So, does /k/ think that russia popping off with extended ranged

>>32996123
>or that his bought-and-paid-for president here in the US
>>>/pol/

>>32996445
They need to make up their mind, depending on the week Trump is either a Russian puppet or he is going to start WW3 with Russia.

>>32996123
But Obama allowed Kalibr to hit targets in Syria. It killed many babies n bakeries.

>>32996123
what treaty? INF? Because MTCR doesn't count for self deployment.

File: 1479532794881.jpg (385KB, 1920x1276px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 1920x1276px

>>32996123
INF treaty is dead more than 20 years there is little sense for Russia to be sole follower of it.

>>32996578
>[...] or he is going to start WW3 with Russia.
Wait, which week was that?

>Russia violates treaty
>HAHAHA GET REKT'D AMERICUNTS RUSSIA STR000NK AND WILL CONQUER WASHINGTON

>US violates treaty
>THIS AGGRESSION MUST BE PUNISHED WHAT A CATASTROPHE RUSSIA WILL CONQUER WASHINGTON DC

/k/ basically

>>32997530
no, it's always been the opposite

>>32997530
more like some bizarro, upside-down /k/

>>32998010
>>32998973
You are half correct, replace Russia with China and it is accurate.

>>32996123

What treaty!?

Sounds like more fake news bullshit by the Deep State to try and continue to pressure Trump to continue with Neo Cohen policies.

File: i1nJ5.jpg (184KB, 1000x676px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1000x676px

>>32996914
Yes, INF.

The Iskander-K uses the R-500 missile which is also known as the 3M-14 Biryuza LACM arm of the Kaliber missile system. Albeit software gimped so it 'seems' it complies with the INF treaty. It is easy to ungimp it from 500km to 2000km range. Also it is nuclear warhead capable.

>a blatant treaty violation
?

>>32996123
>that are a blatant treaty violation
They are not, piss off.
>>33000021
R-500 has 500 km range, piss off.

>>33000448
"Allegedly"

The R-500 is the same missile as used in the Kalibr Land Attack Variant which has 2000km range.

It's the same missile, only vatniks try to defend that it's not.

>>33000462
And Oniks is the "same" missile as Yakhont, only that the former has 600 km range and the latter is restricted to 300 km range because of international agreement on guided missile export. R-500 has 500 km range. Deal with it and piss off, fatnik.

>>33000021
INF is long dead, because drones is cruise missiles in the treaty terms and deployed by virtually everyone and their dogs. Moreover, ABM interceptor silos in EE is clear violation of INF because can be used as AGM launchers.

Those missiles are against ISIS.

I'm honestly don't know why NATO should worry about.

>>33000565
>Russia violate treaty
Fuck Russia, lets sanctions on those thugs, who not complying with treaty
>The US violate treaty
Well, this treaty is long dead, anyway

>>32996123
>or that his bought-and-paid-for president here in the US will ignore them?

>knowledge of geopolitics on the level of a 12-year old.
>like most lib-tards

>saged

>>33000565
>drones is cruise missiles in the treaty terms
No way
>ABM interceptor silos in EE is clear violation of INF
Fuck off

>>33000539
For one, The Kalibr has an export model called Klub which is different from R-500. And they are not selling R-500 anytime soon.

Second is Oniks has software differences from Yakhont and Indians have already improved the range on the Brahmos.

Everyone who is anyone already knows the Russian cheat. Even the export model land based Klub-K container TEL is different from R-500, which just means the R-500 is IRBM.

You're just backing yourself into a corner, Vlad.

>>32996950
The only country that is capable of going to ww3 with the US is Russia and potentially China.

If they meant wars in the middle east they're wrong and shows how stupid they really are. But yes, they do think Trump will start ww3, which is ironic because Hillary is a war monger.

>>33000629
>No way

>2. The term "cruise missile" means an unmanned, self-propelled vehicle that sustains flight through the use of aerodynamic lift over most of its flight path. The term "ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM)" means a ground-launched cruise missile that is a weapon-delivery vehicle.

>Fuck off

4. The term "GLCM launcher" means a fixed launcher or a mobile land-based transporter-erector-launcher mechanism for launching a GLCM.

>Aegis Ashore is a land-based variant of the Navy’s Aegis Weapons System and the centerpiece of Phases II and III of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA). The system incorporates land-based versions of platforms used on Aegis ships including the AN/SPY-1 radar, the MK 41 Vertical Launch System, and Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) interceptors.

>The Mk 41 is capable of firing the following missiles: RIM-66 Standard, RIM-67 Standard, RIM-161 Standard Missile 3, RIM-174 Standard ERAM, RGM-109 Tomahawk, RUM-139 VL-ASROC, RIM-7 Sea Sparrow, and RIM-162 ESSM.

>RGM-109 Tomahawk
>Operational range: 1,300 km

>>33000630
What for are you bringing export Kalibr here? to further strawman your non-existent argument? R-500 has 500 km range. Period.
>Oniks has software differences from Yakhont
The point is the range of the latter is restricted due to an international agreement.
>Indians have already improved the range on the Brahmos
No, they did not. And when they will, it will be them improving the range, not Russians selling them a missile with improved range directly.
>Everyone who is anyone already knows the Russian cheat.
The only thing everyone knows for sure is that a fatnik will never hesitate to lie and break treaties.
>R-500 is IRBM
Top kek, get the fuck out, imbecile. Piss off to /pol or whatever hellhole you crawled out.

File: 3M-54E1.jpg (987KB, 1657x1126px) Image search: [Google]

987KB, 1657x1126px

>>33000594
>Those missiles are against ISIS.
Not really. Like the Sunburn , the Klub is a long range sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missile. It has a unique flight trajectory. For most of its flight path it travels at subsonic to conserve fuel, but as it approaches the target it accelerates to Mach 3 below 15ft making it very difficult to intercept. In fact the DOD has lamented whether the US has effective means to counter this missile in flight.

>>32996930
/thread

>>32997530
Wow, you managed to get that 100% backwards

>>33000764
>R-500 has 500 km range.
Does that mean P-800 has an 800km range? No, even on lo-hi-lo it will never reach that range.

>The point is the range of the latter is restricted due to an international agreement.
Only one of many differences, Oniks has swarm mode while Yakhont does not, Oniks has Mid-Course Guidance while Yakhont is stuck with INS. Oniks can randomly pick a set of terminal flight path while Yakhont does not, it will only follow a direct flight towards the target. Oniks can send data back to the ship or any receiving platform like the A-50 Beriev.

TL;DR, they are not the 'same' missiles. R-500 and 3M-14 are the same missiles.

>The only thing everyone knows for sure is that a fatnik will never hesitate to lie and break treaties.
Don't move goalposts.
>Top kek, get the fuck out, imbecile.
This is what vatniks cry out when they're backed to a corner, much like the MH-17 scenario.

>>33001006
No, it only means that P-500 has 500 km range.
>Only one of many differences
The difference that is there specifically due to an international agreement.
>R-500 and 3M-14 are the same missiles
About as "same" as Oniks and Yakhont.
>Don't move goalposts.
How was I moving goalposts? You claim a thing, but they truth is that it is burgers who do it.
>R-500 is IRBM
Piss off to /pol, imbecile.

>>32996123

No matter who does what, the u.s. will continue to spend countless dollars on all sorts of technology. Just so they can always be the kid with the bigger stick. Only difference is some actions that ppl do, make others speed up their own actions so they remain ontop.

>>33000696
You'd have a point if AA ever fielded tomahawks. The capability to do so is not the same as doing so, otherwise pretty much every fighter would be counted as a warhead during START I and II. So until then, stay mad, vatnik

>>33001060
>No, it only means that P-500 has 500 km range.
Why are you arguing about the P-500 when he was talking about the R-500?

>>33001989
>AA ever fielded tomahawks

Launchers capable to launch tomahawk is prohibited by treaty, period. Not facilities or whole system, but

>4. The term "GLCM launcher" means a fixed launcher or a mobile land-based transporter-erector-launcher mechanism for launching a GLCM.

You installed tomahawk capable launchers as per treaty and trying to brush off this fact, fatnik

>>33001989
>otherwise pretty much every fighter would be counted as a warhead during START I and I

You should just read the treaties texts before writing bs

>123. (9) The term "warhead" means a unit of account used for counting toward the 6000 maximum aggregate limit and relevant sublimits as applied to deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers.

>>33001989
>The capability to do so is not the same as doing so
>4. The term "GLCM launcher" means a fixed launcher or a mobile land-based transporter-erector-launcher mechanism for launching a GLCM.
>8. The term "missile operating base" means:
> (a) in the case of intermediate-range missiles, a complex of facilities, located within a deployment area, at which intermediate-range missiles and launchers of such missiles normally operate, in which support structures associated with such missiles and launchers are also located and in which support equipment associated with such missiles and launchers is normally located; and
> (b) in the case of shorter-range missiles, a complex of facilities, located any place, at which shorter-range missiles and launchers of such missiles normally operate and in which support equipment associated with such missiles and launchers is normally located.

>1. Each Party shall eliminate all its intermediate-range missiles and launchers of such missiles, and all support structures and support equipment of the categories listed in the Memorandum of Understanding associated with such missiles and launchers, so that no later than three years after entry into force of this Treaty and thereafter no such missiles, launchers, support structures or support equipment shall be possessed by either Party.
>all its intermediate-range missiles and launchers of such missiles
>and launchers
>and launchers
>and launchers
>and launchers

>>33000835

No, no, trust me, they're against ISIS, so it's all good.


Just like American ABM missiles are against North Korea or Iran, or some nonsense.

See?

>>33002028
Your own definition doesn't say what you think it does, slavnigger

>>33002319
>ABM launchers are you going to intercept missiles going over the North Pole at the us from Russia by shooting from europe

I love vatnik propaganda

>>32996123
>or that his bought-and-paid-for president here in the US
consider suicide

>>33002649
Russians insist that you can put Tomahawk inside VLSs and use them for first strike. They are afraid that US can deploy de-facto medium range missiles at the fucking Russian border. US didn't provide any mechanism for checking what inside those closed containers.

>>33002637
>>33002214