Russian Photos (updated on regular basis)

[AleKaban]

Afro-European Does anybody have vids of May 9th parade rehearsal?



and http://zvezdanews.ru/video/0040945/

[Russianlynxy]

why so much disinformation lately? What is the point of whoever is writing the articles about Russia canceling its top military projects??
Any person with common sense will tell you Russia would not f*ck it's own defense industry like that, at least for the sake of exports which are a large sector of Russian GDP...

or do they play off with the common paranoia related to Russia: "Just when you think it cannot get any worse, in Russia it can"

[DIMMI]

Archaeologists from Tomsk learn nanotechnologies.....

Photo - 2009, Sevmash
Cleaning retouch - 2010, http://militaryrussia.ru

[Raden5]

why so much disinformation lately? What is the point of whoever is writing the articles about Russia canceling its top military projects??

I report: With complex РС-24 (Ярц) all is good...

Let's continue about "Russian army ... and other strange things"...

[nsp]

90th KDVO anniversary photos http://dkphoto.livejournal.com/91166.html

[artjomh]

Archaeologists from Tomsk learn nanotechnologies.....

Photo - 2009, Sevmash
Cleaning retouch - 2010, http://militaryrussia.ru

Oh, for the love of God, they are almost the same size. Borei is 170 meters long, Akula is 173 meters long.

Borei looks smaller in this picture because of lens distortion.

[Russianlynxy]

Oh, for the love of God, they are almost the same size. Borei is 170 meters long, Akula is 173 meters long.

Borei looks smaller in this picture because of lens distortion.

lengthwise Akula is much wider and taller though. To tell you the truth I don't think there is a need for a submarine as big as the Akula, building/maintenance costs are off the roof, better invest in improving SLBM capabilities, rather than their number. I am confident the Borei will be a much more competent machine.

[RBI]

Yak-130 for some reason refueled at Kubinka after the first joint training for Victory Parade on its way back to Lipetsk. Seemed awkward considering number of Il-78s in formation

[Russianlynxy]

a few photos I liked..

[artjomh]

lengthwise Akula is much wider and taller though. To tell you the truth I don't think there is a need for a submarine as big as the Akula, building/maintenance costs are off the roof, better invest in improving SLBM capabilities, rather than their number. I am confident the Borei will be a much more competent machine.

SSBN size depends on one thing = missile size.

Akula had a huge-ass 16 m long Rif solid-fuel missile, compared to the 12 m long Bulava. This meant that they could not fit two rows of missile tubes in a single pressure hull and actually had to squeeze two pressure hulls together (with a third pressure hull in place of the conning tower).

This accounts for the fact why Akula is so fat (23 m wide) compared to Borei (13 m). It wasn't big because "big = better", it was big because that's the only way they could build it and accomodate for the size of the missile they wanted to have.

Solid-fuel missiles are much more reliable and safe in naval environment, so it's a good thing that they were able to design Bulava as more compact and cost-efficient than Rif. As long as it flies in the end. Which it will, considering the amount of resources already plowed into this project. It's a do or die kind of thing. Everyone remembers the failure of Bark, so nobody is going to cancel Bulava prematurely.

[Russianlynxy]

Solid-fuel missiles are much more reliable and safe in naval environment, so it's a good thing that they were able to design Bulava as more compact and cost-efficient than Rif. As long as it flies in the end. Which it will, considering the amount of resources already plowed into this project. It's a do or die kind of thing. Everyone remembers the failure of Bark, so nobody is going to cancel Bulava prematurely.

Thanks for the info. Regarding Bulava...there seems to be some funny business. Experts of all sorts keep saying the problems are "faulty" components and poor quality-control. Although it's difficult to believe that after so many launches they wouldn't have fixed that (easy to fix...really) issue. Also hard to believe that while everything else seems to fly, shoot, and move properly, the Bulava keeps failing over and over. Especially in the light of its big brother RS 24 tested fine and has been deployed. Thoughts?

[artjomh]

Thanks for the info. Regarding Bulava...there seems to be some funny business. Experts of all sorts keep saying the problems are "faulty" components and poor quality-control. Although it's difficult to believe that after so many launches they wouldn't have fixed that (easy to fix...really) issue. Also hard to believe that while everything else seems to fly, shoot, and move properly, the Bulava keeps failing over and over. Especially in the light of its big brother RS 24 tested fine and has been deployed. Thoughts?

Just typical bullsh~t, trying to pass the blame now that the heads are starting to roll.

Sure, it's a complex project with hundreds of subcontractors, but last I remember, managing complex projects to limited budget and time IS the essense of the military-industrial procurement. MITT people are saying that their design is fine and the subcontractors are supplying shoddy materials. But last I remember, they have the responsibility for the entire project and if they can't establish a quality control & management system for the enire project, then in my book they are completely at fault.

Re: RS-24. MITT "sold" the whole Bulava design to the Navy on the element commonalities with Topol-M which would supposedly make Bulava cheapter and faster to design and build. Turns out, the commonalities weren't as extensive as they promised, so the two projects aren't really closely related anymore.

Make no mistake, Bulava WILL be accepted into service. There is simply no choice in this matter because there are already 3 submarines built to Bulava's design. Reengineering them is out of the question (the original reason why Yury Dolgoruki was being constructed for over 10 years was that it was originally slated to carry Bark and when Bark failed it had to be completely rebuilt for Bulava).

What needs to be said is that no project can have 100% reliability. Even Trident missiles failed in the beginning and they are some of the most reliable SLBMs ever. So, if Bulava maintains its spotty launch history, it might be accepted into service in the end with, say ~70% reliabilty (I take this "number" out of the hat, mind you), but the series production of Borei submarines might be cancelled at 3-4 boats and another project started at Makeyev and Rubin design bureaus to develop a new missile and submarine. However, Bulava will still be in service and so will Borei. Just in limited numbers to hedge against the lower reliability of its missiles.

[Russianlynxy]

Make no mistake, Bulava WILL be accepted into service. There is simply no choice in this matter because there are already 3 submarines built to Bulava's design. Reengineering them is out of the question (the original reason why Yury Dolgoruki was being constructed for over 10 years was that it was originally slated to carry Bark and when Bark failed it had to be completely rebuilt for Bulava).

No doubt it will. Just curious to know what is ACTUALLY going on behind the scenes.
----------------

Crew shows how it operates the S 400
http://www.inosmi.ru/video/20100412/159226389.html#comm

[CaptMorgan68]

Viltaly dzhaga dzhaga do you by any chance have photos from the current Engines 2010 expo in Moscow?

[CaptMorgan68]

Just typical bullsh~t, trying to pass the blame now that the heads are starting to roll.

Sure, it's a complex project with hundreds of subcontractors, but last I remember, managing complex projects to limited budget and time IS the essense of the military-industrial procurement. MITT people are saying that their design is fine and the subcontractors are supplying shoddy materials. But last I remember, they have the responsibility for the entire project and if they can't establish a quality control & management system for the enire project, then in my book they are completely at fault.

Re: RS-24. MITT "sold" the whole Bulava design to the Navy on the element commonalities with Topol-M which would supposedly make Bulava cheapter and faster to design and build. Turns out, the commonalities weren't as extensive as they promised, so the two projects aren't really closely related anymore.

Make no mistake, Bulava WILL be accepted into service. There is simply no choice in this matter because there are already 3 submarines built to Bulava's design. Reengineering them is out of the question (the original reason why Yury Dolgoruki was being constructed for over 10 years was that it was originally slated to carry Bark and when Bark failed it had to be completely rebuilt for Bulava).

What needs to be said is that no project can have 100% reliability. Even Trident missiles failed in the beginning and they are some of the most reliable SLBMs ever. So, if Bulava maintains its spotty launch history, it might be accepted into service in the end with, say ~70% reliabilty (I take this "number" out of the hat, mind you), but the series production of Borei submarines might be cancelled at 3-4 boats and another project started at Makeyev and Rubin design bureaus to develop a new missile and submarine. However, Bulava will still be in service and so will Borei. Just in limited numbers to hedge against the lower reliability of its missiles.

\qft...........