Russian Armed Forces News & Discussion thread

[Rubick]

it is a real shame for Russian Navy - especially that unmanned combat submarines would would add powerful component to Russian fleet with potential global reach...

Excuse me but an unmanned combat submarines with potential global reach ? are you kidding me ?

[xav]

Excuse me but an unmanned combat submarines with potential global reach ? are you kidding me ?

DARPA is working on such project... unmanned submarines with 3+ months endurance to trail SSK/Coastal subs... (not armed however)

[Rubick]

Delete this.

[Rubick]

DARPA is working on such project... unmanned submarines with 3+ months endurance to trail SSK/Coastal subs... (not armed however)

Not the same thing as he suggests. Which is just stupid.

unmanned underwater vehicle that are used by SSK or SSN for recon is one thing. Building a SSN and controlling it from freaking Moscow or what ever is another. It would need to be in shallow depth with it's mast out for that to be possible. Which would void the whole point of a submarine. Further more would you really want a unmanded nuke sub ?

[GunshipDemocracy]

Not the same thing as he suggests. Which is just stupid.

unmanned underwater vehicle that are used by SSK or SSN for recon is one thing. Building a SSN and controlling it from freaking Moscow or what ever is another. Further more would you really want a unmanned nuke sub ?

Not entirely sir, I strongly recommend reading my post once more: with potential reach Current technology does not allow yet to safely build autonomous submarine but... Please let me draw your attention to the fact that the World does not end up in 2020. I hope

Global reach - not necessairly means nuclear powerhouse, why not AIP? without all displacement needed for crew this might be enough with LADA class displacement sub to go neas LA, stay on bottom of the sea safely for months waiting for an order ...

This is nice guarantee for peace

[Rubick]

Oh, lord. How for starters are you going to controle it in real time ? Without having the sub in shallow depth with it's mast up ?


Making a autonomous submarine is something that Russia could do today with ease. They practicly have already. But like I said controlling one submerged at operational depth from Moscow is not possible. Also you would never want a nuke reactor unmanned no matter how safe you make them.

[Khathi]

Making a autonomous submarine is something that Russia could do today with ease. They practicly have already. But like I said controlling one submerged at operational depth from Moscow is not possible. Also you would never want a nuke reactor unmanned no matter how safe you make them.

Well, during the Cold War unmanned reactors were routinely put on the radar satellites, because early surveillance radar comsumed ungodly amounts of electricity which no solar panels or RTGs could realistically supply, the only choice being lightweight compact nuclear reactors. There are upwards of half hundred of them still flying up there. Interestingly, neither Soviet, nor American nuclear satellites had ever suffered a serious accident.

[Universals]

Well, during the Cold War unmanned reactors were routinely put on the radar satellites, because early surveillance radar comsumed ungodly amounts of electricity which no solar panels or RTGs could realistically supply, the only choice being lightweight compact nuclear reactors. There are upwards of half hundred of them still flying up there. Interestingly, neither Soviet, nor American nuclear satellites had ever suffered a serious accident.

That's scary to think about.

[Khathi]

That's scary to think about.

Not really. When their service life ended, they were transferred to a special "burying" orbit where the air resistance is negligible and the debris density is almost nil. So, barring unexpected meteoroid collision, the satellite can spend thousands of years there, and the active waste inside would safely decay away.

[fmaster]

Interestingly, neither Soviet, nor American nuclear satellites had ever suffered a serious accident.

I think it depends on the definition of 'serious accident'. Some nuclear powered satellites have failed and crashed into earth, and in one case, Soviet surveillance satellite Kosmos 954, the satellite broke up over Canada and Soviet Union had to pay Canadian government some 300m canadian dollars to search and pick up possibly fatal radioactive residuals from about 50,000 square miles area. It was kinda fortunate that most of affected area was unpopulated.

[Khathi]

I think it depends on the definition of 'serious accident'. Some nuclear powered satellites have failed and crashed into earth, and in one case, Soviet surveillance satellite Kosmos 954, the satellite broke up over Canada and Soviet Union had to pay Canadian government some 300m canadian dollars to search and pick up possibly fatal radioactive residuals from about 50,000 square miles area. It was kinda fortunate that most of affected area was unpopulated.

Reactor accidents that is. There were actually two accidental reentries of nuclear reactors: one was the Kosmos 954 you've mentioned, and the other was Kosmos 1402, which fell into Southern Atlantic. After that the reactor core was equipped with the backup booster which saved the day some five years later when primary booster on Kosmos 1900 failed again. The backup worked and boosted the core to the orbit just slightly lower than intended. BTW, the bill for Kosmos 954 decontamination effort was only some C$6 million, which USSR managed to haggle down to just C$3 million — Canadian government reportedly tried to pad the bill by some advance damages for "future emergencies".

[Leo1]

Any details on the coming T-72 modernization?

http://omskzdes.ru/news/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=9009

[Rubick]

Well, during the Cold War unmanned reactors were routinely put on the radar satellites, because early surveillance radar comsumed ungodly amounts of electricity which no solar panels or RTGs could realistically supply, the only choice being lightweight compact nuclear reactors. There are upwards of half hundred of them still flying up there. Interestingly, neither Soviet, nor American nuclear satellites had ever suffered a serious accident.

I always thought that was a myth. I assume not much to go wrong up there unless something bumps into them or they bump in to something.

[fmaster]

Reactor accidents that is. There were actually two accidental reentries of nuclear reactors: one was the Kosmos 954 you've mentioned, and the other was Kosmos 1402, which fell into Southern Atlantic. After that the reactor core was equipped with the backup booster which saved the day some five years later when primary booster on Kosmos 1900 failed again. The backup worked and boosted the core to the orbit just slightly lower than intended. BTW, the bill for Kosmos 954 decontamination effort was only some C$6 million, which USSR managed to haggle down to just C$3 million — Canadian government reportedly tried to pad the bill by some advance damages for "future emergencies".

Sorry, 300m was my mistake with digits messed up.
However I remember some other soviet nuclear powered satellite that have crashed into earth during launch sequence in early 1970, which predates Kosmos 954 and 1402. Not sure about exact designation or date, though.

[Andy_UA]

Any details on the coming T-72 modernization?

http://omskzdes.ru/news/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=9009

That is BM obr.2011 (with TI, new autoloader for longer rounds, T-90 drivetrain etc.) part of work on which transferred to Omsk. Apparently it will be modernised further so that in future BM's will be commonalised with T-90A or maybe even partly with T-90AM. So the army will have only 2 MBT's T-72/90 and new Armata.