Austin,

Kuzbass received a VTG, this is a service overhaul that intends to increase the operational life of the submarine for 3.5 years (and then it will receive a further VTS or an RSM) it’s not a modernization program, it’s a simple overhaul intended to guarantee the operational life of the submarine after a particular number of years in service.

Submarines (and ships in general) undertaking an overhaul goes through an RSM.

Gepard also went through a VTG and so did Pskov and Obninsk before that. They could have received a new particular piece of equipment or not, but that doesn’t qualify the work as a modernization, contrary to the works been undertaken to Samara, Bratsk, Volk and Leopard – Project 971M.

Those statements means that for an X total amount of failure events (let’s say, the total number of failure events that the MiG-23M fleet suffered in 178 was XXX) airframe and aircraft systems amounted “23%” of that total, while engine amounted “1,8%” and avionics “36,2%”.

What this means must be correlated with the total number of failure events and the fleet numbers. In a first sight this could mean that avionics were a bit unreliable, while the engine was reliable. If, “PER EXAMPLE” (this is a supposition) the total number of failure events in 1978 for the soviet MiG-23M fleet was “1000 events”, it means that you have 362 failures related to avionics, 18 failures related to engine, 100 failures related to aircraft armaments and the so.

Yes I know Vityaz is something else, I was, however, puzzled by this statement:

называемые некоторыми источниками “Витязем” translates as “called by some sources “Vityaz” (champion)

So it was my question if this was an article mistake or is S-300V4 part of Vityaz system.

Russian “Divizion” doesn’t mean “division” in english, but “detachment“, russian “diviziya” actually means division in english.

Basic PVO SAM organization unit is “divizion” (dettachment) each one consists of a ZRK (SAM system), multiple “divizion” could form a Regiment or a Brigade, various Regiments and Brigades could forms an Air Defense Division or Corps, various Air Defense Divisions and Corps forms an Air Defense Army (along Fighter Aviation)

Well, today with the military reform could be different, but that was the way it worked.

Kaluga’s Research Institute of Radio Engineering (KNIRTI) has developed a series of new generation jammers (self protection and SOJAM) that have been anounced for Su-34, but at some moment (2001) it was anounced the interest to develop an specialized EW variant of the aircraft (using maybe an earlier generation jammer design).

Decision-wise would be the adoption of the SOJAM/SPJ equipment avoiding an specialized (and costly) new aircraft:

http://www.ainonline.com/airshow-convention-news/paris-air-show/single-publication-story/browse/0/article/jammers-help-keeprussian-fighters-alive-4958/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[story_pointer]=2&tx_ttnews[mode]=1

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Su-35S-Flanker.html
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Fullback.html

Interesting enough the old Su-27S/T-10S was slated to receive a sort of SOJAM at some point, the L-001S Smalta, a fighter aircraft version of the anti-HAWK/I-HAWK jammer used by different Mi-8 versions. It used a two pod configuration instead of a central (big) one.

Pilot answered my question on his blog:

Поляна-Д4М1, Оса-АКМ, Бук-М1-2, Тор-М1

So it was not Buk-M2 😉

The seld-defence EW equipment of the TU cannot compare with what was used in the excercises. Mi-8SMV, Mi-8MTPI, Mi-8PPA, An-12PP and Su-24MP were all deployed at around 30 km from the missile batteries. And the targets were not easy either. Slow “SAMAN-M1” with 250m/s speed, RCS of 0.08m2 and fast RM 5V27 target with speed ~800m/s and RCS of 0.3m2. Now that is tough challenge for any SAM.

What is the source of this info Pesho?, I would like to track it down and research more on this topic, thanks!

It proves that against a lone 1300ton corvette equipped with a small hull mount MF active/passive array that an SSK, even an obsolete one, in the shallows can be a threat. I dont really know how much of a revelation that might be?.

I dont know what relevance you think that might have for a trans-oceanic navy who would have active low-frequency towed arrays and ASW choppers with advanced dipping sonar to counter just such a threat?.

I dont have enough details, but something doesnt make sense:

The stern (or it was the bow) of the corvette break the water after sinked…that means, the water is VERY shallow…

A 20 or 30 meters depth water is no home for an SSK…we are talking of just 60 or 90 feets of depth…no enough space for maneuvering, and very easy to detect from the air (well, the color qualities of the water would depend)….

If that was the depth of the water, I dont think a Romeo or similar is the author, too difficult maneyvering for that skipper…

Furthermore, the active sonar performance in that shallow water conditions is a crazy thing, so much multi-path reflections…I dont think a homing torpedo would work on that enviroment, not an old one for sure! (refer to RN torpedo expenditure on Falklands/Malvinas War on 1982)…

What do you think?