Some topic images from my report on opening ceremony of the Museum Of Machinery in Krasnogorsk ( a suberb of Moscow), may 2008
the military musician:
On the open air exposition:
the unique sample, the experimental rocket heavy tank " Object 282"
kids and AA artillery:
"Bee" and "Bumble-bee" reconaissance drones:
another unique sample, first soviet jet fighter Yak-15
exposition of rifles and machineguns:
in the backyard, waiting for restauration:
They plan to have about 30 Blackjacks but have about 16 at the moment. They have about 60 Tu-95 Bears.Russia,as a ground power,can't field only 733 ICBMs warheads.They aren't enough imho as the strategic missile forces make up 3/4 of the Russian triad.
That means (16 x 12) + (50 x 12) which means 192 + 600, which is 792. The plane being cut will likely be Bears. They might be converted to a pure conventional role like some of the US B-52s with guided air to ground weapons.
Lets assume the figures you gave for ICBMs is correct the majority of those warheads are carried in SS-18 and SS-19 ICBMs. The former carrying 10 warheads each and the latter carrying 6 warheads each. As both are being retired you can guess that the rate of decline in ICBM warhead numbers will be very rapid. SS-18 rockets are also used to launch conventional satellites as they are retired so it might actually generate revenue. The new missile is the TOPOL-M which has only one warhead.
Worst case scenario they could simply remove 9 warheads from each SS-18 and call them single warhead weapons. The Moscow treaty only counts in service operational warheads so the extra 9 warheads can be removed and stored somewhere off site and they will comply.
With the Navy they want numbers of vessels, having all your SLBMs in 3-4 subs makes them vulnerable as a force. Spreading the weapons across 8 or even 12 platforms improves their survivability.
While quiet and very comfortable they have two reactors on board and are expensive to operate (Nuke boats are quite expensive to buy and Typhoon costs twice as much without twice the performance of a Delta IV with Sineva missiles for example).It puzzles me why ancient (and most unaesthetic subs ever made) Delta III and IV are being upgraded while Typoons are being withdrawn like failed experiements, when truth is that Typhoons is arguably the most impressive naval vessel to come out of Russia.
Plus they are actually keeping and using two, so they are not scrapping all.But let's be objective : Aren't they too expensive to run and maintain ? Are they quiet and stealth enough ?
At least, I hope one will be kept as a museum (next to KUTUZOV cruiser).
They are extending the life of some SS-18s and are testing the RS-24 which will have 10 warheads per missile to replace the SS-18s on a one for one basis. The new treaty does not require withdrawn weapons to be destroyed. They can simply be stored off site. Older warheads can be overhauled and reused in new missiles if necessary.1. Russia will have far less then 733 ICBM warheads considering current withdraval and proiduction rate.
The long term plan is to expand the Tu-160 fleet to 30 aircraft. There are still 70+ Bears in service. Each Tu-160 carries 12 cruise missiles. Cruise missiles are VERY cheap to mass produce. In a few years in the 80s the Soviets made thousands. Each Bear can carry about 10 cruise missiles, though with a mixed load they could carry the older Kh-55 internally on the 6 round rotary launcher and up to 10 Kh-102s externally. Even with 16 Blackjacks and 60 Bears with 10 missiles and no internal weapons that is 792 weapons.2. Russia has less then 733 cruise missiles, the whole bomber fleet accounts only for 500 missiles and are the weakest arm of the nuclear triangle (deployed on only 2 airfields and chanceless in case of a first strike)
BTW START II expires in 2009 so in 2010 the Backfires can have all their inflight refuelling kit reinstalled.
You just don't get it. If you make agreements to reduce the total number of strategic warheads each side can have then you can either greatly reduce the number of platforms you have or you can greatly reduce the capacity of your platforms.3. Typhoon's RSM-52 missiles have 2,5ton throw weight, so can carry either 10 small warheads + decoys or 6 large warheads plus decoys. Bulava having only 1,15 t payload carries only 6 small warheads without any decoys. It's just too underpowered. 8 Boreis with their only 16 underpowered missiles (smaller Ohio carry 24 larger missiles) are just a further reduction of russian counterstrike capability, and a pretty expensive one.
If Russia kept all 6 Typhoons that would be 1200 warheads. If Russia is only allowed a total of 2,200 warheads... and by the way I am being generous here because the actual agreement states between 1,700 and 2,200 with the Russians wanting the lower figure and the US wanting the higher figure... then putting them all in a few subs, on a few planes, and on a few missiles you suddenly become VERY vulnerable to a first strike.
Work it out yourself, is it easier to try to destroy 6 Typhoon class subs or 12 smaller newer Borey class subs? Even if they had the same capability obviously 12 is harder to destroy than 6.
For an ABM system Russia having 70 SS-18s is much easier to deal with than having 700 Topol-Ms even ignoring the anti ABM measures of the latter. 70 warhead bus's before they have released their warheads is a much easier target than 700 warhead bus's.
Which is why that chap was talking about new roles for the remaining two Typhoons that don't involve nuclear weapons.The reason behind Typhoons scrapping is that after MITT outbribed Makeev and let the Bark being canceled, the solid-fuel engine factory at Kransoyarsk went bankrupt, so RSM-52 production ceased either and Typhoons remained without missiles (Well, Borei is without it either).
AFAIK the US has more strategic nuclear weapons than the Russians have and Russia is reducing faster too because it is cheaper to have less. The Russians have more tactical nuclear weapons than the US however.Cause to my understanding, Russia outsourced the US in total of Nuclear Ballistic missiles.
The plane you reposted the picture of is a plane, not a hovercraft. It is called a WIG or wing in ground effect aircraft. It basically flys very low to reduce wingtip drag.I first thought was what kind of plane of this? Then, realized is a hovercraft. Does this boat performed?
Anyway... need a picture....
Here is the MP-161K rifle from Baikal:
Would like one in .17HMR.
Last edited by GazB; 01-08-2009 at 09:36 PM.
So, wouldn't it be easier to simply withdraw from the treaty? If US goes on to expand the number of its ABM shield sites (which it will), withdrawing will be more of a necessity anyways.
A side question: did U.S. honor their side of the deal, and if yes how proportionate was reduction in US nuclear deterrent compared to Russian one? I haven't followed the issue that closely, so any info will be appriciated.
Will reply to Red Rage first because the answer is relevant to the previous post.
The Moscow Treaty is a Joke. It is as weak as p!ss water. It is a treaty you sign when you don't want any limit on your forces but you want to appear to be doing the right thing.
The Moscow treaty requires that both sides have between 1,700 and 2,200 strategic warheads deployed on ICBMs, SLBMs, or strategic bomber airfields on a particular date... from memory that date is something like the 12th of December 2012. This means either side can have 6,000 warheads each and remove them and put them in storage so they only have the required number for that particular date. The next day they can redeploy all the warheads and missiles and bombs etc etc that they withdrew and put them back into service.
The treaty has no verification system. You take their word and they take yours. There is no requirement to destroy anything. There is no requirement for further negotiations or further reductions.
Russias biggest problem is that as it retires its larger ICBMs its warhead numbers were going to plummet because the missiles being withdrawn had 6-10 warheads each while the replacement TOPOL-Ms had one warhead and were not being produced at a rate 6-10 times higher than the larger missiles were being withdrawn.
The RS-24 will solve this. Even if it has a dramatically shorter range it can be used against non US targets like Europe, Japan, and China.
I would expect by agreement that they will only carry 3-4 warheads with the rest of the space used for penaids or decoys.... or perhaps simply to extend the missiles range to allow more flexible deployment areas.With the introduction of Sineva missiles capable of having up to 10 (?)warheads you have a full load of SLBM's on the modified Delta IVs alone. Also some Delta III left in service as well. Does that mean some of the subs are sailing with only half of the tubes filled with missiles? Or even empty tubes?? Are the missiles shared among the submarines at operational status?
Several will also likely be converted to other tasks.
The US has also come into problems with its Ohio class subs. With 24 missiles per boat obviously they will have number problems though their Trident missiles generally carry only about 8 warheads as standard even though they are capable of carrying more. This means each Ohio carrys 192 warheads which is 8 warheads less than a Typhoon with 20 x 10.
The US has already approached the UK for two ABM bases there so I think it is not going to go away. This treaty (ieMoscow Treaty) might be the last strategic arms treaty possible because of the ABM systems planned and being built.If US goes on to expand the number of its ABM shield sites (which it will), withdrawing will be more of a necessity anyways.
Without any verification rules in the treaty no one will ever know if either honour the treaty. As I mentioned above it is barely worth calling a treaty. Economics will reduce warhead size more effectively than this treaty. Conversely the US ABM program will likely increase numbers.A side question: did U.S. honor their side of the deal, and if yes how proportionate was reduction in US nuclear deterrent compared to Russian one? I haven't followed the issue that closely, so any info will be appriciated.
Here is pdf of Dnepr-1 satellite launch system... ie withdrawn SS-18 Satan ICBMs
DNEPR User's guide
Ok,ok, I will take the bait and post some.
By the way, I recently handled one of these in a gunshop in Yerevan (Armenia). It was the darker colour polymer (see photos below). It may be a bit too plastiky for some tastes, but it is modern looking design with a cool factor. The one I saw was .22 long rifle. Price was around $400.
Same colour as the photo link you provided.
The darker colour (similar to the one I handled in the gunshop)
You can camo-paint it if you don't like the colours...
Ensure they match your curtains...
You may want to accessorize it...
You may want to give it as a gift to a kid...
Ask your big fat friend to shoot it...
Make sure you know how to dissassemble it (partly)...
And if you want to compare it with your Saiga (civilian AK) rifle.
The one I saw locally was $1,000 NZ which is about $550 US dollars.
A bit pricey, but what else am I to spend money on...
I particularly liked the second and third shots with that scope, what type is that and what are its specs?
I would probably only add a scope and suppressor myself.
PS What is the capacity of the mag in the Saiga. It is too short for me to work out its calibre based on the curve of the mag. Is it compatible with standard AKs in the same caliber. The reason being I could do with a few 5 or 7 round AK mags in 7.62 x 39mm calibre and would prefer new synthetic mags just to see what they are like.
Anyone knows something about Урал-6320?
Does anybody have pictures of SV-338 rfile?
What's the system of that plastic rifle? Looks like svd or ak charging handle...