star49Announcements are cheap, actual ship construction is not.
Russia can announce all the programs it wants, most of them are populist fantasies for local consumption, which no serious analyst gives any credence to.
Its actual ships under construction and commissioned that count, and on that score Russia is hopelessly outbuilt by both China and the United States.
Unicorn
Russia has correct approach. it is the only major Industrial country in world with Surplus budget and natural resources. It will still be rich when the rest of the world goes bankrupt.
Currently they are more investing in modernizing the ship yards but in one or two years. they have all the resources to import workers and expertize from the best in the World.
http://fin-forex.com/in-russia-by-means-of-south-korean-shipbuilders-will-construct-supershipyard/
Incorporated industrial corporation” and Daewoo Shipbuilding together will construct “supershipyard”, cообщает “Rosbalt” referring to IK “Antanta-capital”.OPK and Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering have signed the memorandum of cooperation in shipbuilding sphere. Cогласно to this document, the modern complex for building of large-capacity courts of admiralty by deadweight to 300 thousand tons will be created inthe Northwest Russian Federation.
Already existing capacities of Northern shipyard will be modernised. It is planned, besides other, building new and dry dock. Then the ship-building complex can manufacture vessels cumulative deadweight of 500 thousand tons in a year. For this purpose OPK takes the credit in VTB on $550 million
By summer of 2008 it will be officially declared merge of industrial divisions “Northern shipyard” and the Baltic factory which will save the existence as the enterprise.
In management of “Incorporated industrial corporation” there are assets in the total cost more than $13 billion in mashino – and shipbuilding (“Northern shipyard”, the Baltic factory, KB “Iceberg”), a financial sector (group of the International industrial bank), aircraft engineering (OKB “Dry”) and other branches
star49A damn sight less.
Australia concuded deals with Spain for three F100 / Hobart class Aegis destroyers and two Juan Carlos / Adelaide class LPA’s in the space of three years. The cost of either of those programs is larger than the cost to India of the Gorshkov fiasco.
Your argument does not seem to hold water.
It appears that you are unable to accept that Indian military and government procurement policies can get it horribly wrong.
Other countries such as the UK (Nimrod MPA), Canada (Cormorant helos & Victoria class subs), Australia (Super Sea Sprite), New Zealand (Charles Upham amphibious transport) and the US (Deepwater and the LCS programs) amongst others have made dreadful, costly and at times stupid military procurement errors.
What on earth makes you think that India is immune.
Try thinking a little less nationalisticly and little more dispassionately about the issues, your opinions will be more respected for it.
Unicorn
India had made correct choice and still it is bargain compare to anything other thing in 40,000 tons class. so where is the wrong choice.
star49Official US plans say 12 SSBNs of a new class and back up to 48 SSNs by 2035.
Russian plans are not well documented beyond the 8 or so by 2015, however that is unrealistic at the current pace. Long(er) term plans seem entirely unavailable, but maybe there are published/known target force levels?
Someone else to watch is China really, but I am going increasingly off topic.
that 8 SSBN is based on previous budget assumptions.. In long run China/US cant compete with Russia where extensive raw material/energy use is required for end product. simply because of this reason.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7610152
Russia is the world’s fifth-largest iron ore miner, with a 6 percent share of global production. While its output lags China and top exporters Australia and Brazil, Russia’s reserves outrank them all, promising a long future for iron mining. We have enough left for more than 100 years. In principle, our reserves are unlimited,” Nikolai Dronov, the chief engineer at the Lebedinsky mine, said at the edge of the pit.
if you use current exchange rate without taking into account currency appreciation even the old rearmament program is $225B now. and 25% of that is $55B for Naval. 40 are frigates. let assume $400m for each frigate price slightly lower than what is exported to India. so it around $16B.
So rate of two to three SSBN per year will not be a big deal. considering they are building 500,000 tons ship yardy for commerical.
but than Putin changed those things in 2008. with 70% money going to new weopons and 30% to current maintainance. i can forsee 20 to 30 SSBN.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070403/63019078.html
Recently, however, things with the Russian navy have been looking up. The state armaments program for the period until 2015 describes the development of the navy, as well as strategic nuclear forces of deterrence, as one of its main priorities. According to First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, the former defense minister, of the 4.9 trillion rubles ($188.53 billion) set aside for re-armament, 25% will be used to renew the navy.By 2010, Russia plans to increase its construction of warships by 50%, including building a series of 40 frigates, not fewer than ten each for the Northern and Baltic fleets. Submarines are under construction: strategic nuclear-powered submarine cruisers such as the Yury Dolgoruky, Alexander Nevsky and Vladimir Monomakh, which will be armed with new Bulava-30 strategic missiles (NATO reporting name SS-NX-30), as well as many other multi-purpose nuclear and diesel submarines
star49The fact is that MRCA has already been brewing for many years, and there is great eagerness to get the aircraft into service quickly. This is for a few reasons; firstly, the LCA delays; secondly, their Mig-21s desperately need replacement; thirdly, the Pakistanis are getting modern fighters. The MRCA project is needed to maintain squadron numbers, especially given the need to retire older types, especially the Mig-21s, -23s and eventually -27s and -29s.
For this purpose they already ordered 40 MKI and accelerated the delivery of kits. Upgrade of MIG-29 with multi-role capability make importance of 126 decrease with time.
As for your comment about not being able to deliver the same sort of deal as the Gorshkov and Mig-29K, there is some truth in this. Nobody else had an elderly carrier available, so anyone else would be selling a new carrier. You need to accept, however, that the Gorshkov is far from being a new carrier, even with all the overhaul. Also, at the price of the Gorshkov as it is now, it is genuinely questionable whether anyone else could have delivered a better offer! A French built carrier, e.g. the DCN Romeo design (i.e. their evolved CdG proposed for the French PA2 requirement), would have been much more capable than Gorshkov/Vikramaditya, and probably not have cost all that much more.
ur mistaken between export price for India and domestic price of European market. first India should sign M2K upgrade with all French equipment let alone aircraft carrier. Just 2000 ton submarine cost $500m. and your talking about 40,000 ton french carrier for export. It is not going to happen less than $10B with twice the delays.
http://www.airfleet.ru/index.php?staid=1001033
The Sagem-made Sigma 95NAA is the navigation system chosen for the MiG-29K. It contains a satellite navigation panel and is almost the same as the Sigma 95N (RL-90), installed on board the newest French shipborne fighter Rafale M. This system has a big advantage since it can be deployed right on vessel deck. Previously it was a problem to make it operational – both the vessel and the aircraft constantly move, the latter wobbles due to wind blasts.
The Sigma-set vertical has a precision of about 6min, thus providing high quality of navigation. The fact that about 20% of the budget for the whole MiG-29 avionics had been spent on the initial INS setting speaks for itself – the work was extremely hard and important. Today three parties go on with it – Sagem, Russian onboard equipment designers, and RSK MiG, head aircraft designer
The fact remains that India bought an elderly ship, that was never built for their purpose, simply because the sticker price was low. They got it at a bargain price, but then have had to pay through the Earth to make it work – in effect, they bought the equivalent of a rusty old 1976 Camaro, that has sat in the driveway for ten or more years, with one not-so-careful previous owner. They have then had to pay for a complete engine and transmission replacement, as well as replacement of most of the interior and bodywork. Hey presto, they end up paying almost as much as a brand new Camaro!
India bought it after 10 years of negotiation. how long do u think negotiation for French carrier will last with 5 times its price?
star49Also, last time I checked, the MRCA competition does not include the PAK-FA – the Russian submission is the Mig-35; PAK FA is intended more as a Flanker replacement. The MRCA competition is likely to be decided within the next year or two (RFPs have gone out, and submissions received already), so I doubt the Rafale production line will be finished before the close of the competition, I doubt it very much!
It is just your assumption. complex deal like MRCA cannot be decided in one or two years. just trials and negotians will take couple of years and that time there will be different prices. and that will force India turn towards 5th generation fighter for that price
There is no way on earth EU/US can come up with deal at Gorskhov/MIG-29K price with same capability.
As Unicorn says, Indian defence purchases were very rarely open, and this new determination to hold proper open competitions is an important change. India is becoming more interested in buying what works, not just what looks good on paper. For many years, for financial and political reasons, the Indians bought largely Russian equipment, because it was cheap, and actually available to them. Nowadays, they have a far wider choice, e.g. they can buy rifles, radars and even missile systems from Israel, fighters and helicopters from Europe, and transports from the US (notably the C-130Js they are buying). They will still buy a lot from Russia, e.g. tanks and helicopters, but if they can get their act together, on projects such as Arjun and Dhruv, they will be less reliant on Russia.
India purcahases alawys on competition. Just look Arjun/LCA engine selection from 1980s. EU/Israel are not small suppliers of weopons and especially of Naval ships/Diesel electric submarines/Eurocopeter etc. C-130 is very small number and it has more to do with Antonov does not come up with new models for turbo prop. IL-76/MTA are pretty safe for various roles from Tankers/Transport/AWACS etc. so all your assumptions are baseless.
star49YEs Dolgoruky class SSBN is someting to cheer about , they will have 7 of this class of SSBN by 2016 , per plans of 2005-201
As per plan 2005-2015 they are suppose to build 2 Yasen class SSN.
Much of major procurement of USN and RuN are almost decided a decade and half ahead
Each virgnia class cost $2.5 Billion and something similar for seawolf , but that is something USN can afford , even counting a fleet of 30 Virginia and 3 Seawolf thats till top of the line ssn , no country can come closer to it in figures or capability
Russia 2005-2015 military procurement was based on average Oil price of $60. So dont count on it. Alot can happen in currency and raw materials between now and 2015.
They just raised salaries to West standards in Strategic forces/airborne forces.
star49I have to disagree – the Indians are moving towards more open competitions, and is increasingly willing to pay for performance. As demonstrated in the Kargil war, the Mirage 2000 had availability rates that put their Russian fighters to shame.
Indians were always in open competitions. and only MIG-29 was comparable generation fighter to Mirage-2000 and it played its role. and those MIG-29 were far cheaper obtained compare to Mirage-2000. and they have crashed less also
As for transfer of technology, there have been problems there as well, notably on the Brahmos, where the Indians are complaining about the lack of full tech-transfer. Basically, the Indians are not going to suddenly just say “okay, we’re never going to buy Russian again”, but they will increasingly look elsewhere for items previously furnished by Russia.
so do you think there is no technology/price issues with other vendors?
If the Russians lose the MRCA competiton, then things may get worse even faster – I strongly suspect that the Russians will not take a loss like that sitting down. It could well see the Indians moving back from their heavy Russian influence, and towards European, Israeli and possibly even American equipment (less so). For instance, if MRCA were to go to Dassault’s Rafale, the future Indian fighter force could well end up being made up of mostly Rafales, Flankers and Tejas, with other Russian types retiring.
It will be long time before MRCA is decided. Even Rafale production line my close by than and only PAK-FA will remain in same competition.
star49Impossible? Doubt it. There wer able to develop Concorde decades ago even without Germany/Italy/Spain…
Your comparing different time periods and economic systems. like A-300 to A-350.
what this say about Money. Any thing which does not produce revenue remain outdated. and this concorde can carry less than half the payload to half the range of Tu-160. Imagine Concorde enlarge to Tu-160 performance even in 1970s would have bankrupted UK/France combined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde
Although Concorde was a technological marvel when introduced into service in the 1970s, 30 years later its cockpit, cluttered with analogue dials and switches, looked dated. With no competition, there was no commercial pressure to upgrade Concorde with enhanced avionics or passenger comfort, as occurred in other airliners of the same vintage, for example the Boeing 747
star49Well, I’d say lack of need plays a role here, not lack of capability. The legacy of British bombers combined with some modest French experience, I agree it’s not much but still doable if the need arises.
Some thing in between B-1/Tu-160 is doable for French-British combined but financially it is impossible even if Germany/Spain/Italy shared the burden.
star49The real question is going to be what the knock on effects will be – it has to be remembered that India is increasingly open to other suppliers. In particular, where they previously relied on Russia for pretty much anything complex, they are now buying Israeli missiles (Barak and the new super Barak thing), French/European missiles and in the future, Indian missiles! The Russian bargaining position is weakening with every year that goes by, and the more projects that go wrong, go overbudget, or simply disappoint, the worse it will get. I am hoping that MRCA goes to the Rafale, because it will be a suitable kick up the Russian’s behinds for the way they have been treating India.
The sad thing is that Sealord is right, though, the Indians really should have realised that the Russians were selling them a lemon. What makes it so much worse is that the Indians are willing to keep the lemon, and pay for it to be ‘fixed’. The best thing, as advocated by a number of us, would be to just cut their losses, and accept that the Indian-built carrier project is the only game in town (hence speeding it up!). It may mean accepting a $1bn plus loss, but in the long run, I get the distinct feeling that the name Vikramaditya/Gorshkov will send a shiver down the Indian Navy’s collective spines for many years to come! I doubt the final completion and handover will be the end of its problems! 🙁
Russians hands is going to strengthen over time as it pour more money on its own projects which may attractive to India. India chose things based on price, availability and transfer of technology.
Russians already got MIG-29 upgrade work while French are still waiting for configuration with third parties. Hawk and Scorpene does not inspire any confidence either.
http://www.business-standard.com/common/news_article.php?autono=326855&leftnm=3&subLeft=0&chkFlg=
As with the Gorshkov aircraft carrier, for which Russia cited cost overruns to double the contracted price to $1.2 billion, India has little choice but to pay up. MoD sources point out that even with the extra $64 million added on, NPO Saturn’s price will be less than what Snecma quoted. They also grudgingly accept that Russia is the only major arms manufacturer that actually transfers all the technology to India that is demanded in a contract. But the biggest reason for paying up quietly is that the IJT programme, which has already waited three years for this engine, will face a delay of several more years if it launches an international search for another engine.While waiting for the AL-55I engine to be developed, India has flown the IJT with an interim engine, the French Larzac power plant, which was never powerful enough for the Sitara. The AL-55I generates 20 per cent more power than the Larzac and also consumes appreciably less fuel per flying hour.
star49Britain still has a great aeronautical tradition of fighters and bombers and all classes of aircraft.
for example? Britain financial and technical resources are not there where it can completely build 4th generation fighter with all weopons and satellite guidance let alone 5th generation.
Swerve has more or less said all that needs to be said about any country’s indigenous aerospace industry/capability. The French have recently abandoned their policy of self sufficiency for combat aircraft – Rafale will probably be their last completely indigenous fighter. In Russia, PAK-FA will probably be their last completely indigenous fighter, (presuming that India will not be taking a financial or development stake in it) Many of Russia’s projects already have a foreign component/ cooperation: Sukhoi Super Jet, Mi-38, space programme, Brahmos etc.
where is Mi-38/Sukhoi Superjet/Brahmos/MKI in Russian service? they have domestic counterparts for military and governmnet use. like Tu-204/Tu-334. and there is 5th generation Strategic bomber project.
Even the United States has a load of foreign partners for its F-35.
US is free market economy.
star49Pay increase for nuclear.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080629/112514665.html
According to Putin, servicemen’s pay will rise to 65,000 rubles ($2,750) per month and the pay of officers on combat duty on board of submarines and nuclear-powered cruisers, in units of the Strategic Missile Force and rapid response units will rise to 100,000-150,000 rubles ($4,230-$6,355) per month.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7609028
“Russia is the only country in the world, which has a nuclear parity status with the U.S.,” Kudrin told a tax conference. “The nuclear war cannot start as long as there is nuclear parity… Russia’s mission is to carry this burden.”
star49And you do not see the obvious contradiction in your line of reasoning as we change from subject from subject?
When we were talking about Bisons V J7s, you were insisting that the battle would be over in BVR and that the J7s would never get a chance to get into WVR. Yet in explaining the eagle ‘kills’ made by Bisons, you go into depth about how tactics and suprise were used by the Bisons to overcome the F15’s superior specs even in the hands of first class pliots.
:
Those F-15 are equiped with sophisticated EW suites and has fuel & very high TWR to disengage from combat if chose to do so. How ever J-7 has no such chance within No escape zone of BVR missile. J-7 is primitiv fighter with very small nose compare to MIG-21BIS which restrict it FOV. J-7 can only see in straight line not side ways or up and down. Simply there is no situational awarness. And with current high raw material and energy prices. It is even more questionable to build a new fighter from scratch rather upgrade the old one. no one can give market cost of J-7G.
star49Very simplistic observation, the British military-industrial complex has been very much integrated into the European MIC for a while now and can’t really be compared as a stand alone entity, now can it?
Even more simplistic observartion. Because R&D costs are so high in UK thats why it has to do only Joint projects or acquire firms in US using foreign money. Botttom line is that the capability of researcher is far lower in UK than Russia thats why u need alot of money to come to same conclusion.
star49What?
you claimed they didnot develop anything due to 90s choas.
And this has what to do with military R&D budget? There are plenty of great Russian companies out there, WTF has that got to do with array development or ECM?
when you cannot compete in things which you are supposed to be strong due past 100 years business experiance than what little confidence left in things where other side is openly proclaiming the World Leader.
http://www.airfleet.ru/index.php?staid=1001223
VYMPEL, THE 21ST CENTURY LEADER
You alrady have seen a 2nd generation 3d TVC employed on the MiG 29OVT, as compared to the 2d TVC employed on the SU-30MKI and its derivatives.
and those were developed with how much R&D money?
Jesus, when the fanboys come out to play… :rolleyes:
surely there are other ways of getting the same result. Like Iskander is far more accurate, cheaper and safer option than JDAM droping fighter.
Sign In
