I agree on points (1) and (2). I disagree in (3) because the operations area will be the Black Sea and may be the Mediterranean Sea.

Better Avionics = F-22
Better Stealth = F-22
Better Situational Awarness = F-22
Better Pilots = F-22
Better Radar = F-22
Better EW = F-22
Better Missiles = F-22
Better Manuverability = PAK FA (allegedly)
Better Price (cheaper) = PAK FA

Don’t get me wrong. The Russians built a decent aircraft that can compete with a Rafale or Eurofighter but it cant hope to match the Raptor. The US lead is far too big in virtually all areas. We were 20 years ahead in 1990 and 30+ years ahead now. G-d bless USA and our number one ally Israel

:p

Most of that claims were planned performances and never came near operational service. The present examples at Lipetsk are busy to bring a reduced capability variant into service and there is just a trickle of Su-34s because none will see the former experiences of the Tu-160 again. That was forced into service too early and all built examples have to be reworked considerably to reach a common standard for the small number kept.
The flight time limitations are set by the amount of lubricants available. 😉

Was this message posted in 1998 or is just wishful thinking? :D:D:D

The Sev is travelling the Sea-Wolf path: 🙁

A fourth-generation Russian nuclear-powered multipurpose attack submarine that was floated out on Tuesday is too expensive for serial production, a business daily said on Wednesday.

On Tuesday, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev arrived in the northern port of Severodvinsk to attend the official float-out ceremony.

The construction of the Severodvinsk, the first Project 885 Yasen (Graney) class submarine, began in 1993 at the Sevmash shipyard in Severodvinsk, but has since been dogged by financial setbacks. Russia planned to float out the submarine on May 7 to mark the 65th anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany in May 1945.

Russia’s Vedomosti daily said the price of the strategic project was kept secret, but the estimated cost reached $1 billion.

Mikhail Barabanov, the editor-in-chief of Moscow Defense Brief magazine, said the submarine’s cost was too high to make it viable for serial production.

Barabanov told Vedomosti that the U.S. Navy did not produce a large number of advanced Sea Wolf submarines, similar to the Severodvinsk vessel, since they were too expensive. Instead of these, they use cheaper and unsophisticated Virginia-class submarines.

The expert said the Russian Navy would probably replace the Severodvinsk nuclear submarine with a more affordable analogue. Barabanov said the second Yasen (Graney) class submarine Kazan was the most probable alternative to the Severodvinsk submarine.

Russian experts expect Graney-class submarines to boost the Navy’s operational effectiveness and combat capabilities.

Graney-class nuclear submarines are designed to launch a variety of long-range cruise missiles (up to 3,100 miles or 5,000 km), with conventional or nuclear warheads, and effectively engage submarines, surface warships and land-based targets.

The submarine’s armament includes 24 cruise missiles and eight torpedo launchers, as well as the mines and anti-ship missiles.

MOSCOW, June 16 (RIA Novosti)

Is the “Virgina-sky” class coming?

:confused:

The propeller looks… exotic and the work-quality looks … super. 🙂

Mini-subs….the last word in mine warfare! 😀

Poor sensors, poor situational awareness, poor mobility, limited endurance. Essentially a lot has to go wrong for an offensive task force commander if he’s let one of these get in so close that they get a firing solution on a major unit!.

Agreed!

Navy lobbying?

Russia plans to spend 13 trillion rubles ($417 billion) on its rearmament program through 2020, Gen. Oleg Frolov, acting chief of armaments at the Defense Ministry, reported to the State Duma on June 3.

He said this should be enough for rearming the strategic nuclear forces, the Air Force and the Air Defense Force, but the Army and the Navy will have to make do with available weapons and can expect only minor supplies of new armaments.

To fully finance all requirements of the armed forces, Russia must allocate 28-36 trillion rubles ($898 billion – $1.15 trillion) over the next ten years.

What can the Russian armed forces expect to receive under the program?

The Air Force is to receive 350 new aircraft and 400 new or modernized helicopters in the next five years. In ten years’ time, the entire fleet will include 1,500 fixed and rotary-wing aircraft, including at least 800 new and modernized combat planes. The highlight of the program is the fifth-generation T-50 jet fighter, which is expected to be mass produced in 2015.

Military transport aviation will get funding to maintain existing planes (Il-76, An-22 and An-124 Ruslan) and buy a number of new ones, in particular Il-476, Il-112B, An-70, An-124 Ruslans, production of which is to resume soon, and possibly other types of aircraft.

The Air Defense Force will receive more S-400 missile systems in addition to the modernized S-300s, the Pantsyr short-range missile and gun systems, the S-500 systems currently under development, the Vityaz medium-range missile systems and other weapons.

The strategic nuclear forces, for which priority funding was advocated by generals and top politicians alike, will be supplied with Topol-M missiles and the RS-24 Yars MIRVed thermonuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles, as well as a new silo-based heavy missile.

The program for the Air Force includes modernization of the Tu-95 Bear and Tu-160 Blackjack heavy bombers and development of a next-generation strategic bomber often referred to as PAK DA, which stands for “future air complex for strategic aviation.”

The strategic naval nuclear forces are to receive eight Project 955 strategic boats armed with Bulava missiles, which are expected to complete flight tests within a year.

As for the Army and the Navy, they will have to resign themselves to receiving small amounts of new weapon systems. This could prove dangerous.

This level of rearmaments can be justified for the Army, as nearly all of Russia’s neighbors have abandoned army modernization plans and many of them have even decided to make drastic cuts in their forces and are reviewing their weapons programs.

In particular, the United States has dropped its ambitious Future Combat System program, which called for the development of new combat vehicles, from self-propelled guns to infantry combat vehicles. Germany and Britain have scaled back their plans to develop new tanks, and Russia has recently discontinued its T-95 tank project.

Russia’s current plans for the Army are apparently limited to the modernization and repair of existing systems.

The situation in the Navy is even worse. Unless it receives proper funding for its rearmament program, it will be able to buy no more than 12-15 corvette/frigate warships, 6-8 multirole nuclear and diesel submarines and a number of ships and boats of other classes over the next ten years. The government might also fund the acquisition of four Mistral-class amphibious assault ships.

This is insufficient to replenish the Navy’s losses due to simple wear and tear. Given such meager supplies, by 2020-2025 the Russian Navy will be unable to operate independently in distant theatres, or protect Russia’s economic interests against a strong enemy in its territorial waters and key regions of the world, or support the Army in coastal areas. Moreover, it will be unable to ensure the operation of strategic submarines.

This is unacceptable, particularly in light of the growing importance of the Navy and naval theaters of war. This inertial development of the Navy will preclude the possibility of rapid improvement when the government finds the money for it.

If Russia fails to act soon, the Navy could find itself unable to defend the nation’s interests, sovereignty and territorial integrity. The only solution is to make military spending a greater percentage of GDP while ensuring that allocations are made wisely, because squandering money is one of Russia’s national pastimes.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

MOSCOW (RIA Novosti military commentator Ilya Kramnik)