Can Russia not just be tight lipped?

[IndianNewbie]

Hi,
First of all apologies, if the post is in the wrong forum. I have been reading the entries in the various forums on this site for over a week now and well, it has been an enlightening experience.

I just had a few questions.

1.) I have often read posts with moderators (and I respect them for their knowledge) urging people to include the source link.

At the same time, I have read them stating that "Russia does not have this technology" etc... Now perhaps they mean that it is either economically not feasible for them or that they do not have the technical know-how at the point in time.

Now I am not a defence expert, just an enthusiast. And so I really would like to know the source of such statements. No I do not disagree with them but I do not entirely agree also. Let me cite a few examples.

a.) Western media (and particularly US media) is very market savvy. Skylab was actually a failure but it was projected as a great success. Mir project outlived its utility but was played down by the media the world over. So traditionally Russians have not been as market savvy as their western counterparts. Perhaps it might seem a wrong example but I think it's an important point.
b.) Russians are secretive about every new technology they have. What you don't know does not exist, is not really true in their case. They are so secretive, that they won't even refute some claims from the western media. My brother-in-law was part of the submarine project(ATV) and was stationed in Russia for quite a few years. A brilliant graduate from IIT (the top engineering institutes in India and amongst the very best in the world) and post Graduate from some univ in UK, he acknowledged that Indian scientists were at bay trying to understand the design papers from the Russians. He admitted ATV is big farce (apparently the way the design of the hull is proceeding is something that will eventually fail and more money can be minted, if I remember the 4 year old conversation correctly) and India does not have the political will to complete it anytime soon. Suffice to say that he had very high regards for Soviet/Russian technology. Now it could be that his high opinion were not really of good standards but I hope you see my point.
c.) This one is from source I can not seem to remember. So if it is unrealiable so be it. But I will still state it though there could be mistakes as it was a very long time back. It had to do with a Russian defector who was an expert in sub's movements. And he showed in an exercise to CIA guys how the (ahhh and I remember the source now. It was Reader's digest's (dont believe it???) publication on some people who have been suspiciously missing and people suspect CIA is behind it all), sub Russian sub (the actual US with him on board) remained undetected while perhaps 2 or 3 other US subs were detected by him. Something of that sort. Sounds like a fairy tale but I have tried to be as accurate as I could.


2.) I read about the Cobra maneuver of Sukhoi being called a gimmick (perhaps they really are but then perhaps they have some use afterall) very often. My question here is, are the Russians really so stupid that they would invest millions in something that the whole world calls a gimmick? Perhaps they are not tested in war time. Fair enough. But perhaps Russians might know something the whole world might not? I mean, yes BVR battle might seem the order of the day, but who has the US been fighting? Iraq, Afganistan? I mean if it came to a full blown up war with a decent power, lets say Russians in this case, Russians will only have to fire their nuclear missiles. So won't it (and it is really a question from my side), all boil down to some close combat because no side would want to make it a nuclear war.

I hope I have not offended anyone here by expressing my thoughts. And I hope this is really the right forum. If it is not please do let me know.

Lastly, I might sound like advocating the Russian cause lol but that was really not the intention.

Hoping to get your views on it.

Thanks.
Indian newbie.

 

[JSF]

i guess you are quite right, Russian achievements are usually played down by western media and they are pretty quiet about their work.IIRC Sukhoi did not design the Su-27 to do the cobra maneuver, it was just a plus in their airframe design. times have changed though, Russian R&D have certainly slowed down a lot, (almost to a standstill) but they still surprise the world from time to time though.these are just my opinions anyway.

 

[KGB]

It's really diffiicult to get to the truth. For example, much of what's available to the public would suggest that the soviet submarine fleet was badly outclassed by the US sub fleet. But come budget time, the soviet navy's capabilities were praised to high heaven in order to get funding for new sub designs.

 

[IndianNewbie]

Hi

Well I had posted this when I had joined this forum. I havent yet received a reply from the moderators or other senior guys who gave those statements without quoting the source. In all fairness it could be that I am being extremely vague or perhaps this post has not been read at all.

Anyway, just read this article,
http://www.subsim.com/ssr/akula2.html

To be specific, "Common opinion holds that Russian submarines are noisy and technologically inferior to their American and British counterparts. Expert opinion, however, knows what lies behind the traditional Russian veil of secrecy.", writes the reviewer Neal Stevens.

I have no idea who he is, or what his credentials but I found an echo of my opinions in this article. Can anyone please substantiate it?

Thanks,
Indiannewbie.

 

[ildarius]

hmm... could be right

Lately the Russians have stepped up a notch in the whole
arms export field.
They have been spotted trading with the latin american countries,
and the small arms business is booming,
their original AK-74M design has been modified and they have
created a version that now fires the NATO standard ammunition,
they made the design more slick and light, they might not go after
the newest and the complete radical design, but as one of the american
astronauts once said "Russians just like to keep it very simple!" and it works
just check out the arms that they have on this neat web-site
blows your mind, how about an automatic grenade launcher anyone?
http://www.defensedatainternational.com

 

[Big-E]

the soviet navy's capabilities were praised to high heaven in order to get funding for new sub designs.

You got that right, the Russian navy is more in danger of itself than of any enemy, just go to Vladivostok. If they would quit spending money on new boomers and try to repair their operational vessels they could actually accomplish something. Thats what happens when they try to operate more equipment than they have money for.

 

[Big-E]

Lately the Russians have stepped up a notch in the whole
arms export field.
They have been spotted trading with the latin american countries,
and the small arms business is booming,
their original AK-74M design has been modified and they have
created a version that now fires the NATO standard ammunition,
they made the design more slick and light, they might not go after
the newest and the complete radical design, but as one of the american
astronauts once said "Russians just like to keep it very simple!" and it works
just check out the arms that they have on this neat web-site
blows your mind, how about an automatic grenade launcher anyone?
http://www.defensedatainternational.com

not relavent to the discussion, space stations and subs are the topic... no?

 

[Big-E]

Well I had posted this when I had joined this forum. I havent yet received a reply from the moderators or other senior guys who gave those statements without quoting the source. In all fairness it could be that I am being extremely vague or perhaps this post has not been read at all.

Anyway, just read this article,
http://www.subsim.com/ssr/akula2.html

To be specific, "Common opinion holds that Russian submarines are noisy and technologically inferior to their American and British counterparts. Expert opinion, however, knows what lies behind the traditional Russian veil of secrecy.", writes the reviewer Neal Stevens.

I have no idea who he is, or what his credentials but I found an echo of my opinions in this article. Can anyone please substantiate it?

Thanks,
Indiannewbie.

When it comes to subs the only good project the russe have are the Akula class, they are now as quiet as a Los Angeles, the only thing better is SeaWolf technology. To say that the Akula evens up fast attack tech is radiculous. It was made to equal things up against the 688's not the SeaWolf and Virginias. I have seen the acoustic signatures of each vessel and the Russians cannot compare to SeaWolf tech in operational subs.

 

[Big-E]

Hi,
First of all apologies, if the post is in the wrong forum. I have been reading the entries in the various forums on this site for over a week now and well, it has been an enlightening experience.

I just had a few questions.

1.) I have often read posts with moderators (and I respect them for their knowledge) urging people to include the source link.

At the same time, I have read them stating that "Russia does not have this technology" etc... Now perhaps they mean that it is either economically not feasible for them or that they do not have the technical know-how at the point in time.

Now I am not a defence expert, just an enthusiast. And so I really would like to know the source of such statements. No I do not disagree with them but I do not entirely agree also. Let me cite a few examples.

a.) Western media (and particularly US media) is very market savvy. Skylab was actually a failure but it was projected as a great success. Mir project outlived its utility but was played down by the media the world over. So traditionally Russians have not been as market savvy as their western counterparts. Perhaps it might seem a wrong example but I think it's an important point.
b.) Russians are secretive about every new technology they have. What you don't know does not exist, is not really true in their case. They are so secretive, that they won't even refute some claims from the western media. My brother-in-law was part of the submarine project(ATV) and was stationed in Russia for quite a few years. A brilliant graduate from IIT (the top engineering institutes in India and amongst the very best in the world) and post Graduate from some univ in UK, he acknowledged that Indian scientists were at bay trying to understand the design papers from the Russians. He admitted ATV is big farce (apparently the way the design of the hull is proceeding is something that will eventually fail and more money can be minted, if I remember the 4 year old conversation correctly) and India does not have the political will to complete it anytime soon. Suffice to say that he had very high regards for Soviet/Russian technology. Now it could be that his high opinion were not really of good standards but I hope you see my point.
c.) This one is from source I can not seem to remember. So if it is unrealiable so be it. But I will still state it though there could be mistakes as it was a very long time back. It had to do with a Russian defector who was an expert in sub's movements. And he showed in an exercise to CIA guys how the (ahhh and I remember the source now. It was Reader's digest's (dont believe it???) publication on some people who have been suspiciously missing and people suspect CIA is behind it all), sub Russian sub (the actual US with him on board) remained undetected while perhaps 2 or 3 other US subs were detected by him. Something of that sort. Sounds like a fairy tale but I have tried to be as accurate as I could.


2.) I read about the Cobra maneuver of Sukhoi being called a gimmick (perhaps they really are but then perhaps they have some use afterall) very often. My question here is, are the Russians really so stupid that they would invest millions in something that the whole world calls a gimmick? Perhaps they are not tested in war time. Fair enough. But perhaps Russians might know something the whole world might not? I mean, yes BVR battle might seem the order of the day, but who has the US been fighting? Iraq, Afganistan? I mean if it came to a full blown up war with a decent power, lets say Russians in this case, Russians will only have to fire their nuclear missiles. So won't it (and it is really a question from my side), all boil down to some close combat because no side would want to make it a nuclear war.

I hope I have not offended anyone here by expressing my thoughts. And I hope this is really the right forum. If it is not please do let me know.

Lastly, I might sound like advocating the Russian cause lol but that was really not the intention.

Hoping to get your views on it.

Thanks.
Indian newbie.

1) To answer this statement I submit that "Russia does not have the tech of Western Europe and America." Their defense industry has geared toward foreign exports under UN regulations and treaty stipulations. This limits the amount of R&D that they conduct. The Russian government does not even order more then 1/3 of new weapons platforms so why should private Russian R&D focus on making new weapons for the government that doesn't even buy the majority of their products?

In response to section a) market savy west versus Russia I call BS! If you want to talk about the success and failures of Russian vs Western military projects I ask you to look at the death tolls of said projects. Russian death tolls are 10X greater than Western death tolls, I think that says something no? I ask you to name one tech project the Russians have made operational and I will give you a Western example that is superior.

b) ummm Russia puts out info that they know doesn't work... they are the kings of hype. Western media tells them if a weapon system is bunk or not. Russian media has no counter due to the secrecy of project data. Most often the systems don't work and they say they do, yet ten to fifteen years later we have yet to see a working platform while the West is a generation ahead in tech. You mention ATV project, the only difficulties the IN are facing are not technology related, they just have to size down a nuc reactor for their smaller sub. I don't know what the Indians facination with small platforms are ie. LCA and ATV but if they would increase size to fit mission perameters they could get these platforms operational 10-15yrs earlier than will happen.


c) as far as a Russian sub detecting 3 US subs is possible, if the US subs were using active sonar pinging away in exercises they would be picked up. Otherwise they would not be. When 3 US subs operate together it is usually an escort mission of an Ohio boomer to patrol station with 1-2 688s. They will operate on passive sonar only, no and I mean no Russian Akula or any other project sub's sonar is going to pick up an Ohio. If any US boomer skipper gets picked up they should be shot. Akula's have picked up 688s without being detected but they used the thermals wisely. I can't think of when 3 688s have operated within sonar range of a passive sonar... it just doesn't happen.

2) WTF are you talking about??? Cobra is an airshow maneveur that causes death to Russian pilots who attempt to pull out of 15gs. If they ever got to this point it would be a battle switched to guns. That means the BVR weapons totally missed or engagement was dependent on ID of target. If the US and Russia ever got into a full blown war it would remain conventional and the US would clean their clocks. No offense but Russia (while having some decent equipment) does not properly maintain their equipment or pilots to US standards and would be no match for US avaition, naval or airforce. I saw a German Mig-29 pilot try a Cobra maneuver and he stalled out, I really wouldn't worry about it since US pilots have thrust vectoring. If Russian Migs want to go up against F-22s or JSF they are more than welcome b/c they have nothing that can escape detection. Russia is a quarter century behind in tech, the fall of the USSR was the last date they were anywhere close to Western tech, every day they fall further and further behind.

You haven't offended me, once you see Russian platforms in action vs. Western you know who has the edge and it ain't made in Moscow...

 

[long live usa]

such a great sadness it was when 6,000 brave russian workers died building the containment shell at chernoble,id like to see them force their way into the G8 without thier nuclear weapons!

 

[Big-E]

such a great sadness it was when 6,000 brave russian workers died building the containment shell at chernoble,id like to see them force their way into the G8 without thier nuclear weapons!

I'm the last one to argue about the poor quality of Soviet equipment but these numbers are outragous miscalculations, more like a myth!!! The only direct radiation deaths of Chernoble was counted at 56... thats it. There were a few hundred with very serious radiation poisining and a couple thousand that had minor effects but 6,000 dead is just an out and out lie!

The reason Russia is in G8 is not b/c of nuc weapons, it holds most of the worlds raw materials.

 

[long live usa]

I'm the last one to argue about the poor quality of Soviet equipment but these numbers are outragous miscalculations, more like a myth!!! The only direct radiation deaths of Chernoble was counted at 56... thats it. There were a few hundred with very serious radiation poisining and a couple thousand that had minor effects but 6,000 dead is just an out and out lie!

The reason Russia is in G8 is not b/c of nuc weapons, it holds most of the worlds raw materials.

56!!!were did you come up with such numbers im going to vomit!

 

[IndianNewbie]

1) To answer this statement I submit that "Russia does not have the tech of Western Europe and America." Their defense industry has geared toward foreign exports under UN regulations and treaty stipulations. This limits the amount of R&D that they conduct. The Russian government does not even order more then 1/3 of new weapons platforms so why should private Russian R&D focus on making new weapons for the government that doesn't even buy the majority of their products?

In response to section a) market savy west versus Russia I call BS! If you want to talk about the success and failures of Russian vs Western military projects I ask you to look at the death tolls of said projects. Russian death tolls are 10X greater than Western death tolls, I think that says something no? I ask you to name one tech project the Russians have made operational and I will give you a Western example that is superior.

b) ummm Russia puts out info that they know doesn't work... they are the kings of hype. Western media tells them if a weapon system is bunk or not. Russian media has no counter due to the secrecy of project data. Most often the systems don't work and they say they do, yet ten to fifteen years later we have yet to see a working platform while the West is a generation ahead in tech. You mention ATV project, the only difficulties the IN are facing are not technology related, they just have to size down a nuc reactor for their smaller sub. I don't know what the Indians facination with small platforms are ie. LCA and ATV but if they would increase size to fit mission perameters they could get these platforms operational 10-15yrs earlier than will happen.


c) as far as a Russian sub detecting 3 US subs is possible, if the US subs were using active sonar pinging away in exercises they would be picked up. Otherwise they would not be. When 3 US subs operate together it is usually an escort mission of an Ohio boomer to patrol station with 1-2 688s. They will operate on passive sonar only, no and I mean no Russian Akula or any other project sub's sonar is going to pick up an Ohio. If any US boomer skipper gets picked up they should be shot. Akula's have picked up 688s without being detected but they used the thermals wisely. I can't think of when 3 688s have operated within sonar range of a passive sonar... it just doesn't happen.

2) WTF are you talking about??? Cobra is an airshow maneveur that causes death to Russian pilots who attempt to pull out of 15gs. If they ever got to this point it would be a battle switched to guns. That means the BVR weapons totally missed or engagement was dependent on ID of target. If the US and Russia ever got into a full blown war it would remain conventional and the US would clean their clocks. No offense but Russia (while having some decent equipment) does not properly maintain their equipment or pilots to US standards and would be no match for US avaition, naval or airforce. I saw a German Mig-29 pilot try a Cobra maneuver and he stalled out, I really wouldn't worry about it since US pilots have thrust vectoring. If Russian Migs want to go up against F-22s or JSF they are more than welcome b/c they have nothing that can escape detection. Russia is a quarter century behind in tech, the fall of the USSR was the last date they were anywhere close to Western tech, every day they fall further and further behind.

You haven't offended me, once you see Russian platforms in action vs. Western you know who has the edge and it ain't made in Moscow...

Well I think the intent of my original mail was not so much as to say Russian technology is better, but to ask for the related articles by those who claim that western technology is better. I mean I have seen all the moderators and defence analysts "insist" on references and sources but when it comes to Russian technology they just give a blank statement. I mean, really is "Aerodynamics / structural mechanics / material science etc... not taught in Russian universities? or are the laws of science different for them that they don't see what is obvious to the western scientists?" Strictly in the sense of debating, you have done precisely that. Logic to logic I can answer each of those questions but they will be purely debates. So if you ask me to see Russian platforms in action against western platforms, I could say 1.) That's what they want you to see, as the article I later quoted correctly mentioned. 2.) If not 1, then who did the western platforms fight against? Iraqi's, Afgani's? Give them your best technology and they would perform just as good or just as bad.

What I am saying is that as a debate we can take this endlessly. But we need to quote sources. So when I say about the ATV, my source is my brother in law who has worked on the project, both in Russia and in India, I know the truth is coming out from him about the actual problem with the ATV's because I am not singing the government's version.

Likewise, you say Russians are the kings of hype. You havent substantiated that claim. Okay given that every government hypes to an extent, the question is who really is the "king of hypes". I actually gave the example of "Skylab" (an actual failure) and "Mir" (an actual success). I could give you the example of Concorde plane that the Russians developed, and the power of the western media. I could quote Buran and say hey NASA has done full circle and the voices are gathering momentum to align their future vehicles on APOLLO lines rather than space shuttle lines.

I didnt know Mig 29 could do the cobra stuff. But on your point, yes in a coventional war US would indeed whip Russia but as you rightly said it's because Russia does not train it's crew properly (due to lack of funds), does not have high maintenance, etc.. But I am sure Migs and Sukhois of the world do not necessarily get their biggest orders from the Russian government and only because of lack of funds.

Have a nice weekend

Anoop.

 

[long live usa]

i was refering to the estimated 6,000 that have died since then(perhaps only 4,000 and some still diying),but it was an error on my part i should have made the remark more clear,as for the current russian goverment they accept aid with open arms under a masked threat that they would sell nuclear weapons to keep from going under

 

[Big-E]

56!!!were did you come up with such numbers im going to vomit!

John Stossil just did the top ten myths of the century the other day.

 

[Big-E]

Well I think the intent of my original mail was not so much as to say Russian technology is better, but to ask for the related articles by those who claim that western technology is better. I mean I have seen all the moderators and defence analysts "insist" on references and sources but when it comes to Russian technology they just give a blank statement. I mean, really is "Aerodynamics / structural mechanics / material science etc... not taught in Russian universities? or are the laws of science different for them that they don't see what is obvious to the western scientists?" Strictly in the sense of debating, you have done precisely that. Logic to logic I can answer each of those questions but they will be purely debates. So if you ask me to see Russian platforms in action against western platforms, I could say 1.) That's what they want you to see, as the article I later quoted correctly mentioned. 2.) If not 1, then who did the western platforms fight against? Iraqi's, Afgani's? Give them your best technology and they would perform just as good or just as bad.

The reason mods gloss over Russian technical data is it's classified, they don't readily share data like the West does (too ashamed). So if you want proof from them you will be hard pressed to get it. But my claim still holds firm that Russian R&D is not equal to the West. They have very capable and intelligent people working in the departments but this is not what's holding them back. Russian R&D does not have the one thing the West does and what is that you ask?.... MONEY! ding ding! You say logic is logic and I say money=quality=logic to me.

1) The Russians want the world to see their best tech platforms and capabilities thus thats what you see and not much more. They just don't have the funds to research high-end projects like the US and EU co-ops.

2) You have to be joking... right? You want to compare the battle tested platforms of the US against untested Russian expirements. The only way to see the difference is thru full scale conflict and I offer the 1st Gulf War as the best example you will find. The only other way to find out is to have Russia and America go off against each other.

What I am saying is that as a debate we can take this endlessly. But we need to quote sources. So when I say about the ATV, my source is my brother in law who has worked on the project, both in Russia and in India, I know the truth is coming out from him about the actual problem with the ATV's because I am not singing the government's version.

What I'm saying is "what does a 20yr old reactor technology have to do with cutting edge platforms?" Your ATV comment has no place in this conversation. I take that back, this will actually help my point... Russia is a generation behind the US in military technology, that's my point. The reactor for ATV is an example. After the fall of the Soviet Union and the withdrawal of 33% of GDP to defense spending their R&D lacks the legs it once had and they still work with these Cold War technologies. They have yet to develop something the US didn't have prior to the fall of the USSR.

Likewise, you say Russians are the kings of hype. You havent substantiated that claim. Okay given that every government hypes to an extent, the question is who really is the "king of hypes". I actually gave the example of "Skylab" (an actual failure) and "Mir" (an actual success). I could give you the example of Concorde plane that the Russians developed, and the power of the western media. I could quote Buran and say hey NASA has done full circle and the voices are gathering momentum to align their future vehicles on APOLLO lines rather than space shuttle lines.

Now you must be joking, you want to quote examples fine I'll give you examples of Russian hype and I'll keep them all in the same branch of Russian service...

AS-28 mini-submarine Priz
Kursk
Admiral Kuznetzov
Peter the Great

8.1.1 K-8
8.1.2 K-219
8.1.3 K-278

K-19
K-11
K-27
K-140
K-429
K-222
K-123
K-314
K-431
K-192 (formerly K-131)
K-8

K-3
K-19
K-47
K-131

All of these vessels have had terrible accidents and most have lead to rather high death tolls. If you search Russian government reports on these projects you will find them all hyped on reliabilty and safety. It took the truth to come out that these ships were death traps. You want to use the Mir vs Skylab as an example. Skylab wasn't a failure, they let it fall back to earth b/c they saved their money for the International Space Station. If your going to use a comparison at least use one that works.

 

[Viktor]

I dont know mutch about weapons sistems as moderatos here but I think Russians have proved themselves to have superior weapons tehnology. Even in the harsh economic situation that has occured after fall of Soviet union they have menaget to come up with some of worlds most advanced weapons like:
Topol-M and its modification Bulava SLBM/ S-300 and its variations PMU1/2/3 and S-400. They lacked money to complete even S-500 witch was offered by them as joint US - Russian project. 4th class Borei SSBN, 885 Severodvinsk class succesor of Oscar2, TOR, BUK-M1-2,T-90tank and T-80U2 black eagle/ even T-95 is said to be in development phase but lacks money.
Two fith generation fighters are being developt, 20380 Stereguschyy corvettes first vesels since the fall of Soviet empire, Brahmos/Yakhont antship missiles/ new cruise missiles/ Su-30/33/34/35/37 Mig-29SMT/OVT Tu-160 being modernised/ resurection of GLONASS with Indian help/ advanced space project/ moon landing with Chineese by 2009 and Helium 3 mining by 2020 etc

I think it is wrong to say because they had accidents - do you think US had none throw entire cold war.
But it is only by succes by whitch we measure somewhone tehnological advance.

 

[contedicavour]

I dont know mutch about weapons sistems as moderatos here but I think Russians have proved themselves to have superior weapons tehnology. Even in the harsh economic situation that has occured after fall of Soviet union they have menaget to come up with some of worlds most advanced weapons like:
Topol-M and its modification Bulava SLBM/ S-300 and its variations PMU1/2/3 and S-400. They lacked money to complete even S-500 witch was offered by them as joint US - Russian project. 4th class Borei SSBN, 885 Severodvinsk class succesor of Oscar2, TOR, BUK-M1-2,T-90tank and T-80U2 black eagle/ even T-95 is said to be in development phase but lacks money.
Two fith generation fighters are being developt, 20380 Stereguschyy corvettes first vesels since the fall of Soviet empire, Brahmos/Yakhont antship missiles/ new cruise missiles/ Su-30/33/34/35/37 Mig-29SMT/OVT Tu-160 being modernised/ resurection of GLONASS with Indian help/ advanced space project/ moon landing with Chineese by 2009 and Helium 3 mining by 2020 etc

I think it is wrong to say because they had accidents - do you think US had none throw entire cold war.
But it is only by succes by whitch we measure somewhone tehnological advance.

Most of the programmes you mention are impressive, though the problem is that when you need 15 years to complete a FFG (2nd Neustrasimy FFG for example) or a SSN (Severodvinsk has been building since 1992 and it still is not ready !!), not to mention SSBNs (Russia is keeping '70s vintage Delta IIIs in service because the 2 or 3 Boreys under construction are still far from ready), it does say something about the condition of the defence industry.
I could say the same thing of the air force... developing designs is one thing. Replacing the hundreds of older generation MIGs and Sukhois, or at least updating them to MIG-29SMT or SU-30 standards, is another.
Yakhont/Onix cruise missile has been completed mostly because India provided a lot of money to build the Brahmos, which is somewhat derived from Yakhont.
Is this all due to lack of money (with President Putin and all those revenues from oil sales I doubt it) ?

cheers

 

[Viktor]

Most of the programmes you mention are impressive, though the problem is that when you need 15 years to complete a FFG (2nd Neustrasimy FFG for example) or a SSN (Severodvinsk has been building since 1992 and it still is not ready !!), not to mention SSBNs (Russia is keeping '70s vintage Delta IIIs in service because the 2 or 3 Boreys under construction are still far from ready), it does say something about the condition of the defence industry.
I could say the same thing of the air force... developing designs is one thing. Replacing the hundreds of older generation MIGs and Sukhois, or at least updating them to MIG-29SMT or SU-30 standards, is another.
Yakhont/Onix cruise missile has been completed mostly because India provided a lot of money to build the Brahmos, which is somewhat derived from Yakhont.
Is this all due to lack of money (with President Putin and all those revenues from oil sales I doubt it) ?

cheers

There is sence of truth in what you said but i think situation is nevertheless rapidly improving.
I heard Russia will scrap all older version of subs - all of them even Delta4 and Typhoon , recently 90 percent finishid sub Oscar 2 was decomisioned to save 100M.
Money will be poured in new version.
Cheers

 

[contedicavour]

There is sence of truth in what you said but i think situation is nevertheless rapidly improving.
I heard Russia will scrap all older version of subs - all of them even Delta4 and Typhoon , recently 90 percent finishid sub Oscar 2 was decomisioned to save 100M.
Money will be poured in new version.
Cheers

You are right, the situation will have to improve, at least because President Putin is pouring a lot of money into defence. One could even say it is his highest priority when it comes to reallocating gains from high oil and raw materials prices.
However, Russia would be very brave to scrap older classes of ships in order to focus on new ships.
SSBNs : let's say 3 Boreys can be ready by 2012. If even the 7 Delta IV and 3 remaining Typhoons were decommissionned, then Russia would be left with a 3 SSBN force, less than France of the UK. Russia would rather let subs rust in harbour while officially on commission, rather than admitting to such a symbolic defeat. In this sort of political confrontation, numbers still do matter.

cheers