U.S. military to test missiles banned under faltering nuclear pact with Russia

[seruriermarshal]

U.S. military to test missiles banned under faltering nuclear pact with Russia

March 13 at 6:22 PM

The Pentagon is gearing up to test missiles banned by a Cold War-era arms control pact with Russia that is set to end formally this summer after President Trump’s withdrawal over Russian violations.

The U.S. military plans to test a ground-launched cruise missile with a range of about 600 miles in August and a midrange ballistic missile with a range of about 1,800 to 2,500 miles in November, according to senior U.S. defense officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military matters.

The testing, production and deployment of missiles with those ranges is prohibited by the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or the INF Treaty. But Trump withdrew from the treaty on Feb. 1 and triggered a formal six-month wait period before the final expiry of the agreement this summer.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-military-to-test-missiles-banned-under-faltering-nuclear-pact-with-russia/2019/03/13/289f7860-45b6-11e9-9726-50f151ab44b9_story.html?utm_term=.72b81751b496

 

[stealthflanker]

Ok, are we looking at reborn of Pershing II ?

 

[sferrin]

Ok, are we looking at reborn of Pershing II ?

I would like to believe that. But more likely they've found an old Polaris missile to blow the dust off to check a box but will no way, no how have any chance of ever becoming a producible weapon.

 

[sferrin]

"Some proponents of arms control have questioned the strategy around the tests.

"The Russians have been violating the INF Treaty for years but, instead of focusing world opinion against the Russians, the Trump administration decided to withdraw from the treaty," Adam Smith, the Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said recently.

"Instead of punishing the Russians, the administration has announced it would sink to the level of the Russians."

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/200858/pentagon-plans-to-test-long_banned-missiles-after-inf-pullout.html

So why exactly is this dumba$$ on the House Armed Services Committee? I guess he thinks we haven't been punishing the Russians since the Obama administration? How'd that work out Sparky? And what about China? Jesus tap-dancing Christ.

 

[uk 75]

The Midgetman small ICBM might also be a contender

 

[sferrin]

The Midgetman small ICBM might also be a contender

If it weren't for the fact that there's nothing left of it aside from museum pieces.

 

[QuadroFX]

Can i ask you? How mid-range missiles can directly or indirectly threaten the U.S? Even assuming that such missiles exist.

 

[GARGEAN]

Evil russians firing them at Rammstein?

 

[_Del_]

Prolific IRBM threats make it exceptionally difficult to sustain any sort of air campaign over Eastern Europe or anywhere around China. If you assume harbors and rail yards as targets for bombardment, establishing a strong defense and sustaining any sort of counter-campaign on the ground gets much more difficult under those conditions. Then there's the "carrier-killers" such as in China, which may or may not be effective , ut I'd hate to find out. You have to assume it puts a crimp in operations plans.I
Does it "directly" threaten America? No. NATO allies and allies in Asia? Certainly. American interests as guarantors? Yes, obviously.

 

[sferrin]

Can i ask you? How mid-range missiles can directly or indirectly threaten the U.S? Even assuming that such missiles exist.

Wait. Are you claiming mid-range missiles DON'T exist?

 

[Grey Havoc]

I think he meant in full series production.

 

[stealthflanker]

Can i ask you? How mid-range missiles can directly or indirectly threaten the U.S? Even assuming that such missiles exist.

Well it's existence was the reason of INF in the first place. Soviet with Pioneer and RK-55. US-Allies with GLCM and Pershings family.

Having those mid range missiles mean you can bombard nearby Airbases, installations etc of US in EU or in modern time it can hit US Airbases around Pacific and in its ally nation such as Japan and Korea. This means US have to rely on aircraft carriers and have to accept if China have Carrier killer missile, reduced striking power.

For example this is a simple calculation of striking power for CV or airbase with 70 fighters available. The target range is 1000 km, and your fighters can lift 6000 Kg of payload and fly that distance without refuelling and still have enough fuel to got home. Your striking power is about 2,182,734 Lb or about 990 metric tonnes. Assume those loads are cruise missiles, you can launch 990 of them or maybe 450 of them.

But now we have intermediate range missile, Pioneer like or DF-26 like. With range about 4600 Km. nearby airbase would be bombed to bits forcing you to rely on farther airbase or carrier. Same aircrafts, same payload but longer target. Your striking power is reduced to 83.087 Lb or 37.8 metric tonnes. a massive reduction of about 97%.

your tanker requirement also soars up to 18. In case of aircraft carriers, it directly hit how many fighters you can actually deploy as some might need to be equipped with buddy to buddy refuelling pod.

You can surely imagine how that will impact US air-power.

 

[sferrin]

I think he meant in full series production.

Even so, I don't think he really thought it through. If Mid-range missiles were no threat to the US we wouldn't have bothered deploying nearly 600 nuclear-armed Pershing IIs and GLCMs in Europe.

 

[QuadroFX]

Prolific IRBM threats make it exceptionally difficult to sustain any sort of air campaign over Eastern Europe or anywhere around China.

Then there's the "carrier-killers" such as in China

NATO allies and allies in Asia

US-Allies

installations etc of US in EU

US Airbases around Pacific and in its ally nation such as Japan and Korea

if China have Carrier killer missile

Pershing IIs and GLCMs in Europe.

Thank you all.
I understood your answers, but for me it remains unclear: why was it necessary to arrange this clownery with accusations against Russia, if U.S. could just silently brake off the treaty, as they did with Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty?

 

[sferrin]

I understood your answers, but for me it remains unclear: why was it necessary to arrange this clownery with accusations against Russia, if U.S. could just silently brake off the treaty, as they did with Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty?

Wow. It's "clownery" for the US to dare be upset that Russia would violate a Treaty? :

 

[GARGEAN]

Wow. It's "clownery" for the US to dare be upset that Russia would violate a Treaty? :

And Russia did it?

 

[sferrin]

Wow. It's "clownery" for the US to dare be upset that Russia would violate a Treaty? :

And Russia did it?

Obviously.

 

[GARGEAN]

I see.