Well, by location of sail it looks like Borey without missile compartment, adding space for Poseidons in front of sail. You can see possible Poseidon launch ports, they are way too big for 533mm tubes.
Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Apparently the russians are working on Mach 3 and beyond nuclear powered cruise missile, a successor to Burevestnik.
Something that i wanted to say for a long time, and perhaps there might be a better topic for this discussion, but i think whatever the logic the russians followed when seeing the need for Burevestnik and Poseidon (basically making sure that they can ensure MAD even in the face of american ABM and other missile defences), it's even more imperative China develop their own equivalents, since it has a much smaller nuclear arsenal than US, hence more vulnerable to being degraded below necessary MAD levels by US ABM and other defences. Given the increasingly erratic and volatile western behaviour, it is not unlikely that decision making actors such as the orange potus and his cronies/handlers might think they can actually win a nuclear war against China because it has much fewer nukes and the US ABM will protect their mainland from most damage. It's an unnerving thought considering the unpredictable behaviour displayed in this last year by the US and western axis.
Hopefully China is already working on such weapons in the shadows.
Something that i wanted to say for a long time, and perhaps there might be a better topic for this discussion, but i think whatever the logic the russians followed when seeing the need for Burevestnik and Poseidon (basically making sure that they can ensure MAD even in the face of american ABM and other missile defences), it's even more imperative China develop their own equivalents, since it has a much smaller nuclear arsenal than US, hence more vulnerable to being degraded below necessary MAD levels by US ABM and other defences. Given the increasingly erratic and volatile western behaviour, it is not unlikely that decision making actors such as the orange potus and his cronies/handlers might think they can actually win a nuclear war against China because it has much fewer nukes and the US ABM will protect their mainland from most damage. It's an unnerving thought considering the unpredictable behaviour displayed in this last year by the US and western axis.
Hopefully China is already working on such weapons in the shadows.
Umm these are pretty dopey weapons to develop if you have any intention to make the world slightly safer from MAD while still preserving the capability for MAD.
China pursuing nuclear powered cruise missile is completely pointless. Neither China or US have such weapons not because they can't develop them but because they are crossing a line of safety. It's risky enough as it is with thousands of ICBM and SLBM pointed at each other ready to fire at moments notice. Things can even go wrong with that. Having a loitering, nuclear powered, megaton warhead packed cruise missile constantly deployed during any times of heightened tension is begging for something to go wrong or someone with ill intentions to set off a terrible series of events.
China and US atm both consider themselves to have something to live for. Neither side is going to pick nuclear armageddon without good reason or being attacked first. Russia's weapons are more than enough for MAD. China's not quite as secure with only 1000 warheads vs Russia and US' ~3000 each.
HGV and HCM nuclear missiles are more secure than nuclear powered cruise missile carrying the warhead. The cruise missile is constantly loitering in the air if it is launched. Retrieval is complex. Detonation for self destruction is extremely hazardous. It's not got landing gears. Once in the air it's almost like an ICBM getting launched. You can call it back but there's no man directly at the controls. It's guidance and flight can be disrupted. Too many risks to play with when it comes to world ending weapons.
China pursuing nuclear powered cruise missile is completely pointless. Neither China or US have such weapons not because they can't develop them but because they are crossing a line of safety. It's risky enough as it is with thousands of ICBM and SLBM pointed at each other ready to fire at moments notice. Things can even go wrong with that. Having a loitering, nuclear powered, megaton warhead packed cruise missile constantly deployed during any times of heightened tension is begging for something to go wrong or someone with ill intentions to set off a terrible series of events.
China and US atm both consider themselves to have something to live for. Neither side is going to pick nuclear armageddon without good reason or being attacked first. Russia's weapons are more than enough for MAD. China's not quite as secure with only 1000 warheads vs Russia and US' ~3000 each.
HGV and HCM nuclear missiles are more secure than nuclear powered cruise missile carrying the warhead. The cruise missile is constantly loitering in the air if it is launched. Retrieval is complex. Detonation for self destruction is extremely hazardous. It's not got landing gears. Once in the air it's almost like an ICBM getting launched. You can call it back but there's no man directly at the controls. It's guidance and flight can be disrupted. Too many risks to play with when it comes to world ending weapons.
@ougoah until you realize that the US is currently pursuing efforts to minimize if not outright neuter the threat of ballistic missiles with their grand plans of Orbital, Sea and Land based ABM systems. HGVs are fancy at first glance but only really useful upon the terminal stage of the missiles flight path where they detach from the bus and do their hypersonic, gliding, maneuvering thingy. But mid course interception if not outright boost phase interception would invalidate this line of thinking.
I doubt the US ABM efforts will go anywhere but a confined improvement of ABM density for critical regions (Silo fields, Washington, bomber air bases).
However it's a threat that needs to be accounted for. So weapons like Burevestnik and successor designs account for it by ensuring that after an exchange the destruction of military and soft targets would be ensured regardless of how the initial exchange with ballistic missiles went. Same thing with Poseidon and future derivatives. As in "You can seek to counter ballistic missiles, but you won't be able to counter ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and submersible weapons simultaneously or with degraded defenses". It ensures the threat of nuclear destruction in a period where the US once again strives for strategic invincibility.
The Chinese could perhaps develop such a system, I'm confident they could develop such a system given enough time, resources and priority. But the Chinese approach is for one, simply increasing the volume of ballistic missiles fielded, diversifying launch platforms and on top of that the Chinese are less concerned about genuine WW3 style scenarios, and more about limited exchange in east Asia over regional interests that conflict with the US. Neither being willing to destroy each other in such an exchange. While the Russians and Americans view each other as predestined mortal enemies. And if either goes down, they will take the other with them no matter what. Furthermore simply growing their ICBM and SLBM force isn't viable for Russia because the scale of their strategic forces is already enormous.
In short, it's a diversification of retaliatory platforms meant to ensure robust second strike capability against renewed American interest in strategic ABM efforts. The Russian and Chinese approaches are different but ultimately have the common goal of overwhelming such defenses one way or the other. One isn't correct and the other isn't, it's about what a given nation finds feasible and suitable for the situation they see themselves in.
I doubt the US ABM efforts will go anywhere but a confined improvement of ABM density for critical regions (Silo fields, Washington, bomber air bases).
However it's a threat that needs to be accounted for. So weapons like Burevestnik and successor designs account for it by ensuring that after an exchange the destruction of military and soft targets would be ensured regardless of how the initial exchange with ballistic missiles went. Same thing with Poseidon and future derivatives. As in "You can seek to counter ballistic missiles, but you won't be able to counter ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and submersible weapons simultaneously or with degraded defenses". It ensures the threat of nuclear destruction in a period where the US once again strives for strategic invincibility.
The Chinese could perhaps develop such a system, I'm confident they could develop such a system given enough time, resources and priority. But the Chinese approach is for one, simply increasing the volume of ballistic missiles fielded, diversifying launch platforms and on top of that the Chinese are less concerned about genuine WW3 style scenarios, and more about limited exchange in east Asia over regional interests that conflict with the US. Neither being willing to destroy each other in such an exchange. While the Russians and Americans view each other as predestined mortal enemies. And if either goes down, they will take the other with them no matter what. Furthermore simply growing their ICBM and SLBM force isn't viable for Russia because the scale of their strategic forces is already enormous.
In short, it's a diversification of retaliatory platforms meant to ensure robust second strike capability against renewed American interest in strategic ABM efforts. The Russian and Chinese approaches are different but ultimately have the common goal of overwhelming such defenses one way or the other. One isn't correct and the other isn't, it's about what a given nation finds feasible and suitable for the situation they see themselves in.
Well written.
I agree with your perspective but it's sort of a rehash of what I at least tried to communicate, perhaps much less eloquently.
Russia and China have different views of their conflict and disagreements with the US. They also have very different desired outcomes for each potential scenario. Hence the differing postures and views on MAD weapons. China largely seems happy to continue expanding warhead numbers to roughly match Russia and US but with modern and arguably superior delivery systems within the long range missile realm. Nuclear powered torpedoes and cruise missiles fall well outside of the type of world and risk tolerance of such a world that China wants to exist in. It doesn't do China any good to develop and wave these types of weapons around but it probably would be useful to have. If they have interest and developed these types of weapons, they will certainly not be broadcasting it as it serves to only undermine China's actual strengths and leverage over the world which is very different to Russia's.
The US seeks to counter both and have a means of suppressing MAD for the purpose of having the choice of waging existential war against "unruly" countries. Do either of us believe this is within the capability of the US and certainly outside the capability of Russia and China to create their own counters? Given the pace at which each civilisation is running, I would say China is far more likely to neuter US offensive weapons before the US can neuter China's. China is also likely to be a step ahead in developing the next means of ensuring MAD capability or better.
regarding warheads they added note that Russian nuclear weopons are most modern.
Russia is adding two IL-96M dooms day plane (command plane for nuclear conflict) This automatically assumes that Presidential IL-96PU/VPU/Tu-214SR/PU/SBUS are unable to manage the tasks. what is that extra technology that need this plane since electronics have developed over past couple of decades and even satellites has no impact on this approach despite Russia adding more jam resistant satellite.
Russia is adding two IL-96M dooms day plane (command plane for nuclear conflict) This automatically assumes that Presidential IL-96PU/VPU/Tu-214SR/PU/SBUS are unable to manage the tasks. what is that extra technology that need this plane since electronics have developed over past couple of decades and even satellites has no impact on this approach despite Russia adding more jam resistant satellite.
One of the issues in the perception of the Irbis-E radar is that it's being compared to top-tier kit from United States. Most people don't realize just how outdated most of Europe's kit is.
The entirety of Europe's typhoon fleet is still on Captor-M a mechanical radar. I'm not talking down Europe's avionics kit, I actually think it's quite decent, but it is outclassed in raw power by the Irbis-E. By Europe's own timelines (which I expect to slip), Russians actually beat the Typhoon to AESA deployment via Su-57. With proposed upgrades to the Su-57M, they'll beat the Typhoon to GaN as well.
IMO, the VKS should aspire to make the Su-57 the backbone of their airfleet in the next 10 years.
Most effective ? Pure performance wise I dont think so but if you put price, sturdiness and availability to buy in the equation, its certainly near or on top.
What other heavy fighter jets are presently available without a lot of strings attached ? None
What other modern fighter jets are presently available without a lot of strings attached ? Mig-35, J-10ce and Jf-17. Could we put the Rafale or Eurofighter into that slot ? Not even sure. You could be cut by a US embargo most probably.
Last edited: