dionisI think it’s a safe bet to assume they are the old type of missile and not the updated varient, they’d be bragging about the order if it were the new type.
What sort of idiotic comment is that? Bragging about upgraded A2A missiles?
When was the last time any bragging happened? Any further reply will feature a link, or you will be ignored till further notice.
dionisI’m not asking what the RVV-SD and MD is. I’m asking you to post concrete proof that those were the missiles ordered. other wise you’re just speculating
It’s “educated speculating” – you didn’t get my point I guess.
If you know they top-line upgrades of the R-73/77, you should also figure that it wouldn’t make sense to order much older versions.
ZHUKOVSKY, August 21 (RIA Novosti) – The Russian Air Force and the Tactical Missile Weapons corporation signed on Friday a 6 billion ruble ($190 mln) contract for modern air-launched missiles, the force’s commander said.
“In the next two years, the Russian Air Force will take delivery of an advanced missile complex, comprised of 14 different types of weapons,” Col. Gen. Alexander Zelin said.
The contract was signed at the ongoing MAKS-2009 air show just outside Moscow.
Media reports said the new weapons would be installed on Sukhoi fighters.
Note: 14 types of weapons!
dionisEr no, S330FM is a missile “system” like Standard. AEGIS is an entirely different beast seperate of the missile system. Honestly a combat management system is not the same.
AEGIS includes radars and missiles, and computers essentially. So does the S-300FM.
Ok lets consider the “nightmare” (and very unlikely) scenario of a Ruskie Vs NATO conflict. To attack targets in the USA, UK, France, Spain ye olde Tu95 is going to have to penetrate NATO airspace (even just a little, even over the sea). It WILL need EW defences otherwise its a sitting duck – what is it going to defelect an AMRAAM or METEOR with? The airbreaks? How will it mask its approach? a cunning disguise and a giant moustache? B52s have a pretty good EW set up and are faster- Max speed for a TU95 is 575 mph, compared 650 for a B52 so it does win the prize for slowest old bomber by quite a margin. Comparing it to the speed of a MARPAT or AWACs is a waste of time as they are not designed to penetrate enemy airspace…
TU95 has been kept on not because it is “amazing” (and don’t get me wrong, lovely aeroplane, in its day) but because Russia (like many othet nations) cannot afford to build the replacement.
Uhhh, here’s your homework:
1) Open Google Earth
2) Draw a line from Engles Airbase to the UK – 3200KM.
Point made – the Kh-555 is sufficient to attack the UK all the way from the Tu-95 airbase! Kh-101 is 5000KM range.
To attack the US, the Russian bombers simply have to fly North. The earth is round, remember? And there’s no US or NATO on the North Pole, last I checked . . .
Sarcasm old boy :p , point is sending out the Kirovs is a waste of time. Like everyone else at present the main role at sea is anti-piracy patrols. Unless i’ve missed the report about somali pirates launching mass saturation attacks in the air I really cannot see what is to be acheived by reactivating two massively overmanned battlecruisers in order to provide area defence against an imagined foe :confused: Surely a cash strapped Navy such as Russia should be investing in future tech and better boats, rather than unzipping its fly and waving its rusting nuclear powered c**k at everyone.
The Kirovs will ensure that no one messes with Russian interests in the North pole. This includes over-ambitious potential clowns from Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc.
Russia has enough frigates and destroyers to deal with the “pirate problem” 20 times over.
dionislike the guy above, i see missile contracts but nothing specific like the RVV-SD/MD you mention. you got a better more detailed link?
and I use Dionis soap too! 🙂
The RVV-MD is a deep R-73 upgrade.
The RVV-SD is a deep R-77 upgrade.
It makes no sense to go back in terms of technology when UMC can manufacture new ones.
Other weapons will likely include KAB-500S (GLONASS guided) bombs, Kh-36 multi-modular A2G missiles to replace the Kh-25, more Kh-29s perhaps, new versions of the Kh-58U and Kh-59MK.
dionis5% is nothing on a 100 mil pricetag (or more!)
dionisgood point. People can go on and on about the Su-35S raw performance but a tiger is only as lethal as the sharpness of its fangs and claws.. and here we haven’t seen major developments in Russia’s missiles. Lots of ideas and prototypes (some only at mock up stage) but Russia rarely ordering anything themselves.
Incorrect. The largest deal ever for missile delivery was signed at MAKS 2009.
The RVV-SD is a 110KM range missile, equivalent to AIM-120C5-7 variants.
The RVV-MD is essentially a longer ranged Python 5. (40KM)
dionisCan anyone please explain what is the realistic range of R-33, some sources I read say its worse than a sparrow about 30km ! it seems unlikely given its huge size and the powerful radar on mig-31 plus its intended mission
thanks
nate
What sources are these? I want to see them LOL!
Are you confusing it with the R-73?
dionisAEGIS is not the missile, its a combat management system that has been continualy updated since its inception. The russian fleet has nothing like it, very few navies do. It has little to do with what weapon is carried, technically it could be set up to guide any missile.
S-300FM is not a missile either . . . it’s a SAM system, much like AEGIS is at its core. It has range, tracking, engagement capabilities. . .
The TU95 is a sticking plaster on a strategic force that cannot afford to buy new equipment. It carries little in the way of decent EW defences, is agonisingly slow, has the stealth charateristics of a large contra-prop bomber and the idea that it would easily get into position against (say) NORAD to pulverise targets is stretching credibilty a little too far me thinks. Perhaps against Georgia it did the job but thats hardly the same is it?
The fact the RAF has no bombers is by the by really, while sad it doesn’t make the TU95 any less of a dinosaur….
The Tu-95MS is being modernized and maintained because it’s such an amazing aircraft. It needs no EW, and flies as fast as any MARPAT aircraft or B-52 or AWACS. . . It needs no defense upgrades as its not going out or very far from Russian territory to hit its enemies with cruise missiles, which feature 3500 – 5000KM range.
Toy destroyer? 7000 tonne + is a lot of toys. There is a delay in fielding Viper due to a wiring **** up by MBDA, but at least the RN is building the right type of ship and not trying to reactivate HMS Belfast… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Belfast_(C35)
and lest face it the RN will be fielding two shiny new carriers long before the Ruskies get to that point…. (but lets not get into a pissing contest :p )
Yeah good comparison, a 1930s rust bucket and a 1980s nuclear powered battlecruiser. :rolleyes:
dionisCIWS don’t really make for decent AAW, sure they’ve got lots of missiles on them but can they do AAW better than 3 destroyers where the 700 odd crew of a Kirov could be better employed?
A Kirov’s huge AAW loadout is really just there to protect while it gets into range for using those Granits which outside of an full blown war against a peer opponent really do seem a bit pointless.
An aircraft carrier should be able to do all the core functions such as flagship duties of a taskgroup, there’s shouldn’t be any need for a big battlecruiser to share those with.
3 destroyers will cost far more than 1 Kirov to restore. Far far more. And nuclear is always a bonus.
Granits are a good deterrent force against larger opponents. These can also be replaced by more Yakhont type missiles.
Russian CIWS systems are actually extremely decent AAW, for missile defense that is, in the form of the Kashtan.
The Russian Navy would do better to accelerate this programme than spending money on putting back into service outdated and labour extensive Cold War era monstrosities like Kirovs.
As mentioned before, restoring 1 Kirov > Building 1 destroyer.
Enough said.
dionisThey can do area air defence but then so can much smaller and cheaper ships, lets face it they only really exist to carry a load of Granits and what exactly is the relevance of those now the Cold War has ended?
The Russian Navy should scrap these money pits and build what it really wants: aircraft carriers.
“They can do air defense” – is damn right, and much better than any “smaller cheaper” ships since they can carry far far more CIWS systems, and more missiles of medium – long range, and carry more powerful sensors.
And those carriers, nuclear, will go really well with nuclear battle cruisers as the core of an attack group.
Really? Honestly? The Kirovs belonged to another age when they were built and look like dinosaurs in the digital age. Yes they will add some powerful AshM to the fleet and some area defence but without an equivilant system to AEGIS or SAMPSON the Kirovs look “terribly 1980s”.
The main reason for putting two ships to sea with a combined complement of 1420 men is that the RU has few large surface units to sit in the heart of a battlegroup, this is mainly a cosmetic to give the appearnce of military might and progress. Like the TU95s intercpted of Scotland last year, the same TU95s that Lightnings and Phantoms used to escort were now being met by Typhoons, the rest of the world has moved on the Russian military has been pretty static.
AEGIS is 1980s . . . the S-300FM system is no worse than anything installed on US Burkes. The system only lacks about 30KM range on the SM-2ER.
The Tu-95 isn’t going anywhere, what an idiotic comparison. The UK can’t even afford bombers. The Tu-95MS is a beastly, reliable platform that can pulverize just about any enemy with cruise missiles, while staying airborne for hours after hours. This capability needs no innovation or replacement, just new missiles, which come in the form of the Kh-555 and Kh-101.
I’m sure the peacetime USN, relaxing at normal states of peacetime readiness was soooo shocked that a couple of old fighter bombers in international waters flew by. The same stunt in a time of tension or war would have a very different outcome…. would like to see a 30 year old SU24 with next to no modern EW get near a USN battlegroup then.
For that matter an RN, FN or Dutch BG either….
Haha, you mean the air-defense-less RN that has no missiles installed on its shiny new toy destroyer? Seriously now . . .
Probably more becausethe Kirov’s and Slava’s are the only ships in the Russian Navy Inventory with an Area Air Defense Capability, and the ships currently announced to be under construction do not have the ability to replace that capability.
The new destroyer slated to be revealed in 2011 will hopefully feature a naval S-400 or maybe even S-500 system 😉
dionisThe Russian Navy would be almost certainly be better off scrapping those outdated money pits and building some modern and more efficient ships.
Most naive comment I’ve seen in a while.
These ships can single-handedly take on some smaller Navies, and have no match in the world in terms of potential capability.
dionisNavy restores nuclear cruisers
Deputy Defense Minister, Chief of the Armed Forces of arms Vladimir Popovkin said on the radio station Ekho Moskvy that the Navy plans to return to the battle of the nuclear cruisers.
“There is a program of construction of frigates and corvettes, that is, ships near zone. Adopted a program of restoration of our nuclear cruisers, which now stand at the wall “- told Popovkin.
According to Popovkin, to solve problems at a large distance from the coast of Russia needed just such ships, that do not need to supply vessels. “Two or three of these cruisers, we should be” – he said. “Gazeta.Ru”
http://www.gazeta.ru/news/lenta/2009/09/19/n_1405266.shtml (Russian)
Vympel, in response to your news, I was expecting the above 😉
Good news I would say, the Kirovs are next to none.
dionisIRST.
😉
Which one? The 1 trillion dollar one the US has in space that can track everything on one side of the planet, which also doesn’t exist?
Or the relatively short range ones that are commonplace in most military organizations?
dionisNot one of those missiles are fast enough to avoid defensive fires, but ALL of them are fast enough to light up like a christmas tree on defensive sensor systems and provide comparatively enormous warning/reaction time.
It is noteworthy that even the builders of the “superior” supersonic missiles have invested heavily in “Harpoonski” subsonic missile copies.
🙂
Haha, come on now. . . What sensors is the supersonic Klub going to light up that Tomahawk and Harpoon won’t around the same time?
dionisF-35 is capable of employing JDAMs or LGBs against less capable double digit SAMs such as Tor-M1, Buk-M1, Pantsyr, ZRK-BD (less radar power = shorter detection ranges against stealthy targets). But Gripen doesn’t have enough stealth to keep those same SAMs from shooting it before it can drop bombs using a medium altitude attack. This forces Gripen to use terrain masking and causes a dramatic reduction in Pk against the SAM battery, meaning more Gripen sorties would be required for DEAD.
Against a TOR, the bombs themselves may get shot down.
In the other cases, I don’t see a competent SAM commander emitting blindly or standing in the open for the F-35 to fly in and bomb the SAM battery. Best tactic would be to wait for the F-35 to be right over you, then pop out of cover, fire, and move.
Sign In
