Why is there no NATO equivalent to Iskander?

>>64031449 (OP)
OP here. Please be civil. I am actually asking.

>>64031453
If you military is on the level of hamas, then you got to lob rockets like that

>>64031449 (OP)
>NATO equivalent to Iskander
The precision strike missile is pretty close in capabilities.

>>64031486
They have equivalent range and payload?

>>64031511
They're equivalent in role. Meanwhile the iskander was relegated to a tactical missile equivalent to the smaller GMLRS M30A2...

>>64031449 (OP)
INF treaty lasted until 2019. But land based intermediate range nuclear capable missiles are not really a big part of NATO nuclear strategy. None of the countries in which such missiles could be stationed particularly want them.

Obviously, ziggers ignored/circumvented the treaty, and their entire nuclear strategy revolves around "im gonna NOOOOK" posturing as a means to ward off a conventionally superior military.

All that said, the precision strike missile is positioned to fill roughly the same role as the Iskander.

>>64031449 (OP)
ATACMS and tochka (yes, used by nato members) are close enough
>>64031486
They don’t have to be exactly the same. For example nato 120mm tank guns are comparable to russian/chinese 125mm guns even though the 125mm guns are more powerful
>>64031470
If hamas had rockets similar to the iskander then israel would be fucked

>>64031533
>the 125mm guns are more powerful
NATO 120 has higher muzzle energy than the 125.
KYS imbecile.

>inb4 armata gun
Russtards showed their idea of future gun, the armata gun is even more vaporware because they couldn't fix the barrel wear, brute forcing with propellant is trivial.

>>64031449 (OP)
It's called GBU-31

>>64031449 (OP)
Hyunmoo-2 literally. Although South Korea isn't in the NATO.

>>64031544
> NATO 120 has higher muzzle energy than the 125
Does it though?
Meanwhile 125mm has more room for high explosive. This is more important since >90% of tank rounds used in “real war” are going to be explosive rather than kinetic

>>64031602
>Meanwhile 125mm has more room for high explosive
You can check it yourself if the 125 ammo in service has more HE than 120 in service.

The thing limiting HE filling and projectile weight isn't the caliber, just a design decision to limit total round weight. It's possible to make very long shells because fin stabilized has less problem, and just like APFSDS the 120x570 works better with longer projectiles, the M1147 is a good example of a design taking advantage of the case lenght.

>>64031449 (OP)
>>64031449 (OP)
As far as the US goes, the Army had two ballistic missile programs in the 80s. One was a tactical missile, creatively called the M39 Army Tactical Missile System (or ATACMS) which had a range of 160km. The other was the Pershing II which had a range of 1100km. So one for tactical-level targets, one for operational-level targets, and just for funsies, we stuck Tomahawks on the back of a tractor-trailer too.
Then in '87 Reagan goes and signs the INF Treaty which bans ground-launched missiles with ranges over 500km but below 5500km. So no more Pershing IIs, no ground-launched Tomahawks, no fun allowed because we can't shit have shit in Detroit. In response, the Army develops the M39A1 ATACMS which pushed the range out from 160km to 300km. But that left a gap between 300km and the maximum 500km allowed under the INF Treaty, which the Army didn't have a weapon system that could cover. A problem, right?
Well, by this point the Soviet Union had collapsed, the Russian military couldn't pay its electric bill (not a joke, they almost had a nuclear submarine suffer a meltdown because the power company switched off the electricity at the base), China had a per capita GPD of less than a dollar a day, and as the Gulf War had recently proven, our existing arsenal could wipe the floor with any military we weren't formally allied with. Between air-launched cruise missiles, surface- and submarine-launched Tomahawks, a monopoly on stealth aircraft for the foreseeable future, and an utterly overwhelming advantage in airpower generally, the Army didn't really need a ballistic missile that could hit targets more than 300km away. They could just call the Air Force or Navy and have them do it.
[1/2]

>>64031690
[2/2]

tl;dr
It was only after we withdrew from the INF Treaty in 2019 that the US could legally develop missiles with enough of an advantage in range over the ATACMS to justify the cost, and pretty much the next day we started designing the PrSM which outranges the Iskander and doesn't need as big of a warhead because its CEP isn't straight out of the Brezhnev era.

tl;dr;dr
We don't have an equivalent of the Iskander because we have something that's better.

>>64031693
Samefag here

Correction: we started developing the PrSM in 2016, but it's range was limited to 500km. After we withdrew the INF, we started developing the 'Increment 2' PrSM which extends the range to somewhere around 1000km (there hasn't been a publicly released figure yet) and adds a multi-mode seeker so the missile can engage moving targets like ships. We sank USS Cleveland with an Increment 2 PrSM last year, which I missed. And apparently there's an Increment 3, 4, and 5 under development currently.

>>64031720
Looks like we're finally getting the cluster-guided-munition anti-tank ATACMS we were promised. Better 40 years late than never.

>>64031481
psrm has a rather pathetic warhead at 90 kg. (it had to give that up to attain speed and range). and it's unknown how much it can maneuver; i'm sure it lacks decoys.

>>64031449 (OP)
They had MGM-52 until the 90s, but vatnik union collapsing made such things obsolete. Modern MLRS have completely replaced whatever use non-nuclear payloads on such missiles would have had.

>>64031736
You don't need as much explosive if you are more accurate.

>>64031693
we don't know what prsm can do when it comes to maneuvers; whether it's the same at atacms, or more complex. prsm also has a warhead of ~200 pounds, which is quite small for the class of weapon. iskander is 1000-1500 pounds.

iskander-1000 also now gets out to 1000 km.

>>64031744
both will have similar cep of around 5 meters.

>>64031693
>e PrSM which outranges the Iskander
The Iskander would achieve a range ~600 km with a 90kg warhead. One Inskander without warhead traveled +600 km some years ago when it accidentally crashed in Kazakhstan. Part of the reduction in range is due to the depressed trajectory.

>>64031764
>accidentally crashed in Kazakhstan
When your missile's CEP is measured in countries, the rest of its on-paper performance doesn't really matter.

>>64031771
Unintended psychological warfare. When Russia launches something, everyone feels tense not knowing where it will land.

NATO countries don't lob missiles into civilian centers, they have real aircraft with real guided bombs.

>>64031762
lol
lmao

>>64031449 (OP)
>>64031453
We actually followed the INF Treaty

>>64031736
>; i'm sure it lacks decoys.
Russia replaced the meme-decoys with GLONASS antennas...

>>64031736
For the same price we can deploy the tomahawk, which is just better.

>>64031814
i've collected basically every iskander video released (i like ballistic missiles); their claims of ~5 meters of cep is about right.

>>64031839
i've seen them recently use decoys. (a pac-3 went after and hit one).

NATO has actual air power and reliable delivery systems.

>>64031853
>no video

>>64031849
So wait they're aiming for apartment buildings??

>>64031849
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>64031849
>i've collected basically every iskander video released
Link some

1) PRsM
2) ATACMS
3 Tomahawk
4) JASSM
5) We have stealth planes that can just put glide bombs on targets, all while staying far out of counter “battery” range
6) we have stealth planes that can launch cruise missiles, and bigass bombers that can carry like 26 at once
7) every above option is more mobile than Iskandar, planes by orders of magnitude
8) plane delivery can also recon/confirm targets, conduct secondary missions like SEAD or EW, call off or redirect shots as needed, and have more varied payloads for COIN and such thanks to not relying on an incredibly fast delivery vehicle that will cause a minimum of kinetic damage inherently
9) we signed a treaty saying we wouldnt make them back when we might have found use for them (before we had hundreds of stealth planes)
Rebuttals:
>but planes cant get on target faster than a supersonic missile
Yes, they can if theyre running CAP at all times like they have in every single US operation since WW2
>but Iskandar has decoys american missiles lack
JASSM and its delivery vehicle are both at worst low-observable and can ground skim, LRASM is supposed to be so sneaky that mounting them on an F-35s external pylons doesn't significantly compromise it, plane delivery can perform SEAD and eliminate or distract air defense, etc etc

>>64031883
the majority of them are on point military targets or air-bursts over area targets (the airburst shows why a large warhead is a good idea). when on point targets, a low cep is observed.

i've seen some clear misses or those that appear to be misses but are actually the missile body overflying the target with a cluster munition attack, but they aren't close to the majority.

>>64031846
in most instances, a cruise missile is probably the better option, since most targets usually aren't well defended. fast ballistic missiles are good for time sensitive targets.

>>64031932
the us is also currently working on ballistic missile projects, along with currently fielding dark eagle. they're making a new pershing-ii and working on an albm.

they obviously are aware of the usefulness of ballistic missiles.

>>64031849
>>64031764
>>64031756
The relevant triangle here is range, payload, and CEP
What you're doing is picking separate instances where Iskander flew far, or carried a bigger payload, or hit a target accurately, and thinking that it means it can do all those at once

Nah
Not Russian technology

>>64032039
>fielding
Not really
The missiles themselves are still in final testing

They "fielded" the launch units without missiles

>>64031453

You should probably specify why you don't think obviously counter-responses like ATACMs or Pluton, or the MGM-52 Lance to be comparable to the Iskander.

>>64032048
>, and thinking that it means it can do all those at once
CEP and range are unrelated...
And yes, range depends of the Isp, fuel mass and total mass, that's the first thing you know after learning the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation (that ignores external forces)...
That's why I mentioned a 90kg warhead as an example.

>>64032066
>CEP and range are unrelated...
They are for russian stuff

>>64032097
Their cruise missiles and BM like the Iskander have more references than just their internal INS. Stop being retarded.

>>64032066
>CEP and range are unrelated
they are related even when talking about inertial-/terrain-matching-guided cruise missiles because inaccuracies in these guidance systems build up

>>64032066
>that's the first thing you know
and yet you're somehow able to apply this knowledge to PRSM but unable to apply this knowledge to Iskander
specially given that Russian rockets have lower Isp than American

>>64032103
>have more references than just their internal INS
and they're dogshit because GLONASS is dogshit and their onboard processors are less powerful

your replies are a mass of technically-correct statements which serve to rebut just enough of the post but you conspicuously fail / refuse to bring them to their logical conclusions. this is not bona fide debate.

>>64032033
>when on point targets, a low cep is observed.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA YOU LYING FUCK

>>64032033
Why do you iskanderfags always lie through your teeth? Everything you just typed is a clear lie. You know that you lie yourself. Why do you keep doing it you fucking faggot?

>>64032033
>when on point targets, a low cep is observed.

>>64032141
he's probably not lying, "just" omitting that it was probably a short range target close to the front with no enemy jamming i.e. lying by omission

e.g. if you launch a missile from 50 miles away at Kramatosk you'll get better CEP than launching the same missile at Kyiv

common bad faith discussion tactic

>>64032127
>hey are related even when talking about inertial-
Unrelated to this discussion.

>/terrain-matching-guided
They don't accumulate error... their limitations are different.

>specially given that Russian rockets have lower Isp than American
Lmao. Isp is an are that Soviets-Ru/Uk was ahead than the US. It wasn't because they discovered an incredible additive but because they didn't prioritize stability so much. Their missiles optimized for range have been using AlH3 since the late cold war. AlH3 isn't a mystery but just less stable than Al. The Isp is better though.

>and yet you're somehow able to apply this knowledge to PRSM but unable to apply this knowledge to Iskander
There's no real info related to the PrSM...

>and they're dogshit because GLONASS is dogshit and their onboard processors are less powerful
Hello boomer, we're in 2025. Go back to 2008.

>your replies are a mass of technically-correct statements which serve to rebut just enough of the post but you conspicuously fail / refuse to bring them to their logical conclusions. this is not bona fide debate.
Stringing words together will not make you less of an imbecile.

>>64032161
iskander lost
deal with it

>>64031449 (OP)
Various reasons, from air delivered weapons to ATAMCS to Tomahawk to air superiority and generally better CEP.

>>64032173
NTA but you could at least give a more serious response than this.

>>64032185
it's not necessary to provide a serious response against people shilling for iskander

>>64032161
>Unrelated
You failed to give a reason why, so this rebuttal is rejected
>They don't accumulate error... their limitations are different
There are other major limitations as well, yes
>Their missiles optimized for range have been using AlH3 since the late cold war.
You wish lol
Russian use of alane is at least 21st century if at all, and there are further improvements in rocket fuel than that which Russia has missed out on
>There's no real info related to the PrSM
Yet somehow you were able to decry its capabilities just a few posts ago
See how that works?
Any advantages the PRSM is claimed to have, you say "there's no real info"
Any disadvantages the PRSM is claimed to have, you present it as confirmed fact
A very telling and obvious inconsistency

>bla bla imbecile
and the rest is just the beginning of the meltdown lmao

>>64031449 (OP)
I'm surprised at how big Lance was. There were over 2000 built - mostly conventional and lots of European formations. The inertial guidance would have been expensive.

War projections for Cold War Europe were usually "instantly everything fired at 110% - totalkreig go time readiness". The ballistic missiles fit that.

>>64032418
>There were over 2000 built - mostly conventional and lots of European formations. The inertial guidance would have been expensive
Lance was ATACMS before ATACMS basically, so yeah it was huge

Millennials wouldn't know much about it, or missiles like Tartar or SS.10 or Sergeant or whatever

>>64031449 (OP)
didn't turkey showed their SBRM recently?

>>64031449 (OP)
We keep our nuclear missiles on submarines. Same tactic, different terrain (sea not land) and vehicle.

The US doesn't operate like Russia, their missile artillery has different performance capabilities that mean a certain level of explosives is simply unnecessary at smaller scales. When you really need to flatten a field of charging soldiers we already have seen what the US has.

>>64031449 (OP)
Because NATO can rely on having ground attack aircraft hit exactly the targets they need to pretty much anywhere along the front, it doesn't need to fling short range ballistic missiles with large warheads at wherever it thinks the enemy probably has something worth blowing up.

>>64031449 (OP)
because ours is better

>>64031449 (OP)
Because NATO doctrine says "how do we maintain air superiority?" whereas Russian doctrine says "how do we deal with not having air superiority?" Ultimately most modern military decisions boil down to the fact that jet engines are really hard to make, and Rolls Royce and General Electric are the only companies in the world that can do it properly.

>>64031764
>The Iskander would achieve a range ~600 km with a 90kg warhead
yikes

>>64031849
[X] Doubt

>>64032146
They are Russian, they lie as they breathe and even when they don't think they're lying they are reporting official information from ministries that are based on lies, even if given in good faith because the technician at th slowest level is incentivised to make shit up instead of report honestly due to the shitty inherently corrupt system they all live in.

>>64031449 (OP)
>Why is there no NATO equivalent to Iskander?
in development
but relatively new (e.g. UK Germany started one project in 2024)

remember
up until 2022, there were treaties NATO members honored

Iskander was specifically developed to circumvent the INF treaty
technically only 500km range, but the platform can easily support 1000-2000km if wished

>>64032418
>The inertial guidance would have been expensive.
5%+ of GDP for defense buys a lot of toys

>>64031764
>The Iskander would achieve a range ~600 km with a 90kg warhead
And if the Iskander was the same size as the PrSM that would be impressive, but it's nearly twice the length (24ft vs. 13ft) and over twice the width (36 inches vs. 17 inches). It's actually closer in size to a Pershing II than a PrSM.

>>64031449 (OP)
Because there doesn't need to be one.

>>64033479
No doubt about that. My post was to show that the missile is huge and despite that russia can't find a good use for it in current year, they're using them as ATACMS, a missile of a third of its mass.
OP asks about an equivalent to that missile when russia actually needs an equivalent to the ATACMS/PsMR (Tornado MIA), ironic...
>of course retards here think I'm shilling for russian missiles...

>>64031449 (OP)
>Why is there no NATO equivalent to Iskander?
incompetance

>>64032472
>We keep our nuclear missiles
you dont have nuclear missiles
the US has nuclear missiles you LEASE from us when you say please&thank you in low tone

>>64032494
>Because NATO can rely on having ground attack aircraft hit exactly the targets they need to pretty much anywhere along the front
what "Front" has nato ever been a part of?
>>64032506
>Because NATO doctrine says "how do we maintain air superiority?
so why didnt nato establish air-superiority over ukraine?
natos either could not establish air superiority over ukriane
OR
nato deliberately chose NOT to establish air superiority over ukraine resulting in millions of otherwise unecessary casualties for seemingly little reason

by even opening your mouth about nato "air superiority" youre raising some extremely contentious questions that appear to put your own foot in your mouth

>>64033268
The terms of the INF Treaty only applied to the United States and USSR/Russia, and the US' unilaterally removing its IRBMs and cruise missiles from Europe was a controversial decision to the rest of NATO.
The reasons why the rest of NATO lack longer-ranged ground-based missiles vary, but some of the more important ones are:
1. The UK and France switched to submarine-based nuclear deterrents decades ago
2. NATO countries with nuclear-sharing agreements with the US (Italy, Belgium, Turkey, and Germany) could buy American delivery systems which until the 1987 INF Treaty included intermediate range missiles (picrel is a West German Pershing 1, the RAF had the Thor) or allow American missiles on their territory (Turkey and Italy with the USAF's Jupiter IRBM)
3. Air-launched cruise missiles were more flexible, versatile, and cost-effective especially in the post-Cold War era where budgets were tight and any foreseeable conflict was going to be fought further afield

>>64033681
>Why didn't NATO establish air superiority in a conflict they aren't parties to?
The world wonders

>>64033653
Wrong

>>64033931
>Wrong
100% true
the uk leases the nuclear weapons it claims to have from the US and if it even wants to touch them, must do it from US waters with US supervision and US discretion

>>64033903
nato has absolutely participated in this war in every meaningful way, and could not or refused to establish air superiority...WHY?
why did nato risk its collective economy on a war without first establishing the groundwork for victory (alleged 'air superiority' aka 'no-fly-zone)

>pic related
is a very confounding statement for a party "not involved" in a conflict wouldnt you agree?
why would the head of nato say this publicly?

>>64031449 (OP)
Iskander is offensive weapon, nato is in decline and gives priority to defensive weapons.

>>64033681
>nato deliberately chose NOT to establish air superiority over ukraine resulting in millions of otherwise unecessary casualties for seemingly little reason
It's this one. Ukrainians are considered expendable.

>>64033969
>Iskander is offensive weapon
Oh, be nice. It's nothing special, sure, but there's nothing egregiously un-aesthetic about it.

>>64033681
>russia starts unprovoked war against Ukraine
>Ukraine is not a NATO member
>Nato, not attacked, doesn't establish air superiority in a conflict they are not part of
>WhY iS nAtO lEtTiNg UkRaInIaNs DiE iTs AlL tHeIr FaUlT

take your meds, dude

>>64034005
There're "non-NATO countries" and "premium non-NATO countries"

>>64033681
>what "Front" has nato ever been a part of?
>"Hurr, Durr, why are we talking about theory in a thread about theory?!?!?!?!?!"
>t. your retarded ass

>>64033979
If Russia really were at war with NATO you would have most of your nuclear triad neutralized and Monke's corpse hanged from a tree by weekend, nvm that meatwave you call army reduced to something worth getting featured at /uhg/ :)

>>64034023
I like how she exemplifies contemporary Russia so well, the rotten corpse of a bygone entity held alive by unnatural arts and plenty of makeup so she can pass as attractive, although unlike Russia Sakura is a good person who deserved better.

>>64034276
>you would have most of your nuclear triad neutralized

you realise than if a country is at risk of losing their ability to use nukes a full send is the correct response right?

>>64034301
No, that is what is best for a government potentially, that is not what is best for a country (ie. its people).

>>64034301
>Russia launches its nukes
>Half of them do absolutely nothing when the button is pushed
>It turns out that selling the rocket fuel on the black market might have been a problem
>Of the 50% that launch half of them just fly straight up, not on a ballistic trajectory, and fall back to random parts of Earth without detonating.
>Made in Russia makes literal Chinesium look like Magitech by comparison.
>Of the 25% of the initial launch that actually head (vaguely) in the direction of their targets none of the warheads function
>Nuclear devices are incredibly complex pieces of kit that need almost constant maintenance to stop them turning into very expensive buckets of unpleasant metals that definitely will not go 'boom', and any Russian with the skills and training to do that maintenance has left Russia - because he can make more money and live a better life literally cleaning toilets for the Germans.
>GG No re

>>64034276
If I were a Russian shill I would have picked the other option and said that NATO couldn't achieve air superiority if they tried. The fact that you need me to explain this to you demonstrates why you're considered expendable, since digging ditches and catching bullets is clearly the limit of your mental capacity.

>>64031449 (OP)
Total battle field air domination. That’s all the USA needs.

>>64034424
>Half of them do absolutely nothing when the button is pushed
A-ha-ha-ha, no. The first step is that half of them don't exist IRL and only exist on paper. Then from the ones which exist only a tiny number is launch ready. And those which will try to launch then half will fail to launch. And the ones which will launch half will fail on ascend or during flight.
P.S: NATO intelligence will know about the launch command before it even reaches the people who should do it, so things will be bombed out before the launch would even happen.