Russian Weapons & Military Technology

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Manish_Sharma »

'BEARS' TO 'BLACKJACKS' – A POSSIBLE LOGICAL PROGRESSION?

By Sayan Majumdar

The Indian Navy has been offered Tupolev-22M3/MR strategic strike platforms to replace their ageing Tu-142 and Il-38 MRW aircraft. A detailed analysis shows that the Russian Tupolev-160 “Blackjack” offers several advantages over the offered aircraft, and may be available as the Navy’s requirement is small and Tu-160 production has restarted and additional funds will be welcome. The Russians on their part have never been hesitant to transfer strategic platforms to India.
The Indian Navy acquired a strategic manned airborne dimension with the entry of Tupolev Tu-142M “Bear-F” Long Range Maritime Patrol/Anti-Submarine Warfare (LRMP/ASW) platforms in 1988. Powered by four KKBM Kuznetsov NK-12MV turboprops (each rated at 11,033-KW or 14,795-shp), with eight-blade contra-rotating reversible-pitch Type AV-60N propellers, the Tu-142M boasted a “near-conventional jet speed” of around 500-knots while still encompassing the whole Indian Ocean region from bases in South & Central India (INS Rajali and INS Hansa being more prominent) on internal fuel alone. Still an In-Flight Refuelling (IFR) probe is fitted above the nose and presently can summon the Indian Air Force (IAF) Agra-based Illyushin Il-78MKI IFR tankers of No.78 “Battle Cry” Squadron if situations arise.

While as primary sensors the Tu-142M platforms were fitted with the Korshun-K (Black Kite) automatic search and sighting system and MMS-106 Ladoga magnetometer to detect “stealthy” nuclear-powered submarines, the Indian Navy’s Tu-142M made foreign news headlines for its “Wet Eye” search and attack radar. The Australian Government presented strong reservations about the Tu-142M’s intended role in Indian Navy service, which to the Australian Government represented an Indian naval effort to expand its sphere of influence at the cost of Australia’s own. On top of these, matters did not help as rumours spread that the Indian Navy Tu-142M fleet represented a specialized variant, which in addition to LRMP/ASW gear and role retained sufficient gear to carry out a secondary heavy-bombing role.

This last mentioned aspect was never confirmed by Indian Navy sources and may or may not be a part of Island Continent’s political gimmick to enhance their own defence budget and spending. In any case a top speed of around 500-knots has only marginal effectiveness in penetration of well defended airspace yet integration of state-of-the-art Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles (ASCM) or Land Attack Cruise Missiles (LACM) may transform the “Albatross” into a formidable attack platform without the need to fly over its intended targets and yet decimate them at will from stand-off distances. Negotiations were reportedly made for additional procurement of six to eight more Tu-142M platforms but apparently fell apart after the tragic mid-air crash of a pair of Indian Navy IL-38s in October 2002, with priorities shifted in more ways than initially anticipated.

Although various plans exist for upgrading the Tu-142M fleet to formidable LRMP/ASW platforms with Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) attributes, one platform presents an Israeli upgrade package that includes the proven Elta EL/M-2022A (V3) radar and associated ELINT, satellite communication and electronic warfare equipment. The Indian Navy was “looking beyond” LRMP/ASW platforms for effective operations in its sphere of influence and this was somewhat confirmed at the turn of millennium by persistent yet intermittent reports of the lease of Tu-22M3 (Backfire-C) multi-mission strike platforms, capable of performing low-level nuclear strike and conventional attack role both over land and sea alongside high-seed reconnaissance missions. In absence of official confirmation and shielded in misinformation or secrecy, the proposed airborne package as per Russian media reports includes leasing of three Tu-22M3 strategic bombing/maritime strike platforms, plus one Tu-22MR reconnaissance oriented platform with a giant Side Looking Airborne Radar (SLAR) in what was previously the internal bomb bay to enable aerial reconnaissance from a great slant distance. Also the package reportedly includes one Tu-134UBL with each of the mentioned type from Russian Air Forces register.

During the height of the Cold War, the Tu-22M remained one of the most controversial airborne platforms and contributed considerably to breakdown of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) II due to arguments as to whether to classify it as a strategic platform or not. Two Kuznetsov NK-25 turbofan engines provided Tu-22M a range of at least 7,000-km-plus at high altitude on internal fuel alone, with further extension possible with IFR. To complicate matters further the maximum speed was reported to be 2300-km/h at high altitude with 12-tons of strike ordnance or an alternative load of a single air launched cruise missile carried in semi-recessed form to reduce drag. Thus it was logically deduced by the US Administration that if air bases were made available in then South or Central American Marxist influenced Nations, the Tu-22M acquires the “strategic dimension” by conducting “one-way over Artic” missions against the United States homeland and thus should be regarded as a strategic platform. This logic was outright rejected by the Soviets for few practical reasons ultimately leading to breakdown of SALT II.

However in Soviet Dalnaya Aviatsiya (DA) or Long-Range Aviation and AV-MF or Naval Aviation service the Tu-22M did represent a formidable strike platform with the radar speculated to be of the missile guidance ‘Down Beat’ family in conjunction with one of the most formidable contemporary avionics and electronic warfare suites and were feared and respected by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) adversaries. Most of the electronic warfare suites were “flush mounted” so as not to hamper aerodynamic performance. During the height of Cold War the Tu-22M “Backfire” achieved further notoriety in NATO eyes for repeated simulated launch of cruise missiles against the NATO Aircraft-Carrier Battle Groups (CVBG) and penetrating the formidable Japanese air-defence network at will. These were bound to be carefully planned ELINT/ferret missions and tactics to test and record NATO Strike Fleet and Japanese air defence tactics and procedures. Operating from forward bases in the European Landmass the Soviet Tu-22Ms were active over North Atlantic as far as Azores, encompassing the whole European Landmass and were considered a significant threat to NATO surface ASW barriers in the key areas such as Greenland-Iceland-UK (GIUK) gaps.

Yet a thorough evaluation puts the Tu-22M “Backfire” along with the Sukhoi Su-24 “Fencer” in the category of “Cold War relics” as these one-time formidable and fearsome platforms underwent only limited upgradations after the “Cold War” era in sharp contrast of United States Air Force (USAF) operated strategic airborne platforms like B-1B and B-52G/H. Prominently apparent are certain inherent drawbacks in the area of Radar Cross Section (RCS) as the Tu-22M fuselage lines are largely copied from earlier Tu-22 “Blinder”, basically a "historic" design prior to “stealth consciousness”. While slab-sided fuselage and engine intakes present prominent RCS, the positioning of engine intakes occupies significant fuselage space reducing internal fuel loads and thus reducing the otherwise potential range. Also perhaps the entire avionics and electronic warfare suite need to be replaced with contemporary equipment to ensure survivability of these technologically ageing platforms in present high-threat environments.

The “significantly small” Indian Navy requirement of strategic combined maritime strike and reconnaissance platforms, justified in light of their deployment restricted over oceans and need not over fly integrated hostile enemy Air Defence (AD) system and missile network over land, makes even highly sophisticated and expensive designs approachable if operational benefits significantly overlap the financial and technical investment. In this context perhaps the optimally suitable maritime strike platform for Indian Navy resides in the Russian Tu-160 “Blackjack” supersonic strategic bomber, the true successor of Tu-95/142 “Bear” and the pride of the Russian Dalnaya Aviatsiya since reorganized to 37th Strategic Air Army comprising of the 22nd Guards Red Banner Donbass Heavy Bomber Division and the 79th Guards Heavy Bomber Division in May 1998. Both high-profile Divisions posses a mix of five regiments of nuclear and conventionally armed Tu-95MS6/MS16 “Bear” strategic bombers, single regiment of nuclear armed Tu-160 “Blackjack” strategic bombers plus four regiments of Tu-22M3 “Backfire” conventionally armed medium range bombers. Tu-160s by themselves equip the 121st Air Regiment based at Engels Air Force Base at Saratov region.

Tu-160 in contrast to Tu-22M represents a formidable state-of-the-art Fly-By-Wire (FBW) platform with 10,500-km inter-continental range with considerable weapons load estimated on a mission profile of subsonic high altitude cruise, followed by transonic penetration at low altitude on internal fuel alone. The IFR option is available for further enhancement of range. Russian Air Force Tu-160s repeatedly displayed their capability to operate over Indian Ocean during Indo-Russian Naval Exercises (INDRA) from Russian homeland and Central Asian Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) bases striking down dummy or notional targets with cruise missiles. On conceptual level, if operated from Indian bases the Indian Ocean “will fall under scanner” in totality along with adjoining territories of West Asia and Far East.

In Tu-160 design, sufficient stresses have been given on reduction of RCS with the wing and fuselage gradually integrated into a single-piece configuration. The four NK-32 augmented turbofan engines, each providing a maximum thrust of 25,000-kg are installed in two pods under the shoulders of the wing with engine-intakes well shielded under fuselage to be screened from look-down radars. Measures were also applied to reduce the signature of the engines to infra-red and radar detectors. The Tu-160 avionics system consisting of navigation and attack radar and electronic countermeasures system will represent the pristine Russian technology after proposed upgradations, which are to follow alongside resumption of production lately for Russian 37th Strategic Air Army service. Even a limited export order for Indian Navy may evoke considerable interest as this is bound to “streamline” the re-opened production line to subsequently cater future Russian Air Force needs.

The Tu-160 in Indian Navy service may well be the perfect carrier (almost a made for each other) of the projected air-launched variant of supersonic (Mach 2.8) Indo-Russian PJ-10 BrahMos Anti-Ship Cruise Missile (ASCM) with smaller booster and additional tail fins for stability during launch, accommodating six of them on multi-station launchers in each of the two internal weapons bays. BrahMos ASCM is a joint venture between Indian DRDO and Russian NPO Mashinostroyeniya (NPO Mash) and inherits from its predecessor the Russian Yakhont ASCM, low RCS with an active radar homing seeker to facilitate fire-and-forget launch. Varieties of flight trajectories including sea-skimming or terminal pop-up followed by a deadly dive are meant to complicate the task of the adversary.

Mid-course guidance is inertial, developed and refined by Indian scientists. It is now an open secret that for further refinement of mid-course guidance the Indians are working hard at enhancing and refining the Inertial Navigation System (INS) with possible Israeli assistance that keeps track of the smallest change in velocity of the missile from its launch. In fact, if the warhead is nuclear tipped to cause wide-area destruction, the degree of accuracy delivered by INS is sufficient. Indians are believed to have obtained gyroscopes and other related items from European nations and are said to have successfully reverse-engineered them. Concurrently as a parallel development and as part of Alfa next-generation airborne reconnaissance and strike system, NPO Mash unveiled the Yakhont-M air-launched supersonic ASCM at the MAKS 2003 air show, which share elements with the Indo-Russian PJ-10 BrahMos. Armed with multi-sensor guidance, to engage surface ships and ground targets at up to 300-km, reconnaissance and target acquisition are to be provided by radar and electro-optical sensor equipped Kondor low-Earth-orbit satellites.

No wonder, BrahMos is rapidly emerging to be an enigma of sorts as numerous variants are being proposed or mooted simultaneously. The quest for a Brahmos LACM variant was hinted at in a test at Pokhran during December 2004, the missile being equipped with special image processing software for terminal homing and subsequently searched, located and destroyed a 50-cm thick concrete bunker with pinpoint accuracy. Although not officially stated, the special image processing software could well be a Digital Scene Matching Area Correlator (DSMAC) variant, which uses a zoom lens to collect images and matches them with the snaps of the approach to the target stored in the memory, to conduct precision strikes against an array of enemy counter-force and counter-value targets ranging from airfields to overland communications, command and control centres and powerful air defence installations.

There is considerable speculation that the ultimate BrahMos variant could emerge as tri-service sub-sonic or transonic LACM variant with an estimated range of 800-km to 1,400-km with Global Positioning System (GPS) guidance backup. Such a formidable missile system will offer considerable stand-off distance to every launch platform and will enable Indian Navy airborne LRMP/ASW and strike platforms to execute their operational roles without having to enter hostile airspace or engage enemy AD systems. Looking from a pure technological standpoint, Tu-160 “Blackjack” in Indian Navy colours will effectively eclipse other airborne strategic and sub-strategic platforms “in the vicinity” like Chinese Peoples Liberation Army-Air Force (PLA-AF) operated H-6 (Tu-16) bombers and Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) F-111 strike fighters and only be competitive with USAF B-2 Spirit platforms occasionally based in Diego Garcia.
http://www.indiadefence.com/archives/Tu-160.htm
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by John »

Why are you posting an article more than a decade old which we have discussed to death?
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Somebody suggested 2 squadrons of tu 160 on other thread and I was reminded of this article, it has lots of details and good suggestions. I am on brf since 2009, I don't remember seeing much discussion on Tu 160.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by John »

Manish_Sharma wrote:Somebody suggested 2 squadrons of tu 160 on other thread and I was reminded of this article, it has lots of details and good suggestions. I am on brf since 2009, I don't remember seeing much discussion on Tu 160.
We discussed at least two times this year Philip loves to bring up, it is never happening. Russians only ever offered handful of Tu-22m3 as lease deal with Gorshkov and since then it was never offered. Currently the services have no money for this and navy has moved onto p-8i. In the Era of stealth and UAV why the heck would you want waste billions on cold war relics rather than spending it on R&D for next gen weapon systems.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Manish_Sharma »

John wrote:
We discussed at least three times this year Philip loves to bring, it is never happening. Russians only ever offered handful of Tu-22m3 as lease deal with Gorshkov and since then it was never offered.
You are lying. Philip never advocates Tu 160 or Yasen type quality stuff. He only pushes for garbage.

You are dishonestly trying to pass off tu 22 discussion as Tu 160 discussion.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by John »

Manish_Sharma wrote:
John wrote:
We discussed at least three times this year Philip loves to bring, it is never happening. Russians only ever offered handful of Tu-22m3 as lease deal with Gorshkov and since then it was never offered.
You are lying. Philip never advocates Tu 160 or Yasen type quality stuff. He only pushes for garbage.

You are dishonestly trying to pass off tu 22 discussion as Tu 160 discussion.
Yes we have and he posted getting them along with bears as mother russia has used them in Syria

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7308&p=2427176&hili ... k#p2427176
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Manish_Sharma »

John wrote:
Yes we have and he posted getting them along with bears as mother russia has used them in Syria

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7308&p=2427176&hili ... k#p2427176
He is boasting about capabilities of Blackjacks but doesn't advocate acquiring them.

In fact on 2 different occasions when I posted we should get Yasen and another time acquiring Blackjacks philip opposed both times.
Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1769
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Khalsa »

The funny thing is both of you agree that Marshal Filipov drags and brags about his Russian wares.
Both of you agree that Bears and Blackjacks had merits and are perhaps not the hottest piece of slice you need right now.
:-)
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by John »

Khalsa wrote:The funny thing is both of you agree that Marshal Filipov drags and brags about his Russian wares.
Both of you agree that Bears and Blackjacks had merits and are perhaps not the hottest piece of slice you need right now.
:-)
Yea lot of fanciful wishes yes if we can get dozen Tu-160 immediately for free it will be awesome :rotfl:
But considering Russia has just 17 or so operational and it took long time just to get one more new one it recently flew (looks to be put together with parts from moth balled tu-160). Chances of us getting even 10 or so new ones in decades is impossible and let's not forget each of them will cost 300 million each. Considering we are struggling to even get LCA or LCH or addl carrier, this is last thing we need. And also Russia has never offered to us and even Tu-22m3 was only offered in pathetic small amount as a lease deal.
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Vips »

I have always maintained that we should buy Russian wares only as a matter of last resort. But to be honest right now i would prefer buying/leasing at least 6 TU-22M3. These are especially required as thanks to our pea brained defence planners we have a very limited number of long range missiles at our disposal.

While we have many programs awaiting budget clearance, leasing 6 TU22's will surely not break the bank.

The 7000 KM range TU-22M3 will go a long way in keeping the Han ambitions limited to the front pages of the Global Times.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by John »

Problem with purchasing just 6 Tu-22m3 you are lucky to have 3 operational at a given time (50% serviceability rate is unheard of more likely to be around 25%). 2-3 is hardly enough to saturate attack a Chinese ddg (if they live up to the hype) let alone Chinese fleet and if they are unlucky enough to run into Flankers they would eaten up alive (Russian strategy was throw dozens of them at US carrier fleet).

So to protect it we need Su-30mki escorting them which reduces the mission radius and raises question why not just use Su-30mki for this purpose.
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Vips »

You completely missed the point on what these TU22 M3's will be used for. Who is going to need these for launching saturation attacks? When they will be used all 6 will be available. The chinese will not have the guts to launch any attack on India with their H6 when they know what the more capable TU22's can do to them. BTW all the points you mentioned about the TU being hunted down by enemy jets are equally applicable to the even more vintage and chinese quality H6.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Rakesh »

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by John »

Vips wrote:You completely missed the point on what these TU22 M3's will be used for. Who is going to need these for launching saturation attacks? When they will be used all 6 will be available. The chinese will not have the guts to launch any attack on India with their H6 when they know what the more capable TU22's can do to them. BTW all the points you mentioned about the TU being hunted down by enemy jets are equally applicable to the even more vintage and chinese quality H6.
So we will wait for 6 to be available then we will launch an attack it doesn’t work like that unless you have at least 70-80% availability which is hard to get even with Russian fighters let alone with hanger queen like tu-22m3 which does only few sorties a year. I Never said H6 are a threat, far far bigger threat is from the flankers.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Karan M »

Manish - you can disagree without being disagreeable. Please dont start a blue on blue flame war. Make your points with less vitriol please.
Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1769
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Khalsa »

First of all the BlackJacks and Bears are slow and lumbering. What was the premise for both of these aircraft ? Lets dig and suppose a bit shall we

Both actually were supposed to be superior at sea where the Soviet Navy was not.

I do not believe they will do well at all in a theatre that is jam packed with sensors and opposing forces sitting on air bases that are literally 30 seconds from the border on burner.They are also quite expensive to maintain and maintain a decent serviceability.

For kicking the front door in, you don't need these bombers to fly over aksai chin, you need the Raffys and Mirage 2000. The bombers will get caught and be mauled badly as they seek to disengage and exit. Wrt Pakistani the density of defensive and attacking forces is possibly even more worse than the Chinese sector.

If you want to reach behind and outflank both of them, you need a superior Navy, one that dominates all the way to your objective.

We are seeing a massive shift in IN and IAF as both switch to Western Equipment especially in terms of the long range and long haul platforms.
I do not believe any admiral or air marshall is going to sign on the dotted line that quickly with the Russians except for attrition replacements.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Khalsa wrote:First of all the BlackJacks and Bears are slow and lumbering. ..
Blackjacks can go supersonic for long haul.
Performance

Maximum speed: 2,220 km/h (1,380 mph, 1,200 kn) at 12,200 m (40,026 ft)
Maximum speed: Mach 2.05
Cruise speed: 960 km/h (600 mph, 520 kn) / M0.9

Range: 12,300 km (7,600 mi, 6,600 nmi) practical range without in-flight refuelling, Mach 0.77 and carrying 6 × Kh-55SM dropped at mid range and 5% fuel reserves[97]
Combat range: 2,000 km (1,200 mi, 1,100 nmi) at Mach 1.5
(7,300 km (4,536 mi)[98])
Service ceiling: 16,000 m (52,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 70 m/s (14,000 ft/min)
Lift-to-drag: 18.5–19, while supersonic it is above 6[99]
Wing loading: 742 kg/m2 (152 lb/sq ft) with wings fully swept
Thrust/weight: 0.37
All this with 45 tons of Payload

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160
Last edited by Manish_Sharma on 07 Aug 2020 18:42, edited 2 times in total.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14332
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Aditya_V »

And dont forget ability to launch multiple cruise missiles and also go in with escort fighters with a large number of PGM's
Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1769
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Khalsa »

I am a Pakistani F-16 , I am an and top of my class. I am Paki Top Gun wallah.
I took out your BlackJack as it tried to attack Gwadar from the west. Down went 5 Crew and 25 Brahmos missiles with a Single AIM-120C.

I am a Pakistani F-16 , I am an and top of my class. I am Paki Top Gun wallah.
I am confronted with 6 X Su-30 MKIs being escorted by 6 MIrage 2000 have managed to put me on defensive.
Even if my AIM-120 (enflight) is successful. I am just going to kill 2 officers and 1 Brahmos.

To counter this force we need to deploy 16 F-16s. My entire Top Gun wallah.

Inshallah we will eat grass one day !!


-------------------------------------------------------


Look boys we can punch this over a million times.
I cannot see the role of BlackJacks and Bears etc fair well against aircraft which can outperform it near the target.

Yes F-16 cannot defeat the BlackJack over Antarctica, I get that.
But over Sargodha, your blackJack will be aced.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by John »

I don’t believe Brahmos-A can even be carried by Tu-160 as it is much bigger and heavier than Kh-55. Brahmos-NG should be able to fit in rotary launcher as it is about the same size but it raises a question why do you need Tu-160 for that job when Su-30mki can carry 3 of them vs 12 for Tu-160 and not to mention NG is not even ready yet.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Cain Marko »

John wrote:I don’t believe Brahmos-A can even be carried by Tu-160 as it is much bigger and heavier than Kh-55. .
It can be carried by a tu22 .. The backfire carries 3xkh22 each weighing 6 tons or 2 underwing and a belly full of whatever else. Even a modified rotary launcher capable of 6 x AShM @ 1.2 tons each. The blackjack carries 12 x kh55 at 2.5 tons each. I think it's safe to say that it can carry as many brahmos A.

As missile carriers, these are absolute beasts and a small fleet will go a long way in protecting IOR.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Cain Marko »

I know this is DCS, but still the visuals are cool and I'm wondering how close this would be to reality. Damn that su57... So overpowered. Insane rate of climb even with the 117 engines. Wonder what will happen when the izd30 comes on board.

Su57 vs F18

https://youtu.be/bkzBhRwpeAE
tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3263
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by tsarkar »

I just came across some photos and videos of BrahMos ka Baap, the Granit missile

Image
Ignoring the girth, the three fin layout is the same as BrahMos

Image
In combat, the missiles would be launched in large salvos, then scream toward their targets as fast as mach 2.5 at altitude, or about mach 1.5 while low over the water.

The missiles were very advanced for their time, integrating networking and automated cooperative “swarm” tactics. They were launched at a target (or targets) usually based on third party data, such as coordinates derived by a scout ship, a maritime patrol aircraft, or even a submarine. They would fly toward their targets from over 350 miles away on inertial navigation, then as they approached the suspected target area, one missile out of the swarm would “pop up” to higher altitude to use its own active radar and anti-radiation sensors to obtain updated targeting info. It would then classify these targets and assign them to missiles in the swarm below.

If the pop-up missile were destroyed another one would automatically take its place. The missiles could also accept updates from third party sources as well and supposedly had connectivity to the now defunct Soviet-era EORSAT satellite network. Once in the terminal attack phase of their flight, each surviving missile would acquire its own target, and prosecute that target, blazing over the horizon at supersonic speeds and giving (presumably) American close-in weapon systems little time to react.

There is no doubt, the P-700 was born to be a high-end carrier killer. Their speed and numbers would overwhelm a Carrier Battle Group’s defenses, and their individual warheads were large enough to register a kill even on America’s largest surface combatants. The Soviet Navy’s aspirations were clear, with dozen of missiles available on Kirov class battlecruisers, Oscar class nuclear guided missile submarines, and the carriers that would eventually be known as the Kuznetsov class, Soviet surface action groups could have filled the air with these deadly missiles.
Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUdIUdo ... mb_rel_end

Source
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/1 ... ip-missile
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/5 ... =sr-link10

The BrahMos is a simplified derivative of the Granit minus the satellite targeting, target distribution and swarming capabilities.
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Vips »

Cain Marko wrote:I know this is DCS, but still the visuals are cool and I'm wondering how close this would be to reality. Damn that su57... So overpowered. Insane rate of climb even with the 117 engines. Wonder what will happen when the izd30 comes on board.

Su57 vs F18

https://youtu.be/bkzBhRwpeAE

It will be vaporware with US Sixth gen fighters flying in the air by then.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by brar_w »

The US Navy retired the Classic hornet type early last year. Australia too has phased it out with Canada looking to buy a replacement as well. The USMC still operates it but that is mostly for the close air support mission. So the question of "what will happen when the izd30 comes onboard" is purely an academic one.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Cain Marko »

brar_w wrote:The US Navy retired the Classic hornet type early last year. Australia too has phased it out with Canada looking to buy a replacement as well. The USMC still operates it but that is mostly for the close air support mission. So the question of "what will happen when the izd30 comes onboard" is purely an academic one.
I was referring to the pakfa's climb rate, which is extra ordinary as is.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by brar_w »

Cain Marko wrote:
brar_w wrote:The US Navy retired the Classic hornet type early last year. Australia too has phased it out with Canada looking to buy a replacement as well. The USMC still operates it but that is mostly for the close air support mission. So the question of "what will happen when the izd30 comes onboard" is purely an academic one.
I was referring to the pakfa's climb rate, which is extra ordinary as is.
You'd expect it no? It will replace their flanker fleet (at least 70 odd flankers by 2030) and they built a heavy fighter that still has to account for the F-22A which began operationally fielding just four or so years after Sukhoi was put on contract to develop the PAKFA.

But my point was the Hornet comparison was not really relevant anymore [outside of video games].
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Cain Marko »

brar_w wrote:
Cain Marko wrote: I was referring to the pakfa's climb rate, which is extra ordinary as is.
You'd expect it no?.
Actually, no. I wasn't expecting the pakfa to have such an insane climb rate. I thought it'd be similar to say, the typhoon or f22. But it's distinctly higher from what I understand, and that's with the standard engine.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by brar_w »

Cain Marko wrote:
brar_w wrote:
You'd expect it no?.
Actually, no. I wasn't expecting the pakfa to have such an insane climb rate. I thought it'd be similar to say, the typhoon or f22. But it's distinctly higher from what I understand, and that's with the standard engine.
This was in a game right?
hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4635
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by hnair »

Admin note: Deleted a whole bunch of fan-boi grade flame posts. No more thread deviation or bans will get slapped around
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Cain Marko »

brar_w wrote:
Cain Marko wrote: Actually, no. I wasn't expecting the pakfa to have such an insane climb rate. I thought it'd be similar to say, the typhoon or f22. But it's distinctly higher from what I understand, and that's with the standard engine.
This was in a game right?
The game only simulated what seems to be real (and quite well based on the accounts of pilots who played it). There were reports of the pakfa managing a climb rate of >350m/s iirc, which seems very impressive considering it's definitive engines are still not available.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by brar_w »

Cain Marko wrote:
brar_w wrote:
The game only simulated what seems to be real .
Do you honestly believe that the game is using classified performance data on aircraft flight characteristics (like in you fly an aircraft in the game and you know exactly how the real deal will probably fly)? And here I thought we were having a serious discussion. :roll:
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Cain Marko »

brar_w wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:
Do you honestly believe that the game is using classified performance data on aircraft flight characteristics (like in you fly an aircraft in the game and you know exactly how the real deal will probably fly)? And here I thought we were having a serious discussion. :roll:
Obviously not. Public data is enough to show what kind of twr and climb rates are possible...
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by brar_w »

Cain Marko wrote:
brar_w wrote:
Do you honestly believe that the game is using classified performance data on aircraft flight characteristics (like in you fly an aircraft in the game and you know exactly how the real deal will probably fly)? And here I thought we were having a serious discussion. :roll:
Obviously not. Public data is enough to show what kind of twr and climb rates are possible...
What public data? Is there official data on performance characteristics actually demonstrated during developmental or operational testing? On the PAKFA, the Eurofighter, the F-22A etc or any other aircraft you would have flown in the game? If so, do link to them. If not, then clearly it was for "entertainment purposes only", and not for a sound technical evaluation of competing aircraft which would be of interest on a serious technically focused aerospace and national security issues forum like this.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5352
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Cain Marko »

brar_w wrote:
Cain Marko wrote: Obviously not. Public data is enough to show what kind of twr and climb rates are possible...
What public data? Is there official data on performance characteristics actually demonstrated during developmental or operational testing? On the PAKFA, the Eurofighter, the F-22A etc or any other aircraft you would have flown in the game? If so, do link to them. If not, then clearly it was for "entertainment purposes only", and not for a sound technical evaluation of competing aircraft which would be of interest on a serious technically focused aerospace and national security issues forum like this.
I was talking of the su57. There were reports not long ago about it achieving a climb rate of 380 m/s. What's not public about that?. Most other fighters listed on public sources are below 300 m/s, wiki lists the f18 at around 218m/s. Funnily enough that kinda supports what happens in the video.

In any case, My point was that if the pakfa can get 380m/s on its current baseline engines, what can it get from engines that are considerably more powerful.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by brar_w »

Cain Marko wrote:
brar_w wrote:
What public data? Is there official data on performance characteristics actually demonstrated during developmental or operational testing? On the PAKFA, the Eurofighter, the F-22A etc or any other aircraft you would have flown in the game? If so, do link to them. If not, then clearly it was for "entertainment purposes only", and not for a sound technical evaluation of competing aircraft which would be of interest on a serious technically focused aerospace and national security issues forum like this.
I was talking of the su57. There were reports not long ago about it achieving a climb rate of 380 m/s. What's not public about that?. Most other fighters listed on public sources are below 300 m/s, wiki lists the f18 at around 218m/s. Funnily enough that kinda supports what happens in the video.

In any case, My point was that if the pakfa can get 380m/s on its current baseline engines, what can it get from engines that are considerably more powerful.
Reports aren't an official validation based on actual performance of a fully configured aircraft. And definitely not worth comparing in a video game. Especially when you are pitting it to a decades old naval strike fighter that has been retired from carrier ops by its primary user.

So far we have, for the most part, seen only prototype aircraft for the PAKFA so it remains to be seen what the 100% full and final configuration is and what is adopted and eventually accepted into service. The second serially produced (some sources call it pre-serial production??) aircraft (the first one crashed) is just being completed and we may only see it fly next year. So too early to attribute hard performance data to this in an operational configuration of a production grade aircraft. And we have little modern reference to compare it to.

The F-22 (you brought up the Typhoon and F-22A as a reference, which I assumed was from your video game experience of the two) has been operational for a little over 15 years, yet its exact climb rate, across the range of loadouts and fuel states is classified. Thus, unless one wants to compare to designs from 30 or 40 years ago, there is little reference for you to compare actual data with a video game (which was my point i.e. not that the Su-57 has crappy climb, but that its a video game and video game comparisons aren't really technically sound just like you aren't a real fighter pilot if all you do is fly fighters in DCS).

But as I said, high performance would not be surprising at all. The F-22A blew past its supercruise requirements of 1.5 Mach. Its demonstrated/ operational testing validated super cruise figure is Mach 1.72. This with an F-119 engine mostly designed in the 1990's based on early-mid 1990's technology. Anecdotally (the infamous "dozer" claims) the aircraft has demonstrated Mach 2.0 at 60,000 feet and A2S IWB munition releases at something like Mach 1.9. But those aren't depicted in any officially validated report. The PAKFA will, in all earnest, only be operationally avaialble in the mid 2020s some 20 years later so it needs to at least match, or exceed, some of these parameters (and others as well) before the Russian AF begins buying it in bulk quantity beyond a token production run of 10-12 aircraft a year.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Philip »

Here we go again! Just to set the record straight as I have wasted much lifetime on stressing the need of the IAF and the IN acquiring a supersonic strat. bomber/ maritime strike aircraft in view of the Sino- Pak JV.My last take.

Just examine how successfully Russia used Tu- 160s,upgraded TU-22M3s and upgraded TU-95/142s in the Syrian conflict launching dozens of subsonic Kalibir missiles too at ISIS,etc.
Even recent US analysts have commented favourably on the performance of this Cold War trio,who will still be used by Ru for at least another 2 decades. The stealth PAK-DA will appear sometime this decade and after it enters series production these veterans will gradually be retired. Equipped with the latest LR stand-off missiles- and Kalibir's range is being extended upto 4000km(!), the ability of these bombers to carry around a dozen missiles of various types each, makes them exceptionally formidable foes,especially in the maritime domain where they can launch supersonic and in the future hypersonic missiles out of range of even a CBG's defensive arc.

We aren't foes with the US anymore,our principal threat is the PRC, and therefore a small number of the cheaper upgraded Backfires armed with a variety of ASMs including Kalibir,Nirbhay,etc. even on lease is worth examining. Remember that our formidable SU-30MKIs can carry only 1 BMos, whereas just one maritime strike bomber of types mentioned above can carry almost the equiv. of a squadron!
Blackjacks re- entering production are more expensive than the other two and the RuAF will get its aircraft first,why I would put it at no.2 in the pecking order.A lease won't break the bank at all and if you've noticed,the latest MOD statements about the dropping of offsets also mentions leasing of eqpt. in G-to-G deals as an option.
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Vips »

For once i agree with Philipowski :)
We need long-range bombers with force multiplier stand-off weapons pronto
asbchakri
BRFite
Posts: 374
Joined: 14 Sep 2007 11:20
Location: Chennai
Contact:

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by asbchakri »

just a curious question, can the P-8i carry (if allowed by US) BrahMos A and if so how many. I apologies if that's a wrong question.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by brar_w »

asbchakri wrote:just a curious question, can the P-8i carry (if allowed by US) BrahMos A
No
Post Reply