Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

thunderchief

thunderchief

Senior Member
Jeff Head said:
Well, I took it to mean:

260 new
080 Refurbushed/upgraded

So that would be 340 aircraft in total...and I really do not believe that.

If it were 180 new and 80 refurbed, that would be better, but would still be hard to believe.

He said they received 200 last year and would receive 260 this year. That would be 460 in two years. Even with military transports, helicopters, fighters, bombers, etc. that is a HUGE number. Unprecedented in these times.

I would have to see a breakdown.
Click to expand...

We should be careful about Russian military terminology .

First , head of United Aircraft Corporation said that Ministry of Defense will receive from them 100 combat aircraft this year . These are probably newly built (built from scratch ) aircraft and helicopters .

On the first glance, this seems contradictory to deputy minister statement , but in reality he said something like VVS will receive (accept in service) 260 aircraft this year . This could mean both newly built Su-35 will become operational in some VVS unit , but also Il-38 that was rotting in some storage (and was not officialy in VVS or Naval aviation) will be repaired and put in service .

Also, 80 aircraft will be modernized - some Su-25 that was in service will be modernized to SM standard and then returned to its unit .
 
MagnumCromagnon

MagnumCromagnon

New Member
kwaigonegin said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



I was really hoping when the Cold War ended it ENDED. How naive of me. :mad:

Now the world is swarming with deadly bears, tigers as well as poisonous snakes and spiders. At least before it was just one or two rabid bears roaming the jungles.

Our foreign policy has been an abject failure for the past 20 years and this world has become much more dangerous because of that. I can totally see Putin walking out of INF, SALT etc or at least casually ignoring it. As we put more Patriot batteries along Eastern Europe, Russia will build more ICBMs and SLBMs in the future.

I would not be at all surprised if a low yield nuke 'accidently' find it's way into the hand of terrorist groups.

Putin answers to no one and the Kremlin pretty much controls 99% of all media in Russia. He has an approval rating of over 85% in Russia and European powers are pretty much buddy buddy with him behind closed doors in contrast to their outburst in public.

It's lose lose for everyone!

Missile in question
PhkpmHX.jpg


Iskander SS-21 / Scarab/Tochka

Iskander E (SS-26 Stone)


AbdLBY0.jpg


R-500/Iskander-K - Cruise Missile
Click to expand...

1.) U.S. State Dept/Congress are crying foul for no apparent reason, the one sided INF treaty (which Britain and France are non-signators) doesn't include cruise missiles only ballistic missiles, if they want to include cruise missiles than the U.S. would have to destroy their large stockpiles of 2600km range Tomahawks before they start complaining about the R-500. If the end result is Russia leaving the INF treaty over a non-issue like cruise missiles, than the Obama administration and Congress will look like one of the most incompetant and ineffective govt's in U.S. history.

2.) The R-500 doesn't look like ballistic missiles, the picture you posted were of the Iskander-M system, here's the Iskander-K/R-500 system:

iskander-k-2007-image1.jpg

The very last missile on the far right has the classic round nose cone of a cruise missile:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



...Much of the complaints are much ado about nothing.
 
Last edited:
thunderchief

thunderchief

Senior Member
MagnumCromagnon said:
1.) U.S. State Dept/Congress are crying foul for no apparent reason, the one sided INF treaty (which Britain and France are non-signators) doesn't include cruise missiles only ballistic missiles, if they want to include cruise missiles than the U.S. would have to destroy their large stockpiles of 2600km range Tomahawks before they start complaining about the R-500.
Click to expand...

As far as I recall, there was a clause about eliminating ground based cruise missiles , this is why BGM-109G got scrapped :
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
MagnumCromagnon

MagnumCromagnon

New Member
thunderchief said:
As far as I recall, there was a clause about eliminating ground based cruise missiles , this is why BGM-109G got scrapped :
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...

And why not naval cruise missiles? It's quite obvious because USSR/Ru was a land power, while the U.S. was a naval power so it doesn't hurt the U.S. military as much. Any way there's very little sense for Russia to stay in the INF treaty for various obvious reasons.
 
thunderchief

thunderchief

Senior Member
MagnumCromagnon said:
And why not naval cruise missiles? It's quite obvious because USSR/Ru was a land power, while the U.S. was a naval power so it doesn't hurt the U.S. military as much. Any way there's very little sense for Russia to stay in the INF treaty for various obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

Naval/aerial cruise missiles were not banned , that is true, and both sides agreed on this . Reason for that was that both sides were afraid of large number of hidden ground based TELs armed with nuclear weapons with very little time to distinct false positive launches , or conventional launches and nuclear decapitating strikes on C&C centers and ICBM silos .

Soviets were particularly vulnerable to that - Tomahawks were hard to detect in that period and Pershings needed only couple of minutes to reach their targets . Therefore, only strategy left to Soviets was to launch full nuclear attack on NATO countries at first sign of trouble , very dangerous position for both sides .

On the other hand, naval and aerial assets were much more difficult to hide , therefore there was a lesser concern of sneak attack , and aerial and naval cruise missiles were not banned .
 
FORBIN

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
New Sub's for Northern Fleet :

Severodvinsk/Yasen class attached to 11th Sub Div based to Zaozersk/Zapadnaya Litsa with 3 Oscar II, 2 Victor III

And St Peterburg/Lada actually currently conducting tests in the area of the Northern Fleet, maybe one day be admitted in service ! will be attached to this fleet i think normaly attached to 161th Sub Br which which holds the Kilo.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
thunderchief

thunderchief

Senior Member
Russia lays keels for three nuclear subs

Russia laid the keels of three new nuclear submarines to celebrate Russian Navy Day on 27 July.

The boats laid down were the fifth Dolgoruky (Borey)-class (Project 955A) nuclear powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) Knyaz Oleg and the fourth and fifth Severodvinsk (Yasen)-class nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) (Project 885M) Khabarovsk and Krasnoyarsk .

"These ships in the coming decades will be the basis of the Navy and are guaranteed to provide [the necessary] defence capabilities and security for our country," Deputy Defence Minister Yuri Borisov told reporters at the Sevmash naval dockyard in Severodvinsk.

Deputy Prime Minister Dmitri Rogozin, who also attended, said: "The Borey-class and Yasen-class constitute the core of the Navy, which is now up to date and on schedule. We know that the presence of nuclear capabilities cool the ardour of any aggressor, anywhere in the world."....................
Click to expand...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
thunderchief

thunderchief

Senior Member
tphuang said:
China would love to get its hands on one of those Yasen class submarines. Not going to happen though.
Click to expand...

Yasen-class would be out of reach for quite some time, but theoretically China could get into agreement like India did, to lease some of the Shchuka(Akula) class subs because they are still better then Type 093 (don't know about Type 095 tho )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top