The Death Of the INF Treaty

>Army just gets cruise or short range ballistic missiles so all those 700 bases now gets like the navy's worth of ordnance and we probably waste them on islam targets again.
Im okay with this

launching IRBMs at mudhuts is not cost effective. A new double track like action by the US/NATO as in the late 80s and a russian response (or the other way around, doesn't really matter) would unnecessarily increase risks in yurope. It was bad enough back then with SS20s and potential pershing IIs and GLCMs in germany and spain, with modern weapon systems it would be even more dangerous.

I really don't get what the US needs non INF compliant weapon systems for. Sure, the chinks aren't part of the INF treaty, but they sure as hell won't become one now. And the US doesn't need IRBMs or GLCMs in southeast asia, the navy and airforce are more than capable to saturate the chinese with cruise missiles.

Generally it doesn't sound hard to save the INF treaty for me. Give the russians their paper victory and let them station inspectors in the romanian deveselu aegis ashore base to make sure that the MK41 ramps are not used for tomahawks. In return ratify that their 9M279 rockets are either INF conform or that they're destroyed. The whole apperatus for that is in place. For some reason they don't want to use it and rather let the treaty die.

shit sucks. I live to close to rammstein and would rather not play real live stalker. We don't even get weapons

There’s not really any reasonable way to make it so it can fire SM-3 but not Tomahawks. It’s just a mk41 vls, it’d only take a software change. Only way to do it would be to build a new system only compatible with SM-3, but that’d be psychotically expensive.

It is if you're Russian.

>And the US doesn't need IRBMs or GLCMs in southeast asia

Actually it does, unlike the desert countries China actually has an capable A2/AD network.

Having Aegis Ashore be a dedicated BMD installation has far more benefit than the limited amount of Tomahawks that could be fit. Any attack on Aegis Ashore would be an indicator of intent to use weapons it is meant to defend against which would trigger an appropriate response.

sure, but it doesn't need hardware changes. Originally aegis ashore was planned with moderate cooperation with the russians. They were supposed to have permanent inspectors there to make sure that it remains defensive so they don't get to complain about the ramps themself not being INF compliant. That was shut down when relations went south. Going back to the original plan seems reasonable

that's true, but as long as the ramps can be used to launch cruise missiles the russian complaint remains valid. You're right that it doesn't make sense. Which is why I don't understand why they don't allow inspectors to check that. Not like they'd loose anything by having some russian guy look down a few VLS cells every couple months to make sure that there's only SM3s stationed

what would GLCMs and IRBMs add to US capabilities that can not be achieved by sea/air launched weaponry? As far as i can tell nothing significant.

>as long as the ramps can be used to launch cruise missiles the russian complaint remains valid

No it doesn't, without modification AA cannot launch anything other than SM-3.

>what would GLCM and IRBM add

Depth of capability and new avenues of attack that China would need to defend against.

Inspectors cannot see inside of sealed VLS cannisters. Opening them means they get shipped back to be repackaged and are replaced with new ones defeating your purpose.

>No it doesn't, without modification AA cannot launch anything other than SM-3.
read the INF treaty. If a system has been tested for launch of a weapon it counts as capable of doing so. The same Mk41 VLS cells are used on arleigh burke and ticonderoga class cruises. "It needs different software and maybe three additional screws" is not enough to make it compliant. Which is why the whole thing was originally planned in cooperation with the russians.

>Depth of capability and new avenues of attack that China would need to defend against.
it doesn't matter if cruise missiles are launched from ships, planes or some base in japan or south korea. IRBMs would add new capabilities to some degree but also come with a heavily increased risk of escalation, it is questionable if that is worth it. It also doesn't seem necessary to get through a chinese air defense network at all

true, didn't think about that. Back to the old system of having inspectors at the production facilities then. Until 2001 the US had inspectors at Votkinsk while the russians had theirs at Magna in utah. Keeping an intact chain of custody from the production facility to the base in romania wouldn't be a problem.

>Return of Pershings

That's the DF-21, user.

>If a system has been tested for launch of a weapon it counts as capable of doing so.

Aegis Ashore has only been tested with SM-3.

>Back to the old system of having inspectors at the production facilities then.

For missiles out of production for almost 20 years at that point? Neither the US or Russia would agree to allowing access to current production.

Russian Iskander launchers already field Kalibr variants that can go beyond 500 km so nothing has changed.

>Aegis Ashore has only been tested with SM-3.
The Mk41 VLS used to house the Aegis Ashores SM3s has been tested (and of course fielded) with tomahawks. That's what matters

ratification is something necessary in any reasonable arms control treaty. Inspectors making sure that only ratified systems are produced is hardly a big problem, they do not require deep insight. In terms of the russian complaints against Aegis Ashore it would only require them being able to confirm what is loaded into the VLS cells that get shipped to the system. It doesn't require acess to any information the other party doesn't already have anyways

Are the Mk41 used in Aegis ashore the same model as those that have launched Tomahawks off of ships?

youtube.com/watch?v=QDRrqgX-4Oc

>"It needs different software and maybe three additional screws" is not enough to make it compliant.

Attached: 1449352778089.gif (500x670, 1.35M)

Its funny, because while we blame China for job and IP theft, the fault really lies with Congressional Treason, aided and abetted by Wall Street

But this? It really is entirely China's fault, because they decided to get cute and play wise with their "Conventional" Ballistic Missile force like a bunch of smartasses, and refuse to sign the treaties and become a partner to those with the US and Russia

Oh well

yes, the same VLS cells are used on arleigh burkes and ticonderogas. The SM3 is also longer than a tomahawk with booster so using a shortened version wouldn't be possible.

Tomahawks go in Mk14 canisters, SM-3 go in Mk21 canisters. Do you have any evidence the Mk41 VLS model used in Aegis ashore is compatible with anything but Mk21 canisters?

a weapon to surpass metal gear

Attached: 1546494401116.png (426x418, 180K)

fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk41-strike.pdf
The Mk 41 VLS is modular, it comes in three heights, self defense, tactical and strike. The SM3 is slightly longer than the extended range SM-2 so it requires strike length Mk41 VLS cell, just like the tomahawk.

>INF
Literally cucking only the white man.
Most nuclear nations aren't part of it anyway

You realize there is more variation to Mk41 than cell lengths right?

sure, but that doesn't change anything since even the earliest versions can accomodate tomahawks (if they come in strike length)

Attached: mk41_bselne.png (931x323, 63K)

t. MIC cuck forced to buy overpriced crap

Spoiler alert: in Russia the government never really relinquished control of armaments companies - profits are limited to something like 10% for big ticket items. For export of course the opposite is even encouraged. Totally not the case in United Cucks where even their taxpayer's fund partially or fully foreign military purchases.

It seems to me that the smart move for the US would be to invest just enough to make the enemy commit huge resources into MRBMs and other missile tech whilst secretly developing effective countermeasures so that all the money and time they spend is wasted.

RS-26 is going to lose its ICBM classification and a couple missiles are going to have their range change overnight from 490/499km to 500km.

Also we might make a ground launched AShM. That is about it.

Russian intermediate range weaponry can only threaten Alaska and the northenmost west coast, so seattle from kamchatka. They can however target the entirety of europe, china, and the me leaving the entirety of strategic weaponry pointed at conus. Also coastal protection zones has increased significantly greatly complicating the usn's operations.

Your chart is a list of Aegis versions, not Mk41 versions.

Youre forgetting "remembering" sea based Kalibrs exist that can be setup for land use as well.