Russian Armed Forces News & Discussion thread

[void]

Yes they dont have any ICBM for now and perhaps wont have for long time to come.

But they certainly have sophisticated IRBM RV technology which are of BGRV type and not a passive Scud type , the Iranians are certainly a smarter lot then Iraqi were they have made some strides in improving the RV part.

The question is: is it worth building an expensive ABM shield to counter a hypothetical Iranian threat which may not materialise sometime in the distant future, at the cost of antagonising Russia and possibly later other nations with a strategic deterrent such as China? The blowback from that could be a renewal of a nuclear buildup by those two countries, as well as a move back to hair-trigger launch-on-warning status for the nuclear forces (if the enemy has even a semi-effective ABM up you cant afford to have your ICBMs taken out in their silos).

[Austin]

The question is: is it worth building an expensive ABM shield to counter a hypothetical Iranian threat which may not materialise sometime in the distant future, at the cost of antagonising Russia and possibly later other nations with a strategic deterrent such as China? The blowback from that could be a renewal of a nuclear buildup by those two countries, as well as a move back to hair-trigger launch-on-warning status for the nuclear forces (if the enemy has even a semi-effective ABM up you cant afford to have your ICBMs taken out in their silos).

Its always a sovereign choice of these countries on how they choose to respond to BMD threats , NATO on its own would probably be happy to build a limited shield against IRBM targets , US/UK will push for more ambitious plans to give it some choice against Russia/China ( not naming them obviously )

Even with a BMD system in place there is no gurantee that it can actually and in a full proof manner defend against sophisticated threats and there are many ways to skin the cat , the iranians are no dumb either.

One of the disadvantage of building an ABM and if it it in reality works 50 % as advertised , it forces the enemy to increase exponentially its offensive potential because he ends up thinking it works 100 % as advertised , so Europe can build bigger and better ABM but Iran will end up building more sophisticated IRBM of Shahab-3/Sejil class.

In the end Europe will not be secure building bigger BMD system even if we leave the russian angle

Eventually any ambitious plans would unnerve Russia and China and they would respond in some ways specially Russia , a lot of its is also politics and struggle for sphere of influence.

[void]

Its always a sovereign choice of these countries on how they choose to respond to BMD threats , NATO on its own would probably be happy to build a limited shield against IRBM targets , US/UK will push for more ambitious plans to give it some choice against Russia/China ( not naming them obviously )

Even with a BMD system in place there is no gurantee that it can actually and in a full proof manner defend against sophisticated threats and there are many ways to skin the cat , the iranians are no dumb either.

One of the disadvantage of building an ABM and if it it in reality works 50 % as advertised , it forces the enemy to increase exponentially its offensive potential because he ends up thinking it works 100 % as advertised , so Europe can build bigger and better ABM but Iran will end up building more sophisticated IRBM of Shahab-3/Sejil class.

In the end Europe will not be secure building bigger BMD system even if we leave the russian angle

Eventually any ambitious plans would unnerve Russia and China and they would respond in some ways specially Russia , a lot of its is also politics and struggle for sphere of influence.

Yes, but if the ABM gets to the point that Russia and China respond, then EVERYONE loses. (US with an ABM + Russian nukes on hair-trigger launch on warning alert) is worse and less safe than (US without ABM + Russian nukes at normal alert). That is why imho an ABM is stupid. It is countering a hardly-existent threat but at the same time by its very existence would create the very real threat of accidental nuclear war and a new nuclear arms buildup.

[Russianlynxy]

Austin, you were interested in Mi-34S1 fate, it seems its gettting better. Finally it got an order from Ut-Air for 10 choppers.

looks like a fantastic chopper.

why no orders from FSB and MVD? - it would be perfect

[Austin]

Yes, but if the ABM gets to the point that Russia and China respond, then EVERYONE loses. (US with an ABM + Russian nukes on hair-trigger launch on warning alert) is worse and less safe than (US without ABM + Russian nukes at normal alert). That is why imho an ABM is stupid. It is countering a hardly-existent threat but at the same time by its very existence would create the very real threat of accidental nuclear war and a new nuclear arms buildup.

You are right on the face of it can be considered as stupid and an invitation to arms race but look at the other aspect of it.

1 ) NATO would think they have intelligence on Iran or Noko they are far off from getting nuclear weapons and the means to deliver but they will get there , worst intelligence is not factual they might get there much sooner then projected , so lets prepare for the worst build a full fledge ABM system the trade off is you end annoying Russia but Russia with exponential larger nuclear weapon is more predictable and safer then Iran with a small nuclear force , they would say in the past we dealt with SU with far greater capability on hair trigger alert and we still never went hot. With Iran there is an unpredictability factor which can be unnerving.

I think they are militarily preparing for a full scale war where bigger ABM is better then limited ABM , plus there is always the spill over effect.

Realistically speaking what if NATO sticks to its stand and Russia is not included what option does it have short of withdrawing from START 3 which can be drastic ?

Can you withdraw from INF or CFT which would allow them to build IRBM that can target europe and leave the strategic balance unchange viz a viz US and New Start ?

OR both these options are just too drastic and they know Russia does not have the money to spend or indulge in arms race hence beyond Rhetoric from General Staff nothing much will change.

[void]

You are right on the face of it can be considered as stupid and an invitation to arms race but look at the other aspect of it.

1 ) NATO would think they have intelligence on Iran or Noko they are far off from getting nuclear weapons and the means to deliver but they will get there , worst intelligence is not factual they might get there much sooner then projected , so lets prepare for the worst build a full fledge ABM system the trade off is you end annoying Russia but Russia with exponential larger nuclear weapon is more predictable and safer then Iran with a small nuclear force , they would say in the past we dealt with SU with far greater capability on hair trigger alert and we still never went hot. With Iran there is an unpredictability factor which can be unnerving.

I think they are militarily preparing for a full scale war where bigger ABM is better then limited ABM , plus there is always the spill over effect.

Realistically speaking what if NATO sticks to its stand and Russia is not included what option does it have short of withdrawing from START 3 which can be drastic ?

Can you withdraw from INF or CFT which would allow them to build IRBM that can target europe and leave the strategic balance unchange viz a viz US and New Start ?

OR both these options are just too drastic and they know Russia does not have the money to spend or indulge in arms race hence beyond Rhetoric from General Staff nothing much will change.

There are a few options available to Russia imho if it feels its strategic deterrent is threatened. Withdrawal from the INF nd START, putting their forces on launch-on-warning, re-deploying ground launched cruise missiles with nuclear warheads, increase the production of new ICBMs, MIRVing all existing missiles to their max capacity, stick a whole bunch of nuclear armed Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad to take out the ABM radars/interceptors in Europe, etc. It would be expensive yes and to do so they would need to reduce the funding for the conventional forces a lot, but could be done imo.

[Austin]

Withdrawing from INF or START will be too drastic as it directly affects nuclear offensive system , if russia deploys those things you have stated so can the west , its a double edge sword.

Withdrawing from CFT is a better choice as that would address conventional imbalance. I believe right now Russia has suspended its CFT commitments withdraw is less drastic choice and sends the message.

[void]

Withdrawing from INF or START will be too drastic as it directly affects nuclear offensive system , if russia deploys those things you have stated so can the west , its a double edge sword.

Withdrawing from CFT is a better choice as that would address conventional imbalance. I believe right now Russia has suspended its CFT commitments withdraw is less drastic choice and sends the message.

But so what if the West builds up its nuclear arms too? As long as Russia has enough to overwhelm any ABM then in terms of MAD it doesnt really matter if the West has 10x more warheads. The key is to have enough to deal an unacceptable retaliatory blow. The difference between hitting a country with 1000 and 5000 nuclear warheads is purely academic.

[Austin]

Recent report have indicated that in 2010 Russia has inducted some 22 plus strategic cruise missile , what are these strategic cruise missile Kh-55 or Kh-102 ?

[Austin]

But so what if the West builds up its nuclear arms too? As long as Russia has enough to overwhelm any ABM then in terms of MAD it doesnt really matter if the West has 10x more warheads. The key is to have enough to deal an unacceptable retaliatory blow. The difference between hitting a country with 1000 and 5000 nuclear warheads is purely academic.

West really does not have the stomach to build nuclear weapons , had it not been for US push and inducement. { you must have heard noises in US on how russia should not be part of any Europe BMD }

Retaliation should be escalatory in nature , you can withdraw from what you have any ways suspended and if it still does not help you can think about other drastic steps.

Europe BMD is as much about Politics , Sphere of Influence battle as much it is about arms. Russia does not have to do any drastic the West has many problems of its own and so does US , giving it less incentive to get into an arms race.

[void]

West really does not have the stomach to build nuclear weapons , had it not been for US push and inducement. { you must have heard noises in US on how russia should not be part of any Europe BMD }

Retaliation should be escalatory in nature , you can withdraw from what you have any ways suspended and if it still does not help you can think about other drastic steps.

Europe BMD is as much about Politics , Sphere of Influence battle as much it is about arms. Russia does not have to do any drastic the West has many problems of its own and so does US , giving it less incentive to get into an arms race.

I agree that for now it is mostly political. If it stay political and limited in nature than none of my points apply. My points only apply if the ABM shield goes beyond political and into the realm of being an actual danger to the strategic balance.

[Khathi]

RIAN

Russian state defense order still in bad shape - govt.

Well, sign more contracts then :P

That's what they're doing. The problem is that industry cannot always fulfill these contracts -- either due to mismanagement (in good faith or otherwise) or because of its sorry state in terms of equipment and workforce. It's slowly starting to get better, but there's a lot of a place to grow. And the equipment is needed yesterday...

http://dv.rian.ru/army/20110522/82010128.html

Four new Ka-52 helicopters are send to Russian Far East air base. To the end of 2012 will be a whole unit of Ka-52 stationed in that air base. At this moment 10 more Ka-52 are in production line.

Well, that's hardly "sent" -- the distance between Arsenyev (the city where the "progress" plant is based) and Chernigovka (a town with the airbase) is barely a hundred kilometers. The pilots reportedly didn't even got comfortable in the seats, as it's barely a 20-minute hop. But anyway it's nice to hear that the series production has finally started in earnest.

[potentialenemy.ru]

Began the final stage of state trials of a unified automated control systems tactical
Here is some info of the OS and what components it uses:
MCST

No,
Pentium-M
1.5-2.2GHz
Intel 855GM + ICH4 (82855GM + 82801DBM)
DDR2 512- 1
Intel Extreme Graphics 2
under МСВС OS (russian letters) (Modified Red Hat Linux)
As to the MSCT notebook - it doesn't fit at all. We are laughing at it.
They don't have a `mobile` processor and use a feeble SPARK in the `notebook`.

[Khathi]

Ahem... It's not that this machine needs to run Crysis at the highest setting.
Don't compare desktop PCs to the mil-spec machines, they're different breeds.

[potentialenemy.ru]

Unknown facts : a protected keyboard for an MCST desktop costs ... 5 000 $.
It's not a Crysis - it leads to a financial crysis