On October 20, 2018, citing Russian
non-compliance, Trump announced that he was withdrawing the US
from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear [Missile] Forces Treaty (INF).
Tomorrow, the history and likely shapes of Kalibr-M.
Pete
Putin announced on November 20, 2018 that Russia was prepared to
discuss INF with Washington but Russia would "retaliate" if the United
States withdrew.
On January 8, 2019, Russia’s TASS News Agency, citing an unnamed source, announced Russia was developing an intermediate range (4,500 km), 1 tonne nuclear capable warhead, sea launched Kalibr missile, dubbed “Kalibr-M”.
The INF Treaty, between the US and USSR/Russia was agreed
and ratified in the late 1980s. The INF aimed to eliminate all nuclear and
conventional missiles with ranges from 500 km to
5,500 km. The INF was very much aimed at ground launched missiles in Europe deployed by NATO (including US forces) facing the Warsaw Pact (including Russia) in the 1980s. By May 1991, 2,692 missiles were eliminated.
Another US reason to withdraw is the need to counter the Chinese (an INF non-signatory) missile buildup covering the Pacific. This particularly means China's ground launched, ~1,500 km DF-21D "carrier killers" and < 5,500 km DF-26 "Guam killers". US officials extending back to Obama days have noted China's ability to work outside of the INF treaty.
Another US reason to withdraw is the need to counter the Chinese (an INF non-signatory) missile buildup covering the Pacific. This particularly means China's ground launched, ~1,500 km DF-21D "carrier killers" and < 5,500 km DF-26 "Guam killers". US officials extending back to Obama days have noted China's ability to work outside of the INF treaty.
The INF treaty did not cover sea-launched missiles. The INF
Treaty's non-coverage of sea-launched missiles has always provided room for technological exploitation
and political threat of an arms race. Developing new sea-launched cruise missiles provides a technology backdoor for quicker development of INF breaking ground and air
launched versions.
Developing sea-launched Kalibr-M is a Russian way to protest and
exploit the US withdrawal from the INF.
In this October 22, 2018 upload Trump uses typical subtlety to frighten NATO allies on his INF withdrawal. Lets hope Trump gamed it with Putin first!
---
Tomorrow, the history and likely shapes of Kalibr-M.
Pete
5 comments:
Nothing prevents US from putting improved Pershing II on US flagged container ships. Ground launched MRBM and IRBM are of limited value to the US given the westernmost US territory is Guam, unless one counts some of the smaller islands. I do not see South Koreans nor Japanese ever agreeing to deployments on their soils.
KQN
Hi again KQN
With large sized shipping containers on merchant ships being up to 14.63 meters long [1] hiding missiles on merchant ships has merit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_container#48-foot_containers
All cruise missile can fit and I see the Trident II SLBM - at 13.579 m - can also fit (if the shipping container is tipped vertically) or is already vertical in the hold.
As the possibility of Chinese, Russian and commercial intelligence maritime company detection is high, also the risk of pirates, terrorist hijacking, mutiny and labour-unions going on strike.
It is advisable to also mount on these merchant surface ships radars, sonars, guns, missiles, communications and dedicated, disciplined, experienced crews to operate them.
Or at least destroyer sized escorts in convoy to protect them.
To provide greater security and stealth submerging the containers is preferable.
Missiles on merchant ships has long been mooted https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2019-01/converting-merchant-ships-missile-ships-win
eg:
"Options include International Maritime Organization–compliant double-hull tankers and container ships. Given their size, either type probably could accommodate tactical ballistic missiles in addition to ship-launched cruise missiles.
Container ship conversion into a “missile merchant” would be easier and probably less costly if VLS modules were housed in special ConEx Boxes or stacked in container cells.
On the other hand, Mercy- class hospital ships are converted tankers in which the medical spaces were dropped into the open hull; similarly installing conventional VLS modules on board a modern tanker would offer improved survivability..."
Cheers
Pete
@KQN:
The US would have little use for IRBMs or cruise missiles in the Pacific theater: it has an abundance of launch platforms for sea launched weapons (which the INF doesn't control) in the form of every mk41 ship + every SSN and SSGN it owns. US bases are, as you point out, too far away and no ally is likely to risk angering China.
Were the US to adopt an intermediate range missile, the quickest deployment would be land based BGM-109 as was developed and then shelved due to INF. This could use a weapon already in production for conventional use. For a nuclear option, the W-80 warheads for BGM-109 are already in storage in the 'enduring stockpile': that is, they are not maintained, but the components are stored and could be reactivated.
The issue again would be deployment - no Western European nation would want to have these our their territory in the current political climate. The Poles and Baltic nations on the other hand would likely not be opposed to conventional basing. Dual key use might even be considered if Russia adopted an even more aggressive stance.
Cheers,
Josh
Hi Josh
I too like to use in-house acronyms. But we may need to tell readers that "BGM-109s"
are much more commonly known as Tomahawk cruise missiles.
I mentioned Tomahawks
- on Jan 10, 2019 http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2019/01/future-kalibr-m-most-likely-p-1000.html .
and yesterday http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2019/01/ballistic-and-cruise-missiles-in-east.html partly along the lines you mentioned later
Cheers
Pete
Pete,
Mesh high speed communications and electronics have come a long way so we probably do not need to put a full suite of sensors on all ships, surface combatants and commercial ships. Sensors, they need specialists to operate them. Distributed intelligence and weaponry just make the system more survivable and the enemy's planning job substantially harder to solve. Besides any peer to peer conflict is going to lead to heavy casualties on both sides, and we need to start thinking about some expandable assets.
I agree with Josh with the Tomahawks, assuming we have solved the reliability problems that plagues some of the earlier Blocks, like 60% which was rather disappointing.
KQN
Post a Comment