Why is Russia violating MTCR with Nirbhay and not Brahmos??

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
A correction here. UAVs were invented before MTCR. Btw, MTCR is primarily for delivery systems that can deliver nukes. UAVs don't really come in that category.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,803
Likes
48,291
Country flag
A correction here. UAVs were invented before MTCR. Btw, MTCR is primarily for delivery systems that can deliver nukes. UAVs don't really come in that category.
but Submarines do and they are not included in MTCR.
 
Last edited:

trackwhack

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
3,757
Likes
2,589
U.S. willful blindness to Indian Agni V MTCR violation - New Century China Forum

India is making a mockery of the MTCR

At Krad (on another forum), are you seriously trying to argue that a laser ring gyro and an electronic guidance system for an ICBM may have a dual use? A laser ring gyro may also be used for the navigation of a commercial jet. India lacks the technology to build commercial jets. You can eliminate that dual-use argument. Furthermore, the electronic guidance system for an ICBM has only one use: to guide an ICBM.

India has demonstrated that it has violated the MTCR (Missile Technology Control Regime) and the United States should come out and demand an immediate halt to further exports and violations of the MTCR by India and the supplier country. If the United States continues its willful blindness, India will make a mockery of the MTCR and the United States will be silently complicit in aiding long-range missile proliferation.

Let me narrow down the list to make it easier for the United States to identify the missile proliferator in violation of the MTCR. There are only five countries that have proven electronic guidance systems for an ICBM. All five countries also happen to sit on the U.N. Security Council with a permanent veto (i.e. UNSC P-5).

1. United States
2. China
3. Russia
4. Britain
5. France

Among the five suspected countries, we can rule out the United States and China. The United States would not actively help India in developing an ICBM. To the contrary, the United States has a history of imposing sanctions and technological prohibitions on India. Also, it is obvious that China would not help India to develop the Agni V "China killer" to hit cities like Shanghai.

There are only three viable violators of the MTCR: Russia, Britain, or France.
This statement is an error USA violated MTCR giving trident missiles to Britain and China has violated
MTCR giving missiles to North Korea and Pakistan (China is not a MTCR signatory)



The United States should publicly condemn the MTCR violator and demand that they stop destabilizing the world and proliferating ICBMs that carry WMDs (weapons of mass destruction). The U.S. effort to save the MTCR is worthwhile; even if the guilty party says "nyet."
The MTCR does not deserve to last. It must go. So it is a good thing if there are violations. But irrespective of that ...

The Ring Lazer Gyro was built by DRDO, including all the components. The electronic components that DRDO spoke of are only off the shelf hardware compenents like processors. The Chinese moron who wrote the above piece is just clueless and is shitting bricks when the realization dawns on him that the PLA is toast with the success of the A5
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
but Submarines do and they are not included in MTCR.
Submarines only hold the nukes in a stealthy environment. The delivery is still done by the unmanned system, AKA a missile.

MTCR applies only to unmanned delivery systems, or in other words, Missiles.

That's why the term Missile Technology Control Regime.

A UAV is not a missile.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,803
Likes
48,291
Country flag
Submarines only hold the nukes in a stealthy environment. The delivery is still done by the unmanned system, AKA a missile.

MTCR applies only to unmanned delivery systems, or in other words, Missiles.

That's why the term Missile Technology Control Regime.

A UAV is not a missile.
You are right P2P, the point i was trying to make is MTCR is not a complete there are still loopholes.
many other ways still exist for delivery(bombers).
 
Last edited:

Agnostic_Indian

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
930
Likes
246
Country flag
doesn't MTCR allow maximum
range up to 300km and that's why official range of brahmos is the same.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,803
Likes
48,291
Country flag
doesn't MTCR allow maximum
range up to 300km and that's why official range of brahmos is the same.
This range is an issue for Brahmos but not for Nirbhay? This maybe the reason
an air launched version of Brahmos is being developed?
 

devil510

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
78
Likes
13
how many U.N. resoulation has israel broken and U.S. supported them that they are crying foul now what a joke
 

Agnostic_Indian

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
930
Likes
246
Country flag
This range is an issue for Brahmos but not for Nirbhay? This maybe the reason
an air launched version of Brahmos is being developed?
There is no Russian involvement in Nirbay development. brahmos range is much more than published one.
 

bhramos

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
25,625
Likes
37,233
Country flag
There is no violation of MTCR in this deal..MTCR as a whole states that a country should not be supplied with a missile unit or its knocked down kits which when assembled can cross more than 300kms..But here we are just getting a turbojet engine, and we may also use it for missiles ranging less than 300 kms..The MTCR can't dictate us how to use this..
 

Defcon 1

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
2,195
Likes
1,841
Country flag
A correction here. UAVs were invented before MTCR. Btw, MTCR is primarily for delivery systems that can deliver nukes. UAVs don't really come in that category.
So in future if UAVs are developed will they come under MTCR. I believe I read an article some time back where an American UAV manufacturer was seeking changes to MTCR to clear the export of more UAVs. Don't exactly remember but I think he was from Lockheed Martin.

Found the article

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5B302120091204
 
Last edited:

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
Well, best of luck to them. It won't happen. Even if it did, it won't concern us because we are not a part of MTCR and have our own UAV programs.
 

Defcon 1

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
2,195
Likes
1,841
Country flag
There is no violation of MTCR in this deal..MTCR as a whole states that a country should not be supplied with a missile unit or its knocked down kits which when assembled can cross more than 300kms..But here we are just getting a turbojet engine, and we may also use it for missiles ranging less than 300 kms..The MTCR can't dictate us how to use this..
I don't believe that this is true. If you post was true it would be the biggest loophole as it would make it possible for nation to import all the components of a long range missile separately and then just assemble them. I believe that no nation is allowed to sell the technology that "can" be used to make long range missiles.
 

devil510

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
78
Likes
13
i don't think russia gives rat's ass about a piece of paper if they should or should not transfer the technology it is primarily in their own interests whatever they are doing with pakfa nirbhay or brahmos
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Submarines only hold the nukes in a stealthy environment. The delivery is still done by the unmanned system, AKA a missile.

MTCR applies only to unmanned delivery systems, or in other words, Missiles.

That's why the term Missile Technology Control Regime.

A UAV is not a missile.
UAV certainly falls in the unmanned delivery system category, even if it is not a missile. I guess the term missile is what makes the difference?
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,803
Likes
48,291
Country flag
I don't believe that this is true. If you post was true it would be the biggest loophole as it would make it possible for nation to import all the components of a long range missile separately and then just assemble them. I believe that no nation is allowed to sell the technology that "can" be used to make long range missiles.
Then techincally MTCR nations cannot cooperate with non signatories in Space exploration
or help them launch satellites both which can be "dual use" technologies.
 

GPM

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Mar 5, 2011
Messages
1,507
Likes
522
U.S. willful blindness to Indian Agni V MTCR violation - New Century China Forum

India is making a mockery of the MTCR

At Krad (on another forum), are you seriously trying to argue that a laser ring gyro and an electronic guidance system for an ICBM may have a dual use? A laser ring gyro may also be used for the navigation of a commercial jet. India lacks the technology to build commercial jets. You can eliminate that dual-use argument. Furthermore, the electronic guidance system for an ICBM has only one use: to guide an ICBM.

India has demonstrated that it has violated the MTCR (Missile Technology Control Regime) and the United States should come out and demand an immediate halt to further exports and violations of the MTCR by India and the supplier country. If the United States continues its willful blindness, India will make a mockery of the MTCR and the United States will be silently complicit in aiding long-range missile proliferation.

Let me narrow down the list to make it easier for the United States to identify the missile proliferator in violation of the MTCR. There are only five countries that have proven electronic guidance systems for an ICBM. All five countries also happen to sit on the U.N. Security Council with a permanent veto (i.e. UNSC P-5).

1. United States
2. China
3. Russia
4. Britain
5. France

Among the five suspected countries, we can rule out the United States and China. The United States would not actively help India in developing an ICBM. To the contrary, the United States has a history of imposing sanctions and technological prohibitions on India. Also, it is obvious that China would not help India to develop the Agni V "China killer" to hit cities like Shanghai.

There are only three viable violators of the MTCR: Russia, Britain, or France.
This statement is an error USA violated MTCR giving trident missiles to Britain and China has violated
MTCR giving missiles to North Korea and Pakistan (China is not a MTCR signatory)



The United States should publicly condemn the MTCR violator and demand that they stop destabilizing the world and proliferating ICBMs that carry WMDs (weapons of mass destruction). The U.S. effort to save the MTCR is worthwhile; even if the guilty party says "nyet."
As for India, boo to MTCR, if it hampers Indian defence.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top