Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Share

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  sepheronx on Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:13 am

    Thanks Garry, you are right.

    As mentioned though, Russia would never allow their defense industries to just fall apart in such a manor. As much as I am against the integration of buying foreign equipment (If you do not learn from History, then history tends to repeat itself. In the sense of buying stuff that can later be used against you), it is good that they are attempting to make it in their own facilities (but in the end, funding mainly France's industries).

    But if they allowed internal competition, then it would force development in Russia for higher technologies. Instead, everything is state run, which is not helping a lot in the R&D sectors.

    Stalingradcommando
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 35
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2010-04-14

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Stalingradcommando on Fri Apr 16, 2010 1:51 pm

    Ever seen the Leclerc`s episode on Voennoe Delo? Here`s the video with english subbtitles:


    The Leclerc isn`t as half as reliable than our T90 tank. Ask the tank instructors in the United Arab Emirates, they all hate it. On the other hand they love our BMP3. What`s worse about the leclerc`s is its price is 500% higher than the T90 and without doubts higher than what the T95`s price would have been. The Leclerc would not have performed better than our T95, that`s for sure.

    The T95 isn`t behind schedule at all. It has no counterparts and no rivals among today MBT`s. Even saying that it took 15 years to develop it, The T95 remains the first and only 4th gen. MBT on the planet.

    Western tanks such as Leo2 and Abrams are based on technology from the 70`s and that`s about 25 years older than the technology in which the t95 is based. So Popovkin is saying that our technlogy now is worse than what western technology was 25 years ago. Then Mr. Popovkin how do you explain the fact that we are the first ones to introduce a 4th. gen MBT? How can the T90 be a modified T34? confused

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Vladimir79 on Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:45 pm

    Stalingradcommando wrote:Ever seen the Leclerc`s episode on Voennoe Delo? Here`s the video with english subbtitles:


    The Leclerc isn`t as half as reliable than our T90 tank. Ask the tank instructors in the United Arab Emirates, they all hate it. On the other hand they love our BMP3. What`s worse about the leclerc`s is its price is 500% higher than the T90 and without doubts higher than what the T95`s price would have been. The Leclerc would not have performed better than our T95, that`s for sure.

    The T95 isn`t behind schedule at all. It has no counterparts and no rivals among today MBT`s. Even saying that it took 15 years to develop it, The T95 remains the first and only 4th gen. MBT on the planet.

    Western tanks such as Leo2 and Abrams are based on technology from the 70`s and that`s about 25 years older than the technology in which the t95 is based. So Popovkin is saying that our technlogy now is worse than what western technology was 25 years ago. Then Mr. Popovkin how do you explain the fact that we are the first ones to introduce a 4th. gen MBT? How can the T90 be a modified T34? confused

    You know there were 4 different batches of Leclerc? The problems defined in the video are off the flawed 1 and 2 batches. 3 and 4 have resolved those issues. France is unloading their batch 1 tanks now since they do have temperature problems. Leclerc serving in Russia would have no heat issues even if we got batch 1 tanks. Batch 4 with the 2010 modernisation programme will be the finest tank in world service. If we get a new production line it would be even better.

    Stalingradcommando
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 35
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2010-04-14

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Stalingradcommando on Fri Apr 16, 2010 11:11 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote:
    Stalingradcommando wrote:Ever seen the Leclerc`s episode on Voennoe Delo? Here`s the video with english subbtitles:


    The Leclerc isn`t as half as reliable than our T90 tank. Ask the tank instructors in the United Arab Emirates, they all hate it. On the other hand they love our BMP3. What`s worse about the leclerc`s is its price is 500% higher than the T90 and without doubts higher than what the T95`s price would have been. The Leclerc would not have performed better than our T95, that`s for sure.

    The T95 isn`t behind schedule at all. It has no counterparts and no rivals among today MBT`s. Even saying that it took 15 years to develop it, The T95 remains the first and only 4th gen. MBT on the planet.

    Western tanks such as Leo2 and Abrams are based on technology from the 70`s and that`s about 25 years older than the technology in which the t95 is based. So Popovkin is saying that our technlogy now is worse than what western technology was 25 years ago. Then Mr. Popovkin how do you explain the fact that we are the first ones to introduce a 4th. gen MBT? How can the T90 be a modified T34? confused

    You know there were 4 different batches of Leclerc? The problems defined in the video are off the flawed 1 and 2 batches. 3 and 4 have resolved those issues. France is unloading their batch 1 tanks now since they do have temperature problems. Leclerc serving in Russia would have no heat issues even if we got batch 1 tanks. Batch 4 with the 2010 modernisation programme will be the finest tank in world service. If we get a new production line it would be even better.

    I don`t think that we will ever get the Leclerc (or anything similar to it) at all. If Popovkin considers the T90 (currently the cheapest modern MBT out there) expensive, I can not understand how is he going to buy the world`s most expensive MBT. The Leclerc is also much more expensive to keep operational. We`re not richer than than the U.S, U.K, Germany etc, so I see no reason why we should buy more expensive tanks
    We may need buy thermal cameras or several other small internal components but we don`t need to buy entire tanks. Our tank guns, chassis , transmission and suspension systems and tank engines aren`t inferior to theirs so I see no reason for changing. We are leaders in making protection systems for armored velichles, gun launched ATGM rounds and ERA which the Leclerc like most western MBT`s today lacks

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 17, 2010 3:59 am

    As much as I am against the integration of buying foreign equipment (If you do not learn from History, then history tends to repeat itself. In the sense of buying stuff that can later be used against you), it is good that they are attempting to make it in their own facilities (but in the end, funding mainly France's industries).

    I am not against Russia buying and licence producing foreign stuff. First of all even the US does it... it is normal business today. Second in cases like the Catherine Thermal sight, this is an excellent piece of kit and I am sure it will be loved in Russian service... stuff like that really is a force multiplier because it means you can suddenly operate effectively in bad weather and day and night. It makes existing material more useful.
    The Gatling gun, the Maxim machine gun, the DC-3, various Ford designs, Christies suspension if not the rest of the tank, there are plenty of cases of legitimate licence production that benefited the Russian and the Soviet army. The Maxim gun was used right up to WWII and did an excellent job. A Russian designer probably could have improved on it and did eventually (in 1943 they adopted the SG), but for that period of WWII and before it was rather important.

    But if they allowed internal competition, then it would force development in Russia for higher technologies. Instead, everything is state run, which is not helping a lot in the R&D sectors.

    The problem has never been lack of competition. We in the west rarely get to see all the competitors for various programs in Russia because they are secret. There is probably more competition in Russia for programs than there is in the US right now.
    The problem has been lack of orders.
    No aircraft design bureau just makes one thing.
    Sukhoi designs 5th gen fighters, Current gen fighters, turboprop trainers and sports trainers, a light transport, a theatre based stealthy replacement for the Tu-22M3, UAVs, UCAVs, CAS aircraft, medium range strike, and new generation strike aircraft and in the past has designed interceptors and bombers.
    At no time was it selling all of those, at one it was only interceptors and simple fighter bombers that it was selling. It made the move to large long range fighters and has built on that success, but for many years that role was dominated by MIG.

    For transports there is Ilyusion and Tupolev, for every field there are at least two design bureaus... lots more if you include the companies that make parts like engines and radars etc etc.

    Look at the MFI competition, there was Mig, Sukhoi, Myasischev, and Yakovlev in the early running. In the US there was Boeing and Northrop. The F-22 still turned out OK though.

    Regarding the Leclerc, it sounds like it is the electronics that are making it so sophisticated... that sort of hard ware and software should be easy to transfer to the T-90. The T-90 Burlak upgrade has an enlarged turret and accomodates a battle management system that has really been the main difference between Russian and western vehicles. It also has a bustle autoloader to separate ammo from the crew compartment and to allow long penetrators to be used.

    If you want to change to the Leclerc congrats, you just cost the Russian Armed forces a fortune. Its current and projected air transports like the An-70 can't carry the 55 ton Leclerc and the An-70 is not even in service yet. How many other vehicles will need to be changed to allow for the new vehicle... and for what?
    A vehicle that is slightly better because of its electronics?
    From what I have read on wiki the Leclerc stores half its ammo in the hull and half in the autoloader. This means Russian Leclercs, which have to face a much better quality of RPG... because they make them, than forces fighting in Afghanistan or Iraq will have turrets blown off because it is ammo in the crew compartment that does that.
    The Burlak upgrade adding a turret bustle autoloader to the existing underfloor armoured autoloader removed all ammo from the crew compartment so in that respect the Leclerc is a huge step backwards.


    I have nothing against French stuff and think the Mistral deal is a good thing for both parties right now.

    However with Russia currently having 20,000 tanks and having the Burlak upgrade that can be applied to T-72, T-80 and T-90 tanks, I think it is a joke to scrap the T-95 for the Leclerc.
    The T-95 is supposed to be very expensive because it is ground breaking.
    According to tanknet people who are widely respected this vehicle will be revolutionary, but expensive.
    Plans in the past have suggested main stock of tanks being T-90 and a smaller force of higher standard T-95s.
    This makes perfect sense to me, and would be rather cheaper than buying a foreign tank, whether it is the latest model Leclerc or the latest model Leopard.
    The numbers need to get to around 6,000 in European Russia to comply with the CFE treaty. Trashing 20,000 tanks and buying 6,000 leclercs makes no sense unless you want to kill the last remaining Russian tank builder, that will be licence producing French tanks, which will learn it can cut all R&D spending and juct licence produce new French stuff as it becomes available.

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Russian Patriot on Sat Apr 17, 2010 7:45 pm

    [quote="Vladimir79"]
    Stalingradcommando wrote:Ever seen the Leclerc`s episode on Voennoe Delo? Here`s the video with english subbtitles:


    Leclerc serving in Russia would have no heat issues even if we got batch 1 tanks.


    You forgot the fact that most of the tanks would go to Kavkaz region.

    solo.13mmfmj
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 118
    Points : 141
    Join date : 2010-04-16

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  solo.13mmfmj on Sun Apr 18, 2010 4:40 am

    Boomer! I was expecting a new MBT this year.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sun Apr 18, 2010 7:02 am

    GarryB wrote:

    And why is that?

    The Mig-29 design was a point interceptor of short range for Frontal Aviation.

    The Russian AF had no money so even if they wanted to upgrade their aircraft they couldn't. If they had the money there was no need to upgrade the Mig-29 to SMT standard because it continued to be able to do the job it was designed for.
    Why would an interceptor need the ability to deliver expensive guided munitions that the Russian AF couldn't afford either?

    Now they are getting money, why waste money upgrading old Mig-29s to SMT standard when they would get a better deal by spending the new money on brand new airframes like the Mig-35 and Su-35 that are significantly more capable than the SMT upgrade.

    Russian government had money since 2000 when oil prices started rising. The profits were placed in the Sovereign Wealth Fund. Instead of spending money to save RAC-MiG from going bankrupt and obsolete back then, they let it rot along with the fleet of MiG-29s. SMT includes increased range and ground attack capability. If we had gone ahead with the upgrade of 200 MiGs, we could have disbanded many Su-24s before they started falling like flies. VVS still hasn't grasped the concept of multirole, doing more with less. It will be good when we can finally merge tactical aviation.

    I agree it is too late now to upgrade MiG-29s, they are too old and corroded. It is really getting too late to upgrade Su-27s as well. I already said we should buy more Su-35 and MiG-35.


    That had more to do with Sukhoi than Mig. I would expect that they simply liked the Flanker more and wanted them in service rather than the Fulcrum. The Flanker clearly suited their needs better. A bit like South Korea buying F-15Es instead of F-18Es. Both are capable aircraft and lets face it, both are overkill if the enemy is North Korea. The range of the F-15E suggests they want to reach to China.

    It had more to do with corruption at Sokol and Algeria having us over a barrel. Who would refuse Flankers at Fulcrum prices?

    In the late 1980s it was pretty good. Now there are other options including pod mounted systems, and I don't think the systems in the Su-35 and Mig-35 are the same as those fitted to the Mig-29S in 1989.
    I also doubt the latest Russian jammers are likely to be exported anyway, whether the customer wants them or not. The latest generation of that sort of stuff is not usually cleared for export for obvious reasons.
    If you want DRFM jammers then there are Russian models available like the MSP-418K or the KS418 being developed from it.

    I here alot that Russia won't export our jammers, that just isn't true. Yemen bought the MSP-418K for their SMT upgrades because they aren't on terms with Israel. The fact is Israeli and European jammers have cut Russian producers out of the market because ours are nowhere close to theirs in performance.

    South Africa make some good stuff, lots of it clandestinely with the Israelis and others. New Zealand is not well known as a high tech exporter of weapons and technology but a New Zealand company developed a chip the size of the nail on your little finger that acts as a GPS receiver that can be put in things that already have an antenna like a cellphone to give electronic devices the ability to act as a GPS receiver. Not everything new and high tech comes from the US or western europe.

    What does New Zealand have to do with anything? The broke state of South Afrika should not be surpassing Russia in avionics, plain and simple.

    Customising a product to meet the needs or wants of the client. That is just normal.
    For the Russian Armed forces however the client in this case wants stuff made in Russia, even if it is developed elsewhere they want to licence produce it in Russia. That is no big deal either, every major user of military equipment does that... the US has Italian pistols, Swedish AT4 rocket launchers, their tanks have had british 105mm and then german 120mm guns, their tanks currently have british designed armour, etc etc, all licence produced in the US.

    Its one thing to integrate a missile or pod that the customer wants, but when you have to start changing out the guts of the aircraft, it isn't a good thing for Russian industry. It is the evidence we have lagged behind because nations don't have faith in our products.

    The point is that a lot of stuff that went into Russian aircraft came from the Ukraine or Belarus or wherever. These are now foreign countries, so if you don't want to wait ten years for a Russian company to develop the technology from scratch and then create factories to produce it then the alternative is to find a foreign product that is the best that you have access to and negotiate licence production.
    It worked well with the Thales Catherine Thermal imager. There are several Russian companies that have developed cooled and uncooled thermal imagers, but Thales has products tested and ready to go. The Russian company that will make these sights will gain tooling and a skilled workforce and the agreement includes future cooperation with Thales France to improve and develop new systems.
    The other Russian optics companies will also learn from the new technology and also improve or they will use the money generated from sales of what they can sell to improve their products.

    Why should countries have to wait ten years is the point. Russian industry in all of these fields exist and they have failed to keep up. I agree they will have no choice but to get license production of French objects, hopefully in ten years they can come out with their own products. But the turning point is already happening, MIC will be dominated by French companies, just as they have taken over our domestic automobile industry.

    SMT 1 is a minor change that retains the existing radar, but adds self diagnostic equipment and changes the maintainece method to save money and parts. The original maintainence method simply had time limits for parts, when the time expired the part was replaced without inspection or testing. This meant that you went through a lot of parts as life span was a very conservative number.
    It also added R-27E compatibility and also R-27T and ET compatibility and also added some guided air to ground weapons so operationally was a significant change. Lots more fuel is added including inflight a refuelling probe.
    SMT 2 changed the radar and added R-77 capability and added RHAWs and RWRs and jammers. It also included new engines and a lot of other internal changes including a digital mil std bus so new weapons could be added plug and play. The larger wing of the Mig-29K is fitted with a 4 pylon and larger control surfaces but it doesn't fold like the Mig-29K.
    SMT 3 replaced the radar to the best available and added lots of stuff that was intended for the Mig-29M.

    The M2 was based on the M which has a different structure from the previous model Migs. The single seater and two seater are the same but the single seater just has stuff where the other crewman would sit.

    There are not three blocks of SMT, there are several variants of MiG too numerous to even mention, but the taxonomy of generations compared with Western block upgrades only goes two steps, MiG-29A/MiG-29SMT/MiG-35. We aren't even finished with our second modernisation, much less initiating the first, while the F-16 has undergone 4.

    Certainly they wouldn't make them completely different but the similarities are constrained by the fact that SMT is an upgrade programme to modify previously made Mig-29s and would have been what the Russian AF had applied to its in service Mig-29s if it had the money. Any new build replacement aircraft would have been M2s simply because they were superior.

    Don't bother mentioning M models, it doesn't even exist as a production aerocraft.


    The K was designed from the outset to be a naval fighter for use on a carrier, so much stronger undercarriage, folding wings, tail hook, more powerful engines etc etc.

    The K is a naval variant, it isn't a block upgrade.


    ...because the Russian AF has spent peanuts in the last 20 years on new avionics... the companies that develop avionics in Russia have been starved of funds for two decades.

    There are other markets besides VVS. There was nothing stopping the stakeholders of ZAO Russkaya Avionika from taking profits from exports and putting it into research. They decided to skimp on research and base design on available COTS architecture which is never going to be cutting edge, it is recycled tech.

    Even the F-22 has parts made in Japan. The F-35 has parts made all over the world... including the jet nozzle which is Russian designed because no one in the west has any experience developing a jet nozzle that can turn more than 90 degrees in full afterburner.

    The parts for F-22 aren't core avionics, they are outsourced resource suppliers. The F-35 is an international project, the MiG-35 is not. Rather like comparing apples and oranges where the Russian apple is half European.

    And that is why RAC-MiG has to partner with SIBIT (Israel), Finmeccanica (Italy), and SAGEM (France) to make MiG-35 an exportable platform.

    Russian aircraft design bureaus never worked alone before. Mig has never made engines or radars or cockpit displays etc etc. It has always been a company that Mig was working with. Whether that company is in Italy or Kazakhstan is not important. What is important is the final product. The Russian government have stated they will buy some Mig-35s but that is clearly to give it a chance in the Indian MRCA competition. It is a bit like the Mig-29K, when the Indians reordered that kept the production lines open so it became the best choice for the Russian Navy when they decided they would need a new fighter for the Kuznetsov. The Mig-29K is a capable aircraft but there was no competition because the Su-33 is not in production.

    The fact that those companies aren't Russian is important. The business that would go to Russkaya Avionika and others are going West. Unless we can license produce their products in Russia, we are losing jobs and the competitiveness of our industrial base. It is better to install them than not sell MiG-35, but the damage is still done. Unless the order is put on paper, it doesn't exist. No MiG-35s for VVS or MiG-29Ks for the Navy as of yet. Talk from this government is cheap.

    The problem is the state doesn't place orders for them. They mentioned a possible order at MAKS but nothing came of it.

    Those kms of factories are mostly empty shells because to make a state of the art modern fighter you need more than a lathe and a chisel like in WWII. You need high tech computer controlled tools and skill workers who can use those tools... and you need money for the raw materials. You get the money from orders so when you have no orders, you have no tools or trained workers or raw materials.
    The orders mentioned at MAKS were a step forward as they included new weapons too. There is no point having T-50s if they are armed with R-73s and external R-27ERs.
    Orders are easy to make, but you need to get the money and use that money to retool and when you retool, you have to retrain and hire. Securing raw material is obviously important too and then you finally get to start production... assuming your parts suppliers deliver the parts on time and in good condition.

    You aren't going to retool before you have markets for your products. There is much equipment being bought for new orders to India and Burma but the MiG-35 production line is dragged in the dirt. Companies put their money into where they know it will be profitable. If India doesn't buy MiG-35, MiG would have wasted a billion dollars starting a line for nothing. Even if India buys, it will only be 18 produced with the rest built in India with equipment purchased from Europe and Asia to build it. When you look into the minds of CEO you see where your profits are, which is export and refurbishment of old models. That is why they have hard times producing new things, there is little impetus to do so. They do not believe the government will buy their products which is why it is so vastly important that VVS puts the order to paper. CEOs will know the state will support it which they will match with capital investment.


    I would suggest Israel spent more than 5 billion rubles to make their drones work.
    You make it sound like all Russian UAVs are rubbish and were a waste of money and time.
    I would suggest to you that there are an enormous number of a wide variety of Russian UAVs which look to be as good as any other you might buy anywhere else.
    The problem is that the Russian AF wants long range high altitude and high speed, which basically means something like a manned aircraft performance, which is very expensive to develop when there is no money and no guarantee that the Russian Armed forces will even buy it.
    Now that the Russian Armed forces show they are prepared to spend money on UAVs, which got almost no attention before the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia BTW, the makers in Russia can now look at what they want and start to work towards that.

    VVS has requirements in all ranges from micro to long endurance to UCAV. Manufactures have failed to meet the requirements they stipulated, not only failed but miserably. The Israeli MALAT division builds UAVs not mainly for Israel, but export. They didn't need huge state stimulus to keep them in business, they did it with good products. The more they sell the more money they have to put into more projects until they get to where they are today, world leaders. The demands of the VVS are not too demanding, Russian companies are simply incompetent in the area. It is not difficult to make a quiet tactical UAV, but local producers put loud engines on them because they do not want to buy better. The engines and optics are what hold us back. We try putting heavy local optical packages on underperforming loud engines. If they spent the money on better engines and better optics, we would have what we need. They are trying to load their pockets like all corrupted officials.

    Before the invasion of SO the Ru Armed forces didn't want anything, after they still didn't know the details of what they wanted, they just wanted a working system.
    With an aircraft industry like Russias there is no reason why Russian UAVs and UCAVs can't be developed in Russia... except for this "I want it now" problem.

    The armed forces have been wanting equipment long before the August War. When I was in VDV there were plenty of things we wanted, GPS recievers that we would buy ourselves, certainly wanted Kornet to replace Konkurs, tactical UAVs were on the list as well. It wasn't 2008 that we knew we wanted this stuff, we have known all along.

    The problem isn't "I want it now" or as I like to say, McDonald's Syndrome. The problem is industry has not had the competence to respond to challenges posed to them. They are more concerned with lining their pockets, I want it now is for money, not with producing results. For example, when companies are ordered to retool, they don't go out and buy the latest machines from Japan and Europe as is often portrayed, they go to China and buy second hand machines they are disposing of. This has a big impact on the quality and efficiency of long term operations. They save in the short run but come out losers in the long. It is the same thing in UAVs, they buy cheap engines and cheap optics and end up with failed devices.

    Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I was trying to say was that the AK-103 has new modern plastic stocks and is made on new computer controlled machines to a much higher standard than the Soviet period AKM.
    The practical difference in performance is not important at all as the weapons are very similar. The AK-103 on paper is much better, but in practical terms both will do the job.

    The AK-100 series is better than the AK-47, it is more accurate, far more accurate actually. That matters in terms of doing "the job." Some will argue over the stopping power of the bullet, but it is better to get a hit than a miss.


    Now you seem to switch sides?
    Do you mean import western stuff to give Russian workers a kick in the pants and to get them moving after a period in the doldrums?
    I would say a better solution is for the government to get the funds to the factories and designers so the former can start making new stuff and the latter can start working on upgrades for the new stuff.

    There is no switching sides, all of it is a disgrace that we are no longer able to make competitive equipment. It is especially a disgrace for something as simple as a rifle. Throwing money at it isn't going to solve all problems. They need new blood, average age of MIC developers is 56.

    Soldiers should always be properly armed. If you aren't willing to give them night-sights then they will never be able to fight in the dark. There are simple things that need to be done now while we modernise C4ISR, which will take a decade.


    A soldier with an obsolete rifle is still properly armed. They are just not optimally armed. BTW regarding night sights I was looking at a website yesterday showing some interesting new toys:

    A soldier armed with an AK-47 vs one armed with an AK-101 or even AK-74 is going to be at an extreme disadvantage when firing at 100m. If you are fighting across the Russian plains, this makes a big difference.

    Bunch of nice civi toys, but they aren't going to the troops who are the ones who need them. They also aren't on the level of Western products. If you see the optics the French are distributed as part of FELIN, it makes these look like the toys I mentioned.

    T-95 isn't being dropped due to production issues, it is being dropped because it is obsolete now, much less when it gets off the production line

    The things I have heard suggest to me that it is more like the F-22 than the F-4 you are suggesting. The Black Eagle was largely a shell, a concept vehicle that was not operational. The T-95 has been worked on for a very long time and I can't see how it can go from... this is technologically difficult to make to obsolete overnight, especially when most western tanks were developed in the 1980s and have just received upgrades the same as the T-90.

    It isn't obsolete overnight, it is a concept that was started in the CCCP and whose requirements are now obsolete. It took too long to get off the drawing board. The main difference between Western tanks and aircraft is quite simply electronics. Electronics are integral components of every battlefield system, we severally lag in this area and is the main cause of our obsolescence. Our great mechanical engineering was never in doubt, it is our lack of ability to develop electronics and timely integrate COTS components when we can't do it. Our weapons lack the sophistication that the West has over us and until we close that gap, we will never compete with them.

    If the issue is being netcentric then what is the point of buying the Leclerc when the issue is the computers and systems inside the vehicle. Why not just buy the "system" and install it on T-90s, the latest Burlak upgrade looking rather good and certainly not inferior to any foreign tank.

    Netcentric is only one, I want all the electronic advances in Leclerc in Russian tanks. No point in spending alot of money for that on outdated T-90s. The Catherine FCS is 1/6th the cost of a T-90S already. The SIT network system would cost in the same range. If we are going to spend big money on a tank, I want it modernised from head to toe. I want auto-transmission, hyrdo-pneumatic suspension, cutting edge FC, muzzle reference, and all the other high-tech stuff the French have and we don't. That requires a brand new tank. If T-95 had it, we would continue with it. As it stands now, T-95 would be better off being a license production of Leclerc.

    Burlak is a turret upgrade. as I already mentioned, our problems are not mechanical engineering. Burlak is a mechanical upgrade to a problem that requires electronic solutions. It isn't going to make the engine better, it won't make the firing more accurate, it won't deal with net-centricity and it won't increase visual performance. It is another answer our designers have come up with that doesn't address the fundamental problems.

    But where do you draw the line? Replace your rifles with FAMAS rifles because they fit the FELEN design better? French APCs because they are integrated into the C4I system already too? Drop the T-50 for the RAFALE?
    If Russians can create a netcentric 5th gen fighter, even if it takes 10 years, why can't they design and build a system for their army and take 10 years doing that?
    Even if they buy a French Net centric system that will take a decade to introduce so why make any decisions about replacing the T-90 with Leclerc now?

    The FELIN scopes can be adjusted to fit on any rifle rail. There is no need to change our rifles. The SIT network can be installed on any vehicle connecting the infantry squad to the battalion level. Imagine having troops pouring out of BMP-3M armed with FELIN combat systems, the results would be devastating to our enemies. We would know where they are before their command does. We already export French sub-systems to our customers to sell our products. We might as well buy license and start adding it to systems that are worth upgrading, like BMP-3M. This is the easiest and quickest way to make our troops net-centric. It wouldn't take 10 years to introduce, it is already an operational system in France. We would buy a few regiments worth for immediate delivery, they would train and set doctrine while we set up production facilties and France completes installing our bandwidth. It could be spread to all 48 combat brigades in less than 10 years.

    The reason Russia can't do it on our own is simple, our electronics are not up to the task.

    It costs more money to maintain old aircraft which comes directly out of the operations budget.

    Not really. Most of the spares should have been bought, and there are lots of old airframes that can be canabalised too which are all already paid for.

    Yes really, the maintenance costs on Soviet era jets are double to triple that of new ones if you spend what is required. The reason our training rates are so low is because we can't afford to maintain the aircraft we have. They require more overhauls and checks than new planes which decreases operational time and increases costs. The parts are not available for many grounded planes despite cannibalisation. If you fork out a bundle of cash now, it will save us in the future but people are too short-sighted to see it. That is the biggest problem in the establishment today. They do not understand spending money to save money.


    Certainly most of the money should be invested in new aircraft, but upgrades of existing types can be implimented during overhauls and as most earlier upgrades like SMT for the Fulcrums and SM for the Flankers were focused on reducing operational costs keeping some of the old aircraft can be affordable.
    The SMT upgrade for the Mig-29 replaces the old obsolete non digital wiring and hardware and reduces operational costs by 40%.
    Some old aircraft can just be used till they need an expensive overhaul and scrapped, others can be upgraded at low cost... the SMT upgrade was something like 6 million per aircraft but as I said reduced operational costs by 40%.

    I don't know where you get your figures, but an SMT upgrade costs way more than $6 million. It costs that much just for the engines. It is more like $18 million. If you stick it on aircraft that are 10-15 years old, it makes for a worthy upgrade. But once you reach 20-25 years, it is a little too late for that. The structural reinforcement isn't going to give you a brand new frame, it only adds some years to its life. The reduction in operational costs is 20%. 40% is the support cost decrease when you practically ground your fleet, or as MiG likes to call it our "new maintenance approach." lol1

    In the long run we will be able to operate double as many aircraft than we do on the current budget.

    But buying new aircraft is expensive. Compare spending 40-60 million dollars for the new aircraft with 10-20 million at most for upgrading existing aircraft to a level where they have R-77 compatibility.
    Remember with the withdrawl of all those single engine fighters the Russian AF lost most of its short range strike aircraft like the Mig-27s and Su-17s, so having a few Mig-29SMTs and Su-27SMs able to carry guided air to ground weapons will fill a large capability gap too.

    Like I said before, it is too late. It would have been a good idea if they started 10 years ago. The frames are too old to get a meaningful life extension on most of the aircraft. The best candidates, the storage fighters, have already been cannibalised and is too late to use them. We have 48 Su-27SM, I fear that is about all we get for upgrades. Everything else has to be new. Thanks to Algeria we at least get a couple squadrons of new SMTs. I stress again why we need orders, not just for industry but also cannot rely on upgrades to 20-25 year old frames.

    Between modernised and new fighters, we only have, 48 Su-27SM, 12 Su-30MK, 28 MiG-29SMT, and 8 MiG-31BM. You can add 18 Su-34s if you take them out of tactical strike but they haven't reached weapons certification yet. Total we have 114 modernised combat aircraft and a third of those are still not in Front-line aviation. VVS is in a sorry state right now. Adding 48 Su-35BM by 2015 isn't going to cut it.

    Retooling a factory is not going to improve the research divisions. They are full of geriatrics that have no vision. What is needed are good salaries and university partnerships to bring in young blood to reinvigorate the R&D. We need people trained in Western management to bring reform to our state run disaster areas. We need an infusion of European technology to give the researchers the tools to get back on track and stop focusing on Soviet obsolescence.

    That is your opinion and of course I respect that. However I think a better way is to actually make orders of Russian hardware, put it in service and then with experience with the hardware give the design bureaus feedback of what needs to be improved and what they want to replace it.

    As I keep harping on, some technologies simply did not exist in a mature form in Russia like thermal imagers. The solution was French for tanks and I believe Swedish for helicopters and French for fixed wing aircraft. Right now several Russian optics companies have caught up and are able to offer rifle sights and portable thermal imagers so Russian soldiers are actually going to be getting Russian thermal sights for their rifles rather than French models.
    This makes sense to me.

    You know Garry, that is exactly what we have been doing. We have test units that get new equipment and tries it out. Most of the time it turns out to be either be full of bugs or just doesn't perform. Instead of withdrawing participation from the project, the state pushes forward anyway until we get to the point today where we stop much of our land system development. I'm just waiting to see how long they will wait until they pull the plug on SIGMA.

    As you harp, Russia has many technologies that are not in a mature form, most of them revolve around electronics. As for optics: French for tanks, French for ships, French for fighters, French for helicopters... you name it, our new thermal optics are French.

    Right now several Russian optics companies do not have orders from the state. They only sell 2nd generation optics while France sells 3rd. You tell me which one we want, I want 3rd generation.

    Stating that the T-95 is rubbish already is highly suspicious because it will be a net centric tank in an armed force that is not yet net centric.
    Stating the current attempt to make the armed forces net centric is useless because it crashed twice... welcome to the world of computers.
    I have read an article that stated it was too easy to jam, but then the system it replaced... a radio... was slow and inefficient and also easy to jam.
    Progress can happen in leaps but also in small steps.
    The important thing is to keep the steps in the right direction.
    This French FELEN suit will have certain elements that are rather more advanced than Russian designers can provide, but in other areas like protection levels I would expect Russian stuff would be good enough.
    It is a bit like India and the Brahmos.
    The system the Russians end up with will be a combination of French technology and ideas and Russian technology and ideas.

    The T-95 is obsolete for many more reasons than just its lack of net-centricity. The guts of the tank are still going to be similarly obsolete items going into T-90s today. We just don't have the mastery of electronics to make it happen.

    Razz The system didn't just crash twice, it crashed half a dozen times at Kavkaz 2009. At the end of the day they gave up on it. During West 2009, they had to downscale and use it in a very limited fashion because it couldn't handle the bandwidth.

    As for Russian protection, I can tell you do not want to wear Russian body armour, it is far heavier than Western counterparts. Russian level III vest weigh close to 9kg. They are very heavy and do not breath. We would often take off our body armour when jumping because landing with that weight on your shoulders gave a good chance of damaging your spine. It was against regs, but we all did it. I have worn French kit and it is much lighter and ergonomic for the same level of protection. The entire combat gear of a FELIN soldier is 25kg and that includes everything from batteries, weapons, armour to food. It even has shoulder protection with very good ergonomic movement of the arms. Russian kit weighs 36kg and you get next to nothing for C4ISR. 11kg difference in weight is alot.


    BTW Vlad, I am not trying to be annoying, and I don't see this discussion as an arguement and hope you don't view this that way either.

    I respect your inside knowledge and understand you probably don't have time to spend all day answering my posts... Smile

    It doesn't take me terribly long to respond. It isn't like I don't know what I'm talking about. I would appreciate it if you would break up long posts into two or three shorter ones. It does become a little tedious responding to an entire page in one post box.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  sepheronx on Sun Apr 18, 2010 9:56 am

    Vlad, I understand you served in the forces. I also understand you live in Russia while I do not. But please, for the love of god, provide links or something to satisfy us.

    You say 3rd gen Optics - you say 2nd Gen Optics. Now I come from a line of hardware and software engineers as well as my father worked for various defense companies. Even he will state to you that the concept of generations is a marketing ploy, and performance difference is minuscule (depending on what we are exactly talking about). I understand your criticism, but T-95 is not going to be outdated, and it isn't outdated. Look what there is out their. Look at LeClerc and think to yourself, is it really that good? If it is, then why is no one buying it? The problem is, you can stick all the best technologies in the world into one device, then there are various problems:

    1) Cost - The cost becomes too big that it is much harder to field in numbers needed
    2) Reliability - There will be problems, and how much is the cost for maintenance?
    3) Logistics - If something breaks, will you have spares?
    4) Training - It would be very hard and costly to retrain troops to use such a device

    There is the concept that once you field it, and if lost in battle, it may be one of those things where you will despise the concept of having a rolls royce tank.

    T-90 and its current features makes it a very good tank. It has armor and a gun that can match most western tanks. There is of course the lack of auto transmition, and various other little goodies, but still, it is a tank and the tank fits the needs. You can talk about ballistic computers and being not up to date or whatever you believe in, but take this as an example: In the hardware development field, modern processors are becoming faster and faster with outstanding raw power. But once it is running a program that is not nearly intensive for rendering, it does not require such power, only using not even 1% of the CPU to do the task. So I doubt the ballistic computer is out of date like you say it is.

    As for your statement on the domestic automobile industry, you are aware that they only owe 25% of the stocks? That isn't 'dominating' like you think it is. Also, for Jammers, if you look at the Georgian war, there is mention of SU-34's suppressing Georgian air defenses....Which in that case is mostly Russian defenses.....which in the other case are technically harder to jam then most air defense systems. Last but not least, the Optics for planes (especially that on Mig-35), I think they are from Russia, not from France (as it was designed with aid of the space agency).

    Edit/Offtopic: If you love French military tech and all, then why not move to France? It is pretty much a given you are not fond of your own military (regardless you starting a forum about it).

    Oh, as well, I mentioned this multiple of times, but you have failed to actually acknowledge or even reply about it, but you are aware of something called "Sanctions" correct? It has been placed on your country before. Anyway, if things start to heat up because France is unhappy, then you guys are screwed. So as much as you love French military equipment and how much you want your defense industries dead and gone and all French ones in, it can be very very dangerous. But I guess if your government did do something stupid like that, then they will have even less pull in the international market, as Russia will have to pretty much agree with whatever France and US tells them too, or your military industry collapses.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sun Apr 18, 2010 10:25 am

    Its all-right to ask for a link every once and awhile, but you do it for everything. All one has to do is look at the identification ranges of a French 3rd Generation thermal imager and that of a 2nd generation Russian one. Catherine FC has a detection range of 10km for tanks, Argava 2 is only 2.6km. Russian companies do not hide the fact it is 2nd generation, they will tell you outright. There is a reason we are buying French thermals out the ass, its because ours are a generation behind. Another common knowledge thing that does not require a link.

    Edit/Offtopic: If you love French military tech and all, then why not move to France? It is pretty much a given you are not fond of your own military (regardless you starting a forum about it).

    Maybe you would like to move to the banned list? Just let me know because you sure act like that is where you want to be.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  sepheronx on Sun Apr 18, 2010 10:52 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:Its all-right to ask for a link every once and awhile, but you do it for everything. All one has to do is look at the identification ranges of a French 3rd Generation thermal imager and that of a 2nd generation Russian one. Catherine FC has a detection range of 10km for tanks, Argava 2 is only 2.6km. Russian companies do not hide the fact it is 2nd generation, they will tell you outright. There is a reason we are buying French thermals out the ass, its because ours are a generation behind. Another common knowledge thing that does not require a link.

    Edit/Offtopic: If you love French military tech and all, then why not move to France? It is pretty much a given you are not fond of your own military (regardless you starting a forum about it).

    Maybe you would like to move to the banned list? Just let me know because you sure act like that is where you want to be.

    Well then, fine on the optics.

    But please answer my other questions.

    As for banning me, well that threat wont work forever as people will start getting tired of the same assertions over and over again. As well as banning me will not make things better, because others will start questioning as well as to why why why, with only answers and no evidence. Just words. So if you feel you must start banning me or others, then go ahead. You are the boss after all.

    Edit: In any case............ If Vlad79 is correct in what he is saying, then there are a lot of problems that is in place and Russian MoD cannot simply start replacing systems and putting the old stuff.

    Problem is, most of what is used now is for old tactics and doctrines. Heck, maybe they should go through Canada's system, and turn all forces into a single force (the Armed Forces of Russia). So that they can have various bases and stations all using the same communication systems (SATCOM) and all work together. Start turning some airforce bases into airports and or start reducing the size of bases.

    The other problem is getting the new technologies. If Vlad is also correct in his assumption of the current and future equipment in Russia, then replacing the systems is going to be real hard. So instead of getting the government to buy the equipment from industries to test and then move on, maybe they should just do what the US does, and throws the money on the table, and let the people grab at it. In other words, fund the system to fit their needs, not the other way around (as waiting will take forever). Also offer to start upgrading the facilities with French, German, Russian and various other manufacturing equipment to speed up process.

    I bet if the government did that, then they would not only save money, but also get the high end equipment without being ripped off.

    Stalingradcommando
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 35
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2010-04-14

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Stalingradcommando on Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:43 am

    I don`t think that our avionics/jammers are so bad. Yes the Mig29 was brutally low tech but the Su27 was not less rechnolocially advanced then it`s counterpart, the F15. And our Mig35/Su35S are eqquiped with some state of the art technology. See below for more info. Source is
    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2008-04.html

    Radar – the MiG-35 Fulcrum F is equipped with a Phazotron Active Electronically Steered Array (AESA) which is the same basic technology used in the F-22A's APG-77, the F/A-18E/F's APG-79, the F-16E's APG-80 and the Eurofighter's AMSAR. The Su-35-1 Flanker E+ is currently intended to carry a 20 kW hybrid ESA Irbis E radar, which is comparable to the technology in the Rafale, but boasts the largest antenna in any agile fighter, and peak power and range performance claimed to be competitive against the F-22A's APG-77. The Russians have also invested considerable effort into modern radar pseudo-noise waveform coding techniques, a key feature in recent US radars. In terms of technology the US now has only an incremental lead in active TR module technology and software, and EU little if none. Given the larger size of Russian radars compared to their US peers, in terms of raw range performance the Russians equal or better all except the F-22A's APG-77.



    Radio Frequency Threat Warning – RF threat warning systems, comprising radar warning receivers, Radar Homing and Warning Systems, and Electronic Support Measures, have seen aggressive growth over the last decade with the advent of high density Gallium Arsenide or GaAs chips, commercially used in TV and mobile telephony. The most capable Western system is the F-22A's ALR-94 which is a channelised receiver, while the latest Russian Khibiny M system intended for Su-35-1 Flanker E+ is also a channelised receiver. What incremental lead the US and EU retain is primarily in GaAs chip packaging and software.

    Radio Frequency Jammers – the most important developments over the last decade have been the advent of Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) and towed decoy technologies. The Russians have mastered the former and have offered it for export (MSP-418K) some years ago, and are now offering the Lobushka towed decoy, claimed to be comparable to the US ALE-50. Some Russian jamming equipment is much more refined than Western equivalents, the KNIRTI Sorbstiya jam pod carried by numerous Flanker subtypes boasts a wideband phased array RF stage, much more effective against monopulse emitters, and more sophisticated than the wideband horn or lens emitters in Western equivalents.

    Monolithic Thermal Imagers – the EU holds the lead in this technology with production dual band Quantum Well Imaging Photodetector (QWIP) technology, unlike the US and Russia still in the latter development stages. In deployed systems, the US generally still retains a lead with midwave InSb technology. Given the commercial accessibility of such devices, Russia is likely to be integrating them into systems within 3-4 years.

    Supercooled Engine Blades – the Russians announced over a year ago low rate Initial Production (LRIP) of the AL-41F engine, designed originally as a supersonic cruise equivalent to the F-22A's P&W F119-PW-100. The hot end technology used in the AL-41F core has since migrated also into the AL-31F-117C variant for the Su-35-1. Cited performance figures for these engines indicate the Russian industry has closed much of the gap the US opened with the F119/F135 family of the engines.

    Engine FADEC – Full Authority Digital Engine Control systems are now available for a range of more recent Russian engines, including the AL-31F-117C. Whatever lead US and EU manufacturers may have is now only incremental, and mostly in maturity of software.

    Thrust Vectoring Nozzles – to date the only full production Western air combat fighter with TVC capability is the F-22A, while the Russians have exported 2D TVC in the Su-30MKI, and offered 3D TVC for other types. Russian TVC is integrated with the flight controls, not unlike the F-22A arrangement.

    Digital Flight Control Systems – the Russians demonstrated their first quadruply redundant DFCS in the Su-37 during the 1990s and now offer it as an option for the Su-30MK series, Su-35 and likely as an MLU option for Su-27SKM rebuilds. The only incremental advantage held by US and EU manufacturers is in greater maturity of embedded software, an advantage which will not last.

    Radar Absorbent Materials and Structures – the US still retains a lead in this technology, but the Russians continue to make robust advances in coatings, laminates, and other controlled impedance technologies. Much of the Russian effort to date has been focussed on reducing the signature of conventional aircraft, rather than the US focus on fully shaped new designs. Russian Kazantsev laminates have demonstrated 100 fold signature reduction in the X-band, and recent citations indicate that robotically applied inlet tunnel coatings (Flanker) have achieved a 30 fold reduction in X-band signature. These are significant performance achievements, insofar as they challenge existing reduced signature US designs like the F/A-18E/F. While the US still leads at the top end of this technology, the Russians have closed much of the gap in 'commodity' technologies for treating conventional and legacy fighters.

    Airborne Datalinks and Networks – the Russians have long been users of digital datalinks, primarily for GCI and AWACS support of interceptors. During the 1990s they invested heavily in intraflight datalink technology intended to network flights of fighters, and the TKS-2 system currently exported on Flankers provides the capability to share sensor data between multiple aircraft. The Russians are now offering an equivalent to the JTIDS/Link-16 system on their latest fighters. What advantage the US and EU retain in this technology is primarily in the maturity of software and protocol designs, another gap which will not last.

    Inertial and Satellite Navigation Equipment – the advantage held by the US over Russia at the end of the Cold War has largely evaporated in this area, in part due to the wide availability of RLG and GPS technology in the global market. The US still retains a strong lead in wide area differential GPS technology.

    Glass Cockpit Technology – the US introduced Active Matrix LCD panel displays during the early 1990s, with the Russians closing this gap using commodity technology some years ago. All current production Russian fighters use glass cockpits, and the Su-35-1 will employ two large area panels emulating in AMLCD technology the projector screen arrangement in the Joint Strike Fighter.

    Active Radar Guided Missile Seekers – At the end of the Cold War the US led globally with the digital AIM-120A/B AMRAAM and AIM-54C Phoenix missiles. Since then the Russians have closed much of this gap with the R-77 Adder's Agat 9B1348, and its derivative 9B1103M for the R-27 missile. The most recently reported subtype of this seeker uses the same Texas Instruments TMS320 digital processor as is used in most Western radars and seekers. What technology gap remains is in the maturity of embedded software and packaging.

    ElectroOptical Guided Missile Seekers – the latest scanning digital seekers used in the R-73/R-74 Archer series of heatseeking missiles are a generation behind the seekers in the AIM-9X, Python 4 and ASRAAM, but given the ease with which Rafael produced the EO guided Python 5, this gap could close very quickly. The lack of Russian investment in this area suggests that the capability of the late model R-73/R-74 is regarded to be adequate.

    Guided Bomb Technology – since the end of the Cold War the Russians have widely expanded the technology they employ in smart bombs. The KAB-500/1500 series is a hybrid of aerodynamic features from the US HOBOS and Paveway series, available with Lock On Before Launch Electro-Optical Correlator guidance comparable to the EGBU-15 series, semi-active laser homing guidance comparable to the Paveway series, and most recently satellite/inertial guidance comparable to the JDAM series. The only decisive technology lead the US holds is in the GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb. All of the mature US, EU and Israeli guided bomb types are now matched by a range of Russian equivalents.

    What this excruciating survey of basic technology tells us is that there is little to differentiate the basic technology which goes into a current MiG-35 or Su-30MK/35 and that being put into a current production F-15SG or F/A-18E/F Block II Super Hornet. In most technologies the Russians have matched and in some instances even outperformed US and EU manufacturers. The main advantages still held in most categories by the US and EU are in maturity, and this is only a short term advantage.

    In turn, what this tells us is that in most of the sensor, systems and weapons technologies which go into a conventional fighter, the Russians have caught up with and in some areas exceeded the capabilities of the US and EU. Comparing then fighters type by type, accounting for comparable systems and weapons, the determinant of superiority will lie in conventional metrics such as sustained top speed, acceleration, climb rate, specific excess power, and instantaneous and sustained turn rate.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sun Apr 18, 2010 12:45 pm

    sepheronx wrote:

    As for banning me, well that threat wont work forever as people will start getting tired of the same assertions over and over again. As well as banning me will not make things better, because others will start questioning as well as to why why why, with only answers and no evidence. Just words. So if you feel you must start banning me or others, then go ahead. You are the boss after all.

    If I ban you, it has nothing to do with you asking questions. It has to do with your attitude. First you go off on a new member, then you go off-topic and back talk me. Keep yourself in check, I don't have any problem banning disrespectful people. And that isn't a threat, its a promise.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 18, 2010 3:39 pm

    Russian government had money since 2000 when oil prices started rising. The profits were placed in the Sovereign Wealth Fund. Instead of spending money to save RAC-MiG from going bankrupt and obsolete back then, they let it rot along with the fleet of MiG-29s. SMT includes increased range and ground attack capability. If we had gone ahead with the upgrade of 200 MiGs, we could have disbanded many Su-24s before they started falling like flies. VVS still hasn't grasped the concept of multirole, doing more with less. It will be good when we can finally merge tactical aviation.

    The problem is that I agree largely with what they did.
    Multirole aircraft really only show their value with precision guided weapons.
    Most Russian PGMs at the time were very expensive, only now with cheaper satellite guide munitions would it be worth spending money on lots of expensive weapons.
    Also since 2000 the focus has been on reducing force sizes so available material per soldier probably increased dramatically, so there was even less reason to spend on upgrades when older aircraft could be put in storage and the newer airframes have their hours used up very slowly because no one had fuel anyway.

    Even without removing the Su-24s I would have thought there was a huge air to ground vacuum created by the withdrawl of all those single engine fighters and fighter bombers like the Su-17 and Su-7 and the Mig-27 etc.

    Any threat from NATO would not have been influenced by 200 SMT migs, though the cost of operating them would have been lower. The real problem was that Mig was out of favour and Sukhoi was in favour during that period.

    I agree it is too late now to upgrade MiG-29s, they are too old and corroded. It is really getting too late to upgrade Su-27s as well. I already said we should buy more Su-35 and MiG-35.

    Just for pure numbers finding a few with low airframe hours and applying a relatively cheap minimal upgrade it would be a good way to keep overall numbers up while the rather more expensive aircraft enter service.
    It will take 15-20 years to replace them all, especially with the cost of a stealth fighter.

    It had more to do with corruption at Sokol and Algeria having us over a barrel. Who would refuse Flankers at Fulcrum prices?

    Almost worth complaining that Migs were rusty useless so and so's.
    Even the F-15s in the USAF were temporarily grounded because of wing cracking issues.
    ...happens to the best of them sometimes... even the F-22.

    I here alot that Russia won't export our jammers, that just isn't true. Yemen bought the MSP-418K for their SMT upgrades because they aren't on terms with Israel. The fact is Israeli and European jammers have cut Russian producers out of the market because ours are nowhere close to theirs in performance.

    It is a very secretive and cutthroat market that is very very high tech.
    I would expect whatever is fitted to T-50 will not be exported.
    Either way my point is that you do have DRFM jammers... they don't have to be the best, they just have to work against the threats they come across.

    What does New Zealand have to do with anything? The broke state of South Afrika should not be surpassing Russia in avionics, plain and simple.

    I was trying to get the point across that the US and Europe and Israel and Russia don't have a monopoly of talented engineers and gifted designers.

    If the Malaysians thought the South African RWR was best for them who are we to tell them they are wrong. We don't know what choices they had and there are too many variables to properly speculate.

    Needless to say that South Africa has a lot of equipment that looks like it has Israeli input. This might be another case of that, or it might be something completely different.

    Some in the west might laugh at what you said as they consider that South Africa became a broken state at about the same time Russia did... in the early 1990s.

    Its one thing to integrate a missile or pod that the customer wants, but when you have to start changing out the guts of the aircraft, it isn't a good thing for Russian industry. It is the evidence we have lagged behind because nations don't have faith in our products.

    No one country builds the best of everything. America likes to think it does but that is a myth. The thing you are ignoring is that Russia will allow the customer to have what they want to suit that customer... something the US could certainly learn. The reality is that when Sukhoi sells a plane, sukhoi is selling a plane, it is also selling a radar made by another company in Russia... it is also selling an engine that is not made by Sukhoi, but by another maker in Russia. As far as Sukhoi is concerned it is working with lots of companies to make a final product. If the customer whats components made by other companies or even it makes itself then if it wants to make the sale of its aircraft it will listen to what the customer wants.

    It is a call to Russian component makers to step up their products, though some customers might want foreign components no matter how good the Russian model is... simply for diversity.

    Russian industry in all of these fields exist and they have failed to keep up.

    They failed to keep up because there have been no orders from Russia for their products. How can you expect foreign orders when Russian forces wont even buy.
    The main reason for the Russian purchase of Ka-52s and orders for Mig-35s was to make them viable for export.
    If you don't buy Russian stuff where are they going to get the money to upgrade, train... you know the rest.

    You are saying that they have tried and failed, but I am saying they haven't been given a chance.

    But the turning point is already happening, MIC will be dominated by French companies, just as they have taken over our domestic automobile industry.

    And when it is French companies that are making all the money and they refuse to speak Russian in the Kremlin any more...

    I am becoming suspicious of your motives to modernise the Russian armed force right now. You aren't planning a world tour so to speak... Razz

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 18, 2010 3:40 pm


    There are not three blocks of SMT, there are several variants of MiG too numerous to even mention, but the taxonomy of generations compared with Western block upgrades only goes two steps, MiG-29A/MiG-29SMT/MiG-35. We aren't even finished with our second modernisation, much less initiating the first, while the F-16 has undergone 4.

    The F-16 was crap till it got AMRAAM anyway so the 4 upgrades sounds alright but reality is that the F-16A armed with Sidewinders was inferior to the very earliest Mig-29 Armed with R-27Rs and R-73s.
    There was the Mig-29A, the Mig-29S, the Mig-29SM, and the Mig-29SMT. The Mig-35 is more like the difference between an F-18C/D and the F-18E/F.
    The fact that the majority are Mig-29As with a few squadrons of Mig-29Ss, and now the Algerian SMTs with Mig-35s in the future just shows what a lack of money does to an upgrade schedule.
    At the end of the day as long as WWIII doesn't break out before the Mig-35 enters service it doesn't matter than all in service Mig-29s are not SMTs.

    Don't bother mentioning M models, it doesn't even exist as a production aerocraft.

    The M model is like the Mig-35. It was a design for new build Mig-29s if more were needed. Just like the M2 and the K which are both related and intended for new build aircraft rather than upgrades.
    The SMT on the other hand were intended from the start to be upgrades of existing aircraft.

    There are other markets besides VVS. There was nothing stopping the stakeholders of ZAO Russkaya Avionika from taking profits from exports and putting it into research. They decided to skimp on research and base design on available COTS architecture which is never going to be cutting edge, it is recycled tech.

    Really? What other market was there for Russian aircraft avionics?
    Most of the former market of the Soviet Union basically either expected it for free, or didn't pay their bills and also got stuff for free.

    The parts for F-22 aren't core avionics, they are outsourced resource suppliers. The F-35 is an international project, the MiG-35 is not. Rather like comparing apples and oranges where the Russian apple is half European.

    US tank guns are West German and the armour on the standard US tank is British designed.
    The coaxial machinegun on the Abrams is from Belgium.
    Was the Abrams supposed to be an international program?

    No MiG-35s for VVS or MiG-29Ks for the Navy as of yet. Talk from this government is cheap.

    If India chooses something other than the Mig-35 they might never enter VVS service, but the reasoning behind the Mig-29Ks for the Navy is that the Su-33 is not in service and any naval T-50 is 10 years away at least, so unless Yakovlev has the Yak-141 in production, the Mig is the only viable option.

    The fact that those companies aren't Russian is important. The business that would go to Russkaya Avionika and others are going West. Unless we can license produce their products in Russia, we are losing jobs and the competitiveness of our industrial base.

    Or they could integrate the avionics companies into the aircraft companies and let these companies sort out the funding problem with money they get form exports.

    Burlak is a turret upgrade.

    Not from what I have read. It includes a new engine and transmission and steering wheel controls. It also includes a muzzle reference system and an expanded turret for more room for electronics and also to reposition the commanders panoramic thermal sight. The gunner gets his own thermal sight in a different frequency range that is better to see through smoke and dust.
    There is a thread somewhere about it where I describe what I have found out from tanknet about the upgrade. It looks like it will solve all of the T-90s problems.

    The reason Russia can't do it on our own is simple, our electronics are not up to the task.

    I think with the investment in a Russian silicon valley that more an more state of the art electronics will be designed and made in Russia but if you start down the road of buying all French equipment there wont be much need for such an investment.
    A net centric system must have been in development in Russia because all the latest items like the Mi-28N and the Ka-52 helicopters and the Burlak upgrade and the T-95 tank as well as the BTR-82 series vehicles and the new BMPs seem to have been designed to be part of the system. All that is lacking is small enough node devices for individual Russian soldiers... something those thumbnail sized GPS chips I mentioned before would be crucial for.

    If you fork out a bundle of cash now, it will save us in the future but people are too short-sighted to see it. That is the biggest problem in the establishment today. They do not understand spending money to save money.

    I certainly agree that new aircraft should be bought, but production rates will not replace in service aircraft fast enough.
    Upgrades for some, new build to replace the aircraft too worn out for the upgrade. Simply to retain numbers in service.
    The upgrades should be faster than the new builds.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 18, 2010 3:40 pm

    As you harp, Russia has many technologies that are not in a mature form, most of them revolve around electronics. As for optics: French for tanks, French for ships, French for fighters, French for helicopters... you name it, our new thermal optics are French.

    So investment in electronics might be a good think to begin with. Regarding optics this is hardly a surprise, most optics used in the Soviet equipment was not Russian anyway... most of it was from Soviet republics like Belarus.
    The fact that Russian companies haven't started from behind Soviet standards in thermals and haven't managed to better France during a period of no orders does not surprise me.
    The fact that the weapon sights Russian Paratroopers are supposed to receive this year are Russian made sounds like they are making some progress.

    The T-95 is obsolete for many more reasons than just its lack of net-centricity. The guts of the tank are still going to be similarly obsolete items going into T-90s today. We just don't have the mastery of electronics to make it happen.

    But the electronics going into Burlak don't sound obsolete. They actually sound more capable than any electronics ever fitted to a Russian tank.

    Razz The system didn't just crash twice, it crashed half a dozen times at Kavkaz 2009. At the end of the day they gave up on it. During West 2009, they had to downscale and use it in a very limited fashion because it couldn't handle the bandwidth.

    A new Computerised C3I system that crashed. About as surprising as the story about the alcoholic that had a beer.
    If it didn't crash I would suspect they weren't giving it a proper test.

    Learning what is needed bandwidth wise is all part of the testing process.

    You think the French will give you a C3I system and not pass the keys to the castle to the Americans?

    It even has shoulder protection with very good ergonomic movement of the arms. Russian kit weighs 36kg and you get next to nothing for C4ISR. 11kg difference in weight is alot.

    So what are you saying? Russian kit cannot be improved? French gear must be copied because that is the only way to improve?

    Sounds to me that the real problem is a seperation of Russian industry with Russian military.
    Instead of just running to France for the solutions you need to improve communication with your own defence industry.

    I would appreciate it if you would break up long posts into two or three shorter ones. It does become a little tedious responding to an entire page in one post box.

    Will start doing that with this post.
    Very Happy

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 18, 2010 3:52 pm

    Edit/Offtopic: If you love French military tech and all, then why not move to France? It is pretty much a given you are not fond of your own military (regardless you starting a forum about it).

    Now Seph, don't say that.

    That is what US strong morons say to people who like Russian kit.

    They don't understand that Russian kit might actually be good.

    French stuff is generally pretty good.

    I personally like Soviet and Russian stuff better, but that is just me.

    Vlad is suggesting licence producing the Leclerc... at least he isn't suggesting the AMX-30!!!.

    The main advantages still held in most categories by the US and EU are in maturity, and this is only a short term advantage.

    The best way to get maturity is to deploy it.

    NationalRus
    Senior Lieutenant
    Senior Lieutenant

    Posts : 637
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2010-04-11

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  NationalRus on Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:13 pm

    Edit/Offtopic: If you love French military tech and all, then why not move to France? It is pretty much a given you are not fond of your own military (regardless you starting a forum about it).

    like american rednecks/conservatives, don't agree with me? then get the hell out of "my" country Rolling Eyes

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  sepheronx on Sun Apr 18, 2010 10:27 pm

    NationalRus wrote:
    Edit/Offtopic: If you love French military tech and all, then why not move to France? It is pretty much a given you are not fond of your own military (regardless you starting a forum about it).

    like american rednecks/conservatives, don't agree with me? then get the hell out of "my" country Rolling Eyes

    No, more like "everything we do sucks, but everything they do is great, so.........." not hard to understand. And watch who you are calling redneck too. And if you also noticed, I am not from Russia, so he cannot get out of my country as he isn't in my country.

    Also, I made a statement that went unanswered. Vlad mentioned that France dominates the automobile market, when they only own 25% of shares. 25% of shares is not even close to dominating, that is only 1/4 of the market. Enough money to be made and some leeway in development, but other then that, not really a whole lot of power of say.

    Question then regarding body armor, what about companies like Fort (fort.ru), as they profess their armor to be great quality and not so heavy. What would be then the point of buying French gear when you can get the same quality from Russian?

    NationalRus
    Senior Lieutenant
    Senior Lieutenant

    Posts : 637
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2010-04-11

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  NationalRus on Mon Apr 19, 2010 12:03 am

    And watch who you are calling redneck too. And if you also noticed, I am not from Russia, so he cannot get out of my country as he isn't in my country.

    i compared your ignorant statment "then why not move to france" with that, thate the american conservatives and this type of idiots say, like if you not agree with ther political line then you should get out of america

    Question then regarding body armor, what about companies like Fort (fort.ru), as they profess their armor to be great quality and not so heavy. What would be then the point of buying French gear when you can get the same quality from Russian?

    ther is no reason to buy french body armor if you get at last same quality domestic, so i agree, i see only some sence in buying french armor becouse its hard to get good quality at home, when this privat industrys geting deals then they go nearly always in some level corrupt, starting to produce slower to stretch the time of the order and payment, savign money on the quality or going 100% currpt like with the 14.000 paperboard body armors

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:00 am

    I read a news article about Russian interest in Felin and the Russian official being interviewed basically stated that they were mainly interested in the electronics because the armour was comparable to what the Russian industry could supply.

    That doesn't mean this comparable Russian armour IS being supplied already, but that they could get it from a Russian source rather than buying it from France.

    Of course performance of body armour depends on the threat level it is built to protect against.

    New work being done on carbon nano tubes and other materials seem quite promising.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:04 am

    GarryB wrote:

    So investment in electronics might be a good think to begin with. Regarding optics this is hardly a surprise, most optics used in the Soviet equipment was not Russian anyway... most of it was from Soviet republics like Belarus.
    The fact that Russian companies haven't started from behind Soviet standards in thermals and haven't managed to better France during a period of no orders does not surprise me.
    The fact that the weapon sights Russian Paratroopers are supposed to receive this year are Russian made sounds like they are making some progress.

    Let me clue you in on where we stand in electronics. In the next couple of years we will start producing our first 90nm wafers. But they aren't even Russian in design. We bought a license for obsolete chips.

    What VDV sights are you refering?


    But the electronics going into Burlak don't sound obsolete. They actually sound more capable than any electronics ever fitted to a Russian tank.

    Burlak never made it off the drawing board so it really doesn't matter what is sounds like.


    A new Computerised C3I system that crashed. About as surprising as the story about the alcoholic that had a beer.
    If it didn't crash I would suspect they weren't giving it a proper test.

    Learning what is needed bandwidth wise is all part of the testing process.

    You think the French will give you a C3I system and not pass the keys to the castle to the Americans?

    Its a C3I based on low data-rate VHF radios. Not even enough bandwidth to send quality images. Mostly voice communications and limited at that. The next upgrade going to the troops is IP telephony based on already implaced commercial cellular networks. This is old technology that isn't mobile outside our territory. It isn't worthy to put into service when the French can offer a system 15 years ahead.

    The French don't want the Americans cracking their network so no, I would not be worried about it. We will never fight the Americans for them to care. Even if we did, I seriously doubt the French would give up their secrets to USA unless it was a direct threat to French interest. That is why I really have zero problems importing French equipment. We will never fight NATO and there is little chance our foreign policy will anger the French enough to do so. The only state threat Russia faces is China and their isn't a chance in hell France is going to give the keys to them. There is a limited possibility of a short action against Japan but France recognises our claim on the Kuril Islands so they wouldn't do anything.

    So what are you saying? Russian kit cannot be improved? French gear must be copied because that is the only way to improve?

    Sounds to me that the real problem is a seperation of Russian industry with Russian military.
    Instead of just running to France for the solutions you need to improve communication with your own defence industry.

    If France or anyone has a better way of doing things and it is presented to us, we would be foolish to ignore it. Whether we buy more than the 8 FELIN kits or not isn't the issue, what is important is getting effective kit to the soldiers yesterday. The quickest way is to import it because domestic industry has been unable to deliver. We want the best and the soldiers deserve it. France has it, we don't so go get it. Hopefully we can make the best on the next round.

    There are going to be alot of changes in the MIC. The days of self-reliance are gone. The budget doesn't have the funds to support R&D across all spectrums of defence. It is a simple matter of economics. The round table hosted by RIA Novosti was to prepare every Russian for the fact we are going to be seeing alot more importation. You can argue with it, but unless you are going to write a $10 billion R&D cheque to MoD every year we can't do it. We need to take our strengths and make them the best in world while importing the rest. This will give us the best Army we can possibly have which is the goal. Exports will only be kept alive if we focus on making our strengths better than the competition. If we disperse our efforts as we have done, we will get the same results we have now, a bunch of bankrupt companies and failed projects.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  sepheronx on Mon Apr 19, 2010 8:39 am

    France is part of NATO. And what does NATO like to do? Poke at people and start wars. They where just trying to surround (Ukraine trying to Join NATO, Same with Georgia) Russia, and many in the US are opposed to France trying to sell the Mistral.

    Also, why Russia decided to bail out a lot of these companies is because of jobs. If Russia already has a little over a million people without jobs, cutting more isn't going to help the country financially. Doing so will mean less money, and less money will mean less opportunities. Although, bailing the companies out isn't going to fix the problem either as the market is bloated (and like you mentioned) nothing new is being created.

    The 90nm wafer technology isn't all that bad, hell, AMD still sells some and they are not considered obsolete in performance, or power output. Just means that in further production, will have to increase the size of the die itself. Sun micro-devices is using 90nm and 65nm (which aren't new) in their new servers, and they perform great (UltraSPARC). Although, Taiwanese companies would be more then willing to sell the 45nm fabrication equipment, don't know why Russia went with out of date French equipment. Also, why not Russian companies be willing to work with companies like VIA whom also make microprocessors, micro-controllers, chipsets, etc. But regardless, Elbrus is (apparently) working on Elbrus-PF, which is based off of 45nm technology and 4-8 TFLOPS.

    Microprocessor Elbrus-PF, projected 2011. 65 nm technology, 8 cores VLIW/EPIC processor. With the transition to 45 nm technology, this processor will have a clock frequency of 2 GHz, and a performance of 8 TFLOPS. This processor will be used to build a supercomputer with PFLOPS performance.

    Although, we still have not seen the Elbrus-S, so I don't know.

    All in all, if Russia starts buying foreign equipment, the good that comes out of it is companies will then be scrambling to come out with something new, or they will fall apart (thus lots will lose money), and I don't expect they want that.

    Edit: Just was reading around and it seems I am not the only one who disagrees with Popovkin and his idiocy. He mentioned first that T-90 is an upgraded T-34 and he also disliked the BTR-80 because he didn't know how to leave it through the side hatch.

    April 16, 2010.
    "The Russian Defense Ministry refuses to certain modern types of military technology in the implementation of the new state program of armament, said Friday the chief weapon of the Armed Forces, Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin at a round table in the exhibition-forum" Army and society. "

    "The new state program of armament to 2010, we introduced in the Security Council in June to further its signature by the President of Russia, - he said. - On the basis of our program will be built and the federal target program for development of DIC. There will be some weapons which we are now buying.

    "We can not buy tube artillery with a range of up to 30 km, when the enemy, it is 70 km", - stressed Popovkin. "We are not going to buy the BTR-80, because I do not know how to leave it through the side door", - noted the deputy minister. Not the best he thinks about a combat vehicle [B] BMP-3 [/ B]. "The officers and soldiers do not want to get into this machine. They go on the roof ", - said Popovkin, ITAR-TASS." (C)

    I would post source, but it would be advertising other forums. I was using google translate.

    Although, they are further producing BMP-3's but no longer base models, but modified models (BMP-3M??)

    otvaga

    Мы не будем закупать БМП-3 в простой модификации, потому что ни один солдат, ни один офицер внутри этой машины ездить не хочет, они все сидят на крыше.

    Translation: We won't purchase base modification of BMP-3, no one wants to ride inside this vehicle (because of RPG threat). (c) Popovkin

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:33 am

    Let me clue you in on where we stand in electronics. In the next couple of years we will start producing our first 90nm wafers. But they aren't even Russian in design. We bought a license for obsolete chips.

    Yeah, cause I am sure the west would be happy to sell 22nm technology to Russia.

    BTW You obviously haven't read this then:

    Rusnano Negotiates With AMD About Joint 65 nm Chip Production
    (Nanowerk News) Russian news site NanoNewsNet reports that Rusnano is negotiating with Advanced Micro Devices about launching a new Russian-American JV for 65 nm technology microchips production. According to RBC Daily the chips will be used in the new generation smartphones.
    Rusnano can invest up to $500 million into this project. According to the state corporation rules, one of the Russian business players in the microelectronics field would also need to participate in this jpint venture.
    There are only two manufacturers of integrated circuits in Russia – Micron and Angstrem. Both companies manufacture chips with 130–180 nm technology mainly for transport and bank cards, bio-passports, etc. Not long ago, Rusnano announced that they would invest in the new 90 nm manufacturing line from Micron.
    The first samples of the new 65 nm microchips could appear in the market somewhere in 2011. Experts positively assessed this new Rusnano project. At the same time they highlight that there is no serious consumers demand for that kind of product in Russia (for instance, there is no mobile phone manufacturing industry in the country), but the demand for the chips could be high. Most customers could come from China, Korea, West Europe, etc.
    On the other hand, AMD incurs losses during several years, which means that the business projects with this company could have higher risks.
    Rusnano confirms that negotiations are ongoing but does not disclose any details of a possible project.
    Source: NanoNewsNet

    Source:http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=12295.php

    As mentioned in the article... no orders means no customers... makes you wonder why they bother when they know the government might just bypass them and buy Foreign.

    What VDV sights are you refering?

    A Russian general mentioned that the VDV were going to be fully reequipped with all new gear, from thermal rifle sights to new rifles. (I think the rifles are the ADS, and the sights are probably from Lzos, but details were not specifically mentioned... except Sprut and BMD-4M.)

    Will try to find the article.

    Burlak never made it off the drawing board so it really doesn't matter what is sounds like.

    According to certain people on Tanknet Burlak simulators are being purchased for the army.

    It isn't worthy to put into service when the French can offer a system 15 years ahead.

    Is it available? Plenty of unhappy voices over the sale of Mistral, I don't think a C4I system is in the same league...

    The problem I have is that you are criticising core things that Russia really needs to be working.

    You say that if it doesn't work then buy foreign and that is fine, but really I think buying foreign is just covering up an important issue.

    I have read articles where US officials are lamenting the poor quality electronic components they are getting from China and the effect it is having on some of their systems.

    I personally think buying Leclercs is a waste of money when T-90s are in production.
    Buying a C4I system should supply the electronics needed to integrate existing hardware without needing to adopt French weapon systems.

    I also think you need to diversify... the Germans make good engines.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  sepheronx on Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:53 am

    ^^

    It may be a smart move, but at the same time, there is the concept that other companies who can produce even smaller wafers could also be available to joint ventures.

    The problem is, Russia (if starting in the microprocessing industry) is starting very late, and would never be successful in the open market themselves. Instead, they should become like what Taiwan and Singapore has, and start producing existing chips in their facilities (not AMD facilities, but have licenses to start producing them) for the Russian market. So that in the future, if I buy an AMD processor, it would say "Made In Russia" or something along those lines. The only hope Russia has in the market for their line of microprocessors and controllers are: Defense, Transportation equipment (buses, trains, etc), Signs and Televisions (as well as other household consumer items), things like mobile devices (phones, PDA, Radio equipment) and then space equipment (satellites). If maybe Elbrus can come up with this Elbrus PF processors, then maybe they have a shot at the server and workstation market (but then they would really need to work on an operating system that will do the job for companies).

    Sponsored content

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:31 am


      Current date/time is Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:31 am