Vympelit is big upgrade of Su-27 but u have to built it new.
I don’t see why that’s the case- it’s not a big deal to upgrade the engines and radar of the Su-27, and that’s what the Su-35BM/Su-27SM2/T-10BM is all about. Heck, the Su-27SM has been prepared for engine upgrades for a while now (AL-31FM1, AL-31FM2, AL-31FM3, each with more service life and thrust).
VympelUpgraded IL-76 (IL-76MF) and, for very big cargos, AN-124 will be a host of russian MTA. IL-76MF (and upgrading old IL-76 to IL-76MF standard)
Is that possible- the Il-76MF is physically stretched, after all. I think the most they’d do to their existing Il-76 aircraft is to re-engine them, maybe. But the Il-76MF is the future, yup.
Russia also need light transport aircraft. Thats where all confusion rises. IL-112, IL-214, deriviatives of TU-334, An-70, may be even some others- all these are proposed for that role.
The An-70 was originally designed to replace the An-12, it was never a solution for the light transport- however, the An-70 is viewed by the RuAF as too big for that role, so they’ve turned it down, much to Ukraine’s displeasure.
The Il-112V is the future light transport aircraft of the RuAF, last I heard.
Best chances to replace old An-12 and An-26 have IL-214
Well the Il-214 MTA will replace the An-12, sure- last I heard though they still acquire the Il-112V (which beat out the MiG-110 and the Sukhoi S-80) to replace the An-26 rather than use both.
VympelYou keep missing one glaringly obvious point. The treaty is for the REDUCTION of missiles and warheads not REPLACEMENT with something better.
What? SORT aka the Moscow Treaty is very simple and straightforward- a certain number of warheads, deployed however the two parties want to deploy them. They can replace their delivery systems (which have absolutely nothing to do with the treaty) as much as they want, but the amount of warheads must remain below the agreed figure.
As for why they got rid of the SS-24s, that’s because the SS-24 was built in Ukraine. They can’t build it in Russia. Given Topol-M, however, I wouldn’t be surprised if the new heavy ICBM on the horizon will be a much-modernized version of the SS-24.
VympelWell, the “small” modernization of the bomber fleet undergoes minimal upgrades to be equipped with new armament, with small changes to aircraft equipment.
For the Tu-22M3, “small” modernization includes:
– new Kh-32 heavy anti-ship missiles- developed from the current Kh-22, sharing the same shape and size, but with a new engine control system, refined flight profile, and perhaps a new type of fuel, twice the range. The missile homing system has also been updated. Apparently, the Kh-32 has been under test for several years.
For the Tu-95MS16 & Tu-160
– adapted for carrying the Kh-101 and Kh-555. The first Tu-95MS was adapted in 1999 by the 360th ARZ at Ryazan.
– the adaptation includes upgrading them with a new missile initialisation and launch system known as Sigma (both the Tu-160 and Tu-95MS16 are equipped with Sprut currently)
– the older Tu-95MS6 bombers equipped with the Osina system will not be upgraded.
– The Tu-160 can carry 12 Kh-101s inside its weapon bays, while the Tu-95MS will have eight missiles in four pairs under the wings (combined with its standard 6 Kh-55/Kh-55SM/Kh-555s)
After modernization Tu-95MS16s are designated Tu-95MSM.
Second-stage modernization will include the equipping of the Tu-22M3, Tu-95MSM and Tu-160 bombers with the same new search-attack radar, a common missile initialisation and launch system, common weapons (Kh-101/2, Kh-SD, and a new supersonic weapon) and the modernization of the navigation, communication and self defense systems.
VympelAs I understand it, the Su-35 (T-10BM) / Su-35BM will form the basis of the Su-27SM2 upgrade for the Russian Air Force.
VympelI know that and I agree 2500-3000 kms is good but still cruise missiles can be shot down and holding a large part of one’s strategic arsenal seems a pretty dangerous thing to do,only ICBMs and SLBMs should be strategic nuke carriers in my view excluding the strategic bombers from that role.
Cruise missiles can be shot down, but it’s not very likely to make a dent in any large scale attack. Even relatively “unstealthy” missiles like the Tomahawk and Kh-55 don’t show up well on radar given their flight profile, and there’ll be a lot of them- in a scenario where Russia doesn’t have the time to refit it’s 35 Tu-95MS16 (the rest are the slightly older Tu-95MS6) with the outboard pylons for carrying 16 rather than 6 Kh-55s, that’s still 552 missiles. It shoots up to almost 900 missiles if the Russians put the pylons back on the Tu-95MS16, a very easy job.
Shooting them down is only feasible and effective in conventional conflicts, where the defender has lots of close in air defense. Massive nuclear attack- won’t matter.
And tha’ts not even considering if they were armed with stealthy Kh-102s. It then becomes Tu-160s with 12 Kh-102s combined with Tu-95MS16s with 8 Kh-102s and 6 Kh-55s.
No, strategic aviation is a very serious threat. And consider, also, that the one advantage it has over submarines (second strike weapon) and ICBMs is that they can be recalled.
VympelWhen counting the number of warheads is it really wise to include the strategic bombers ?They don’t provide an almost 100% kill probability like ICBMs do and could u imagine one sec a Tu-160 dropping a nuke on let’s say the pentagon ?It would have been detected and shot down long before,same goes for a B-52 over Moscow so the Russians should only consider ICBMs and SLBMs in their strategic nuclear arsenal and give the Tu-160s only a tactical role.
Erm- what? A Tu-160 does not “drop” nukes. It launches it’s 12 Kh-55SM cruise missiles, with a range of 2,500-3,000km, and a 200kt warhead, at their targets. No one is sure to shoot down a Tu-160 from thousands of kilometres away. Same goes for a Tu-95MS16.
Equip Tu-160s with Kh-102s, and that range goes up to 5,000km.
VympelVikraal, yes perhaps Chinese Avionics are not up to par with Americans, but surely they’re catching up rapidlly and imo in 5-7 years they will be good enough.
In 5-7 years Europe will have just deployed their AESA radar on the Typhoon. That’s technology the US has already mastered and put on multiple aircraft platforms, to say nothing of the “sensor fusion” achievement of the F-22A or their advanced 3rd generation thermal imagers etc etc. Whether they’re rapid or not, they still have a long way to go.
VympelIt would be a terrible waste to build more Tu-160’s, too. Long-range bomber aviation is going the way of battleships.
The only countries with long range bomber aviation are Russia and the US- and the US has been proving for years that they’re extremely useful. Where’d you get the idea they’re “going the way of battleships”?
But they are even worse at that role than Tu-22M3. They dont carry special anti-ship missiles, and they dont have special targetting complex. Tu-160 was designed for only one role – intercontinental bomber with nuclear cruise missiles.
Erm … “even worse”? As for the Tu-160, equip it with Kh-15 SRAMskis. That’s all it needs.
VympelIf Severstal is being modernized (can we have a proper news article about that?) then it’s likely she’s being refitted for carrying the Bulava just like Dmitry Donskoi. If that’s the case, Arkhangelsk will be next in line.
VympelOr is it? Read what McCain said yesterday. There are unfortunately too many power groups and US defense contractors dying to obtain new Cold War projects.
Read “National Security Strategy” released by the White House on March 16.
Unless the NSS released on March 16 details an effort to massively ramp up their nuclear arsenal, I don’t see what there is to be worried about.
Then there’s China which will in time undoubtedly move to capture Russian Far East.
Sure, China could try that, if they feel like having their armies and cities reduced to slag by overwhelming Russian nuclear firepower that outnumbers their own many times over.
I think Russia is being gullible and vulnerable. See recent report
I’ve read it- in my view (it’s been discussed here but I mostly participated in discussions elsewhere), it’s mostly generalized nonsense.
Russia needs to beef up strategic defense ASAP and have room for growth yet.
As Russian tsar Alexander III put it: “Russia has only two allies: Army and Navy”. This holds true today more than ever…
Well, the Strategic Rocket Forces aren’t part of either 🙂 The only way Russia needs to beef up it’s strategic defense is to continue repairing it’s early warning system and to continue the procurement, as planned, of the Topol-M and Borey. And we know that Russia is going to start to develop a new “heavy” ICBM in a few years.
Vympel(Of course adding a booster would make the missile useless within 5-10km or so… which is a bit of a liability).
Why? Let Kashtan or Klinok take care of that.
Vympelonly a dozen of missiles on the 955 ! What a joke! Half of the Ohio class battery count!
That’s utterly besides the point. The Cold War is over and both sides are reducing their warheads to the ~2,000 range. Not to mention that the issue is more warheads than missiles.
VympelThe Typhoon is designed for much longer deployments than any other SSBN- that’s part of the reason why it’s so large. I mean, come on, there’s a swimming pool on the thing or something. It was the Soviet plan, so I hear, to remain deployed after a nuclear exchange, surface, and nuke the West all over again in the middle of rebuilding. Ouch.
VympelWhen you mentioned the aerials as one sure-fire way to distinguish a MiG-29SMT (without the huge spine) from a MiG-29(9.12 or 9.13) or MiG-29S, which ones did you mean?
Sign In
