Rather it's the logical step back.Originally Posted by Redbeard
Itar-tass confirms (http://www.arms-tass.su/?page=article&aid=76196&cid=25) as well as the redstar.ru. Here is the excerpt from the full interview (see link below) with the head of the land forces, general Vladimir Boldyrev:
Source: http://www.redstar.ru/2009/10/01_10/1_05.htmlЧто вы скажите об армейской авиации, ее роли и месте в новом облике Вооруженных Сил?
- Армейская авиация видится одним из ключевых аспектов нового боевого состава Сухопутных войск. Характер современных боевых действий вынуждает рассматривать вертолеты как авиацию Сухопутных войск. Это подтверждается в том числе и структурой сухопутных войск экономически развитых государств Запада, где армейская авиация является структурным подразделением бригад. На практике это было продемонстрировано во многих вооруженных конфликтах последних десятилетий. И поэтому в ближайшее время планируется принятие решения о том, чтобы армейская авиация вошла в состав Сухопутных войск. Это объективная необходимость. То, что нам нужны и боевые вертолеты, и транспортные (средние и тяжелые), не вызывает сомнений. Но главное - это то, что вертолеты необходимы для десантно-штурмовых бригад, являющихся мобильным резервом командующего ОСК. Сейчас их три, а будет шесть (в каждом округе). Так вот, в каждой такой бригаде должен быть вертолетный полк (60 вертолетов). Это первоочередная потребность. Помимо этого, нужно иметь и боевые вертолетные полки для обеспечения боевых действий..
That's a complicated question.
Before 1990, an Air Assault Brigade (Desantno-Shturmovaya Brigada or DShB) was a separate unit of the Ground Forces. There were around 16 of those. Their role was very close to that of VDV, but they were usually equipped with a bit more armor, they were mostly equiped for helicopter-based landings and were operationally deployed in smaller numbers than VDV (VDV is deployed as a division, DShB, obviously, in brigades). Their purpose was tactical insertion, instead of a strategic assaults that the larger VDV divisions could accomplish.
In 1990, some DShB was put under the command of VDV and many of the air assault brigades were transformed into more typical light para-infantry formations.
In 1996, they were once again taken out under the command of VDV and put back into the Ground Forces, under the command of Motor Rifle Divisions of their respective military districts.
This means that some people think that Air Assault Brigades are true VDV and others think that they are not. Considering the Oorah attitude VDV has (a la US Marine Corps), this is a big deal for some people.
Dimmi, and others, please don't get me wrong. I don't have access to Russian secrets any more than anyone else here has so I really cannot say who is right and who is wrong. I look at the facts available to me and I use a bit of experience in what they have done in the past and looked from in their shoes.
Not perfect, but not always horribly wrong either.
If you look at this link you will see an interesting overview of the politics and development before the Tu-160 was developed.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread199317/pg1
In particular there is a comment in the comments section at the bottom of the page (reply posted on 17-3-2006 @ 03:51 PM by Waynos )that mentions:
The problem I of course have is that Mach 4 speed effects the design a lot and aiming for such a speed doesn't really protect from interception any more. It would make the aircraft rather expensive yet the resulting effect on performance would not be important. Flying that fast means flying high. If you are not stealthy then everyone can see you coming so the advantage of speed is largely lost. Travelling fastish (ie mach 1.2-1.6 or so) while at the same time being a stealthy design makes rather more sense if it can be done in dry thrust for range in my opnion.You have made one small error though. When the T-4MS was declared the winner Tupolev, who were selected as the OKB that would see the new bomber through to production, recieved all the design data from the Myasischev M-18 as well as the Sukhoi design. Tupolev refused to continue with the T-4MS, as you say, but the Tu-160 was in fact based on the Myasischev M-18, not their own Tu-144 derived proposals, which Tupolev continued to refine right up to the 1980's as a separate venture, one of the last versions I am aware of in this line of development being the Tu-230 of 1983. This was supposed to be capable of Mach 4 and be the replacement for the Blackjack beyond the year 2000 (see pic below)
Today if you want speed for a future bomber then you should be looking at faster than mach 4 if you want speed to be a factor. It would be cheaper to make a stealthy flying wing that super cruises at mach 1.6 that carries scramjet powered mach 8 cruise missiles with a range of 4,000km than it would to build a mach 6 bomber dropping nuclear bombs and evading defences with speed. In my opinion of course.
They are already upgrading the Tu-160 and Tu-95 and Tu-22M3. Saying the new bomber will be fundamentally different with new capabilities suggests to me that it will be new and designed largely from scratch.And what about "most advanced technologies"? Of course! it will be most advanced technologies and without analogs in world history! Of course!... How else to get the money?
I would expect it will be designed from the start to be multirole and may have new capabilities like communication with UAVs etc. It might be able to operate as a jammer without modification, and as an armed recon aircraft too.
There is also talk of high altitude recon aircraft which either suggests very light weight, or high speed to consider.
I am looking forward to finding out the truth... of course we still haven't seen the PAK-FA or T-95 yet...
I would say that exaggeration might be useful in other areas but the one area that does not seem to have obvious problems has been strategic military forces. Certainly in regard to funding and support.
Wonder how this will effect the Su-25SM program... Will the Army put more money into CAS or starve it?Wow big news if true.
Army aviation generally refers to helicopters. In fact, the link seems to confirm this, "The Russian army aviation made up of combat and transportation helicopters was separated from the Ground Forces and reassigned to the Air Force in 2003."Wonder how this will effect the Su-25SM program... Will the Army put more money into CAS or starve it?
Yeah I was going to say the same- Army Aviation is exclusively helicopters, Su-25s have always been part of the VVS proper.
(From photo galleries http://otvaga2004.narod.ru/xlopotov_..._kamaz5350.htm)
On October, 6th, 2009
RIA Novosti news agency. The Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation confirms possible reduction next year purchases of cargo automobile technics for needs of army in favour of increase in purchases of the hi-tech weapon, the official representative of the Russian defensive department Alexey Kuznetsov has declared RIA Novosti news agency on Tuesday.
The "Sheet" newspaper on Tuesday has informed, that the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation намерено next year to reduce purchases of lorries "to tens percent".
"Really, the Ministry of Defence of Russia considers a question on revision of contracts on purchase of lorries" Камаз "and" Urals Mountains "towards reduction next year. It is a question and of possibility of their cancellation", - has told Smiths of RIA Novosti news agency.
As he said, first of all it is connected by that the priority in purchases of military technics is given to hi-tech samples of arms and the military technics: aircraft, air defence systems, a communication facility and investigations.
According to the newspaper message, the Ministry of Defence in the middle of September has directed to car factories "КАМАЗ" and "Urals Mountains" (GAS enters into group) the letter on cancellation of the contract on delivery of lorries for Armed forces in 2010. It is a question of the three-year contract with car factories for a total sum of 24 billion roubles which operates in 2008-2010.
GAS Elena Matveeva has confirmed the vice-president of board of group, that the Ministry of Defence has notified "Urals Mountains" on planned cancellation of the contract for 2010.
According to experts, the Defense Ministry decision to reduce the purchase of trucks can strongly affect the "Ural", than "Kamaz".
In January - July 2009 "KAMAZ", according to "ASM-holding", produced 12.847 thousand cars (-61.1% yoy). Armed Forces of the plant should be put in this year 4200 cars and 200 trailers, said the source "Vedomosti" on the plant.
"Ural" in January - July 3711 released a truck (-60.8%). According to Matveeva, state defense order is up to 50% of production (about 3000, said a source in the company)...
Perhaps that is why they went for the SM upgrade instead of the TM upgrade.Yeah I was going to say the same- Army Aviation is exclusively helicopters, Su-25s have always been part of the VVS proper.
I would expect it would make rather more sense to transfer the Su-25s as well as the helos.
That is not good...According to experts, the Defense Ministry decision to reduce the purchase of trucks can strongly affect the "Ural", than "Kamaz".
Supposedly. Military summarize maneuvers and changing priorities of procurement ...
Photo from a site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borei_class_submarine
17:3205/10/2009
Russia launches new nuclear submarine
MOSCOW, October 5 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's Sevmash shipyard will start the construction of the fourth Borey class (Project 955) strategic submarine on December 22, a Sevmash press secretary said Monday.
Anastasia Nikitinskaya said the keel-laying ceremony for an as-yet-unnamed sub was timed to coincide with the shipyard's 70th anniversary.
She said Russia's newest Borey class strategic nuclear submarine, the Yury Dolgoruky, had undergone three sea trials out of the required six.
The Yury Dolgoruky, which is expected to be armed with the new Bulava sea-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM), successfully completed its first round of sea trials in the White Sea on July 10.
The vessel is 170 meters (580 feet) long, has a hull diameter of 13 meters (42 feet), a crew of 107, including 55 officers, a maximum depth of 450 meters (about 1,500 feet) and a submerged speed of about 29 knots. It can carry up to 16 ballistic missiles and torpedoes.
The construction cost of the submarine totaled 23 billion rubles (about $713 mln), including 9 billion rubles ($280 mln) for research and development.
Two other Borey class nuclear submarines, the Alexander Nevsky and the Vladimir Monomakh, are in different stages of completion. Russia is planning to build eight of these subs by 2015.
According to Navy officials, fourth-generation Borey class nuclear-powered submarines will form the core of Russia's modern strategic submarine fleet, and will be deployed with Russia's Northern and Pacific fleets.
However, the submarine's commissioning into the Navy could be delayed by setbacks in the development of the troubled Bulava missile, which has officially suffered six failures in 12 tests.
However, some analysts suggest that in reality the number of failures was considerably larger. For example, according to Russian military expert Pavel Felgenhauer, of the Bulava's 12 test launches, only one was quite successful.
The future development of the Bulava has been questioned by some lawmakers and defense industry officials, who have suggested that all efforts should be focused on the existing Sineva SLBM.
But the Russian military has insisted that there is no alternative to the Bulava and pledged to continue testing the missile until it is ready to be put in service with the Navy.
НАРОД! who if this video is not watched much lost! )))
look!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOJ-dXWC3TI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTKykgUaMj4
Pavel Felgenhauer was never right, no panic then...
reposted reposted rererererereposted repostНАРОД! who if this video is not watched much lost! )))
look!
(From photo galleries http://walkarounds.airforce.ru/avia/...24_3/index.htm)
05 October 2009
Russian Air Force aircraft used a new generation of precision guided munitions (PGMs) during the joint Russian/Belarusian Zapad-09 military exercises, which concluded on 29 September.
Russian sources note that, for the first time, Tupolev Tu-22M3 'Backfire-C' bombers and Sukhoi Su-24M2 'Fencer-D' attack aircraft delivered weapons using the SVP-24 targeting system.
This indicates that Russia's air force is finally introducing 'JDAM-type' satellite-guided bombs, some 15 years after the first Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) were trialled by the US.
The SVP-24 (Spetsializirovannaya Vychislitelnaya Podsystema, specialised precision targeting subsystem) is part of a weapons system upgrade developed by the Russian firm Gefest IT. Based at Zhukhovsky, Gefest IT has emerged over the last 10 years as the upgrade centre for Russia's own combat aircraft.
The SVP-24 was originally developed for the Su-24 but the core system has since been applied to a number of other aircraft, including the SVP-24-22 upgrade for the Tu-22M3. The SVP-24 is specifically designed to integrate satellite-guided weapons and the manufacturer notes it can be used with either the Russian GLONASS or US GPS satellite systems.
The types of weapons delivered during Zapad-09 have not been identified, but there is only a handful of candidates. Russia has been very slow to deploy any satellite guided-munitions, mainly because its air force had few modernised aircraft that could carry them. The original SVP-24 flight test programme for upgraded Russian Air Force Su-24s dates back to the late 1990s but only now are the first operational aircraft being cleared for service.
The message with www.janes.com
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
