• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pentagon conducts 1st test of previously banned missile

Deuce said:
Tomahawks are not new.
Click to expand...

True, but a "weapons system" that involves mounting them on trucks IS new.

That was one of the things banned by the INF treaty.

That was one of the things that the Russians said the US was working on.

That is exactly what the US revealed within a month of the termination of the INF.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, hangs around with ducks, went to duck school, has parents that are ducks, and wears duck clothing, the only logical conclusion is that it is an elephant - right?
 
Deuce said:
He was also saying that couldn’t have been done so quickly.
Click to expand...

Nope. What I am saying is that - in all likelihood - it was NOT "done so quickly". The peacetime military can't come up with even a new portion size for SOS in less than a month (at least not officially at any rate).
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
True, but a "weapons system" that involves mounting them on trucks IS new.

That was one of the things banned by the INF treaty.

That was one of the things that the Russians said the US was working on.

That is exactly what the US revealed within a month of the termination of the INF.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, hangs around with ducks, went to duck school, has parents that are ducks, and wears duck clothing, the only logical conclusion is that it is an elephant - right?
Click to expand...

If you think it takes years of research and development to bolt an already-existing missile launcher to a truck, I don't know what the **** to tell you. I think your problem is that you just don't know the first thing about the technical aspects of this. They didn't need to develop anything new.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
If you think it takes years of research and development to bolt an already-existing missile launcher to a truck, I don't know what the **** to tell you. I think your problem is that you just don't know the first thing about the technical aspects of this. They didn't need to develop anything new.
Click to expand...

If you think that it was as simple as knocking up some sort of framework and then welding it onto a truck body, then you are rather out of touch with reality.

For one thing you actually have to get permission to do stuff like that, and
  • to get permission to do stuff like that you have to provide blueprints, and then
  • those blueprints have to be assessed by engineers, and then
  • those engineers have to prepare a feasibility report, and then
  • that feasibility report has to be reviewed by higher level engineers, and then
  • that review has to be considered by higher command levels, and then
  • those higher command levels have to communicate back down the chain of command that they have approved of the theoretical project, and then
  • the actual project has to be costed out, and then
  • that costing out has to be reviewed by military financial authorities, and then
  • that financial review has to be considered by higher level military financial authorities, and then
  • those higher level military financial authorities have to communicate their approval of the expenditures back down the chain of command, and then
  • an actual source of funds has to be located, and then
  • the expenditure of those funds has to be authorized, and then
  • the funds have to be spent, and then
  • the parts needed have to arrive, and then
  • the parts needed have to be assembled, and then
  • the assembly has to be tested (short of actually being fired) to see if it actually works as intended, and then
  • any defects have to be rectified, and THEN
  • the whole thing has to be test fired.

That ALWAYS takes more than three weeks (unless some officers and senior NCOs are prepared to put their butts on the line and risk being tossed out of the peacetime military [which does NOT happen all that often]).

Regardless of whether or not what was built was "new", the development of it PRIOR TO the termination of the INF was a breach of the terms of the INF.
 
Last edited:
Lord Tammerlain said:
When does the US military move this fast except in war time?
Click to expand...

It would have taken more than three weeks just to get the paperwork involved in obtaining the cruise missile completed. Getting permission to (pretty much) destroy a truck would have taken even longer.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
If you think that it was as simple as knocking up some sort of framework and then welding it onto a truck body, then you are rather out of touch with reality.

For one thing you actually have to get permission to do stuff like that, and
  • to get permission to do stuff like that you have to provide blueprints, and then
  • those blueprints have to be assessed by engineers, and then
  • those engineers have to prepare a feasibility report, and then
  • that feasibility report has to be reviewed by higher level engineers, and then
  • that review has to be considered by higher command levels, and then
  • those higher command levels have to communicate back down the chain of command that they have approved of the theoretical project, and then
  • the actual project has to be costed out, and then
  • that costing out has to be reviewed by military financial authorities, and then
  • that financial review has to be considered by higher level military financial authorities, and then
  • those higher level military financial authorities have to communicate their approval of the expenditures back down the chain of command, and then
  • an actual source of funds has to be located, and then
  • the expenditure of those funds has to be authorized, and then
  • the funds have to be spent, and then
  • the parts needed have to arrive, and then
  • the parts needed have to be assembled, and then
  • the assembly has to be tested (short of actually being fired) to see if it actually works as intended, and then
  • any defects have to be rectified, and THEN
  • the whole thing has to be test fired.

That ALWAYS takes more than three weeks (unless some officers and senior NCOs are prepared to put their butts on the line and risk being tossed out of the peacetime military [which does NOT happen all that often]).

Regardless of whether or not what was built was "new", the development of it PRIOR TO the termination of the INF was a breach of the terms of the INF.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that much of that work had already been done.

However, that capability was already designed into the missile. The Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles contain the guidance system in the missile itself. Ship launched models come loaded in canisters, ready to use. The whole thing is loaded into the launcher 'frame' and a data cable attached. They've already been working on 'bolt on' systems for these missiles to be placed on ships not equipped with a VLS launcher.

I saw a video of one such experiment with a British destroyer, which fired a harpoon from a tube that was literally bolted to the superstructure, with a data cable run down through hatches to a laptop. Fired no problem... except for some scorching to the ship. They've been working on a similar system for Tomahawks with a thought to put some on amphibious and littoral combat ships. It's not a reach that they could divert one for a proof of concept mission from a truck.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From Associated Press

Pentagon conducts 1st test of previously banned missile
​

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. military has conducted a flight test of a type of missile banned for more than 30 years by a treaty that both the United States and Russia abandoned this month, the Pentagon said.

The test off the coast of California on Sunday marked the resumption of an arms competition that some analysts worry could increase U.S.-Russian tensions. The Trump administration has said it remains interested in useful arms control but questions Moscow’s willingness to adhere to its treaty commitments.

The Pentagon said it tested a modified ground-launched version of a Navy Tomahawk cruise missile, which was launched from San Nicolas Island and accurately struck its target after flying more than 500 kilometers (310 miles). The missile was armed with a conventional, not nuclear, warhead.

Defense officials had said last March that this missile likely would have a range of about 1,000 kilometers (620 miles) and that it might be ready for deployment within 18 months.

COMMENT:-

While the Russians have been violating the INF treaty for years by secretly working on banned missiles, American creativity and ingenuity has been able to produce these missiles in a mere three weeks <SARC>
since America had conducted absolutely no development work on them until after the Russians destroyed the INF treaty by unilaterally abrogating it</SARC>.

Right?​
Click to expand...



Russia is throwing punches. We are big enough to not "punch" back. But we do. It can only escalate. Trump is all about escalation. That's him. That's Bolton and Pompeo. They are all about confrontation. Trump is all about starting fires and putting them out with gasoline. Just one last thought. Like most bullies, he stops at the moment before ultimate confrontation. Not because it's the right thing to do. Which it is. But because he's a coward.
 
dcsports said:
I'm sure that much of that work had already been done.

However, that capability was already designed into the missile. The Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles contain the guidance system in the missile itself. Ship launched models come loaded in canisters, ready to use. The whole thing is loaded into the launcher 'frame' and a data cable attached. They've already been working on 'bolt on' systems for these missiles to be placed on ships not equipped with a VLS launcher.

I saw a video of one such experiment with a British destroyer, which fired a harpoon from a tube that was literally bolted to the superstructure, with a data cable run down through hatches to a laptop. Fired no problem... except for some scorching to the ship. They've been working on a similar system for Tomahawks with a thought to put some on amphibious and littoral combat ships. It's not a reach that they could divert one for a proof of concept mission from a truck.
Click to expand...

You appear to have missed the point that the US government was accusing the Russians of violating the INF because the Russians had developed a system that COULD BE ADAPTED to a purpose that was banned by the INF - even though the Russians had NOT made that adaption.

What you are saying is that the US government was NOT in violation of the INF simply because the US had developed a system that COULD BE ADAPTED to a purpose that was banned by the INF BECAUSE though the US had NOT made that adaption but that the Russians were in violation of the INF because the Russians had developed a system that COULD BE ADAPTED to a purpose that was banned by the INF - EVEN THOUGH the Russians had NOT made that adaption.

Some how the logic of your position escapes me.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
You appear to have missed the point that the US government was accusing the Russians of violating the INF because the Russians had developed a system that COULD BE ADAPTED to a purpose that was banned by the INF - even though the Russians had NOT made that adaption.

What you are saying is that the US government was NOT in violation of the INF simply because the US had developed a system that COULD BE ADAPTED to a purpose that was banned by the INF BECAUSE though the US had NOT made that adaption but that the Russians were in violation of the INF because the Russians had developed a system that COULD BE ADAPTED to a purpose that was banned by the INF - EVEN THOUGH the Russians had NOT made that adaption.

Some how the logic of your position escapes me.
Click to expand...

You are reading in some things I didn't say. I didn't comment on the treaty itself, only that it's feasible the US could quickly shift a test program to conduct a proof of concept test... because the framework was already there. It's not a big leap to take a system designed to be bolted onto a ship, and bolt it onto something more stationary.

On the treaty itself - my understanding was that it banned land based missiles, not missiles that 'could be adapted for use on land'. I'm certain that both sides skirted the issue, and developed ways to adapt their systems. 'Who cheated more?' is a question we could certainly debate. The US obviously can adapt Tomahawks easily. Russia claimed that their missile was limited to 480KM and therefore didn't meet the 500M criteria, even though they could add more fuel.

There's also valid criticism that the treaty applied only to those countries, leaving others (like China) to build whatever they want. There's also some legitimate tactical use for these weapons other than nuclear warheads. I think both sides were ready to leave the treaty.
 
Deuce said:
It’s a weapons system that already exists. The guidance system and flight characteristics are all in the missile, presumably unchanged. There are already air-launched and sea-launched versions. Ground based is simpler by far. You could get by with just a big metal tube welded to a truck and a wire connecting to the booster rocket.

Edit: looking at photos, this is literally what they did. Rectangular metal tube bolted to a flatbed.
Click to expand...

But then a line like this makes no sense: "Defense officials had said last March that this missile likely would have a range of about 1,000 kilometers (620 miles) and that it might be ready for deployment within 18 months."

Would likely have a certain range? Might be ready in 18 months? If this was and already existing missile, wouldn't they know how far it in fact flies? Wouldn't it just be a matter of building some more?




It sounds like they did alter it in more ways than just ripping it out of a submarine: "The Pentagon said it tested a modified ground-launched version of a Navy Tomahawk cruise missile, which was launched from San Nicolas Island and accurately struck its target after flying more than 500 kilometers (310 miles). The missile was armed with a conventional, not nuclear, warhead."
 
dcsports said:
I'm sure that much of that work had already been done.

However, that capability was already designed into the missile. The Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles contain the guidance system in the missile itself. Ship launched models come loaded in canisters, ready to use. The whole thing is loaded into the launcher 'frame' and a data cable attached. They've already been working on 'bolt on' systems for these missiles to be placed on ships not equipped with a VLS launcher.

I saw a video of one such experiment with a British destroyer, which fired a harpoon from a tube that was literally bolted to the superstructure, with a data cable run down through hatches to a laptop. Fired no problem... except for some scorching to the ship. They've been working on a similar system for Tomahawks with a thought to put some on amphibious and littoral combat ships. It's not a reach that they could divert one for a proof of concept mission from a truck.
Click to expand...

They already have the system bolted to our last 4 battleships and used it in the first Gulf War, back in the 1990's.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
If you think that it was as simple as knocking up some sort of framework and then welding it onto a truck body, then you are rather out of touch with reality.

For one thing you actually have to get permission to do stuff like that, and
  • to get permission to do stuff like that you have to provide blueprints, and then
  • those blueprints have to be assessed by engineers, and then
  • those engineers have to prepare a feasibility report, and then
  • that feasibility report has to be reviewed by higher level engineers, and then
  • that review has to be considered by higher command levels, and then
  • those higher command levels have to communicate back down the chain of command that they have approved of the theoretical project, and then
  • the actual project has to be costed out, and then
  • that costing out has to be reviewed by military financial authorities, and then
  • that financial review has to be considered by higher level military financial authorities, and then
  • those higher level military financial authorities have to communicate their approval of the expenditures back down the chain of command, and then
  • an actual source of funds has to be located, and then
  • the expenditure of those funds has to be authorized, and then
  • the funds have to be spent, and then
  • the parts needed have to arrive, and then
  • the parts needed have to be assembled, and then
  • the assembly has to be tested (short of actually being fired) to see if it actually works as intended, and then
  • any defects have to be rectified, and THEN
  • the whole thing has to be test fired.

That ALWAYS takes more than three weeks (unless some officers and senior NCOs are prepared to put their butts on the line and risk being tossed out of the peacetime military [which does NOT happen all that often]).

Regardless of whether or not what was built was "new", the development of it PRIOR TO the termination of the INF was a breach of the terms of the INF.
Click to expand...

Most of that list was already done.
 
dcsports said:
You are reading in some things I didn't say. I didn't comment on the treaty itself, only that it's feasible the US could quickly shift a test program to conduct a proof of concept test... because the framework was already there. It's not a big leap to take a system designed to be bolted onto a ship, and bolt it onto something more stationary.
Click to expand...

It is, indeed, feasible to do so. What only the incredulous would believe is that the US government had not had that "test of concept" program underway well before Mr. Trump cancelled the INF treaty.

If it is a violation for the Russians to have a missile which MIGHT BE modified so that it MIGHT violate the terms of the INF treaty, then it is also a violation for the US to have drawn up plans which COULD be used to produce something that MIGHT violate the terms of the INF treaty.

If the US had drawn up plans which COULD be used to produce something that MIGHT violate the terms of the INF treaty and then the US complains because the Russians have a missile which MIGHT BE modified so that it MIGHT violate the terms of the INF treaty, there is a word to describe that behaviour and that word is "hypocrisy".

dcsports said:
On the treaty itself - my understanding was that it banned land based missiles, not missiles that 'could be adapted for use on land'.
Click to expand...

Essentially.

The treaty also banned missiles which had a range in excess of 500km, not missiles that 'could be adapted to exceed the 500km limit'.

Complaining about one while condoning the other is - take a guess.

dcsports said:
I'm certain that both sides skirted the issue, and developed ways to adapt their systems.
Click to expand...

Of course they did.

dcsports said:
'Who cheated more?' is a question we could certainly debate.
Click to expand...

Indeed we could, but "You cheated more than we did." and "We didn't cheat at all." do NOT mean the same thing - regardless of what the latest version of the currently operative, officially sanctioned, "Team Trump" approved, truth-of-the-day tells you.

dcsports said:
The US obviously can adapt Tomahawks easily.
Click to expand...

Yep, and did so.

dcsports said:
Russia claimed that their missile was limited to 480KM and therefore didn't meet the 500M criteria, even though they could add more fuel.
Click to expand...

Absent evidence that the Russians were only partially fuelling their missiles in order to ensure that they had a range of less than 500 km, please allow me to be somewhat more skeptical on that point.

dcsports said:
There's also valid criticism that the treaty applied only to those countries, leaving others (like China) to build whatever they want.
Click to expand...

And can you provide any evidence that there was any SERIOUS attempt to get other countries (that might actually have been interested in producing intermediate range [nuclear armed] ballistic missiles) to sign on?

dcsports said:
There's also some legitimate tactical use for these weapons other than nuclear warheads.
Click to expand...

Not really - unless they are used in great masses.

dcsports said:
I think both sides were ready to leave the treaty.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly, but only one left it and left the other as the sole party to a treaty with itself.
 
I think you may be seeing an argument where there isn't one. I never said the US wasn't hypocritical. Quite the opposite. If that wasn't clear... my apologies.

Numerous articles point to concerns about China developing missiles that fall into this category. Trump even said after we withdrew that he wanted a new treaty between the three countries.

China Won’t Join the INF Treaty—But Can It Forever Dodge Arms Control? | The Diplomat
INF nuclear treaty: Trump says new pact should include China - BBC News

And yes, there is absolutely good tactical reasons for having a land based non-nuclear version of these missiles. Tomahawks were used to great effect during both gulf wars, enabling the US to take out airfields, radar facilities, and anti-aircraft weapons from a distance. They were also used to target Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan. Our surveillance capabilities are better than ever. Of course there is a tactical advantage to being able to reach out and conduct a precise strike on a given target, without putting our people in harm's way, and without positioning an equipped ship first.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Which, of course, happened while it was prohibited under the terms of the INF treaty.

Right?
Click to expand...

Was it?

The treaty prohibits both parties from possessing, producing, or flight-testing ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500–5,000 km.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom