Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Actualy 11 Tu-160M and 5 M1


The Tu-160M2 will fly in February 2018

The modernized version of Blackjack is destined for its first flight in February 2018. The 16 Tu-160s currently in service will be upgraded to the M2 standard, to which will be added 50 new Tu-160M2s.

The prototype of the modernized version of the Tu-160 ("Blackjack" according to the NATO code) called Tu-160M2 will fly for the first time in February 2018. The device, which has the factory number 804, has already made its exit from factory of the Kazan assembly line and will be delivered this month to the flight test center.

The first flight will take off from the airport runway of the Kazan factory. 804 is actually a Tu-160 that will be upgraded to the modernized M2 standard. The Russian Ministry of Defense said that mass production would begin in 2023 and that the Russian Air Force intends to acquire no less than 50 aircraft. Russian Air Force Commander Viktor Bondarev previously said that the Tu-160M2 could enter service by the end of 2018.

The supersonic quad-jet engine with variable geometry, designed under the Soviet era, is a strategic bomber capable of carrying cruise missiles that can themselves be armed with nuclear warheads. The Russian air force operates at the moment 16 Tu-160 produced during the Soviet period. All these devices are likely to be standard M2.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
4896405_original.jpg

just a picture from the Caspian Sea last month: test-firing the LACM off the Grad Sviyazhsk (with her tactical number changed from what
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
says LOL)

the picture comes from some complex story
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Dizasta1

Senior Member
4896405_original.jpg

just a picture from the Caspian Sea last month: test-firing the LACM off the Grad Sviyazhsk (with her tactical number changed from what
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
says LOL)

the picture comes from some complex story
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

That's the Buyan-M Corvette. Looks like a nibble, hard hitting war-ship! Kudos to the Russians for their ingenuity.
 

Janiz

Senior Member
Kudos to the Russians for their ingenuity.
It's caused by lack of funds. Countries like US, China or Japan could bang such ships in series in the tempo of tenfold every year. Those warships are intended to scare off countries where navies consist of 3-5 main warships (mainly through firepower) but they wouldn't stand much opposition to Arleigh Burke class destroyer (for example) which can not only defend itself and inland targets but can also strike at the same moment. Having something is always better than not having anything. That's the main idea behind this concept. Big navies don't need them to get their main startegic objectives covered.
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
It's caused by lack of funds. Countries like US, China or Japan could bang such ships in series in the tempo of tenfold every year. Those warships are intended to scare off countries where navies consist of 3-5 main warships (mainly through firepower) but they wouldn't stand much opposition to Arleigh Burke class destroyer (for example) which can not only defend itself and inland targets but can also strike at the same moment. Having something is always better than not having anything. That's the main idea behind this concept. Big navies don't need them to get their main startegic objectives covered.
Yes and no but good in fact Russian Navy a blue water navy becoming a green water navy almost...
and coz MSC are expensives possible have several corvettes for same price but build nuclear submarines the Yasen is very expensive for a Russian they build cheaper as Chinese the priority is for Strategic forces especially for Navy SSBNs Borey and curiously much more affordable
They can afford to max only 1 Yasen all the 2 years and want a new more small for 1/year USN now 2 Virginia by year for China last years one SSN in average since 10 years about 0.7 but it's starting to come out hummm...
 
Last edited:

Dizasta1

Senior Member
It's caused by lack of funds. Countries like US, China or Japan could bang such ships in series in the tempo of tenfold every year. Those warships are intended to scare off countries where navies consist of 3-5 main warships (mainly through firepower) but they wouldn't stand much opposition to Arleigh Burke class destroyer (for example) which can not only defend itself and inland targets but can also strike at the same moment. Having something is always better than not having anything. That's the main idea behind this concept. Big navies don't need them to get their main startegic objectives covered.

Warships are tools, weapons platform which form part of strategic warfare. In actual war, applied tactics, where all weapons systems are working in concert with one another. That's when we determine the effectiveness of any particular platform. Warfighting hardware is only as good as it's operator and an operator of the hardware is only as good as it's commander/general/strategist.

In war, actual WAR, where it's the fight to the finish. States and their people would act and think differently to what is perceived by some who think they know everything. The magnitude of devastation will be incalculable. The loss of life will be insurmountable and the carnage will be irreversible. Those think they can neutralize the "Nuclear Response", live in an alternate reality. In actual war strategy, the "real leadership" (who have the interest of the state and it's people at heart). Will not hesitate with a nuclear response. As such they will make sure, that any effort to neutralize their nuclear capability would be rendered ineffective.

The next war, will be a war of disproportionate devastation. Because the coming war would be fought by those who will not bow to hegemony, will not surrender their freedom and will determine that if the war would be lost by overwhelming conventional means of the adversary. Then they will ensure that the end result "IS" a mutual and total destruction on both sides.

War is real, it's brutal and it will not discriminate like it has in the past. For all that technology is worth, it will not be able to withstand real war results when fought against similar capability adversaries.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
No they have lost the skills to build large ships and engines. This is more than evident in recent times with deals with France and China. That little ship is no harder to hit than anything large. Modern missiles have no trouble hitting buoy sized targets in tests so this thing is still easy enough and can't carry meaningful weapon loads at all. Navy is last to get funding in Russian armed forces because their issues are more land based wrt eastern europe. USA is countered by massive nuclear forces and rest only needs strong army and airforce to defend and support. This is why we still see developments in fighters, bombers, UCAVs, and armoured vehicles. In fact Russia is keeping up very well in those regards considering the state of their economy. Navy is not a priority until economy heals.
 

Zool

Junior Member
Well, there was a lot of noise in India about this over the last few days. The US personnel onboard Vikramaditya (Kiev Class CV with Russian Aviation Complex & Mig-29's) was documented with photos, but it is Indian owned and I don't believe Russia subjects arms clients to the same restrictions and inspections as the US does with weapon systems sold.

The Akula II would be a different story since it is a lease and strategic platform. Not long after news broke, sources in India claimed it was not US personnel, but British, who were brought onboard the sub to evaluate a possible DSRV system. Now a Russian official seems to be denying the story altogether and saying it is a further attempt to split India & Russia. Never a lack of drama in this India-Russia-USA 3-way!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Published time: 13 Nov, 2017 13:21
5a099ac1fc7e9320698b4568.jpg

Russian-made INS Chakra © Wikipedia

Reports of India allowing a group of US military officials to visit the Russian-made INS Chakra – an Indian Navy attack submarine – are not based in reality, the head of the Russian military cooperation agency said.
Claims of a rift in Russian-Indian military cooperation were
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
l
ast week by the defense news website StrategyPage, and circulated in Russia by business daily Kommersant. The report claimed that India had allowed a group of US Navy personnel to visit the Russian-made Chakra attack submarine, in violation of the lease contract. The nuclear-powered Chakra was transferred to the Indian Navy in 2012 after serving for three years under the name Nerpa in Russia.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Commenting on the claim on Monday, Dmitry Shugaev, the head of the Russian Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation, called the report “bogus.”

“We will not respond to such provocations,”he told Rossiya 24.“Somebody is trying by all [sorts] of tricks to push us out, but India remains our strategic partner. And Indian people and its leadership see us as their strategic partners,”he explained.

India is currently one of world’s biggest arms buyers, investing heavily in the modernization of its armed forces. Russia is a traditional provider of sophisticated military hardware for Delhi, building aircraft and naval ships of designs adopted for India’s requirements. The two countries also cooperate on a number of high-profile joint defense projects, like the ramjet supersonic BrahMos cruise missile.
 

delft

Brigadier
It's caused by lack of funds. Countries like US, China or Japan could bang such ships in series in the tempo of tenfold every year. Those warships are intended to scare off countries where navies consist of 3-5 main warships (mainly through firepower) but they wouldn't stand much opposition to Arleigh Burke class destroyer (for example) which can not only defend itself and inland targets but can also strike at the same moment. Having something is always better than not having anything. That's the main idea behind this concept. Big navies don't need them to get their main startegic objectives covered.
True. The Russian armed forces are defensive whatever NATO says.:)
 
Top