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
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Cain Marko »

IN the mean-e-while Pakfa is looking good in production outfit:

Image
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Russia has begun consolidating its hypersonic and stealth detection radar chain across its frontiers with operational deployment of the Resonans-N metre wave radar

https://t.co/FSPBKqlEeC


https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense ... .html?s=08

Russian anti-hypersonic missile radar to enter combat duty in Arctic by July 2021


Russia’ Rezonans-N radar, capable of spotting hypersonic missiles and deployed on the Novaya Zemlya archipelago in November last year, will enter service no later than in June 2021, Rezonans Science and Research Center Director General Alexander Shramchenko has told TASS. "The third Rezonans-N radar station will go on combat duty on Novaya Zemlya this May or June," he said.

Two more stations, the fourth and fifth overall, will enter service in the Arctic region by late 2021, the official added. "By the end of the year, we plan to put into operation two more Rezonans-N stations in the Arctic zone - in Gremikha and Zapolyarnoye," he said. In his words, the radar in Zapolyarnoye, some 30 km away from the Russian-Norwegian border, will ensure "round-the-clock control of the airspace above northern regions of Norway and Finland."

Rezonans radars operate in the meter band and employ the principle of wave resonance, which allows detecting aircraft based on stealth technology and also hypersonic targets flying at a speed of up to Mach 20. The radar is capable of detecting targets and issuing target acquisition on aerodynamic targets at a distance of 600 km and at a range of 1,200 km on ballistic targets, at an altitude of up to 100 km.

The first and second Rezonans-N stations have been successfully operating near the towns of Shoina and Indiga.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Manish_P »

Noob question - is it harder to detect Hypersonic missiles (as compared to ballistic missiles). I am not asking about the launch platform.. just the missiles part.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by brar_w »

Manish_P wrote:Noob question - is it harder to detect Hypersonic missiles (as compared to ballistic missiles). I am not asking about the launch platform.. just the missiles part.
Within radar horizon limitations, many radars already detect hypersonic targets (most long range ballistic missiles travel at hypersonic speeds). Where something like a glider is different is the trajectory and altitudes involved. Longer within-atmosphere flight and a lot flatter trajectory (over larger distances) compared to prior targets. Horizon limitations still exist, so you aren't tracking them from the same distances as you would track a more traditional reentry vehicle or target an RV in space before it reenters. Radar isn't going to see beyond horizon limitations, so this is just about being able to track objects at those speeds and altitudes when they appear inside your radar horizon. The biggest challenge with H-BGV's isn't the "last mile" detection, but maintaining track custody so that you can go through your decision aids and complete your kill chain. Without track custody, it becomes nearly impossible to develop firing solutions at extremely long ranges and it disables things like launch or engage on remote - until the custody portion is solved by other more viable means. So it turns your long range air-defenses to much shorter range options (which fast ballistic missiles already do - but as I mentioned you can overcome those by L/EOR) which means you need more dispersed sensors, and more dispersed shooters even though the # threat may be the same (so you don't necessarily add density).
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Manish_P »

Thank you, Brar_w. I think I now remember seeing a pictograph you had shared in an earlier post, about Radar horizon and hypersonic vehicle detection ranges. I will try to see if I can find that post.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by brar_w »

Here's a notional drawing to highlight difference in trajectories relative to traditional Ballistic Missiles that re-enter. Even something like a MaRV or a quasi ballistic missile doesn't come close (for reference, the requirement for US H-BGV was to execute their operational range (above 3000 km) with a >50% non-ballistic profile to stay treaty (then) compliant). As you can see, if you are a traditional air-defense sensor-shooter pairing you are not going to be able to detect and begin tracking these vehicles until much later, relative to traditional ballistic missiles. Still not as late as a cruise missile, but a cruise missile isn't traveling at those speeds over these distances.

So it is a tracking and fire-control issue and not necessarily a speed related detection issues (many currently operational radars around the world are able to detect objects at these speeds and altitudes). At an EW level, there is a target ambiguity issue that these weapons also highlight. You can detect their launch from GEO. You can see them using land-based EW sensors when they separate outside the atmosphere. But, you don't know where they are headed as the within atmospheric flight can be hundreds if not thousands of km. So back to track custody again - You have to find a way to maintain a fire control quality track through the atmosphereic phase of flight for these weapons. Some of experimental glider concepts are looking at cruise altitudes that can come down to the 40 or so km or even lower. Because they are able to handle and dissipate the generated heat (hence those altitudes), they are also a lot dimmer than traditional RV's and are also alleged to have a smaller RCS when looking from the ground up. That is the real challenge which of course gets compounded by the fact that these things can hold that altitude while still traveling above Mach 5 which means you don't have a lot of time relative to say a slower and shorter ranged cruise missile. Even something like a hypersonic cruise missile powered by a scramjet engine will probably struggle over these distances (size practicality) when it comes to average velocities here. Once you get to the thousands of km cross-ranges, these systems will get their faster than current or perhaps even next gen scramjet powered systems designed to fit similar launcher/cell limits.

Image
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Manish_P »

^ This helped. I am a bit more clear now.

I will do some more reading in past posts.

The info graphic I remember (IIRC) was almost all black and white, it showed the curvature of the earth, the angle of the horizon at different points, the radar blind spots, the flight trajectory of different types of hypersonic missiles (one of which was the HGV) etc. Maybe the post was about the difference in the types (by different manufacturers) of hypersonic missiles

(I think I will find it in the US military thread). Thanks again.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by NRao »

An interesting Twitter thread on RU V day parade:

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1385907735015923714



TOS-1A thermobaric MLRS taking part in parade rehearsals
Image
Image
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Philip »

Any idea of the range?
srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5220
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by srai »

^^^
Sales video of TOS 1A. Covers everything
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Philip »

Tx. V.interesting presentation. Does Pinaka have TBrounds too?
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by kit »

Philip wrote:Tx. V.interesting presentation. Does Pinaka have TBrounds too?
yes

https://www.drdo.gov.in/sites/default/f ... 19_Web.pdf
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Philip »

Tx,went through the details. The TOS appears to be a shorter ranged MBRL unlike Pinaka and other systems. I couldn't find min. range details for P, unlikely to be spelt out.
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Vips »

NRao wrote:An interesting Twitter thread on RU V day parade:

TOS-1A thermobaric MLRS taking part in parade rehearsals
Image
Image
Looks really effective. China has similar system and has also deployed it near Ladakh. Wish we had similar Tracked MBRL's of our own.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Manish_P »

Well sir, it is on a t-90 chassis isn't it. We can easily import it eh... maybe even get a discount if we order it with the Spruts :mrgreen:
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Manish_Sharma »

https://hushkit.net/2021/05/02/flying-f ... ssion=true


Flying & Fighting in the Soviet Tu-142 ‘Bear: aircrew interview


Created at the height of the USSR, the Tupolev Tu-142 is a maritime patrol developed from the Tu-95 ‘Bear’ strategic bomber. With around 60,000 horsepower – the fastest, largest, loudest turboprop aircraft in the world thundered across the seas surrounding India for 29 years. Protecting the subcontinent this long-ranged beast earned the respect of its crews and the appropriate nickname of ‘Albatross‘. We spoke to those who flew the Albatross with the Indian Naval Air Arm to find out more.

“When we had a joint exercise with the US Navy P-3C Orion, they offered us a million dollars to have a peep inside the aircraft!”

Commander VC Pandey (Veteran)NM,VSM

“Prior to the Tu-142, I was flying the Il-38. I was trained on the Il-38 in Riga in 1976, I flew this aircraft until 1985 in India and gained much good experience. I was an Instructor and Examiner of Pilots on this aircraft. I was trained in the same training centre at Riga to fly and command the Tu-142 in October 1987. Having vast experience of flying the Il-38 was very helpful in flying Tu’s thanks to the similar instrument concept. For example, the Artificial Horizon indicators of both these aircrafts are opposite to those of non-Russian type of aircraft!

To start the main engines, there is a turbo generator on board (similar to an APU) which is started up with the supply from a ground unit. Each engine has an inbuilt mini engine which is first started first. Normally, the Flight Engineer starts the engines. The power levers can also be handled by the Flight Engineer in the cockpit.

The visibility from the cockpit is very good. We have done few close formation flights for some air shows. Short Range Navigation System ( RSBN) very similar to VOR ( DME) was available on board. However , it was incompatible beyond Russian territories. There was no GPS, INS, FMS, TCAS etc. on board the aircraft yet it was able to fly around the world and navigate very accurately. The responsibility of navigation was the duty of flight navigator, whose work station was ahead of captain seat in the nose area. He was required to power the ‘Stars Navigation System’ couple of hours before start of the main engines.


The Star Navigation System known as MAIS in Russian was the main navigation system on board. The almanac of various stars around the globe was available in the computer of this system. After inserting our own position in the system, the system locks on to stars available in the Zenith. The altitude and declination from a couple of stars would give a position accurate to a few metres. Thereafter during the flight, the system would automatically compute its own position.

The ‘Data Link System’ – in the centre on the dashboard in the cockpit and was an electronic screen displaying the deployment of various sensors and some virtual images. This data was capable of transfer to another airborne/ shore station for assessment and information of the current situation for decision making.

What should I have asked you?
Why Russians built the Tu-142 aircraft and from where did they deploy them? The US Navy developed the UGM-27 Polaris, a submarine- launched ballistic missile with a range of more than 1800 kilometres. Polaris became operational on 15 November 1960. The Soviet government consequently ordered Tupolev to study possible dedicated anti-submarine warfare aircraft. First they built Tu-95s and later various versions of the same platform modified for different roles and named them Tu-142M. I flew Tu-142MK-E version. Nuclear submarines need not surface for many months, so TU’s were positioned in Cuba, Murmansk and the Vietnam and were able to track US nuclear submarines around the globe in real-time and transmit their position by data-link system to their operational bases.


The thing I liked best about the TU’s was its speed, ceiling, low-frequency analysis and underwater recording sensors and their armaments for the destruction of underwater targets. It had a unique concept of flight controls. It had a fly-by-computer system. Control columns and rudder pedals in the cockpit were connected by push pull rods to a computer, output of which would deflect the elevators, ailerons and rudders taking in consideration various flight conditions. The movement indications of these surface areas was available in the cockpit.


Air-to-air refuelling system
The fuel capacity of this aircraft was about 100 tonnes. This fuel could normally give about 16 hours of flight. This aircraft was operated by a single crew, therefore provision of this airborne refuelling system was a tactical decision by the Russians. Flexibility to takeoff from a short runway, fuel/ time availability was the factor for this system.


Worst thing about the Tu-142

" style="max-width: 100%; display: block !important;">Credit: Commander VC Pandey


I think the philosophy of Russian aircraft designers in those days was to fill the aircraft with equipment first and only thereafter anything else. A rest-room (and even toilet) in the aircraft was not considered necessary. Every operator seat had a portable water bottle for collection of personal urine during the flight. The aircraft did not have any dry or wet rest-room for defection purpose. The crew member had to leave his seat, go to a corner and discharge urine in that bottle. The aircraft did not have any designated rest area. There was no provision for making tea or coffee in the aircraft, not even a microwave oven to warm up the food. It was very tough and all crew members were male.

Training and ferry flight to India, our aircraft training commenced in the month of October. The temperature had already dropped below freezing in Riga. In the month of December, the temperature was hovering around minus 20 to minus 30 degrees C. Icing was never a problem for this aircraft. In the month of December, every thing in Riga is covered with snow, all white including runways. Every landing was radar vectored Cat -1 ILS Approach, nothing visual till approx 500 feet or so. Thereafter , all that one could see was a small strip of black land mass. After landing and clearing the active runway ,runway disappears due heavy snow fall conditions. My training on the Tu was done under such extreme difficult conditions.

Most memorable flight? The Maiden flight to India, Russians permitted all Indian crew to ferry fly this aircraft from Russia to India. They did all the planning. It was decided that aircrafts will depart from Simferopol, Ukraine, to Goa in India and it would be a non-stop direct flight. The route chosen was overflying Ankara – Larnaca -Cairo – Jeddah – Aden – Mumbai then land in Goa. Russian Air Traffic Controllers cleared the flight to fly at around 36000 feet and at 0.76 speed of sound. The moment we contacted Saudi Controllers they requested for Radial and DME from a particular position. We replied that VOR DME is not available on board. The controller became very furious and asked us to immediately descend to around 15000 feet. We had no choice but to comply, we had fully tanked up so fuel was no problem.

The Aden Controller was very nice and friendly. He cleared us to climb back to 36,000 feet and to fly direct to Mumbai. We climbed to the designated height, auto pilot ON. After reaching the level, we handed over the stick of the Auto Pilot controller to my Copilot. Yes, there was a long expandable stick with control buttons for manoeuvring the aircraft and it could be swung between the pilots. We were in a ‘I’m home’ mood – but it did not last long. American naval fighters came from nowhere and started formating and taking pictures of every inch of our aircraft. These aircraft would be with us for about 15-20 minutes, do a vertical Charlie and disappear. Soon another fighter would arrive to accompany us into the Arabian Sea. I had noticed that these American fighters were fully armed. In the aft section of the Tu-142 there is a gun with twin barrels and a gunner crew. The flight gunner once reported that ‘The fighter is very close to me and almost touching our aircraft ‘. I told him not to provoke him and keep cool, soon they will go away. It happened so, at exactly 150 miles from Mumbai. The fighter departed and did not return to keep us company. Anyway, we were in contact with Mumbai controllers. Note- This aircraft is now in a museum in Vishakhpatnam in India, which is open to public.

Which types did you fly before and after the Tu-142? When did you start on the Tu-142?
I did my basic training on a single engine tail wheel Indian aircraft known as the Pushpak before moving on to the piston engine Britton Norman Islander. I then got selected for the Tu-142M, or ‘Bear-F’. After leaving the Navy I flew the Super King Air B200 turboprop for five years before graduating on to the bombardier BD700 Globals. Initially I flew the classic BD700 with the Honeywell avionics suite and then the BD700 vision with the Rockwell Collins suite.

How did it differ from the type you were flying before?
The Tus were poles apart from the Islanders which is what I was flying earlier. From a 3-ton piston engine to a 185-ton aircraft- the heaviest and the fastest turboprop in the world – was a humongous change.


First impressions?
We were shocked and awed. Got goose bumps, literally, at first sight.

How would you rate the cockpit for the following:
Ergonomics.
Once we got acquainted we were quite comfortable. It was an entirely novel experience in the beginning because most of the stuff was done by others. The throttles were manipulated by the Flight Engineer who was actually facing aft, his seat located behind the copilot. Both the pilots of course had their own throttles and could override the Flight Engineer. Navigation was done by the flight navigator who was seated in the nose of the aircraft at a lower deck. The flight signaller, again facing aft, behind the pilot in command did all the long distance communications. The check list was done by the flight gunner with challenge and response. He was seated at the tail, facing aft, and with no access to the rest of the aircraft. He was indeed a lonely fella and was happy reading the checklist! So you see almost everything was provided on a platter to the pilots.

Pilot’s view
Reasonably good


Comfort.
The seats were quite comfortable I thought but other than that not much thought was given to crew comfort. Answering to the calls of nature by a crew of 9 in the front crew area in one toilet over long flights was a big challenge

Instrumentation
Very compact for the pilots. As stated above many tasks were done by other crew.

What is the best thing about the Tu-142?
The fastest and the heaviest turbo prop in the world. We would cruise at 0.8 m during transit. Powerful engines each producing 15000 shp. The contra-rotating propellers were fascinating.

….and the worst?
Noise…and fuel consumption.

How would you rate the Tu-142 in the following areas:

Take-off Good except that it required long runways for take off because of its weight.

Landing She handles pretty well during landing and the engine response is pretty good despite throttles being manipulated by the Flight Engineer on command of the pf. The last time I flew these was in 2002, but the sequence of throttle orders coming in for landing will stick in my memory always. Outers to flight idle as we flare, inners to flight idle short of touch down, inners zero, unlock all and then outers zero!

Combat effectiveness.

Pretty effective overall. Avionics and equipment were archaic to begin with, but upgrades happened with the passage of time and this aircraft succeeded in keeping the enemy submarines down. The Western World were always intrigued and somewhat wary of this platform and the world perception of the Indian Navy in general changed once we acquired these planes.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Philip »

https://www.thesun.ie/news/6937858/puti ... es-russia/
Xcpt:
RUSSIA is set to launch a new submarine with nukes capable of wiping out US cities in a chilling warning to Joe Biden.

The launch of the Kazan sub is part of a long-running campaign by Vladimir Putin to modernise Russia’s armed forces and comes amid high tension between Moscow and the West.

The submarine is capable to wipe out US cities
The submarine is equipped with nuclear-capable Kalibr missilesCredit: Allocer
The state-of-the-art Kazan is the second Yasen-M vessel and is equipped with nuclear-capable Kalibr and Oniks cruise missiles.

A handover ceremony for the submarine including, the hoisting of the St Andrew’s flag - emblem of the Russian navy, is expected on May 7.

Its unveiling will come ahead of huge military parades marking the end of the Second World War in Europe, TASS reports.

The Kazan’s development has been shrouded in secrecy and its delivery repeatedly postponed due to unspecified problems.

Video has now emerged showing the Kazan at sea with missiles firing from sister submarine, the Severodvinsk.

US intelligence chief Scott Berrier recently classed the Kazan as a worldwide threat to America when talking to the Senate armed services committee.

Yasen-M submarines are designated to carry Russia’s new Tskirkon - or Zircon - hypersonic missile .

Putin hailed the Mach 8 Zircon as “truly unparalleled”, and has been described as his missile of choice to target American cities in the event of a nuclear conflict.

Its delivery was postponed due to unspecified problems
6
Its delivery was postponed due to unspecified problemsCredit: Russian Ministry of Defence
Missile firing from the Severodvinsk
6
Missile firing from the SeverodvinskCredit: Russian Ministry of Defence
The Kazan was launched four years ago
6
The Kazan was launched four years agoCredit: Russian Ministry of Defence
The Kazan was launched four years ago and has been undergoing sea trials since September 2018.

TASS reported: “The timing of the transfer of the submarine to the Navy has been repeatedly postponed….

“For a number of reasons, it did not fulfil the planned programme of state tests on time.”

It stated: “The main strike weapons of Project 885 / 885M submarines are cruise missiles "Onyx", "Caliber", and in the future - hypersonic "Zircons".

The Kazan is capable of carrying up to 32 Kalibr cruise missiles.

In November, the Kazan fired a salvo of Kalibr and Oliks missiles “which confirmed the possibility of such launches”, said a military source.

The Kalibr “was fired from the vertical launcher at the coastal target, and the Onyx missile was fired from the torpedo launcher at the surface target”, said the report.

Both targets were “successfully hit”.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Philip »

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... to-service
Xcpts:

Russia Just Accepted Its New Super-Quiet, Cruise Missile-Packed Submarine Into Service

It’s been a long wait, but the new Yasen-M subclass should help revitalize the Russian Navy’s nuclear-powered submarine force.
BY THOMAS NEWDICK MAY 7, 2021
More than seven years after its last nuclear-powered cruise missile submarine, or SSGN, entered service, the Russian Navy has commissioned its next such vessel, the Kazan, the lead ship of a new subclass. The event marks an important advance in the overhaul of Russia’s mainly Cold War-era nuclear submarine fleet, which had previously introduced only one SSGN of all-new design, the Severodvinsk, since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The new type is based on the design of the Severodvinsk, the sole Project 885 Yasen vessel.

The Kazan, first of the Project 885M Yasen-M subclass, was officially commissioned into service today at the Sevmash shipyard in Severodvinsk, on the White Sea in northwest Russia. Construction work on the submarine had started back in 2009 and, after much delay, it had finally been launched in March 2017.

Quoting a statement from the United Shipbuilding Corporation, the Sevmash shipyard’s parent organization, Russia’s Interfax news agency previously reported that the Kazan completed its state trials last December 28, clearing the way for it to enter service. “Sevmash has now completed all work to address the criticisms and prepare the submarine for handover to the navy,” the statement added.

As part of those pre-commissioning trials, last November, the Kazan carried out a test launch of one of its Oniks supersonic cruise missiles, according to Interfax. Before that, the submarine also launched an example of the Kalibr subsonic cruise missile, the same report said. Those missile types are available in different anti-ship, land attack, and anti-submarine versions, with optional nuclear warheads, and are delivered from vertical launch system (VLS) tubes. In the future, the Yasen-M boats are also likely to deploy the shadowy hypersonic 3M22 Zircon missile, too.

Until now, the Russian Navy had taken delivery of only a single example of the previous Project 885 Yasen class, from which the Yasen-M is derived. Entering service with the Northern Fleet in December 2013, the Severodvinsk is characterized by its significant cruise missile carriage — up to 40 Kalibr missiles, plus other weapons — as well as having an especially low acoustic signature.

Compared to its predecessor, the Severodvinsk, the Yasen-M is smaller, with its overall length reduced by up to around 40 feet, resulting in the previous large flank-mounted sonar array being deleted from the forward end. Like the Severodvinsk, the new design also utilizes a single-hull construction, akin to Western designs, and a break from the Soviet/Russian tradition of double-hull construction.

According to H. I. Sutton, an author and an expert on submarine warfare, the smaller size of the Yasen-M is intended to reduce construction costs. “Because of general improvements in technology the newer boats are unlikely to be any less capable than the original design, except perhaps in terms of passive sonar due to the reduced flank arrays.”

The Yasen-M reportedly also includes a new reactor that features an updated cooling system that is said to further reduce the noise the submarine generates.

With that in mind, despite the decrease in size, the Yasen-M is likely to be a significant development for the Russian Navy, providing a means to potentially build more submarines, more cheaply, even if they have slightly reduced capabilities in other regards.

In the past, The War Zone has explained how a combination of Yasen or Yasen-M class and the 1,500-mile range Kalibr cruise missiles could present a particular threat to a wide range of potential targets across Scandanavia and northern Europe, as well as Iceland, deploying at short notice from Northern Fleet bases. Operating in the North Atlantic, these SSGNs could also hold targets to risk on the U.S. East Coast, as well as within an area that was previously considered a “safe haven” for U.S. Navy ships and submarines.

The way these submarines launch their missiles is also different from their predecessors, which had angled launch silos. The Yasen classes are based around modular-type launch VLS cylinders that can accommodate different missile types as required. This also opens up the possibility of launching missiles without even leaving port, something that the Severodvinsk has done on at least one occasion.

And, of course, these vessels are hard to find. A War Zone source disclosed that, back in 2019, a large number of U.S. Navy submarines, warships, and maritime patrol aircraft spent weeks in an unsuccessful effort to locate the Severodvinsk in the North Atlantic.

“The Yasen may represent the pinnacle of Russian SSN design, benefiting not only from all the information from the Walker Spy Ring but the considerable technological advances that have occurred since the end of the Cold War,” explained Peter Hennessy and James Jinks in their book The Silent Deep.

Among others, the fact the Yasen design is so quiet and difficult to detect and track has spurred the U.S. Navy to begin looking at developing a new Seawolf-like advanced attack submarine.

The Severodvinsk joined the fleet after President Vladimir Putin had announced in 2011 plans to overhaul all branches of the military by adding around $360 billion to the defense budget. That project began to be derailed amid a serious economic crisis in Russia, including the collapse in the value of the rouble in 2015. At that point, the average age of the submarines within the Northern Fleet was 22 years.

Since then, for the Russian Navy, in particular, large-scale programs have been scaled back or even axed entirely.

Faced with this new economic reality, the scope of the SSGN renewal plan has been revised accordingly. As of 2015, four Yasen boats were reportedly under construction with Sevmash, with plans for another three to join them by 2023.

Now it seems unlikely there will be any more Yasens and instead, the focus is on the Yasen-M, at least eight of which are planned. A second Yasen-M, Novosibirsk, was reportedly engaged in sea trials in June 2020. While they may have been conceived as successors to the Oscar class SSGNs, the Yasens are far more versatile than simple cruise missile slingers, able to operate as general-purpose attack boats as well as intelligence gatherers and potentially as a special missions platform.

Of course, the new SSGN type is just one part of the wider modernization of the Russian Navy nuclear-powered submarine force, a process that has been moving at a glacial pace so far. However, by the end of the year, the service is expected to take into service the first revised Borei-A class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine, the Knyaz Oleg, originally due to enter service back in 2017, plus the second Yasen-M class boat, the Novosibirsk.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Philip »

X-posted from the strat page.

https://jamestown.org/program/crimeas-n ... practices/
Xcpt:
Crimea’s Nuclear Potential: A Return to Soviet Practices
Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 18 Issue: 89
By: Maxim Starchak
June 4, 2021

Crimea’s infrastructure is being prepared for potentially storing Russian nuclear weapons (Source: The Times)
On April 12, amid escalating tensions along the Ukrainian border, Ukrainian Defense Minister Andriy Taran expressed concern that “Crimea’s infrastructure is being prepared for potentially storing nuclear weapons” (Radio Svoboda, April 14). Even though Taran did not supply evidence for this claim, it is plausible to assert that such nuclear potential in occupied Crimea certainly exists.

According to experts, Russia possesses up to 2,000 nuclear warheads at present (The Bulletin, March 15), some of which may already be located in Crimea. Illustratively, in late 2016, “Object-100,” an underground stationary complex for the storage and combat use of two cruise missile divisions, was restored on the peninsula (Interfax, November 18, 2016). Created in the Soviet era, it has been utilized by Utes missile systems equipped with P-35B or 3M44 Progress cruise missiles capable of carrying a 350-kiloton nuclear warhead. The combat readiness of Object-100, which can hit targets at a range of up to 300 kilometers, was confirmed during military exercises in November 2016 (RIA Novosti, November 18, 2016). Crimea is also home to at least three Bastion-P mobile coastal-defense complexes armed with the P-800 Oniks missile (range of up to 800 km). The P-800 missile is capable of carrying a ten-kiloton nuclear warhead (Lenta.ru, September 25, 2019).

During the Cold War, Soviet sea-zone naval vessels—small missile ships, guard ships and anti-submarine corvettes—could all be equipped with nuclear weapons. Taking into account the preservation of Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) and the absence of changes in Russian policy regarding these weapons (see EDM, September 29, 2020 and January 28, 2021), the practice may well have continued.
(IN take note!}

Looking at the current Black Sea Fleet in Crimea, the 11th brigade of anti-submarine ships in Sevastopol consists of five Project 1135/6 guard ships, which are armed with the dual-capable Kalibr cruise missile system. The brigade also includes the Moskva, the lead ship of the Project 1164 Atlant class of guided missile cruisers, carrying the P-1000 Vulkan anti-submarine missile system. The Vulkan can be equipped with a 350-kiloton nuclear warhead. Moreover, the Moskva is equipped with the nuclear-capable S-300F anti-aircraft missile system (OPK, December 28, 2017; Rusonline.org, April 5, 2019; TASS, Kchf.ru, accessed June 4, 2021).

Two small Project 1239 missile ships and four Project 1241 missile boats are stationed in Sevastopol. Each of these vessels is armed with Moskit or Termit anti-ship missiles that can deliver 15-kiloton and 120-kiloton nuclear warheads, respectively. Moreover, the 68th coastal defense ship brigade in Sevastopol has two small Project 1124M anti-submarine corvettes with a 533-millimeter mine-torpedo armament, capable of carrying the RPK-6M Vodopad anti-submarine missile system or the VA-111 Shkval complex. These can be equipped with a nuclear warhead of 200 and 150 kilotons, respectively (OPK, December 28, 2017; Rusonline.org, April 5, 2019; TASS, Kchf.ru, accessed June 4, 2021).

Sevastopol is also home to the 31st Air-Defense Division with its two S-300PM detachments and four S-400 detachments. The 48N6 missile fired by both systems can theoretically carry a nuclear warhead. It is expected that the S-500 complexes, capable of launching a 77N6-N1 missile with a small nuclear warhead, will also eventually be deployed to Crimea (Avia.pro, March 18, 2021).

In March 2014, the authorities announced the imminent deployment of the Tu-22M3 Missile Carrier Regiment to the airbase in the Crimean village of Gvardeyskoe (Regnum, March 31, 2014). Reports of those plans were repeated in July 2015 (Interfax, July 22, 2015) and January 2016 (Modernarmy.ru, January 17, 2016). In March 2019, the first Tu-22M3 supersonic bomber landed in Crimea, seen as a potential sign of the looming permanent deployment of these strategic aircraft there (RIA Novosti, 2019, March 18). However, given that the airfield in Gvardeyskoe has been undergoing reconstruction since 2015 (Gvardeyskoe.ru, March 19, 2015), it is probably not yet ready to permanently accept these long-range strategic aircraft. The Tu-22M3, can carry from one to three X-22 cruise missiles or up to ten X-15 cruise missiles, both of which are nuclear capable. Tu-22M3s are also capable of using nuclear free-falling bombs. Relatedly, as part of the 37th Mixed Aviation Regiment, six Su-24M tactical bombers are located at the Gvardeyskoe airfield. These jets are capable of carrying two unguided, free-falling RN-28 nuclear bombs (Topwar.ru, June 26, 2018).

The long-term appearance of Iskander-M tactical ballistic missile systems in Crimea is possible as well (Riafan, August 15, 2020). Iskanders from various Russian regions were already present on the peninsula during the Kavkaz (Caucasus) 2016 exercise, and they regularly participate in other drills, deploying close to the Ukrainian border (Topwar.ru, December 15, 2018; Janes.com, April 8, 2021). In response to the United States’ withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty in 2019, Russia promised to, by the end of the following year, create a ground-based version of the Kalibr cruise missile and a Zircon ground-based hypersonic missile system, which would have ranges of up to 2,600 and 2,000 kilometers, respectively (TVZvezda, February 5, 2019). In October 2020, Russian President Vladimir Putin promised, purportedly as a sign of good faith willingness to lower tensions, that Moscow would unilaterally pause any deployments of ground-based intermediate-range missiles in Europe; and he encouraged Western counterparts to follow suit (Izvestia, October 26, 2020). Yet such mobile, ground-based nuclear-tipped missiles can easily be sent to Crimea, and no one would know about it, simply because no verification mechanisms exist. For example, Moscow already plans to deploy the first Bastion-S stationary mine-based anti-ship missile systems, which can be armed with these dual-capable missiles (Interfax, July 2, 2015).

After the forcible annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in early 2014, this region de facto became Russia’s southwesternmost territory. Given that all of the Soviet Union’s western republics hosted tactical nuclear weapons on their territory during the Cold War, Russia today likely also plans to deploy TNW to Crimea, and presumably has already done so. According to this author’s most conservative estimates, there may be up to 30 nuclear warheads deployed on the peninsula now. ...
With TU-22M3 supersonic Backfires operating from Syria at the Hemeimim air base,they to quote the Ru def. min. can cover the entire Meditt. Sea upto Gibraltar.
The presence of Tu-22s in both the Crimea and Syria give the Rus a huge combat potential both for maritime strike plus strat. ops.This is a sore missing capability in the Indian defence forces. There has been no replacement for the TU-142 Bear maritime strike aircraft which had an unrefuelled range of 12,000km. A handful of Backfires could carry the equiv. of BMos of a full sqd. of MKIs and sanitise the Malacca Straits even ops into the Indo-China Sea,
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by John »

Philip wrote:A handful of Backfires could carry the equiv. of BMos of a full sqd. of MKIs and sanitise the Malacca Straits even ops into the Indo-China Sea,
Each Tu-22M3 can carry only 3-4 Brahmos and Brahmos-ng also is too big for its weapon bay. So Brahmos-ng will allow modified Su-30mki to carry as much Brahmos-NG as Backfires(range is different story).
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Cain Marko »

John wrote:
Philip wrote:A handful of Backfires could carry the equiv. of BMos of a full sqd. of MKIs and sanitise the Malacca Straits even ops into the Indo-China Sea,
Each Tu-22M3 can carry only 3-4 Brahmos and Brahmos-ng also is too big for its weapon bay. So Brahmos-ng will allow modified Su-30mki to carry as much Brahmos-NG as Backfires(range is different story).
Philip is right. 6 backfires can carry 18 brahmos - that's as much as a sqd of MKIs. The Bmos NG is vaporware as yet. If they really wanted to hook it up to the Tu-22, you think they couldn't? Quite importantly, the backfire can carry these for more than 2x the MKI's range. As a show of force, there will be very little that could match a regular flight of Bmos equipped Backfires in the IOR. For sheer CM strike - 3-6 Nirbhay in the rotary + 2 Bmos on the wings will make it a true missile carrier. More than anything the MKI can manage. IMages of such birds skirting around the Malaccas or the SCS will be a serious headache for Cheen or anyone else.

Its an altogether new capability addition to the IN, and could be had and maintained for a fraction of the cost/time of the fantastic 65K ton CV with Emals and whatnot.

Ideally it would be blackjacks instead of backfires but even the latter will do the job.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by John »

^ Please don’t turn this into another discussion of why India should buy Tu-22m3 and Tu-160. Tu-22m3 was only ever offered once to India as part of Gorshkov (if were willing to spend additional 2+ bill on it ) and that to as part of lease agreement for 4 of them. If Russia ever is willing to offer it again we can engage in this fantasy discussion.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Manish_P »

How does the Tu 160 operate against militaries with capable AD systems? A high flying, high RCS aircraft it will stay well away and fire from safe stand off range, wouldn't it?

The US B1A had similar operating role - fast and high, until they realized the capabilities of the soviet AD systems. The B1B variant then changed to low level, high speed penetration. (It's RCS was said to be several magnitudes lesser, even comparable to small fighters). When radar tech improved even more, they had to go for stealthy B2s.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Cain Marko »

Manish_P wrote:How does the Tu 160 operate against militaries with capable AD systems? A high flying, high RCS aircraft it will stay well away and fire from safe stand off range, wouldn't it?

The US B1A had similar operating role - fast and high, until they realized the capabilities of the soviet AD systems. The B1B variant then changed to low level, high speed penetration. (It's RCS was said to be several magnitudes lesser, even comparable to small fighters). When radar tech improved even more, they had to go for stealthy B2s.
The blackjack is a combination of the B1 and B52. Think of what these two can do together, and you'll have your answer. Essentially a missile truck with supersonic and low level flight. It can launch hypersonic/supersonic/subsonic missiles at insanely long ranges and simply stay out of AAD bubble. There is nothing a defender can do other trying to intercept the launch platform with fighters by which time, the blackjack will be long gone. A single bird could launch 20 Kh-32s (1000km range).

Because of the versatility in payload, it can play multiple roles (anti-shipping, land attack, and primarily strategic).
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Cain Marko »

John wrote:^ Please don’t turn this into another discussion of why India should buy Tu-22m3 and Tu-160. Tu-22m3 was only ever offered once to India as part of Gorshkov (if were willing to spend additional 2+ bill on it ) and that to as part of lease agreement for 4 of them. If Russia ever is willing to offer it again we can engage in this fantasy discussion.
Sure thing. All I'm saying is that Philip has a point.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Manish_P »

Cain Marko wrote:..It can launch hypersonic/supersonic/subsonic missiles at insanely long ranges and simply stay out of AAD bubble...

Because of the versatility in payload, it can play multiple roles (anti-shipping, land attack, and primarily strategic).
Ok. Same (except perhaps the anti-shipping role) can also be done by long range land, ship, sub based missiles ?
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Cain Marko »

Manish_P wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:..It can launch hypersonic/supersonic/subsonic missiles at insanely long ranges and simply stay out of AAD bubble...

Because of the versatility in payload, it can play multiple roles (anti-shipping, land attack, and primarily strategic).
Ok. Same (except perhaps the anti-shipping role) can also be done by long range land, ship, sub based missiles ?
land based missiles will be range restricted. Subs and ships will not have same time to target as supersonic bomber, which can cover large areas quickly. This gives an offensive capability that is very effective.

But yes, a combination of land based missiles (shaurya types), mkis and ships/subs can do a lot.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5383
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Manish_P »

I wonder.

We don't seem to be as perturbed by the Chinese long range heavy bombers (even if they were supersonic ones) as we are by their long range missiles. I would assume the reverse to be equally true..
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by John »

Manish_P wrote:I wonder.

We don't seem to be as perturbed by the Chinese long range heavy bombers (even if they were supersonic ones) as we are by their long range missiles. I would assume the reverse to be equally true..
We are OT What makes Chinese bombers a threat is there sheer #s and the fact they afford to lose few dozen to SAM'S. Where as 4 or so Tu-22m3 we were offered will make little difference even if we can get 50% of them operational what you gonna do with couple of them. Also Tu-22m3 isn't that big of game changer when it comes stealth or EW capability to avoid enemy detection and avoid SAMs, heck the most advanced Russian Tu-22m got itself shot down in its first sortie to an obsolete Georgian SAM.

We are living in the age of UAVs and Stealth need to be looking forward at large UCAV that can carry Long range missiles (even russia is doing that) not cold war relics.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Philip »

That was a legacy Backfire.The ones operational today are all heavily upgraded ones and the USN consider them as one of its greatest threats to date.

China's bombers are subsonic, 4 Backfires can carry a BMos load equiv to a whole sqd. of MKIs! Error,just 2 Backfires each carrying 10 missiles can do the biz. Work out the cost factor and stress on our limited number of strike fighters in the IAF.,of which only the MKIs can carry just one BMos missile.There are no "large UCAVs " in any military right now. Even our secret UCAV programme is for a med. sized UCAV with a limited payload which will be prioritised for N-strike. Both the US' future stealth bomber and Ru's PAK DA cannot carry the load of current gen. bombers, which when equipped with LRCMs,etc., can safely make their attacks well out of danger of enemy aircraft. A handfull of BMos/ Nirbhay equipped Backfires can wipe out an entire PLAN CBG and attack any point in the IOR littorals be it Djibouti,Gwadar or the Malacca Straits. The min. we need are around 8 (ideally 12) the number of Bears we had which could sanitise the entire IOR upto S.Africa without any refuelling.They're all upgraded and regularly test UK and NATO defences, plus mil-ops in Syria.,frontline maritime strike bombers in the RuAF.

Ru Backfires now stationed at the Hemimim air base in Syria can cover the entire Meditt. Sea says the Ru Def. Min.

The crucial point is speed. Speed of dealing with an emerging situation at long range with long-ranged weaponry. Imagine a supersonic bomber armed with a BMos-H delivering a missile salvo in the ICS against PLAN forces. Subs will have limited missiles unless they're ex- SSBNs packed with missiles like the USN Ohio class, warships will be 1000+ km away ,will take hours if not days to get into a firing position and fighter/strike aircraft can carry only one 450km range BMos ASM each . Land based missiles will be tactical versions of strat. missiles,unlikely to happen .
Last edited by Philip on 09 Jun 2021 10:42, edited 1 time in total.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by John »

Philip wrote:That was a legacy Backfire.The ones operational today are all heavily upgraded ones and the USN consider them as one of its greatest threats to date.
No USN doesn't consider them the greatest threat there far far greater threats than this , The one that was shot down was a Tu-22MR which are quite advanced compared to M3s but obsolete in current environment. When russia offers them we can engage in this fantasy discussion till them it is all OT.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Philip »

Please read USNI Proceedings 2019 issue about the renewed Backfire threat.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Pratyush »

^^^

Really, you seem to have completely missed the USN intercepting aircraft sized targets at over 500 KM distance with ship launched missiles that were guided by the F 35.

Or the AIM 260 that is expected to achieve IOC by 2022. It will be a Missile with 100 Miles range and a duel pulse motor.

Any way, if they require a still longer ranged missile. They can always revisit with modern tech and capacity the Phoenix replacement efforts that were in place during the late 80s.

So the threat posed by systems is well known and understood. The fact is that the Russian capacity is less than 20% of what it was towards the end of the cold war. The US capacity in turn has also been greatly diminished in terms of dealing with Russian threat. Yet enough capacity exists that they can easily deal with any thing the Russians can throw at NATO.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Philip »

The Backfire threat today by an eminent US defence expert.Dr.Mark Schneider.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... at-us-navy
Xcpts:
The Renewed Backfire Bomber Threat to the U.S. Navy
By Dr. Mark B. Schneider
January 2019 Proceedings Vol. 145/1/1,391

The Russian Air Force’s bomber fleet is back in the antiship strike business. During the Cold War, the Soviet missile-armed Backfire bomber represented one of the most serious threats to U.S. Navy carrier strike groups.
The recently improved Russian version of the Backfire, the Tu-22M3M, represents enhanced capability in virtually every area except stealth. In 2012, the well-connected Russian publication Izvestiya reported that all Tu-22M3 Backfires will be assigned a naval mission. In 2018, TASS, Russia’s main official news agency, said that 30 bombers will be upgraded to the new configuration and will carry hypersonic missiles.1

The Backfire weapon upgrade is quite impressive, enhancing the bomber’s capabilities against both land targets and surface ships. In addition to the new land-attack missiles (the Kh-101 and Kh-555, according to Russian press), there reportedly will be at least two long-range ultrahigh-speed dual-capable (nuclear and conventional) missiles with land-attack and antiship capability. This is important because the Department of Defense has said the United States currently has no defense against hypersonic missiles. Backfire’s manufacturer, Tupolev, claims the improved Backfire bomber will be operational in 2021.

Russia already has increased the strike radius of the existing Backfire (Tu-22M3) by giving it air-to-air refueling capability, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.2 TASS reports the TU-22M3 has a range of approximately 4,350 miles (subsonic and at high altitude), which is greater than the 3,700 mile range stated by former Chief of the Russian Air Force Colonel General Viktor Bondarev (now a Duma parliamentarian) in November 2017.3 Backfire bombers routinely fly more than 3,100 miles to strike targets in Syria. The Tu-22M3M should have significantly longer range because TASS reports its new NK-32-02 engine is the same used in the new Tu-160M2 heavy bomber, which Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov said will increase its range by approximately 600 miles.4

Longer-Range Antiship Missile

Not only does the TU-22M3 have improved range, but according to Russian state media it also carries the new Kh-32 long-range supersonic cruise missile. The Kh-32 travels just below hypersonic speed and is a dual-capable (nuclear and conventional) antiship and land-attack cruise missile. Sputnik News states its speed is Mach 4.1 and TASS puts it at more than Mach 5.5 That appears too high, except perhaps in a terminal dive, but even at Mach 4 at 130,000 feet it is a very serious threat, possibly invulnerable to existing Western air-defense systems.

According to Russian media and other Russian publications, the Kh-32’s range is 620 miles.6 Sputnik News and Russia Beyond the Headlines report that it is nuclear capable, which is confirmed in the 2018 U.S. Nuclear Posture Review.7 Russia Beyond the Headlines reports the Kh-32’s accuracy within a few yards and warhead weight limit at 1,002 pounds. This gives a powerful conventional antiship warhead capability as well. The Kh-32 reportedly became operational in 2016. If so, more than 100 operational Backfire bombers could be carrying it now.8

The Kh-32 makes it more difficult to intercept the Backfire before weapons-release range. The Soviet-era Kh-22 (still reportedly operational) has half the range of the new weapon. While post–Cold War U.S. Navy fighters have much better radars and avionics than the F-14, they lack its long-range (and even the F-14 range would not be adequate against a Kh-32-armed aircraft). The longer range of the Tu-22M3M complicates a carrier strike group’s ability to set up a barrier defense. The extreme speed of the missile reduces flight time by a factor of four compared to a subsonic antiship missile, reducing the defensive value of locational uncertainty between launch and impact time.

The Hypersonic Threat

In a March 2018 speech to the Duma, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the Kh-47M2 Kinzhal (Dagger) missile, describing it as a nuclear-capable hypersonic missile with a range of over 1,360 miles when launched from a MiG-31 fighter.9 The TU-22M3 is slower than a MiG-31, but even when launched from the supersonic Backfire, the Kinzhal has a long enough range to make it nearly impossible for the U.S. Navy to create any barrier defense capable of intercepting Backfires before they launch their missiles. This will put a great premium on developing both enhanced air/missile-defense systems capable of intercepting hypersonic missiles and advanced defensive electronic countermeasures for ships.

Finally, Sputnik News and TASS report the Backfire carries the Soviet-era Kh-15 (NATO AS-15) short-range (180 miles) high-velocity missile, originally nuclear but now dual capable.10 Sputnik News reports the Kh-15 is impossible to intercept in its terminal dive and now has a naval strike role. A Backfire can clearly carry a large number of them.

Tupolev claims there will be an 80 percent modernization of the aircraft’s electronics—including its navigation equipment, the bomb sites, communications, the new MV-45 radar, artificial intelligence, and a new electronic countermeasures (ECM) system. The Tu-22M3M reportedly has electronic systems similar to those on the newer Tu-160M2. Russia has put a lot of effort into ECM systems and its press features many glowing stories about their effectiveness. While Russian press may be exaggerating, Russian ECM is very good and will complicate intercepting the Backfire.

The Dire Reality of the Increasing Threat

The U.S. Navy probably will face an antiship threat from the Backfire for another 20 years.
The antisurface strike missiles we currently know about will not be the end of Russian development in this warfare area. Before the Backfire is retired and replaced by the Pak DA heavy stealth bomber, even more advanced missiles, including those with greater stealth and hypersonic speeds, will be fielded. For example, a recent Russia Beyond the Headlines article suggested an antiship role for the new Tsirkon hypersonic missile, whose range the Defense Intelligence Agency assesses at 310-620 miles.11 And Sputnik News reports a very-long-range cruise missile is being developed for the Backfire.12 The Navy must soon develop the technology and warfighting doctrine to deal with this increasingly lethal long-range threat.

Dr. Schneider is a senior analyst with the National Institute for Public Policy. Before his retirement from the Department of Defense Senior Executive Service, he served in a number of senior positions within the Office of Secretary of Defense for Policy. He also served in the senior foreign service as a member of the State Department Policy Planning Staff.
So,some brief points for sceptics:

"Dire reality of the increasing threat""

1.There are 100+ operational Backfires in Ru service. 30 will be upgraded first which will have many similarities with TU-160 Blackjack eqpt. including engines giving it a 600km extra range.

2.The various types of missiles carried including hypersonic in the near future like Tsirkon, will make it almost impossible for USN warships to counter.

3.Range of US carrier aircraft make it impossible to intercept a Backfire before it launches its missiles,even the longer-ranged F-14 was not able to do so. Therefore,it will be most likely the same for PLAAF/PLAAN aircraft to do so too.

4.All Ru Backfires are being given the naval maritime strike mission.

5.The threat to the USN from Backfires will remain for another 20 years,until the PAK-DA replaces it. During this time even more advanced missiles will appear on it being developed for the PAK-DA,etc.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Philip »

One can now imagine the huge combat capability of the IN if we possessed even a small number of Backfires. For the record,dozens were offered to us after the '71 war,strangely rejected by the then air chief.They should've instead been offered to the IN ! The IN did want Backfires a decade ago around the same time when the Chakra/Akula deal materialised.Since we were operating TU-142 Bears at the time, it was perhaps felt unneccessary.With the massive Chin threat that has emerged in the last decade, the need for a supersonic maritime bomber (even a B-52s will do!) has only increased.
Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Cain Marko »

John wrote:
Philip wrote:That was a legacy Backfire.The ones operational today are all heavily upgraded ones and the USN consider them as one of its greatest threats to date.
No USN doesn't consider them the greatest threat there far far greater threats than this , The one that was shot down was a Tu-22MR which are quite advanced compared to M3s but obsolete in current environment. When russia offers them we can engage in this fantasy discussion till them it is all OT.
Err. This is the Russian weapons tech thread - I don't see why said tech can't be discussed here. In any case, the newer Tu-22Ms have newer avionics, engines, jammers and even radar. This is not a soviet bird - full 80% refresh.. Mix it with hypersonics at well over 1000km range and it becomes extremely potent.

As an anti ship asset, it is quite unmatched.
Pratyush wrote:^^^

Any way, if they require a still longer ranged missile. They can always revisit with modern tech and capacity the Phoenix replacement efforts that were in place during the late 80s. .
And what can the Chinese do to counter this bird?. The USN itself will find it difficult. We all know what happened to Aim 120C5s fired at long ranges vs. the MKI.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12187
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Pratyush »

The argument is about the threat posed by the system. The point being made is about the counters being available against the threats.

A big fat bomber or a fast missile can easily be intercepted when detected at sufficient ranges. Especially when the approach vector is well known and understood.

The argument about the AIM120C5 against the su30 is not really relevant. As we don't know at what range the launch was detected by the IAF. Along with the rationale of the PAF for launching the missiles at the ranges they did. Unless it was spray the missiles and pray that they hit.

Secondly in the confined spaces of the Mediterranean the approach vector of any Russian M3 will be well known. So unless it is a surprise attack like the Pakistani army did at Kargil it can be countered by NATO with available assets relatively easily.
mody
BRFite
Posts: 1362
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by mody »

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/ru ... d=msedgntp

More on the Yasen-M class, Kazan submarine.
John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by John »

SNaik wrote:
John wrote:.
Dont want to nitpick but just pointing russia wants to move away from small ship concept but cannot due to its small budget.

Russians are not satisfied with 20380 class corvette (cost as much as a Talwar class FFG with all limitations for a corvette as per a Russian admiral) but cannot build more Grigorivich class FFG due to reliance on Ukraine for turbines and Gorshkov class is too expensive to build in large nos. As compromise and trying to find better balance they decided to go with 20386 which has ran into some delays.
20386 is the size of Grigorovich and even more expensive than Gorshkov. Suggestions have been made that only one will be built and used as test ship for electric drive.
Russians are aiming at building more 20380 with upgraded electronics suite from 20385 and 22350M, larger Gorshkov follow-on of some 8000 tons and double the missile load. COGAG consisting of 2 M-90 + 2 M-70 is under tests.
Moved the discussion to Russia thread, Yea i heard they are moving away from 20386 but wasn't sure if it was confirmed.

Russia needs to focus on single class and improve the build speed, Gorshkov seems to be perfect fit but seems to be taking forever to build. Focus on fixing it and build that design across other SYs
Igorr
BRFite
Posts: 697
Joined: 01 Feb 2005 18:13
Contact:

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Post by Igorr »

Active protecting system testing on T-72BM3 tank. 25:00.
Post Reply