US may deploy ground launched cruise/ballistic missiles to counter Russian INF treaty violation

[F-22Raptor]

once russia had war with your, do you think china will sit tight? we already had enough of you.

Keep it up and similar systems to what I posted above will be coming to China's doorstep in the Western Pacific.

 

[pher]

Keep it up and similar systems to what I posted above will be coming to China's doorstep in the Western Pacific.

go scare those small countries you are good at ,we don't care.

 

[F-22Raptor]

go scare those small countries you are good at ,we don't care.

Oh, the CCP would definitely care. Those kinds of systems dispersed throughout the Western Pacific would be significant force multipliers for US forces in the region and a nightmare for China. Don't think otherwise...

 

[Oldman1]

go scare those small countries you are good at ,we don't care.

Sure you care. China complained about THAAD being possibly deployed to South Korea and its just a defense system. Imagine ground based short and medium range missiles deployed in the Pacific. Heck China even complained about a couple of thousand Marines in Australia for training.

 

[Hindustani78]

Under the INF treaty, Russia and the US are not allowed to operate ground launched missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500km. It's believed Russia violated this treaty with a ground launched cruise missile operating within this range.

Was it the 2008 missile launch by Russian Federation ?

The Obama administration is getting impatient with Russia - Business Insider

The administration is considering three options for responding militarily to Russian missile treaty violations: defenses to stop a treaty-violating missile, the "counterforce" option to attack a missile preemptively and the "countervailing strike capabilities" option that implies the potential use of nuclear forces.

One of Carter's nuclear policy aides, Robert Scher, testified in April that "counterforce" means "we could go about and actually attack that missile where it is in Russia." Another Pentagon official, Brian McKeon, testified in December that this option involved potential deployment in Europe of ground-launched cruise missiles.

Scher said another option would involve "not simply attacking" the Russian missile but seeing "what things we can hold at risk within Russia itself." Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons expert at the Federation of American Scientists, said this could mean further improving the ability of U.S. nuclear or conventional forces to destroy Russian military targets in addition to missiles deemed to violate the INF treaty.

Kristensen said the public discussion of these options amounts to "one hell of a gamble" that Putin will back down on INF.

The State Department said last July that Russia had tested a missile in violation of the treaty, which bans indefinitely the possession, production and flight-testing of missiles — both nuclear and conventional — with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers (310 and 3,410 miles)..

The administration has not said whether it believes the Russian missile is nuclear or conventional. But Carter said, in responses for his confirmation hearing, "Russia's INF treaty violation is consistent with its strategy of relying on nuclear weapons to offset U.S. and NATO conventional superiority."

Much about the subject is classified, including a Pentagon assessment of the threat posed by Russian violations.

The Associated Press was given an unclassified portion of a report written by the office of Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that examines weapons the U.S. could develop and deploy if freed from INF treaty constraints.

It identified four such weapons that "could assist in closing ... a capability gap."

Among the four are ground-launched cruise missiles deployed in Europe or Asia, and ground-launched intermediate-range ballistic missiles equipped with technology that adjusts the trajectory of a warhead after it re-enters Earth's atmosphere and heads for its target.

The prospect of returning U.S. medium-range missiles to Europe recalls some of the darker days of the Cold War when Washington's NATO allies hosted U.S. ground-launched cruise missiles and Pershing 2 ballistic missiles, countering Soviet SS-20 missiles. The U.S.-NATO response prompted a Europe-wide protest movement, followed by U.S.-Soviet negotiations leading to the INF treaty, the first to ban an entire class of missile.

 

[Hindustani78]

TASS: Russia - Lawmaker: Moscow can answer possible deployment of US nuclear missiles in Europe
June 05, 16:07 UTC+3
Colonel General Viktor Zavarzin said "the US administration needs to weigh everything carefully before making such ill-considered steps"

MOSCOW, June 5. /TASS/. Member of the State Duma Defense committee Colonel General Viktor Zavarzin has said that Russia has counter-arguments to the possible deployment of US nuclear missiles in Europe.

"If the Americans indeed deploy their ground-based nuclear missiles in Europe, in this case we will face the necessity of retaliating. And we have such an opportunity," Zavarzin told TASS on Friday.

He confirmed that the current state and technical equipment of the Russian Armed Forces made it possible to respond immediately to all challenges and threats emanating from outside the country’s borders. "In this case, the US administration needs to weigh everything carefully before making such ill-considered steps," he said.

The Associated Press reported on Thursday that the Obama administration was considering the deployment of land-based missiles in Europe "that could pre-emptively destroy the Russian weapons". The AP cites an unclassified portion of a report written by the office of chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey "that examines weapons the US could develop and deploy if freed from INF treaty constraints."

 

[Akasa]

I wonder how conventional prompt global strike will fit into this whole clusterfck. HTV-2 and AHW type weapons might become more desirable. Last time I checked the Russians weren't very happy about the whole idea of the US military having a CPGS-type capability, so it is definitely worth noting.

I'm all for the HGV MRBMs on any Virginia-class subs with VPM or VPT.

The VPM seems like a great addition to the USN's SSN fleet and will provide much-needed versatility, similar to how the Type 052D's universal VLS does the same for the PLAN. What piques my interest, however, is the USN's decision to slate the Virginias, instead of the Ohios, for such conversions.

And then What?

1. They start a pointless conventional war with NATO over a treaty. They then get cut off from SWIFT and then watch their economy run itself into the ground. They are also outnumbered and outclassed by combined NATO forces.

2. They start a nuclear war with the US and have 95 percent of their population wiped off the face of the Earth by SLBMs. Everybody in the world dies because of radiation and nuclear winter shortly after.

Russia is already under consideration for SWIFT sanctions by the EU for their role in Ukraine. What Russia (or any country, for that matter) needs to pay attention to, in a time of conflict, are the credit ratings of their major financial institutions. Russia's banks are already suffering from multiple sanctions as well as dissatisfied investors; a military option would be the last choice for even the most hawkish Russian leaders.

TASS: Russia - Lawmaker: Moscow can answer possible deployment of US nuclear missiles in Europe
June 05, 16:07 UTC+3
Colonel General Viktor Zavarzin said "the US administration needs to weigh everything carefully before making such ill-considered steps"

MOSCOW, June 5. /TASS/. Member of the State Duma Defense committee Colonel General Viktor Zavarzin has said that Russia has counter-arguments to the possible deployment of US nuclear missiles in Europe.

"If the Americans indeed deploy their ground-based nuclear missiles in Europe, in this case we will face the necessity of retaliating. And we have such an opportunity," Zavarzin told TASS on Friday.

He confirmed that the current state and technical equipment of the Russian Armed Forces made it possible to respond immediately to all challenges and threats emanating from outside the country’s borders. "In this case, the US administration needs to weigh everything carefully before making such ill-considered steps," he said.

The Associated Press reported on Thursday that the Obama administration was considering the deployment of land-based missiles in Europe "that could pre-emptively destroy the Russian weapons". The AP cites an unclassified portion of a report written by the office of chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey "that examines weapons the US could develop and deploy if freed from INF treaty constraints."

Unless Russia develops a credible sea-based deterrent or manages to threaten CONUS directly, any response meted by Moscow will be seen in an increasingly passive light.

 

[Oldman1]

The VPM seems like a great addition to the USN's SSN fleet and will provide much-needed versatility, similar to how the Type 052D's universal VLS does the same for the PLAN. What piques my interest, however, is the USN's decision to slate the Virginias, instead of the Ohios, for such conversions.

They could but they are getting old. And with dozens of more Virginias that are more modern its better that way than to spend so much money to convert an old Ohio class boat which is being replaced by the SSBN-X which the U.S. Navy wants to save money for. Can't have everything.

 

[Beidou2020]

Oh, the CCP would definitely care. Those kinds of systems dispersed throughout the Western Pacific would be significant force multipliers for US forces in the region and a nightmare for China. Don't think otherwise...

America is nothing but a barking dog that's too afraid to bite.

China is building in the SCS and the US can't do f*** all about it.
All it can think of is flying planes and ships near the islands thinking China will stop the construction.

What's the matter, too afraid to bomb it?

I'm sure if it was some poor Arab country doing it, US would have already bombed those construction sites but since US can't do a damn thing to China, we get the empty hot air warnings from the US.

China is making a complete mockery of the US in front of the whole world by building what China wants and when it wants despite American crying.

Enjoy the humiliation

 

[Oldman1]

America is nothing but a barking dog that's too afraid to bite.

China is building in the SCS and the US can't do f*** all about it.
All it can think of is flying planes and ships near the islands thinking China will stop the construction.

What's the matter, too afraid to bomb it?

I'm sure if it was some poor Arab country doing it, US would have already bombed those construction sites but since US can't do a damn thing to China, we get the empty hot air warnings from the US.

China is making a complete mockery of the US in front of the whole world by building what China wants and when it wants despite American crying.

Enjoy the humiliation

You can't even enforce your claim of SCS with "you go now!" And warned the U.S. many times but won't shoot down aircraft that is flying in your airspace of your claims. Keep warning and building as many islands you want, still not yours.

 

[Galad]

It's believed Russia violated this treaty with a ground launched cruise missile operating within this range.

Ah it is believed you say.Once again absolutely no proof of USA claims.But of course it does not stop you and rest of you kind to cheer for it.The same way you are cheering for destruction of Syria,support of terrorism ups I mean "freedom fighters".

They then get cut off from SWIFT and then watch their economy run itself into the ground.

You missed it right?Of course you did-you failed to notice it.Here piece of info for you-after being again and again threatened to be cut off from SWIFT Russia at the end received director seat.Another piece of info(once again you did miss it)-Russia has its own SWIFT version inside country which will be connected with Chinese version due to be launch September.

The distance between the launch facility and the impact area is approximately 1,248 miles, far less than the threshold of 3,417 miles required by the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty."

And this is your proof and proof of lying politicians Russia violated the treaty.At least when deliver lies-pls do deliver at least remotely believable ones.

Russia violated the INF treaty, which leaves the US with no choice but to respond.

So go ahead deliver the proof.Knowing your kind proof will be something along the lines of Iraq WMD(non-existent),Iran just few months away from creating nuclear bomb(non-existent),Syria used chemical weapons(another lie)...

P.S.And look of USA posters-all them warmongering again.

 

[Hindustani78]

Unless Russia develops a credible sea-based deterrent or manages to threaten CONUS directly, any response meted by Moscow will be seen in an increasingly passive light.

According to Sputnik.Today's news

Russia finalized the project of a new Combat Railway Missile Complex (BZhRK) that will multiply its nuclear potential and counter the US Conventional Prompt Global Strike, RG.ru reported.

Every "Barguzin" train will be armed with six ICBMs RS-24 Yars (a land equivalent of the submarine-launched Bulava).

Five "Barguzin" regiments are expected to enter Russia's SMF by 2020.

 

[Penguin]

Anythin that will fit a MK41 can be placed in a compatible truck-based launch system.

I'm thinking a landbased version of LRASM. LRASM is based on AGMN-158B-JASSM-ER, which has a range of 500 nmi (930 km; 580 mi)), the addition of the sensor and other features will somewhat decrease that range. Some naval advisors have proposed increasing the LRASM's capabilities to serve dual functions as a ship-based land attack weapon in addition to anti-ship roles. By reducing the size of its 1,000 lb (450 kg) warhead to increase range from some 300 mi (480 km) to 1,000 mi (1,600 km), the missile would still be powerful enough destroy or disable warships while having the reach to hit inland targets.

 

[BHAN85]

USA doesnt need deploy more missiles to beat Russia .

Someone should open a thread with the title "Can be won a nuclear WWIII?" and we'll give reasons in both directions.

What is the base of Mutual Assured Destruction? is the Invisibility of SSBN? and... can darpa underwater drones follow foes ssbn's in silence? ...can USA sosus detect them? If they can, then they can win a nuclear WWIII against Russia.

 

[Hindustani78]

Interfax news

November 16, 2016

21:20
Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, U.S. discuss INF treaty implementation in Geneva

https://sputniknews.com/military/201611161047521056-russia-takes-part-inf-treaty/

"On November 15-16, the 30th session of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty Special Verification Commission took place. Delegations from Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, the United States and Kazakhstan discussed issues related to implementing the treaty," the ministry said.

The meeting, convened by the United States in Geneva, took place for the first time since its 2003 session, when the work of the SVC was curtailed as INF Treaty aims had been implemented.

The US move had been welcomed by the Russian Foreign Ministry's Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Department. In October, the department head, Mikhail Ulyanov, said Moscow had plans to use the meeting to discuss the use of combat drones and target drones, as well as the Mark 41 Vertical Launching System (Mk-41) deployed by the United States in Romania.

In May, the United States activated its Aegis ashore ballistic missile defense system (BMDS) in Romania equipped with the Mk-41 launcher, prompting Russian concerns over US breaches of the intermediate missile treaty. Moscow considers the Mk-41 to be capable of launching Tomahawk long-range cruise missiles. The 1987 INF Treaty prohibits the development, deployment or testing of ground-launched ballistic or cruise missiles with ranges between 300 and 3,400 miles. The treaty was implemented by 1991 with inspections carrying on until 2001.

*************

The Mk 41 Vertical Launching System / VLS is a modular, below deck, canister missile launching system that was originally designed for the Navy’s Aegis-equipped guided missile cruisers to provide air threat protection for naval battle groups. The Mk 41 VLS is a multi-missile, multi-mission launcher, capable of launching SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, ESSM, Tomahawk, and Vertical Launch ASROC missiles.

Features:
Anti-Air Warfare (AAW)
Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)
Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD)
Land Attack/Strike