    +1
    Quote: Thunderbolt
    For the Iskander-K OTRK, R-500 cruise missiles with a range of 2000 km are also produced.

    The United States is trying to present this idea to us as a violation of the INF Treaty. What for? And then, to find us guilty of violating this treaty and with honor to withdraw from it to deploy our axes in MK-41 in Romania, Poland, then everywhere with any warhead. If, subject to the treaty, we could somehow track the approach of sea and (or) air carriers, the creation of their dangerous concentrations, then upon denunciation of the treaty these MCs will grow like dandelions along the entire length of our border. Changing the ability to prepare the first blow to the face. And there is a lot of conflicting information on the R-500 for Iskander K, but one must understand that the ground-based missile installation and the medium and short-range missiles themselves (500 - 5500 km) fall under the treaty.
  11. LVMI1980
    LVMI1980 15 June 2016 12: 16
    +2
    States will only reckon with short flight times to their territory
  12. Rom14
    Rom14 15 June 2016 12: 33
    0
    The agreement is vitally important, but when the enemy’s strength is building up around Russia, I’m apparently now and am considering it - on which side to observe it and how. In theory, the baton should be inconspicuous and longer ...
  13. Siberia 9444
    Siberia 9444 15 June 2016 15: 47
    0
    Once they decided to rebuild the BZHDK, let them go through the forest! Stop eating! Yes, and NATO is on our borders.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 15 June 2016 17: 35
      0
      And indeed, let them go in the woods - according to START, Russia does not have 3 parities in power with the United States - the total strategic nuclear weapon capacity of the United States can strike twice as powerful as 1866 Megatons - against our 890 Megatons - which will have to be divided between NATO and the United States.
  14. kit_bellew
    kit_bellew 15 June 2016 16: 31
    +2
    Quote: It's hard to be a god
    - This, of course, is very blissful. But what about the women?

    Every time an article appears about all sorts of diplomatic graters of a showdown, I wonder: why does our foreign intelligence get their money? Are they not capable of taking the US Senate for underbelly? Or maybe the local parliamentarians suddenly became worse saints St. Valentine Sergius of Radonezh? What can’t they be punished? I do not believe! © Stanislavsky.
  15. The comment was deleted.
  16. Old26
    Old26 15 June 2016 20: 06
    0
    Quote: Vadim237
    And indeed, let them go in the woods - according to START, Russia does not have 3 parities in power with the United States - the total strategic nuclear weapon capacity of the United States can strike twice as powerful as 1866 Megatons - against our 890 Megatons - which will have to be divided between NATO and the United States.

    I would be grateful if you would paint a megatonnage, or at least give a link to where the info comes from

    I read all the comments, but since many are repeated, I would like to answer a number of them.
    Accusation of violation of the Agreement, in particular the INF Treaty, is ongoing. We blame them, they us. This is nothing new.
    1. If they accuse us of having a cruise missile with a range of 2000 km on Iskander-M, then WE are exclusively to blame. Do not grind with tongue. It was said that the range was 500 km, tested for 500 - so it is so. But we have an itch in one place. You have to show off with a "club". And what do you want after that? Not to be accused? Figurines. There is an information war, and if we ourselves screwed up in this war, publishing delusional data in the media, they got hooked. We cling to their publications, or to ours, publications of our EXPERTS, who previously wore epaulettes with large stars.
    2. One of the journalists started a cartoon, calling the complex with cruise missiles "Iskander-K" and immediately picked up everything. The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation are armed with one single complex - 9K720 Iskander-M with two types of missiles. Ballistic 9M723 (known in the west of EMNIP as R-900) and winged 9M728 (R-500). Until 2011, the complex was equipped only with ballistic, since 2011 both ballistic and winged
    3. About the ban on launchers Mk-41. Read the text of the INF Treaty, which launchers are prohibited by this agreement.
    4. About nuclear "Tomahawks". They are not there, they have been written off and disposed of a dozen years ago. There are only conventional warheads. And they will have to be converted into nuclear ones. And this is time and most importantly money. In addition, the maximum that they can remake is only 300 "axes". For all US Armed Forces - Land Forces and Navy.
    5. It is not the "axes" that pose a particular danger, but the missiles that the Americans have created under the INF Treaty. This is an MRBM with a range of 1,5-2 thousand km. And if they are placed in the same Baltic states, the flight time will be 7-10 minutes, like the Pershing-2, and about 2-3 minutes. Therefore, it is impossible to withdraw from the contract in any way. Russia is not the USSR. We are unable to fire as many missiles as under the USSR. And there will be a question. Or replace old missiles in the Strategic Missile Forces, or rivet MRBMs, scoring on ICBMs
    1. Operator
      Operator 15 June 2016 20: 15
      0
      Please specify that the Americans created under the RSMD agreement with the 1,5-2 thousand km range.
    2. ARES623
      ARES623 16 June 2016 07: 46
      0
      Quote: Old26
      ... If they accuse us of having a cruise missile with a range of 2000 km on Iskander-M, then WE are exclusively to blame. Do not grind with tongue. It was said that the range was 500 km, tested for 500 - so it is so. But we have an itch in one place. You have to show off with a "club". And what do you want after that? Not to be accused? Figurines. There is an information war, and if we ourselves screwed up in this war, publishing delusional data in the media, they got hooked. We cling to their publications, or to ours, the publications of our EXPERTS, who previously wore epaulets with large stars.

      Serious people exercising real control over states do not take seriously the delusions on social networks, VICIs, etc. sources. Therefore, whatever the mass media write about the ranges of the Iskander missiles, this is not the "club" that is being trumped. The accusations that the United States voiced at different levels of government in this regard are nothing more than trolling, creating a sound background. Irritating, but no more.
      Quote: Old26
      2. One of the journalists launched a mulka

      And that says it all - mulka, she is a mulka. Including the performance characteristics of missiles. More speculation based on geometries and energetics of known fuels. Even people close to the manufacturer are unlikely to have reliable information about a serious product, especially in "sensitive" areas.
      Quote: Old26
      3. About the ban on launchers Mk-41. Read the text of the INF Treaty, which launchers are prohibited by this agreement.

      Typical misunderstanding of legally binding language. The treaty prescribes the elimination of missiles and their launchers in various ways. The MK-41 is a universal vertical launch launcher, allegedly created specifically for the Navy, including for anti-aircraft missiles. This means that formally it does not qualify for liquidation on two grounds. We, in turn, are silent, but we can also place sea-based installations for "Calibers" with the same missiles at 2500 km on various ground platforms, for example, on the railway. I am sure that this option is meant by both parties, but there is no factual confirmation. And therefore silence ...
      Quote: Old26
      4. About nuclear "Tomahawks". They are not there, they have been written off and disposed of a dozen years ago.

      Is not a fact. The fact that the United States independently decided to change the method of disposal of charges suggests that they can not be trusted. And, most likely, the withdrawn nuclear warheads were mothballed with the possibility of quick recovery or modernization.
      Quote: Old26
      5. It is not the "axes" that pose a particular danger, but the missiles that the Americans have created under the INF Treaty. This is an MRBM with a range of 1,5-2 thousand km. And if they are placed in the same Baltic states

      This is how to understand - in the framework of the contract to do what is prohibited by the contract? Funny ...
  17. Old26
    Old26 15 June 2016 20: 42
    0
    Quote: Operator
    Please specify that the Americans created under the RSMD agreement with the 1,5-2 thousand km range.

    Andrew! I seem to have already written to you in another thread, but I repeat for others.
    Under the agreement, both parties can create target missiles that can be used as targets for a missile defense system. There is a corresponding article to this in the INF Treaty.
    The Americans have created at least three such target missiles. These are LRALT with a range of 2000 km, HERA with a range of 1100-1200 km, MRT-1 with a range of 1100 km. The first two missiles are based on the Minuteman-2 stages, the last one based on the Trident-2 stages. But they cannot be placed in the Mk.1 launcher due to the fact that their length is about 41-11 meters, but the main thing is their diameters, respectively, 13 m, 1,59 m and 1,3 meters.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 15 June 2016 21: 39
      0
      But these target missiles can be equipped with a nuclear warhead and dropped from transport planes C 5 and C 17 over the territory of Europe or over the waters of the seas, in the START 3 treaty there is not a word about this - air-launched missile-launch vehicle.
    2. Operator
      Operator 15 June 2016 21: 53
      0
      Sorry, but I personally see this information for the first time (I may not have read your earlier post). Thanks anyway.

      I think that these surrogates (2 and 3 stages of missiles) are discussed in negotiations with the United States, if they are, then to a heap. The main thing is a gross violation of the treaty banning the RMSD in terms of the deployment of Mk41 ground launchers, suitable for launching the Tomahawk missile launchers, at American missile bases in Romania and Poland.

      The Americans may have counter questions to us about the possibility of deploying the Kalibr missile launcher (in the TPK) on the basis of the Iskander-M mobile OTRK. But here our partners can go through the forest - TPK KRSD "Caliber" can be placed even on a trailer to a pickup truck. But if we say that the "Caliber" is installed only on naval carriers and tactical aircraft, then the Americans can only check it according to the protocol.
  18. Old26
    Old26 15 June 2016 21: 47
    0
    Quote: Vadim237
    But these target missiles can be equipped with a nuclear warhead and dropped from transport planes C 5 and C 17 over the territory of Europe or over the waters of the seas, in the START 3 treaty there is not a word about this - air-launched missile-launch vehicle.

    Can. But Americans will only need these missiles in a situation where the INF Treaty ceases to exist. Then the Americans will be able to deploy them very quickly in the same Baltic states. And here we have many offer to get out of it.
    As for air launch missiles, BRVZ are prohibited by the OSV-2 agreement.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 16 June 2016 01: 21
      0
      "BRVZ are prohibited by the SALT-2 treaty" - Russia withdrew from it, due to the fact that the United States withdrew from the missile defense system in megatonnage USA - 63 bombers B 1 - 20 B61 bombs - 340 kt, 19 B 2 bomb load for each 16 B83 bombs - 1,2 , 72 Mt, 52 B 20 - bomb load on each 150 ALKM 450 kt missiles, 3 Minuteman 88 ICBMs one warhead on each W475 8kt missile, 24 Ohio submarines 2 Trident 4 ICBMs on the first 5 submarines on ICBMs with 76 W100 6kt warheads, on other nuclear submarines, 88 W475 1606kt warheads each - we get a total of 158 megatons - this is not taking into account the creation of nuclear Tomahawks and it is possible to create a nuclear warhead for AGM XNUMX missiles.
  19. Old26
    Old26 15 June 2016 22: 23
    0
    Quote: Operator
    I think that these surrogates (2 and 3 stages of missiles) are discussed in negotiations with the United States, if they are, then to a heap. The main thing is a gross violation of the treaty banning the RMSD in terms of the deployment of Mk41 ground launchers, suitable for launching the Tomahawk missile launchers, at American missile bases in Romania and Poland.

    This is one of the positions on which we accuse the United States of violating the INF Treaty. The second position is the ground launchers Mk.41.
    But always, when it comes to violations - they speak of a violation of either the SPIRIT of the contract, or the LETTERS of the contract. In this case, we are not talking about violation of the LETTER of the law, that is, of some articles, namely SPIRIT. And the SPIRIT of a treaty is something ephemeral, suitable only for information wars. Ballistic missiles, those that the Americans have under the contract are allowed. Launchers MK.41 are not specified in the contract.

    Quote: Operator
    The Americans may have counter questions to us about the possibility of deploying the Kalibr missile launcher (in the TPK) on the basis of the Iskander-M mobile OTRK. But here our partners can go through the forest - TPK KRSD "Caliber" can be placed even on a trailer to a pickup truck. But if we say that the "Caliber" is installed only on naval carriers and tactical aircraft, then the Americans can only check it according to the protocol.

    The Iskander TPK of the Kalibr cruise missiles simply will not fit. Too long. Cruise missiles with a range of up to 500 km are permitted. And even exists in the form of a ground-based mobile anti-ship installation. But with a longer range, they should have pronounced external differences from those with a range of 500 km. And I think all this is negotiated in regular meetings.
    1. Operator
      Operator 15 June 2016 22: 55
      0
      As for the spirit and letter of the agreement on the ban on INF, I, as you know, have a different opinion.

      May God grant that our representatives in negotiations with the Americans could prove that the Iskander-M ballistic missile (7,2 meters long) will not fit the Caliber cruise missile (8,4 meters long).
  20. Old26
    Old26 16 June 2016 18: 41
    0
    Quote: ARES623
    Serious people exercising real control over states do not take seriously the delusions on social networks, VICIs, etc. sources. Therefore, whatever the mass media write about the ranges of the Iskander missiles, this is not the "club" that is being trumped. The accusations that the United States voiced at different levels of government in this regard are nothing more than trolling, creating a sound background. Irritating, but no more.

    And information war is trolling. The Americans are well aware that if a "product" flew at least 5600 km during testing, then this is an ICBM, but nevertheless, they begin (began, to be more precise) to accuse us of having violated the INF Treaty, since on another test it flew 2600 km. At the same time, they themselves, "Trident-2" flew on tests and in 2300. But neither we nor they believe that "Trident-2" is not an intercontinental missile

    Quote: ARES623
    And that says it all - mulka, she is a mulka. Including the performance characteristics of missiles. More speculation based on geometries and energetics of known fuels. Even people close to the manufacturer are unlikely to have reliable information about a serious product, especially in "sensitive" areas.

    Possess, but do not bother with the language

    Quote: ARES623
    Typical misunderstanding of legally binding language. The agreement prescribes the liquidation of missiles and their launchers in various ways. MK-41 - universal vertical launch launcher, supposedly created specifically for the Navy, including anti-aircraft missiles. And this means that formally it does not fall under liquidation on two grounds.

    At that time, when the RSMD agreement was signed, the Mk.41 installations did not physically exist. Specific land-based launchers were agreed. Marine were not considered at all. I said just above that MK.41 is not a violation LETTERS agreement, i.e. articles of the contract, and SPIRIT... laughing
  21. Old26
    Old26 16 June 2016 19: 30
    0
    Quote: ARES623
    Is not a fact. The fact that the United States independently decided to change the method of disposal of charges suggests that they can not be trusted. And, most likely, the withdrawn nuclear warheads were mothballed with the possibility of quick recovery or modernization.

    Sorry, but somewhere in the contract destruction was registered precisely WAR-HEAD, that is, a physical package? WAR-HEADand not their bodies? After all, we also destroyed the warhead hulls, and not the warheads themselves. On the net you can find many photographs of the destruction of exactly the cases that were cut or choked. But they were all without internal filling. In the agreement itself, there was no talk of any destruction of physical packages. I would not be surprised if the warheads themselves from the Pioneers are now being used in Bulava. The combat units removed by the Americans were:
    1. From "Pershing-2" used in bombs B-61
    2. From ground-based Tomahawks (W-84) were scrapped 6-7 years ago. Before that they were in strategic reserve, that is, disassembled for "spare parts", and a number of secondary parts of the warheads were generally unified.
    3. Warheads from sea-based nuclear "Tomahawks" are partly in operational storage (100 pieces), part (198 pieces) in long-term storage. Hulls of sea-based nuclear "tomahawks" (109A) scrapped at the beginning of the last decade

    Quote: ARES623
    This is how to understand - in the framework of the contract to do what is prohibited by the contract? Funny ...

    Target missiles are not prohibited by the INF Treaty. But in fact they are medium-range missiles. Alas, we did not take advantage of this loophole in the framework of the INF Treaty and did not officially do what the Americans did. That is, they created and tested medium-range ballistic missiles

    Quote: Vadim237
    "BRVZ are prohibited by the SALT-2 treaty" - Russia withdrew from it, due to the fact that the US withdrew from the missile defense system in megatonnage USA - 63 bombers B 1 - 20 B61 bombs - 340 kt, 19 B 2 bomb load for each 16 B83 bombs , 1,2 Mt, 72 B 52 - bomb load on each 20 ALKM 150 kt missiles, 450 Minuteman 3 ICBMs one warhead on each W88 475kt missile, 8 Ohio submarines 24 Trident 2 ICBMs on the first 4 submarines on ICBMs with 5 W76 100kt warheads, on other nuclear submarines with 6 warheads W88 475kt - in total we get 1606 megatons - this is not yet taking into account the creation of nuclear Tomahawks and it is possible to create a nuclear warhead for AGM 158 missiles


    You are not reading carefully. I wrote under the SALT-2 treaty, not the START-2 ... And under the SALT-2 treaty, any ballistic missiles with a range of more than 600 km were prohibited, and it was also forbidden to use aircraft that were not bombers as a carrier of ballistic and cruise missiles. At one time in the military-technical literature, such a bulletin as "rocket and space technology" published such projects, fortunately for us not implemented.
    As for megatonnage, then I do not agree with you, you have too many mistakes, not to say delirium. So you simply can’t believe this data.