Can Russia regain it's Military Might?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Karoliner

Banned Member
Russia... Strength....???

This question is very easy. The answer is NO. Russia won´t ever again be a "serious" threat to Europe. Russia´s GDP is dubble as Sweden, about 600 million Euros against 300 million Euros. But, ehhh, Sweden only have 9 million people... So Russia is an under developed contry and that won´t change for the foreseeable future. Anyone that doesn´t think Russia is corrupt to "the bone"???

Regarding military hardware, Russia in not famous for quality. In Sweden, we are not concerned over Russian aircrafts, tanks, ships, misslies etc. And then finally, russian soldiers are also world famous in being the lousiest soldiers you can find - there are maybe even lousier somewhere in Africa... Morale? Forget that! Look at WW2, for each dead german or finnish solder it was 10 dead russian soldiers. Sweden has fought many battles with Russia and if the russians are not more than the ratio 1:3, it´s no problem :O)).

The Russians have never cared for each other (their "brave" officers run behind their soldiers and shoot those who want to turn back) and frankly... I understand why... My sympathy.
 

XaNDeR

New Member
This question is very easy. The answer is NO. Russia won´t ever again be a "serious" threat to Europe. Russia´s GDP is dubble as Sweden, about 600 million Euros against 300 million Euros. But, ehhh, Sweden only have 9 million people... So Russia is an under developed contry and that won´t change for the foreseeable future. Anyone that doesn´t think Russia is corrupt to "the bone"???

Regarding military hardware, Russia in not famous for quality. In Sweden, we are not concerned over Russian aircrafts, tanks, ships, misslies etc. And then finally, russian soldiers are also world famous in being the lousiest soldiers you can find - there are maybe even lousier somewhere in Africa... Morale? Forget that! Look at WW2, for each dead german or finnish solder it was 10 dead russian soldiers. Sweden has fought many battles with Russia and if the russians are not more than the ratio 1:3, it´s no problem :O)).

The Russians have never cared for each other (their "brave" officers run behind their soldiers and shoot those who want to turn back) and frankly... I understand why... My sympathy.

With all do respect you know nothing about WW2 based on your claims that Russians lost 10 soldiers for 1 German , the Soviets lost 10 million soldiers while germany lost around 6 million at the eastern front , thats even lower than 1:2 , and most of the losses were during the initial phase where the soviets were unprepared for the german attack and alot of soldiers that defended city's like stalingrad which were severly bombed , during the ending of war 1943- the soviets often lost less men in battle vs the germans.
And the morale on the soviet side was great..

@waylander

as german with armour experience (iirc), have you gotten to use former sov armoured equipment at all (from east germany)? if so, do you reckon the russian approach has moved from quantity to quality or not(just in armour)? and do you reckon the russian equipment on a vehicle to vehicle basis has improved in a comparison with nato equipment?

sorry, if this is all armour questions, but i figured as it is russian armour and its change, it fits in this thread....
Let me answer , the answer is yes , Russians are severly increasing armor and protection on Tanks , this was affected by Chechnya war and its experience in it , based on that they are now upgrading T-72 tanks which are very impresive btw , the protection of the tank is comparable to abrams.
T-90 is very good defended and both Abrams or T-90 will have a hard time penetrating the front armor of both.
The T-90 or upgraded T-72 are pretty impresive , however they still lack in some area's ,and id take a Leo 2A6 any day over them.
The T-95 project seems very good , they are information about mounting 135mm or 152mm gun and that the tank will have far better protection than any tank in the world.

But its still a question if it will be another " MEDIUM " tank , or a heavy tank.
Russian tank design is based on medium tanks based from their experience from World War 2 , where German Tiger's and Panthers which were heavy mostly were forced to drive on roads because they got stuck in the mud.
So id say Russians are defenatly increasing the tank capability and effectivness but their tanks still lack a bit in some area's over the best western tanks.
We will have to wait too see the T-95, and exact capability.

So hope that helped , cheers.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
@waylander

as german with armour experience (iirc), have you gotten to use former sov armoured equipment at all (from east germany)? if so, do you reckon the russian approach has moved from quantity to quality or not(just in armour)? and do you reckon the russian equipment on a vehicle to vehicle basis has improved in a comparison with nato equipment?

sorry, if this is all armour questions, but i figured as it is russian armour and its change, it fits in this thread....
Nope, I never used former east german equipment except as a hardtarget. But my father served on T-55 and T-72 in the NVA. And I have sitten in them but in my freetime and not during duty.
So I have the opportunity to have some very interesting discussions with him.

I have the feeling that russian armor improved in many sectors but one also has to see that during cold war they were never that much behind and most of the time were even better. T-72 for example looks pretty good compared to its counterparts in the west.

In the end Russia has to go for quality instead of quantity. They cannot afford to buy huge numbers of AFVs.
The T-90 is a good step as well as several upgrades of T-64s, T-72s and T-80s.
But one flaw remains and this is a cramped fighting compartement and visibility buttoned up.
This not only degrades combat performance of the crew, especially over a longer time, but also makes maintenance more difficult.
One has to ask people which served on both systems Ts and western designs (For example like Fins, polish people or guys from eastern germany) about what they think makes fighting easier.
 

crobato

New Member
I am refering miself only to military , not economical or political.
And everything Viktor or Ozzy or me wrote before is perfectly good read and truth for everyone that is smart and has military knowledge or experte in any area will understand it !
And what kind of military knowledge that makes you think that the MiG-31 is a valid air superiority aircraft. In fact, it runs contrary to experience.

Steel aircraft --- Majorly big RCS. Easy to detect.

The weight means it has poor wing loading, easy to outmaneuver and will not tolerate high G.

It has poor turnaround---well actually except for the early MiGs, Soviet designed aircraft has poor turn around times. Which means that after they land, you cannot turn them around quickly to do another mission. Thus they lack the ability for fast mission generation, or sortie rate.

You think sheer speed is what makes a fighter strong? For the last 40 years of so in fighter plane revolution, top speeds have in fact, remained constant. That means everyone has abandoned what is practically the sheer speed race. The risk of running high, even among the latest fighters, means you will still quickly deplete your fuel, and no matter how advanced you are (or not), the other guy that has more fuel than you enjoys a tactical advantage. So, say about going Mach 3 how many times you want, it does not change the reality that its impractical and its irrelevant.

Launching missile at maximum range. Sorry, that means only more time for the target to evade that missile, especially if its a big one. There is a reason why AAMs are made smaller now.


So whatever anyone that doesn't know things about any other country except China is not my buisness its perfectly obvius that someone from China from false propaganda thinks that his country is the best when its clearly far from the truth , and nor I , nor Viktor or Nor Ozzy are not from China or Russia and I know both of them know alot of stuff and are very wise so id like too see who can observe and offer their knowledge based on non-patriotism since nobody is from any country mentioned.

The person that is from China and is under influence of patriotism and claiming such facts that are untrue and some even make you laugh ( no offence ) , allthough he knows few systems he clearly doesn't understand how things work..
Or 3 people that are from none of the country's and offer a outsider point of view ,and clearly have much experience on the field..
What do you think eckerl?
Your a expert yourself , go read every single post and tell me who's wrong?

Cheers
While China is still not the best in the military sector, it has caught up significantly, far more closer than the 30 years or so which your prejudices are full of a load of.

You think I'm writing this inside China? What a load. I'm writing this from the US. In fact, two US military bases are within 30 minutes drive where I am sitting now and moments ago, I just heard an F-16 fly over me. I am writing and completely describing everything from open sourced information.

I have to say that what you are saying is an outright laugh.

Pretty much, what you are saying and contending against are material that also has been reported among other places:

The Pentagon/DOD white papers on the PLA.
Jane's publications (Jane's Defence Weekly, Missiles and Rockets...)---oh and they have a huge volume on the PLA alone.
Airforce Monthly
Flight International
Aviation Now
Jamestown Foundation
Heritage Foundation
SIGNAL Magazine
SIPRI
KANWA
Asia Times

And not the least, the Russians themselves.
 

crobato

New Member
With all do respect you know nothing about WW2 based on your claims that Russians lost 10 soldiers for 1 German , the Soviets lost 10 million soldiers while germany lost around 6 million at the eastern front , thats even lower than 1:2 , and most of the losses were during the initial phase where the soviets were unprepared for the german attack and alot of soldiers that defended city's like stalingrad which were severly bombed , during the ending of war 1943- the soviets often lost less men in battle vs the germans.
And the morale on the soviet side was great..
The Germans lost 7 million people as a whole, including civilians and in all fronts.

The Soviets lost 25 million people, as a whole, and that also includes civilians.

If you like some real stats go here.

http://www.secondworldwar.co.uk/casualty.html

Country Military Civilian Total
Soviet Union* 8,668,000 16,900,000 25,568,000
China 1,324,000 10,000,000 11,324,000
Germany 3,250,000 3,810,000 7,060,000
Poland 850,000 6,000,000 6,850,000
Japan 1,506,000 300,000 1,806,000
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
okay, since I got some time, let's go some of the posts.
I can tell you MIG-31 is the KING of all BVR fight and as one MIG-31M is armed with 4 R-77 and 6 R-37M nothing comes close and no one (except Raptor) stand a chanche to catch him.
proof? It's gotta huge RCS + terrible maneuverability, R-37 vs modern 4th generation fighters? No thanks. It's original advantage was it's powerful radar, but now a lot of fighters use electronically scanned radar.
Wrong. Kirov class cruisers where designed with extensive RCS reduction measurments. And with Tu-95MS in the air and Tu-22M3 roaming throw the sky with Kh-22 do you thing those RCS will do any help ... dont think so.
you gotta be kidding me right? Can you compare that to a modern DDG and tell me how stealthy it is? Knowing what even the newer Russian missiles performance are against stealthy ships, I'm seriously doubting the performance of kh-22.
LOL what a mean delusive argument....and jet you fly at old soviet Tu-16 LOL LOL suce me ... litle modernised called H-6K .... well suit yourself but I rather fly superconic MACH 2... bomber with grater range and payload passing modernization with 3 Kh-22 400km range MACH 4 antiship missiles.
why would you need that when you have YJ-91? It's faster, smaller and has better seekers.

True that China has designed by itself some capable ships I dont intend to question but there are many china project in witch Russia provided theirs tehnical skils and weapons ... specialy in terms of constructing SSBM ( Type 094 = Delta-x) , SSK (YUAN CLASS = Kilo/Amour class) besides lool majority of China SSK makes Kilo class Russian subs. And you dont want me to start writing about Russian air-defence missiles and Chinas copies of them .....
there are more 039s in PLAN than Kilo. Why don't you gain some knowledge first before ranting off? 094? where do you have the evidence that the Russians helped China build it? Same with Yuan.
Than K-100 Russia-Indo project (previos known on KS-172) based on 3M83 missile from S-300V system is done and operational as you can see and look at requarement for that missile with 400KM range
this thing has been talked about for years, where is it? See that's the theme, you can only talk about stuff still under development.
Skhval has no guidance .... Shval-2 will have it ...and thats a big diference ... money is another ... besides its not like Skval is the only Russian capable torpedo they have whole array of them.
China has it's own shkval clone. Besides, read what gf0012-aust said, this thing is totally overhyped. Why would you need something like that if you have something with ADCAP's kinetic performance?

All China has is Russian missiles + PL-12 ... wow .... LOL
As I explained a billion times already, only the Russian imports use Russian missiles. I would rather they use Chinese missiles, but that would take more testing + paying the Russian integration (not worth it).

Care to tell me how PLAAF will INTECEPT MIG-31 BEFORE IT SHOTS AWACS FROM 400KM+ and 20km + height WITH ALMOST 3 MACH SPEED , after AWACS IS DESTROYED ,THEN PLAAF IS SITTING
DUCK FOR RUAF FIGHTERS AND A-50 , even though the RuAF missiles are more capable than PLAAF as prooven already before , China has basic inferior R-77 , and
from the facts the R-77D is already in production allthough not in huge numbers AND IT CAN be mounted on any fighter capable of carry the R-77..
again, ask gf0012-aust and he will explain why this doesn't work at all.
As for your KS-172, it's not ready, it's not in service anywhere. If we are going to talk about unavailable missiles, there is also a Chinese one in development that is similar in range to KS-172.


Show where R-77D is in production, show it. Wikipedia doesn't count.

9 Akula’s , 3 Sierra , 4 Viktor’s , 1 Alfa , makes 17 SSN.
Vs
1 Shang and 5 old Han’s ..
OK , I know where I wanna be
so you don't know the number of Chinese SSNs and you don't know exactly how many Russian ones are operating, but you are going to state anyways.

R-37M will be EFFECTIVE against fighters.
And PL-12 DOESNT stand a chance , and its not even in serius production.
And bye bye Chinese AWACS , like I told earlyer..
Without AWACS even if PLAAF has same range missiles A-50 will detect them and guide the missiles , PLAAF has no chance .
PL-12 is not even in service yet , or in really low numbers and its nothing spectacular .. PLAAF has no missile that has bigger range than any RUAF missile and no AWACS they can use since they will get shot down by Mig-31.
How do you like that odds?
PL-12 has been pictured in service for a long time. Need pictures, we got plenty of proof here. PL-12 has better kinetic performance than R-77.
learn how to type in English and not throw fit when you are replying.

crobato was prooven wrong , and you can think what you wan't , I already have a opinion about you because you never analyse and write anything comprehensive , you only think and claim , and thats why I think that you don't know very much about anything in the military , and until you proove me wrong I will continue to think that.
you have shown to not know what you are talking about at all.

am refering miself only to military , not economical or political.
And everything Viktor or Ozzy or me wrote before is perfectly good read and truth for everyone that is smart and has military knowledge or experte in any area will understand it !
So whatever anyone that doesn't know things about any other country except China is not my buisness its perfectly obvius that someone from China from false propaganda thinks that his country is the best when its clearly far from the truth , and nor I , nor Viktor or Nor Ozzy are not from China or Russia and I know both of them know alot of stuff and are very wise so id like too see who can observe and offer their knowledge based on non-patriotism since nobody is from any country mentioned.

The person that is from China and is under influence of patriotism and claiming such facts that are untrue and some even make you laugh ( no offence ) , allthough he knows few systems he clearly doesn't understand how things work..
Or 3 people that are from none of the country's and offer a outsider point of view ,and clearly have much experience on the field..
What do you think eckerl?
Your a expert yourself , go read every single post and tell me who's wrong?
There certain things very clear here:
1. you cannot argue without getting excited and make spelling mistakes
2. you cannot accept that China does not need Russian armament
3. you cannot accept that China can produce certain systems superior to Russian ones.
4. you repeatedly shown that you have no clue about the operational status of Chinese systems + their number count and such
5. you repeatedly claim certain Russian systems to be in production when they are not
6. you are caught up in this speed beat everything theory regarding AShMs and torpedoes
7. The only strategy you seem to have is to somehow find Chinese AWACS from 400 km out and shoot them down. This actually was discussed in WAB a while back and I think gf0012-aust explained why it's not right to think that this can actually take down an advanced AWACS.

But most interesting part is about projekt 885 Severodinsk new Russian 4th generation SSN ... author writes that by various sorces sub has already hit the water and will be officialy given to RUAN by the end of this or by the begining of the nexst year.
that is not true.
 

Karoliner

Banned Member
Russia´s "greatness"

I see that Xander is a true nationalist, but hey, nobody in the world think that russian military hardware is good quality, ehhh few things else from russia actually. Regarding death ratio - take look at this Wikipedia link:

nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

This was the result after the war with Finland. Needless to say, the Finns had not that much equipment as the russians - but so what? The Finns killed about 400 000 russians and their own casualties was... 30 000. A Soviet general said "we have conqured just enough land so we can bury our dead".

Since we talk mainly aircraft here, Sweden has about 150 Gripen fighter aircraft (to be 100). We put a lot of our efforts on radar technology, electronic contermeasures and so on. Our Gripen fighters are today equipped with Amraam and Sidewinder, but will soon be reequipped with Meteor and Iris-T. We are not that concerned over Russian fighter/missile technology. Most is outdated and in few numbers. Their air force is in much worse condition then they would acknowledge. Right now. they are trying to impresse the rest of the world by putting som old vintage planes (TU 95) in the air, but experts all over the world are just laughing at them.

Russia should act more intelligent, right now it´s like a big baby with a small brain. If you want some interesting reading about Russia and how it interacts with it´s neighbours - read this: edwardlucas.blogspot.com/2007/05/russias-blunder-estonias-recovery.html

The only good thing happening in russia right now is that the population decreases ;o)

Have a nice weekend!
 

ever4244

New Member
Consider sheer fighting power simply accumulated by various of stuff in the magzine, China has yet a long way to go before she can beat russia who inherit the soviet most legacy. But just like some above just said , the real problem is not a data show of some certain plane and missle and then adding them up.
the real problem to russia is how much percentage of their great stuff is efficient and hwo much percentage of their power can be wring out by their operator after a long term of low morale , low salary , and low trainning .

On the other side , their counter partner in China has seen a steady and rapidly progress in morale , salary(actually it has been doubled overnight not long ago),and train over 20 years . though the start up line is low, but the PLA is undoubltablely draw people in when Russian army is scaring the young off. Although their most plane and tank are high standard in their time, but after being storaged( or in most case: deserted) for more than a decade ,it will be hard to start them up. and when they start up you d worry if they are capable of a high G manneuver without break a wing ---because from the pilot to machanic stuff suffer a great loss of skilled people after the disaggregation .

Therefore , comparing china to russia is just like comparing a brand new Ford to a 20 year old Porsche-----and consider the Porsche has been stored in a tractor garage for 10 years and hadn t been properly oiled and cared during the storage .who will won the race ? If i were you , i d rather sold some old Porsche and focus on one readily available Ford to make sure it wont let fly a wheel in the race ,while in meantime to pay good to your driver and mechanic in case they leave for a more financial beneficial career.Nevertheless ,fighters is much complexed than sportcars.
 

ever4244

New Member
I am refering miself only to military , not economical or political.
And everything Viktor or Ozzy or me wrote before is perfectly good read and truth for everyone that is smart and has military knowledge or experte in any area will understand it !
So whatever anyone that doesn't know things about any other country except China is not my buisness its perfectly obvius that someone from China from false propaganda thinks that his country is the best when its clearly far from the truth , and nor I , nor Viktor or Nor Ozzy are not from China or Russia and I know both of them know alot of stuff and are very wise so id like too see who can observe and offer their knowledge based on non-patriotism since nobody is from any country mentioned.

The person that is from China and is under influence of patriotism and claiming such facts that are untrue and some even make you laugh ( no offence ) , allthough he knows few systems he clearly doesn't understand how things work..
Or 3 people that are from none of the country's and offer a outsider point of view ,and clearly have much experience on the field..
What do you think eckerl?
Your a expert yourself , go read every single post and tell me who's wrong?

Cheers
It s quite amusing that whenever people are wordless in debate against China, they find the propaganda issure , the brain wash issure.

but I assume i m the only Chinese here have the priority to be brain washed because from their english I know other chinese live abroad at least for years .yet i speak nothing ill of your dear russian weapon because i was brain washed to think so -------at least our gov has to find some proper explanation to the delegates that why we bought that much russian gear in 90s .

So next time you brought up your propaganda issue , better aim at the right person, and that s me :D
 

Viktor

New Member
Steel aircraft --- Majorly big RCS. Easy to detect.
25km flight atitude and Mach 2.83 gives him ability to survive not stealth ... so his RCS means nothing. Who cares about RCS if you cant shoot it down.


The weight means it has poor wing loading, easy to outmaneuver and will not tolerate high G.

Israel recently heald some kind of air excercise. I think it was 24 vs 24 fighters in areal combat ... so never mined the rest none of them crossed 3G line.

Besides MIG-31 is interceptor it is not meant to be maneruvable ... just to fly in space and fast as devil.



You think sheer speed is what makes a fighter strong? For the last 40 years of so in fighter plane revolution, top speeds have in fact, remained constant. That means everyone has abandoned what is practically the sheer speed race. The risk of running high, even among the latest fighters, means you will still quickly deplete your fuel, and no matter how advanced you are (or not), the other guy that has more fuel than you enjoys a tactical advantage. So, say about going Mach 3 how many times you want, it does not change the reality that its impractical and its irrelevant.

Well thats why USA will design F-35 with max dash speed of Mach 1.6. LOL that will be fun to watch in areal combat.

With great speed you can outrun even missiles and with high atitude that job is even easier.

Launching missile at maximum range. Sorry, that means only more time for the target to evade that missile, especially if its a big one. There is a reason why AAMs are made smaller now.
And what if that missile is SARH .. and you fighter can not avoide ... what does it than mean?

Or if that missile can bear more G-loading than your fighter and has greater speed .. what are you going to do.


While China is still not the best in the military sector, it has caught up significantly, far more closer than the 30 years or so which your prejudices are full of a load of.
I agree. I have read great deal about China assasain mace strategy and great deal about China weapons and it never stops to amase me.



proof? It's gotta huge RCS + terrible maneuverability, R-37 vs modern 4th generation fighters? No thanks. It's original advantage was it's powerful radar, but now a lot of fighters use electronically scanned radar.
Well ALL MIG-31 will pass throw modernization witch will increase its combat radius at Mach-2.35 to 1000km (now is 720km). It will carry 6 R-37M missiles (witch are aerodynamicly unstable and have anti-fighter capability and comes with pasive seeker head and ctive one) + 4 R-77 (those missiles have recive upgrades althrod keept its old name). Its Radar will be based upon basis of SBI-16M and Irbis N035.

Besides no missiles can catch it at 25k atitude and Mach 2.83.


you gotta be kidding me right? Can you compare that to a modern DDG and tell me how stealthy it is? Knowing what even the newer Russian missiles performance are against stealthy ships, I'm seriously doubting the performance of kh-22.
Kirovs where designd with steath shaping in mind as well as RAM coating .. there some other things applied witch I can not remeber ..read it quite while ago!

It is interesting that you are doubting Kh-22 on the basis of what I have read here I came to conclusion that you would not be so doubious if China has it.
Besides doubious or not that will not make any difference cause any Mach 4 weapon with 400km range especialy fired at salvoes (one tu-22M3 can carry three of them) are DEADLY one.


why would you need that when you have YJ-91? It's faster, smaller and has better seekers.
Praising again Russian weapons, a? I beat you would be doubious if it wherent in China inventory.


there are more 039s in PLAN than Kilo. Why don't you gain some knowledge first before ranting off? 094? where do you have the evidence that the Russians helped China build it? Same with Yuan.
If it looks like a duck and sounds like one :) .. than it must be one.. besides every man on the internet thinks so too.


this thing has been talked about for years, where is it? See that's the theme, you can only talk about stuff still under development.
Here it is.

R-73 / R-77 / R-27 / K-100 / Kh-31P / R-37M


http://i13.tinypic.com/4lglsuc.jpg

http://i17.tinypic.com/5y0iijo.jpg

http://i9.tinypic.com/53p7x2d.jpg

besides Russia will by my opinion for its own forces introduce R-37M and for export K-100 (300km range). And missile can manuevre up to 12g and flys 4000km/h for 400km and is suported by Irbis N035 radar.


China has it's own shkval clone. Besides, read what gf0012-aust said, this thing is totally overhyped. Why would you need something like that if you have something with ADCAP's kinetic performance?
I agree with you there ... China likes to clone ...a LOT.

Besides I dont see eaither why small range unguided Skhvalis so important?

Skhval-2 will have guidance as well as extended range so ...China will have to do more cloning ...LOL

As I explained a billion times already, only the Russian imports use Russian missiles. I would rather they use Chinese missiles, but that would take more testing + paying the Russian integration (not worth it).
OK, get it, but China imports and Russian fighters in great numbers for what if Chineses ones are batter?


again, ask gf0012-aust and he will explain why this doesn't work at all.
As for your KS-172, it's not ready, it's not in service anywhere. If we are going to talk about unavailable missiles, there is also a Chinese one in development that is similar in range to KS-172.


Show where R-77D is in production, show it. Wikipedia doesn't count.

Yes it could be that K-100 is in final stages of development but in neglection of year or two R-37M is in production.

R-77D - do you have any other explanation for a missile of 200km range that Ivanov is blabing ALL the time.... I dont I said earlier that I think it is it ... but im not sure ... in eaither case Russia introduced new 200km air-to-air missile and you can called it any way you like ..I will calle it R-77D, ok?



so you don't know the number of Chinese SSNs and you don't know exactly how many Russian ones are operating, but you are going to state anyways.

SSBN Delta III 5
SSBN Delta IV 5
SSBN Typhoon 3
SSGN Oscar II 6
SSN Akula 9
SSN Alfa 1
SSN Sierra I 1
SSN Sierra II 2
SSN Victor III 4 --- only nuclear ones ... With new ones entering service (Borei and Graney class) thats mutch higher number than China ones



. PL-12 has better kinetic performance than R-77.
And from where did you pull this out?


that is not true.

I find this magazine to be wery credible as in numerous occasions had right predictions etc bla bla ... so this statement sounds ubelibevle to mi to and I can not accept that its ratings have decresed so mutch that aouthor is siting in front some magic ball and writes what he sees. Any proof?
 

scarey1989

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #131
@ Xander

I am afraid that at the end of the day, Russia's present defence is in complete disaray and many experts across the world regard them as a complete and utter joke. The countries econmy and state is corrupt, how can you prduce a respectable defence with that?

Moerover, all fifth generation concepts have been desastorous, su 47, 1.42 (1.44) to name a few due to an imense lack of funding. Only now has they begun some sort of seriouse program (Perspektivnyi Aviatsionnyi Kompleks Frontovoi Aviatsyi)

Just look at the facts over the last decade. It's military budget is tiny (£16bn):eek:nfloorl: :eek:nfloorl: comapared to major european forces ( france, Britain around £30bn) let alone the USA ( over £500 billion) even when you take into account the difference in wages. Russia has also got a conscript army.LOL:eek:nfloorl:

You cannot call the coutry powerful just beacouse of the sheer number oof aircraft it has (3365) with only 2400 in proper combat service. IN sheer numbers, China is far more powerful than Russia with an even greater amount of hardware and it's economy is in a far better state.

At the end of the day, you have to stop living in the eighties and face the facts. It will take at least another 30 years before Russia's defence becomes even recognisable and that is with intense spending and selling of soviet relic aircraft. Where Russia will produce this £97bn that Putin intends to spend I donnot know as the majority of the countries wealth is going to the pockets of rich billionaires, another example of the countries immense corruption. Anyway, by that time, China will definately be recognised as a mjor superpower perhaps even riveling the USA, who knows?:shudder :unknown


In addion, Russias navy is just hilarious with just one aircraft carrier with very few su 37IB (su34) being in service (only respectable aircraft) and again any seriuose numebrs had to be cancelled due to over spending.

HOW ON EARTH CAN YOU CALL THEM THE SECOND MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD:eek:nfloorl: (perhaps they were in the 70's or 80's behind the US lol:eek:nfloorl: )

Russia was only powerful with commmunism, and their dfence didnot develop once for a number of years after the collapse of the Soviet Union.:eek:nfloorl:

To be a powerful country you have to either have alot of money to spend on a small amount of very high quality platforms and hardwear or a huge population and econmy to buy poor equipment in bulk. Russia has neither of these.
:eek:nfloorl: lol

Russia needs some seriuose money injected into its forces fats with a full regenration program to even stand a chance of regaing its once formidable miltary might:cool:

Mod: Scarey1989; we are not here to discuss politics &/or economy & obviously you don't seem to have any knowledge of defence affairs, nor do you seem to be aware of global realities.

I think its time. You have been warned 7 times before this but you just don't get it do you?

With this post you have now violated Rule#: 2, 6, 8, 9, 15 & also you seem to have violated hidden & self understood rules of this forum.


I am now refering you for a ban. Perhaps 2 weeks will help!?

I'll not be deleting any of you posts just so Aussie Digger or GF or Webs could see & judge you for themselves.

-SABRE
 
Last edited by a moderator:

XaNDeR

New Member
The Germans lost 7 million people as a whole, including civilians and in all fronts.

The Soviets lost 25 million people, as a whole, and that also includes civilians.

If you like some real stats go here.

http://www.secondworldwar.co.uk/casualty.html

Country Military Civilian Total
Soviet Union* 8,668,000 16,900,000 25,568,000
China 1,324,000 10,000,000 11,324,000
Germany 3,250,000 3,810,000 7,060,000
Poland 850,000 6,000,000 6,850,000
Japan 1,506,000 300,000 1,806,000
Your source claims wrong

Soviet Union 10,700,000
Germany 5,533,000

First of all we are not talking about WW2 here , so tnx for bringing this topic on , another topic you bring up that is off topic ?
And we are not counting civilian deaths smarty , military deaths are what makes a country effective in terms of capability , so its 2:1 , and at the end of war when Germany suprized soviet union they lost 3:1 or even 5:1 in favour of germany , and the bombing of the city killed alot , towards the end of the war 1943+ in most battles it was 2:1 in favour of soviet side , look up a few battles from 1943 on , and don't teach me about WW2 and go read some things about it caus you claim things that are untrue , like Germany had 10:1 ratio on eastern front in WW2.

And what kind of military knowledge that makes you think that the MiG-31 is a valid air superiority aircraft. In fact, it runs contrary to experience.

Steel aircraft --- Majorly big RCS. Easy to detect.

The weight means it has poor wing loading, easy to outmaneuver and will not tolerate high G.

It has poor turnaround---well actually except for the early MiGs, Soviet designed aircraft has poor turn around times. Which means that after they land, you cannot turn them around quickly to do another mission. Thus they lack the ability for fast mission generation, or sortie rate.

You think sheer speed is what makes a fighter strong? For the last 40 years of so in fighter plane revolution, top speeds have in fact, remained constant. That means everyone has abandoned what is practically the sheer speed race. The risk of running high, even among the latest fighters, means you will still quickly deplete your fuel, and no matter how advanced you are (or not), the other guy that has more fuel than you enjoys a tactical advantage. So, say about going Mach 3 how many times you want, it does not change the reality that its impractical and its irrelevant.

Launching missile at maximum range. Sorry, that means only more time for the target to evade that missile, especially if its a big one. There is a reason why AAMs are made smaller now.




While China is still not the best in the military sector, it has caught up significantly, far more closer than the 30 years or so which your prejudices are full of a load of.

You think I'm writing this inside China? What a load. I'm writing this from the US. In fact, two US military bases are within 30 minutes drive where I am sitting now and moments ago, I just heard an F-16 fly over me. I am writing and completely describing everything from open sourced information.

I have to say that what you are saying is an outright laugh.

Pretty much, what you are saying and contending against are material that also has been reported among other places:

The Pentagon/DOD white papers on the PLA.
Jane's publications (Jane's Defence Weekly, Missiles and Rockets...)---oh and they have a huge volume on the PLA alone.
Airforce Monthly
Flight International
Aviation Now
Jamestown Foundation
Heritage Foundation
SIGNAL Magazine
SIPRI
KANWA
Asia Times

And not the least, the Russians themselves.
I think Viktor explained already , now you can either learn the facts yourself , or keep ignoring them , either way id like to point out that you stick to the topic instead of talking about things that were not asked here.
 

Falstaff

New Member
Quite funny of all people Russian and Chinese fanboys shout "propaganda" at each other... And in addition may I remind you that in recent conflicts quality hardware from both country mainly played a vital role as cannon fodder? Let alone all the quality and performance issues with products from both countries.

To get back to the topic I'd like to say that the article kato mentioned a few posts earlier provides excellent data as to the state of the Russian armed forces and there is no doubt the data is valid. The Konrad Adenauer Institut is renown for excellent and reliable research, and the German government has no interest at all in downplaying Russian capabilities (as they could provide a justification for our ever-disputed defence budget plus Germany is interested in a strong Russia to keep China in check).
So, given the report is true Russia will not regain it's military might, at least not in the next 20 years, if it doesn't act.

So here we go again:
kato said:
The German Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (CDU-funded, conservative think tank) has published a 12-page report on the state of the Russian Military this month (in German, of course ).

The report contrasts current planning and official releases by the Russian Government with a view at the current state. Some highlights:

* 50% of all Russian aircraft and helicopters are inoperational
* 60% of all MiG-29, 50% of Su-27 and 40% of MiG-31 are fully operational
* Due to age and state of aircraft and helicopters, there will be massive decommissionings until 2009
* It's expected that by 2010 less than 2000 aircraft and 600 helicopters will remain operational.
* Similarly, only 10-12 out of 47 nuclear submarines are expected operational in 2010.
* Russian Military officers estimate that on average 150 aircraft and 60 helicopters would have to be procured new each year over the next 20-25 years in order to keep current levels
* Strategic Forces are heavily underfunded; 80% of all mobile ICBMs are beyond shelf life.
* To maintain strategic balance, 20-30 new Topol-M would have to be procured per year instead of last year's 7.
* Air defence looks abysmal; Russia plans to take all 70 S-300PS systems out of service in 2007, as well as 10 out of the 30 S-300PM. Of the remaining 20 S-300PM systems, only 15-20% are operational according to Russian officers. To provide full coverage, Russia would need up to 650 S-300 systems.
* Fuel and energy support for the Russian Military has remained at approximately one quarter of the needed levels for the last 10 years.
* 70% of all airfields/airports need urgent repairs
* 30% of all Russian Airforce conscripts are not fit for military service due to malnourishment; 70% overall are considered not fit for military service due to health reasons.
* Around 90 soldier die in Russian service per month, about one quarter due to suicide. This has been a continuous trend throughout 2005, and in the first half of 2006. 55% of former soldiers report physical abuse in their units.
* Instead of the official presentation of 25-30,000 new apartments for officers' dependants being built per year, only 1,100 families received such housing in 2005.
* 55% of Russians consider the combat capability of their troops as "low", only 24% as "high". 24% answer positive, 69% negative when asked about how they'd feel about a close relative serving in the military.


An interestingly high number of statements in that report are based upon interviews with Russian Major General (and Duma member) Nikolai Besborodow.
 

Viktor

New Member
This article is from the blog. (Im nost sure should I put up the link - will this violate forum rules about not-advartisment???)


Other than that extremly interesting article from the man who knows stuff and gave an effort to investigate S-400M system called Samoderzhets

Samoderzhets Decloaked



INTRODUCTION

The introduction of the S-400 strategic SAM system into the operational inventory of the Russian air defense network has resulted in increased speculation over the nature of the next-generation of Russian SAM systems. One of the most common misconceptions appears to be the belief that a new SAM system referred to as Samoderzhets is being prepared for front-line service.

RUSSIAN MODERN SAM DEVELOPMENT


The development of the next generation of Russian SAM systems can be traced back to 1979 when the first S-300PT batteries were accepted for service. Over the course of the S-300P's lifetime, various modifications have surfaced, each providing an incremental increase in capability over the last variant.

The principal S-300P variants were as follows:

S-300PT: Initial trailer-launched SAM system employing 5N63 (FLAP LID) target engagement radar (TER) and 5V55K missile.

S-300PS: Initial mobile SAM system with components mounted on 8x8 chassis, introduced 5N63S/30N6 (30N6E) TER and 5V55R missile.

S-300PM (export variant: S-300PMU): Introduced digital connectivity between components and 5V55RUD missile.

S-300PM-1 (export variant: S-300PMU-1): Introduced new 30N6-1 (30N6E1, TOMB STONE) TER, and 48N6 (48N6E) missile.

S-300PM-2 (export variant: S-300PMU-2): Introduced 48N6D (48N6E2) missile, as well as 9M96 (9M96E) and 9M96D (9M96E2) missiles, although there is no evidence that the latter two weapons have been fielded with Russian units.

S-300PM-3: developmental variant aimed at increased range with 48N6DM missile and new TER (GRAVE STONE). Evolved into the S-400 (SA-X-21).

As early as 1984, two other advanced SAM systems were stated to be in development, the S-500 and S-1000. The S-500 was a new long-range, mobile ATBM system, analogous to the American THAAD system currently in development. The S-1000 was described as a very long-range SAM designed to target air-breathing targets such as ISR platforms and other support aircraft. Where the S-300P was the successor to the S-25 (SA-1 GUILD) in the Moscow air defense network, the S-1000 was possibly intended to be deployed as a partial replacement for the S-200 (SA-5 GAMMON); S-300P units have replaced S-200 units in some areas, but only the most recent iterations can claim to have a range anywhere near that of the massive 300 kilometers attained by the S-200. Neither the S-500 nor the S-1000 were anywhere near operational service, as they only existed as concepts throughout the 1980s. Recent analysis would seem to suggest, however, that both systems will eventually be operationally employed, with at least one of them being mentioned by name as recently as August 2007.

It is likely that the S-1000 has actually been absorbed into the S-400. The intended capabilities of the S-1000 seem to match up with the S-400's 40N6 missile, a product of OKB Fakel, who has historically been responsible for the development of long-range strategic SAM missiles such as the 5V21 employed by the S-200 and the 48N6 employed by the S-300PM-1. The likely course of development could have seen the S-300PM-3 and S-1000 combined into a new system, the S-400, utilizing common system components and radars. This would explain the delays in fielding the S-400 as well as the current status of the 40N6 program. Radars would need to be suitably altered to support longer-range engagements, and the S-1000's weapon would need to be refined and complete development allowing it to function as part of the S-400 system.

ALMAZ-ANTEY MERGER

In May of 2002 the producer of the S-300P, the Almaz design bureau, was merged with the Antey design bureau, creator of the S-300V tactical SAM system, to form the Almaz-Antey Air Defense Concern. This effectively consolidated all of the long-range SAM and ATBM experience into one organization. The new association resulted in a whole new concept of thinking regarding the boundaries between tactical and strategic air defense.

SAMODERZHETS

Despite the merger of Almaz and Antey, projects which had previously been active did continue development. These included the Antey-2500/S-300VM (SA-X-23) and the latest S-300P iteration, the S-300PM-3, which had by then morphed into the S-400. Future projects, however, would need to take full advantage of the consolidated expertise offered by the new corporation. Enter Samoderzhets.

Samoderzhets was a program begun shortly after the merger of Almaz and Antey aimed at identifying the characteristics and capabilities of new SAM systems operating on a national level. The research effort was conducted by the Second Central Scientific Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense. Deputy Defense Minister General of the Army Aleksey Moskovskiy, in a December 2004 interview for Vestnik Vozdushnogo Flota, described Samoderzhets as a project aimed at finding an "optimal solution" for the development of new air defense systems, systems capable of performing tasks for both the Army and PVO air defense, and operating within a national integrated air defense network framework:

"The name you mentioned, Samoderzhets, is not a system. It is a system project to look for an optimal solution."

General Moskovskiy goes on to state that an actual SAM system like the one outlined in the Samoderzhets project would most likely not be procured anytime soon as it would be "superfluous", as the S-400 was nearing service entry, but does state that modifying S-400 components to operate in such a manner (implying a national integrated network) was possible. The reason for integrating such systems would be to better coordinate air defense assets, and to better integrate the anti-missile capabilities of S-300V type systems (which are presently Russian Army assets, being tactical systems) into the national defense network. Ergo, the creation of an actual weapon system was not the goal of Samoderzhets, but rather the description and outlining of a new national framework to better control and integrate present and future systems to maximize their effectiveness, as well as the delineation and outlining of capabilities required by the individual systems serving in such a network. Official news regarding the Samoderzhets project virtually disappeared after 2004. There was a logical explanation for this, however: the research program was completed in 2004.

Samoderzhets was clearly never intended to result in the direct production of a new SAM system bearing the name, but it was a very important research endeavour, especially in the light of the new Almaz-Antey consortium. Future SAM systems will likely be designed around the system requirements and framework researched and outlined in the Samoderzhets project. In fact, early 2007 saw the mention of such a system. Sergey Ivanov, Russian Defense Minister, gave Almaz-Antey the task to develop a new air defense system capable for the first time of providing air defense, missile defense, and space defense. Such a project would seem to be revolutionary in concept, but seems perfectly logical as a next step given the results of the Samoderzhets project, and has been given until 2015 to produce hardware. 2015 may not seem that far off, especially given the delays associated with the S-400 system, but the new all-encompassing system has in fact been mentioned as early as 2005, and may have been in development before then.

It should be noted that the term "air defense system" does not necessarily imply one specific system such as the S-400, but could very well imply a series of systems, in this case the S-400 and S-500, integrated under a united national network, such as the kind outlined under the Samoderzhets project.

It is likely that the new system will build upon the S-400, using S-400 components for air defense. The missile defense component will likely be the aforementioned S-500 system, referred to in some sources as Vlastelin. The S-500 re-entered the public eye in August of 2007. On the 6th of August, Igor Ashurbeyli of Almaz-Antey was interviewed on Channel One TV in Russia regarding the first S-400 battery being activated near Elektrostal. Ashurbeyli stated that the next project for Almaz-Antey was the S-500, a mobile anti-missile system designed to function as part of the "unified system of Russia's air defense", a clear reference to Ivanov's statements in February and the concepts researched under Samoderzhets. Development of the S-500, according to some sources, had ended at one point in the past due to a lack of funding, but could easily have been restarted, saving Almaz-Antey from having to come up with a new anti-missile system from scratch. The S-500 is also believed to be related to the 45T6 anti-ballistic missile, which would certainly enable it to potentially perform exoatmospheric intercepts.

Confusion resulting from the appearance of the Samoderzhets name in press reporting did lead to the assumption that a new system was being developed, but as Samoderzhets was a project only, this is clearly not the case. There are a few reasons why certain assumptions about the potential new system were made, however, and they can be logically explained.

Samoderzhets is often claimed to be a SAM system integrating S-300P/S-400 and S-300V components. This is basically true, but not in a physical sense. Samoderzhets called for the integration of existing systems into a national level network, while designing new systems to operate in such a manner from the outset, regardless of whether or not they were employed by the Army or the Air Defense Troops. These systems would have, according to General Moskovskiy, included the S-300P and S-300V families. They would have been integrated, but not in a physical sense, as many have incorrectly assumed.

Samoderzhets was also described as combining the best aspects of previously developed SAM systems, and serving as the basis for a new standardized SAM system. This is partly correct; Samoderzhets would have integrated S-300V and S-300P/S-400 type systems, enabling their effectiveness to be maximized. Samoderzhets does also form the basis for new SAM development, as it outlined the framework under which new systems will operate, as well as their desired performance characteristics.

The main nail in the coffin of the Samoderzhets argument is the 2007 tasking to develop a new SAM system. Were Samoderzhets already a developed system by 2004, as some suggest, a new air and missile defense system would clearly not have been required. Furthermore, the Samoderzhets project was already three years past its completion date by 2007. As such the project initiated in 2007 would not have required a 2015 demonstration date; were Samoderzhets a true SAM system, completed in 2004, it would be ready for deployment far earlier than 2015. Lastly, the S-500 has been mentioned as the next SAM system to be developed for operational use, not Samoderzhets.

Some sources have claimed that Samoderzhets was proposed as an alternative to the S-400. In that light Samoderzhets may have been intended to result in a hybrid system, but the induction of the S-400 into front-line service would seem to be enough to put that theory to rest.

A final argument against the development of Samoderzhets as an actual SAM system is that it would represent both a waste of effort, given the S-500 development program for the anti-missile role, and a reduction in capability when compared to the S-400. In the anti-aircraft role the S-300VM's 9M83M missile has a range of 200 kilometers, a full 50 or 100 kilometers shy of the two range figures quoted for the 48N6DM employed by the S-400, even without considering the 400 kilometer range attained by the S-400's 40N6. Furthermore, Samoderzhets cannot be the new S-500 system, provided of course that both Ivanov and Ashurbeyli were referring to the same system. If, as many sources would have us believe, Samoderzhets represents a combination of S-300VM and S-400 systems, then the resultant system would fail to achieve the performance specified by Ivanov insofar as intercepting exoatmospheric targets is concerned.

Samoderzhets as a research endeavour is a far more logical explanation in light of the current evidence.

CONCLUSION

Samoderzhets was a very important project, one which will help to outline and govern the framework and interoperability of Russian air defense units for some time. But Samoderzhets was not a SAM system development effort, and no Samoderzhets system will be operating in Russia. The task of defending the skies and space over Russia will fall in the future to the S-400 and S-500 systems.

SOURCES

-New Russian SAM System Said Superior to Patriot, Has Multipurpose Capability (Moscow Vremya Novostey, 13 August 2004 p. 4)
-Russia approves Almaz-Antei merger (David Isby, Jane's Missiles & Rockets, 1 June 2002)
-Russian Defense Ministry to state performance specifications for new air defense system (Interfax, 4 October 2004)
-Russia to Develop New Air, Missile, Space Defense "Superweapon" (Vremya Novostey, 28 February 2007)
-Russian Channel One TV broadcast (6 August 2007)
-Russia looks to bolster air defence (James O'Halloran, Jane's Defence Weekly, 7 March 2007)
-Advantages of Upgraded Versus New Technology (Vestnik Vozhdushnogo Flota, 31 December 2004)
-Second Central Scientific Research Institute of MoD Receives Pennant (Krasnaya Zvezda, 22 November 2005)
-Jane's Strategic Weapons Systems
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Regarding the S-300 retorts that popped up.

According to its own claims, Russia currently operates "over 30" air defense regiments equipped with S-300 systems (one transitioning to S-400).

Each such regiment has three missile batteries, each of which consists of a single S-300 system. Each system consists of the necessary command posts, radar systems, and usually 6 TELs (system supports up to 12).
Hence Russia would have around 90 currently operational S-300 systems (!), which mixes quite well with the numbers i posted.
S-300PMU (-1/-2/-3) is simply an upgrade to the S-300PM system, and included in those numbers.

Regarding S-300V, according to the Swiss Armada International, Russia only operates S-300V/VM with 9M82/9M82M anti-TBM missiles, not the air-defense variant. Its purpose is defense against SRBMs, MRBMs and cruise missiles, not manned aircraft.
 

Schumacher

New Member
Here's something to lower the temperature of the Sino-Russia war going on in this thread. :)

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-09-08-voa14.cfm

Putin Says Chinese-Russian Relations to Remain Strong
By VOA News
08 September 2007

Russian President Vladimir Putin has assured China that the relationship between their countries will remain strong even after he steps down as leader next year.

Mr. Putin and his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao met on the sidelines of the APEC summit in Sydney Saturday.

The Russian leader said that he and Mr. Hu have achieved the highest level of Russian-Chinese relations, and he said there is no doubt that the strong relations will continue in the coming years.

Russia will hold presidential elections in March of next year. Mr. Putin is not eligible to run for reelection after serving two terms.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP and Reuters.
 

Viktor

New Member
Russia curently operates about 200 S-300V lounchers (it is not known how many of them are upgraded to S-300VM standard) and 440 S-300PMU1/2 lounchers..so now you can count regiments/batalions and batteries as long as you like. S-300V and S-300PMU1/2 are designet to counter cruise missiles/UAV/aircraft/balistic missiles but the basic difference betwen them is that S-300V was designe primarly as antibalistic weapon but has ability to shoot down everything else...same as S-300PMUX was design to shoot down eveything except balistic missiles but was later given that ability also (same as for Patriot)
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Russia curently operates about 200 S-300V lounchers (it is not known how many of them are upgraded to S-300VM standard) and 440 S-300PMU1/2 lounchers
Meaning around 16-17 S-300V batteries (systems) and 73-74 S-300P batteries (systems), if going with 6 TEL per system, by your numbers.

Air-defense is never counted by TEL, always by "systems" (aka batteries, commonly). It doesn't matter if you have 12 TELs and 48 missiles in your battery, as long as you only have a single fire-control radar, and a single command post.

Oh, and no, S-300V can't "shoot down everything". It depends on the missile that is used. 9M82 is specialized for TBM defense, 9M83 is specialized for general air-defense. Russia is about the only S-300V user to only employ 9M82 - and with good reason, considering they don't have the need to mix these air-defense roles.
 

tphuang

Super Moderator
25km flight atitude and Mach 2.83 gives him ability to survive not stealth ... so his RCS means nothing. Who cares about RCS if you cant shoot it down.
Mig-25 were even faster and they had one of the worst combat records. There is a reason nobody builds interceptors like Mig-25/31 anymore.
Israel recently heald some kind of air excercise. I think it was 24 vs 24 fighters in areal combat ... so never mined the rest none of them crossed 3G line.
huh? proof? Let's put it this way, J-10 and flankers can both pull sustained 9G maneuvers, but in exercises, J-10 still showed itself to be far more maneuverable. (and yes, I got articles for this)
Besides MIG-31 is interceptor it is not meant to be maneruvable ... just to fly in space and fast as devil.
oh yeah, according to you, we should just bring back SR-71 then, then you would have the perfect fighter. I suppose the whole world is going crazy by trying to obtain this thing called stealth instead of speed.
Well thats why USA will design F-35 with max dash speed of Mach 1.6. LOL that will be fun to watch in areal combat.
none of your Russian fighters will even be able to detect F-35 at any reasonable distance.
With great speed you can outrun even missiles and with high atitude that job is even easier.
at high altitude, missiles can fly faster. Modern missiles fly much faster than Mig-31. And since it has to use afterburner, it will use up the fuel at much higher rate. A Mig-25 actually did manage to outrun a AIM-54, but it suffered engine failure afterward and still broke down.
And what if that missile is SARH .. and you fighter can not avoide ... what does it than mean?
if the missile is SARH, that means you have to keep the fighter in your view for the entire time, severely limits your options. Especially if the other fighter can shrug you off.
Or if that missile can bear more G-loading than your fighter and has greater speed .. what are you going to do.
As I mentionned, for a SARH, you have to keep the target in the view to provide target uplink and such. And even for ARH, you have to keep it in your view for most of the distance until its own seeker can pick up the target. So, most of the time, it's really ineffective to fire it off at the maximum distance. Most of the BVR encounters happen from less than 30 km out. Stats like no-escape zone is far more indicative of the effective distance.
Well ALL MIG-31 will pass throw modernization witch will increase its combat radius at Mach-2.35 to 1000km (now is 720km). It will carry 6 R-37M missiles (witch are aerodynamicly unstable and have anti-fighter capability and comes with pasive seeker head and ctive one) + 4 R-77 (those missiles have recive upgrades althrod keept its old name). Its Radar will be based upon basis of SBI-16M and Irbis N035.
when it's going at supersonic speed, it has to use afterburner, which signficantly increases its fuel consumption rate and reduces radius. When you are carrying missiles, that further reduces range. When you are carrying missiles, you also can't go as fast.
Besides no missiles can catch it at 25k atitude and Mach 2.83.
As mentionned above, it's not only possible but has happened many times against Mig-25 which go even faster.

Kirovs where designd with steath shaping in mind as well as RAM coating .. there some other things applied witch I can not remeber ..read it quite while ago!
every ship has RAM coating now. Look at it, it looks more stealthy than say Sov, but that's not saying much. It has weapons, sensors sticking out of every where. You just have to look at the pictures and judge. It doesn't take a genius to see how unstealthy Kirov is.
It is interesting that you are doubting Kh-22 on the basis of what I have read here I came to conclusion that you would not be so doubious if China has it.
Besides doubious or not that will not make any difference cause any Mach 4 weapon with 400km range especialy fired at salvoes (one tu-22M3 can carry three of them) are DEADLY one.
I'm dubious of a lot of missiles China has -> club and sunburn.
Simply put, it's huge and has high flight profile (so easy to pick up), it's seeker technology is archaic (accuracy issues). If it travels a low profile, it's only mach1.2 and still flies at much higher altitude than modern AShM.

With the current technology in sensors + SAMs, it's far important to be able to fly low and stay undetected as long as possible and be able to pick up stealthy ships.

Praising again Russian weapons, a? I beat you would be doubious if it wherent in China inventory.
well, kh-31 is far more modern than kh-22, uses ramjet propulsion, travels faster and is a lot lighter. You can actually carry it on multirole fighters and fighter/bombers.

If it looks like a duck and sounds like one :) .. than it must be one.. besides every man on the internet thinks so too.
the fanboys also thought 093 was going to look like Victor III and that has turned out to be completely false.

Here it is.

R-73 / R-77 / R-27 / K-100 / Kh-31P / R-37M


http://i13.tinypic.com/4lglsuc.jpg

http://i17.tinypic.com/5y0iijo.jpg

http://i9.tinypic.com/53p7x2d.jpg


besides Russia will by my opinion for its own forces introduce R-37M and for export K-100 (300km range). And missile can manuevre up to 12g and flys 4000km/h for 400km and is suported by Irbis N035 radar.
available in airshows does not mean it's in service anywhere. I can show missile mockups, it doesn't mean it's ready for active service.

I agree with you there ... China likes to clone ...a LOT.

Besides I dont see eaither why small range unguided Skhvalis so important?

Skhval-2 will have guidance as well as extended range so ...China will have to do more cloning ...LOL
shkval's use and lack there of has been discussed to death by gf0012-aust in this forum and others. It would do everyone a favour in you bother to actually read it up before starting a technical debate. Use the search option, it's very useful.

OK, get it, but China imports and Russian fighters in great numbers for what if Chineses ones are batter?
China has imported any fighters since early 2003.


Yes it could be that K-100 is in final stages of development but in neglection of year or two R-37M is in production.

R-77D - do you have any other explanation for a missile of 200km range that Ivanov is blabing ALL the time.... I dont I said earlier that I think it is it ... but im not sure ... in eaither case Russia introduced new 200km air-to-air missile and you can called it any way you like ..I will calle it R-77D, ok?
Russians blab out a lot of stuff. Where is this new 200 km AAM? Again, shown in air show with su-35 doesn't mean it's in active service. And as explained before, the range factor is overrated, since the NEZ for these missiles is much shorter. You have to know under what profile these missiles are measured under to get a good idea. For example, the range for R-77 was measured under incoming fighters flying at mach1.5 on 20 km altitude. Whereas other MRAAM are measured under mach 1.2 on 10 km altitude.
SSBN Delta III 5
SSBN Delta IV 5
SSBN Typhoon 3
SSGN Oscar II 6
SSN Akula 9
SSN Alfa 1
SSN Sierra I 1
SSN Sierra II 2
SSN Victor III 4 --- only nuclear ones ... With new ones entering service (Borei and Graney class) thats mutch higher number than China ones
never argued against Russian strategic advantage, but rather that you don't know exactly how many chinese ones are in service.


And from where did you pull this out?
R-77 100 km measured under incoming fighters flying at mach 1.5 at 20 km altitude. Check it, 100 km is vs non maneuvering targets at high altitude, range vs fighters is only about 50 km.
SD-10 (export version of PL-12) 70 km measured under mach 1.2/10 km altitude.
Think about it this way, PL-12 is slightly heavier (more fuel), uses a more modern motor and slant trajectory.


I find this magazine to be wery credible as in numerous occasions had right predictions etc bla bla ... so this statement sounds ubelibevle to mi to and I can not accept that its ratings have decresed so mutch that aouthor is siting in front some magic ball and writes what he sees. Any proof?
We have seen pictures of new Borei getting launched before it's ready. No picture of Yasen class anywhere.
 

Viktor

New Member
Mig-25 were even faster and they had one of the worst combat records. There is a reason nobody builds interceptors like Mig-25/31 anymore.
Mig-25 flying speeds arent higher than those of MIG-31 ... on tests MIG-31 has passed MACH 3. Its maximum allowed is Mach 2.83 same as MIG-25. Beside to catch MIG-25 planing had to be done because F-15/16 had no chance against him on its own. MIG-25 could cruise on Mach 1.8.


huh? proof? Let's put it this way, J-10 and flankers can both pull sustained 9G maneuvers, but in exercises, J-10 still showed itself to be far more maneuverable. (and yes, I got articles for this)
Than I would apritiate to same writings! But to say J-10 is more manuravable than Su-35 or Mig-35 dont know quite?



oh yeah, according to you, we should just bring back SR-71 then, then you would have the perfect fighter. I suppose the whole world is going crazy by trying to obtain this thing called stealth instead of speed.
Yes I prefer brute force over stealth... because devices for stealth detection are develping faster than stealth itself.


none of your Russian fighters will even be able to detect F-35 at any reasonable distance.
irbis N035 will detect it from 90km flying in line and atitude towards F-35. Any other position of the Flanker will only increase detection range.


at high altitude, missiles can fly faster. Modern missiles fly much faster than Mig-31. And since it has to use afterburner, it will use up the fuel at much higher rate. A Mig-25 actually did manage to outrun a AIM-54, but it suffered engine failure afterward and still broke down.

Wll if a modern missile is flying at Mach 4 and MIG-31 at MACH 3 its only MACH 1 difference meaning in atitude missile will not last long before hiting balistic trajectory. Tell me how did that MIG-25 menaged to return to base without engines?
Besides to make something clear ... with R-37 missiles on it and use of afterburners MIG-31 can fly 1500km at MACH 2.35
External fuel tank only increases range further.


if the missile is SARH, that means you have to keep the fighter in your view for the entire time, severely limits your options. Especially if the other fighter can shrug you off.
Well thats not off the argument since I can say what if there is another fighter just waiting to endgadge your shruger?
Besides Russian allways fires one pasive and one active missile.


when it's going at supersonic speed, it has to use afterburner, which signficantly increases its fuel consumption rate and reduces radius. When you are carrying missiles, that further reduces range. When you are carrying missiles, you also can't go as fast.
MIG-31 armed with missiles and use of afterburners flys 1500 km at MACH 2.35 now that range will expand to 2000km with the introduction of MIG-31M2 and will carry 6 R-37M and 4 R-77. Imagine the brutall firepower linked with strong radar .. nothing comes close. the KING of all BVR (except for Raptor of course). Its task is only to fly high and fast and to rain down missiles on enemy fighter 5-10 km below torturing themselfs to keep up supersonicly ... LOL ... MIG-31 project requirement was to be able to fly at MACH 2.35 for 40min. Thats interceptor !


every ship has RAM coating now. Look at it, it looks more stealthy than say Sov, but that's not saying much. It has weapons, sensors sticking out of every where. You just have to look at the pictures and judge. It doesn't take a genius to see how unstealthy Kirov is.


Well you can see same those pictures and see the shaping of the KIROV.

I'm dubious of a lot of missiles China has -> club and sunburn.
Simply put, it's huge and has high flight profile (so easy to pick up), it's seeker technology is archaic (accuracy issues). If it travels a low profile, it's only mach1.2 and still flies at much higher altitude than modern AShM.

With the current technology in sensors + SAMs, it's far important to be able to fly low and stay undetected as long as possible and be able to pick up stealthy ships.
Dont knwo about what missile are you talnig about but for 3M-54E its terminal speed is MACH 3. Besides I have read few writings about reliability of China missiles and was not something to show off.

well, kh-31 is far more modern than kh-22, uses ramjet propulsion, travels faster and is a lot lighter. You can actually carry it on multirole fighters and fighter/bombers.
Kh-22 has MACH 4 speed and is thus faster than Kh-31 and has mutch greater range. Ramjet propulsion is great because it enables missiles to reduce weight and vulumen.


the fanboys also thought 093 was going to look like Victor III and that has turned out to be completely false.
True it turned out to look same as Los Angeles class while 094 turned out to look same as Delta-4 ...LOL


available in airshows does not mean it's in service anywhere. I can show missile mockups, it doesn't mean it's ready for active service.

Right, what does it mean?


China has imported any fighters since early 2003.
Just look at the Flanker numbers in you inventory!


Russians blab out a lot of stuff. Where is this new 200 km AAM? Again, shown in air show with su-35 doesn't mean it's in active service. And as explained before, the range factor is overrated, since the NEZ for these missiles is much shorter. You have to know under what profile these missiles are measured under to get a good idea. For example, the range for R-77 was measured under incoming fighters flying at mach1.5 on 20 km altitude. Whereas other MRAAM are measured under mach 1.2 on 10 km altitude.
So give me some link .. where did you hear such things?


never argued against Russian strategic advantage, but rather that you don't know exactly how many chinese ones are in service.

Just click sinodefence right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top