iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Replies

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · 14/08/2025

BM and CM are very different beasts. Why do you think GLBM range is defind as “range,” while GLCM range need to be ”determined by projecting its flight path onto the earths sphere from the point of launch to the point of impact."? 1/6 bsky.app/profile/frho...

Fabian Hoffmann, PhD@frhoffmann.bsky.social

I'm sorry, but the arguments in this thread make no sense. "While the wording differs, in both cases the underlying criterion is the missile’s tested capability". If the negotiators had wanted the same criterion for GLBMs and GLCMs, they could have easily written it that way. 1/5

100

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · 14/08/2025

For GLCM maximum range in its standard design mode can be very different from its range in the mode optimized for maximum range (as illustrated in my thread you're answering to). That’s why the treaty has "standard design mode" in the range definition. 2/6 bsky.app/profile/frho...

Fabian Hoffmann, PhD@frhoffmann.bsky.social

For GLCMs, maximum range is much simpler to determine, as it is almost entirely a function of engine efficiency and fuel load. No intrusive testing is needed to establish this, as I, and others before me, have demonstrated. 3/5

100

Timur Kadyshev @kadyshev.bsky.social · 14/08/2025

By your calculation, maximum range of 9M728 is >500 km, correct? If yes, why was it not considered to be in violation? Once more, calculation of theoretical maximum range is not a definitive way to determine GLCM’s actual maximum range, see Article VII.4 of the Treaty. 3/6 bsky.app/profile/frho...

Fabian Hoffmann, PhD@frhoffmann.bsky.social

So once more: we can absolutely determine who is right and wrong when it comes to the 9M729. While calculating the exact range is difficult, it is clear that Russia had explaining to do, and it simply could not or would not provide it. 4/5 bsky.app/profile/kady...

100