ChromBuying MSTA’s that can only fire shells to 30km’s makes no sense when NATO has 155 rounds that go to 70. .
You said it right even though you meant it wrong.
Current (even most modern) NATO guns also have range around 30-35 km with ordinary shells.
40-55 km (where you got 70 btw?) is only with special “Excalibur” shells, and they accuracy are horrible if not used with GPS (in many cases it cant be used).
Moreover, they cost are prohibitive for mass use, eleminating main artillery advantage – low shells cost – making them even less useful. To put it in perspective for you, in 2nd Chechen compaign, in only 1 (one) day only 1 (one) artillery regiment fired about 2000 shells. Thats not every day use of course, but rather usual amount for “hot” days.
Russians also have experemental (and ready for production) rounds with range up to 70 km for MSTA. But the above mentioned disadvantages dont allow they induction – and rightly so.
In short, MSTA as of now have just as good range as any modern artillery piece.
ChromBulava chief designer Yuri Solomonov has just published his memoirs, in which he apparently pins much of blame for Bulava’s troubles on to the collapse of Russia’s industrial and technology base, an issue he’s raised in the past. But he believes the basic design of Bulava to be sound.
But that summer launch schedule, which I’ve had confirmed by another source, remains extremely ambitious unless they have solved their manufacturing processes and built/rebuilt the five missiles needed for those trials to the degree that is necessary to fix the problems.
Would be very strange if he would blame himself for these faults. After all, one of main purposes of that book is to blame someone else for own faults. Keep in mind, others missiles in production dont have such problem, so it is not only “collapse of Russia’s industrial and technology base”.
ChromI do have one question: Integral IRST is an obvious capability, but what about FLIR and laser designation? Is this present currently? How would it be added? In a pod to the wing hard-points? Via the out-board “stealth missile fairings”? Obviously A2G isn’t really the role people are discussing at the moment, but it seems silly to not even consider it’s implementation, and a stealthy fighter-bomber would certainly offer a good capability to have.
?
NOTHING is present right now. No radar, no IRST, nothing.
Thats said, both laser designations and IRST are expected on final product. We can however speculate in what form. IRST and laser will be almost for sure integrated (OLS-XX, lots if experience here already), FLIR and laser for ground work might be in external conformal pod – f.e. in these small wing bays.
We will not see or know much about it in the next 2 years of very least, even if everything goes as scheduled.
ChromDont you think carrier based aircraft is useless unless you have carriers?
I think some russian general said that they are planing to build 6 carriers but they will have it around 2040-50 so I dont really see the point of modifying this one for carriers. Beside, they should really come up with a lighter version like Mig LMFS so that it can take off with max load
PAK-FA supposedly have higher T:W ratio and shorter take-off than Su-27. And well, we know Su-27 was successfully navalized in form of Su-33. So i dont see something wrong with naval version of PAK-FA.
ChromThe previous posts pointing out it was using a different engine than Su-35? Yes, I read those.
It wasn’t clear to me they were talking about an entirely different core, as opposed to digital FADEC and various tweaks. I have posted saying if that was all it is, it seems strange not to bring it into the Su-35 program. If the alternative is true, meaning there is no further planned engine for PAK-FA besides what is now flying, then great for them! 🙂
Formally, the final contractor for final PAK-FA engine is not even defined. Rumors however, last month all questions were settled and engine will be joint development by 2 main design bureau – Saturn and Salyut.
Current engines are some unknown prototypes – most likely of 117 (quite different from Su-35’s 117S) type, which will be installed on first serial PAK-FA as true 5-gen engine most likely will not be fully ready by 2015. This new engine as i said is not even in prototype stage.
It would be logical if first flight were made 117S, but according to Saturn’s director interview it is different engine. If so, then it could be only 117 prototype.
ChromElectronic attack is one of those hush-hush topics so we are just left to speculate on the possibilities.. but I’ve no doubt that the US is capitalizing on its lead in AESA tech to test its ability vs. different kinds of airborne targets. This could do to radar-guided missile what DIRCM does to heat-seekers.. funny, if this works and DIRCM works, then you take missiles out of the equation. Pilots could be getting their kills using DEWs or old-fashioned cannon.:diablo:
At least for airborne radar we can be sure it is impossible in foreseable future. We know what ground based radars (which have magnitude higher power and better beam focusing) cant do it – so airborne radars dont have a chance. Yet.
But when another step in radar technology happens – who knows… Thought i bet laser technology have much brighter future here.
Chromtax != GDP. as % of GDP US defence spending will still be less than 5 %.
80% of USA GDP are so called “services”, and only 20% – industry or other real goods. Whereas military spendings at large part requires industrial goods, food, oil or other “real” goods.
Basically, that means what every GDP percent of military spendings draw much more economical strain (for USA) than for example the same GDP percent for education spendings. USA economic (out of other devoloped countries) have about lowest industrial share in GDP.
In short – look at USA debt. As i said, USA going toward bancruptcy VERY fast. And new F-22 or steath bomber will not help here, quite contrary.
P.S. 45% of taxes going military – bad, bad, bad no matter what GDP share.
ChromTo tell the truth, i suspect Russia successfully trying to pull the same trick with US as US with SOI and USSR earlier.
USA going fast toward bankruptcy. Military spendings are already extraordinary and unsustainable.
Anyone thinking Obama cancels new defense programs like ABM, F-22 or new stealth bomber just cuz “flowers and fuzzy bunnies out of his @rse to keep Putin happy” – just deludes itself.
If US lose/will lose its influence and military might – believe me, it will be NOT because of canceled ABM or stealth bomber. It will be because of “canceled” economic. Just as with USSR…
Anyone suggesting putting MORE stress on it and increase defense spendings – draw the end of USA global empire nearer.
ChromI hate to ask this, but can anyone sum it up for me? I’m stuck at work here for the next day and youtube is blocked here… 🙁
To sum it up – F22 above it all, F-15 have only chance if F-22 pilot is completely NOOB and make HEAVY mistake.
Su-30 still turns much better than F-15, but now to lose Su-30 pilot should be just somewhat noobish and make mistake.
Indians IFF are not compatable with NATO.
Indians AWACS too, so they have troubles with friendly fire and Frenches.
Funny to see how the pilots try to calm up own guys with “F-15 still not completely useless and can kill F-22/Su-30 (if they make heavy mistakes)”
ChromJust compare IL-76 with C-141 or IL-476 with C-17. Su-27 with F-15, MIG-35 with F-16E(heavy brick with small nose). An-124 with C-5. And not least MI-17 class choppers. Russian designs are more long lasting and better for upgrades with fraction of R&D spent on compared to West. Russian played the whole Coldwar with 1/20 of economy of EU/US combined.
.
This is not true. Overall economy strenghts of communist / Waprac countries was broadly equivalent to economy of NATO countries. USSR spend quite a lot of resources on military development, even if somewhat less than USA – but still very comparable. Nothing like 1/20 or even 1/3.
ChromAll correct. But not relevant to the point I was making, which was to correct the mistaken impression that the Montreux Convention bars warships, in general, from passage through the straits, whereas in fact it guarantees warships – within certain restrictions – free passage both ways. For Russia, the chief importance of the Convention nowadays is that Turkey is not allowed to bottle up the Black Sea Fleet.
It both bans and guarantees. Bans in the sense what Turkey must deny any passage if total tonnage of non-Black Sea navies exceed 30000 (45000) tons. Guaranties in the sense what as long as limit is not reached, Turkey is obliged to give free passage.
ChromThe Montreux Convention does exactly the opposite: it guarantees the right of transit of warships, & lays down rules governing their transit. Without the convention, or some similar agreement, Turkey would have an absolute right to permit or ban the transit of any warship. It is an international treaty, & Turkey has no right to waive any of its restrictions.
The great exceptions are if Turkey is at war, or (in the opinion of the Turkish government, but subject to being overridden by the UN – originally the League of Nations) “under imminent danger of war”. Then articles 20 & 21 come into play.
Article 21 covers “imminent danger”.
…..
1) The aggregate tonnage which non-Black Sea Powers may have in that sea in time of peace shall be limited as follows:(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) below, the aggregate tonnage of the said Powers shall not exceed 30.000 tons;
(b) If at any time the tonnage ot the strongest fleet in the Black Sea shall exceed by at least 10.000 tons the tonnage of the strongest fleet in that sea at the date of the signature of the present Convention, the aggregate tonnage of 30.000 tons mentioned in paragrahp (a) shall be increased by the same amount, up to a maximum of 45,000 tons. For this purpose, each Black Sea Power shall, in conformity with Annex IV to the present Convention, inform the Turkish Govrnment, on the 1 st January and the 1st July of each year, of the total tonnage of its fleet in the Black Sea; and the Turkish Government shall transmit this information to the other High Contracting Parties and to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations;
(c) The tonnage which any one non-Black Sea Power may have in the Black Sea shall be limited to two-thirds of the aggregate tonnage provided for in paragraphs (a) and (b) above;
(d) In the event, however, of one or more non-Black Sea Powers desiring to send naval forces into the Black Sea, for a humanitarian purpose, the said forces, which shall in no case exceed 8.000 tons altogether, shall be allowed to enter the Black Sea without having to give the notification provided for in Article 13 of the present Convention, provided an authorisation is obtained from the Turkish Government in the following circumstances: if the figure of the aggregate tonnage specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) above has not been reaached and will not be exceeded by the despatch of the forces which it is desired to send, the Turkish Government shall grant the said authorisation within the shortest possible time after receiving the request which has been addressed to it; if the said figure has already been reached or if the despatch of the forces which it is desired to send will cause it to be exceeded, the Turkish Go’,ernment will immediately inform the other Black Sea Powers of the request for authorisation, and if the said Powers make no objection within twenty-four hours of having received this information, the Turkish Government shall, within forty-eight hours at the latest, inform the interested Powers of the reply which it has decided to make to their request.
……..
As you see, only “Black Sea” navies are not restricted by total fleet tonnage in Black Sea. For all other countries – humanitarian vessels up to 8000 tons total should be allowed by Turkish government in short time. Up to 20000 (30000 in some circumstances) tons total should be allowed after some time and formalities. Either way, even 30000 tons is 2 average cruisers at most, probably even without support ships.
No way any Non – Black Sea Country carrier could enter Black Sea, without applying (20) (21) “Times of War” articles. These are VERY strong prepositions, unlikely to be used without direct war danger for Turkey. Certainly, Turkey will not use these articles just to please US.
ChromAnd all that has what to do with supersonic manueverability?
It is the most maneuverabile aircraft in the world… at Mach 2.6 ?
ChromBtw, one of the Mig-31 functions was to create CGI-like command & surveillance field in places were no CGI exist.
ChromI’m trying to see which combat aircraft produced by the Soviet Union (these days) that are much more capable of autonomous operations than some of its GCI dependent ancestors.
from my understanding, it would seem that the MiG-31 was the first serious attempt to make a fighter (interceptor in this case) less dependent on GCI and capable of attacking targets on its own. I would assume newer Flanker and MiG-29 variants are leaning towards this direction as well?
There were no USSR aircrafts what there less capable of “independent” operations than western counterparts. Many of them however had better CGI links.
Generally, this is common misconception. There were many kind of units inside USSR airforce, several training strategies, etc.
Sign In
