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.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20512
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby Philip » 26 Dec 2019 08:54

Yes, we'vd had at least 2 reported crashes of the F-35, one due to engine problems and the Japanese loss at sea,reasons still unresolved.
Since the pilot has survived it should not bbe too difficult to identify the problem,whether engine-related or FBW or actuator problerms for control planes.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8471
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby brar_w » 26 Dec 2019 09:36

Philip wrote:Yes, we'vd had at least 2 reported crashes of the F-35, one due to engine problems and the Japanese loss at sea,reasons still unresolved.
Since the pilot has survived it should not bbe too difficult to identify the problem,whether engine-related or FBW or actuator problerms for control planes.


For comparison ( since you brought it up), there are more than 475 F-35’s built till date and more than a dozen are added to the global every month and they are flying out of 21 air-bases spread over 4 continents.. Plus the aircraft is regularly deployed at sea, as a STOVL fighter for at-sea deployments that last 4-6 months at a time. The cumulative fleet hours flown are close to a quarter of a million across the fleet. The T-50 would likely not reach they level of production or utlization for a couple of decades still.

Simple math, you build more and fly more and you are bound to rake up a higher level of class-X tally..

What next..comparing the Su-57 (which had one serial production aircraft till date - which crashed) to that of the F-16 or MiG-29?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5033
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby Kartik » 26 Dec 2019 11:31

Philip wrote:Yes, we'vd had at least 2 reported crashes of the F-35, one due to engine problems and the Japanese loss at sea,reasons still unresolved.
Since the pilot has survived it should not bbe too difficult to identify the problem,whether engine-related or FBW or actuator problerms for control planes.


And how many F-35s are flying and how many hours of testing and operational flights has the total F-35 global fleet completed?

F-35 fleet surpasses 200,000 flight hours, 400th F-35 delivered

The global F-35 fleet crossed 200,000 flight hours in June this year with 400 delivered. That's 1 crash per 100,000 hours. If anything, it's a very impressive achievement for a single engine jet.

And how many flight hours for the Su-57? This was the 11th Su-57 that was produced.

I know that crashes can happen, but let's not get into comparison mode with a program that is 10 times larger than the Su-57 will ever be.

SNaik
BRFite
Posts: 515
Joined: 26 Jul 2006 10:51
Location: Riga

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby SNaik » 27 Dec 2019 15:15

So far a malfunction of the flight control system is blamed for putting the plane into uncontrolable downward spin.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1777
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby Zynda » 27 Dec 2019 21:49

Watch from 7:20 for one of the awesome AB show...

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4227
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby chola » 27 Dec 2019 21:57

^^^ Backfire! Thanks for sharing, Zynda. If we could pick up a half dozen of these...

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16518
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby NRao » 28 Dec 2019 07:06

Russia deploys Avangard hypersonic missile system


Image

Russia's first regiment of Avangard hypersonic missiles has been put into service, the defence ministry says.

The location was not given, although officials had earlier indicated they would be deployed in the Urals.

President Vladimir Putin has said the nuclear-capable missiles can travel more than 20 times the speed of sound and put Russia ahead of other nations.

They have a "glide system" that affords great manoeuvrability and could make them impossible to defend against.

Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu confirmed the "Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle entered service at 10:00 Moscow time on 27 December", calling it a "landmark event".

Mr Putin said on Tuesday the Avangard system could penetrate current and future missile defence systems, adding: "Not a single country possesses hypersonic weapons, let alone continental-range hypersonic weapons."

The West and other nations were "playing catch-up with us", he said.

Mr Putin unveiled the Avangard and other weapons systems in his annual state-of-the-nation address in March 2018, likening it to a "meteorite" and a "fireball".

In December 2018, the weapon hit a practice target 6,000km (3,700 miles) away in a test launch at Dombarovskiy missile base in the southern Ural Mountains.

"The Avangard is invulnerable to intercept by any existing and prospective missile defence means of the potential adversary," Mr Putin said after the test.

Mounted on top of an intercontinental ballistic missile, the Avangard can carry a nuclear weapon of up to two megatons. Russia's defence ministry has released video of the Avangard system, but weapons experts have expressed scepticism about its effectiveness.

In a statement, the Pentagon said it would "not characterise the Russian claims" about the Avangard's capabilities. The US has its own hypersonic missile programme, as does China, which in 2014 said it had conducted a test flight of such as weapon.

On 26 November Russia allowed US experts to inspect the Avangard under the rules of the 2010 New START treaty, an agreement that seeks to reduce the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers.

The New START accord, which expires in February 2021, is the last major nuclear arms control treaty between Russia and the US.

In August this year, the US withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), which was signed by US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987.

US President Donald Trump said he wanted a new nuclear pact to be signed by both Russia and China.


Image

It is hard to determine if Russia's new Avangard hypersonic missile system really has entered service, as Moscow claims, or if this is just an advanced phase of field testing.

But President Putin's eagerness to claim bragging rights is to some extent justified. Russia looks to be ahead in the hypersonic stakes. China is also developing such systems; while the US appears to be somewhat behind.

Hypersonic missiles, as their name implies, fly very fast, at above Mach 5 - ie at least five times the speed of sound.

They can be cruise-type missiles, powered throughout their flight. Or, they can be carried aloft on board a ballistic missile from which the hypersonic "glide vehicle" separates and then flies to its target.

Such "boost-glide" systems, as they are known (Avangard appears to be one of these), are launched like a traditional ballistic missile, but instead of following an arc high above the atmosphere, the re-entry vehicle is put on a trajectory that allows it to enter Earth's atmosphere quite quickly, before gliding, un-powered, for hundreds or thousands of kilometres.

It is not so much the speed of the hypersonic weapon alone that counts. It is its extraordinary manoeuvrability as it glides towards its target.

This poses a huge problem for existing anti-missile defence systems.

Indeed the glide vehicle's trajectory, "surfing along the edge of the atmosphere" as one expert put it to me recently, presents any defensive system with additional problems.

Thus, if Russia's claims are true, it has developed a long-range intercontinental missile system that may well be impossible to defend against.

The announcement that Avangard is operational heralds a new and dangerous era in the nuclear arms race.

Image

It confirms once again President Putin's focus on bolstering and modernising Russia's nuclear arsenal. It's indicative of the return of great power competition.

Some analysts might well see Russia's development programme as a long-term strategy to cope with Washington's abiding interest in anti-missile defences. The US argument that these are purely designed to counter missiles from "rogue-states" like Iran or North Korea has carried little weight in Moscow.

This all comes at a time when the whole network of arms control agreements inherited from the Cold War is collapsing.

One crucial treaty - the New START agreement - is due to expire in February 2021. Russia seems willing to extend the agreement but the Trump administration has so far appeared sceptical.

With a whole new generation of nuclear weapons at the threshold of entering service, many believe not just that existing agreements should be bolstered, but that new treaties are needed to manage what could turn into a new nuclear arms race.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11653
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby Aditya_V » 29 Dec 2019 07:20

Zynda wrote:Watch from 7:20 for one of the awesome AB show...


The plane is still using full after burners at the end of the video. If you notice it takes about 100 secs for the engines to achieve full afterburner reheat and brakes are able to keep the aircraft at a standstill with all.that thrust.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20512
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby Philip » 29 Dec 2019 09:57

A few sqds. of Backfires were offered to us after '71 by the Soviets at " friendship prices" in order for us to counter both the US ( from DG) and China.Unfortunately our myopic IAF chief at the time rejected the offer. Decades later the IN was about to obtain around 8 of the same but again it had a similar fate. Each aircraft can carry 24 BMos- NG types missiles.Imagine that being delivered at speed to our Chin chums in the ICS! It isn't too late to revive the deal. Backfires and even upgraded Bears have performed admirably in the Syrian campaign.

PS: Putin's realpolitik. Signed a deal with the new Ukranian President on gas to Europe through the UKR and rode over the new Kerch rail bridge in the driver's seat . A year ago Putin drove over the road part of the Kerch bridge - the parallel rail bridge was half complete. This opens up Crimea like the " old days" to tens of thousand of Russian holidaymakers into the peninsula further cementing his control over the Crimea which voted to return to Russia. Putin also recently handed back the captured UKR patrol craft captured in a naval spat earlier. Small beginnings in a thaw between the two but any progress is preferable.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2334
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby John » 29 Dec 2019 10:14

Philip wrote:A few sqds. of Backfires were offered to us after '71 by the Soviets at " friendship prices" in order for us to counter both the US ( from DG) and China.Unfortunately our myopic IAF chief at the time rejected the offer

At this point are you just rewriting history and making up things as you go along. Backfire were never offered for export during Soviet Union days because an export variant did not exist. It was cleared for export in 92 well after its fall.

Philip wrote:Each aircraft can carry 24 BMos- NG types missiles.

Why stop at 24 why not 240 :rotfl: Brahmos NG has not even been test fired and you are already making up #s on how many it can carry.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7453
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby Prasad » 29 Dec 2019 11:43

Intercontinental bombers were offered to us who were MTCR'd ?

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2334
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby John » 29 Dec 2019 13:41

^ It was only offered in 01 as part of lease agreement and it was only 4 of them. It was rejected likely due to large cost and restrictions placed on its use. Russia has also been peddling it to China for a while. I hope all the misinformation spewed doesn’t get picked by some DDM...

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8471
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby brar_w » 01 Jan 2020 00:28

Kartik wrote:
And how many flight hours for the Su-57? This was the 11th Su-57 that was produced.

I know that crashes can happen, but let's not get into comparison mode with a program that is 10 times larger than the Su-57 will ever be.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6811&p=2403982#p2403982

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20512
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby Philip » 02 Jan 2020 00:20

There is enough info. on the Backfire offer to India.In mid-1971 we were offered it but ACM P.C.Lal sadly rejected the offer.In 1999 we were again offered the same for the IN.FAS and others like Gunston,etc. have written that a KH-22 was accurate enough to target a Pentagon window.A test of a KH-22 missile gave a hole 16 ft. in dia. and 40 ft. deep.No carrier would be able to continue combat after such a strike, in fact struggle to aurvive. Bharat Karnad has written that the reasons given for rejecting it were "farcical".

Backfires armed with Brahmos, Nirbhay and even Kalibir missiles based on the mainland and capable of also operating/ refuelling in the ANC, could strike enemy warships and installations far beyond the IOR in the ICS ( Indo- China Sea). The excellent combat record of Backfires in the Syrian War where they along with TU-95/142 Bears and Blackjacks have been used operating from bases in Russia taking out ISIS targets with a variety of munitions has proven the tactical strike capabilities of these formidable strat. bombers.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2334
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby John » 02 Jan 2020 00:37

Philip wrote:There is enough info. on the Backfire offer to India.In mid-1971 we were offered it but ACM P.C.Lal sadly rejected the offer.In 1999 we were again offered the same for the IN.FAS and others like Gunston,etc. have written that a KH-22 was accurate enough to target a Pentagon window.A test of a KH-22 missile gave a hole 16 ft. in dia. and 40 ft. deep.No carrier would be able to continue combat after such a strike, in fact struggle to aurvive. Bharat Karnad has written that the reasons given for rejecting it were "farcical".

Backfires armed with Brahmos, Nirbhay and even Kalibir missiles based on the mainland and capable of also operating/ refuelling in the ANC, could strike enemy warships and installations far beyond the IOR in the ICS ( Indo- China Sea). The excellent combat record of Backfires in the Syrian War where they along with TU-95/142 Bears and Blackjacks have been used operating from bases in Russia taking out ISIS targets with a variety of munitions has proven the tactical strike capabilities of these formidable strat. bombers.


Name one source which states we were offered in mid 71 it didn’t even enter service till 72 so Russian already offered it to India wow. Tu-22m3 as we know it didn’t even enter service till 82. So please stop making up stuff just to promote mother Russia.

FYI go look Tu-22m3 issues on YouTube it is reportedly suffering from numerous engine and maintenance issues and Russia is struggling to keep them in the air operational. Thank god that 01 lease offer fell thru. They barely do any sorties and they already crashed 2 of them this year. If we got PRC like budget it is great to throw money at money pits like this but considering we still don’t have $$ to pay for minesweepers or next gen missile corvette I would rather have those...

https://theaviationist.com/2019/12/18/r ... crew-safe/

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8471
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby brar_w » 02 Jan 2020 00:53

Philip wrote:
Backfires armed with Brahmos, Nirbhay and even Kalibir missiles based on the mainland and capable of also operating/ refuelling in the ANC, could strike enemy warships and installations far beyond the IOR in the ICS ( Indo- China Sea). The excellent combat record of Backfires in the Syrian War where they along with TU-95/142 Bears and Blackjacks have been used operating from bases in Russia taking out ISIS targets with a variety of munitions has proven the tactical strike capabilities of these formidable strat. bombers.


Why is a strategic bomber delivering accurate conventional cruise missiles such a big thing in 2017-2019 time-frame when this was done in an actual conflict (against an opponent who was better armed) 25+ years earlier with the capability and capacity to do it possibly available even earlier (some claims point to EOC by late 1986)?

Operation Secret Squirrel Saw B-52s Rippling Off Cruise Missiles At Iraq 25 Years Ago

Cruise missiles played a major part in the opening strikes of Desert Storm. The vast majority of these were BGM-109 Tomahawks launched from U.S. Navy vessels, but 35 were experimental air-launched cruise missiles launched by B-52Gs on a top-secret, ultra long-range mission.The actual classified name of the operation was Secret Surprise, but bomber crews from the 596th Bombardment Squadron at Barksdale AFB had nicknamed it Secret Squirrel. The mission was kept under tight secrecy, nobody involved could discuss it unless the other person was read-into the operation, and even then only under certain controlled circumstances.

The idea was straight forward, seven B-52Gs would fly a 35 hour, 14,000 mile nonstop route from their bases in the U.S. to the Middle East and back. During this flight they would deliver an experimental conventional (instead of nuclear) armed variant of the AGM-86 Air Launched Cruise Missile, known as the AGM-86C Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missile, or CALCM for short.

The CALCMs used GPS for pinpoint accuracy, something that the Tomahawk, an pretty much any other munitions of the time period lacked. This was a major innovation that changed the nature of air-to-ground weaponry.

The idea was for these highly precise missiles to strike eight strategic targets deep in Iraqi territory, most of which were related to command and control and air defenses. This would help blind Saddam’s commanders as to the armada of aircraft about to strike targets all over their country....


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20512
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby Philip » 02 Jan 2020 01:48

You are simply reinforcing my point of acquiring Backfires for the IN! They are more modern than B-52s (not on offer along with B-1s,B-2s anyway to us!),
and in no way was I comparing the US ability vs that of Russia. Tomahawks have been std. fare in US conflicts during the last 20 years.

Once BMos-A/NG/H come into play, along with Nirbhay/Kalibir LRCMs , the IN operating such aircraft could devastate any intruding PLAN CBG, task force attempting to ingress into the IOR, in fact take the battle to it in the ICS itself. "The best form of defence is offence". We should leverage our ties with ASEAN nations like Vietnam, the Phillippines, etc. and prepare for offensive ops in the ICS instead of waiting for the PLAN to wage war in the IOR. This is why the PLAN's v.large sub fleet should also be countered by a more ambitious IN UW warfare strategy which is more vital than over-ambitious aspirations of a 3rd. large carrier when the sub fleet is short in numbers and long-in-the - tooth too!

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8471
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby brar_w » 02 Jan 2020 02:59

Advocating something is one thing. Trying to spin basic capability that has been used in actual conflict for the last 3 decades as if this were some sort of revelation or innovative change in modern warfare is something totally different. The Russians did nothing different with their cruise missiles compared to what was done in more than 25 years ago at the start of the Gulf War from both at sea (TLAM's) and air (CALCM's) and has been done ever since. The first TLAM missile on patrol at sea was some 35 years ago. This is basic stuff whether it is coming off of ships, submarines, or aircraft (fighters or bombers). Bombers threatening Carriers is also nothing new and such a threat influences fleet architectures and emphasizes long range naval SAM's, network warfare, and carrier borne interceptors and stand off offensive munitions. Neither shut down a carrier group completely and have been a constant threat to carriers for the last 4-5 decades.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5033
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby Kartik » 07 Jan 2020 06:13

More bad news for the Su-57 program

From AW&ST


Future Of Su-57 Next-Generation Engine Uncertain

Piotr Butowski January 06, 2020

GDANSK, Poland—As new details about a next-generation engine for Russia’s premier Su-57 fighter emerge, new concerns are apparent as well.

On Dec. 6, the head of Rostec Corp.’s aviation cluster, Anatoly Serdyukov, provided an update on the state of work on the new-generation Lyulka “izdeliye 30” (product 30) turbofan engine intended for the final modification of the Su-57 fighter, the so-called “second-stage” aircraft. Su-57 fighters currently fly with Lyulka AL-41F-1 (izdeliye 117) engines.

Izdeliye 30 is the first all-new engine for tactical combat aircraft developed in Russia for several decades. The previous Lyulka AL-31F engine entered production together with the Su-27 Flanker fighter in 1981. All subsequent engines, including the AL-41F-1 for the first Su-57s, are upgrades of the base AL-31F.

The clean-sheet design offers a thrust increase, lighter weight, a smaller number of elements and lower operating costs. In December 2014, Russia’s United Engine Corp. CEO Vladislav Masalov said the new engine will be “17-18% more effective” than the current one. If this refers to full thrust, the new izdeliye 30 should provide 17 tons compared to 14.5 tons for AL-41F-1. The engine’s thrust-to-weight ratio is to be more than 10:1. Thanks to glass-fiber plastic inlet guide vanes, the new engine fan would reduce the radar cross section in a front view.

“Bench tests of the future engine are being continued. The engine optimization on a flying testbed is being conducted,” Serdyukov said. “In October, another flight was executed aimed at checking the engine characteristics at various flight modes. Operation of the thrust-vectoring nozzle was checked, as well as operation of the oil system at negative G loads. In total, the flying testbed executed 16 flights.”

The flying engine testbed, the Su-57’s second prototype T-50-2LL, replaced the port engine with a prototype of the izdeliye 30. It performed the first flight on Dec. 5, 2017.

But 16 test flights in two years is not an impressive test pace, especially considering how important this engine is for the Russians.

Serdyukov concluded his remarks with the following: “The issue of the use of this engine on airplanes is currently under consideration.” This statement suggests that it is not yet assured that the Su-57 will receive the new engines in the foreseeable future.

Though there is no official information on the topic, the next-generation engine program faces serious obstacles. The main one is the lack of modern materials that would enable the planned engine characteristics. Replacing planned materials with those that are available is likely to adversely affect the engine’s weight and performance.

The first series-production Su-57 fighter was to be handed over to the Russian Defense Ministry in December 2019, but it crashed Dec. 24 during a handover flight in Komsomolsk-on-Amur. In total, the ministry ordered 74 Su-57s—the first two aircraft for testing and then six operational squadrons of 12 fighters each—with delivery by the end of 2027.

During the Army 2018 exhibition, Deputy Defense Minister Alexey Krivoruchko claimed that from 2023 the Su-57s will be delivered in a “second-stage” configuration, with the new engines. But in a statement to the Russian Defense Ministry newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda in December 2019, Krivoruchko corrected this deadline: Deliveries of the first-stage aircraft will last until the “mid-2020s.”


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8471
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby brar_w » 07 Jan 2020 06:35

I don’t think the timeline for the second stage engine is a major issue. The biggest concern for them would be to build at an efficient rate and rack up operational training hours to sort out all the kinks etc. IIRC, 1 perhaps 2 serial production aircraft are scheduled for delivery in 2020 so I guess the road to get this thing in the hands of operational squadrons would be be quite long. It seems short of an export customer, the slow pace is going to be the new norm. The Russian AF may not even field 100 operational SU-57s by 2030 and I bet they would prefer higher quantity first stage aircraft than lower quantity second stage aircraft though the latter would probably be better for export. The IAF/MOD decision looks better every day. Perhaps a decade from now when the second stage is operational and the Russian AF has a few squadrons in service the IAF can reevaluate what is on offer once it matures beyond just some prototypes flying with test pilots.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2334
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby John » 07 Jan 2020 08:10

IMO Russia should have gone with medium sized aircraft low RCS fighter aircraft replacing the Mig-29 would be much cheaper than Su-57 and could have used the modified variant of existing their engines. Su-57 is to expensive to be procured in small no’s by countries like Indonesia or Algeria and without export orders Russia doesn’t have $$ to push it to service.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4227
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby chola » 07 Jan 2020 08:33

John wrote:IMO Russia should have gone with medium sized aircraft low RCS fighter aircraft replacing the Mig-29 would be much cheaper than Su-57 and could have used the modified variant of existing their engines. Su-57 is to expensive to be procured in small no’s by countries like Indonesia or Algeria and without export orders Russia doesn’t have $$ to push it to service.


Russia put all its cards onto the Flanker's specs -- twin heavy class turbofans with extreme load and range. The SU-57 is a stealthified version of that model. They had basically allowed MiG-29 and MiG itself to slowly die on the
vine.

Domestically it made sense because Russia is a massive landmass with extreme distances to be covered. And the Flanker has been highly successful. Except for export, there is nothing wrong with that thinking.

Of course, larger things cost more which makes it less attractive for nations within smaller borders. But exports for stealth fighters was always an uphill battle for any aircraft not named the F-35. The countries in the world who can afford stealth are nearly all in the West and its allies like Japan or Saudi Arabia.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8471
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby brar_w » 07 Jan 2020 08:49

John wrote:IMO Russia should have gone with medium sized aircraft low RCS fighter aircraft replacing the Mig-29 would be much cheaper than Su-57 and could have used the modified variant of existing their engines. Su-57 is to expensive to be procured in small no’s by countries like Indonesia or Algeria and without export orders Russia doesn’t have $$ to push it to service.


Yes. From an export perspective a single or twin engine medium stealth fighter would have done better and then would have ushered a new capability post FSU collapse. But I think the charm of a stealthy flanker was too much to pass on and now they’ll have to wait till we’ll into the 2030s to have anything besides a silver bullet force. By that time their main competition would have likely begun fielding 6th gen aircraft.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2562
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby Vips » 07 Jan 2020 21:07

^^ If Russia is not able to develop a new powerful engine suitable for a 'stealthy' bird, it is indirectly good for us as otherwise the engine would have ding-donged its way into the J series chinese jets that would also be flying in PAF thereafter. As of now the J20 is a under powered jet and the chinese are desperately looking to acquire an engine for it.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2334
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby John » 08 Jan 2020 07:46

Domestically it made sense because Russia is a massive landmass with extreme distances to be covered. And the Flanker has been highly successful. Except for export, there is nothing wrong with that thinking.

But Russia is developing almost most of it weapons with export primarily in mind with exception of few icbm and hypersonic weapons. So that is what puzzled me with their development of Su-57 it is too expensive for them to afford. I believe when it was conceived Putin truly believed oil will keep going higher and he can turn the economy around. I think they did plan for light-medium stealth fighter developed by Mig but budget cuts have killed most of these programs including their stealth bomber plans.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9745
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby Yagnasri » 08 Jan 2020 12:26

It is quite possible that they expected us to pay for the part of the cost.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4227
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby chola » 08 Jan 2020 13:12

Vips wrote:^^ If Russia is not able to develop a new powerful engine suitable for a 'stealthy' bird, it is indirectly good for us as otherwise the engine would have ding-donged its way into the J series chinese jets that would also be flying in PAF thereafter. As of now the J20 is a under powered jet and the chinese are desperately looking to acquire an engine for it.


I agree with that statement since we will no longer be buying Russian engines after MKI production ends. We are hitched to the F404/414 family going forward. Anything new that Russia develops on that front will more likely go to Pakistan than to us.

The J-20 will be underpowered until it gets the WS-15. I don't think the chinis expect to get a 180kN engine from anyone else and they are already mass producing the aircraft with the WS-10.

Pakis have decided on staying with the RD-93 over the WS-13 on their JF-17 Block 3. They might or might not do that when the WS-19 is ready for later JF-17 versions and their AZM stealth program. Klimov would have incentive to upgrade their RD-33 family which theoretically could help us with our MiG-29 fleet.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4227
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby chola » 08 Jan 2020 13:32

John wrote:
Domestically it made sense because Russia is a massive landmass with extreme distances to be covered. And the Flanker has been highly successful. Except for export, there is nothing wrong with that thinking.

But Russia is developing almost most of it weapons with export primarily in mind with exception of few icbm and hypersonic weapons. So that is what puzzled me with their development of Su-57 it is too expensive for them to afford. I believe when it was conceived Putin truly believed oil will keep going higher and he can turn the economy around. I think they did plan for light-medium stealth fighter developed by Mig but budget cuts have killed most of these programs including their stealth bomber plans.


MiG can't export the MiG-35 so maybe even a medium fighter would have a hard time selling. The only stable customer for newly designed Russian planes is the VVS and it is hooked on the Flanker specs.

A medium stealth fighter in the mode of the F-35 won't be cheap either and I don't think they have bothered/made much progress with an advanced medium engine unlike the AL-41 and Izdeliye 30.

The trends and requirements in Russia made PAK FA inevitable, IMHO. The MiG-1.44 never really had a chance because of these.

SNaik
BRFite
Posts: 515
Joined: 26 Jul 2006 10:51
Location: Riga

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby SNaik » 08 Jan 2020 15:05

John wrote:But Russia is developing almost most of it weapons with export primarily in mind with exception of few icbm and hypersonic weapons. So that is what puzzled me with their development of Su-57 it is too expensive for them to afford. I believe when it was conceived Putin truly believed oil will keep going higher and he can turn the economy around. I think they did plan for light-medium stealth fighter developed by Mig but budget cuts have killed most of these programs including their stealth bomber plans.


Russia is still developing the PAK-DA stealth bomber as well as a growing number of UAVs. These programs are not killed, just going at a slower pace. They also continue development of Il-112 light transport and just a week ago MoD was deciding which project will be the future medium transport.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5033
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby Kartik » 11 Jan 2020 00:37

The simplified and cheaper S-350 Vityaz SAM delivered to Russian forces. Very interesting. I wasn't really aware of this SAM system at all. Apparently called a "poor man's S-400" as the system has fewer missile types and radars to reduce the footprint and logistical and maintenance costs.

First S-350 Vityaz SAM delivered to Russia

Image

The Russian defense ministry has taken delivery of a first set of the S-350 Vityaz surface-to-air missile (SAM) system developed and manufactured by Almaz-Antey Air and Space Defense. The delivery ceremony took place in late December at the Kapustin Yar firing range in southern Russia, where the SAM system completed firing trials in April 2019. Given a GRAU index of 50R6A, the S-350 is a medium-range SAM able to intercept both aerodynamic and ballistic targets as well as to repel large-scale attacks by modern UAVs and air-launched munitions.

Even though the S-350’s development and testing involved repeated delays and postponements, it managed to attract a number of export customers. Soon after public demonstrations of a desk model at the turn of the century, the Republic of Korea (RoK) contracted Almaz–Antey to help it develop the KM-SAM Cheongung. …

Soon after the system’s architecture and performance were made public, experts dubbed it “the poor man’s S-400.” Indeed, the NIEMI design house (now integrated into Almaz-Antey’s corporate structure) created the S-350 as an “inexpensive, simplified version” of the S-400 Triumph using the latter’s key technologies and even some hardware components. The biggest difference between the two is that the Vityaz employs only two missile types (9M96 and 9M100) whereas the more complex Triumph has seven. This enabled a significant decrease in the number of vehicles in a battery to cut acquisition and maintenance costs, as well as to ease logistics.

….


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8471
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby brar_w » 11 Jan 2020 02:18

SNaik wrote:
John wrote:But Russia is developing almost most of it weapons with export primarily in mind with exception of few icbm and hypersonic weapons. So that is what puzzled me with their development of Su-57 it is too expensive for them to afford. I believe when it was conceived Putin truly believed oil will keep going higher and he can turn the economy around. I think they did plan for light-medium stealth fighter developed by Mig but budget cuts have killed most of these programs including their stealth bomber plans.


Russia is still developing the PAK-DA stealth bomber as well as a growing number of UAVs. These programs are not killed, just going at a slower pace. They also continue development of Il-112 light transport and just a week ago MoD was deciding which project will be the future medium transport.


The problem with stretched timelines is that you loose out on the tactical and strategic advantage in many areas. For example, a while ago someone mentioned that the PAKFA with its fully advertised capability (second stage engine and other internal and external refinements planned bot not yet executed) would be ready by 2030 and then it would become a world class fighter... Well that may allow it to finally begin replacing the older, retiring flankers for the Russian Air Force (at anything besides a silver_bullet level production rate) but it cedes a lot of technological advantage for a long time. If you remember, the Sukhoi proposal for the PAKFA was chosen back in 2002/2003. Around that time-frame is when its Technical Baseline is likely to have been established. So essentially you are ceding about a decade to a decade and a half of technological advantage and allowing your adversaries to field systems with much superior technology soon thereafter. The USAF PCA/NGAD will likely be in advanced testing in one shape or form by 2030 (and the F-22 would have received enough upgrades to classify it as an MLU, while the F-35 enterprise would be fielding block 5 capability (they started with block 3)) so already the next generation systems are going to begin to be fielded. Same with any bomber relying on advanced technology and capability.

A very long time-line essentially means you are longer to deliver a particular baseline and as a result not enjoy technological competitiveness for the desired time-frame. Anything beyond 10-12 years from the decision to sanction the development and you are playing catch up (many western systems including the F-35 are in this boat hence they are now rapidly shifting to 6 month continuous improvement cycles to catch up as IOC was delayed by 4-5 years so block 4 and block 5 are about the same time-frame apart which they need to bring back).


Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8500
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby Rakesh » 22 Jan 2020 07:03

https://twitter.com/GarethJennings3/sta ... 4600945664 ---> Russian Air Force showing off the latest in its line of inflatable Sukhois. Looks very realistic, but would have to question how a Su-30 came to be parked in the middle of a forest.

Image

Image

Image

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8471
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby brar_w » 22 Jan 2020 21:49

They are still saying 2022 but that could very easily slip a year or more. No deployment for half a decade (since the last one in 2017) assuming they are able to meet that target.

Fire damage at Admiral Kuznetsov has not yet been calculated - USC head


Moscow. January 22. INTERFAX - The calculation of the extent of fire damage on the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft-carrying cruiser has not yet been completed, the commission’s work is expected closer to the end of January, head of the United Shipbuilding Corporation Alexey Rakhmanov told Interfax.

"Not yet, we agreed to wait until the end of January," Rakhmanov said, answering the corresponding question.

In February 2017, Admiral Kuznetsov returned to Severomorsk from a campaign in the Mediterranean Sea, during which for the first time in the history of the Navy the combat use of carrier-based Su-33 and MiG-29KR fighters in Syria was carried out. According to official figures, the “Admiral Kuznetsov” lost two carrier-based fighters during the campaign. Accidents occurred during the approach, the pilots ejected. Media noted that on a trip to the coast of Syria, the Russian aircraft carrier smoked heavily.

On the night of October 30, 2018, one of the largest floating docks in the world, the PD-50 sank at the 82nd shipyard (Roslyakovo microdistrict, Murmansk) when Admiral Kuznetsov left it. As a result of the accident, one of the floating dock cranes fell on the deck of an aircraft carrier.
On December 12, 2019, a fire broke out on the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, which was put in for repair at a plant in Murmansk. According to preliminary data, a fire arose during welding. He was put out a day. As a result of the fire, two people were killed, another 14 were injured. A criminal case was opened on the fact of a fire on the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier on the grounds of a crime under Art. 216 of the Criminal Code (violation of safety rules during construction or other works).

The cause of the fire could be the human factor, then head of USC Rakhmanov told Interfax. "The incident occurred during scheduled coordinated welding operations. Scale fell on the lower decks. Local fire ignited on the deck due to the dismantled equipment and fire hazardous liquids. The equipment is dismantled, combustible objects or liquids, or their remnants, which the reasons weren’t removed. The human factor, ”Rakhmanov said.

On December 16, Rakhmanov told Interfax that Admiral Kuznetsov had not received critical damage as a result of the fire, that he would be repaired and returned to the Russian Navy. "The ship is afloat. I have not lost stability. So, it will live," said the head of the USC.

The head of the Ministry of Industry and Trade, Denis Manturov, said in December that the total amount of damage would be understood by the end of the first quarter of 2020. The aircraft carrier should return to the Russian Northern Fleet in 2022.

The military contract with the Zvezdochka ship repair center for the restoration of technical readiness and the modernization of an aircraft carrier was concluded by the military in April 2018. A heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser was laid on a slipway of the Black Sea Shipbuilding Plant in 1982. A ship can carry more than 50 aircraft. During the modernization, Admiral Kuznetsov will receive a marine version of the Pantsir air defense complex, new boilers, pumps and new flight and communication systems.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20512
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby Philip » 25 Jan 2020 22:04

In the next decade Russia is going to face an N-sub crisis as Soviet era subs retire.The Delta class SSBNs,the mainstay of the strat. fleet are being replaced by Boreis,but in lesser qty., plus attack an cruise missile sub replacements will also fall short as late model Victors and Alfas retire. The new attack/ SSGN subs planned will also and somewhat smaller, more automation and cheaper. The continued construction of cheap but capable Kilos and Amur/ Ladas ,now apparently with their bugs removed,is a measure of keeping numbers as high as possible. Numbers of N-subs though will drop.Most navies including the USN are facing replacement difficulties sub-for-sub. The IN is severely afflicted.The only navy increasing numbers of improved N-boats and AIP boats is the PLAN.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8471
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby brar_w » 25 Jan 2020 22:23

The USN is not facing any difficulty in replacing submarines because sub-for-sub replacement is not what they aim for (no one should). FSA's look at the submarine force you need base on threats and you buy a force that you need and can afford. The SSN program is operating at full rate of production with constant politician support (and demand) for stressing that industrial base and production capacity even more (3 odd year Virginia's for example). There will be bow wave in submarine fleet acquisition/recap for the USN because the replacement program for older submarines was late to start and ramp up due to inadequate financial investment in the 90s and early 2000s time-frame as an offshoot of the peace dividend. Cold War era subs were bought very rapidly..and they'll retire in tight clusters as well.

The Virginia Class can only be delivered at 2 per year (within current capacity limits) or 3 per year (with risk/stress on the IB) which is an impressive rate but will require time to catch up since the US Congress decided to take a sub-buying holiday decades earlier. That said the USN operates 51 SSN's currently. This number will fluctuate over the next 30 years, dipping to as low as 42 (45 if the 3 year buys are maintained over the next 3-4 years as Congres seems to want) by late 2020's, before climbing back up to 50 again in the early-mid 2030's and to 60+ in the mid 2040's. USN buys SSN's in 5-year blocks which is usually 10 ships but can be as much as 15 given recent Congressional investment in the submarine industrial base. The goal is to get to 66 SSN''s (All Virginia class Block I through Block V subs) by the late 2040's. The SSBN program (Columbia class) is the single most important defense program in the US, and will field 12 subs with the first one entering construction later this year.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20512
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby Philip » 26 Jan 2020 21:51

The Serbs fooled NATO airpower in the Balkans years ago,when according to western reports NATO aircraft his everything including horsecarts,trains,etc. other than Serb tanks.

RuN priority,and wisely too is its SSBN fleet where it is cheaper building Borei class SSBN s armed with Bulava missiles than its SSGN/ SSNs. It will have parity with the US in SSBNs but will require extra effort to match it in SSNs and SSGNs. It will probably have around 75% of its erstwhile Sov. era fleet , and will make do in numbers with increased AIP/ diesel boats indefending its coastlines and

Eez. Kilos are still excellent boats,very cheap and take only 2 years to build and are still on the export list.
If the Amur/ Lada is also successful in Ru service, more boats are planned for the RuN, exports will pick up given its lower cost compared with western boats,at least 25% cheaper with Klub/ Yakhont/ BMos missiles available too.The RuN will probably be able to field a total of between 40 to 50 boats at current building rates.

Where the US is striking forth determinedly is in UUVs and long-endurance USVs for anti- sub warfare. Maritime warfare is going to see many new features in this decade.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8471
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby brar_w » 26 Jan 2020 21:58

Philip wrote:The RuN will probably be able to field a total of between 40 to 50 boats at current building rates..


Of course that will still be significantly less than what NATO has and will have. Expect China to overtake them in the mid to late 2030's as well. Same with other vessels. Let's see if those Ambhibs are built on time and if the next carrier ever gets built. The USN is (from this year) buying 3 DDG-51 Flight III's a year, and the Chinese a mind boggling number of small and large destroyers. The small surface combatants that the Russian Navy has manged to build post-cold-war have small magazines which though adequate for low intensity conflict (great PR value in them launching Kalibr but note the magazine capacity and offense-defense mix) are not going to be effective in high threat environments and especially so the further away from Russia they venture off. Even the Admiral Gorshkov-class Frigate is going to be inadequate when tasked with an Area Defense mission against an integrated threat. Without a capable LSC fleet escorting carriers and amhibs, they will require a cooperative enemy (not a problem because they don't have an effective carrier or amhib force yet) so will limit their long range ops considerably. Not having amhibs and/or carriers again limits the overall effects that these vessels can bring over a region against a properly equipped and trained enemy. The offensive posture will be significantly smaller than what the US/NATO and the Chinese will be able to bring to the table. And it will get harder and harder to conduct high intensity ops outside of the immediate vicinity of land and air forces.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5033
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby Kartik » 04 Feb 2020 03:39

From Ainonline
Clearly speculatory in nature regarding any Indian sale, given the fact that there is neither any budget for any Su-57E off the shelf purchase, nor any interest as of now. And given how the IAF will want the GoI to release funds for a MRCA, this will only come in the way.

What'll be interesting to watch out for is Chinese interest in the type.

Kremlin confirms Su-57 commitment as foreign orders loom

High-ranking officials rushed to support the Sukhoi Su-57’s manufacturer this month, claiming that the program remains on track following the crash of the first deliverable example late last year. Deputy chairman of the Russian government Yuri Borisov and defense minister Sergei Shoigu said that the Su-57 remains at the heart of the ongoing re-armament of Russian Air and Space Force (VKS) tactical aviation units and so the industrial program will go forward, regardless of whatever findings are made by investigators looking into the causes of the December 24 crash. “Everything is all right; [the program’s] on track,” Borisov told journalists.

Apparently, this confirmation of the Kremlin’s commitment to the program has been expedited to encourage potential foreign customers to proceed with their plans to acquire the latest Russian fighter. Following the first public presentation of the exportable Su-57E at MAKS 2019, and the statements by top-ranking politicians, including President Putin himself, about the release of export clearance for this version, a number of long-standing overseas clients for Russian defense equipment have indicated their interest.

Victor Kladov, director of international cooperation and regional policy at Russia’s Rostec industrial giant, told journalists, “China has recently taken delivery of 24 Su-35S aircraft. In the next two years or so it has to make a decision either to procure additional Su-35s, build the Su-35 in China, or buy a fifth-generation fighter aircraft. So, there is one more opportunity for the Su-57E.”

Meantime, Chinese media has published a number of articles with a positive assessment of the Su-57 and the suggestion that some should be purchased for the People’s Liberation Army’s Air Force (PLAAF). Additionally, various news outlets have recently reported on the intentions of Vietnam and Algeria to procure about a dozen each. Other nations that are said to be considering the Su-57E are Myanmar and Peru. Also, the Kremlin has offered the type to Turkey and Malaysia.

Even though India terminated the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) project with the Russian industry on joint development and production of a customized two-seat version about two years ago, it is said to be evaluating an option on the procurement of a small number directly from Russia.
So far, the Su-57 has won only one major qualitative order, that from the Russian Air and Space Force for 76 airframes. They will be supplemented by a handful of experimental prototypes that are being upgraded to production standard for subsequent delivery to fighter squadrons.

Russian media estimates the value of the contract to be 170 billion roubles, ($2.75 billion). Since this sum probably does not take into account the development and testing costs covered separately, foreign customers are understood to be offered the Su-57E at around $100 million apiece, a figure once discussed between the Russians and the Indians within the framework of the FGFA project.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8471
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Russian Weapons & Military Technology

Postby brar_w » 04 Feb 2020 04:34

What the articles fails to mention is that the Russian MOD has committed to buying 76 Su-57's by 2028. With the only serial delivery planned for 2019 having crashed, and maximum of 2 expected in 2020 this basically translates to a very slow production ramp up without an export customer helping build up backlog. China can perhaps leverage that and pick some aircraft under a sweet deal. Of course the incentive for the Chinese would be industrial and seeing how much tech they can convince the Russians to offload with the deal that the Chinese can build back into their own programs. Perhaps a NG engine. But that aside, I don't expect production to reach triple digits on the program till perhaps 2030.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Shakthi and 41 guests