Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

2handedswordsman said:

[QUOTE="Tu-22 offer close to zero added advantage for the opportunity costs. They also offer very little if anything in learning opportunities. That's like Mercedes trying to sell a 1992 S-class to Hyundai in 2018. Sure it was interesting at one point in time given certain prices, but just an absolute joke of an offer today. Mercedes however may like to use it as a marketing tool to show off and make the gullible believe how much more "advanced" they are. Reality is cruel to those whoe delude themselves and time corrects everything.

That's at least a simplification given that US Russian and Chinese AFs rely to 50-60 years old heavy bombers.Tu-16(H-6) is preferable from a supersonic strategic bomber capable of launching kh-22's?No. But nowdays seems a light at the tunnel, that maybe a decade from now PLA could introduce a domestic built strategic bomber...a decade. It's all about strategic orientation. Probably nowdays PLAF is not really interesting to deep penetration air attacks.

Click to expand...

A few things wrong with this thinking.

1. You are assuming PLAAF (btw it's PLAAF not PLAF) will receive the newer strategic bomber/s in a decade. You have no idea when. Please don't pretend your baseless assumptions are facts. You probably know much less about these things than other posters so have some modesty and say it may be rather than ... a decade.

2. Kh-22s are next useless to China. Unless they find the product so effective, they copy it, why would they want another nation's weapons? If PLAAF wants Tu-22s will Russia supply as many Kh-22s are China wants? Working out the agreement will take several years.

3. These 50-60 year old bombers are actually built several years ago and still being built. They certainly are based on those half century old designs but they've all been upgraded to launch the newest weapons (e.g. H6K can air launch many of the current cruise missiles the Chinese armed forces would like it to launch). They have new avionics, electronics, and radars, most materials have been updated too.

4. Is upgraded H-6K manufactured at home preferable to a Tu-22 manufactured in Russia? Of course it is. What use is the Tu-22? China has no need for another non-stealthy bomber at the moment and has leaked at least one existing project that fills this role and is far more modern to the Tu-22. If they replace H-6K will Tu-22 because Tu-22 is more modern and capable. What is stopping them from replacing Tu-22 with H-20 or H-xx which will be stealthier and domestically manufactured.

5. Tu-22 cannot hope to perform any effective deep penetration air attacks lol. Supersonic is a cheap quality today. So what? Does supersonic mean it cannot be shot down by SAM or intercepted? The marginal advantages it will hold still won't prevent it from being intercepted and shot down with ease by any capable nation. Flying these large bombers around are basically a political ego stroker. As long as they are able to air launch the newest cruise missiles and hold enough munitions, they are effective, making Tu-22 and H-6K roughly equally effective to PLAAF despite the former being more capable on paper. Why do you think the USAF is building B-21 after B-2 as their most capable bomber? Why not replace it with something that resembles Tu-160/B-1/Tu-22 etc? Because if one is to spend the funds to get a few "capable" bomber to fill the role of "most capable" they do not want to go down that path.

If China wants a bomber to perform the "high end" duties they will need to get H-20/ H-xx. Tu-22 can only stay back and fire cruise missiles like H-6K. And the worst part of all this hypothetical is that China will need to constantly pay Russia for maintenance, ordinance, and parts. What a shocking way to burn money. B-21 is being built rather than restarting the manufacturing line for B-2 because that's been shut down decades ago. They still need upgraded B-2s so B-21 looks very similar except it probably has structural and aerodynamic improvements over the B-2, and definitely has better sensors, electronics, and other classified technologies. So if the USAF thinks this level of bomber is necessary to meet the Chinese and Russian defences, shouldn't Russia and China be aiming for that level of bomber to meet equally capable defences of other's? Both these nations certainly think so. Russia has PAK-DA project and China has two stealth bomber/attacker projects (maybe one is a striker of more limited range but it's for a regional projection anyway). Whether China wants to buy Tu-22 as a middle level bomber to reach island chains with speed, remains to be seen but it would be such a strange purchase if they did. Why not just buy the whole Russian arsenal of hardware that China doesn't have a 1:1 existing platform for?

A supersonic bomber will come to the launching point faster and will leave the same way, shortening the air defence reaction interval.So better chances to hit and survive.

Yes the only advantage to the entire idea. That's pretty weak considering other supersonic methods of air launching cruise missiles i.e. JH-7 and possibly flanker based fighters. To take advantage of the supersonic, high load capacity Tu-22, they will need it to launch Chinese cruise missiles. What use is an empty bomber? Spending billions buying and maintaining Russian ordinance is out of the question. Therefore unless the bomber can be adapted to launch domestic ordinance, it has no use. Even if it is modified to do so, it has limited use. Only application I can think of is flying out to island chains to launch attacks on incoming US naval threats. No way China wants to go around bombing its neighbours into submission therefore no Tu-22. For neighbour aggression around disputed islands, Tu-22 is unnecessary and overkill. For USN Tu-22 it may be ineffective albeit does add another layer of attack. The middle ground that Tu-22 covers is not of strategic usefulness for China. If it wants a bomber with speed, range, and payload, it needs to be VLO or LO.

Wednesday at 8:03 PM

Jura said:

an interesting tweet (I heard (last month?) in Russian Internet that transfer should happen, forgot about it until now):

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

RFS 651 'Velikiy Ustyug' & RFS 652 'Grad Sviyazhsk', a missile corvettes a Buyan-M Class with cruise missiles 'Kalibr' arrived from the Caspian Sea to Sevastopol, today June 13, 2018 at 11.00-13.00Z

Click to expand...

now they're in the Med:






Project 21631 Caspian Flotilla Buyan M class corvettes Veliki Ustyug 651 (x-023) & Grad Sviyazhsk 652 (c-021), armed with SS-N-30 / Kalibr 3M-14 land attack missiles, transited Mediterranean-bound Bosphorus, likely en route to 03:30Z

ougoah said:

For USN Tu-22 it may be ineffective

Click to expand...

They have lost their most credible threat atm. While USN wastly improved it's capability to shoot down arrows(not this particular kind of arrows, though - NTU is dead), shooting arrows instead of archer is just flawed.
If anything, against current USN Tu-22M3M potentially can be incredible.
It's more what they're too few in numbers nowdays to have enough oomph(you have to gather the whole fleet in one strike to make it credible)than anything else.

May 18, 2018

Jura said:

Jul 29, 2017
and yesterday the Uragan sailed for sea(*) trials:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(*) on Lake Ladoga

Click to expand...

the Uragan running speed trials there:


source:

EDIT the original is

Gloire_bb said:

They have lost their most credible threat atm. While USN wastly improved it's capability to shoot down arrows(not this particular kind of arrows, though - NTU is dead), shooting arrows instead of archer is just flawed.
If anything, against current USN Tu-22M3M potentially can be incredible.
It's more what they're too few in numbers nowdays to have enough oomph(you have to gather the whole fleet in one strike to make it credible)than anything else.

Click to expand...

I think they're currently the most effective navy at successfully shooting down both arrows and the archers to use your analogy. I doubt such a well armed and experienced navy will be so thoughtless.

If they want to go with the Tu-22 approach and add this layer of offensive capability to defend claims if diplomatic disputes turn into fighting, they will need many squadrons to push through and wear down the USN's ability to defend itself and destroy all forms of launching platforms. This will require huge funding at the cost of other projects and then they will need to take a very good look at the ordinance problem. Nothing stopping the Russians from secretly giving or selling the specifications to the US. At least they will need to modify the Russian bombers to using Chinese missiles. All this trouble and time spent and they add fleets of supersonic bombers that do one trick, albeit offering an ability that currently is not in Chinese inventory. I think for that price i'd rather arm up one CATOBAR carrier with J-31s and J-15s (may be more expensive but it's a domestic industry and not an economic leakage like buying overpriced Tu-22s for Russian profit). Or spend all that time and money getting more AShBM maybe developing new ones or improving current types. Maybe hypersonic drones carrying large warheads... any of these ideas are probably more effective because they are more novel than the supersonic bomber throwing cruise missiles which the USN probably can handle since they've had 40 odd years to practice. Even going with Mig-31 with Kinzhal will be more cost effective and quite possibly even work well against entire USN battle groups. Of course this is not an option for China but they can use the idea and develop supersonic drones or fighters to launch new hypersonic ordinance. Kinzhal is basically an air launched, compacted Iskander. Can go with air breathing or just solid fuel. Whatever. One mach 7 round coming in should be more effective than 10 subsonic cruise missiles from Tu-22.

ougoah said:

I think they're currently the most effective navy at successfully shooting down both arrows and the archers to use your analogy. I doubt such a well armed and experienced navy will be so thoughtless.

If they want to go with the Tu-22 approach and add this layer of offensive capability to defend claims if diplomatic disputes turn into fighting, they will need many squadrons to push through and wear down the USN's ability to defend itself and destroy all forms of launching platforms. This will require huge funding at the cost of other projects and then they will need to take a very good look at the ordinance problem. Nothing stopping the Russians from secretly giving or selling the specifications to the US. At least they will need to modify the Russian bombers to using Chinese missiles. All this trouble and time spent and they add fleets of supersonic bombers that do one trick, albeit offering an ability that currently is not in Chinese inventory. I think for that price i'd rather arm up one CATOBAR carrier with J-31s and J-15s (current belief is J-31 over J-20 for next carrier fighter). Or spend all that time and money getting more AShBM maybe developing new ones or improving current types. Maybe hypersonic drones carrying large warheads... any of these ideas are probably more effective because they are more novel than the supersonic bomber throwing cruise missiles which the USN probably can handle since they've had 40 odd years to practice.

Click to expand...

I will say that what the Tu-22 or their equivalent platforms brings to the table is a threat that is both credible and proven. AShBm for all their hype is still an unproven weapon that will remain unproven until one is fired in anger and hits, and may that day never come. But air launched AShMs have a proven track record of success. And practice will only get you so far in life, this applies to the USN as well. And they too has decades of practice in ABM defense, yet both areas are still far from complete success.
The same reasoning goes to the supersonic drones and whatnots, novels does not necessarily mean effective.
Price and efficiency wise, if we are looking at an immediate area denial platform based off land, a fleet of Tu-22s and their supporting platforms will be much more preferable then a CATOBAR carrier. Both in terms of payload and range, stealth is one thing off course but one has to compare the Tu-22 to platforms of equivalent age and capability, that is the J-15 rather than the J-31. And I will not put it pass Russia or China to come up with a bomber that combines a usable level of stealth with supersonic speed.
Would Russia sell the Tu-22 secrets to the US? It is a possible but highly unlikely possibility, seeing as they too are planning to use the Tu-22 well into the 2040s at least. And I would give the Tu-22 and its equivalents much more credit than just flinging AShMs. And improved variant can also act as a high speed drone carrier or reconnaissance aircraft, using super sonic speed to dash in and get out before retaliation.

Viktor Jav said:

I will say that what the Tu-22 or their equivalent platforms brings to the table is a threat that is both credible and proven. AShBm for all their hype is still an unproven weapon that will remain unproven until one is fired in anger and hits, and may that day never come. But air launched AShMs have a proven track record of success. And practice will only get you so far in life, this applies to the USN as well. And they too has decades of practice in ABM defense, yet both areas are still far from complete success.
The same reasoning goes to the supersonic drones and whatnots, novels does not necessarily mean effective.
Price and efficiency wise, if we are looking at an immediate area denial platform based off land, a fleet of Tu-22s and their supporting platforms will be much more preferable then a CATOBAR carrier. Both in terms of payload and range, stealth is one thing off course but one has to compare the Tu-22 to platforms of equivalent age and capability, that is the J-15 rather than the J-31. And I will not put it pass Russia or China to come up with a bomber that combines a usable level of stealth with supersonic speed.

Click to expand...

Well another way to look at this is that the unknown nature of AShBM and their capabilities, specifics, flight dynamics etc gives them the advantage over something that's existed for 4 decades with little improvements apart from some maneuvreing, decoys, jamming. There's always a first. AShBM being unproven in war does not make them less valuable. Sure it's not a great idea betting everything on it and China certainly has done no such thing. But if it works well enough in testing over all conceivable situations it should work as well in real life to the same degree something that's been used in limited war has. It's an engineering exercise. If everyone assumed that novel technologies may not work and therefore unworthy of investment and further development, none of these things that have become conventional would have been possible or even developed to the stage where militaries consider them reliable enough.

By the same measure, Tu-22s lobbing cruise missiles (Chinese or Russian) is unproven and may have ZERO effectiveness for all that time and money. Wouldn't that be an embarrassment as well? At least the AShBM started off as "unproven". I maintain that USN can easily shoot down every single Tu-22 with ease and all their missiles intercepted. It just depends on the scale of conflict and what they feel they can afford to lose. The technology and methods exist so why is it impossible for Tu-22s to be utterly 100% useless and an exercise in burning much needed funds. China ain't rich enough to do whatever the government wants. It doesn't control the global reserve currency.

ougoah said:

Well another way to look at this is that the unknown nature of AShBM and their capabilities, specifics, flight dynamics etc gives them the advantage over something that's existed for 4 decades with little improvements apart from some maneuvreing, decoys, jamming. There's always a first. AShBM being unproven in war does not make them less valuable. Sure it's not a great idea betting everything on it and China certainly has done no such thing. But if it works well enough in testing over all conceivable situations it should work as well in real life to the same degree something that's been used in limited war has. It's an engineering exercise. If everyone assumed that novel technologies may not work and therefore unworthy of investment and further development, none of these things that have become conventional would have been possible or even developed to the stage where militaries consider them reliable enough.

By the same measure, Tu-22s lobbing cruise missiles (Chinese or Russian) is unproven and may have ZERO effectiveness for all that time and money. Wouldn't that be an embarrassment as well? At least the AShBM started off as "unproven". I maintain that USN can easily shoot down every single Tu-22 with ease and all their missiles intercepted. It just depends on the scale of conflict and what they feel they can afford to lose. The technology and methods exist so why is it impossible for Tu-22s to be utterly 100% useless and an exercise in burning much needed funds. China ain't rich enough to do whatever the government wants. It doesn't control the global reserve currency.

Click to expand...

Actually that is somewhat incorrect, a ballistic missile by definition and operation follows a predictable flight path due their utilization of gravity and trajectory, hence the word "ballistic". The US and Russia has spend decades researching on how to track and defeat ballistics missiles, research that can be readily transferred over in this case. It is not like their capabilities are unknown, but rather how well they hold up in real world conditions that counts
Just as the AShBM being unproven does not make them potentially valuable, AShMs being in existence for years does not make them any less potent. Those "little improvements" you so disparage are actually quite effective in improving the lethality of AShMs. We have gone from missile with the speed of barely mach 1 and a range of less then 100km, to weapons capable of 3 times the speed of sound and triple the range on average. That is not "little". Even the most optimistic anti missile defenses has a success rate of below 50% per missile.

There is a huge difference in a safe test environment of "all conceivable situations" and a real life engagement where even the unthinkable can happen, lets make that clear. Even a limited war can bring forth unseen circumstances and situations. And I am not suggesting that novel technologies should never be tested, but neglecting proven systems in return is both an equal measure of folly and hubris.
And by no measure is the Tu-22s can be considered as unproven as the concept of the AShM, we can draw inference from smaller but similar platforms like the Exocet/Super Etendard, as well as operations of similar executions but different targets like the Tu-160/Kh-55s in Syria. But as far as modern combat is concerned, there is no single instance in which a ballistic missile with a conventional warhead has been used to strike a mobile or stationary target with any genuine measure of success. Being "unproven" does not get one a free pass.
And where did I ever state that the Tu-22 is infallible? To maintain that the USN is capable of shooting down every single Tu-22 is just as preposterous as the proposition that the AShM will work as promised. Take the Falklands War for an instance, the British were fully cognizant of what they are facing, but yet they still fall prey to Argentinian fighters who are operating on a less then fair conditions.
And then lets look at Russia, a nation that though has seen better days can at least muster a capable long range strike with the supporting platforms (refueling, EW) as well as the escorts to attack a CSG. A strike of appropriate measure will net a return of equal profit.
And to conduct a successful AShBM would mean creating and maintaining an extensive and successful intelligence and reconnaissance network that involves both manned and unmanned platforms, all in the face of enemy attempt's of interference and hoping that the weapon will worked as designed. A feat that demands no less in terms of funding and manpower with a fair dose of faith.
China's money is not unlimited, that is never a question of doubt. But in this case it would be even more prudent to invest in existing and proven systems first, and leaving a reasonable amount to future weapons research. This is not new, every nation worth it's salt does this. The only reason why the trend of ditching everything for a new shiny exists in the first place is because of US ads on how systems like the F-22 and F-35 will render all existing systems obsolete, and we all know how fast they backtracked on those statements.........