Thread: Russian Armed Forces News & Discussion thread

  1. #2536
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,053

    Default

    I did not see it mentioned much but I wanted to see about opinions on the proposal for a Ulyanovsk transit base that Russia would create for NATO transits.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/wo...n-transit.html

    MOSCOW — The Kremlin expressed willingness on Wednesday to allow NATO to use an airfield in the heart of European Russia, in a city best known as Lenin’s birthplace, as a transit center for moving troops and “nonlethal” cargo into Afghanistan.

  2. #2537
    Making Canadians look bad sepheronx's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Age
    23
    Posts
    9,177

    Default

    If it is nonlethal cargo, then who cares? As long as NATO is paying for the use of the airfield and not getting too comfortable/setting up shop, then why not? More money being brought in is good overall and NATO troops get the goods they need to eat/sleep and such in Afghanistan. This also may help improve relations between the countries as well (or sour even more like the Kyrgyzstan Manas airbase issues).

    Regarding S-300V4; are there any information regarding the specifications of this unit? What makes it different from the Antey 2500? As for the Helicopter crash, RIP to the pilots.

  3. #2538
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sepheronx View Post
    Regarding S-300V4; are there any information regarding the specifications of this unit? What makes it different from the Antey 2500?
    The only official disclosed parameter of S-300V4 is that it has a range of 400 km and is capable of intercepting BM targets corresponding to a range of 3500 km.

    The corresponding figure for Antey-2500 (S-300VM ) is range of 200 km and BM targets corresponding to a range of 2,500 km

  4. #2539

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AustinJ View Post
    The only official disclosed parameter of S-300V4 is that it has a range of 400 km and is capable of intercepting BM targets corresponding to a range of 3500 km.

    The corresponding figure for Antey-2500 (S-300VM ) is range of 200 km and BM targets corresponding to a range of 2,500 km
    That is quite a boost in ABM capabillities for the Russian army. I suspect that the target speed to intercept is 4.8/5.0 KM/S just like the S-400?

  5. #2540
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XTX-Horus View Post
    That is quite a boost in ABM capabillities for the Russian army. I suspect that the target speed to intercept is 4.8/5.0 KM/S just like the S-400?
    A 3500 km range missile has a re-entry velocity of 5.1-5.2 km/sec , so obviously the figures floating around of 4.8 km/sec is not entirely true , 4.8 km/sec actually corresponds to a missile with a range of 2,500 km which is what Antey-2500/S-300VM was designed to intercept.

    The capability offered by S-300V4 is broadly comparable to S-400/40N6 missile but i suspect the altitude of interception will be lower for S-300V4.

    The 40N6 has an altitude of interception of 185 km and is broadly comparable to THAAD

  6. #2541
    Senior Member Maximmmm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    A Russian getting his education on in Vancouver, Canada
    Age
    20
    Posts
    1,736

    Default

    I apologize for another off-topic, but goddamn anybody who's seen this as a kid will appreciate:


    Also this has been a very slow newsweek
    http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120315/172192509.html
    new arms program to be developed for the 2015-2025 period.

  7. #2542
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,142

    Default

    Russian industry wary of Su-35 sale to China
    Janes Defence Weekly March 13
    Reuben F Johnson JDW Correspondent
    Kiev

    Key Points

    Fears that China could reverse-engineer the Sukhoi Su-35 are threatening a deal on the aircraft, according to Russian sources

    The sources believe that China has agreed to buy 48 of the aircraft to allow indigenous manufacturers access to its fire control radar and engine


    Russian fears that China would copy its Sukhoi Su-35 fighter aircraft may yet scupper a deal that Moscow and Beijing are reportedly close to signing for an export sale of the fighter to the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF).

    A source in the Russian government told the influential Moscow daily Kommersant : "The two sides are in practical agreement regarding the delivery to the PRC [People's Republic of China] of 48 Su -35s at a cost of USD4 billion."

    However, reports on this sale continue with the additional detail that "an unanticipated obstacle to the deal has emerged. Moscow is requiring that Beijing provide a legally binding guarantee that it will refrain from making reverse engineered copies of the Russian fighter - largely so that this does not create a potential competitor in the market to sell the aircraft to other countries. China is no hurry to provide this guarantee."

    Russian sources close to the Federal Service for Military-Technical Co-operation (FSVTS) state that such a guarantee "is an essential condition" of the sale. Some of the same industry sources point ou t that the Chinese have used their assistance from Russia or have copied designs to create competitors for almost every class of combat
    aircraft that Russian industry offers for export and they do not want a repeat of this experience.

    "No one really believes that the Chinese will actually purchase all 48 Su-35s," one industry representative told IHS Jane's . "They may sign a contract that says they are obligated to take delivery of all 48 but after they have received some number of aeroplanes they will truncate the deal, just as they did with the licence production of the Su -27SK."

    China's Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC) signed an agreement in 1995 to manufacture 200 Su -27SK aircraft but only ended up building 95 of these models before Russia says it cancelled production and started producing the J-11B, its own "illegal" copy of the aircraft.

    The J-11B has also has been offered to export customers as an alternative to the Russian Su -27 and Su-30MK models. Shenyang, industry sources point out, has also created a copy of the Su-33 carrier-capable fighter -developed from one of the T-10K/Su-27K prototypes that remained in Feodosia, Ukraine, after the break-up of the
    Soviet Union - in the form of the J-15. Another Chinese fighter designated J-16 and also from Shenyang is claimed by Russia to be an illegal copy of the Su-30MK2.

    Some of the same Russian sources recount that the cheaper, simpler fighter designs offered by China have already damaged Russian export prospects. The Chengdu FC-1/JF-17 model, which is a modernised and modified variant on the Mikoyan MiG-21, is credited with ruining chances for a sale of the MiG-29 in Egypt and causing problems with a MiG-29 sale to Myanmar. The issue was so serious that "in July 2010 the Russian Presidential Adminis tration commissioned a study on the subject," said one source.

    "We have reliable customers like Venezuela standing in line waiting for this aircraft; they would like to have the Su -35, will purchase all the aircraft that they initially sign for and will not try to copy the aircraft as the Chinese intend to do," said a Russian industry representative. "It makes no sense to let the Chinese jump the queue in front of these buyers.

    Some of us would be happier if this deal with Beijing is just never signed because we know how it will end."

    Some of the same Russian industry representatives who have experience in working with China on previous sales and licence-production of the Su-27SK/J-11 have previously told IHS Jane's that Chinese manufacturers were looking to acquire the technology that is on board the aircraft, specifically the NIIP Irbis -E passive electronically scanned- array radar and the Saturn/Lyulka 117S jet engine, a next-generation modernisation of the Su-27's AL-31F engine.

    The 117S is at present also the powerplant used in the Sukhoi T-50/PAK-FA fifth-generation fighter undergoing flight testing at the Gromov Flight Research Institute in Zhukovskiy. A Chinese request in 2010 to purchase an unspecified number of 117S engines, assumed to be for use in the new Chengdu Machine No 2001/J-20 stealth attack aircraft programme, has not been signed-off.

    The assessment of Russian military technology analysts who have been following the history of defence co -operation with China is that Beijing's aerospace industry has hit a technological bottleneck in its work on building copies of the Su-27, which contains a radar and other systems designed more than 30 years ago. The function of the Su -35 purchase, they assert, is to give the Shenyang design team access to more contemporary Russian know-how.

    "Preparing to purchase such a large number of these fighters is a clear indication that the Chinese have come up against serious technical problems in the process of their work to make modifications to their aircraft, which are based on the Su-27," said Vasily Kashin, one of the specialists at the Centre for the Analysis of Strategies and

    Technologies (CAST), a Moscow think-tank with close ties to Russian industry. "With this purchase they can learn about new-age fighter aircraft [design]," he said. It is not clear what the PLAAF would be receiving in the Su-35 deal in addition to the aircraft (in terms of additional engines, weaponry, spare parts and so on). According to the contract negotiations thus far the Su -35s would cost about USD85 million per unit, which is considerably higher than the USD50 million per aircraft that is supposedly the price charged to the Russian Air Force. Sources close to the intergovernmental commission discussing the sale state that "the price may change in the process of negotiations".

  8. #2543
    Senior Member Andy_UA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Age
    27
    Posts
    1,365

    Default

    "Cossack airborne-assault regiment" recieved more than 100 BMD-2





    http://ug.ria.ru/army/20110331/82112500.html

  9. #2544
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,142

    Default

    Nice Long Interview with Air Chief Zelin

    http://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2012/03/16/231415.html

  10. #2545
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    On Earth
    Posts
    1,702

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy_UA View Post
    "Cossack airborne-assault regiment" recieved more than 100 BMD-2





    http://ug.ria.ru/army/20110331/82112500.html
    I'm surprised, that BMD-2 is still in production. Article mentioned, it have improved fire control system, is it the same as in BTR-82A?

  11. #2546
    Member GunshipDemocracy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    at the heart of Soyuz
    Posts
    502

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by medo View Post
    I'm surprised, that BMD-2 is still in production. Article mentioned, it have improved fire control system, is it the same as in BTR-82A?
    frankly so did I, unless they upgraded armor why do manufacture his old stuff not BMD-3/BMD-4? BTW a successor of Sprut will be on Armata chassis?

  12. #2547
    Senior Member Raden5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Russian Federation
    Posts
    1,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GunshipDemocracy View Post
    frankly so did I, unless they upgraded armor why do manufacture his old stuff not BMD-3/BMD-4? BTW a successor of Sprut will be on Armata chassis?
    New developments, on the theme of airborne, will be no earlier than 2016. At the moment - there is no reliable data. [According to Shamanov]

  13. #2548
    Senior Member Universals's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Somewhere in STL....Smoking my life away
    Posts
    6,105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by medo View Post
    I'm surprised, that BMD-2 is still in production. Article mentioned, it have improved fire control system, is it the same as in BTR-82A?
    They are most likely upgrades.

  14. #2549
    Senior Member Az_esm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    St.Petersburg, Яussia
    Posts
    2,312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GunshipDemocracy View Post
    BTW a successor of Sprut will be on Armata chassis?
    I guess it would be to heavy for airborne vehicle.

  15. #2550
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    3,546

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by medo View Post
    I'm surprised, that BMD-2 is still in production. Article mentioned, it have improved fire control system, is it the same as in BTR-82A?
    These are almost certainly refurbished units rather than newly built ones.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •