Nuke thread INF treaty final countdown

Its interesting they are so similar and supposedly identical internals with the small changes. I wonder if there was a last-minute need for a cut-down model to fit existing VLS or container systems. Also the diagram someone is ignoring or ignorant of 3M51 etc. GRAU designations

they claim the US is expanding some rocket production facility in arizona. Can't read snowrunes though, no clue what exactly it says

Attached: arizona rocket stuff.jpg (2048x1536, 470K)

and the last pic, the same old accusations about aegis ashore in romania.

I actually have a question about that. As far as i understand it the russians claim that the aegis ashore base in romania is in violation of the INF treaty because the Mk 41 VLS cells used could be used to launch tomahawks while the US claims that they've never been tested for that and are lacking required software. But arent those the same cells used on US destroyers? Like, what's stopping them from being used as GLCM starters if that's the case? As i understand it the INF treaty explitly treats all systems that were tested with them as capable of launching banned weapon systems and thus as violation. Or is it some legal loophole or whatnot because they were only tested as naval version?

Attached: Aegis Ashore.jpg (2048x1536, 363K)

not really related to this inf treaty stuff but pantex has started assembly of the first production unit W62-2 low yield warhead (for polaris IIs). Initial operation capability is supposed to be met by end of fiscal year 2019

>Actually never heard them complaining about HERA
You're kidding, right? This was the major violation since years.
web.archive.org/web/20010126071700/http://armscontrol.ru/start/exclusive/gkk1120.htm

Is that a microphone listening to engine sounds?

>violation
Only evil countries like Iraq does that.

>is it some legal loophole
No, it just blatantly violates the treaty because it can launch Tomahawks without the need for major modifications. Also, UACVs qualify as cruise missiles under the treaty, yet the US keeps ignoring every complaint about this. You keep complaining about Hera, UACVs, Aegis Ashore for years - oh, no, you see, these don't count. Recent Iskander variant? WTF RUSSIA VIOLATES THE TREATY AGFADNVBLAFDBNDF!!!!!11

>evil countries like Iraq
So the US qualifies then.

Attached: 1467914068783.png (400x400, 13K)

No, not kidding. But I was to young to care about this kind of stuff in the early 2000thens and it somehow completely passed me when I started to read a bit into the topic

>not really related to this inf treaty stuff but pantex has started assembly of the first production unit W62-2 low yield warhead (for polaris IIs)
>>not really related to this inf treaty stuff
it is related because that same warhead is also intended for USN sub-delivered cruise missiles and possibly even surface-delivered.

What if in the future, cruise missiles take over nuclear deterrence and ballistic missiles end up being used as conventional weapons? I just want an excuse for mach 20 RVs being used as PGMs

>TYCOAH
Unless this is the black site at Marana, it must be the Raytheon facility on the South side of town

Well, as long as those GLCMs aren't a thing it isn't really related. Also you can stick a lot of warheads on cruise missiles. For the foreseeable future they're designed for Polaris II SLBMs.

Besides that, I fucked up. It's of course W76-2 warheads, not 62.

Assume you meant Trident-II.

And yeah, it's not really relevant. There was some talk of canceling the Columbia program to save money and having Virginias (w/ VPM) with nuclear Tomahawks in the deterrent role instead, but no-one took it seriously for good reason.

Yeah, the next fuck up. I should go to bed, I sound even more clueless than usual

I still want to see non-nuclear ICBMs used as conventional strike weapons

Only after they exchanged their entire arsenal with low yield shit so they can nuke each other without killing the internet