RSM55At least we have some data and experiences here to stick, when the PAK-FA is real fiction, when not even the size of metal is known. 😀
And what kind of data and experience India has managed to amass here, compared to China, f.e.?
Light trainers, indigenous MBT, indigenous sub, indigenous carrier, indigenous SAM, indigenous light combat aircraft, even indigenous assault rifle – they are in effect dead in the water in spite of (or due to) years of R&D and billions invested. Even India’s space programme could not function without the Russians.
Meanwhile China has reproduced the Flanker, produces its own mobile IRBM and maybe ICBMs, has started SLBM production, has mastered access to space and produces its own light trainer and advanced fighter.
Fact is that India, while being quite capable to build some demo prototypes, is still absolutely unable to start any kind of serial production of any advanced military hardware that is not at least licensed to India.
And it will not change very soon, given the 14mil new unqualified workforce that India has to find a job for every year for and the total reliance on a few high tech and semi-high tech outsourced industries that employ a relatively little portion of India’s population, combined with a state deficit rising by 8 billion USD every year.
RSM55The VVS replaces the “old” Red-Star” with a new three-coloured one …
I think this is it …. (via “ucon” from the Secret-Projects-Forum !!)
Deino
Not yet, not yet… (c) The State Duma has approved the new law in a 1st hearing. It’s not in force yet. The Air Force is rather unimpressed by this great idea, to say the least.
As for my part and MHO: Those MPs (I mean Duma delegates) are definitely a pathetic, ankle-biting and brain-drained incompetent bunch of rear-body-parts holes that should deserve a ten-year term in a Siberian uranium mine populated by muscular perverts and ultra-sadists permanently high on crack and amphets.
Sorry for my French.
Even if one disregards the historical and symbolic significance of the Red Star adorning RuAF aircraft, this is still one the most easily recognised and picturally clearest markings worldwide, i.e. it fulfils its role perfectly.
On the other hand, it is absolutely not a politically marked symbol, for those who ignore it think about Mars and five-pointed stars in the world military.
And heraldry has nothing to say about it either: the official Russian coat-of-arms is RED, and features an eagle with its wings spread, that could easily provide an excuse for a 5-pointed star cockade.
But that’s all dog’s barking in the desert while the stupid caravan will go on and on and on. Unfortunately.
😡
RSM55so if somebody would be gentle to explain me this…
Well, in fact most of the questions can be answered by quick Google search, but that’s what the forum is for 😀 :
-TopolM is a solid fuel rocked? (Y/N)
Yes
-SS-24 is based from the TopolM? (Y/N)
If they didn’t invent a time machine, NO 😀 If you think “RS-24”, then YES.
-The Bulave is a sister of the SS-24? (Y/N)
A very very distant one and probably breeded with a different kind of species doing very different things 😀 In short, NO.
-Ther is a link between the Topol and the Bulava? (Y/N)
Yes. Production methods, production techniques, bus, warheads.
But that applies more to the Topol M than to the Topol -.
[QUOTE]Now, if the Sileva (SS-24?) is a liquid fuel based rocked, i would understand why the ruskis are thinking on trains, since a liquid based propulsion would be a hell to develop in a small system like a big trailer…(EDIT)Other, than, welll, seems the topol weight is just 40 tons , whule the ss-24 is 100 tons, ok that should be the main reason…
OK. That’s a point for Google.
Quickly:
SiNeva is not the SS-24.
Sineva is a sea-launched ballistic missiles, as you might notice, size/weight/measures are one of the primary requirements for anything launched from a sub. You’ve noticed the mass yourself.
BTW, a rail-launched Sineva is an idea and as far as I know is and will remain an idea. It just gives some info about the capabilities of the said missile.
Both the Topol and Bulava will not have any influence in the russian space program?, seems the NASA is thinking in solid rockets as the future launcher concept in the space exploration with the Ares program.
Good question, but no.
They are not as desperate as NASA for the moment 😀
RSM55RSM you said previously that russian are fielding with Bulava/rs24 the smallest warheads they ever built.
I said the lightest, not the smallest 😀
is there any talk about Cep?
Of course not. I can’t say anything about that. Haven’t been to Kura recently 😀
Rsm it seems then that russians just wrecked the missiles and not those 36 trains which carried ss-24?
The trains are declassified and most of them have been destroyed.
Any other system as the SS-24 would need another carriage anyway.
any news on the remaining “3” Typhoons?
At least one is being dismantled right now.
No final decision on the others yet.
RSM55As promised yesterday 😉 :
SUCCESSFUL BULAVA LAUNCH
The Dmitri Donskoy succesfully launched a Bulava missile today. Warhead(s) imitators reached the aimpoint at the Kura test range successfully. Separation said to be nominal.
RSM55Guys, all of you are right 😀
The Russian AF is indeed VERY interested to acquire the Su-35.
Not only as an interim fighter before the PAK-FA, but as a replacement for a part of its SU-27 regiments and certainly most of its MiG-29 numbers.
The Su-35 is still undergoing tests. No way the RuAF is going to formally order an aircraft that hasn’t finished its test phase yet.
By contrast, the Su-34 has been accepted into service and a small batch has been ordered for combat eval, but there are still discussions in the AF about the real need for such an aircraft vs modernisation of the Su-24M to the M2 or GM levels and the “multirolisation” of the existing Su-25/27 fleet.
PAK FA will fly next year indeed. The procurement programme itself might be delayed, because of the reasons stated above. It’a a risk assessment after all. My guess is that the RuAF will opt for a batch of 100+ PAK FAs for the coming 12 years, with 150+ later. Not more.
The PAK FA will basically mirror the Raptor numbers and missions, as well as some Lighting missions, and will be deployed much more massively in the Far East and the Northern District than in the West/South, whereas the Su-35 will basically mirror the (big) niche of the Super Hornet and the F-15E.
The Su-35 has never been thought about as a pure air superiority fighter.
Its aim is to provide potent and effective airspace denial capability while carrying a big inventory of ordonance for AG operations if needed, and still being a capable fighter should danger come ahead.
It’s basically a AG/anti-ship missile and bomb bus on steroids, with a very powerful radar. And a decent interceptor against most of the threats Russia will face in the coming 20 years. I know it’s not the standard reading on this thread, and even on Russian threads – but that’s what the RuAF wanted. They didn’t want a “kinda Raptor without stealth”.
Specialised interception missions will remain the privilege for upgraded Foxhounds. Specialised strike missions will be given to upgraded Frogfoots and (maybe) UCAVs resembling the Skat prototype – if the eggheads in the MoD finally understand the importance of such assets.
RSM55Gate wrote
Those days have long since gone. There is no need or requirement to violate Russian airspace. Intelligence collection is collected from international airspace. As stated before the aircraft can legally approach all the way up to the 12nm to conduct their missions.
Official Russian MoD data shows for 2007:
– more than 650 trackings of foreign military aircraft “close to national airspace”
– more than 120 intercepts
– 24 recorded border near-violations resulting in intercepts: 8 administrative violations (military transport that thought it was cleared but the respective administration failed to deliver the report to the Air Force), 7 near-violations or unintended violations (navigation failure, violation of air safety rules, direct course violations), 9 intended violations, 7 of them in the Far East.
It does of course include not only NATO, but Ukrainian, Chinese, Kazakh, Iranian etc aircraft.
RSM55Mobility ensures MAD, especially at low overall platform/warhead levels.
The talk about a rail-based Sineva was motivated by the necessity to provide flexibility for the Strategic Missile Forces arm, with the deactivation of most SS-18 and 19 pending and RS-24 / Topol M production still low. The Sineva is definitely the best (liquid-propellant) missile in its class ever, and may be the best ICBM ever also. It is extremely reliable, and its boosting phase is almost as short as solid-fuel’d missiles. So the idea is quite logical. IMHO it will remain what it is – an idea.
Mobile liquid-fueled missiles have been fielded by the USSR decades ago, without any serious incident. But they still want to play safe, hence no road-based TEL: rail-based is safer and (safety and maintenance procedures accounted) actually cheaper.
On the liquid MIRV thruster: Hydrazine? Be careful not to make a BMD’s job too easy.
Hydrazine or not, it allows you to switch on/off the engine several times without taking risks and losing impetus. It also allows you to bring any hypothetical air-breathing MARV close to the optimal re-entry path individually, and not just drop them while in semi-orbit one by one.
RSM55read somewhere that rs-24 is just a Topol M with the warhead bus from the ss-20 pioneer.that would explain the very fast development of it.maybe we should call more an adaptation work.
Rsm55 do u know what will happen if Bulava is a failure?will there be a revival for the BARK program or they could refit Sinevas in Borei’s as a military analyst suggested?are the options feseable?
Not on the current Boreis. It would delay the buiding schedule beyond 2020.
If there is another Bulava failure, they’ll stick to the “Duracell strategy”: go on and on and on. Test after test. Till it kinda works. And actually it does already.
There are talks about a rail-based Sineva, though. No word about a rail-based Bulava.
The Bulava bus certainly does have a “lineage” from the SS-20, but has basically not much to do with it. Its the lightest bus the Russians ever build. And basically the same bus is on the RS-24.
RSM55So … will it fly before the A400M? 😀
What will? The An or the Chinese one? I mean, the An existed in 3D and flying long before the 400M hit the blueprint 😀
2 Deino:
Quite simple, they do it in order to block it and secure production rights in case they need it. Well, and of course in order to tell the Ukrainian industry who they depend on 😀
An-12 replacement is not finalised yet. Most probably it will be a mix of Il-76MF and some other airplane. An-70 and derivatives still have a good chance. But the problem is that the An-70 is way over the An-12 replacement specs.
RSM55First of all why ???
(only to prevent the Ukraine finally to build this plane ?? … as I don’t expect Russia to proceed with a Russian version of the An-70)… and second ! That’s the first time I’ve heard this … any source !!??
Deino :confused:
Well the “why” is clear: Antonov badly needed cash, the Russkies kindly offered some. With collaterals 😀
Source: I’d have to shoot you 😀 On a more serious note, it’s a private contract about R&D property and intellectual property in a former Soviet Union state… meaning what is means. You’ll never see any document corroborating this on the net. On the other hand, the official proprietor of the R&D tech data is Antonov Technavia Ltd, based in Cyprus, 80% of the shares owned by GORAvia Moscow Plc, based in BVI, that is in turn owned by a trust that happens to belong to OAC of Russia. And now I’ll willfully drink my polonium dosis myself 😀
On the other hand, the Russians have bought all the insurance rights for the said project, and that is an official governmental statement – that’s the reason why.
RSM55Russia tests another RS-24
A RS-24 multiple warhead missile has been tested today (26 Nov.), INTERFAX reports. Launch from Plessetsk, all warheads imitators reached the Kura test range in the Kamtchatka. The test emphasis was the testing of space defense measures and the calibration of new tracking instruments. It’s the third test of a RS-24 (all tests were successful).
http://www.lenta.ru/news/2008/11/26/plesetsk/
Wait for a new Bulava test in the coming hours.
RSM55http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2008/11/24/china_to_build_large_military_cargo_plane/5027/
Not sure how true this is, but a couple of salient features in the article are interesting. I was unaware that 2 more prototypes/test An-70’s were constructed.
An interesting choice going for jet engines. I wonder if there will be 2 or 4?
The whole tech. documentation has been bought by Russia two years ago and the Russians have several times stated that the whole expertise and design work is now their property. If the Ukrainians will share their know-how and transfer blueprints to the Chinese, it will effectively mean the end of any form of cooperation between Russia and Ukraine concerning this project. It will be not a rebirth, but the final death blow to the An-70.
RSM55Like this picture? I like the “PHOTO AND VIDEO SHOOTING PROHIBITED” sign.
Yeah, I told you he was cleared. The sign was there for all the guys preceding him.
Also, is that Windows 98 on one of those consoles?
Worse, I’ll tell you a terrible secret: some consoles have Win 95!!! 😀
Jokes aside, the consoles with Windows are the external open comms – no big deal.
The Russian MoD got the open gov.licence code from MS in 1999 already. For not fast-track, open architecture systems, Windows is still better than any open source. Half of NORAD runs on Windows, and they’re still on air AFAIK.
RSM55Guys, I humbly suggest you all stop this useless rant, close the topic and just wait till Iran finally builds a bomb, puts it on a IRBM or ICBM, fires it at any given target and then we will, lo and behold, know who was right and who was wrong.
Alternatively, I suggest waiting for WWIII and see whether Russia was right to worry or not.
The rest is (hopefully) silence.
Sign In
