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
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by brar_w »

Its was only a matter of time before unmanned underwater tech became a means of achieving deterrence. What is more freighting is the proliferation of relatively cheap conventional unmanned underwater vehicles and how significantly they can get an adversary trying to fend them off to commit a ton of resources to mitigate their impact...
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by Singha »

Love the out of box thinking...the sub itself is the torpedo...lol. Can we build some?

Rus also has perimetr dead hand system to release all hounds if the leadership falls.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by TSJones »

Just for the record, the US hasn't deployed a nuclear armed torpedo since 1976.

But then, we don't have too.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by Austin »

Image

The top left corner picture seems to be Oscar-2 conversion for Ocean research "Belgorod" like a mother ship and the one on right is a special purpose submarine with pump jet propulsion. They had already converted one Delta 4 SSBN for such role.

The large golden painted cylinder in the torpedo diagram seems to be the charge perhaps a 800 kT TN weapon that the largest yeald they have now. The torpedo launched 1000 km from coast can just swim deep and lie at the bottom may be 10-20 km away from harbour and get triggered as programmed , Quite Crazy The Nuclear Torpedo thing for a country that has nuclear weapons to destroy the world many times over
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by Singha »

800Knt will barely make a dent on things. given the density of sea water a bottom feeding explosion needs to be huge to create a tsunani ... undersea earthquakes like the 2004 dec tsunami have yields that are off the charts like moving the ocean floor 10m over 100s of km .... this weapon sure doesnt look like a porpoising thing that can fly out of the water to maximise blast impact.

I would imagine this needs a old school 10MT warhead to even take out a small harbour...or using the russian penchant for overkill in these matters a 25MT using latest tech. they have the tech to simulate designs without tests so its cool.

this is a idea that will appeal to TSP with their fleet of small subs.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by TSJones »

they are searching for a way to attack/retaliate the US w/o being stopped by the US's defensive weapons.

if they deploy this weapon they may be in violation of the SALT treaty and thus freeing the US to do likewise.

In other words, the US must be open to attack from North Korea nukes or else the Russians will abrogate the SALT treaty.

fine by me, if that's what the Russians want to do. we've got to modernize our nukes anyway. we can kick it up a few notches.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by Austin »

Singha wrote:800Knt will barely make a dent on things. given the density of sea water a bottom feeding explosion needs to be huge to create a tsunani ... undersea earthquakes like the 2004 dec tsunami have yields that are off the charts like moving the ocean floor 10m over 100s of km .... this weapon sure doesnt look like a porpoising thing that can fly out of the water to maximise blast impact.

I would imagine this needs a old school 10MT warhead to even take out a small harbour...or using the russian penchant for overkill in these matters a 25MT using latest tech. they have the tech to simulate designs without tests so its cool.

this is a idea that will appeal to TSP with their fleet of small subs.
Its not possible to minuturise a 10 MT nuke into the dia and space of Torpedo . Most torpedo nuke dont go beyond few 10 kt. One can always use multiple torpedo to create a blast effect also the radiation etc make it unsuable if not the blast
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by Philip »

This is a truly frightening weapon if the stats are true.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ision.html
Secret Russian radioactive doomsday torpedo leaked on television
Top secret plans to build a torpedo-mounted, radioactive “dirty bomb” appear to have been inadvertently leaked by a careless Russian general

Russian President Vladimir Putin, centre, chairs a meeting with defence officials in the Bocharov Ruchei residence in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, Russia

By Roland Oliphant, Moscow

13 Nov 2015
Secret plans for a Russian long-range nuclear torpedo came to light after a state television cameraman filmed over a senior officer’s shoulder with a diagram on show.

The scheme involves the use of massive doses of radiation to render large areas of enemy coastlines uninhabitable and appeared on TV during a meeting with Vladimir Putin on Tuesday.

The Kremlin says secret plans for a Russian long-range nuclear torpedo - called "Status-6" - should not have appeared on Russian TV news.

The images were quickly removed by Russia’s state owned broadcasters, apparently after censors intervened, but not before they were broadcast across the country and picked up by sharp-eyed YouTube users.

“It's true some secret data got into the shot, therefore it was subsequently deleted," said Dmitry Peskov, the Russian president's press secretary. “In future we will undoubtedly take preventive measures so this does not happen again.”

The screen shot shows a general studying a page headlined “Oceanic Multipurpose System 'Status-6'", and attributed to the St. Petersburg-based Rubin design bureau – the same office that has produced many of Russia’s most modern nuclear submarines.

According to an introductory blurb, Status 6 is designed to “destroy important economic installations of the enemy in coastal areas and cause guaranteed devastating damage to the country's territory by creating wide areas of radioactive contamination, rendering them unusable for military, economic or other activity for a long time".

President Vladimir Putin heads a meeting on military issues at the Russian Black Sea resort of Sochi, Russia

The page also shows a cross-section of the proposed torpedo, and two potential carrier submarines, the Project 09852 Belgorod, and the Project 09851 Khabarovsk, both new “special purpose" boats laid down at the Arctic circle Sevmash shipyard in 2012 and 2014 respectively, although the Belgorod makes use of an older hull for an earlier, never completed boat.

Status 6 itself appears to be a gigantic torpedo-shaped robotic mini-submarine – in other words an underwater drone – that can travel at speeds of 100 knots (115mph) and is so perfectly cloaked by stealth technology it would be invisible to acoustic tracking devices.
The notes on the torpedo diagram give it a range of up to 6,200 miles (10,000km), and a dive depth of 3,300 feet (1,000m) – far beyond that of most manned submarines.

The weapon, if genuine, would appear to be part of a move to modernise Russia’s nuclear deterrent.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by Austin »

Royal Thai Airforce SuperJet SSJ100-95LR

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1575165.html
member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by member_22539 »

It would be best if USA and Russia resume testing :D, that would give us to chance to the same with no repercussions. So, lets hope this competition gallops forward.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by Singha »

>Its not possible to minuturise a 10 MT nuke into the dia and space of Torpedo

with a range of 10,000km and a speed of 100knots...this would be much bigger and longer than a normal torp. the carrier subs will be fitted with a couple of special tubes I am sure. this is a underwater icbm-cum-uuv not a torpedo in the textbook sense.

something like this (well maybe a bit smaller :lol: ) could be fitted
Image
member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by member_22539 »

^What is that?
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by Singha »

its my favourite bomb, the 60MT tsar bomba. it was originally a 250mt device but the designers dialled it down to 60 as fears were expressed it would permanently damage the ozone layer if detonated at full capacity. even then the mushroom cloud rose some 65km in the air and the blast was audible 1000km away.



when you want to play as a big boy, you got to 'commit' and both the US and USSR had that attitude in spades. 'good boys' get spat on at the high table. this is something China learned and adopted very early and the gandhi dynasty and assorted hangers on never.
member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by member_22539 »

^My favorite too, but didn't recognize it given the context (thought it was some old automated torpedo/submarine).
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by brar_w »

Singha, you are correct..Its an UUV with a payload meant for one way missions ;).
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by Philip »

Why I maintain that the In should give its highest priority to expanding its sub fleet ,in fact doubling its planned inventory and increasing its own mini/midget and UUV fleet.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by Austin »

Special flight group "Russia" received another aircraft Tu-214

http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/70348/

Image

A special flight detachment (SLO) "Russia" got the fourth plane relay Tu-214SR.

The aircraft, which has the registration number RA-64527, made by order of the Office of Presidential Affairs of the Russian Federation at the Kazan Aviation Production Association. SP Gorbunova and made its first flight in June this year.

Now AO "Russian" in its composition has 13 Tu-214 of different modifications:

4 Tu-214 (RA-64504, RA-64505, RA-64506, RA-64521)

4 relay aircraft Tu-214SR (RA-64515, RA-64516, RA-64526, RA-64527)

2-cabin aircraft from the control of the Tu-214PU (RA-64517, RA-64520)

2 aircraft with a "special communication node" Tu-214SUS (RA-64522, RA-64524)

1 plane - the air control center TU-214VPU (RA-64523)
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by rsingh »

Arun Menon wrote:^What is that?
That was biggest bomb ever assembled. IMO it was tested in remote Siberia. Broke windows 400 km away. Then it was judged to be too bulky to be dropped by an aircraft.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by Austin »

Largest missile cruiser to hold hypersonic missiles

12 November 2015 Oleg Kuleshov, specially for RIR
Project 1144, to reconstruct the ‘Admiral Nakhimov’ the world’s largest missile cruiser, is taking place in northern Russia, at the country’s only docking facility for building atomic submarine cruisers. After the upgrade, it will replace the Pyotr Velikiy, another cruiser which will also undergo a refit, as the navy’s flagship. According to Vladimir Spiridopulo, the cruiser’s design engineer, the upgraded Admiral Nakhimov will be the Russian Navy’s most powerful ship. It will be equipped with Tsirkon hypersonic missiles.

A crucial stage in the production, involving removal of old equipment from the cruiser, has been completed, Sevmash told RIR. Preparations are on for the refit. The abrasive cleaning of the hull will be complete by the year end. The hull structure has been repaired; cutouts have been made at the location of the Granit cruise missile launchers, to allow installation of the new ‘Kalibr’ missile launcher unit.

Tsirkon for the navy

According to reent official information, after the work is complete, the cruiser will carry 80 cruise missiles and 96 anti-aircraft missiles with S-400 anti-aircraft systems.The Pantsir anti-aircraft artillery unit will be the last line of defence of the anti-aircraft defence system. The ship will be equipped with Paket NK, a new torpedo unit. All radio-electronic equipment will be completely replaced.

The previously installed Granit hypersonic anti-ship missiles on the Nakhimov were only able to attack surface targets. After installation of the new ‘Kalibrs’ the cruiser will be able to attack both surface and underwater targets. In terms of the weaponry and radioelectronic equipment, this will be a completely new ship with significantly enhanced combat abilities. The plan is to install hypersonic missiles on the Admiral Nakhimov, to make the ship practically invincible.

At the end of October Sevmash signed a contract with Almaz-Antey, manufacturers of the anti-aircraft defence system, for manufacture and delivery of ten ЗС-14-11442М universal vertical missile launchers for the Admiral Nakhimov atomic missile cruiser. The launchers will be modified to accommodate the following missile units: 3К-14 (Kalibr), 9К, 3М55 (Onyx), 3К-22 (Tsirkon). The prototype is expected to be tested by August 2016.

Reviving the navy’s offensive power

The ‘Tsirkon’ hypersonic missile is one of today’s most secret designs of the United Instrument Manufacturing Corporation. According to Dmitri Kornev, executive editor of the specialized web portal MilitaryRussia, ‘Tsirkon’ is a multi-service missile unit with a hypersonic missile. There has been unconfirmed speculation that the BrahMos-II anti-ship missile was the export version of the ‘Tsirkon.’ All tactical specifications of the missile are classified, but the ‘Tsirkon’ can likely reach a velocity of no less than 4.5 Mach. According to sources, the missile was ready for testing in 2015 but, based on client requirements, the prototype is likely to be tested by August 2016.

Orlan project 1142 involved building four cruisers: Admiral Ushakov (known as Kirov in the USSR), Admiral Lazarev (known as Frunze in the USSR), Admiral Nakhimov (known as Kalinin in the USSR) and Pyotr Velikiy. The first three ships were used for a short time. After the Soviet Union broke up, they were left standing at the berths waiting for repair or utilization. Some years ago Russia’s Ministry of Defence decided to modernize the cruisers. After ‘Admiral Nakhimov’, modernization will also include the Pacific navy’s ‘Admiral Lazarev’, now in a ship-repair yard.

During Soviet times, the modernized ships of Orlan project 1144 (including Admiral Nakhimov) were the offensive power of the supermarine group of ships, whose objective was to deliver devastating blows to the supermarine enemy forces. In peace time, the Orlans patrolled the ocean on the lookout for potential enemy ships.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by Karan M »

None of that namby pamby stealth nonsense with this brawler..

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... v_1994.jpg
Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3565
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by Aditya G »

^ Note the immense size of the mast and radar atop it.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by Austin »

Got some more info on Nakhimov modernisation from tender published and carried by blog http://alexeyvvo.livejournal.com/153950.html

Modernization of "Nakhimov". Purchases. Part 6: anti-missile system 3M-48 "Fort-M"
Thus, in the course of the modernization of the cruiser "Admiral Nakhimov" Both SAM "Fort" will be further developed to the level of SAM "Fort-M" (which currently exists in a single copy in the form of a nasal installation "Peter the Great"), the turret launchers B-203A will probably have to be made ​​for the possibility of work using new types of missiles. Among the types of missiles that will be used in the "new" SAM how to use even the first two cruisers Project 1144/11442 5V5RM and entered service "Nakhimov" (then - "Kalinin") 48N6K and naval version from the foundation of SAM With -400 - 48N6DMK with an active radar seeker and a range of up to 250 km.
So Naval SAM of S-400 series are part of its modernisation and importantly the 48N6DMK with range of 250 km has got Active radar seeker.

The 48N6 series are part of S-400 series and as discuseed in missile dhaga it got 250 km range and SAGG guidance but now it seems they have moved to full ARH type.

So eventually we can expect all the missile of S-400 series will have ARH guidance , makes sense as at those long ranges the radar channel can be used to guide other missile and LOS is now less of issue

According to discussion with SOC I had he seems to be of Opinion that SAGG guidance is more difficult to jam then any ARH type because the jammer has to both jam the main radar ( more difficult ) on the ground as well as the seeker of missile as in SAGG computation is done by both missile ( closer to target ) and ground radar and both co-relate their information and remove discrepancy caused by jamming , hence making it somewhat jam proof , as if Missile Seeker is jammed the ground radar notes it from discrepancy of data and tells missile to avoid the data and if GBR is jammed then guidance ignores the data and relies on missile data and it has two channel data link so both needs to be jammed as well.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by Austin »

Karan , This is full explaination SOC gave when asked about SAGG Guidance ( versus TVM ) some time in 2013 , posting for reference
Written by SOC on SAGG This is how SAGG works, explained using the S-300PM's acquisition and launch process.

ACQUISITION PHASE


1. Target track data is received by the 30N6. This can come from either a) a 64N6 downlink, b) a 36D6 downlink, c) an EW network downlink, or d) the 30N6 itself acting in its limited search capacity.

2. Battery personnel look at each other, each raising a single eyebrow, the universally recognized signal for "is this guy serious?"

3. Once the target enters engagement range, which is determined by target and/or firing doctrine, target position data gets uploaded to a pair of missiles. This is generated by the 30N6, which begins scanning the sky near the target; this can be especially important if you got track data from a 2D source, as you'll need height (the missing "D") to tell the missile which way to point immediately after launch and accurately guide the missile during midcourse. If you've got multiple missile types in your TELs (the S-300P family is all backwards compatible, so you might have 5V55s and 48N6s), the 30N6 will decide what kind of missile to fire based on ECM presence, target type, etc.

4. The pair of 48N6s are cold-launched, ignite, and head towards the target, briefly inertially guided based on the uploaded target data.

INITIAL FLIGHT

5. After stabilization, the 30N6 acquires the missiles and begins tracking, preparing to deliver guidance commands during midcourse. The target is also intermittently tracked. As an aside, radar capability and missile stabilization time are your major drivers for minimum range. Faster systems and better electronics mean you can get this going quicker, giving a smaller minimum range.

MIDCOURSE PHASE


6. While in-flight, the 30N6 periodically monitors the target and missile positions, uplinking course corrections to the missiles to keep them going in the right direction. This is simply command guidance. From an EW perspective, this is basically ops normal for the 30N6, and doesn't indicate a launch. However, if the S-300PM battery belongs to someone who does not employ the 30N6 in search mode, or keeps them offline until required to hide them from ELINT snoopers directing SEAD/DEAD strikes, 30N6 emissions can obviously indicate an active engagement. Plus, if your RWR/RHAW gear says "30N6 is online that way, and it's scanned our airspace at least once", you're going to take what precautions you can regardless.

TERMINAL PHASE

7. Upon reaching the terminal phase, the seeker in the missile activates. The 30N6 begins painting the target continuously using a narrow beam. At this point you know that you've been fired on, the CW signal from the 30N6 amounting to a "lock on". It's not that your RWR/RHAW gear is ignorant of a "lock on", it's that the SAGG system is delaying true "lock on" until the last possible moment to reduce the target's ability to evade.

8. The missile basically has a modified SARH seeker, and a set of guidance systems. The missile receives reflected energy from the target, and generates guidance commands. Except that these are not acted upon, and are instead downlinked to the 30N6.

9. The 30N6, operating in CW mode, generates its own set of guidance commands based on the reflected energy it receives and the position of the missile it is still tracking.

10. The two sets of guidance commands are compared and used to generate a final set, which is uplinked to the missile for action. The missile then makes the course correction required. Sending the data back and forth might seem like it's making things take longer than it needs to, but the processors in the engagement radar are extremely powerful and the signals are transmitted as EM waves, and therefore travel at light speed anyway.

11. At endgame, the proximity fuze detonates the warhead. The missile airframe executes a roll prior to detonation to align the directional warhead with the target for maximum effect. At the same time, the second missile (forget about him?) does the same thing. Oh, and the missiles are moving at something close to Mach 6, so the time window from terminal phase initiation to warhead detonation is going to be very, very small. Another point for the well-designed SAM system.

12. Airplane confetti. Almaz-Antei and Fakel patent the concept of overkill following the second missile detonating.

13. 30N6 scans the area to ensure the target has been eliminated, this is referred to as shoot-shoot-look: fire two weapons, see if you killed the target.

TVM differs in steps 8-10. In a simpler TVM system, target position data from the missile seeker is sent to the radar, which uses it to generate guidance commands, sending these back up to the missile. TVM is simpler in that you're using the missile as the radar receiver. Downlink the target data, get guidance commands, kill target.

The difference with a TVM weapon and a SAGG weapon is that a SAGG weapon will be more complex as it needs to have smarter guidance systems onboard the missile itself. Both will work fine, both will be accurate. SAGG, however, gives you a lot more EW/ECM/etc. protection as you're essentially continuously comparing two viewpoints of the battlespace to get the most accurate picture. Comparing these viewpoints will allow you to filter out a lot of jamming sources.

So, SAGG is more complicated, but that's a good thing: varying perspectives allow for more efficient flightpaths (more range) and better ECCM characteristics (higher pK). And if you think about it in terms of the target, you aren't sure you've been fired at until step 7.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by Karan M »

Good stuff Austin. This explains exactly why the S-300/400 variants are considered such threats!

Add the radar data from the surveillance radar + acquisition/firecontrol radar + missile seeker and even deception jamming against one part of the kill chain will not really work. So you block one of the radars or seeker, and if more sources are available with similar information, then the jammed/sources with discrepancy are automatically dropped.

I guess the only method that works then is high grade wideband noise jamming to just swarm everything with noise, with the risk of the missiles being launched against the jamming platforms. This has become more possible for airborne emitters thanks to proliferation of AESA tech in the west. You'll launch DEAD assets to basically take out the jammed ground radars hoping to minimize the risk against your jammer in the meantime.

And this is why in the latest S-400, the key ECCM improvement explicitly mentioned is the improved power to dramatically improve capabilities against noise jamming!!

Wheels within wheels. Folks tend to concentrate a lot on how heavy and "obsolete" Russian tech is versus more compact and smooth & shiny western tech is, but what really counts is capability. Bars radar in training mode working through jamming at Red Flag or the S-300/400 stuff above.

A good lesson for India as well. Our local stuff can constantly be upgraded to add more and more features as versus relying on imports which may or may not have every feature and any upgrade will be one level whats available for export and cost a bomb!!

BTW, I was also reading on Akash & the lack of onboard seeker, making it command guided is also a plus in a manner of speaking. The interesting thing is most lower power self protection jammers carried by opponent aircraft wont work against it since they are in X Band. The Rajendra is a band higher (C Band) and is much more higher power.
Last edited by Karan M on 14 Nov 2015 17:13, edited 1 time in total.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by Karan M »

The only other method that then works against such targets which basically are very very hard to be jammed is to swarm the airspace with drones which would try to jam all the assets, radars and missiles. Easier said than done, cost is an issue. Another method, develop very low RCS, speedy,wideband ARMs - lower than the threshold a Pantsir/S-400 combo can detect or attack. But to develop an accurate position fix, it will have to fly high and swivel its seeker without LOS restriction, and so its chances of detection increase..
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by brar_w »

Karan noise jamming or even Barrage jamming isn't a tactic that cannot be insulated from a HOJ attack. In fact the threat to either of these platforms being targets of a HOJ/TOJ attack is quite managable because of TTP's and the way the form of jamming is employed. However, none of these techniques are likely to be the preferred course of actions to deal with such systems as it would be a major resource drain. You are better off going after the I in an IAD while having a robust self defense capability through DRFM jamming which although not a be all end all of self-defense does impose cost on PK for either S2A or A2A weapons. Finally the most efficient way is to go at it from both angles, i.e. complicate the reaction time by introducing low-observables and deal with the RF threat in an efficient manner as opposed to relying on a buildup of huge resources which will be expensive in terms of cost, and time and for some players not even available and when available will be a threat from preemptive attacks to neutralize their buildup .
Last edited by brar_w on 14 Nov 2015 18:57, edited 2 times in total.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by Austin »

This Blog has Q&A on the so called Nuclear Torpedo , Posting relevant part

http://alexeyvvo.livejournal.com/154318.html


2) What kind of weapons? Is that a torpedo Sakharov? 10,000 km - as Holmes?


This is not a torpedo Sakharov, she is T-15, although it resembles a rough concept. Torpedo Sakharov was limited to technical possibilities of his time in the field of energy, communications, navigation, and delivery of the warhead at a given point of detonation. So in fact, it was just a very large torpedo with a very large nuclear warhead, which is entirely dependent on the capabilities of its carrier - the nuclear submarine - which, in turn, had to bring it more closely to the maximum possible distance starting.

Here we are dealing with an autonomous underwater vehicle, which in the presence of nuclear propulsion and power source. In fact, it is more disposable submarines with nuclear warheads of one, and the application of the system, more mobile mine.

Options stroke (10,000 km at a speed of 100-125 mph) may seem a fantasy, if we forget the following reasons:

- Conventional torpedoes chemical fuel, and some torpedo elektrodvizhitelem and electrochemical engine, it is able to develop the speed limit, not conceding this indicator. It is not necessary to explain this (probably a peak) speed exotic tricks like magnetogidrodinamiki or sverhkavitatsii like rocket-torpedoes (although individual decision is likely to be present here)

- With regard to the range of application, it may also seem a fantasy, if we forget that more than 40 years ago, the Soviet Union created a working ultra-compact nuclear reactor for a flying laboratory based Tu-95 and tested it in flight - and the reactor was supposed to issue Power by 4 huge turboprop engine, not like mover underwater vehicle (ie in this case within the test reactor is not the power output to the motor does not change the fact - by the way, the American counterpart flew only a non-working model). Since then, progress does not stand. And, for obvious reasons, in the case of unmanned underwater vehicles do not need any biological protection, or other solutions, which limited the reduction in weight and size of the reactor.

- Regarding precision (ie probability) the application to such a range (10,000 km), especially in view of the said document to the working depth of application (1000 m):


a) Any Moreman, even an amateur, will tell you that the navigational accuracy directly (if exactly exponentially) depends (very roughly) the ratio of the time and determine the speed.
b) at designated depths impact variables (not permanent!) currents and pitching kept to a minimum (for obvious reasons, the wind and other weather conditions also affect the value close to 0)
c) with an energy source, absolutely nothing prevents the unit alternately emerge at "periscope" depth (i.e., depth, where it can expand the external sensors and / or towed antenna) and check its position according to the inertial system astrocorrection (example) - data from systems such as GLONASS sweep aside immediately, as will say that the satellites will make in the first place (and be right)
g) is also possible, again I repeat, according to open sources, the exact orientation of analogue terrestrial TERCOM, that is, with a focus on well-known underwater topography, as well as navigation beacons low-power set in advance (including RTG-powered). This of course means quite intense and advanced studies of the bottom, but Googie, judging by the courts and the banknotes it receives, nothing not eating their own bread
d) the orientation of the geomagnetic field at these depths gives very interesting results

At the same time, I note that no one and nothing to prevent these weapons are not straight, at full speed, rush to the goal, and (for example) to wait in the wings in the distance. Long. But more on that below.

3) But what is it? The better missiles?

Nothing. And everything.
That is just one more, not exclusive, component of strategic deterrence.
But it is not against it at the moment effective antidote. Unlike.

This weapon, as mentioned above, is essentially a single-submarine with a nuclear warhead.
It has the following advantages:
a) It can be installed on any vehicle, surface or underwater, appropriate dimensions and systems of launching, as well as based on the naval bases without a carrier, and (if you really need) on aircraft carriers
b) It can be set to pre-position area, discreetly, on the move for a long time, and it can take back,
c) the amount and use of these products is not restricted by any international treaty,
d) its covert deployment period of threat possible with a limited number of specialized media (mentioned above) in a short time and at a reasonable price.
d) its launch (and bringing on combat duty) are virtually impossible to track
f) the detection and interception of weapons in the context of the implementation of measures to prevent retaliatory strike practically unrealizable (time and place), and practically impossible up until the end of the war.

Well, the fact that the missile defense here sideways, any clear.

And most importantly:
This is not a doomsday weapon, a weapon for the day after Yom Kippur - it ensures that even if you win, you still lose, even after a week, or month, or year. That is, roughly speaking, it guarantees unacceptable damage to the enemy even after the sudden and complete destruction of all the components of the strategic nuclear forces, interception of missiles, neutralize all the command infrastructure and causing destructive first-strike at key centers of the country.. And so, lays this day to the next iteration race.


4) But where does the pollution? Again cobalt? This is inhumane!

Based on the fact that these weapons of deterrence, in the case when not only started a total nuclear war, namely the moment when the Rodina - ashes, and the birthplace of the partners - a little less than the ashes, questions of humanity left in the basket. Rather, the less humane weapons, the more humane it - as it prevents the emergence of this situation, as the partner knows about it.
But here there is still another, purely technical aspect: even 100 megaton explosion underwater does not guarantee the full effect of unacceptable damage. No, of course, the mega-tsunamis and other drifts California from the mainland, neither he nor a hundred such explosions will not cause (well defined flooding - of course, but to scare these partners is quite difficult, a hundred thousand. Victims here and there after argmadetsa - it's the details in the fields stories that no one writes), although coastal cities and destroyed, of course. Especially considering that this complex is not required to detonate the warhead under water - atmospheric undermining the small accelerator quite feasible.

However, sufficient guarantees that the territory of which turned up the effect of the explosion of so-called cobalt H-bomb, has never (in the foreseeable geological time scale) could not come back no form of the protein of living creatures, enough to cool the head of the elite of the state, useful (villages) whose boundaries pass on the edge of the water. Out of such powers to the ocean (any) will be ordered. About a million years or more.
And that brings us to the last question.

5) And if they are symmetrical response to this asymmetrical response?

It can. However SNF exist only and solely by virtue of their effect.
Take a look at the map of population density in the coastal regions of the US and Russia, and compare. Of course our North-West and South-West, densely populated and prompotentsial huge. And Vlad is not a village. But all of these regions can easily get and without torpedo - the same Peter a question 10 minutes flight from the Baltic base. And North America is smeared and demographically, and (not least) and industrially, Bioresource, and energy, along the coast on both oceans. It happened, and it is logical. According to some estimates, again, I repeat, according to open sources, enough three dozen equivalent products multimegatonnogo class to "clog" the entire coast of North. America forever, and to a depth of several tens (if not hundreds) of kilometers. Ocean live then they see only the descendants of Homo sapiens in Africa.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by Austin »

They have correctly judged it its not a torpedo , No torpedo can do a 10000 km at 100-125 mph :lol:

This is a nuclear powered autonomous underwater unmanned vehical that can be attached to submarine and launched , its not designed to be used in first or second strike but in complete destruction of all things in the country in case of preemptive strike , this vehical can go close to the target ( or return to its mother ship ) and stay there for weeks months or year and then explode probably likely with multi megaton TN ( So called Cobalt H Bomb ) so called assured nuclear destruction in case primary means are destroyed , similar to Dead Hand Concept of C&C
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by Austin »

Never heard of Cobalt H-Bomb so far but seems it will now allow any life form to come back again post detonation
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by Austin »

The Never-Tested Doomsday Bomb
http://www.rense.com/general40/dooms.htm[quote]

The Cobalt Bomb is capable of wiping out life on earth. It explodes and emits long-lasting and lethal gamma radiation, the most energetic radiation in the electromagnetic spectrum.


The idea of the cobalt bomb originated with Leo Szilard who publicized it in Feb. 1950, not as a serious proposal for weapon, but to point out that it would soon be possible in principle to build a weapon that could kill everybody on earth. To design such a theoretical weapon a radioactive isotope is needed that can be dispersed world wide before it decays. Such dispersal takes many months to a few years so the half-life of Co-60 is ideal.

The Co-60 fallout hazard is greater than the fission products from a U-238 blanket because many fission-produced isotopes have half-lives that are very short, and thus decay before the fallout settles or can be protected against by short-term sheltering;

many fission-produced isotopes have very long half-lives and thus do not produce very intense radiation;the fission products are not radioactive at all.

The half-life of Co-60 on the other hand is long enough to settle out before significant decay has occurred, and to make it impractical to wait out in shelters, yet is short enough that intense radiation is produced.
[/quote]
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by brar_w »

Austin wrote:Never heard of Cobalt H-Bomb so far but seems it will now allow any life form to come back again post detonation
Thats good to know :D

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/ima ... lsut2l.jpg
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by Karan M »

brar_w wrote:Karan noise jamming or even Barrage jamming isn't a tactic that cannot be insulated from a HOJ attack. In fact the threat to either of these platforms being targets of a HOJ/TOJ attack is quite managable because of TTP's and the way the form of jamming is employed. However, none of these techniques are likely to be the preferred course of actions to deal with such systems as it would be a major resource drain. You are better off going after the I in an IAD while having a robust self defense capability through DRFM jamming which although not a be all end all of self-defense does impose cost on PK for either S2A or A2A weapons. Finally the most efficient way is to go at it from both angles, i.e. complicate the reaction time by introducing low-observables and deal with the RF threat in an efficient manner as opposed to relying on a buildup of huge resources which will be expensive in terms of cost, and time and for some players not even available and when available will be a threat from preemptive attacks to neutralize their buildup .
I mentioned the very point you make in the first statement.

DRFM jamming in this case is going to be a waste of effort unless you can jam all three radars - or even more! The more resources that flow into the battery from 3rd party radars and passive sources, the worse it is for the jamming effort.

The basic thing is that you can use noise jamming and then hope your DEAD works fast enough to prevent the HOJ retaliation! Basically all the GBAD need to be blanked including the Pantsirs. Given the diversity in codes, waveforms and bands, the simplest way would be to deploy disposable multi-band very high ERP noise jammers on drones.

I don't consider the "I" as foolproof either because the smart cookies that the Russians are (and so is the rest of the world), they would have either put in highly directional point to point links for comms or even backup fiber lines.

In short, I think the only thing that can help are DEAD efforts which have to occur in a limited time window which your fungible broadband noise or other jammers buy you, if you can deploy them on drones or some disposable asset.

I think India should seriously start looking at developing cheap decoys, mimicking actual aircraft which can hopefully attrit the combat power of these batteries by using up their available SAM component. Launch a 100 & then sneak in a few Brahmos. Coordinating that with jamming, which TBH is not going to be easy in any which way.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by Austin »

The point is these layered SAM assets would also have their outer layer of CAP by fighters or dedicated jammers and other ELINT/AWACS asset flying too , So in the end the DEAD/SEAD or other mission would have to deal with multi-tier threat , Not to mention beyond these defensive element one might also face offensive element too
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by brar_w »

DRFM jamming in this case is going to be a waste of effort unless you can jam all three radars - or even more! The more resources that flow into the battery from 3rd party radars and passive sources, the worse it is for the jamming effort
Modern DRFM setups do have the capability to feed false information over a wider bandwidth. With DRFM jamming you aren't as much concerned with the raw signal you blast out so you can spread the energy you have over a wider frequency as long as you have the antennas to do that. Most modern systems in the works or under development do have antennas. I believe the Rafale has 3 or 4 dedicated antennas for such a task.
The basic thing is that you can use noise jamming and then hope your DEAD works fast enough to prevent the HOJ retaliation!
Noise Jamming in a stand off capacity to either stay outside of the HOJ envelope (remember Jammer needs to only send signal one way, while the radar's range is determined by how much it gets bacK) or use your TTP's to deny a HOJ/TOJ solution. This has been an area of tactic development and deployment worldwide since the earliest days of missiles or radars that could go after the jamming emitter. That is why you will not see SO or even escort jamming from one platform alone tactically and why tactics change when escort platforms transfer from stand off jamming to terminal jamming. It is this flexibility and agility that basically made solid state electronics work for EA since older types had (outside of reliability which they had in greater amounts compared to early Solid state electronics) reached their limits.


I don't consider the "I" as foolproof either because the smart cookies that the Russians are (and so is the rest of the world), they would have either put in highly directional point to point links for comms or even backup fiber lines
Nothing is foolproof (including the air defenses themselves) but network control reverses the cost equation in that the cost to develop offensive capability is lower than defensive capability. It is also not just limited to data-links but involves frequency manipulation as well. Simply put the deeper you integrate your air-defenses because you are required to do so (due to a threat that has a threshold RCS that is now much lower than what it was 3 decades ago for example) the more vulnerabilities you create that you have to shore up and it goes on and on. Cyber Electronic Attack is something that has existed for more than 10 years but it is something that provides a capability that does not require large assets deployment (you still need EA aircraft and jammers) or targetable forces that could enable other EA options. Nothing is by itself a foolproof option for assured IAD penetration and destruction but they all come together - i.e. you tackle the EMS through the two broader areas that are most critical - i.e. you make it hard for the enemy to see you from an RCS perspective and then you throw curveballs at the sensors deployed by the enemy to further compound the detection.

Unmanned aircraft, decoys etc are all good options and part of the layer however it all depends what you are trying to hide..Jamming power is determined by the return of your attacking force and if you can reduce that aspect then the amount of jamming you need (leave aside CEA for now) is greatly reduced allowing you to send in expendable decoys with low power to act as stand in jammers especially if you can reconfigure them on the field (make them modular). Having said that, beyond such tactical employments no unmanned EA option yet exists that can close the feedback loop when it comes to follower jamming or even whack a mole tactics that are essential when your opponent has a wide array of frequencies used for detection, tracking and communication. You need a robust feedback loop to be established so that you know what you are jamming, if you should jam that and what the effect is of your jamming. It is irresponsible to do offensive jamming without a loop since you end up with unintended consequences. As an example a poor tactical employment of the Prowler setup that did not establish such a loop ended up jamming blue comms leading..Similarly in one of the Red Flag exercises a B-2 AESA comms ended up damaging a commercial satelite through its hoping SATCOM. It is for this reason that at the moment (given current technologies) unmanned jamming is likely to be escort jamming for very specific platforms and of course stand-in expendable jamming. "Primum non nocere" applies to EA/EW as much as it does to medicine ;)
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by Karan M »

I think we are talking past each other at this point, since given sufficient assets any system can be breached, but clearly a S-3XX/4-XX with overlapping systems will require a gargantuan effort.

For instance:
>>Modern DRFM setups do have the capability to feed false information over a wider bandwidth. With DRFM jamming you aren't as much concerned with the raw signal you blast out so you can spread the energy you have over a wider frequency as long as you have the antennas to do that. Most modern systems in the works or under development do have antennas. I believe the Rafale has 3 or 4 dedicated antennas for such a task.

A Rafale's internal SPJ as fancy as the hype around it has been will simply not be able to match the performance of higher power escort jammers that are required for something like the S-3XX.

>>>Noise Jamming in a stand off capacity to either stay outside of the HOJ envelope (remember Jammer needs to only send signal one way, while the radar's range is determined by how much it gets bacK) or use your TTP's to deny a HOJ/TOJ solution. This has been an area of tactic development and deployment worldwide since the earliest days of missiles or radars that could go after the jamming emitter. That is why you will not see SO or even escort jamming from one platform alone tactically and why tactics change when escort platforms transfer from stand off jamming to terminal jamming. It is this flexibility and agility that basically made solid state electronics work for EA since older types had (outside of reliability which they had in greater amounts compared to early Solid state electronics) reached their limits.

I never mentioned one platform. Similarly the S-3XX can target multiple platforms too..

>>Nothing is foolproof (including the air defenses themselves) but network control reverses the cost equation in that the cost to develop offensive capability is lower than defensive capability. It is also not just limited to data-links but involves frequency manipulation as well. Simply put the deeper you integrate your air-defenses because you are required to do so (due to a threat that has a threshold RCS that is now much lower than what it was 3 decades ago for example) the more vulnerabilities you create that you have to shore up and it goes on and on.

I think these are generalities which will ok in theory are really not going to be that effective against a modern opponent with dedicated backups for C3I.

>>>Unmanned aircraft, decoys etc are all good options and part of the layer however it all depends what you are trying to hide..Jamming power is determined by the return of your attacking force and if you can reduce that aspect then the amount of jamming you need (leave aside CEA for now) is greatly reduced allowing you to send in expendable decoys with low power to act as stand in jammers especially if you can reconfigure them on the field (make them modular). Having said that, beyond such tactical employments no unmanned EA option yet exists that can close the feedback loop when it comes to follower jamming or even whack a mole tactics that are essential when your opponent has a wide array of frequencies used for detection, tracking and communication. You need a robust feedback loop to be established so that you know what you are jamming, if you should jam that and what the effect is of your jamming. It is irresponsible to do offensive jamming without a loop since you end up with unintended consequences. As an example a poor tactical employment of the Prowler setup that did not establish such a loop ended up jamming blue comms leading..Similarly in one of the Red Flag exercises a B-2 AESA comms ended up damaging a commercial satelite through its hoping SATCOM. It is for this reason that at the moment (given current technologies) unmanned jamming is likely to be escort jamming for very specific platforms and of course stand-in expendable jamming. "Primum non nocere" applies to EA/EW as much as it does to medicine ;)

If you are focused on DEAD and limit your own assets in theater, then the blue on blue aspect will reduce significantly.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20773
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by Karan M »

Austin wrote:The point is these layered SAM assets would also have their outer layer of CAP by fighters or dedicated jammers and other ELINT/AWACS asset flying too , So in the end the DEAD/SEAD or other mission would have to deal with multi-tier threat , Not to mention beyond these defensive element one might also face offensive element too
Exactly. The scale of effort required to take on a S-3XX will be really huge. The US can probably throw the kitchen sink but for the IAF it will have to be really innovative and get many more tools. The IDFAF was also very concerned about the S-3XX and no wonder, why.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by brar_w »

A Rafale's internal SPJ as fancy as the hype around it has been will simply not be able to match the performance of higher power escort jammers that are required for something like the S-3XX.
High power jammers use that high power to gain mission flexibility since they are employed in different situations that require a different approach to jamming. A self-defense and survivability enhancement jammer in the Spectra will use deception and active cancelation techniques employing phased array techniques, DRFM and FPGA’s..The extensive attention paid to measuring the Rafale’s RCS (during its development) was most likely due to these system’s unique needs - requiring extensive RCS measurements and a fairly detailed RCS database since you would need to analyze the radar signal parameter (heavy signal processing requirement) and then in its internal RCS database find the corresponding echo data to achieve the effect on target emitter. IIRC the Spectra is AESA based that if true would allow it to be spectrally diverse and deal with (in a power-optimizing fashion) multiple threats, in multiple frequencies simultaneously in a way even the Growler can’t. While it may not have the ability to escort say a package well inside enemy territory, that is not its primary mission since its a self-escort enabler that is platform centric and designed to enhance the platform (carrying it) survivability. The inferiority of a Spectra for example only comes into play when you use it in a role that it is not designed to..Its a range limited system, designed for essentially self-escort roles at short-medium distances that would enable when properly use the deployment of stand-off missiles and munitions. A high power tactical jammer like the ALQ-99 or a NGJ for example has multiple missions, from stand off jamming, to escorting high value targets to disrupting wide-area data links and communications. If their purpose was merely to get a Growler in and out of a threat area or get it close enough to deploy a missile then they would be an expensive overkill. The closed you are to the threat the less the power you need hence allowing self-escort EA solutions to be packaged in a fighter (Spectra, Falcon Edge, DEWS and other Israeli, Indian, Chinese and Russian solutions) or allowing narrow stand-in jammers like the MALD_J to still be effective. The purpose of jamming here is to degrade the enemy’s SA or sensors at best, and to reduce the PK of its weapons at worst..You will not totally jam an S300, or S400 or their western equivilants. EW/EA based DEAD is a pipedream against a credible threat but what you are trying to do is control the EMS so that your strike aircraft can take care of the threat kinetically..
I never mentioned one platform. Similarly the S-3XX can target multiple platforms too..
Tactically employing multiple high power jamming platforms at distances is what insulates you from a HOJ/TOJ counter attacks. HOJ becomes a threat the closer you get to a missile envelope and the counter systems use is to :

- Develop high powered modes allowing for stand off jamming (Hence no need to escort as the USN's approach with the NGJ since higher power allows them to not seek a supersonic platform) with a wide coverage. This is enabled by solid state and particularly high power Gallium Nitride electronics - enabling very agile systems allowing a large portion the power to concentrate on very narrow frequency beams allowing for even more range..
- Spread the Jamming around with multiple platforms covering an area so that even if you have to enter a threat area, no one platform is forced to increase exposure to a HOJ solution. Additionally, depending upon the type of strike package you escort the jamming power requirement may be very little further adding to your jammer-platform-survivability. It all depends what you are trying to provide cover too, an F-35, X-47,F-22 or a B-52..
I think these are generalities which will ok in theory are really not going to be that effective against a modern opponent with dedicated backups for C3I
That remains to be seen although that is not stopping those that are developing the capability to continue to invest in it and to adopt it, use it in large force exercises and in the case of the IDF and USAF, employ it in combat. Same can be said about highly integrated systems that are yet to prove themselves. Since we are talking about capability its good to lay out what the capability and counter capability is. Cyber Electronic Warfare is an active field of interest and one of the areas that is getting huge investment from most of those that like to stay at the cutting edge of the field. From an offensive stand-point it is extremely expensive to counter and allows you to still maintain an element of surprise. Of course it does not take away from other EA options but as a discipline for those that live in the world of Electronic Attack, it is here to stay.

Offensive and defensive network warfare is one of the most interesting new areas," said Pinchas Buchris, director-general of the Israeli Defense Ministry. "I can only say we're following this technology closely. I doubted this field five years ago, but we did it. Now everything's changed. ou need this kind of capability," added Buchris. "You're not being responsible if you're not dealing with it; and if you can have this kind of capability, than the sky's the limit
If you are focused on DEAD and limit your own assets in theater, then the blue on blue aspect will reduce significantly
One gets into tactics however from a technical angle, the threat against most near peers is not getting narrower but wider. From an RF spectrum management perspective you are looking at a wide Radar threat, and a very wide software defined radio threat in comms and data links. Therefore managing that threat through jamming requires highly agile jammers which in turn require manipulation and constant adjustment to bring the desired effect. Furthermore, with CEW you have to be able to in real-time control which threats to counter and which to let slip since they are being actively manipulated at a higher level. Unmanned Jammers are great for a singular purpose such as the MALD-J types, or those that go after comms where the threat is relatively narrow where you essentially are flying racetrack patterns trying to jam a particular frequency in support of troops on the ground. However, if you are trying to actively manage an EMS through your standard DDD tactics in a jamming profile, an unmanned system will be extremely expensive to develop that will give you parity with manned options. The best may well be to use reusable stand-in jammers with a Global 6000 type system that can do a decent altitude. Modern RAT's allow max power at lower speeds and higher altitudes and that is the best approach in my opinion. The Israelis use their G550's iirc for this purpose and there isn't a mission over Syria that they undertake that doesn't have it standing off and supporting. The USAF has put Suter capability in some Predators, F-16's and iirc even some F-15's and there is little doubt that the F-22 and F-35 will have (f22) and will have cyber electronic warfare and network penetrating capability. The Growler at the moment is effectively used against legacy systems where its brute jamming works..I bet if they had to go up against advanced S300 and S400 they would not use the Growler in its current form but employ different TTP's and systems. The kitchen sink approach is only good if it works, but there are far more elegant systems that you can employ and that are used at closer Red Flag's for example that will give the USAF and USN much better options and chances of success. When the NGJ goes active, it will enable one platform to exploit both options but in the current situation I would keep the Growlers well away from the highest threats since legacy jammers cannot deal effectively with AESA threats without getting a lot closer (which then exposes them to all sorts of targeting).


An unmanned electronic warfare aircraft that has the capability to deal with a P2P skipping, high powered AESA (even GaA let alone GaN that can in the medium to high bands generate 4-5 times the power of GaA) will be extremely complicated, expensive and resource consuming unless one is trying to develop something that is trying to provide cover for a very hard to detect threat. We’ll see something that is as capable but not for a few decades at the least..In the interim we’ll see Electronic warfare unmanned aircraft (we already have systems such as the Pandora etc) focus on a very specific threat base, either along legacy systems (or around comms) in support of other systems such as the Prowler/Growler etc but mostly in support of troops on the ground..


India should in my opinion develop something along the lines of a large business jet with robust power generating capability so that it can stand off as the strike package with self-defense jammers penetrate yet has the space for large enough antennas to cover a wide threat from distance. As LO aircraft in the IAF proliferate it can then begin to develop much smaller elegant deployable decoys (either expendable or reusable) that can be effective since they aren't covering a large RCS..
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by Austin »

Submerged Russian nuclear sub test-fires 2 ballistic Bulava missiles (VIDEO)

https://www.rt.com/news/322120-russia-b ... lava-test/

The Russian strategic submarine, the Vladimir Monomakh, has carried out a double Bulava ballistic missile test launch from a submerged position in the White Sea, successfully hitting two targets in the Kamchatka region in Russia’s Far East.

“Salvo firing from a submerged position was made in accordance with the plan of combat training. The parameters trajectory of two ICBM 'Bulava' worked normally. As confirmed by objective monitoring, the missile warheads successfully arrived at the Kura test site in Kamchatka,” the Defense Ministry’s press service reported.

The Vladimir Monomakh joined Russia’s Northern Fleet in late September 2014. The vessel is a fourth generation Russian strategic nuclear submarines, which has been constructed by the Rubin Marine Equipment Design Bureau.

It is the third sub of the Project 955 Borei class, which is meant to replace the Typhoon and Delta IV class submarines, by incorporating the most advanced technologies. The pump-jet propulsion nuclear sub is designed to be quieter than its predecessors, enabling the vessel to evade enemy ships and detection.

In terms of the firing power, Borei class vessels are equipped with 16 Bulava missile pits, four 533-mm torpedo launchers and another four pits for 650-mm torpedoes. The Bulava missile is capable of delivering up to 10 individually targeted maneuvering nuclear warheads to a distance of up to 8,000 kilometers – or a lighter payload up to 11,000 kilometers.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Russian weapons and military technology

Post by Singha »

bulava looks like a fast climber.
Post Reply