Russian naval expansion

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.

BBCode is OFF
Smilies are OFF

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Russian naval expansion

by Guest » Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:49 am

BTW, in Indian service, the thrust vectoring form of AL-31FN engine used on the Su-30 and Su-35 is rumored to have a mean time between overhual of 50 hours. If thrust vectoring is considered a benchmark generation 5 technology, then I don't believe Su-30 or Su-35 can be counted as having this technology in a serviceable form. I doubt any air force that takes combat readiness seriously will tolerate an engine with 50 hour MTBO.

by Guest » Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:19 am

Tim Jacobs wrote:The Russians showed the Su-35 at MAKS 2007 and are marketing it now. It carries a lot of 5th gen technology already. Word is they are trying to sell them to raise the funding to buy them for the Russian Air Force.

I'd love to see a head-to-head fly-off between a Su-35 and a Euro Typhoon. After that, an F-22 vs the Su-35. And then the Typhoon vs the F-22. Each has some superb qualities. Be very interesting to see how they stack up against each other for real, not just on paper.

Basic Su-27 is aerodynamically somewhat more advanced than basic F-15. But the things that sets Su-35 apart from Su-27 are essentially the same set of updates the the USAF contemplated for the F-15 during late 1970s and early 1980s, including digital FBW, IR scanner, altered aerodynamics including wing glove canards, vector thrust, fancy radar. The only thing missing is a rear facing radar. The USAF abandoned these updates because it did not consider them as capable of making enough different to justify the cost, nor as being able to justify the possibility of causing a delay in what later turned into the F-22 program. The Russians evidently thinks otherwise about essentially the same update to slightly superior but still broadly comparable aircraft almost 25 years later. I suspect it is possible that a important reason is the the Russians now see their true 5th generation fighter as being even further away from service then the USAF would have seen the F-22 from the perspective of 1982.

by Tim Jacobs » Sat Dec 01, 2007 7:07 pm

The Russians showed the Su-35 at MAKS 2007 and are marketing it now. It carries a lot of 5th gen technology already. Word is they are trying to sell them to raise the funding to buy them for the Russian Air Force.

I'd love to see a head-to-head fly-off between a Su-35 and a Euro Typhoon. After that, an F-22 vs the Su-35. And then the Typhoon vs the F-22. Each has some superb qualities. Be very interesting to see how they stack up against each other for real, not just on paper.

by Guest » Sat Dec 01, 2007 3:42 pm

Dave Wooley wrote:Interesting move by India and Russia if it can be confirmed ?.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/India_R ... s_999.html
Dave Wooley

The question is how far this will go. There seems to be a great deal of interest conflict between Russia, India and China over joint development of 5+ generation fighters. Soviet Union had done the preparatory and basic design work for a 5+ generation fighter in the league of F-22 before it fell. Desultory work on these projects continued in Russia to the point when partially equipped prototypes were built.

Apparently final stage of work on the next generation of fighter engines and electronics is still required. Russia would like to partner with China to finish development the new engine, and partner with India to finish development the electronics and weapon suite. These would be the final stage work to complete the Russian projects that's been in existence since the late 1980s.

Neither China nor India appears to be interested in that approach. Neither seems interested in merely adding finishing touches to Russian projects. Neither seems to think doing this would give them opportunities to learn much about what they don't already know. Both wants to partner with Russia to design a completely new fighter from ground up and get full access to the entire Russian fighter design process and expertise.

So how these interest conflicts will be resolved is yet to be seen.

Chinese ship power

by Lesforan » Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:51 pm

So, now the Chinese have two capital ships in need of powerplants? A battleship and an aircraft carrier?

Go with VTE, dual shaft for the new old battleship, and Diesel-electric drive for the carrier. Then put them to sea for some exercises!

by Dave Wooley » Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:45 pm

Interesting move by India and Russia if it can be confirmed ?.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/India_R ... s_999.html
Dave Wooley

by Dave Wooley » Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:46 am

It is widely believed that Plasma stealth technology was perfected by the Soviets back in the 1960s and is now being copied by the West . Is not high jacking of high technology a two way street or is it just as Werner would have us beieve the preserve of the Russians? Any comments? :cool_1:

by Guest » Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:52 am

Werner wrote:
Much of the modeling for military systems in the '80s was done on DEC VAX and IBM 4300 series computers purchased by shell companies and trans-shipped to the USSR via the Bahamas, South Africa & Finland.
Please provide a source that quantifies "much of".

by Werner » Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:05 am

Yes, I have noticed that FAS & Globalsecurity appear to have started from a common knowledge base. However, it is common knowledge that the Atoll and it's descendants were a straight copy of the AIM-9, and many other missiles made use of Western designed guidance packages and even semiconductor parts purchased abroad.

The Soviets appear to have been ahead of the West in the manufacture of very high power rocket and jet motors, though.

Much of the modeling for military systems in the '80s was done on DEC VAX and IBM 4300 series computers purchased by shell companies and trans-shipped to the USSR via the Bahamas, South Africa & Finland.

by Sean Hert » Sat Dec 01, 2007 12:50 am

Werner wrote:
Globalsecurity wrote:
Be careful about citing Globalsecurity- they are barely a step above Wikipedia... at best, their articles are lifted from other sources and sites- without attributing anything.

Compare some of their articles with fas.org, for instance.

by Guest » Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:51 pm

Werner wrote:
Globalsecurity wrote:.........................."
Globalsecurity wrote:.................

What you are attempting to imply is basically this: because the Soviets declined to reinvent the wheel completely by themselves, they must therefore be incapable of maintaining a meritorious, praise worthy, competitive wheel research department ever there afterwards.

I don't recall the US inventing the wheel either.

by Guest » Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:30 pm

Werner wrote:If my statement is false, please show the evidence. I have provided an image of the Elektronika knock-off of the pdp-11 J-11 CPU (which is still the state-of-the-art in CMOS CPUs). The next chip, called the DEC C-VAX, has the words "DEC - When you care enough to steal the very best" on the perimeter of the die, because they knew the Soviets were stealing everything.

I have a few DEC systems. The legend "The FBI investigates every theft of DEC products" appears on the papers next to the list of countries to where export is forbidden.

The statement with the mostly negative merit is "Russian military expansion in the 1980s was borne on the shoulders of stolen technology". Judging from the subsequent thrust of your argument it was your intention to state that the Soviet Union of 1980s was incapable of building a broad spectrum of competitive military force using domestic R&D and normal high level intelligence of main thrust of the technical progresses by their opponents. That was very evidently not true. The fact that aspects of their hardware developments may have been eased or sped along by theft does not alter the fact that the rest of developments were, just by themselves, more than sufficient to make Soviet Union a military technology superpower. I think they've demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that they can, using purely domestic R&D produce weapons as capable, serviceable, and up-to-date as those of almost any other nation. Just in the naval field, examples of their capacity to keep abreast of the US in some fields, and offset backwardness in some fields with unmatched advances in others, were numerous. Their titanium submarine and liquid metal cooled reactors technologies were prodigiously difficult feats unmatched by any others. Their wake homing technology was unmatched and described with envy the USN. The autonomous landing technology of their Yak-36 is something the US is only now beginning to match. Their short range close in missile defenses were also something that lead the USN by up to 30 years.

All these suggests that the former Soviet military R&D capacity does not form a good basis for any low estimate for current Russian military R&D capacity, as you attempted to imply.

by Werner » Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:00 pm

Globalsecurity wrote:The 24 September 1958 Chinese acquisition of an American AIM-9B Sidewinder missile marked the beginning of a breakthrough in the development of Soviet air-to-air missiles. The missile, fired from a Taiwanese F-86 Sabre aircraft, lodged without exploding in a Chinese MiG-17. The missile was sent to Toropov's engineering office to be copied, and the product the K-13, long the most popular Soviet air-to-air missile. The Sidewinder had a number of valuable features, not least of which was the modular construction that facilitated ease in production and operation. The simplicity of the AIM-9 was in marked contrast to the complexity of contemporary Soviet missiles. The Sidewinder's infrared-guided homing head contained a free-running gyroscope and was much smaller than Soviet counterparts, and the steering and in-flight stabilization system were equally superior. Gennadiy Sokolovskiy, later chief engineer at the Vympel team, said that "the Sidewinder missile was to us a university offering a course in missile construction technology which has upgraded our engineering education and updated our approach to production of future missiles."
Globalsecurity wrote: In 1968 the Soviets acquired an American AIM-7M Sparrow, which was similar to the R-23 class of missiles the under development, and the Vympel team copyied the Sparrow under the designation K-25. Several of these missiles were tested, but Soviet R-23 missile was sent to production, and work on the K-25 ended in 1971. The R-23 and R-24 missiles were superior to the K-25 Sparrow-ski in versatility and range, as well as interference immunity, signal processing logic, and other characteristics. Nevertheless, analysis of the Sparrow missile design were helpful in later work on the the R-27 missile: on its hydraulically driven closed-loop servomechanisms and aerodynamic system with movable wings.

by Werner » Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:54 pm

If my statement is false, please show the evidence. I have provided an image of the Elektronika knock-off of the pdp-11 J-11 CPU (which is still the state-of-the-art in CMOS CPUs). The next chip, called the DEC C-VAX, has the words "DEC - When you care enough to steal the very best" on the perimeter of the die, because they knew the Soviets were stealing everything.

I have a few DEC systems. The legend "The FBI investigates every theft of DEC products" appears on the papers next to the list of countries to where export is forbidden.

by Guest » Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:36 pm

Werner wrote:Russian military expansion in the 1980s was borne on the shoulders of stolen technology, like this Russian knock-off of the DEC pdp-11:

Is there any reason to believe..........
You mean reasons other than the face that your opening statement contain far more elements of falsehood than truth?

by Werner » Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:25 pm

Russian military expansion in the 1980s was borne on the shoulders of stolen technology, like this Russian knock-off of the DEC pdp-11:
Image
Is there any reason to believe that in the extremely impoverished era between 1990 and 2005, Russia was able to develop the state of the art in all the infrastructure that goes into military equipment nowadays?

by Guest » Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:01 pm

Dave Wooley wrote:Interesting on topic appraisal:-
http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2007/ ... wanes.html
Rebuilding the carrier Yaryag at the Dalian ship yard
Dave Wooley
Best evidence is the ship, which was delivered from Ukraine without engines, is still engineless. The fact that the flight deck is now being refurbished while the hull is engineless suggests there is no intention of ever fitting engines.

So at best the hull is being prepared to act as a sort of stationary floating training aid for flight operations. The ship itself is probably no being intended for actual sea service.

by Guest » Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:51 pm

Werner wrote:Also, in the early 1980s, there were ships the sailors termed "Doves of Peace", because not a single weapons system aboard ship actually worked!

When a Slava visited Norfolk at the beginning of the Glasnost era, visitors noted that the screws which lifted the giant SS-N-12 missile tubes were painted shut and obviously useless. There was an abundance of flammable materials aboard and an elevator took officers from the wardroom to the bridge so they would not arrive exhausted.

The Russian navy is famous for slathering thick coats of new paint on everything for any state occassion, and adding such quesi-Victorian touches as neat white cheat lines for visual impact. Notice the paint on the Slava on that occasion is so new that hasn't lost its gloss. The whole ship was also said to stink of paint solvents. The painted screw jack is probably a result of prettying up process just prior to the visit.

by Werner » Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:25 pm

Also, in the early 1980s, there were ships the sailors termed "Doves of Peace", because not a single weapons system aboard ship actually worked!

When a Slava visited Norfolk at the beginning of the Glasnost era, visitors noted that the screws which lifted the giant SS-N-12 missile tubes were painted shut and obviously useless. There was an abundance of flammable materials aboard and an elevator took officers from the wardroom to the bridge so they would not arrive exhausted.

by NAVMACS_V2 » Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:04 pm

Anonymous wrote:For some reason, the idea of "system integration" is seldom mentioned when people go OOOO and Ahhhh over spec sheet performance of Russian weapons.
The Russians were notorious for adding whatever shiny new equipment was available to new ships or ships being rebuilt. The modified Kashin class missile cruisers were equipped with a new variable depth sonar system despite the ships carrying minimal ASW weapons and nothing that could adequately exploit the added capabilities of the VDS system.

The Russians were also big on redundancy because all of their weapons and sensors were single-use only. A SA-N-3 launcher could fire a SA-N-3 missile and nothing else.

Russian ships were always badly overloaded and overcrowded at the expense of crew accomodations because their ships weren't intended to undertake the same long-range deployments as their U.S. counterparts.

Top