PDA

View Full Version : Russian Armed Forces News & Discussion thread



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Mr_Blob
05-24-2012, 01:14 PM
About Voronezh-M/DM radar : http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2012_03/Cooperating_With_Russia_on_Missile_Defense_A_New_Proposal
Does anyone know whether D. Wilkening claim about Voronezh operating band is truthful ? And are his claims about the current state of the art in russian radar modules correct?
I have never seen a HD photograph of a Voronezh-DM and thus can't measure the spacing between radiating elements.

artjomh
05-24-2012, 01:40 PM
About Voronezh-M/DM radar : http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2012_03/Cooperating_With_Russia_on_Missile_Defense_A_New_Proposal
Does anyone know whether D. Wilkening claim about Voronezh operating band is truthful ?

A trained radio operator can, theoretically, determine the general band of a radar by its visual appearance, but I question the idea that he can determine operating frequency with that kind of accuracy.

Officially, Voronezh-DM operates in the Ultra High Frequency part of the spectrum (above 300 MHz). Exact frequency is unknown.


I have never seen a HD photograph of a Voronezh-DM and thus can't measure the spacing between radiating elements.

Best we have.

http://www.rtisystems.ru/_files/editor/image/anniversary/2000-2010/2009.JPG

http://militaryrussia.ru/i/284/610/0ddAW.jpg

Mr_Blob
05-24-2012, 01:54 PM
thanks for the pic. I also found one here with more details but completely distorted by perspective http://galerie.valka.cz/showphoto.php/photo/157477

Anyway If you have the dimension of the radar, we could make the 0.5,0.6 wavelenth spacing assumption and find out the operating frequency.

artjomh
05-24-2012, 02:00 PM
There is a door and a person on this photo, maybe you can extrapolate from that.

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/photogallery/gallery_173/images/IMG_1702.jpg

More here: http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/photogallery/gallery_173/index.shtml

Maximmmm
05-24-2012, 07:32 PM
Seems like Kalibr is doing fine, the Dagestan just tested it.
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120524/173655856.html

GeroyiDnepra
05-24-2012, 10:36 PM
Hello gentlemen. I saw an news article that Russia has ordered a replacement for the trusty Su-25. The article mention that one major option was the Yak-130. But... how can any of this new planes compete with the armor and durability of the Su-25? Have watched 7 Su-25's land in Chechnya with either 1 engine, or completely shred wings and tail. Some times the landing gear was shred too. But the plane still make it back and land in the base. I doubts very much that the Yak-130 has anything even close to the durability of the Grebeshok. What do you think?

There are many places that publish this news. I give a article in English below.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/russian-air-force-to-order-su-25-replacement-372103/

Article in Russian below.

http://lenta.ru/news/2012/05/22/replacement/

Also... why not utilize the Su-34? I doubt it has the armor protection of Grebeshok either, but it's fast, holds lot of armaments, and has been through air force trials and has been flown in many air shows and exhibitions.

Maximmmm
05-25-2012, 02:59 AM
They know of the issue, that's why the Yak-130 was rejected as a ground support aircraft. The level of pilot protection was deemed insufficient. Moreover the project requires a single-seater, not the dual seated yak.

For all these years the Su-34 had been pegged as the Su-25 replacement, that's what the media thought. So all this talk raises quite a few questions.

Maximmmm
05-25-2012, 03:02 AM
Badaboom badabing, second Ivan Gren confirmed
http://flotprom.ru/news/?ELEMENT_ID=113032

I strongly recommend watching this:
http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/17771/
It's an insight on the new base being built to eliminate our need for Ukraine's NITKA.

Fulcrum-35
05-25-2012, 09:46 AM
latest tested ICBM on May 23 deemed to be a ground-based Bulava...

http://rusnavy.com/news/navy/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=15194

Universals
05-25-2012, 10:20 AM
For all these years the Su-34 had been pegged as the Su-25 replacement, that's what the media thought. So all this talk raises quite a few questions.

Su-34 is the replacement for Su-24 not su-25. That's been pretty clear for a while now.

Maximmmm
05-25-2012, 01:37 PM
http://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201205251823-tqub.htm
So according to this there will be 5 new boreis built to add to the 3 already building/finished.
So 8 subs in total.

Maximmmm
05-25-2012, 01:38 PM
Su-34 is the replacement for Su-24 not su-25. That's been pretty clear for a while now.

Hmm my bad, yet I somehow remember reading that it was supposed to replace the 25 as well.

Crichton
05-25-2012, 01:43 PM
Its too fast for ground support , like US with its A-10 Warthog , the Su-25 just needs modernization which btw is done (night vision atc.)

AustinJ
05-26-2012, 03:59 AM
RUSSIAN NON-PROLIFERATION EFFORTS (http://www.armscontrol.ru/pubs/en/russian-non-proliferation-efforts.pdf)

AustinJ
05-27-2012, 07:14 AM
Since this SPARC processor is designed in Russia by Moscow Center of SPARC Technologies do they use these in military applicaitons ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCST-4R

Khathi
05-28-2012, 01:12 AM
Yes, they do. The form factor alone is a dead giveaway. It's not that there's exactly a ton of civilian computers that are rack mounted, aside from blade servers and industrial controllers. ;)

AustinJ
05-28-2012, 01:55 AM
Khathi , so thats the best processor they have now for military applications in SPARC category ? Does it compares favourably to other similar processor used for military applications ?

owais.usmani
05-28-2012, 07:04 AM
http://www.militaryparitet.com/ttp/data/ic_ttp/1463/

Looks like they have finally come to a compromise over the price of new Boreis.

124 billion rubles for 5 SSBNs for now. Prices may be revised in 2015.

AustinJ
05-28-2012, 11:26 AM
Does it say the new liquid fuel ICBM will be both silo based and train based ?

http://www.yubileyny.ru/index.php/novine/1978
http://yubik.net.ru/publ/23-1-0-4769

artjomh
05-28-2012, 12:37 PM
Does it say the new liquid fuel ICBM will be both silo based and train based ?

http://www.yubileyny.ru/index.php/novine/1978
http://yubik.net.ru/publ/23-1-0-4769

It doesn't.

It merely mentions two research projects, the goal of which was to conduct a feasibility study for possible future silo-based, road-mobile and rail-mobile missile systems.

geolocator
05-28-2012, 12:44 PM
P.S. A train-based one for a railway like a tank for asphalt. Who will pay for this?:cantbeli:

Andy_UA
05-28-2012, 12:48 PM
P.S. A train-based one for a railway like a tank for asphalt. Who will pay for this?:cantbeli:

From what I read there are old school generals in Genshtab, that want the whole gamut of ICBM's like late Soviet union had, more younger wing opposes this.

artjomh
05-28-2012, 01:02 PM
The decisiOn makers in the military don't care. There is a big economic optimization drive under the current Defence Minister, so all fat is getting cut. Everyone who disagrees gets kicked out of the door.

The only ones who care about that **** are in the Defence Industry. This isn't about some nostalgic old farts, this is about "effective managers" who want to keep makin money off pointless crap in the next 20-30 years.

AustinJ
05-28-2012, 10:13 PM
Contracts for 5 upgraded Borei submarines signed (http://www.itar-tass.com/en/c32/432446.html)


MOSCOW, May 28 (Itar-Tass) —— The Russian Defence Ministry has signed contracts with Sevmash and Rubin for five Project 955A upgraded Borei A submarines, United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) spokesman Alexei Kravchenko said on Monday, May 28.

Two contracts have been signed under the state defence order for 2012: one with the Sevmash shipyard to build five serial upgraded Borei class submarines and with the Rubin Central Design Bureau for Marine Engineering for R&D for these submarines.

Borei-class submarines are designed by Rubin. They are armed with Bulava ICBMs. The submarines are 170 metres long, 13.5 metres wide, their collapse depth 450 metres and they have a crew 107 sailors.

According to USC President Roman Trotsenko, “This event [the signing of the contracts] is important for all domestic shipbuilders and workers of more than a thousand enterprises involved in the cooperation... as a result of the talks a compromise was reached and a mutually acceptable pricing formula was agreed to, which makes it possible to ensure the implementation of important contracts for national defence capability and to keep the shipbuilding industry busy until 2020.”

According to the Navy’s Main Staff, serial Project 955A Borei-class submarines will carry 20, not 16, Bulava ICBMs starting from the fourth submarine Svyatitel Nikolai.

Borei-class submarines are designed by the St. Petersburg-based Naval Design Bureau Rubin. Each submarine can be armed with 12 ICBMs with MIRVs. They will also have an escape capsule for all crewmembers. A Borei-class submarine is 170 metres long and 13.5 meters wide, it can sink to a depth of 450 metres and has a crew of 17 sailors.

The Borei claims to be a state-of-the-art submarine, featuring characteristics superior to any submarine currently in service, such as the ability to cruise silently and be less detectable to sonar. Advances include a compact and integrated hydrodynamically efficient hull for reduced broadband noise and the first ever use of pump-jet propulsion on a Russian nuclear submarine.

The submarine will be armed with Bulava missiles. The Bulava carries the NATO reporting name SS-NX-30 and has been assigned the GRAU index 3M30. In international treaties, the common designation RSM-56 is used.

The first Borei-class nuclear-powered submarine Yury Dolgoruky will join the Navy in the summer of 2012.

The Yuri Dolgoruky was the first strategic missile submarine to be launched in seventeen years since the end of the Soviet era. It was the first Russian (rather than Soviet) vessel. Currently, there are two more Borei class submarines under construction, named Alexander Nevsky and Vladimir Monomakh. The planned contingent of twelve strategic submarines is expected to be commissioned within the next decade (five “Project 955” are planned for purchase until 2015).

The Defence Ministry said earlier that it planned to build at least eight new Borei-class submarines that should become the main naval component core of Russia's strategic nuclear forces.

AustinJ
05-28-2012, 10:17 PM
A rail based ICBM is just another means of carrier just like land based , it doesnt cost much to have another land based platform carry it ( unlike SSBN ) and adds to mobility and survivability.

They used to run around with another 100 T ICBM like SS-24 back during those days of cold war.

It is more of a question is it worth having rail mobile ICBM purely from survivability and logictics prespective .... cost wise it would by and large be same as road mobile system.

Maximmmm
05-28-2012, 11:48 PM
I thought we gave up rail based ICBM's during the last years of the USSR? Forgot which treaty, but the Americans were happy to restrict us from having a platform that could traverse the country undetected, disguised as a simple rail carriage.

xav
05-29-2012, 04:58 AM
Zvezdochka Shipyard to Deliver Two SSBN (Projet 667BDRM Delfin – Delta-IV) and One SSK (Kilo) to Russian Navy

Zvezdochka Shipyard will hand over this year two Delta class submarines IV-class SSBN Verkhoturye (K-51), SSBN Novomoskovsk (K-407) and diesel-electric KILO-class SS Kaluga (B-800). Besides, the shipbuilder plans to deliver to India the submarine "Sindurakshak" by the end of this year, undergoing maintainance and upgrade at the shipyards.
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=463

Fulcrum-35
05-30-2012, 10:41 AM
it's curious we didn't hear about the contract for Yasen subs... Any info?

http://www.flot.com/news/navy/?ELEMENT_ID=113447

artjomh
05-30-2012, 10:51 AM
Yasen-M contract was signed last year

Maximmmm
05-30-2012, 04:23 PM
Stoiky has been launched! :D
http://www.navy.ru/news/navy/?ELEMENT_ID=113595
http://www.navy.ru/news/navy/?ELEMENT_ID=113607
http://www.navy.ru/news/navy/?ELEMENT_ID=113601
http://lenta.ru/news/2012/05/30/stoykiy/

GunshipDemocracy
05-30-2012, 05:07 PM
I thought we gave up rail based ICBM's during the last years of the USSR? Forgot which treaty, but the Americans were happy to restrict us from having a platform that could traverse the country undetected, disguised as a simple rail carriage.

Rogozin once said when discussing with McFaul (after old news form RIAN): Well we may consider marking our road mobile systems visible, once USA maked their all subs sailing on the surface with clear marks so satellites can easier spot and classify them :lol:

GunshipDemocracy
05-31-2012, 06:25 PM
dear all, toady's good news:

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120530/173757083.html
Russia to Reopen Arctic Airbases woot


Selected air units of Russia’s Western military district will start this year preparations to return to abandoned Arctic airfields, the commander of the district’s aviation Maj. Gen. Igor Makushev said on Wednesday.

Military airfields in the Arctic were used extensively in the Soviet era, but after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 they have been generally mothballed.
“We will start reopening airfields on Novaya Zemlya and in Naryan-Mar as early as this summer,” Makushev told a news conference in St. Petersburg.
Plans for next year include the reopening of a military airfield on Graham Bell Island, which is part of Franz Josef Land.
Russia has announced plans to deploy a combined-arms force to protect its political and economic interests in the Arctic region by 2020, including military, border and coastal guard units to guarantee Russia's military security in diverse military and political circumstances.
Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said in July 2011 that two arctic brigades would be stationed in “Murmansk or Arkhangelsk or some other place.”




Russia to Buy 60 An-70 Propfans - ekhm to me not clear what did the author mean but tittle is positive ;o)

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120531/173771181.html




and here really good news:

Russia to Create Military Skolkovo - where armies of battle robots with EM guns shall leave production lines soon ;-)

http://en.rian.ru/science/20120531/173768583.html

metberkut
05-31-2012, 06:52 PM
IIRC, it was 70 An-70's before? Either way, it is not bad number and it will be sweet seeing them in service. Unlike Il-476 crap.

Universals
05-31-2012, 06:56 PM
IIRC, it was 70 An-70's before? Either way, it is not bad number and it will be sweet seeing them in service. Unlike Il-476 crap.

calling Il-476 crap? dude!

Nuclear_Warrior
05-31-2012, 06:56 PM
He b hatin'

sepheronx
06-01-2012, 01:03 AM
and here really good news:

Russia to Create Military Skolkovo - where armies of battle robots with EM guns shall leave production lines soon ;-)

http://en.rian.ru/science/20120531/173768583.html

This is really interesting news, thank you. Good to know that they are really putting forward in the R&D sector and really paying attention to newer equipment development other than simply evolutionary steps.

This will be both great for economical development plus keep the brains in Russia.

metberkut
06-01-2012, 07:57 AM
calling Il-476 crap? dude!

He b hatin'
Hehe, sorry people, just had to do it to test waters. :P (a small trolling post one might say) Now, to be more serious, i am not huge fan of 476 program.

African-European
06-01-2012, 12:45 PM
Military Chiefs Crack Down on Draft Dodgers

Russia’s Defense Ministry has worked out a plan to increase conscription rates that would include organizational, regulatory and propaganda moves. The effort will involve lobbyists and government officials who are former military.The mobilization department of the General Staff has reiterated an initiative that its head, Vasily Smirnov, proposed two years ago, to raise the draft age ceiling from 27 to 30.This idea was also recently voiced by Vasil Shaikhraziyev, the Mayor of Naberezhniye Chelny in Tatarstan, and the regional legislature is likely to support the proposal and submit a respective bill to the State Duma. Tatarstan has recently topped the Defense Ministry’s patriotic education contests. The region has the lowest number of draft dodgers in Russia. As a result of intensive promotion, local young men are eager to serve in the army while evaders suffer from a low public opinion.Another idea, also proposed by Smirnov, has already been drafted into a bill aimed at amending the law on conscription. Young men of conscription age will be required to come in person to their local recruitment office to receive summons to conscription-related events. The bill, drafted by a group of upper house members who are former military chiefs, led by Viktor Ozerov who heads the upper house defense committee, will be considered later this month. Although it aroused a controversial public response, the Defense Ministry is quite confident that it will be adopted and that the conscription procedure will change dramatically.The Defense Ministry is also drafting bills, jointly with other concerned agencies, aimed at raising the prestige of military service. An executive order Vladimir Putin signed on inauguration day calls for granting university admission privileges and other benefits to people who have completed their military service.The benefits will include a system of grants for university graduates who have also completed their military service to domestic or foreign business schools, as well as preferences for those who wish to join the civil service, something never offered before.The latter amendment provoked a passionate debate in the government, Defense Ministry sources say. The Ministry insisted on the original clause which says that only those individuals who have served in the army or navy, upon conscription or under contract, can join the civil service. Opponents proposed a milder option, to give these people “a preference in competitive appointment to a civil service post.”Apart from that, the government will complement the planned incentives with unpopular policies prompted by the Defense Ministry.Colonel Eduard Rodyukov, associate member of the Academy of Military Sciences, said that in 2012-2013, the number of universities with state accreditation will be reduced. This means that students of these universities will be drafted unless they have health problems that exempt them from military service. The same will happen with postgraduate students whose research is not of strategic importance to the state, he explained.

Source: Nezavisimaya Gazeta

artjomh
06-01-2012, 04:33 PM
I like the business school idea. Serve in Stroibat, get a full scholarship to Harvard!

After all, it is well known that people in Stroibat are either too dumb for other military service, or too smart for their own good. 8)

GunshipDemocracy
06-02-2012, 01:27 PM
This is really interesting news, thank you. Good to know that they are really putting forward in the R&D sector and really paying attention to newer equipment development other than simply evolutionary steps.

"This will be both great for economical development plus keep the brains in Russia.

yesssssssss :)

I am also glad that elites see clearly that not only upgrades or continuation of current weponary are needed, some new, breakthrough weapons are as well welcome. I am just waiting for 'free press' which gonna say R&D in Russia shall not bring any positive GDP impact but only stagnation ;)


and here trifle but nice:
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120601/173787154.html
"Russia's mobile ballistic missile launchers are to be fitted with a new camouflage system that will cover their tracks on the ground, making it harder to detect them, Defense Ministry spokesman Vadim Koval said on Friday."


http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120601/173782096.html
"The Russian Armed Forces will conduct over 1,000 command-and-staff and tactical exercises during the summer training period from June to November this year, the Defense Ministry said."

Andy_UA
06-02-2012, 01:54 PM
and here trifle but nice:
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120601/173787154.html
"Russia's mobile ballistic missile launchers are to be fitted with a new camouflage system that will cover their tracks on the ground, making it harder to detect them, Defense Ministry spokesman Vadim Koval said on Friday."



http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6111/154814723.3/0_6b30b_d0d12847_M.jpg


In the Delivery of advanced engineering equipment to Strategic Missile Forces continues. To increase maneuverability and survivability of mobile missiles complexes, among them - machine for engineering and masking (MYOM).
In particular, by year's end to delivery of these machines to Teykovso missile garrison will be completed. As a result number of these versatile machines which have no analogues in Russia's Armed Forces, will be 6 units. Subsequently, these units will be rearmed Irkutsk and Novosibirsk missile compound.

MYOM designed to perform engineering tasks and masking missile system as a whole or any part thereof during combat duty in the combat patrol routes and field positions.

Introduction MYOM provides such tasks as:
engineer reconnaissance patrolling routes and field positions, including an assessment of the carrying capacity of their soil base,
dimensions of cross-checking of routes and sites, and if necessary - to restore them (broadening),
engineer reconnaissance of minefields and clearing the area, clearing roads for field position and their planning, obstacle clearing,
masking and imitation,
determination of the slope of terrain and location of units using the navigation system,
determination of carrying capacity of highway bridges on the route patrolling, using a special system of measurement,
Peforming of radiation and chemical reconnaissance, etc.

Link
(http://www.i-mash.ru/news/nov_otrasl/22668-boevye-raketnye-kompleksy-zamaskirujut-po-novomu.html)

Grax
06-02-2012, 02:44 PM
IIRC, it was 70 An-70's before? Either way, it is not bad number and it will be sweet seeing them in service. Unlike Il-476 crap.

Are they going to build them in Russia ?
Afaik they are, aren't they ?

julesak
06-03-2012, 11:32 AM
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6111/154814723.3/0_6b30b_d0d12847_M.jpg



Link
(http://www.i-mash.ru/news/nov_otrasl/22668-boevye-raketnye-kompleksy-zamaskirujut-po-novomu.html)

Does it exist any picture in better resolution?

GunshipDemocracy
06-03-2012, 11:53 AM
http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_05_31/76582462/


Russia and China will team up to create a long-haul passenger airliner on the basis of the Il-96 plane, the Vedomosti newspaper quotes Deputy Industry and Trade Minister Yuri Slusar as saying.

The deal expected to be sealed during President Vladimir Putin’s upcoming visit to China on June 5-6. China will finance the project and Russia will provide technology.



If this will be assembled in China can it be a Russia's presidential plane? you know bugs everywhere ;)

geolocator
06-03-2012, 11:56 AM
Does it exist any picture in better resolution?
Like this afaik.
http://русская-сила.рф/guide/army/tr/mzkt7930-8.jpg

artjomh
06-03-2012, 12:03 PM
Does it exist any picture in better resolution?

http://www.oborona.ru/dyn_images/img6017.jpg

http://www.arms-expo.ru/im.xp/050057050056050056056.jpg

http://www.arms-expo.ru/im.xp/050057050056049048048.jpg

http://www.arms-expo.ru/im.xp/050057050055053048048.jpg

http://www.arms-expo.ru/im.xp/050057050055051055051.jpg

AustinJ
06-03-2012, 12:17 PM
If this will be assembled in China can it be a Russia's presidential plane? you know bugs everywhere ;)

The Russian Presidential fleet has on order two A319ACJ and they use French Falcon jet too

GunshipDemocracy
06-03-2012, 01:25 PM
The Russian Presidential fleet has on order two A319ACJ and they use French Falcon jet too

but not as IL-96 replacement for Presidenf of Russia?! that would be strange to ask planes full of NATO recording devices...

C.Puffs
06-03-2012, 01:49 PM
I thought we gave up rail based ICBM's during the last years of the USSR? Forgot which treaty, but the Americans were happy to restrict us from having a platform that could traverse the country undetected, disguised as a simple rail carriage.

Yeah, interesting to see how treaties with Russia work out eh? Imagine if we'd traded away our Peacekeepers only to replace them with new. Russia would be whining like they do with missile defense. And people wonder why many are opposed to any sort of treaties at all with Russia.

marat
06-03-2012, 01:55 PM
Yeah, interesting to see how treaties with Russia work out eh? Imagine if we'd traded away our Peacekeepers only to replace them with new. Russia would be whining like they do with missile defense. And people wonder why many are opposed to any sort of treaties at all with Russia.
ok then stop with misiles defence , remember that was part of pact too.

C.Puffs
06-03-2012, 01:56 PM
ok then stop with misiles defence , remember that was part of pact too.

No it wasn't.

marat
06-03-2012, 02:04 PM
yes it was 2 sec google search
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty
The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty or ABMT) was a treaty between the United States (http://www.militaryphotos.net/wiki/United_States) and the Soviet Union (http://www.militaryphotos.net/wiki/Soviet_Union) on the limitation of the anti-ballistic missile (http://www.militaryphotos.net/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile) (ABM) systems used in defending areas against missile-delivered nuclear weapons (http://www.militaryphotos.net/wiki/Nuclear_weapon).
Signed in 1972, it was in force for the next 30 years until the US unilaterally withdrew from it in June 2002.

artjomh
06-03-2012, 02:12 PM
Yeah, interesting to see how treaties with Russia work out eh? Imagine if we'd traded away our Peacekeepers only to replace them with new.

But you can. The treaty doesn't limit nuclear research and development. You can build as many MX as you like, as long as it is within the numerical limit.

PS: Rail-mobile ICBMs were debated within the General Staff several years ago and the decision was made not to resume research.

C.Puffs
06-03-2012, 02:25 PM
yes it was 2 sec google search
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty
The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty or ABMT) was a treaty between the United States (http://www.militaryphotos.net/wiki/United_States) and the Soviet Union (http://www.militaryphotos.net/wiki/Soviet_Union) on the limitation of the anti-ballistic missile (http://www.militaryphotos.net/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile) (ABM) systems used in defending areas against missile-delivered nuclear weapons (http://www.militaryphotos.net/wiki/Nuclear_weapon).
Signed in 1972, it was in force for the next 30 years until the US unilaterally withdrew from it in June 2002.

You're not too bright are you? The ABM Treaty had sweet **** all to do with the treaty that got rid of the SS-24s and Peacekeepers.

C.Puffs
06-03-2012, 02:26 PM
But you can. The treaty doesn't limit nuclear research and development. You can build as many MX as you like, as long as it is within the numerical limit.

PS: Rail-mobile ICBMs were debated within the General Staff several years ago and the decision was made not to resume research.

Which begs the point of why did both sides go through the charade of getting rid of them in the first place?

marat
06-03-2012, 02:35 PM
You're not too bright are you? The ABM Treaty had sweet **** all to do with the treaty that got rid of the SS-24s and Peacekeepers.

And you are ignorant idiot. AMB misles were part of that pact and USA break the treaty.

artjomh
06-03-2012, 02:44 PM
Which begs the point of why did both sides go through the charade of getting rid of them in the first place?

SS-24 was retired because the original missile's shelf life expired and decision was made not to resume production because main components were manufactured in Ukraine, so it was a security issue.

MX was retired because US wanted to give Russia an incentive to retire heavy ICBMs like SS-18, so they gave up their own heavily MIRVed missile.


And you are ignorant idiot. AMB misles were part of that pact and USA break the treaty.

Be polite.

US gave a six month notice to Russia and exited the ABM treaty in full accordance with treaty provisions.

AustinJ
06-07-2012, 12:29 PM
Seems like big CIA spy in FSB was caught

The FSB colonel handed over the reports intended for the Russian top officials to the CIA (http://www.itar-tass.com/en/c142/441049.html)


The Kommersant daily reported about another espionage scandal. The Moscow District Military Court sentenced to 18 years in prison Colonel of the Federal Security Service (FSB) Valery Mikhailov, 61, on Wednesday. He is accused of passing thousands of classified and top secret documents to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from 2001 to 2007. The Federal Security Service has prepared these documents for the Russian leadership. The spy, which gained over two million dollars on the information leak, pleaded guilty and really confessed, however, the court sentenced him to five years more than the public prosecutor demanded. Meanwhile, the newspaper reported that Mikhailov may not stay in prison for a long time, taking into account he is a precious exposed agent, the US authorities are seeking to exchange him.

The FSB detectives, who were investigating the Mikhailov criminal case, found that he began to cooperate with the CIA agents in Moscow since 2001. Receiving a reward, before 2007 he passed to them over 1,000 copies of top secret documents, which the Federal Security Service had prepared for the president, the prime minister and the Russian Security Service. He hid the flashcards with the copies of the documents in the caches, from which the agents took them. In 2007, when the Federal Security Service found an information leak, according to some available reports, a US agent, who had taken the documents from the cache, was detained.

Meanwhile, Mikhailov retired from the FSB service at the retirement age. By this moment of time Russian counterintelligence officers succeeded to identify Mikhailov as a spy, who had put some copies of top secret documents in the cache, according to the video records and some other information. Mikhailov, who kept Russian citizenship, escaped to the United States and settled in the city Arlington together with his relatives. The FSB agents succeeded to flush Mikhailov from the US to Russia in 2010. The Kommersant daily reported that Mikhailov, which the CIA considers as one of its most successful agents in the last few years, hopes that the US authorities will exchange him for a Russian spy.

African-European
06-07-2012, 12:39 PM
Russia to Design a Patrol Plane for the Arctic

Russia’s Defense Ministry has issued design specifications for a patrol aircraft for the Arctic. The reason cited is the planned write-off of several dozen Il-38 and Il-38N planes of the same type while global warming is intensifying competition for the rich resources of the North Pole.There’s a need for a new long-range high-endurance patrol plane for the Arctic, according to an unnamed source in the defense sector, Interfax reports. The Tu-214, the A-40/42 (the world’s largest amphibian plane) and the Be-200, another amphibian, could be competing entries. However, the source said “it is too soon to speak of the tender’s date.”It is perhaps also too early to speak of the A-42 and Be-200 seaplanes as likely entries if only because the A-42 has a patrol endurance of 12 hours at reduced speed, which is not enough to cover the Arctic distances. The Be-200 is out of the question because its range is 30% less. Moreover, seaplanes are expensive to build because they use a lot of titanium. It would be a waste using them for patrol duties.As for the passenger Tu-214, its range with passengers and baggage is 6,500 kilometers. Since passengers are an extra option on patrols, fuel reserves could be increased and range extended to 8,000-10,000 kilometers. The Il-38s and Il-38Ns currently in service are military derivatives of the Il-18 workhorse, and have a dry tank range of 9,500 kilometers.It is feasible to extend the service life and upgrade several dozen Il-38s. That would be much cheaper than purchasing the same number of new planes with added spending on simulators, testing equipment and re-training. But the Defense Ministry seems to have some spare money after abandoning the plans to purchase new armor and other armaments. Now it is casting about for investment opportunities.Considering the good relations between the ministry and the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), a passenger cargo plane could be found for conversion. But the likely candidate is the Sukhoi Superjet-100, not the Tu-214. To begin with, Sukhoi is now experiencing problems with sales following the May 9 disaster in Indonesia. Second, Sukhoi is calling the shots in the UAC, while Tupolev is practically bankrupt and is surviving by renting out its premises. Third, the Superjet is the authorities’ pet project and a good investment destination. Why not invest some more in it?The news of a new Arctic patrol aircraft broke soon after U.S. companies Northrop Grumman and L-3 MAS offered the Canadian government a Polar Hawk version of the unmanned aerial vehicle RQ-4 Block 30 Global Hawk. It can stay up for 33 hours and climb to an altitude of 18,300 kilometers. The Russian Defense Ministry appears to have decided to rise to the challenge. But the response is unlikely to be adequate either in range or altitude. It would be easier to launch a couple of satellites into geostationary orbit to monitor the earth’s surface round the clock.

Source: Nezavisimaya Gazeta

Andy_UA
06-07-2012, 04:07 PM
Seems like big CIA spy in FSB was caught

The FSB colonel handed over the reports intended for the Russian top officials to the CIA (http://www.itar-tass.com/en/c142/441049.html)

FSB counterintelligence service have stopped the activities of 41 professional spies and discovered 158 agents last year. First time the data went public. link (http://www.fontanka.ru/2012/02/07/089/)

Fulcrum-35
06-08-2012, 05:22 PM
seems that the maximum range for Klub missile is 375km to hit naval targets and 2600km for land ones...

http://rusnavy.com/news/navy/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=15315

Fulcrum-35
06-08-2012, 05:35 PM
I've heard that there's a harsh dispute between Severstal and the MoD over the prices of high elasticity steel for the Borei subs. K-165 Barnaul hull could be recycled to built the new subs... I don't know if this is the only issue of what should be renegociated by 2015? Any info?

BTW anyone knows the status of K-135 Volgograd? When is it supposed to be re-commissioned?

geolocator
06-08-2012, 06:32 PM
Since this SPARC processor is designed in Russia by Moscow Center of SPARC Technologies do they use these in military applicaitons ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCST-4R
It's called R1000 now. Obviously, it will be used instead of R500 in military applications. But I doubt that it will be used in new R&Ds.

GunshipDemocracy
06-08-2012, 07:19 PM
Be polite.

US gave a six month notice to Russia and exited the ABM treaty in full accordance with treaty provisions.

He was just learning his craft from McFaul


Rogozin is going to stop PAK DA?! hope not
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120606/173879617.html


A long-running dispute between the Russian military and defense industry over procurement of new weaponry may enter a new phase as Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin has questioned the need to develop a new strategic bomber, the Izvestia daily said on Wednesday. Russia announced plans in 2009 to develop a fifth-generation strategic bomber, which will feature new airframe and elements of stealth technology, by 2025.

The new bomber is expected to replace the Tu-95MC Bear and Tu-160 Blackjack strategic bombers, and Tu-22M3 Backfire long-range bombers currently in service with Russia’s strategic aviation.

GunshipDemocracy
06-08-2012, 07:21 PM
It's called R1000 now. Obviously, it will be used instead of R500 in military applications. But I doubt that it will be used in new R&Ds.

is there any official news about a new processor for Russian weaponry?

Khathi
06-08-2012, 08:12 PM
Not much, military electronics is one of the most closed and rarely advertised subjects. Everything anyone knows is basically from rumors and company press releases, which are few and far between. Something might be read between the lines when comparing, say, one company's press release about a new CPU, and the other one's about a new radar. But there are some whispers that MCST is planning to release the e2k line as a GP CPU, at least on the embedded market, once they've got some domestic production capability, as now their whole output at a Taiwanese fab goes to the military. So maybe there'll be some more info.

But anyway, from their press releases their top-of-the line now are the 90-nm SPARC-based MCST/Elbrus R-1000 (RISC architecture, 1 GHz, 4 cores), with the whole computers in rack-mounted and compactPCI industrial form-factors produced on the side, and the 90-nm e2k-based Elbrus 2c+ (EPIC architecture, 500 MHz, 2 CPU cores + 4 ELVIS DSP cores), which is reportedly powering the T-50's new AESA radar. Lower clock speed of the 2c+ is reportedly due to the lower level of optimisation of the CPUs layout, as most of the second-line modules (apart from key ALU, and control units) come from standard elements libraries, which, by the rumors, came from Intel and is one or two generations old.

Some forum posts say that with increased funding from the T-50 program, they're going to hire more people and give the e2k core a significant optimization, improving its clock speed. By the end of 2012 they also plan to shift to 65-nm production, and the next-gen (working name 3c) is planned to have 2GHz clock. Another proposed solution is to forgo the clock entirely and switch to asynchronous design, their VLIW/EPIC architecture being particularly suited to it. But this'll take even more radical core redesign.

Still, even in its 2c+ (+ indicates the presence of DSP cores) incarnation, this CPU would probably give ARM a run for its money, if we are to believe their spec sheets and press releases, and if it ever gets released into a general market. And it also has a very efficient on-the-fly hardware-based binary recompiler built into the core, which allows it to run x86 code at ~0.75 native speed. Older 130-nm/300 MHz variants reportedly outpaced 2 GHz Pentium 4 of the day.

Void121412
06-09-2012, 09:16 AM
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev on Saturday reiterated plans to develop a new, fifth-generation strategic bomber

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120609/173938424.html

geolocator
06-09-2012, 10:07 AM
But there are some whispers that MCST is planning to release the e2k line as a GP CPU, at least on the embedded market, once they've got some domestic production capability, as now their whole output at a Taiwanese fab goes to the military. So maybe there'll be some more info.
More probable that they will shift 90nm production to Russia for the military, new 65nm and less chips will be made in Taiwan. Look here, it seems that they want to make it available not only for the defence market.
http://www.mcst.ru/str_120529.shtml



...which is reportedly powering the T-50's new AESA radar...
... with increased funding from the T-50 program, they're going to hire more people and give the e2k core a significant optimization
That's all rumors. Financing for e2k already exists for a long time and the processor is too feeble for T-50. I never seen data like this except some too creative peoples on forums.


Another proposed solution is to forgo the clock entirely and switch to asynchronous design, their VLIW/EPIC architecture being particularly suited to it. But this'll take even more radical core redesign.
A triple number of transistors will make it unbelievable. The only thing can be said almost for sure - R1000 will be the last Russian SPARK. Funds for the things are quite tracable in open Minpromtorg docs. No traces. All I can see there is financing for Elbrus architecture based processors and tips on a powerful ARM-based system.


Older 130-nm/300 MHz variants reportedly outpaced 2 GHz Pentium 4 of the day.
It was critisized a lot, nothing even close to it. Unofficial SPECs for Elbrus -2S+ are publicly available you can easily compare them yourself.

Khathi
06-09-2012, 09:13 PM
More probable that they will shift 90nm production to Russia for the military, new 65nm and less chips will be made in Taiwan. Look here, it seems that they want to make it available not only for the defence market.
http://www.mcst.ru/str_120529.shtml (http://www.mcst.ru/str_120529.shtml)

That's what I'm talking about — a new fab in Russia will allow them to increase production and put some chips to the market,


That's all rumors. Financing for e2k already exists for a long time and the processor is too feeble for T-50. I never seen data like this except some too creative peoples on forums.
I've seen a public acquisition tender docs for the radar in question, and the CPU specs described there match 2S+ pretty much spot-on. Of course there is no exact name of the CPU, as per the infamous 92-FZ requirements, but it looks like what the people wanted.


A triple number of transistors will make it unbelievable. The only thing can be said almost for sure - R1000 will be the last Russian SPARK. Funds for the things are quite tractable in open Minpromtorg docs. No traces. All I can see there is financing for Elbrus architecture based processors and tips on a powerful ARM-based system.
M-m-m-m.... My remark about asynchronous CPU referred to e2k, not SPARC architecture. If I understood the paper on its architecture right, the ALU is already pretty much asynchronous and wouldn't need the transistor count hike. But, well, I'll check it again. BTW, is anyone here interested in this paper? I might try to translate it to English. As per SPARC architecture — indeed, MCST is closing its SPARC unit.


It was critisized a lot, nothing even close to it. Unofficial SPECs for Elbrus -2S+ are publicly available you can easily compare them yourself.
You mean, the these tests? Well, Babayan needed funding. ;) Still, even from those more reliable test results you've mentioned 2S+ gives 20 GIPS/8 GFLOPS in a native mode and ~10-15 GIPS/4-5 GFLOPS in an x86 compatibility mode, which IS three to five times higher than Intel Atom (3.3 GIPS/2.1 GFLOPS) on a triple clock speed. And all this was achieved on a 90-nm process, compared to Intel's 45-nm. The only serious drawback is TDP, which is ~25 W, compared to Atom's ~6 W, but even that is not that high.

AustinJ
06-10-2012, 12:13 AM
seems that the maximum range for Klub missile is 375km to hit naval targets and 2600km for land ones...

http://rusnavy.com/news/navy/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=15315

Well if they end up having a subsonic cruise missile over 500 km then there is likely hood that a subsonic missile like Klub might not find the target like moving ships when it reaches there , for a supersonic missile a longer range would make sense.

GunshipDemocracy
06-10-2012, 03:47 PM
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120609/173938424.html

Great news ! I wonder if PAK DA will be hypersonic or rather subsonic B-2 like? for platform to replace Tu-160 and eventually Mig-31 (fast platform for AA missiles over Siberia). Second question is down to earth - why again Kazan - no need to re-industrialize Ural region? create more hi-tech jobs?

GunshipDemocracy
06-10-2012, 03:53 PM
You mean, the these tests? Well, Babayan needed funding. ;) Still, even from those more reliable test results you've mentioned 2S+ gives 20 GIPS/8 GFLOPS in a native mode and ~10-15 GIPS/4-5 GFLOPS in an x86 compatibility mode, which IS three to five times higher than Intel Atom (3.3 GIPS/2.1 GFLOPS) on a triple clock speed. And all this was achieved on a 90-nm process, compared to Intel's 45-nm. The only serious drawback is TDP, which is ~25 W, compared to Atom's ~6 W, but even that is not that high.

[/QUOTE]

Thx Khathi for answering my original question, just maybe a lame question -> why Russian militay terminate SPARC if it is so powerful? and for example Chinese are developing it still for their supercomputers?

Flamming_Python
06-10-2012, 04:34 PM
Great news ! I wonder if PAK DA will be hypersonic or rather subsonic B-2 like? for platform to replace Tu-160 and eventually Mig-31 (fast platform for AA missiles over Siberia).

Hard to say for now. Depends on whether they go for stealth, or high-speed.


Second question is down to earth - why again Kazan - no need to re-industrialize Ural region? create more hi-tech jobs?

Kazan or Ulyanovsk (maybe Moscow region too) are the only viable places for manufacturing a new high-tech aircraft in Russia. Undoubtedly though, the alloys, maybe engines, etc... will come from Urals industry, while certain instruments, electronics, etc... will come from places like Moscow, St. Petersburg, Tomsk, etc...

geolocator
06-10-2012, 06:12 PM
I've seen a public acquisition tender docs for the radar in question, and the CPU specs described there match 2S+ pretty much spot-on. Of course there is no exact name of the CPU, as per the infamous 92-FZ requirements, but it looks like what the people wanted.
I doubt it - there was a so-called Cubik-2 project. But it's probable that they decided to use something that could be made in Russia. I guess it's too early to say what will be there.


Thx Khathi for answering my original question, just maybe a lame question -> why Russian militay terminate SPARC if it is so powerful? and for example Chinese are developing it still for their supercomputers?
It's not powerful, e2k processors are 2 times faster. Look at GFLOPs. SPARCs were a stop gap solution because at the time MCST was cooperating with Sun and a proccessor was required. SPARCs were used when a RTOS OS was required (Solaris). Now as can be seen from MCST documents they created a patched Linux kernel which allows to use it as RTOS. It seems no need in SPARCs anymore. Integrated DSP allow to have extra advantages too.

sepheronx
06-10-2012, 06:50 PM
Thx Khathi for answering my original question, just maybe a lame question -> why Russian militay terminate SPARC if it is so powerful? and for example Chinese are developing it still for their supercomputers?

Because SPARC technology is passe, and the future is something along the lines of ARM architecture. Russia can take advantage of the relatively young and small market now with the development of low power usage CPU's with higher performance.

Khathi
06-10-2012, 08:39 PM
I doubt it - there was a so-called Cubik-2 project. But it's probable that they decided to use something that could be made in Russia. I guess it's too early to say what will be there.
The R&D was designated Cubik-Ku, IIRC. And from the certain language in the requirement it looks like it specifically targeted Elbrus-2S+, because it mentioned 4 on-die DSP cores. Of course, it's still to early to make conclusions, but the radar is completing bench tests, so we'll know soon.


It's not powerful, e2k processors are 2 times faster. Look at GFLOPs. SPARCs were a stop gap solution because at the time MCST was cooperating with Sun and a proccessor was required. SPARCs were used when a RTOS OS was required (Solaris). Now as can be seen from MCST documents they created a patched Linux kernel which allows to use it as RTOS. It seems no need in SPARCs anymore. Integrated DSP allow to have extra advantages too.
As far as I know, Solaris isn't a RTOS and never was. The RTOS used by Russian Military is OS RV, AKA Baget OS, AKA os2000, reputedly based largely on VxWorks, and its target CPU was MIPS. SPARC CPUs, in my opinion, were used because they were the proverbial bird in hands. In early 2000s Babayan was still largely regarded as a blabbermouth telling the tall tales, and the need for CPUs was even more pressing. After all, GLONASS sats still use the ancient MicroVAX clone. But nowadays, as e2k is getting online, and MSVS (a military Linux distro) gets a real-time patch, the needs in such a stop-gap indeed passes.

eskachig
06-10-2012, 10:10 PM
seems that the maximum range for Klub missile is 375km to hit naval targets and 2600km for land ones...

http://rusnavy.com/news/navy/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=15315
Is that a typo? Or is the massive difference in range due to being able to use a simple ballistic trajectory for a coastal target?

sepheronx
06-11-2012, 12:30 AM
The R&D was designated Cubik-Ku, IIRC. And from the certain language in the requirement it looks like it specifically targeted Elbrus-2S+, because it mentioned 4 on-die DSP cores. Of course, it's still to early to make conclusions, but the radar is completing bench tests, so we'll know soon.

So it is the E2K processor powering the new AESA radar for PAK FA? What about the Zhuk-AE radar? Also, what is in the pipeline for Russian CPU's future? Any idea what MCST is going to work on next?

Other question:

Does anyone know what is the current status of Russian Optic pods and Recon pods Sapsan and M400? I know of a new one being developed for PAK FA, but what about for the current generation of aircrafts? Or are they going to scrap development and continue to manufacture the Domacles?

geolocator
06-11-2012, 01:32 AM
хQUOTE=Khathi;6215913]
As far as I know, Solaris isn't a RTOS and never was.[/QUOTE]
You know it right:oops:. My fault as I kept in mind a different thing and wrote it automatically.

geolocator
06-11-2012, 01:37 AM
The R&D was designated Cubik-Ku, IIRC. And from the certain language in the requirement it looks like it specifically targeted Elbrus-2S+, because it mentioned 4 on-die DSP cores. Of course, it's still to early to make conclusions, but the radar is completing bench tests, so we'll know soon.
ОКР Кубик-2 mentioned everywhere has exactly the number of DSP cores. But it doesn't exist so far.

Khathi
06-11-2012, 09:04 AM
So it is the E2K processor powering the new AESA radar for PAK FA?
There was a public request for the R&D work with intended specs and assigned funding. Whether it came to anything is currently unknown. A new AESA radar for the T-50 is reportedly in the debugging stage, with the bench tests almost completed, and the plane will soon take off with the new radar, so we'll see whether it is so or not.


What about the Zhuk-AE radar?
No idea.


Also, what is in the pipeline for Russian CPU's future?
Everyone involved seem to be quite happy with the e2k architecture, so probably it will be incrementally improved further. The first step planned is probably the refinement of the chip's layout, as much of it consists of the off-the-shelf library components, which preclude the clock speed increase. This redesign will probably allow for the clock speed to rise from current 500 MHz to the 1-1.5 GHz mark. Then a process shrink will probably follow, when a 65-nm fab will be finally installed in Zelenograd, increasing the clock speed to 2-2.5 GHz.


Any idea what MCST is going to work on next?
They are developing an apparently PC-compatible motherboard for general public: it has a 500 MHz Elbrus-2S+ CPU, an indigenously developed southern bridge with a PCI-e 1.0 hub, Gigabit Ethernet, USB 2.0, SATA 2.0 and AC97 controllers built-in, and a discrete graphics chip (the producer is not reported). The memory controller is built-in into a CPU and supports two-channel 800 MHz DDR-2 RAM, the prototype board featuring two memory slots. There's also one x8 PCI-e slot (the board has a mini-ITX form-factor), with plans to put a fully functional x16 one at the release. With 2S+ having a rather moderate TDP of ~25 W, it may use a very small fan or even a passive cooling, so with a CPU's peak performance of 44 GIPS at 32-bit code and the massive boost of four on-die DSP cores it could be ideal for a HTPC and other video-processing tasks.

Geolocator has already posted the link (http://www.mcst.ru/str_120529.shtml), but here it is again:

http://www.mcst.ru/image/pic_120529.jpg

Fulcrum-35
06-11-2012, 03:13 PM
Does anyone have more info about the light scheme observed above the Middle East? I was similar to what was observed above Norway when the Bulava test launch failed...

AustinJ
06-12-2012, 02:05 AM
What is the reason the Soviet built Air Capable Cruiser like Kuz or Gorshkov loaded with anti-ship missile and Granit but never went with the idea of flat tops.

Was is pure doctrinal or some other reason for building Air Capable Cruisers ?

AustinJ
06-12-2012, 02:17 AM
Is that a typo? Or is the massive difference in range due to being able to use a simple ballistic trajectory for a coastal target?

Klub do not follow ballistic trajectory except the 91RE1/RE2 that is armed with 350 mm Torpedoes and follows a pure Ballistic Trajectory.

Having long range for anti-ship missile that is mostly subsonic in its flight path does not make sense , as ship is a moving target and the missile would need multiple updates in flight path from either Ships or Air Borne Aircraft till it reaches 1000 plus or 2000 plus km which would take tens of minutes or even hour making it easier to track these missile in flight and destroy , plus the target may not be where it is suppose to be.

So 375 km for antiship missile is good while 2600 km for LACM makes more sense as they would hit static targets or targets whose co-ordinates are known in advance.

Maximmmm
06-12-2012, 03:04 AM
What is the reason the Soviet built Air Capable Cruiser like Kuz or Gorshkov loaded with anti-ship missile and Granit but never went with the idea of flat tops.

Was is pure doctrinal or some other reason for building Air Capable Cruisers ?

The USSR had several flat-top projects throughout its existence. A post-war project that never got too far (Plans abandoned) and the Ulyanovsk supercarrier (70% complete at the collapse of the USSR, cut and scrapped) are the two that come to mind.

The navy was always the step-child in the armed forces, getting funded on a leftover basis and relegated to a lesser strategic role. Moreover the economic priorities of the time did not allow such incredibly expensive projects to be easily approved.

artjomh
06-12-2012, 03:59 AM
What is the reason the Soviet built Air Capable Cruiser like Kuz or Gorshkov loaded with anti-ship missile and Granit but never went with the idea of flat tops.

Was is pure doctrinal or some other reason for building Air Capable Cruisers ?

Because they were an evolved concept of an anti-submarine cruiser, whose purpose was to defend strategic submarines from surface ships and naval aviation.

Project 1143 (Kiev) expanded the role of earlier Project 1123 (Moskva) class anti-submarine cruisers to cover the entire spectrum of fleet defense roles:

- Maintaining SSBN combat stability and securing deployment areas
- Securing the airspace for tactical, reconnaissance and anti-submarine aviation against enemy naval aviation threats
- Destruction of enemy submarines and surface vessels
- Securing amphibeous landing operations

Submarine defense was the main role for all Soviet aircraft carriers, not force projection, so it never had a strict requirement for massive non-stop air operations like the US carriers (so it didn't need a catapult).

AustinJ
06-12-2012, 05:41 AM
Thanks , So essentially Doctrine Drove every thing.

The talk of new Russian AirCraft carrier seems to be Flat Tops with element of ASD being integrated into it.

Khathi
06-12-2012, 09:27 AM
That's a bit more complex. Don't forget, the doctrine is always formulated based on the available means. For the much of its history, the Navy was a redheaded stepchild of the Soviet military, and simply couldn't afford conventional flat-tops. The fact that soviet ideologists viewed carriers as a weapon of the capitalist aggression didn't help the case either. But the subs were important, and the Navy was able to push a concept of an ASW carrier through, to get a foot in the door, so to speak. ASW carriers were cheaper and weren't useful as a weapon of aggression, which made them easier to swallow to the Politburo geezers. And finally, by the late 70es Gorshkov amassed enough clout to convince the Defense Minister Marshal Ustinov, the all-powerful lord of the Soviet military industry, to build the conventional carrier. And he still only was able to get the intermediate designs like Kuznetsov to be approved, as a sort of a stepping-stone. Ulyanovsk was to follow, but it was already too late.

metberkut
06-12-2012, 11:43 AM
Ulyanovsk was to follow, but it was already too late.
How did it look? Evolution of Kuznetsov or a new design?

AustinJ
06-12-2012, 11:46 AM
I think even today Aircarrier forms the backbone of Russian SSBN defence , there was a statement made recently by Navy Chief or some one very senior who said without a Carrier the SSBN wont last even for half a day !

It would be interesting to see how Russian Air Craft carrier plans develop with statements coming out that it will be integrated with ASD and will have ASW capability , so it wont be like the USN CVN that we see.

Another question is why did the Soviet built huge submarine fleet to take out USN CVN , were they confident submarines like Oscar class SSGN would be capable to take out US/NATO CBG fleet ?

Flamming_Python
06-12-2012, 12:17 PM
Oh man WTF are you guys even talking about? Can't we have more news about military hardware, not computer hardware?

artjomh
06-12-2012, 12:20 PM
How did it look? Evolution of Kuznetsov or a new design?

Slightly larger (75K) Kuznetsov with a catapult and nuclear propulsion.

Kiev, Kuznetsov and Ulyanovsk were all based on the same basic hull, but with major modifications to superstructure along the way.

http://balancer.ru/forum/punbb/attachment.php?item=244588&download=1

AustinJ
06-13-2012, 03:01 AM
Rogozin: about $ 200 billion be allocated for the modernization of Russian defense enterprises (http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20120612/671813194.html)


"The modernization of existing plants by 2020 will be allocated approximately $ 100 billion, plus about the same amount of private funds" - Rogozin wrote.

In the Russian Federation has already built five "new cutting edge" of plants: two - Kirov and Nizhny Novgorod - in the field of missile defense, an aircraft factory is built in Kazan, the two factories - Ammunition and shooting - in Tula, said Deputy Prime Minister.

AustinJ
06-13-2012, 03:03 AM
SAP 2022 allocated 3 trillion rouble for MIC but any idea what is the $100 billion of private funds he is talking about ??

Private fund means money from pocket of Sukhoi and others or some other source ? AFAIK Russia does not have much investment from Private corporations in MIC.

Andy_UA
06-13-2012, 03:21 AM
SAP 2022 allocated 3 trillion rouble for MIC but any idea what is the $100 billion of private funds he is talking about ??

Private fund means money from pocket of Sukhoi and others or some other source ? AFAIK Russia does not have much investment from Private corporations in MIC.

That surely looks too much, successful private companies are investing into production upgrades all the time they don't neeed any government incentive. I have watched government meeting concerning the programme (I dont think its called SAP 2020 - ФЦП модернизации предприятий оборонно-промышленного комплекса (ОПК) до 2020 года) They said the program totals 88 bln.$ from which 2/3 is government money, 1/3 are company attracted money (bank loans etc.) This was like 3 months ago, now he says 100 bln$ government and 100 private (how can he be sure the companies are gonna do it?) So I think this is untrue. Rogozin likes to round up numbers to impress people.

sepheronx
06-13-2012, 03:37 AM
That surely looks too much, successful private companies are investing into production upgrades all the time they don't neeed any government incentive. I have watched government meeting concerning the programme (I dont think its called SAP 2020 - ФЦП модернизации предприятий оборонно-промышленного комплекса (ОПК) до 2020 года) They said the program totals 88 bln.$ from which 2/3 is government money, 1/3 are company attracted money (bank loans etc.) This was like 3 months ago, now he says 100 bln$ government and 100 private (how can he be sure the companies are gonna do it?) So I think this is untrue. Rogozin likes to round up numbers to impress people.

Per year it is $88B? That is a lot. Is the private funding (1/3) just updating facilities?

Andy_UA
06-13-2012, 03:41 AM
Per year it is $88B? That is a lot. Is the private funding (1/3) just updating facilities?

No stretched for 10 years. Yes mostly, probably staff training goes in it too.

void
06-13-2012, 05:48 AM
I think even today Aircarrier forms the backbone of Russian SSBN defence , there was a statement made recently by Navy Chief or some one very senior who said without a Carrier the SSBN wont last even for half a day !

It would be interesting to see how Russian Air Craft carrier plans develop with statements coming out that it will be integrated with ASD and will have ASW capability , so it wont be like the USN CVN that we see.

Another question is why did the Soviet built huge submarine fleet to take out USN CVN , were they confident submarines like Oscar class SSGN would be capable to take out US/NATO CBG fleet ?

The best defense the Russian SSBNs have and have always had is coastal aviation. The VMF had 180 or so Tu-22M3s in its heyday. That is a hell of a lot bigger deterrent than the Kuznetsov.

Khathi
06-13-2012, 06:49 AM
How did it look? Evolution of Kuznetsov or a new design?
In short, it looked just like a budget Nimitz. ;) A "compact supercarrier", if you forgive me for such a term, it was to displace 85 kilotons, and mount two catapults on the angle deck in addition to the ski jump. Outwardly it looked much like a somewhat stretched Kuznetsov, with three lifts instead of two, and more compact island. It was to carry a full complement of multipurpose aircraft, and wasn't limited to air superiority missions like Kuznetsov, because catapults allowed to launch heavier planes, and an AEW plane project was also initiated for it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/ТААКР_Ульяновск.jpg/800px-ТААКР_Ульяновск.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Полетная_палуба_ТААКР_Ульяновск.jpg/800px-Полетная_палуба_ТААКР_Ульяновск.jpg

sepheronx
06-13-2012, 06:52 AM
No stretched for 10 years. Yes mostly, probably staff training goes in it too.

Sorry, so that is around 8.8B per year on the manufacturing and training modernization of the facilities? Is that even enough?

Andy_UA
06-13-2012, 07:55 AM
If you take what MIC invested already from say 2005 and include projections up to 2021 there probably be even more than 100 $ bln. (if the program is not ****ed up by MoD unable to place orders and accounting unprofessionalism that almost ruined government order in 2011). One of results of such poor management - bad financing of priority programs such as recon plane ("17MS") based on Il18 (see here (http://alexeyvvo.livejournal.com/10826.html))

BTW very good source (http://alexeyvvo.livejournal.com/) for aviation contracts

Not counting government support that is expected in ~ 60 $ bln. So maybe this is an imaginative figure (in Rogozin style). But even over 100bln$ investment isn't too impressive fro MIC such as Russia's that was underfinanced for more than decade. Compare this with American 4 monster corporations activity.

sepheronx
06-13-2012, 08:00 AM
If you take what MIC invested already from say 2005 and include projections up to 2021 there probably be even more than 100 $ bln. (if the program is not ****ed up by MoD unable to place ordersm and accounting unprofessionalism that almost ruined government order in 2011). One of results of such poor management - bad financing of priority programs such as recon plane ("17MS") based on Il18 (see here (http://alexeyvvo.livejournal.com/10826.html))

BTW very good source (http://alexeyvvo.livejournal.com/) for aviation contracts

Not counting government support that is expected in ~ 60 $ bln. So maybe this is an imaginative figure (in Rogozin style). But even over 100bln$ investment isn't too impressive fro MIC such as Russia's that was underfinanced for more than decade. Compare this with American 4 monster corporations activity.

So what is the total of SAP then? I last read that in 10 years, it is a total of around $600B. In all of that, all that spending on military equipment, couldn't a lot of these companies afford private investments in their own manufacturing without government help?

At that, America has 4 major companies, but they deal with all sectors of the defence, meaning much wider range of business means more money to be made thus more money that has been had. So of course they will have a lot more to spend.

Andy_UA
06-13-2012, 08:10 AM
So what is the total of SAP then? I last read that in 10 years, it is a total of around $600B.

SAP stays the same it is different bill. SAP - 19+ triliion rouble for MoD, ~3 trillion for MvD,FSB,MChS...



In all of that, all that spending on military equipment, couldn't a lot of these companies afford private investments in their own manufacturing without government help?

Mostly not, because MoD order in Russia is usually unprofitable. Only big ones can afford it and they too began it just recently (UAC, A-A, Russian Helicopters etc.)

sepheronx
06-13-2012, 08:13 AM
SAP stays the same it is different bill. SAP - 19+ triliion rouble for MoD, ~3 trillion for MvD,FSB,MChS...

Thank you. Wow, that is a lot.


Mostly not, because MoD order in Russia is usually unprofitable. Only big ones can afford it and they too began it just recently (UAC, A-A, Russian Helicopters etc.)

Why is that? Is it because the MoD is buying it at the rate they get it for? Like base cost, and that is that? Also, it makes sense that the larger companies in Russia are doing it now, because they have quite a bit of money, and that is thanks to whom exactly? Foreign orders where others have to pay different prices?

Sorry if these questions sound odd, but just very curious.

Stasi
06-13-2012, 09:51 AM
new gun for the Russian Army: http://lenta.ru/news/2012/06/13/strizh/
(http://lenta.ru/news/2012/06/13/strizh/)

Andy_UA
06-13-2012, 10:01 AM
Why is that? Is it because the MoD is buying it at the rate they get it for? Like base cost, and that is that? Also, it makes sense that the larger companies in Russia are doing it now, because they have quite a bit of money, and that is thanks to whom exactly? Foreign orders where others have to pay different prices?

Sorry if these questions sound odd, but just very curious.
Export orders not usually most profitable. Do you know that Indians, Malaysians and Vietnamese etc. used to pay for Military tech with a barter type deals in 90-s and first half of 2000-s (and because nobody was buying anyway the companies agreed to this) for T-90,Su-30 with carpets, oils, wheat and other goods etc(!).
I cannot answer your question - not my paygrade and too much variables. Generally development and initial manufacturing is cheaper in Russia. Compare "Angara" development costs to Delta-4 or some Ariane... But the MoD is not working towards converting this advantage into manufacturing efficiency closely with industry. Also all experienced specialists of Miliatry acceptance were relieved and replace by "yellow beaked" lieutenants...

Right now MoD became even more greedy to finance intial manufacturing and testing prototypes, this causes prolonged development and fielding . According to latest rumours ultra long range missile for S-400 is not even tested properly because of this. For this year there are only 2(!) 40N6 missiles ordered for testing. Next year a couple more. For 2014 around 100. But until 2014 a lot of specialists may decide to quit(because of low paygrade) and contractors to quit cooperating with Almaz too because its not interesting to them. Theyre better off with civilian contracts. Compare with EMD/IMC contracts fro THAAD.

metberkut
06-13-2012, 11:19 AM
Sir Artjomh and Sir Khathi, thank you very much for the carrier info. *thumbsup*

AustinJ
06-13-2012, 12:00 PM
SAP stays the same it is different bill. SAP - 19+ triliion rouble for MoD, ~3 trillion for MvD,FSB,MChS...

Are you sure ? Putin recently said it was 20 Trillion ruble for Military and 3 trillion for MIC

This is his official address link (http://premier.gov.ru/eng/events/news/18194/)


Let me start with the state customers. But before I do, I should point out something (and I have mentioned this on multiple occasions because this concerns everyone): We have allocated the 20 trillion and nearly 3 trillion (2.8 trillion, maybe more) to revamp the defence sector.


Also check out the English transcript of article by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in Rossiiskaya Gazeta

Being strong: National security guarantees for Russia (http://premier.gov.ru/eng/events/news/18185/)

Maximmmm
06-13-2012, 02:22 PM
Glad we're finally getting a new handgun, somebody made the right decision.

Khathi
06-14-2012, 01:28 AM
We've been "getting" it for more than a decade now, ever since "Grach" competition. And actually PYa won it back in 2003, it's just that no one really needs a service pistol nowadays, except some specialist niches, but these guys know what they're doing and don't really need a Governmental program to get pistols they do need. And for a line officer a pistol is more of a status symbol, and PM is no worse in this niche than any other pistol, which is why replacement is so sluggish. Anyway, semiauto pistols are a mature design, there's basically nothing to invent since Browning. The only real innovations after M1911 and HP are polymer frames and two-stack mags, that's basically all.

sepheronx
06-14-2012, 07:15 AM
Export orders not usually most profitable. Do you know that Indians, Malaysians and Vietnamese etc. used to pay for Military tech with a barter type deals in 90-s and first half of 2000-s (and because nobody was buying anyway the companies agreed to this) for T-90,Su-30 with carpets, oils, wheat and other goods etc(!).
I cannot answer your question - not my paygrade and too much variables. Generally development and initial manufacturing is cheaper in Russia. Compare "Angara" development costs to Delta-4 or some Ariane... But the MoD is not working towards converting this advantage into manufacturing efficiency closely with industry. Also all experienced specialists of Miliatry acceptance were relieved and replace by "yellow beaked" lieutenants...

Right now MoD became even more greedy to finance intial manufacturing and testing prototypes, this causes prolonged development and fielding . According to latest rumours ultra long range missile for S-400 is not even tested properly because of this. For this year there are only 2(!) 40N6 missiles ordered for testing. Next year a couple more. For 2014 around 100. But until 2014 a lot of specialists may decide to quit(because of low paygrade) and contractors to quit cooperating with Almaz too because its not interesting to them. Theyre better off with civilian contracts. Compare with EMD/IMC contracts fro THAAD.

Interesting. So where is Almaz Antey's (For example), or UAC's and Uralvagonzavod's profits coming from? Also, this money being injected has to be helping the defense industries somehow or someway! I mean, they are getting money now instead of things like wheat and carpets, etc...No?

African-European
06-14-2012, 11:31 AM
Putin: Russia must develop UAVs

Russia must develop a range of military unmanned air vehicles (UAV) including strike and reconnaissance types, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday during a visit to an air force base."We need a program for unmanned aircraft. Experts say this is a most important area of development in aviation," he said. "We need a range of all types, including automated strike aircraft, reconnaissance and other types," Putin said.Russia plans to spend around 400 billion rubles ($13 billion) on UAV development in the next eight years.

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120614/174030686.html


Putin calls for new long range bomber and UAV

Russia must start development of a long-range bomber aircraft, President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday at a meeting on defense orders.
"We have to develop work on the new PAK-DA long-range bomber aircraft for Long-Range Aviation. I know how expensive and complex this is. We have talked about this many times with ministers, and with the head of the General Staff. The task is not easy from a scientific-technical standpoint, but we need to start work," Putin said.
If bomber development work is not started soon, Russia might miss the boat, Putin said.
A new long-range cruise missile has already been adopted for these aircraft, he said, adding that the “tactical level” is in need of deep modernization.
The president also said the A-100 airborne warning and control system (AWACS) project should be implemented within the next five years.
The new AWACS plane will have the capability to detect and track long-range airborne and ground-based targets.
Russia operates a mixed fleet of 63 aging Tu-95MS turboprop missile carriers, and just 13 Tu-160 bombers.
Russia must also develop a range of military unmanned air vehicles (UAV) including strike and reconnaissance types, Putin said.
"We need a program for unmanned aircraft. Experts say this is a most important area of development in aviation," he said. "We need a range of all types, including automated strike aircraft, reconnaissance and other types," Putin added.
Russia plans to spend around 400 billion rubles ($13 billion) on UAV development in the next eight years.
Putin’s call for a new bomber comes just a week after Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who has responsibility for the military-industrial complex, appeared to pour cold water on the need for a new bomber, in remarks carried in Izvestia newspaper.

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120614/174031126.html

Universals
06-14-2012, 11:35 AM
13 Tu-160? I thought the number was more like 16 or so? or maybe a few of them are in modernization?

Andy_UA
06-14-2012, 11:44 AM
13 Tu-160? I thought the number was more like 16 or so? or maybe a few of them are in modernization?

Looks like 3 are not Primary Airworthy Capable and not part of regiment, just lack of free engines(despite the rumours engine production is not restarting until until 2016 in the earnest), one of those is used for testing/training I think.

Flamming_Python
06-14-2012, 12:35 PM
We've been "getting" it for more than a decade now, ever since "Grach" competition. And actually PYa won it back in 2003, it's just that no one really needs a service pistol nowadays, except some specialist niches, but these guys know what they're doing and don't really need a Governmental program to get pistols they do need. And for a line officer a pistol is more of a status symbol, and PM is no worse in this niche than any other pistol, which is why replacement is so sluggish. Anyway, semiauto pistols are a mature design, there's basically nothing to invent since Browning. The only real innovations after M1911 and HP are polymer frames and two-stack mags, that's basically all.

It's still an officer's service weapon; it needs to be capable. All the more so if it's of a quality deemed fit for use by special forces. Status symbol my ass, when you need it - you're going to wish you had something better than a PM.

A service pistol is also not just for use by officers. Warrant officers are often equipped with it, and all military contract personnel get training in its use.

Khathi
06-14-2012, 07:27 PM
Nowadays an officer in the field will use an assault rifle just like everyone else. Thus a handgun is more of a garrison weapon and not generally all that critical. That's why the replacement of PM (a fine handgun, actually, but as a police pistol, for which use it was originally designed) always wen so sluggish despite new handguns being available for a long time. Not helped by the fact that all of them have some drawbacks. Gyurza is compact and powerful, with good armor penetration, but it uses a rare and expensive specialist round; PYa is nice overall, in a classic HP style, but is relatively heavy due to all-steel construction and still has some teething problems. And GSh for that matter is reportedly a barely usable hunk of a scrap metal. So we'll see, but as of now all that gushing smacks me as a pure ad piece.

Sashko
06-14-2012, 07:49 PM
It's still an officer's service weapon; it needs to be capable. All the more so if it's of a quality deemed fit for use by special forces. Status symbol my ass, when you need it - you're going to wish you had something better than a PM.

A service pistol is also not just for use by officers. Warrant officers are often equipped with it, and all military contract personnel get training in its use.


The only use for a pistol in serious combat is to maybe shoot oneself in order to prevent capture. It is completely outclassed by an assault rifle or a carbine at any range. With newer types of body armour pistols became even less effective.

If anything, compact, light, and moddable PDWs are the way to go for special forces, crews, or contractors in more interesting places.

geolocator
06-14-2012, 08:09 PM
Mosin–Nagant was being produced for 73 years. Unbelievably but up to now you can see it here and there from old stockpiles. 120 years!
PM simply shoots and they are common. It fits fine as an ad-hoc protection weapon or to intimidate someone if required, or shoot yourself. Any new gun benefits are not obvious. I think that for police forces PM is a really outdated gun.

artjomh
06-15-2012, 04:27 AM
Looks like 3 are not Primary Airworthy Capable and not part of regiment, just lack of free engines(despite the rumours engine production is not restarting until until 2016 in the earnest), one of those is used for testing/training I think.

13 are operational, 3 are test bombers. Of the 13 operational, only 11 are thought to be deployed (others are in maintenance).

Test bombers are flying same as operational. This is purely a classification label.

Just for clarification, in addition to these 16, there are also 4 more bombers at Zhukovsky and KAPO, but they are completely non-operational semi-prototypes.

Khathi
06-15-2012, 05:26 AM
Mosin–Nagant was being produced for 73 years. Unbelievably but up to now you can see it here and there from old stockpiles. 120 years! PM simply shoots and they are common. It fits fine as an ad-hoc protection weapon or to intimidate someone if required, or shoot yourself. Any new gun benefits are not obvious. I think that for police forces PM is a really outdated gun.
There's a modernized version with two-stack mags and uprated ammo, called PMM. It's perfect for a police work and is widely used there, so no problem with datedness of the design there, I believe. But for th service pistol it is indeed somewhat feeble, but not enough to warrant an expensive across-the-board rearmament.

BogT
06-15-2012, 05:39 AM
13 are operational, 3 are test bombers. Of the 13 operational, only 11 are thought to be deployed (others are in maintenance).

Test bombers are flying same as operational. This is purely a classification label.

Just for clarification, in addition to these 16, there are also 4 more bombers at Zhukovsky and KAPO, but they are completely non-operational semi-prototypes.

With only about 11 operational at any time, are their role as nuclear deterrent or strike/bombing missions (similar to US's B1)?

I would guess that for conventional missions, the limited number would make them a nice capability to have for a specific mission, but not dependable as a bomb truck.

And a follow-up question would be, how many is Russia planing to build in total.

artjomh
06-15-2012, 06:52 AM
With only about 11 operational at any time, are their role as nuclear deterrent or strike/bombing missions (similar to US's B1)?

I would guess that for conventional missions, the limited number would make them a nice capability to have for a specific mission, but not dependable as a bomb truck.

And a follow-up question would be, how many is Russia planing to build in total.

Tu-160 is used exclusively for deterrent patrols, as of now. They can carry conventional munitions, but as a secondary role only.

Russian equivalent of B-1B in the medium-range tactical bomber niche is Tu-22M3.

There were discussions in mid 00's of resuming Tu-160 production until the number of operational aircraft reaches 30, but such plans were apparently shelved in favour of PAK DA new generation bomber. The full requirement has not been revealed beyond the plan to replace both Tu-95MS and Tu-160 with PAK DA, which would imply a fleet of around 80 aircraft, with 65-70 operationally deployed (that's the estimated current fleet of Tu-95MS and Tu-160).

If they want to simultaneously replace all Tu-22M3 aircraft frame for frame, they would need another 100-150 aircraft, depending on exact role (naval, air force, reconnaissance, etc)

That being said, we can always expect a non-frame-for-frame replacement for non-operational (i.e. economic) reasons.

Andy_UA
06-15-2012, 07:00 AM
There was 39 Tu-160 produced, but with SU cluster**** many ended up in Ukraine, and some of those were scrapped as a framework nuclear disararmament treaty. The uncompleted bombers were all finished. Even if there a some stacks of wing constuctions etc. they are not going to be completed. It is easier to restore couple of inactive pre-production machines atjomh has mentioned. Actually V.V.P has expressed confidence that some real Pak Da work should start soon, that means only modernisation for Tu-160. I read first Tu-160M will be ready in 2016 and upgrades may come in blocks(as B-1B).

AustinJ
06-15-2012, 08:23 AM
Do they have a price tag on the new bomber or call it price limit as to how much each bomber must cost ?

Like US has set a price limit of $ 500 million per aircraft for NGB.

AustinJ
06-15-2012, 08:26 AM
Interview with Deputy Minister of Industry and Trade Minister Yuri Slusar:The new Russian plane may occur in 10 years (http://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2012/06/14/236061.html)

artjomh
06-15-2012, 08:42 AM
Do they have a price tag on the new bomber or call it price limit as to how much each bomber must cost ?

Like US has set a price limit of $ 500 million per aircraft for NGB.

The plane is still in a highly conceptual phase, I doubt even the MOD knows.

In any case, I highly doubt any specific numbers are going to be revealed. They weren't for PAK FA. Military budget line items are classified.

memfisa
06-15-2012, 01:58 PM
Im curious if anyone know if there are, or ever were any Soviet or Russian gunship equivalent to the AC130 or AC47, even a prototype?

Im thinking it would be perfect for special forces fighting militants , and realized I couldnt think of a single example of this type of aircraft in their inventory.

Hisroyalhighness
06-15-2012, 02:04 PM
Im curious if anyone know if there are, or ever were any Soviet or Russian gunship equivalent to the AC130 or AC47, even a prototype?

Yes:
http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/2579/russianflyingfortress3.jpg

In all seriousness, I remember a prototype based on the TU-142, but that's pretty much it.

The focus of doctrine, was more on Ground forces, that's why there are so many collections of long range artillery.

Regardless, the current COIN operations against the militants are highly successful and don't really require another CAS platform.

artjomh
06-15-2012, 02:10 PM
An-72P. Armed with one 23 mm gun and unguided missile pods. Used by coastguard to hunt poachers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-72

In the armed forces, Spooky equivalent was considered useless. In a COIN environment, Mi-24 and Su-25 would be used. In a hostile environment, anything the size of AC-130 would be as useful as **** on a bull.

Amur_Tiger
06-15-2012, 04:01 PM
An-72P. Armed with one 23 mm gun and unguided missile pods. Used by coastguard to hunt poachers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-72

In the armed forces, Spooky equivalent was considered useless. In a COIN environment, Mi-24 and Su-25 would be used. In a hostile environment, anything the size of AC-130 would be as useful as **** on a bull.

That almost makes me feel sorry for poachers but my namesake would object.

GunshipDemocracy
06-16-2012, 05:04 PM
The plane is still in a highly conceptual phase, I doubt even the MOD knows.

In any case, I highly doubt any specific numbers are going to be revealed. They weren't for PAK FA. Military budget line items are classified.


Hopefully PAK DA will be implemented as hypersonic design not subsonic B2 like. IMO for low observable subsonic or patrol platform much better is to use strike UAV. Then attacking 'probable adversary' does not endanger own crews and in hypersonic design speed requires much of behavior that will be heavy to automate in coming years.

metberkut
06-16-2012, 07:03 PM
Hopefully PAK DA will be implemented as hypersonic design not subsonic B2 like.

Are you being serious? If so, lol.

Flamming_Python
06-16-2012, 07:07 PM
Are you being serious? If so, lol.

What's so lol about it? He's completely right.

There is a choice right now between making the PAK-DA a subsonic/low-supersonic stealth bomber, or a hypersonic bomber. I'm not too familiar with the respective advantages/disadvantages of each approach; but for me it will be better that it be a hypersonic bomber; simply because the Americans have already gone with the stealth option, and it would be cool to be different :)

metberkut
06-16-2012, 07:26 PM
Hypersonic = mach 5 +. Seriously guys? What are you on?

Elbs
06-16-2012, 07:31 PM
but for me it will be better that it be a hypersonic bomber;

So you're fine with Russia having a bomber fleet of one plane? Because that's how expensive a manned hypersonic bomber would be. A fleet of hypersonic bombers is totally ridiculous and completely out of reach for even a Cold War budget.

Universals
06-16-2012, 07:33 PM
So you're fine with Russia having a bomber fleet of one plane? Because that's how expensive a manned hypersonic bomber would be. A fleet of hypersonic bombers is totally ridiculous and completely out of reach for even a Cold War budget.

A hypersonic heavy bomber; is it even feasible?

Flamming_Python
06-16-2012, 07:37 PM
So you're fine with Russia having a bomber fleet of one plane? Because that's how expensive a manned hypersonic bomber would be. A fleet of hypersonic bombers is totally ridiculous and completely out of reach for even a Cold War budget.

No more ridiculously expensive than a manned stealth bomber, unless I'm missing something. Besides which, Russia usually does a good job producing good tech on the cheap.

I actually suspect that the PAK-DA will be Hypersonic. In their primary goal of cruise-missile carriers; speed will allow them to get in range, launch their payload, and get back before enemy fighters can scramble and reach them; they will even be able to outrun missiles. Stealth on the other hand, would be pointless as there is no need to get within range of enemy air defenses. Stealth may be useful for avoiding enemy fighters; but the bombers are still large, and the fighters will have good radars - all in all it will just be a safer bet to try and outrun pursuing fighters on the way back, than to try and sneak past them. Of course the advantage of Stealth bombers is that they can be used in other scenarios - not just as strategic deterrance. But I think that Russia will just use PAK-FAs and stealthy cruise missiles for those tasks instead.

Anyway that's just all theory. The biggest point at least for me though is thus - not for nothing, has Russia been sinking so much money and effort over the last 20 years, on the research of scramjet technology. Now so far Russia has not found an application for this technology (other than next-gen cruise missiles) - which leads me to believe that the time is now ripe.

Other than a strategic bomber, the only other perspective aircraft that could use hypersonic speeds - would be a MiG-31 replacement. And Russia may actually stand to save some money, by basing their PAK-DA and MiG-31 replacement, on one and the same airframe. This will fit perfectly with Russia's new military-industrial focus on creating common general-puprose chassis/hulls for vehicles and ships fulfilling different roles. With modern materials, computer simulations and powerful engines, it may be possible to create an aircraft that is more akin to the size of the Tu-22M3, while retaining close to the payload capacity and range of the Tu-160, and with enough manuverability to do most everything the MiG-31 can (when not loaded with cruise missiles). Then 2 specialised versions of this base airframe can be deployed; one for use as a strategic bomber, the other as a heavy long-range interceptor (with less range/fuel, less payload, maybe a limit on speed, but more manuverability and some special ailerons/materials/nozzles). Granted, certain compromises may have to be reached - but the benefits are still very real. In the future, perhaps more variants can be added, and the initial ones improved.

That's my take on it anyway.

Elbs
06-16-2012, 07:45 PM
No more ridiculously expensive than a manned stealth bomber, unless I'm missing something. Besides which, Russia usually does a good job producing good tech on the cheap.

Yeah, how about 1500+ degree temperatures, ablative coatings, exotic fuels, extremely complex powerplants and their support infrastructure at the bomber bases, and the little matter of releasing weapons at five or six times the speed of sound without causing a catastrophe. It is a completely different area of aeronautics, and cheap is the last word that applies to it.

kalerab
06-16-2012, 07:57 PM
A hypersonic heavy bomber; is it even feasible?

The only concept of such bomber I am aware of is 2037 Bomber, however engine requirements are beyond any now-day technical capability.

Flamming_Python
06-16-2012, 08:14 PM
The only concept of such bomber I am aware of is 2037 Bomber, however engine requirements are beyond any now-day technical capability.

There have been at least 3 such Soviet/Russian projects of a next-generation bomber; 2 of them hypersonic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-2000

The other one was stealth supersonic (Sukhoi T-60S):

http://www.area51zone.com/aircraft/soviet.shtml

The current PAK-DA program will have taken a lot on from them; including all of the research, designs, experiments with scramjet tech, etc... Hell, the more I think about it - the more I'm willing to outright bet that it will be hypersonic too. Except smaller I would imagine, without the ability to enter sub-orbital space, and possibly serving as the common airframe for 2 different classes of aircraft.

Whatever challenges and expenses a hypersonic bomber project would have to solve before being realised (minus the ones already solved by the previous Russian/Soviet teams and research), I think, would be outmatched by the expenses and development time of starting a stealth bomber program mostly from scratch; which when the American's first came up with it, was also packed to the brim with exotic materials, systems and very difficult technical solutions.

kalerab
06-17-2012, 04:16 AM
Thanks for the links, but still my point stands. Creating an engine strong enough for heavy supersonic bomber which at the same time can generate much less emissions in order to not light up on IR sensor like a christmas tree is beyond capability of any nation. Than again I was wondering for some time if it would be plausible to create with today technology SSTO medium bomber, possibly unmanned, which flight altitude would be above most of the modern AA systems. Sort of militarized Skylon.

Flamming_Python
06-17-2012, 04:32 AM
Thanks for the links, but still my point stands. Creating an engine strong enough for heavy supersonic bomber which at the same time can generate much less emissions in order to not light up on IR sensor like a christmas tree is beyond capability of any nation. Than again I was wondering for some time if it would be plausible to create with today technology SSTO medium bomber, possibly unmanned, which flight altitude would be above most of the modern AA systems. Sort of militarized Skylon.

It probably will generate a hell of a lot of emissions, but so what? Infra-red is not Radio; the wavelengths are far smaller and as such do not diffract and reflect much off the atmosphere in order to follow the curvature of the Earth. What this means is that most likely; no matter what the strength of the emissions is, they can only be tracked from relatively short-ranges anyway.

But a plane like that will take a while to accelerate, go off and adopt high altitudes as it begins to pick up speed, etc... it may not be worth the trouble. We'll see.

Andy_UA
06-17-2012, 05:50 AM
FP: Hypersonic is not an option for new bomber. I agree with kalerab high-altitude is one possible way to go. It will light up like a christmas tree.. Do you know that modern space-based IR sensors(SBIRS) can detect not only SRBM's but even cruise missiles? (RF is developing comparable system called EKS btw,)
look at this pic:
http://s017.radikal.ru/i432/1206/91/c8cbe3e09830.jpg

Russia's priorities are more or less the same (only that USA has some technology advantage)

Flamming_Python
06-17-2012, 07:45 AM
FP: Hypersonic is not an option for new bomber. I agree with kalerab high-altitude is one possible way to go. It will light up like a christmas tree.. Do you know that modern space-based IR sensors(SBIRS) can detect not only SRBM's but even cruise missiles? (RF is developing comparable system called EKS btw,)
look at this pic:

Didn't know that - that's interesting info. I wouldn't be so sure though that the space-based IR sensors are precise enough to be able to send accurate real-time targeting data to US fighter jets and AA missiles. Although they may become so in the future. At any rate; it was clear from the start that such hypersonic planes would have no stealth technology, all of their design choices would be geared towards speed, acceleration and the ability to withstand high temperatures; they may well turn out to be much more Radar-observable than average planes if anything. Which would mean that they would be able to be tracked by Radar anyway from extreme ranges with modern fighter and ground-based radars; no need even for space-based IR sensors.

However, what was also clear right from the start - was that the speed could make up for it. If the bombers were already patrolling in the air; they could get to their launch point and fire before any fighters short of hypersonic ones themselves, are able to get within range. If a missile is fired pursuing the bomber; it can be outrun. If a missile is fired head-on towards the bomber; then the hypersonic bomber would only need to be able to have the maneuverability to turn a few degrees in any axis, in order for the missile to not be able to intercept; especially because the bomber would very likely be at significantly higher altitudes. WVR combat and missiles are of course completely out of the question; only the longest range AA missiles would be viable, which have a lower chance of hitting their target succesfully than closer-range missiles do.


Russia's priorities are more or less the same (only that USA has some technology advantage)

You see the thing is, that picture of the hypersonic bomber, depicts the late Cold-war Soviet and American projects for heavy, hypersonic bombers with huge payloads and the ability to enter sub-orbital space practically. I'm not even sure whether they were designed to replace the B1s and Tu-160s, or introduce a whole new class of strategic deterrence altogether; one that's space-based.

But technology has moved on from then. As have the requirements. Russia doesn't need a space-cruising hypersonic superbomber capable of Mach 15-20, that is able to evade next-gen air defense systems and lasers, the programs for which have died with the end Cold War and its colossal defense budgets. What Russia needs now, is still a replacement for the Tu-160, but also for the Tu-22M3 and MiG-31. And it will probably be all in one airframe, otherwise these programs will turn out to be way too expensive. So what I'm betting is; is that Russia will go for something the size of the Tu-22M3, but still with the capabilities to do the same jobs the Tu-160 and MiG-31 performed. With modern tech, it should be possible to reach a reasonable compromise. And a key part of a MiG-31 replacement, is not stealth, but high speed.

kalerab
06-17-2012, 08:19 AM
However, what was also clear right from the start - was that the speed could make up for it. If the bombers were already patrolling in the air; they could get to their launch point and fire before any fighters short of hypersonic ones themselves, are able to get within range. If a missile is fired pursuing the bomber; it can be outrun. If a missile is fired head-on towards the bomber; then the hypersonic bomber would only need to be able to have the maneuverability to turn a few degrees in any axis, in order for the missile to not be able to intercept; especially because the bomber would very likely be at significantly higher altitudes. WVR combat and missiles are of course completely out of the question; only the longest range AA missiles would be viable, which have a lower chance of hitting their target succesfully than closer-range missiles do.

That is valid point, but it doesnt count possibility of having QRA aircraft already in the air or at least prepped in near the zone of operation of the bomber. Also depending on the RCS and ground targeting, interceptors could be able to strike it. It may be just me, but if we have bomber which is supposed to preform bombing run deep in the enemy territory, not on the frontline or close vicinity with cooperation with ground troops shouldn´t the priority be get there without anyone knowing and get out as fast as possible?

That is something that SSTO bomber could deliver. I know that it may be violation of Outer Space Treaty, so that may pose some problems. Also developemt would cost a lot of money, but price of flight is more than reasonable compared to today technology which could deliver the same result. It doesnt require extremely costy RAM or development of low-emission engines etc. (price of the maintenance alone is extreme). Take effectivness of SR-71 over Laos and Vietnam as an example. Or maybe better example would be development and intended use of both X-20 and MiG-105.

And of course, priority shoud be probably on replacement of Tu-22M3 but isn´t Su-34 supposed to replace it? As for 31, is there some intereceptor in development?

metberkut
06-17-2012, 08:36 AM
And of course, priority shoud be probably on replacement of Tu-22M3 but isn´t Su-34 supposed to replace it?
Eh, no.


As for 31, is there some intereceptor in development?
PAK FA will take its role.


No more ridiculously expensive than a manned stealth bomber, unless I'm missing something. Besides which, Russia usually does a good job producing good tech on the cheap.


Yes, Putin will wave with a magic wand and produce a hypersonic bomber and find a solution to one million (that is probably realistic number) issues connected to design and it being in service. Whatever you are on, i want it. :D

C.Puffs
06-17-2012, 08:42 AM
Tu-160 is used exclusively for deterrent patrols, as of now. They can carry conventional munitions, but as a secondary role only.

Russian equivalent of B-1B in the medium-range tactical bomber niche is Tu-22M3.

Equivalent in role perhaps. In range, payload, etc. the Blackjack would be closer.

Flamming_Python
06-17-2012, 08:47 AM
That is valid point, but it doesnt count possibility of having QRA aircraft already in the air or at least prepped in near the zone of operation of the bomber. Also depending on the RCS and ground targeting, interceptors could be able to strike it.

It does all indeed depend on the readiness. I also suspect that given the amount of time a hypersonic scramjet aircraft needs to accelerate and pick up altitude - these hypersonic bombers wouldn't be able to get to their launch points much quicker than the current ones will; if they weren't already airborne in some part of Russia's airspace when the klaxons go off. So it's not like this approach doesn't have its limitations.

However the Stealth approach also has its limitations. By the time a low-supersonic or subsonic stealth bombergets there; enemy fighters would definitely be waiting for it; regardless if it was already in the air or not. And I wouldn't count on it remaining undetected by that stage. The enemy fighter pilots will know precisely how close the bombers will need to get to the US in order to launch their payload, even if they don't know the exact locations, and their Radars will be able to detect Stealth aircraft once within a certain range..


It may be just me, but if we have bomber which is supposed to preform bombing run deep in the enemy territory, not on the frontline or close vicinity with cooperation with ground troops shouldn´t the priority be get there without anyone knowing and get out as fast as possible?

That is something that SSTO bomber could deliver. I know that it may be violation of Outer Space Treaty, so that may pose some problems. Also developemt would cost a lot of money, but price of flight is more than reasonable compared to today technology which could deliver the same result. It doesnt require extremely costy RAM or development of low-emission engines etc. (price of the maintenance alone is extreme). Take effectivness of SR-71 over Laos and Vietnam as an example. Or maybe better example would be development and intended use of both X-20 and MiG-105.

I fear we are simply talking about 2 different things here. Russia needs a strategic bomber, that is able to get to a certain point somewhere within the Arctic latitudes, from where it's payload of 4000-5000km range cruise missiles would be in range to strike targets all over the continental US. It's absolutely unnecessary for such a bomber to be able to perform bombing runs deep within enemy territory, or evade/outrun enemy air defenses. Of course it would be cool if it had that versatility, but it may not be feasible, and strategic deterrence is the greater priority.


And of course, priority shoud be probably on replacement of Tu-22M3 but isn´t Su-34 supposed to replace it?

Su-34 can't fulfill the Tu-22M3s roles in strategic aviation, so no. Only in the case of its reconnaissance and most of its conventional bombing uses.


As for 31, is there some intereceptor in development?

Nothing I heard of. And the PAK-FA doesn't fit the bill for an aircraft of that class. What is needed is a heavy interceptor. Give it greater range, greater speed, greater missile capacity and an even more powerful Radar than the MiG-31, and we'll will need a lot less of them to cover the gaps in Russia's air defenses than the amount of MiG-31s we currently need. As such, a Tu-22M3 size high-speed next-gen aircraft would be a good fit for an airframe on top of which it is possible to build such an interceptor.

metberkut
06-17-2012, 10:41 AM
Nothing I heard of. And the PAK-FA doesn't fit the bill for an aircraft of that class. What is needed is a heavy interceptor. Give it greater range, greater speed, greater missile capacity and an even more powerful Radar than the MiG-31, and we'll will need a lot less of them to cover the gaps in Russia's air defenses than the amount of MiG-31s we currently need.

And PAK FA can do everything that, minus having the monster speed MiG-31 has. Who says PAK FA's radar is weaker than MiG-31's?

Andy_UA
06-17-2012, 10:51 AM
Equivalent in role perhaps. In range, payload, etc. the Blackjack would be closer.

Actually the real payload figure(which was tested but practically never used, just as on B-1B) of Tu-22M3 and B-1B is really close (which is 34 tonnes in current configuration for B-1B) . I think Tu-22M was tested with ~40 tonnes of bombs during its development.(Hard to find a proof, read it on a aviation forum from a guy that was building those in Saratov(?) He said the information of NATO's countries books and magazines had in 80-s saying the Tu-22M could carry only 12 tonne was really funny...) But the range of course is another issue. Now even more that the refuelling probes are gone.

Andy_UA
06-17-2012, 11:34 AM
And PAK FA can do everything that, minus having the monster speed MiG-31 has. Who says PAK FA's radar is weaker than MiG-31's?

Also ~100 Su-35 is a nice addition. Its faster than Su27, got very powerful radar etc. (And eventually may get longer range missiles from Pak Fa)

AustinJ
06-17-2012, 11:36 AM
And PAK FA can do everything that, minus having the monster speed MiG-31 has. Who says PAK FA's radar is weaker than MiG-31's?

Weaker and Strong will depend if they every release the true operational parameters of the radar.

But atleast we know that Mig-31 radar diameter is 1.4 m and PAK-FA new AESA is around 900 mm ( ~ 1500 T/R module ) , I am sure the Mig-31 radar could look much further than any fighter radar out there including PAK-FA , but it will not have all the advantage that AESA offers.

AustinJ
06-17-2012, 11:37 AM
Also ~100 Su-35 is a nice addition. Its faster than Su27, got very powerful radar etc. (And eventually may get longer range missiles from Pak Fa)

Andy , is there any think known on the type of WVR and BVR missile being developed for PAK-FA ? Any details that you might have come across on other boards would be welcome

C.Puffs
06-17-2012, 02:17 PM
Actually the real payload figure(which was tested but practically never used, just as on B-1B) of Tu-22M3 and B-1B is really close (which is 34 tonnes in current configuration for B-1B) . I think Tu-22M was tested with ~40 tonnes of bombs during its development.

Yeah, about as relevant as the B-1B's 125,000lb payload. In other words an interesting factoid but not a regular payload. Aside from having it's nuclear mission removed the B-1B and Tu-160 are analogs.

artjomh
06-17-2012, 02:36 PM
Aside from having it's nuclear mission removed the B-1B and Tu-160 are analogs.

Absolutely not.

Even if you take out the nuclear capability, JASSM is not an analogue to AGM-86/AGM-129/Kh-555/Kh-101

You take out that kind of standoff range, you have completely different tactical utility.

Tu-160 has two massive 11.3x2.4 bomb bays for absolutely enormous long-range hypersonic missiles. B-1B has three 4.56x2 bays for bombs and missiles-range cruise missiles. Their weapons utilizations would be at completely different circumstances.

C.Puffs
06-17-2012, 02:41 PM
Absolutely not.

Even if you take out the nuclear capability, JASSM is not an analogue to AGM-86/AGM-129/Kh-555/Kh-101

You take out that kind of standoff range, you have completely different tactical utility.

Tu-160 has two massive 11.3x2.4 bomb bays for absolutely enormous long-range hypersonic missiles. B-1B has three 4.56x2 bays for bombs and missiles-range cruise missiles. Their weapons utilizations would be at completely different circumstances.

Both are strategic bombers. Comparable payloads, comparable range. :roll:

artjomh
06-17-2012, 02:43 PM
Both are strategic bombers. Comparable payloads, comparable range. :roll:

A strategic bomber is bomber that can carry strategic weapons. B-1B has been specifically engineered to be unable to launch any US strategic weapons.

It's the same as Tu-22M. It has been specifically engineered (by removing the refuelling probe) to be incapable of being used as a strategic bomber.

C.Puffs
06-17-2012, 02:45 PM
A strategic bomber is bomber that can carry strategic weapons. B-1B has been specifically engineered to be unable to launch any US strategic weapons.

Which part of, "Equivalent in role perhaps. In range, payload, etc. the Blackjack would be closer." do you need help with?

Elbs
06-17-2012, 02:50 PM
The B83 and nuclear cruise missiles are not strategic weapons? Because that's what the B-1 was designed to carry. The fact that they fixed the bulkheads and did not fit the pylons doesn't mean they were built as tactical bombers. They only gained a conventional capability in 1991.

artjomh
06-17-2012, 02:50 PM
Which part of, "Equivalent in role perhaps. In range, payload, etc. the Blackjack would be closer." do you need help with?

But I already said that it has different payload. AGM-158 is not equivalent to AGM-129. Completely different weapons.


The B83 and nuclear cruise missiles are not strategic weapons?

Correct. A strategic bomber is a bomber that can launch cruise missiles with a range over 600 km.

C.Puffs
06-17-2012, 03:10 PM
But I already said that it has different payload. AGM-158 is not equivalent to AGM-129. Completely different weapons.



Correct. A strategic bomber is a bomber that can launch cruise missiles with a range over 600 km.

So before it got Hound Dog the B-52 wasn't a strategic bomber? The B-70 wouldn't have been a strategic bomber? The B-36? Tu-95 before it got cruise missiles? And will the B-1B become a strategic bomber when it gets the JASSM-ER? Your "definition" of what a strategic bomber is is utterly retarded. Sorry. The B-1B is in fact a strategic bomber. Fairly certain it could land an ass load of JDAMs inside mother Russia from the US. If that's not a strategic bomber there isn't one.

artjomh
06-17-2012, 03:19 PM
Ok, let me correct myself.

A difinition of a heavy bomber is one that is either equipped for ALCM with a range of 600 km, OR with a range of over 8000 km.

But I stand fully by my assertion that Tu-160 and B-1B have completely different tactical utility. B-1B would be dropping bombs right over the targets or from 300 km range. Tu-160 would be launching missiles from 3000 km range. And this is regardless of whether they are nuclear or non-nuclear.

Because B-1B has a relatively short weapons bay, it cannot really launch long-range standoff cruise missiles. It will always operate within air defense envelope. Tu-160 will always operate outside of it.

C.Puffs
06-17-2012, 03:32 PM
Ok, let me correct myself.

A difinition of a heavy bomber is one that is either equipped for ALCM with a range of 600 km, OR with a range of over 8000 km.

Like I said, the B-1b and Blackjacks are analogs in capability. Glad we got that straight.



B-1B would be dropping bombs right over the targets or from 300 km range.

300km is "right over the target" huh? :roll: BTW JASSM-ER will have a 1000km+ range. What will that do to your "calculations"?



Because B-1B has a relatively short weapons bay, it cannot really launch long-range standoff cruise missiles. It will always operate within air defense envelope. Tu-160 will always operate outside of it.

The B-1B currently is gimped to comply with treaty. There are external hard points that could carry long range cruise missiles and the forward two bays could be switched back as well if we decided to jettison the treaty (and wanted to spend the money to reinstate the capability). Thing is, it really is not necessary. 24 JASSM-ERs with W-80s would be plenty.

artjomh
06-17-2012, 03:52 PM
Like I said, the B-1b and Blackjacks are analogs in capability.

Jesus Christ, in what world is a 300 km missile equal to a 5000 km missile?

B-1B is a gimped strategic bomber. Tu-22M is a gimped strategic bomber. That doesn't mean that B-1B = B-2, or that Tu-22M = Tu-160. Here are more variables to strategic bombers than range.

I thought these things are pretty obvious and I don't have to explain them. Stop being dense.

C.Puffs
06-17-2012, 04:03 PM
Jesus Christ, in what world is a 300 km missile equal to a 5000 km missile?

In what world is the Blackjack carrying a 5000km range missile? And in what world is 300km distance equivalent to "over the target"?


B-1B is a gimped strategic bomber. Tu-22M is a gimped strategic bomber. That doesn't mean that B-1B = B-2, or that Tu-22M = Tu-160. Here are more variables to strategic bombers than range.

I thought these things are pretty obvious and I don't have to explain them. Stop being dense.

Why are you feeling so threatened by the fact that the B-1B is a strategic bomber? I mean seriously, is there really a need for all the twisted up ******s? The B-1B is a strategic bomber, with payload and range on par with the Blackjack. Deal with it however you need to but don't whine about it. You might go on about how it's not used in the nuclear role right now but I'm fairly certain if it took out 24 SS-18 silos with conventional bunker busters (yes, it can be done) Russia would consider it a strategic strike.

artjomh
06-17-2012, 04:13 PM
In what world is the Blackjack carrying a 5000km range missile? And in what world is 300km distance equivalent to "over the target"?.

Kh-101

I didn't say that. I meant "bombs over the target" or "missiles from 300 km away". Perhaps it got lost in translation.

And I am not feeling threatened about anything. You are proposing a rational argument about capabilities. I am pointing out that your reasoning is false for the reasons I pointed out.

C.Puffs
06-17-2012, 04:25 PM
Kh-101

I didn't say that. I meant "bombs over the target" or "missiles from 300 km away". Perhaps it got lost in translation.

And I am not feeling threatened about anything. You are proposing a rational argument about capabilities. I am pointing out that your reasoning is false for the reasons I pointed out.

A glance at Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces and Global Security. org suggests you're confusing it with the Kh-55. Do you have any reliable sources that indicate the Kh-101 is actually in service? But back to the main argument. The B-1B was designed for the strategic nuclear role. Then it got crippled by treaty. Now it is a strategic conventional bomber. Is that clear enough? It's utterly assinine to suggest that a bomber that has intercontinental range with a larger payload than either the B-52 or B-2 is not a heavy bomber. More to the point, all I've ever claimed is that it has range and payload capabilities comparable to the Blackjack.

artjomh
06-17-2012, 04:38 PM
Not all strategic bombers are alike.

B-2, B-52H, M-4, Avro Vulcan are all strategic bombers. That does not mean that have exactly the same capability. They have different capabilities and perform their strategic roles by different means.

So you saying that both Tu-160 and B-1B are both strategic bombers tells absolutely nothing about their capabilities. It's like saying that they are the same since both have wings. Equally nonsensical.

Tu-160 has been designed to launch absolutely massive weapons, which is why it has a very big weapons bay (much bigger than would be required for either Kh-55 or Kh-101).

There is absolutely no modification to B-1B that would give it a capability to launch 10 meter long missiles. If I remember correctly, unmodufied weapons bay on the Lancer test bombers was ~6 meters long.

I don't see why you feel so threatened by Tu-160 and B-1B having different functions and capabilities. Both are fine as is.

GunshipDemocracy
06-17-2012, 05:19 PM
No more ridiculously expensive than a manned stealth bomber, unless I'm missing something. Besides which, Russia usually does a good job producing good tech on the cheap.

I actually suspect that the PAK-DA will be Hypersonic. In their primary goal of cruise-missile carriers; speed will allow them to get in range, launch their payload, and get back before enemy fighters can scramble and reach them; they will even be able to outrun missiles. Stealth on the other hand, would be pointless as there is no need to get within range of enemy air defenses. Stealth may be useful for avoiding enemy fighters; but the bombers are still large, and the fighters will have good radars - all in all it will just be a safer bet to try and outrun pursuing
[]
Other than a strategic bomber, the only other perspective aircraft that could use hypersonic speeds - would be a MiG-31 replacement. And Russia may actually stand to save some money, by basing their PAK-DA and MiG-31 replacement, on one and the same airframe.

That's my take on it anyway.

Sir, I know that some discussion happened afterwards but must say I subscribe 100% to your views. PAK DA as hypersonic bomber makes sense. I'd rather say a heavy platform to launch either strategic cruise missiles (might be hypersonic as well ;-) ) to hit targets of "potential adversary" really fast, alternatively a platform to get very quick over vast Siberian planes meet incoming B2. Then greet guests with welcome package in 20xBVR form. In both cases range and speed counts. Maneuverability not so much.

As for silent low observable strike or long duration/range patrol missions UCAV is much, much better solution. Something like SCAT for example.

@Sir metberkut: I am not sure about Putin's magic wand but surely he knows how to make things happen p-)

JCR
06-17-2012, 05:20 PM
...if it took out 24 SS-18 silos with conventional bunker busters (yes, it can be done) Russia would consider it a strategic strike.

Tom Clancy called.
He wants his novel idea back.

Andy_UA
06-17-2012, 05:35 PM
art and C.Puffs strange argument. Both sides are arguing about different things..
B-1B is getting some fine datalink and datashare capability, and avionics and weapon capability upgrades. Tu-160M was also mentioned to have enhanced C3 and get some conventional ****nal introduced.
So this is a dynamic process, Tu-160 needs to get updates to be better prepared to withstand the opposing fighters. reserves for modernisation are big in both of them.

On Kh-101 - it is classified. but I think Putin has just mentioned it during his visit on airbase "The new strategic cruise missile has been adopted for our strategic bombers"
I still hope, we will get some close up photo of it or good inflight.
http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/raduga/kh/101/kh101.htm
http://forumimage.ru/uploads/20110618/130839454022003193.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vIQsGlx5yqw/TfoUSUIkNdI/AAAAAAAAI0Q/MKbSA4V_pCc/s1600/LII%2BTU-95LL%2BMISILES.jpg

Flamming_Python
06-17-2012, 06:33 PM
Tom Clancy called.
He wants his novel idea back.

Post of the week :D

C.Puffs
06-17-2012, 06:36 PM
Not all strategic bombers are alike.

B-2, B-52H, M-4, Avro Vulcan are all strategic bombers. That does not mean that have exactly the same capability. They have different capabilities and perform their strategic roles by different means.

So you saying that both Tu-160 and B-1B are both strategic bombers tells absolutely nothing about their capabilities. It's like saying that they are the same since both have wings. Equally nonsensical.

Tu-160 has been designed to launch absolutely massive weapons, which is why it has a very big weapons bay (much bigger than would be required for either Kh-55 or Kh-101).

There is absolutely no modification to B-1B that would give it a capability to launch 10 meter long missiles. If I remember correctly, unmodufied weapons bay on the Lancer test bombers was ~6 meters long.

I don't see why you feel so threatened by Tu-160 and B-1B having different functions and capabilities. Both are fine as is.

Not at all. I just think it laughable that you think the B-1B is more comparable to the Backfire when it's obviously in the class of the Blackjack. Whatever makes you feel good I guess.

C.Puffs
06-17-2012, 06:37 PM
Tom Clancy called.
He wants his novel idea back.

A modern GPS hard target penetrator is totally capable of mission-killing an ICBM sitting in it's silo.

Elbs
06-17-2012, 06:49 PM
They're both strategic bombers -it makes no sense to call them anything else. And if the Tupolev can carry a Saturn V in its bomb bay, then let's call it a Tsar Bomber and end the silliness.

JCR
06-17-2012, 06:54 PM
A modern GPS hard target penetrator is totally capable of mission-killing an ICBM sitting in it's silo.

Debt of Honour.

Seriously what's old Tom up to these days?
Booze and hookers?
He might not be a Hemmingway but I basically learned english with his books.

artjomh
06-17-2012, 07:05 PM
A modern GPS hard target penetrator is totally capable of mission-killing an ICBM sitting in it's silo.

Only theoretically. In practice, this is very unlikely.


Tomahawk cruise missiles are surely accurate enough to hit on or very near to a Russian missile silo, but their warhead carries only 450kg of either blast fragmentation or combined-effects submunitions. The former is a mere pin***** vis-à-vis hardened missile silos; the latter is only relevant against soft targets. Indeed, even a Trident missile armed with a conventional penetrator would require Herculean accuracy and absolutely perfect targeting conditions to have any chance whatsoever of threatening silo-based missiles.76

76 Russian concrete silo covers are dome-shaped and approximately 20 feet in diameter and 5 feet high in the center. This means that they have a radius of curvature of about 12.5 feet. Employing the targeting requirement of approaching the target at less than 2 degrees from the vertical, the penetrator would have to impact less than 5 inches from the absolute center of the silo cover, or within a 10-inch diameter circle whose center is at the apex of the dome. My thanks to Dr. Gregory DeSantis, a former U.S. Department of Defense scientist, for making these calculations based on the penetrator design discussed in Nancy F. Swinford and Dean A. Kudlick, “A Hard and Deeply Buried Target Defeat Concept”, op. cit.

http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2486/can-conventional-trident-bust-russian-silos

Hardened silos require too much overpressure to bust though them. And damaging silo hydraulics wouldn't help either, since silo doors have an emergency blow-out mechanism for such situations.

Hyde
06-17-2012, 10:04 PM
L
300km is "right over the target" huh?

He said "or". Learn to read, before you get your ******s in a bunch over the same error on your part in five subsequent posts. Here's a quote: "B-1B would be dropping bombs right over the targets or from 300 km range."

It is in the range of the air defence fighters, so yes. The Tu-160 would reduce the air defence air bases to rubble without ever getting in the range of the bases' it attacks fighters. And since they can not land, refuel, rearm, get missions, or take off without their air base, the next wave of Tu-160 now has the ability to move further to the border and attack inland targets deep inside (again air bases, and/or other targets), without ever actually having to fly above the country in question. (You do know that the Tu-160 could "bomb" targets in the middle of the USA without ever having to actually be above US territory?)

The difference is that one can freely operate outside of any resistance, hit whichever targer it wants, wherever it wants, without the target being able to defend itself, and while the other one may have a similar range to reach targets at a strategic range, it has to operate within the targets resistance radius, and can and will encounter resistance. The only similarity is the long flightrange, but there are big differences in capabilities.

C.Puffs
06-17-2012, 10:12 PM
Only theoretically. In practice, this is very unlikely.



http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2486/can-conventional-trident-bust-russian-silos

Hardened silos require too much overpressure to bust though them. And damaging silo hydraulics wouldn't help either, since silo doors have an emergency blow-out mechanism for such situations.

Uhm, yeah, hit the strongest part of the silo. You don't want to do that (obviously). Come in at a somewhat shallower angle, just outside the hardened part, and blow up under it. Shift the hardened portion for a mission kill if not damaging the missile itself. And we're talking about things like BLU-109 not frackin' cruise missile warheads (though Broach shouldn't have a problem).

C.Puffs
06-17-2012, 10:15 PM
He said "or".

"B-1B would be dropping bombs right over the targets or from 300 km range."

You're not going to be dropping "bombs" 300kms away from the target either genius. Learn to read. As for the rest of your post it reads like a twelve year old's comic book.

sepheronx
06-18-2012, 02:45 AM
Uhm, yeah, hit the strongest part of the silo. You don't want to do that (obviously). Come in at a somewhat shallower angle, just outside the hardened part, and blow up under it. Shift the hardened portion for a mission kill if not damaging the missile itself. And we're talking about things like BLU-109 not frackin' cruise missile warheads (though Broach shouldn't have a problem).

I would suspect that strategic bases like missile silo's are equipped with equipment to deal against electronics, and this could affect GPS's. Remember stories of the GPS jammers in Belgrad, and that Chinese embassy isn't nearly a strategic location as a nuclear base is.

artjomh
06-18-2012, 02:57 AM
Uhm, yeah, hit the strongest part of the silo. You don't want to do that (obviously). Come in at a somewhat shallower angle, just outside the hardened part, and blow up under it. Shift the hardened portion for a mission kill if not damaging the missile itself. And we're talking about things like BLU-109 not frackin' cruise missile warheads (though Broach shouldn't have a problem).

The silo cover would actually be the thinnest point, since the silo "cylinder" is encased in reinforced concrete, so the penetrator would have to first burrow at an angle though the earth and then bust throught the concrete of the silo itself.

Top-down penetration would obviously bust through the thinnest part and have the most likelyhood of going through. But even there the probability is not that high with conventional penetrators coupled with whatever kinetic energy a Trident warhead would have left from reentry.

What do you gather is easier, going through blue arrow or the red arrow?

http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/6365/2d2fc2a8f351.jpg

Andy_UA
06-18-2012, 04:43 AM
Andy , is there any think known on the type of WVR and BVR missile being developed for PAK-FA ? Any details that you might have come across on other boards would be welcome

Yeah basically three AA missile are in development:

short range - K-74M (K-74M2) (Item 750) is a heavily modified R-73 (another after RVV-MD
medium range - Item 180(K-77M) - extended range RVV-SD with regular fins instead of lattice fins
long range - Item 810 - "smaller" R-37M with very small fins

with possible another close range missile - K-300

180-PD is not funded, it may be developed on initiative basis however

http://s2.forumimage.ru/uploads/20091228/12619986859059511.jpg

good thread (http://paralay.iboards.ru/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=416&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=690) on this

African-European
06-18-2012, 12:27 PM
Russian Air Force to get Mig-31 BM this year

The Russian Air Force's Central Military District will receive its first ten modernized MiG-31BM interceptors this year, the District's press service said on Monday."The air forces of the Central Military District will take delivery of 10 MiG-31BM fighter-interceptors and two Mi-26 heavy transport helicopters this year," a Central Military District representative said.The Russian Air Force has previously said it intends to take delivery of up to 60 MiG-31BMs by 2020, under a contract signed with United Aircraft Corporation in 2011.The MiG-31BM is a heavily modified variant of the MiG-31, featuring upgraded avionics and digital data links, a new multimode radar, color multi-function cockpit displays, and a more powerful fire-control system. It can detect airborne targets at the range of 320 kilometers (200 miles) and simultaneously track up to 10 targets.The MiG-31BM can carry new air-to-air missiles including the K-37M long-range air-to-air missile, which has been developed specifically for it according to Douglas Barrie, an air warfare analyst at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120618/174102637.html

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/9987/1614079791.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/40/1614079791.jpg/)


http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/4207/1668383171.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/839/1668383171.jpg/)

GunshipDemocracy
06-18-2012, 05:05 PM
http://englishrussia.com/2012/05/15/the-craziest-secret-military-project-of-the-ussr/

I hope this is not a ripost but I found this article about soviet project with apparently working prototype of subterranean "boat" or rather mechanical mole. Interesting project unfortunately canceled.

http://media.englishrussia.com/112012/subterrainboat/subterrain001-12.jpg

artjomh
06-18-2012, 05:13 PM
I feel dumber just trying to read EnglishRussia. How stupid how people be?

Also, the last picture there is RORSAT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US-A)

GunshipDemocracy
06-18-2012, 05:18 PM
I feel dumber just trying to read EnglishRussia. How stupid how people be?

Also, the last picture there is RORSAT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US-A)

Yes sir, but this pic I inserted is not satellite you've just mentioned. English-Russia is apparently eddied by somebody with learning his craft. Like some ambassadors ;-)

metberkut
06-18-2012, 05:29 PM
Last few pages has been rather entertaining. Some one got spanked badly...

And that info graphic about MiG-31 is funny.

AustinJ
06-19-2012, 01:42 AM
Yeah basically three AA missile are in development:


180-PD is not funded, it may be developed on initiative basis however



It would be a pity with ramjet powered 180-PD is not developed. Ramjet based A2A missile like Mereor is an absolutely need for high Pk at long range keeping volume and weight low something solid fuel cannot provide. Hope they do not cancel the program.

owais.usmani
06-19-2012, 03:02 AM
Last few pages has been rather entertaining. Some one got spanked badly...

And that info graphic about MiG-31 is funny.

Don't worry, he'll be back for more spanking. He likes that every now and then... p-)

...and Artjomh must have lost the count how many times he has delivered it.

Khathi
06-19-2012, 03:23 AM
Art just loves to feed C.Puffs for some strange reason I cannot really comprehend.

And as for topic, Max Popenker has just posted some guy's impressions of PYa (http://mpopenker.livejournal.com/1459349.html). The pics are in his blog, while there's a link on the whole post in vkontakte, so those who read Russian may take a look. In two words — not so great a gun. The manufacture is pretty rough and there's basically no finish as such. Second, there are some pretty big design flaws — like an extremely hard to clean up mainspring slot (it opens into the magwell, and tends to accumulate rust), and hammer assembly having a large open hole which always gets jammed by dirt. Then, the barrel lug that catches the extraction opening during backslide is extremely tiny in most production guns, which, together with the fact that the barrel starts to slide down almost immediately after the ignition, leads to the fact that it decouples from the slide while the bullet is still in, making it more of a straight blowback, but without a fixed barrel advantage of the latter, which in turn leads to the quite large shot dispersion. OTOH, not really anything that cannot be fixed by a minor redesign or simply a skilled armorer, but as of now that's just kind of slightly less than mediocre.

http://pics.livejournal.com/mpopenker/pic/000r8k7d/s640x480
Barrel. See the rough shape of the guiding slot.

http://pics.livejournal.com/mpopenker/pic/000r90dr/s640x480
Striker side of the slide. Note the rough finish and the instrument grooves — it apparently haven't been touched after the rough machining at all.

http://pics.livejournal.com/mpopenker/pic/000rawyh/s640x480
Magwell. Note the rust around the opening and in the mainspring slot. Also rough finish again.

The gun in question is three years old. About 600 rounds fired.

sepheronx
06-19-2012, 03:26 AM
Question regarding Mig-31:

How many are in actual service? 200? I think on warfare.ru it states 183 or some odd (sorry, cannot get on site right now) and I am wondering if all are at the Mig-31M standard (with few as BM)?

Also, what is the difference between the M and BM?

AustinJ
06-19-2012, 03:28 AM
Rogozin is still opposed to the development of a new bomber (http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20120619/676601532.html)

"Ready to defend his point of view. With the development of modern air defense / missile such purposes will be destroyed on the way," - wrote the deputy (https://twitter.com/Rogozin/status/214958939819868161) Prime Minister on Tuesday in his microblog on Twitter.

AustinJ
06-19-2012, 03:30 AM
Question regarding Mig-31:

How many are in actual service? 200? I think on warfare.ru it states 183 or some odd (sorry, cannot get on site right now) and I am wondering if all are at the Mig-31M standard (with few as BM)?

Also, what is the difference between the M and BM?

Close to around 100 Mig-31 are getting upgraded to BM standard.

The new BM is optimised for Air Defence Roles can carry the new RVV-BD and other R-77 variants under development RVV-SD and other new types.

Plus the radar has been upgraded , it is capable of intercepting hypersonic aircraft or target travelling at Mach 5 .

sepheronx
06-19-2012, 03:36 AM
Close to around 100 Mig-31 are getting upgraded to BM standard.

The new BM is optimised for Air Defence Roles can carry the new RVV-BD and other R-77 variants under development RVV-SD and other new types.

Plus the radar has been upgraded , it is capable of intercepting hypersonic aircraft or target travelling at Mach 5 .

But what about the M standard? It still uses the older R-37 missiles? Are the detection and engagement ranges still the same?


Rogozin is still opposed to the development of a new bomber (http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20120619/676601532.html)

"Ready to defend his point of view. With the development of modern air defense / missile such purposes will be destroyed on the way," - wrote the deputy (https://twitter.com/Rogozin/status/214958939819868161) Prime Minister on Tuesday in his microblog on Twitter.

How silly. It would be expensive and stupid to just quite now. At the same time, a new bomber is indeed smart, something that can penitrate into other airspaces if needed to and get out quickly. The problem he is stating is a problem that has always been around, that does not mean to just stop research. As well, modern bombers have the ability to launch missiles at targets without actually having to be within the airspace of said country (Kh-101 missile as an example). So the new bomber doesn't necessarily have to be within range of enemy air defense systems in order to launch the missile. But having a new bomber could be cost effective, as these older bombers are more expensive to maintain.

Halidon
06-19-2012, 04:09 AM
Debt of Honour.

Seriously what's old Tom up to these days?
Booze and hookers?
He might not be a Hemmingway but I basically learned english with his books.
Well his last two solo novels weren't all that great and he's switched to partnering with other authors lately. At this point, it's not like he's hurting for cash. The money from the video games (UbiSoft paid him a rather large amount to use his name in perpetuity), the sales of various novel series with his name attached, and the continuing sales of his earlier works are all likely to be enough to keep him in that nice house on the Chesapeake for however long he likes.

Andy_UA
06-19-2012, 04:22 AM
It would be a pity with ramjet powered 180-PD is not developed. Ramjet based A2A missile like Mereor is an absolutely need for high Pk at long range keeping volume and weight low something solid fuel cannot provide. Hope they do not cancel the program.

From what I read in the paralay thread there are no plans to field it.


But what about the M standard? It still uses the older R-37 missiles? Are the detection and engagement ranges still the same?


M was never serially produced. Although about 5 prototypes still are around.

sepheronx
06-19-2012, 07:55 AM
M was never serially produced. Although about 5 prototypes still are around.

Edit: Never mind, found it on Deagle the information.

metberkut
06-19-2012, 09:16 AM
MiG-31M was a very deep modification (which makes the name BM ironic) and it never got beyond prototypes. Some years ago there was 158 operational MiG-31's. I expect that number to be around the same now. I have a list of *documented* BM's, and it is around 30 as of now iirc. Total number will be around 100, 10 more are to be delivered this year.

C.Puffs
06-19-2012, 09:28 AM
Last few pages has been rather entertaining. Some one got spanked badly...

And that info graphic about MiG-31 is funny.

God, step away from a thread for a few days and the RUSSIASTRONG!!! crew starts strutting around like mice whom the cat lost interest in thinking they whooped the cat. You guys are hilarious. I almost feel sorry for you with your collective little-$hit complex. Metberkut seems to have a particularly bad case of it. Oh well:

http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/ab35/bobro15/Bang_youre_dead.jpg

Bang. You're dead. Enjoy. :lol:

metberkut
06-19-2012, 09:43 AM
C.Puffs, the single most entertaining member on these boards. :) He has it all...

C.Puffs
06-19-2012, 09:50 AM
C.Puffs, the single most entertaining member on these boards. :) He has it all...

Little $hit syndrome. You've got it bad. I'll bet you nearly burst a blood vessel trying to restrain yourself from your usual tourrettes-like outburst.

geolocator
06-19-2012, 10:15 AM
There's no a picture how the thingy crushes trees, penetrates electric fence, that would be even more impressive. Star Wars. Episode 7.

C.Puffs
06-19-2012, 10:20 AM
There's no a picture how the thingy crushes trees, penetrates electric fence, that would be even more impressive. Star Wars. Episode 7.

LOL. Typical. The funniest part is you don't even realize what you're shouting out about yourself.

geolocator
06-19-2012, 10:23 AM
LOL. Typical. The funniest part is you don't even realize what you're shouting out about yourself.
Hopefully, people in Pentagon are thinking like you. Russia is safe :hug:

metberkut
06-19-2012, 10:26 AM
Little $hit syndrome. You've got it bad. I'll bet you nearly burst a blood vessel trying to restrain yourself from your usual tourrettes-like outburst.
Indeed, indeed. <3 <3 <3

C.Puffs
06-19-2012, 10:31 AM
I'll bet neither of you even understand what that picture is saying. rofl

sepheronx
06-19-2012, 10:37 AM
Can you please take youre American Uurah somewhere else?

California Joe
06-19-2012, 10:44 AM
Puffy, quit trolling the Russians.

C.Puffs
06-19-2012, 10:45 AM
.............

C.Puffs
06-19-2012, 10:46 AM
Puffy, quit trolling the Russians.

Alright (Just saw this.)

Hisroyalhighness
06-19-2012, 11:23 AM
Good, you were killing the thread with your ****** for the strong crew, discussion time:

Rogozin in Climbdown Over Long-Range Bomber (http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120619/174119742.html)


Russia's Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said on Tuesday he was in favor of development of the PAK DA long-range bomber for the country's air force, just hours after saying the project was unnecessary, in apparent contravention of President Putin's call last week for domestic aerospace industry to develop just such an aircraft. (http://en.rian.ru/cms/http:%5C%5Cen.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120614/174031126.html)
“I am for PAK DA but it should not be a copy of the B-2. We need to look at the horizon and develop hypersonic long-range aviation, civil and military,” Rogozin said on his Twitter blog on Tuesday afternoon. The B-2 is an American long-range stealth bomber developed by Northrop, which became the most expensive aircraft ever built and is in service with the U.S. Air Force in very small numbers.
Earlier on Tuesday, Rogozin, who has special responsibility for the military-industrial complex, insisted Russia has no need to develop a new long-range bomber to replace its existing fleet.
Rogozin was repeating a statement he made to Russian media reports earlier this month. He said then that he saw no need for PAK DA, an acronym for future long-range aircraft in Russian, to replace the air force's ageing Tu-95MS cruise-missile carriers and Tu-160 supersonic bombers.
“These aircraft will not get anywhere. Not ours, not theirs,” Rogozin said in an interview with Izvestia in June.
"I'm ready to insist on my point of view," Rogozin said on Tuesday on his Twitter blog. "With modern air defense systems, these targets will be destroyed on the way," he said.
In May, Rogozin called on Russia's defense industry to develop hypersonic air-breathing weapons as a future strike system. He picked out American development work in the X-51, Falcon, HiFire and HyFly programs as examples of what he described as the perspective threat posed by U.S. hypersonic development work.
"The undertaking of this work allows us to lay the basis for creation of a national competitor in hypersonic weapons," he said.
Development of such a weapon should be discussed at the highest levels of state, he said.
Last Thursday, President Vladimir Putin ordered initial development of the new long-range bomber for strategic aviation. Speaking during a conference on defense orders, Putin said: "We have to develop work on the new PAK DA long-range bomber aircraft for Long-Range Aviation. I know how expensive and complex this is. The task is not easy from a scientific-technical standpoint, but we need to start work," Putin said.
If Russia did not start work soon on the project, it could miss the boat, Putin said.
Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said previously that a new aircraft assembly line in Russia's Kazan plant (KAPO) would build PAK-DA and the new Antonov An-70 propfan transport aircraft. The same plant previously built the Tu-95MS and Tu-160.
The Defense Ministry is due to hold a meeting to discuss development of the new bomber later in June.
“The comments from Putin and Rogozin appear to reflect sharply differing opinions – unusually being aired in public - as to the desirability of pursuing a bomber replacement for the Tu-160 and Tu-95 in the strategic strike role," said Douglas Barrie, air warfare analyst for the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.
"In the long term the Russian Air Force’s role in the nuclear triad – beyond the Tu-160 and the Tu-95 – would seem to rest on the acquisition of the PAK DA, though the aircraft would also have utility in the tactical environment. A programme such as PAK DA would be expensive, and whether this could be accommodated within available likely funding also remains in question,” he added.
Currently, only Russia and the United States operate intercontinental range bomber aircraft. Most other nuclear-capable nations rely solely on intercontinental ballistic missiles, based on submarines or in land-based silos, or cruise missiles. The United States has expressed an interest in successor systems to its B-1, B-2 and B-52H long-range bombers.

sepheronx
06-19-2012, 11:27 AM
Just read that on rian. Just gotta say that initial R&D will be expensive but if using newer technology that is already in development or soon to be will make things significantly cheaper in short and long term. For instance using common parts from other aircrafts.

Hisroyalhighness
06-19-2012, 11:29 AM
Just read that on rian. Just gotta say that initial R&D will be expensive but if using newer technology that is already in development or soon to be will make things significantly cheaper in short and long term. For instance using common parts from other aircrafts.
Like for example the first T-50?

African-European
06-19-2012, 04:28 PM
Anti-Missile radar in Southern Russia to go on combat duty by yearend

A new-generation Voronezh-DM class anti-missile radar will enter combat duty near the town of Armavir in Russia’s southern Krasnodar region around the end of the year, the Russian Aerospace Defense Forces commander, Oleg Ostapenko, said on Tuesday.“The [radar] station is in the final stage of preparations for entering combat duty,” Ostapenko told journalists at the radar site. “We are planning to almost wrap up the work on the station approximately by the end of the year.”He added that the station may enter combat duty “ahead of the approved schedule.”The anti-missile radar near Armavir is one of the four new-generation Voronezh-class radars that have been put into operation in Russia in recent years.Two Voronezh-M radars have been deployed in Lekhtusi near St. Petersburg and near the town of Usolye-Sibirskoe in Siberia’s Irkutsk Region.Another Voronezh-DM class radar stationed in the westernmost exclave of Kaliningrad was put on combat duty in November last year in what then-President Dmitry Medvedev said was part of Russia’s response to U.S. and NATO European missile defense shield plans.Voronezh-DM class radars have a range of 6,000 kilometers. They can be more quickly deployed to a new site and require a smaller crew to operate it compared to previous generation stations.Two sections of the Armavir radar that have been put into operation have allowed monitoring the area from France and Spain in the west, to Algeria in the southwest, Sudan in the south, and Iran, Afghanistan and parts of India and Pakistan in the southeast, its crew said.Ostapenko also said on Tuesday the Aerospace Defense Forces plan to complete the entire Voronezh radar deployment program before the 2020 deadline.“We are doing everything we can to narrow this timeframe,” he said.Aerospace Defense Forces spokesman Alexei Zolotukhin has previously said Voronezh-class radars were planned to be deployed near the town of Pechora in Russia’s Komi Republic, the Siberian cities of Barnaul and Yeniseisk.

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120619/174129770.html

sepheronx
06-20-2012, 01:06 AM
Like for example the first T-50?

Exactly. Once the composites are in the serial manufacturing stage, along with the computers onboard, it can make develpment cheaper. As well, the engines. If sharing common components between the two will be expensive at first but overall make it cheaper (and a lot of the research is being done now for PAK FA, so making the development time for a lot of components for PAK DA easier).

AustinJ
06-20-2012, 03:16 AM
Rogozin in Climbdown Over Long-Range Bomber

(http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120619/174119742.html)“I am for PAK DA but it should not be a copy of the B-2. We need to look at the horizon and develop hypersonic long-range aviation, civil and military,” Rogozin
(http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120619/174119742.html)

I am not sure what does Rogozin smokes these days but building a hypersonic manned aircraft is impossible with the present technology constrains and financial limitations , there has to be a real breakthrough in Engine Development and Materials for building a Hypersonic Aircraft and in the end it wont be cheap.

A doable yet challanging task would be to develop a Supersonic Aircraft whole average RCS is lower than B-2 , that should make a very stealthy across all RF frequencies ( Metric ,Decimetric,Centimetric ) and keep it supersonic and keep the cost affordable.

For hypersonic they can go for hypersonic missile like Zircon or Hypersonic Brahmos.

metberkut
06-20-2012, 03:27 AM
Exactly. Once the composites are in the serial manufacturing stage, along with the computers onboard, it can make develpment cheaper. As well, the engines. If sharing common components between the two will be expensive at first but overall make it cheaper (and a lot of the research is being done now for PAK FA, so making the development time for a lot of components for PAK DA easier).

PAK DA won't use 117 engines. Other engines has been "earmarked" for it.

sepheronx
06-20-2012, 07:08 AM
PAK DA won't use 117 engines. Other engines has been "earmarked" for it.

Any idea what they may be? I just heard rumor of the 117 engines for PAK DA, but that was just that, a rumor.

metberkut
06-20-2012, 09:37 AM
Any idea what they may be? I just heard rumor of the 117 engines for PAK DA, but that was just that, a rumor.

I guess they are just not powerful enough for the size of PAK DA as apparently PD-30 has been pushed as the powerplant. That suggests sub sonic design. But who knows, program is a mess, viewed from non insider point of view anyway. It may end up being PAK NJET anyway. ;)

sepheronx
06-20-2012, 10:34 AM
I guess they are just not powerful enough for the size of PAK DA as apparently PD-30 has been pushed as the powerplant. That suggests sub sonic design. But who knows, program is a mess, viewed from non insider point of view anyway. It may end up being PAK NJET anyway. ;)

Thank you.

Curious, what is the problems right now with program?

metberkut
06-20-2012, 11:09 AM
Curious, what is the problems right now with program?

I don't know of any problems (or details for that matter really), what i meant is that there is a lot of wildly different reports on the program. Supersonc, subsonic, hypersonic. Green light, red light, yellow light (put on hold). Etc etc. Atleast with PAK FA we had a certain sense how it would look from early on, with statements it being between Su-27 and MiG-29 in weight etc. I mean, just think about the news we had about PAK DA just this month.

Maximmmm
06-20-2012, 12:23 PM
A second Pantsir battery to defend Moscow starting this autumn: http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/18703/

Putting our best defences to defend our worst people, heh p-)

pocoloco
06-20-2012, 03:50 PM
Hi, any info in Russia about possible Russian interest to buy 500 Patria AMV with Nemo/Amos turrets?

Just read about it Finnish newspaper, link below (only in Finnish, you need to google translate it)

http://www.hs.fi/politiikka/Niinist%C3%B6+MTV3lle+Ven%C3%A4j%C3%A4%C3%A4+kiinnostaa+asekaupat+Suomen+kanssa/a1305575868623

Maximmmm
06-20-2012, 05:20 PM
Hi, any info in Russia about possible Russian interest to buy 500 Patria AMV with Nemo/Amos turrets?

Just read about it Finnish newspaper, link below (only in Finnish, you need to google translate it)

http://www.hs.fi/politiikka/Niinist%C3%B6+MTV3lle+Ven%C3%A4j%C3%A4%C3%A4+kiinnostaa+asekaupat+Suomen+kanssa/a1305575868623

Yup, here's what I remembered: http://gurkhan.blogspot.ca/2012/06/blog-post_2064.html

Basically Makarov is saying that we could buy some if it successfully completes gov trials. Whether it'll go that far, we'll have to wait and see. Makarov isn't always the most consistent source.

Maximmmm
06-20-2012, 05:32 PM
They're building a new runway at the testing centre in Akhtubinsk. Preparing for the arrival of Pak-Fa.
http://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201206202339-hh2o.htm

Glad to see new stuff accompanying modernization.

GunshipDemocracy
06-20-2012, 06:33 PM
I am not sure what does Rogozin smokes these days but building a hypersonic manned aircraft is impossible with the present technology constrains and financial limitations , there has to be a real breakthrough in Engine Development and Materials for building a Hypersonic Aircraft and in the end it wont be cheap.

A doable yet challanging task would be to develop a Supersonic Aircraft whole average RCS is lower than B-2 , that should make a very stealthy across all RF frequencies ( Metric ,Decimetric,Centimetric ) and keep it supersonic and keep the cost affordable.

For hypersonic they can go for hypersonic missile like Zircon or Hypersonic Brahmos.


Guess Rogozin said "not a copy of B2" so not necessarily low observable slow "crawler" but rather global reach and very, very fast. Something like Ajax. An orbital platform (~24M) to launch ASAT or ground strike weapons which can be detected if flies but so what no missiles will be able to catch it. Or orbit waiting for strike action on patrol.

metberkut
06-20-2012, 07:30 PM
They're building a new runway at the testing centre in Akhtubinsk. Preparing for the arrival of Pak-Fa.
http://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201206202339-hh2o.htm

Glad to see new stuff accompanying modernization.
Thank you for the link. 2013 the runway will be finished apparently, good news. Wish there were more reports from Akhtubinsk, particularly some footage of Su-35S-2, S-3 and S-4 which is there now.

pocoloco
06-21-2012, 12:35 AM
Yup, here's what I remembered: http://gurkhan.blogspot.ca/2012/06/blog-post_2064.html

Basically Makarov is saying that we could buy some if it successfully completes gov trials. Whether it'll go that far, we'll have to wait and see. Makarov isn't always the most consistent source.

Ok, thanks. Finnish president is currently visiting St. Petersburg and meeting Putin etc and there has been a "letter" asking more info about possible purchase of 500 units. Would be a nice deal, maybe it even goes through on both ends.

Maximmmm
06-21-2012, 01:12 AM
Ok, thanks. Finnish president is currently visiting St. Petersburg and meeting Putin etc and there has been a "letter" asking more info about possible purchase of 500 units. Would be a nice deal, maybe it even goes through on both ends.

I'm of the opinion that we could always use the experience, and if they could organize a joint-venture it would be a win-win. So I'm hoping it goes through as well.

AustinJ
06-21-2012, 05:12 AM
Seems like now the Chinese stole secrets of Bulava after US did.

http://lenta.ru/news/2012/06/20/bulava/


Two Russian professor accused of passing secrets of Bulava to China .......each gets 12 years of Punishment.

Wonder whats left of Bulava secret if any and how do they overcome such damages ?

D-Mitch
06-21-2012, 07:58 AM
Seems like now the Chinese stole secrets of Bulava after US did.

http://lenta.ru/news/2012/06/20/bulava/


Two Russian professor accused of passing secrets of Bulava to China .......each gets 12 years of Punishment.

Wonder whats left of Bulava secret if any and how do they overcome such damages ?

I would like to ask exactly the same. What can be done now to improve now the capabilities of the missiles with new unknown features as the currents ones alread revealed to other countries?

metberkut
06-21-2012, 09:09 AM
2013 sounded a bit optimistic to me, and indeed it was.


Как следует из сообщений, после завершения строительства в декабре 2014 года, это будет самая длинная в России взлётно-посадочная полоса длинной 4 060 метров.
"As per information, after construction is finished in December 2014, this will be the longest runway in Russia"
From: http://ahtubinskpilot.ru/?p=1640

Well, second longest is the right thing to say, Zhuk will still be the longest.

Hisroyalhighness
06-21-2012, 09:32 PM
Russia to Take on ‘High Risk’ Defense Research Projects (http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120621/174160894.html)
The Russian Foundation for Advanced Research Projects in the Defense Industry will finance high-risk projects, a deputy prime minister said on Thursday.
“I believe that the foundation will take on all high-risk and fundamental research projects in the military-industrial complex,” said Dmitry Rogozin, who oversees the defense related sectors of industry.
President Vladimir Putin has submitted to parliament a bill on the foundation’s establishment, which is expected to become Russia’s answer to the United States Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
The foundation will be tasked with informing the country’s leadership on projects that can ensure Russian superiority in defense technology.
It will also analyze the risks of any Russian technological backwardness and technological dependence on other powers.

sepheronx
06-22-2012, 01:27 AM
I would like to ask exactly the same. What can be done now to improve now the capabilities of the missiles with new unknown features as the currents ones alread revealed to other countries?

Which secrets to be exact? My bet is that not much may have been leaked and or if it the defense countermeasures, then they can probably be tweaked so that they may not exactly be the same. Russia should though have higher punishment for such treason acts.

Khathi
06-22-2012, 10:13 AM
There's a significant problem in the VERY different opinion about what constitutes a secret, in the first place. Last ten to fifteen years there's actually a lot of scandals about "selling state secrets", which on the closer inspections turn out to be a legitimate technology transfers explicitly vetted by the relevant authorities. However, due to the way the system works, counterintelligence agencies often have a certain quota of convictions, and when they have difficulties in fulfilling it they turn to these cases. And given that the courts in Russia traditionally feel a corporate solidarity with law enforcement, they usually side with the prosecution (the acquittal percentage in contemporary Russian courts hovers around 1% level) regardless of the true case material. So the mere fact that someone is convicted of the espionage or secret selling doesn't really mean that they are really guilty. In fact, some judges feel that they shouldn't really acquit anyone even if they are convinced in their innocence, "as it would send a wrong signal", and resort to probational convictions in such cases.

GunshipDemocracy
06-22-2012, 03:49 PM
Which secrets to be exact? My bet is that not much may have been leaked and or if it the defense countermeasures, then they can probably be tweaked so that they may not exactly be the same. Russia should though have higher punishment for such treason acts.

or they sold "secrets" that were specially prepared by Russian counterintelligence for this purpose...

GunshipDemocracy
06-22-2012, 04:03 PM
Russian AMD Destroyers to be launched in 2016. If I understand correctly series of 6 ships is planned. Russian Zumwalts?

http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20120622/679245478.html

Maximmmm
06-22-2012, 04:08 PM
Russian AMD Destroyers to be launched in 2016. If I understand correctly series of 6 ships is planned. Russian Zumwalts?

http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20120622/679245478.html

If true, more like Russian ticos. There's no way in hell we can afford something like the Zumis.

artjomh
06-22-2012, 04:22 PM
Transmitting publically available defense-related information = not a crime

Collecting publically available defense related information into a batch and analyzing it as a single whole and then transmitting it = possibly a crime.

A lot of dilettantes get this wrong. If information is open source does not mean it is not a state secret. For example, a location of a military base may be public information, so telling a foreigner about it is not a crime. However, if you collect information about various military bases and create a coherent analysis about the basing of armed forces and deployment patterns out of it, then passing this information to foreigners may be considered breaching official secrecy laws (because it could lead to harm to the Russian state interests).

Additionally, many research institutes have wholesale secrecy regimes, so passing information of seemingly innocent nature may constitute breach of security.

We don't really know what exactly knd of information they have revealed. May have been the entire blueprint. May have been the design for a secondary bolt in the lateral third stage vernier. Speculating and making wide conclusions about the security of Russian defense establishment from this news is stupid and well, doesn't reflect well on the speculator.

_GDS_
06-22-2012, 04:24 PM
Thats very good news. FINALLY!!!!
Because practically all of the Sovremenny class DDG are dead, and they will need to replace Udaloy's that are all the time at sea hunting pirates, exercises and drills.

I'm a liker of Udaloy class DDG's, especially of the Admiral Chabanenko. This is the BEST Soviet DDG design - it's propulsion.

artjomh
06-22-2012, 04:35 PM
Roman "Nuclear hovering super cruising aircraft carriers THOUSANDS OF THEM" Trotsenko strikes again...

Khathi
06-22-2012, 09:27 PM
Well, the grapevine has recently brought the news that the new compact high-power reactor for the surface ships just completed its tests, and the results is generally satisfactory. There's also that persistent rumor that the lack of such was the main deterrent against new nuclear surface ships, as available submarine reactors couldn't satisfy shipbuilders' requirements, so it all fits quite neatly, regardless of how epic a blabbermouth Trotsenko is. BTW, he's not a USC chief anymore, IIRC. BTW, if he's not speaking out of his ass now, the 2016 layup date means that they've basically completed preliminary design phase and are starting to roll out the detailed blueprints.

GunshipDemocracy
06-23-2012, 07:31 AM
If true, more like Russian ticos. There's no way in hell we can afford something like the Zumis.

Ticos are pretty old so I hope it will be more like Zumwalts. Not necessarily "Aurora" hull design but firepower and innovative features. Maybe navalized S-500?

Khathi
06-23-2012, 10:43 PM
Ticos are for the most part simply upgraded Spruances, with enlarged superstructure and AEGIS system installed, and properly should've been designated as destroyers, as Arleigh Burkes are. In fact, the later flights of ABs are bigger and better armed than Ticos. But they were designated CG instead of DDG largely for Cold War political reasons, to compensate for the perceived "cruiser gap" on the American side, IIRC. But now the political climate has changed and spending public funds on the ships called cruisers is seen as needless extravagance. Which is why the full-on missile cruisers like Zumwalts are designated destroyers. ;)

As for the Russian design, if it will ever be built, you can rest assured that its SAM batteries will be a navalized S-500 indeed. It's also rumored to be somewhat larger than Zumwalt, in the 12-14 kt range, and probably nuclear, mainly so the fuel displacement could be used for other things, I believe.

Maximmmm
06-23-2012, 10:53 PM
It's also rumored to be somewhat larger than Zumwalt, in the 12-14 kt range, and probably nuclear, mainly so the fuel displacement could be used for other things, I believe.

Do we need such extravagance? I'd rather have 12 good non-nuclear ships in the 8000-9000kt range, nicely spread out between the fleets. Spending a crazy amount of money on 6 ships seems like supreme stupidity. Especially when our fleets need refurbished bases, supply ships, rescue ships, small patrol craft (although that is getting better lately). It's the ants vs the elephant.

Khathi
06-24-2012, 12:06 AM
The problem is, the lowest displacement at which they start to be economical is exactly around 14000 tons for the nuclear ships. Make them any lighter — and the diesel or gas turbine engines become cheaper over their whole lifetime. And current trend is definitely for the size creep. Just see: Spruances (1972) are 7-8 kt, slightly older Udaloys (1980) are the same, and contemporary Sovremennys are even lighter at 6-8 kt, Ticos (1983) are 9-10 kt, early Burkes (1989) — 8-9 kt, late Burkes (2000) finally pushed through to 10-11 kilotons, and Zumwalts are honest to earth CGs at 14500 tons at full load.

But then note: Americans can afford having such heavy ships with conventional propulsion, because of their superior logistics: they have bases and refueling points around the world. Now, when a Russian Navy task group goes on a long-range mission, which kind of ship is ALWAYS present? Yep, a TANKER. Nuclear propulsion increases operating range enormously, which is pretty important in the light of lack of bases. If a proposed DDG is to function as an escort to a CVN, it'd be much better from the logistical viewpoint that it'd be a DGN.

So, you see, the 8000-9000 tons ship is gonna be obsolete very soon in current situation. Even PLAN is considering having heavier ships, as their 052 class destroyers are on the lighter side. And then there are modern frigates (especially Gorshkov class), which at 4-5 kilotons are armed pretty much the same as the 80-es era destroyers, so your concerns will be mitigated somewhat when they're commissioned. In short, this is not about building a destroyer force, it's about building a cruiser force, that's just called "destroyer" for political reasons.

And it's not that it would begun just here and now. As I've said, there are plans to start the program some five years later, at which point a lot could change. And during which time a patrol and escort forces, with 20380, 11356 and 22350 class ships will be built en-masse, together with port and repair facilities — well, if nothing will go wrong, that is.

geolocator
06-24-2012, 02:40 AM
the lowest displacement at which they start to be economical is exactly around 14000 tons for the nuclear ships. Make them any lighter — and the diesel or gas turbine engines become cheaper over their whole lifetime.
How about refuelling? Maybe it's not a problem for a U.S. ship, but Russia should care about it.

AustinJ
06-24-2012, 02:44 AM
I dont know if Gorshkov class Frigate right now ~ 4000 T would be built in mark models and would subsequently get heavier with each mark model and finally would turn out to be 6000 T class destroyer ?

RuN would need a large number of ships this and next decade to replace their entire 80's class of Frigates and Destroyers.

Maximmmm
06-24-2012, 02:51 AM
Hmm you make an interesting point Khati.