UAZYou may have to add the cargo version of the AN-148. Too early to talk about numbers as the project is not finalized yet.
A few Czech L-410 turboprops may be added too.
UAZThink of it this way:
Russia will need replacements for : IL-76, IL-78 and A-50 in the short to medium term. The candidates are IL-96, AN-70 and IL-476.
Russian Industry (VASO assembly plant in particular) is not geared up to assemble more than 1-2 IL-96s per year. Even during the 80’s the Soviet Union was producing just a handfull of Il-86s per year. Short of investing huge sums of money and opening a whole new assenbly plant, Russia will never be able to produce enough 96s to requip its AWACS and refuelling fleet, let alone a cargo transport plane. As much as I like the 96, it is destined to die by the middle of this decade.
AN-70 may seem to be a promising aircraft, but it still needs miles to reach serial production status. Coming up with an AWACS version will take even longer.
That leaves the IL-476 which (with relatively minimal investment) can be produced in significant numbers, can yield refuelling and AWACS version quicker and has an almost guaranteed successfull export potential.
UAZNew system. Which shares some elements with Palma and Pantsyr.
What is the system mounted on the Gorshkov frigate model displayed at the show? Palma or Pantsyr?
UAZ
Beast.
What is the thingy under the belly of the beast?
UAZAustin,
You succeeded in confusing me until I realized that the articles you posted are over a year old.
UAZhttp://topwar.ru/5005-nochnoy-ohotnik-i-alligator-idut-v-voyska.html
Hmm, wow.
“Сейчас выпускается 16 вертолетов в год, а в планах выпуск будет доведен до 20–25 машин.”
Currently 16 Mi-28N are made per year, planned to increase to 20-25. How many do they plan to have in total, these are much better numbers that I expected. Between Ka-52, Mi-28 and Mi-35M, the attack helicopter future is excellent. Hope to see new A2G munitions on these birds.
They will need to produce that many to be able to deliver the ones ordered by Venezuela and Algeria.
UAZWell a single country with that amount of cruise missiles might worry some people but this isn’t a single country we’re talking about, his statement is clearly designed to stir up fears over Western stockpiles and increase defence spending in Russia in a bid to match it. It’s a classic arms race tactic, only problem is this particular arms race has been over for 20 years.
There is a major flaw in your theory.
The US did indeed resort to scaremongering techniques to justify a defense expenditure to the taxpayers and general public.
Russia does does not need to do that. The public in general is not against strengthening the Armed forces. Everybody knows that the Russian Army needs the money to modernize.
The interviewed General does not need to use typical US psycho-socio scarmongering-warmongoring-theskyisfalling preaching . If the Russian Defense budget needs to be increased, Putin/Medvedev will just sign a decree and no one will complain.
Anyays, this political discussion is off topic. If you still want to believe in your theory, please do so. And if you want to keep on discussing, please let’s move it to Private Messaging as this subject is going to pollute this thread.
UAZThey? who is ‘they’? Lot’s of different countries with lots of different reasons and unlike during the Cold War they won’t all be pointed at Russia and it’s allies. His statement is just the usual Cold War scaremongering like JFK’s bomber gap, only it’s 20 years out of date and no longer relevent.
Personally I’m a little sceptical about his figures and what he’s choosing to call a cruise missile as well.
Think of it this way: wouldn’t NATO Commanders be worried if Russia (or anybody else) had 80,000 cruise missiles in inventory? Cold war is not the worry, a hot one is.
I agree with the later part of your post. I believe the interviewed General is calling every precision guided weapon of some range a “cruise missile”.
UAZSo what? Cold War has been over for 20 years now.
So why do they need 80,000 cruise missiles?
UAZQuick question:
Do all the Mi-35s have fixed landing gears, or there is an option for having retractable ones?
UAZThere are photos of Azeri Smerch, Tiger. The Mi-35 contract was recently signed, they are in the factory right now. This is all confirmed, so……the Venuzuelan Mi-28 thing is irrelevant. Algeria is indeed getting yak-130, that is fact.
Further you seem confused by what I said about the MiG-35. I did not say it was a sure buy. What I felt was dismissing its sales as useless and impossible, is silly.
The Azeris got their Smerchs from Ukraine (not Russia), they don’t have Tigrs. There are reports of them ordering S-300 and Mi-35. With the corrupt government that they have, nothing should be taken as confirmed until we see the equipment.
Having said that, the oil-rich sheikhdom of Azerbaijan could financially afford any of the above weapons system. What they eventually end up buying has nothing do with what their armed forces need… their purchases are solely dictated by how much money on the side their ruler-for-life Aliyev can make (and that is exactly where the lion’s share of their defense budget goes).
UAZThe second ship of the project 21630 class was supposed to be launched on April 29th. It was delayed because of the low level of water on the Neva river. The launch should happen any day now.
I am hearing that it will carry Kh-35 URAN missiles (unlike the first boat) and will join the Caspian fleet this year.
UAZInteresting photos at this show in April, including IL-476 and an AWACS version.
https://picasaweb.google.com/saidpvo/ummaEG#
UAZIt´s not only about the range. The Yakhont is nowhere near as powerful as Granit, and it´s not adecuate for fighting att that range.
The issue is that they removed the Fort launchers to make space for Kalibr complex. Whatever they could fit in, will not be near the Fort which had 96 missiles, which is a renounce to the ability to fight against fleets, to then perform a self-defense role only.
As of future weapons, you have to realize, that the overhaul is inminent, either this year or next one. What it will be? It´s just cheaper and less complicated, to remove previous Fort, Granit, install Kalibr which is the new standart, some shorter range 9М96 missiles as self air defense, remove Kinzhal, Kortik, add naval 9М100 or alike and Gibka. You then have a more “versatile” enormous nuclear cruiser with the fighting ability of a frigate.
Please go back and read my previous post more carefully. No offense intended.
As I mentioned, the 90 km range Fort will probably be replaced by a mix of the 250 km Krepost (Naval S-400) and the longer range version of the 9M96 (120 km) missile in a navalized Vityaz complex. The modernized ships will have more modern missiles (21st century tech vs 80’s tech), longer range (250 km and 120 km vs 90 km) and more missiles (4 x 9M96 occupy the same volume as 1 Fort). Air defense will be superior, not inferior.
As for the UKSK, we don’t know what they will put in them at ovehaul time… or later.
If they go for extended (Granite-like) range Yakhont/Onyx: they will be able to accomodate more missiles or use the cleared space for something else. Yakhont/Onyx flight characteristics will not be inferior to Granite’s, the only drawback is the larger warhead of the later. Which begs another question: Is a heavier warhead really needed? especially if it is nuclear tipped.
Regarding the subject of bringing back the battlecruisers vs building more new frigates, I do like to see shiny new frigates built; but the more I think about it, the more the battlecruisers make sense. Below are a few toughts:
1)There is no way way frigates can carry the equivalent of a battlecruisers in large radars, sensors, jamming equipment, communication equipment etc.
2)There is no way a frigate can accomplish long range missions (Venezuelans waters or Indian ocean for example) in distant waters at sustained speeds without a whole plethora of refueling ships, resupply ships and other support vessels. So if you want to go for frigates instead of bringing back the Battlecruisers, you must as well spend money in renewing your fleet of oilers, tankers etc or acquire many overseas bases (like the US Navy has done).
3)There is no way a frigate can deploy the same amount of deployable assets like helicopters, UAVs, marines etc.
4)There is no way for a frigate to carry enough SAM missiles to stop a massive air attack in the form of airplanes and anti-ship missiles.
5)There is no way way for a frigate to launch massive saturation attacks with AShM missiles to overwhelm the opponents anti-missile sytems.
6)There is no way a frigate can launch massive salvo of land atack cruise missiles (Kaliber or Granat) to incapacitate an opponent.
And on and on…
The RuNavy planners with future mission requirements and a given budget had a choice:
– invest in a large number of frigates (to equal the firepower of 3 battlecruisers) and a fleet of support ships
OR
-bring back the 3 Battlecruisers
They seem to have made their choice. They must know a thing or two 😉
UAZBecause it was already stated:
“It is planned to remove Granit and Fort installations, and install an universal complex (УКСК), with Oniks and Kalibr (Klub)”http://vpk.name/news/46823_moment_istinyi_dlya_ubiic_avianoscev.html
Yakhont, no version is comparable to Granit, neither in terms of range or power. These weapons certainly do not justify the removal of those 20 Granits, which had ranges of 500-600 Km and sunk carriers.
Tsirkon-S? not ready in this time-frame, atleast for the Nakhimov.
About air defense, what they will do is remove the Fort installations, which had like 100 missiles, and install “some” 9М96 missiles, both less in quantity and in range.
It´s not “modernisation”. Just that it seemed easier and less costly to conver a dedicated “fleet fighting” platform into a more flexible and multirole one, at a cost of wasting such a big hull, for that you better build frigates with the same weapons, and not these big cruisers.
There is nothing that stops the Russians to stretch the range of Yakhont/Onyx to 500 – 600 km and beyond (they probably already have). Modern Anti-ship missiles don’t need to be Granite-sized to have that kind of ranges.
As for the removal of the 90 km Fort system, we can only speculate on the replacement: 250 km-range Krepost (Naval S-400)? longer version of 9M96 (120 km) ?
Sign In
