Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Venezuela-Russia military cooperation:

    Share
    avatar
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1169
    Points : 2063
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Venezuela-Russia military cooperation:

    Post  Russian Patriot on Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:49 am

    Venezuela-Russia military cooperation to continue -SechinRIA Novosti

    15/08/200917:58
    ST. PETERSBURG, August 15 (RIA Novosti) - Russian Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin said on Saturday that he is convinced military cooperation between Russia and Venezuela will continue to develop, although any decision lies with the country's leaders.

    Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez recently announced plans to buy dozens of Russian tanks in response to the U.S. deployment of military bases in neighboring Colombia, aimed at curbing the country's flourishing drugs trade and the activity of FARC guerillas.

    Responding to questions from journalists, during a meeting of the Russia-Venezuela Intergovernmental Commission in St. Petersburg, on possible purchases of Russian tanks by Venezuela, Sechin said, "military-technical cooperation is a sphere where the decisions are made by presidents."

    The commission, co-chaired by Sechin and Venezuelan Vice President Ramon Carrizalez, was organized ahead of a proposed visit to Russia by Chavez.

    Carrizalez said that the U.S. plans to deploy seven bases in Columbia "Is a threat to all Latin American countries."

    The vice premier said U.S. claims the military bases were aimed at tackling drug production in Columbia were untrue, as the real goal was, "To put an end to movements which are growing in strength in Latin America and that want to achieve political independence."

    Carrizalez said that a number of agreements had been signed during the commission session, including on jointly tackling drug trafficking, and added that Venezuela was located between the main drug producing countries - Columbia and the main "user," which the U.S. is considered to be.

    "It is a serious problem for us, a tragedy even, because our territory is used for the transit of drugs," he said.

    The Venezuelan Army currently has more than 80 outdated French-made AMX-30 main battle tanks and several dozen AMX-13C light tanks.

    Chavez, who has spent billions of dollars on weapons from Russia in recent years, confirmed that Caracas and Moscow were discussing purchases of Russian T-90 main battle tanks among other military equipment.

    Between 2005 and 2007 Russia signed 12 contracts worth more than $4.4 billion to supply arms to Venezuela, including fighter jets, helicopters and Kalashnikov assault rifles.
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/08/mil-090815-rianovosti03.htm
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6321
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Venezuela-Russia military cooperation:

    Post  Viktor on Sat Aug 29, 2009 5:57 pm

    As oil prices Russia can expect new orders from Venezuela.
    I think BMP-3M/T-90A/Su-35 is guaranteed but S-300 is option also all throw it would rise more dust in media than previous three buys.
    More to it Venezuela is in shopping spree in Spain.
    avatar
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1169
    Points : 2063
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: Venezuela-Russia military cooperation:

    Post  Russian Patriot on Thu Sep 03, 2009 2:18 am

    yes as long Chavez stays in office.. We get contracts
    avatar
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1169
    Points : 2063
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Venezuela Buys Rockets from Russia!!

    Post  Russian Patriot on Sun Sep 13, 2009 7:42 pm

    Venezuela Buys Rockets from Russia

    By Jessica Golloher
    Moscow
    12 September 2009


    Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says he has signed an arms deal with Russia for short range missiles.

    The missiles have a range of 300 kilometers. The weapons are a part of a series of arms deals with Moscow. Mr. Chavez made the announcement on Friday after returning from a ten-day tour of Africa, Asia and Europe and he insists the weapons are for defense only.

    Mr. Chavez says the rockets will arrive in Venezuela soon and he says his country is not going to attack anybody with them. He says the weapons will help defend his country from any threat no matter where it comes from. Venezuela is currently involved in a dispute with neighboring Colombia over that country's agreement with the U.S. to allow American troops access to seven Colombia bases for anti-drug operations.

    Moscow says it is willing to sell Venezuela whatever weapons it is willing to buy. Venezuela is currently negotiating the purchase of 100 T-72 and T-90 tanks from Russia.

    Russia has already sold the country 24 fighter jets, dozens of helicopters and assault rifles. This after the United States barred the South American country from buying U.S. equipment. In recent years, Venezuela has spent more than $4 billion on Russian weapons.

    In addition to the arms deals, President Chavez recently acknowledged the independence of the Russian-supported breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The U.S. and the European Union consider the areas part of Georgia and have repeatedly asked Russia to respect Georgia's territorial integrity. Nicaragua is the only other country, besides Russia, that recognizes the regions.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/09/mil-090912-voa04.htm
    avatar
    zg18

    Posts : 881
    Points : 957
    Join date : 2013-09-26
    Location : Zagreb , Croatia

    2 Tu-160 lands in Venezuela

    Post  zg18 on Mon Oct 28, 2013 10:12 pm

    MOSCOW, October 29 (RIA Novosti) – Two Russian Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack strategic bombers on Monday flew from an airbase in southwestern Russia and landed in Venezuela, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

    The nuclear-capable bombers, which took off from the Engels airbase in the Volga region, “flew over the Caribbean, the eastern Pacific and along the southwestern coast of the North American continent, and landed at Maiquetia airfield in Venezuela,” the ministry said in a statement.

    According to the Russian ministry, the bombers covered a distance of more than 10,000 kilometers (over 6,200 miles) during a 13-hour non-stop flight. Two NATO F-16 fighter jets were scrambled from Bodo airbase to monitor their flight near the Norwegian airspace.
    The ministry said the current mission was carried out “in line with the program of combat training.”

    Russian strategic bombers conducted a similar mission in 2008. It was followed by a visit to Venezuela by a Russian naval task force, which took part in joint exercises with the Venezuelan navy.

    The Tu-160 Blackjack is a supersonic, variable-geometry heavy bomber, designed to strike strategic targets with nuclear and conventional weapons deep in continental theatres of operation.
    http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131029/184402932/Russian-Tu-160-Strategic-Bombers-Land-in-Venezuela.html


    It coincides with construction of new US military ABM base in Romania.
    avatar
    macedonian

    Posts : 1082
    Points : 1117
    Join date : 2013-04-29
    Location : Skopje, Macedonia - Скопје, Македонија

    Re: Venezuela-Russia military cooperation:

    Post  macedonian on Mon Oct 28, 2013 10:21 pm

    zg18 wrote:
    MOSCOW, October 29 (RIA Novosti) – Two Russian Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack strategic bombers on Monday flew from an airbase in southwestern Russia and landed in Venezuela, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

    The nuclear-capable bombers, which took off from the Engels airbase in the Volga region, “flew over the Caribbean, the eastern Pacific and along the southwestern coast of the North American continent, and landed at Maiquetia airfield in Venezuela,” the ministry said in a statement.

    According to the Russian ministry, the bombers covered a distance of more than 10,000 kilometers (over 6,200 miles) during a 13-hour non-stop flight. Two NATO F-16 fighter jets were scrambled from Bodo airbase to monitor their flight near the Norwegian airspace.
    The ministry said the current mission was carried out “in line with the program of combat training.”

    Russian strategic bombers conducted a similar mission in 2008. It was followed by a visit to Venezuela by a Russian naval task force, which took part in joint exercises with the Venezuelan navy.

    The Tu-160 Blackjack is a supersonic, variable-geometry heavy bomber, designed to strike strategic targets with nuclear and conventional weapons deep in continental theatres of operation.
    http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131029/184402932/Russian-Tu-160-Strategic-Bombers-Land-in-Venezuela.html


    It coincides with construction of new US military ABM base in Romania.
    God, I hope for Russia to have a permanent presence in South America.
    Build a few bases, and perhaps even start working on a "Anti Ballistic Missile Shield" for the safety of friendly nations Like Venezuela...only to counter rogue states like North Korea, mind you, nothing to do with America...Very Happy
    avatar
    zg18

    Posts : 881
    Points : 957
    Join date : 2013-09-26
    Location : Zagreb , Croatia

    Re: Venezuela-Russia military cooperation:

    Post  zg18 on Mon Oct 28, 2013 10:31 pm

    macedonian wrote:God, I hope for Russia to have a permanent presence in South America.
    Build a few bases, and perhaps even start working on a "Anti Ballistic Missile Shield" for the safety of friendly nations Like Venezuela...only to counter rogue states like North Korea, mind you, nothing to do with America...Very Happy
    Strategic air fleet was training intense last few days Baltic (1x A50 , 2x Su-27 , 2x Tu22M3 reported by Latvia yesterday) , and over Pacific and Atlantic oceans (Tu-160 , Tu-95MS) , perhaps Indian also.

    It`s demonstration of power on a large scale. Permamant military presence in South America is certainly food for thought in Pentagon , and the beauty is you don`t need massive military presence , 2 Tu-160 would do the trick...
    avatar
    zg18

    Posts : 881
    Points : 957
    Join date : 2013-09-26
    Location : Zagreb , Croatia

    Re: Venezuela-Russia military cooperation:

    Post  zg18 on Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:29 pm

    Via mp.net









    http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?231773-Russian-Tu-160-Strategic-Bombers-Land-in-Venezuela
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6321
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Venezuela-Russia military cooperation:

    Post  Viktor on Tue Oct 29, 2013 2:03 pm

    With Il-96 arrived stong Russian delegation. I expect new contracts will be signed.

    He arrived in Venezuela the secretary of the Security Council of Russia

    spotter

    Posts : 10
    Points : 10
    Join date : 2013-10-26

    Re: Venezuela-Russia military cooperation:

    Post  spotter on Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:31 pm

    Beautiful birds, those Blackjacks...though of questionable value by today's standards, save for the muscle-showing games.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Venezuela-Russia military cooperation:

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:57 pm


    spotter wrote:......though of questionable value by today's standards, save for the muscle-showing games.

    Care to elaborate ?
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Venezuela-Russia military cooperation:

    Post  TR1 on Tue Oct 29, 2013 7:28 pm

    spotter wrote:Beautiful birds, those Blackjacks...though of questionable value by today's standards, save for the muscle-showing games.
    How is an aircraft with such a payload, range and speed of questionable value?

    spotter

    Posts : 10
    Points : 10
    Join date : 2013-10-26

    Re: Venezuela-Russia military cooperation:

    Post  spotter on Wed Oct 30, 2013 1:17 am

    @ mindstorm & tr1:
    for sure, i will gladly agree about it's excellent range, speed and payload. and then what?
    i tend to regard any military machine as part of a whole political/economic/warfighting system which can only function if all subsystems are synced.
    i'll try to present my arguments as short as possible:

    -you have an enormously expensive to oper. and maint. aircraft that is even more expensive to overhaul/upgrade, for which you can't even find spare engines cause the production ceased. and those engines and their reliability are a special story but i wont bother you with it.
    -your mega expensive aircraft can launch Kent ALCM and provides a part of the nuclear triad....fine, except the cheaper to operate 95MS can do the same. can Russia's budget really sustain two platforms for the same job?
    -your expensive aircraft cannot do the job it's originally designed to do. it costs Russia a lot, yet it doesnt provide them with a penetrating ability in the manner of the B2s. The Blackjacks are not the "first night" platforms, however, they cost if they are. Or you wanna argue its speed will magically make it dissapear on the radar? You'll be hard pressed to prove that. Its EWS was updated last time when? 1990s?
    -how many PGMs are they certified to employ? kh-35? kh-59? mini-moskit? 3m54-14e? only KABs?

    I may be wrong about something and i will gladly hear what others have to say. In the meantime, i beg to differ.
    I think this aircraft, as beautiful as it is, costs too much in comparison for the capability it brings on the table. Its nuclear capacity aside, for the pure conventional war its speed and range will count little when faced with an ISR equiped foe that poses a modern IADS.
    Speed, no matter how big, cant hide you. And you cant outrun modern SAMs.

    If your foe is, say, Chad or Burkina Faso well, that's the other thing altogether lol

    Regards
    avatar
    SOC

    Posts : 583
    Points : 632
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 39
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Venezuela-Russia military cooperation:

    Post  SOC on Wed Oct 30, 2013 2:52 am

    spotter wrote:-you have an enormously expensive to oper. and maint. aircraft that is even more expensive to overhaul/upgrade, for which you can't even find spare engines cause the production ceased. and those engines and their reliability are a special story but i wont bother you with it.
    Operating expenses are due in part to the small fleet. If I have to order 10 spares for this unit, and the factory only produces those spares for this one airframe, they will cost a lot.

    10 aircraft are being upgraded to Tu-160M standard at a cost of about $35 million per airframe. That might look expensive but it's exponentially cheaper than a new airframe would cost. The engines? Production hasn't stopped, they're making new ones for the M upgrade. What did stop was the plan to make new Tu-160s, 10 airframes will get upgrades instead.

    spotter wrote:-your mega expensive aircraft can launch Kent ALCM and provides a part of the nuclear triad....fine, except the cheaper to operate 95MS can do the same. can Russia's budget really sustain two platforms for the same job?
    Apparently it can. The plan is for the Tu-160M to hang around until 2020-2025 when the new bomber starts flying.

    spotter wrote:-your expensive aircraft cannot do the job it's originally designed to do.
    Since when was it no longer able to fire cruise missiles? That's what it was originally designed to do. I've even heard that they never bothered integrating the Kh-15 or a conventional bombing capability.

    spotter wrote:-it costs Russia a lot, yet it doesnt provide them with a penetrating ability in the manner of the B2s.
    ...which isn't what it was designed to do in the first place. It can't carry tanks like an An-124 either, but nobody is complaining.

    spotter wrote:-The Blackjacks are not the "first night" platforms, however, they cost if they are. Or you wanna argue its speed will magically make it dissapear on the radar? You'll be hard pressed to prove that. Its EWS was updated last time when? 1990s?
    Again, they cost so much per airframe because of the short production run (like the B-2), the fact that a crapload of spares and support materiel got stuck in the Ukraine, etc. They're also perfectly suitable for their actual first-night mission of shooting cruise missiles. A 3,000 km range cruise missile can keep you pretty far away from things trying to shoot at you, and yes, when you can open the throttles and run at Mach 2, you actually are survivable. We consistently managed to not intercept MiG-25s in Iraq because they'd turn around and haul ass before we were in weapons employment range. They were visible on radar and yet somehow managed to survive, imagine that. As for the EWS, the entire offensive/defensive avionics system is being upgraded, and additional RAM treatments are also being applied. The intakes are the largest source of front-quarter returns and they've already been significantly treated. Nobody in their right mind is ever going to confuse the Tu-160 with being an LO aircraft but these things do actually help.

    spotter wrote:-how many PGMs are they certified to employ? kh-35? kh-59? mini-moskit? 3m54-14e? only KABs?
    Right now: Kh-555 conventional ALCM. After the M upgrade: the term "nearly every missile in Russia's arsenal" is often tossed around, but is probably a massive exaggeration. The Tu-160M will get LGB/GPS capability, and will add the Kh-101/102.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16276
    Points : 16907
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Venezuela-Russia military cooperation:

    Post  GarryB on Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:46 am

    -you have an enormously expensive to oper. and maint. aircraft that is even more expensive to overhaul/upgrade, for which you can't even find spare engines cause the production ceased. and those engines and their reliability are a special story but i wont bother you with it.
    They are a fraction of the cost of a B-2 yet much more usable.

    -your mega expensive aircraft can launch Kent ALCM and provides a part of the nuclear triad....fine, except the cheaper to operate 95MS can do the same. can Russia's budget really sustain two platforms for the same job?
    They are not that expensive, so yes... Russias budget has actually managed to keep them operational all this time and now they are even getting overhauls.

    -your expensive aircraft cannot do the job it's originally designed to do. it costs Russia a lot, yet it doesnt provide them with a penetrating ability in the manner of the B2s. The Blackjacks are not the "first night" platforms, however, they cost if they are. Or you wanna argue its speed will magically make it dissapear on the radar? You'll be hard pressed to prove that. Its EWS was updated last time when? 1990s?
    You are confusing Russia with the US, and the Tu-160 with the B-1B.

    The Tu-160 is a long range supersonic cruise missile carrier... it doesn't need to penetrate enemy air defences to launch 3,000km range cruise missiles, and now it will be launching 5,000km range cruise missiles.

    -how many PGMs are they certified to employ? kh-35? kh-59? mini-moskit? 3m54-14e? only KABs?
    They are strategic nuclear cruise missiles carriers how many PGMs do they need to carry (hint 12).

    when faced with an ISR equiped foe that poses a modern IADS.
    Can we apply this same criteria to US bombers?

    Because none of the US bombers would survive a Russian IADS either and they cost more!

    Even the B-2 would be vulnerable to any model supersonic fighter because of its low speed.

    The Tu-160M will get LGB/GPS capability, and will add the Kh-101/102.
    And don't forget the father of all bombs my friend... Smile


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Venezuela-Russia military cooperation:

    Post  Mindstorm on Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:45 am

    spotter wrote:your mega expensive aircraft can launch Kent ALCM and provides a part of the nuclear triad....fine, except the cheaper to operate 95MS can do the same.
    Obviously not; the difference is simply immense.

    As the third leg of nuclear triad (because THAT is what has almost exclusively ever represented long range bomber fleet in domestic Doctrine) Strategic Aviation's assets have only some capabilities truly mattering for operational efficiency :


    1) Capability to very quickly take-off in high-readiness times to avoid obliteration by part of enemy ICBMs (and in that TU-160 and even more TU-160M is the first at world by a very wide edge)

    2) Capability to create the shorter cycle possible of nuclear tipped cruise missile delivery. In that very high average speed and cruise altitude offer enormous advantages :
    - It increase the effective engagement range of delivered strategic cruise missiles.
    - Significantly reduce the time necessary to reach an useful delivery point for the carried CMs (already modified by the delivery speed of the supersonic bomber).
    - Enormously reduce the time necessary to return to a still operative AB for re-fuelling and recharging of the nuclear CMs.

    3) Very high flight's autonomy and range , an element that ,together with the average speed, increase :
    - Unpredictability of the CM cruise vector and trajectory of attack
    - Remain in flight for more time ,so to modify flight's route toward alternative ABs in response to enemy ICBMs destruction of those initially foreseen, or to reach an alternative delivery point for the nuclear CMs for a change in target selection.
    - Capability to disperse toward ABs placed over a much greater land mass, so to put an huge range penalty on the enemy strategic cruise missile delivery systems potentially attempting to destroy the re-supply ABs .
    - Enormously dilute effective chances of interceptions by part of enemy Air Force's element potentially reaching national air space (or even to lure them toward ambush points by part of the Federation IAD)



    Now take into account the features just exposed in a 72 hour nuclear cruise missile delivery time frame and, after, add to the equation the huge range advantage that domestic nuclear cruise missiles enjoy against its foreign counterparts.
    You will get promptly an idea of why domestic military analysts consider TU-160 the best strategic bomber at world , by a wide margin, conceived for efficiency in a full nuclear conflict scenario.



    spotter wrote:your expensive aircraft cannot do the job it's originally designed to do. it costs Russia a lot, yet it doesnt provide them with a penetrating ability in the manner of the B2s.
    Penetrate ? Razz Razz

    This kind of Air Force concept of operation (......against an advanced opponent ), in particular in a strategic context , is considered a true anachronism in domestic military environment at least since end of '80 years and the situation ,since then, is even dramatically worsened for Air Force survivability against a modern IAD in spite of any solution or aiding asset taken in consideration ........for remain silent of the enormous amount and multiplicity of weapons capable to easily obliterate airfields not covered by IAD on the domestic level Razz .

    Low observability is surely an appreciable feature when you expect to employ your strategic bombers also in regional conflict against inferior opponents (this is a growing trend also in late domestic military thinking) so to amortize its costs increasing its exploitability in conventional "low risk" scenarios.
    Low observability mean literally ZERO in a nuclear conflict scenarios with nuclear cruise missiles shot at thousands of km of distance ,in the shortest cycle of delivery possible ,and against enemy key IAD sites shifting quickly to nuclear tipped SAMs Very Happy .

    eridan

    Posts : 131
    Points : 139
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: Venezuela-Russia military cooperation:

    Post  eridan on Wed Oct 30, 2013 12:09 pm

    Criticism concerning tu-160 shouldn't be really directed against the plane itself but possibly against non stealthy bombers in general.

    What usual roles can a bomber have?

    A. cruise missile truck.

    a1. Against an enemy nearby (mix of tactical and strategic targets possible)
    a2. against an enemy a few thousand km away (probably strategic targets only)
    a3. against an enemy across an ocean (10.000 km and more away, strategic targets only)

    B. non-stand off strikes with cheaper weapons.

    b1 against an enemy nearby, striking targets close to the border (probably tactical strikes)
    b2 against a neary enemy, striking targets a few hundred km into enemy's territory (mix of tactical and strategic targets)
    b3 against a nearby enemy, striking targets a few thousand km deep into enemy territory. (strategic targets)

    b4 against an enemy far away (a few thousand km and more?)

    Analysis: is there a way to do the same mission with a cheaper and less vulnerable platform?
    a1 - most definitely. land launched cruise missiles, tactical fighter launched cruise missiles, even ships/subs IF otherwise already required by scenario.

    a2 - probably. Tactical fighters with JASSM class cruise missiles could pull it off up to targets some 2000 km away from base, perhaps doubling that with IFR. IFR making economic sense only if required to be/exist there for other needs as well. Large land based cruise missiles, like Chinese cj10 model, could also cover this segment. Ships/subs could do it, but again, it'd be economic only if their existance otherwise already required for other roles as well.

    a3 - air and land launched tactical options non existant. Bombers only option. Ship launched option possible, but perhaps too expensive to secure, to get actual fleet close enough over an ocean, depending on enemy's strength. Still, submarine launched option is a definite alternative to bomber launches. While even SSK could theoretically be used, due to their speed and endurance it's a bad option. Nation with SSNs, however, could very well depend on their sub launched cruise missiles. Downside would be more time required to deploy forces close enough to launch, meaning the fleet would be tied up for the mission. Overall, a decent alternative if one already has to have SSNs close by, but otherwise could be more expensive.

    b1 - bad option. less survivable than tactical fighter delivery, even if cheaper per bomb dropped. Loitering not advisable anyway, due to enemy forces. Continuously being over one area is a death wish. Of course, all this assumes a capable enemy and no air superiority. If there is complete air superiority then the whole issue is moot as one could argue anything could drop bombs, even drones. Altnernatives such as land based strikes also possible and proliferating more and more each year with various gps/tv guided munitions. Due to little to no penetration into enemy lands, there'd be little warning to the enemy, so aircraft strikes could be performed with little support aircraft.

    b2 - land based strikes not an option, but tactical fighter delivery still prefferred for same reasons. But due to actual penetration over contested skies and over lands littered with radars and SAMs, ample support aircraft would be needed. Those would also limit the range of overall strike package. Even if bombers could reach further, short legs of the support package and fighter escort would render such a mission suicidal.

    b3 - this is really a continuation of above scenario, going farther. But, like it was mentioned above, without escorting assets such mission is really not smart. While unburdoned by support package the bomber could theoretically go very high altitude mach 2 all the way, it really isn't nearly enough to provide safety over literally a thousand or more km there and back. Plus the bomber may not have the fuel to actually go at mach 2 over 3-4 or more thousand km.

    b4 - if the enemy is far away, but there is not necesarrily a need to go deep into its protected airspace, then long range bomber is virtually the only way to perform this mission. Though, I can't really think of many reasons why one'd want to strike at far away enemy with cheap, tactical weapons. Cruise missiles are a safer bet there.

    Low level flight is an option but if we're talking about a equipped enemy which has its airspace well covered with radars, it's applicable only for little to no penetration into enemy space. The further one goes into enemy airspace, chances of detection increase, even if initially one creates a temporary initial ingress point free of enemy radars.

    Also, all this applies to low RCS bombers as well. A b2 would also have a hard time performing a deep penetration mission on its own against a modern equipped enemy. while low rcs is better protection than speed, it only goes so far. for best results one would still need support packages, just like the US had over Serbia in 1999.

    In my opinion, all this really means is that bombers are better left off as stand off weapon carriers in a high intensity war against modern enemy. it makes little sense using them for tactical weapon drops against tactical targets. Today they are used for such roles but against much weaker enemies and because bombers are already there and paid for. Countries that don't have the need for strategic strikes are not developing bombers. Only ones that do have them already are trying to find additional tactical strike roles for them so they can utilize them more and make the mission cheaper.

    So, tu160 does have its merits, but the unfortunate thing is its low numbers, probably making its usage/maintennance pretty expensive due to fixed overhead costs. Magically changing every 2 or even 3 tu22m for 1 tu160 would be a much better deal for russia, in my opinion. But the medium-term future is going to be subsonic and stealthy, as both pak-da and new US bomber programme show.

    a89

    Posts : 105
    Points : 110
    Join date : 2013-01-09
    Location : Oxfordshire

    Re: Venezuela-Russia military cooperation:

    Post  a89 on Wed Oct 30, 2013 12:55 pm

    10 aircraft are being upgraded to Tu-160M standard at a cost of about $35 million per airframe. That might look expensive but it's exponentially cheaper than a new airframe would cost. The engines? Production hasn't stopped, they're making new ones for the M upgrade. What did stop was the plan to make new Tu-160s, 10 airframes will get upgrades instead.
    IIRC production of the engines did stop, but is going to be restablished.


    spotter

    Posts : 10
    Points : 10
    Join date : 2013-10-26

    Re: Venezuela-Russia military cooperation:

    Post  spotter on Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:38 pm

    @mindstorm:
    you talked about the all out nuclear exchange scenario, which is exactly what i refuse to talk about. sorry, but i dont believe there is a chance for the nuclear egagement, thus i only consider the tu160's conventional punch. other than that, as i said, tu160 is great for muscle-showing.

    @SOC:
    thanks for your detailed repy. Are you absolutely positive they started making NK12 engines again? last i heard was they ceased production...
    if it's true they're rolling the lines again, then i stand corrected. furthermore, i didnt know the M upgade includes the RAM treatement, not so sure about it. btw, you missed the point with mig25 comparison. tu160 is supposed to get real close for LGB/Glonass bomb delivery. if it's detected with airborne IRS on time, well, it's on a one way trip.

    @garry:
    certainly, we will apply the same criteria for any other bomber. while the B1B suffers much the same issues, the US is able to excersise the control of the air and they conduct the most comprehensive SEAD available anywhere. what's the end result? even the sluggish b52 can operate at will under such protection. is RuAF able to provide such an environment for their bombers?

    using it as a standoff ALCM platform is great, as i said, i just think this machine is too expensive if that's its only role.


    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Venezuela-Russia military cooperation:

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:30 am


    spotter wrote:@mindstorm:
    you talked about the all out nuclear exchange scenario, which is exactly what i refuse to talk about. sorry, but i dont believe there is a chance for the nuclear egagement, thus i only consider the tu160's conventional punch.

    You refuse to talk of efficiency ,as nuclear delivering system, of class of aircraft mainly conceived for..........nuclear weapon's delivery and representing one of the legs of the respective nation's nuclear triad ?

    Interesting position and intellectual stance for sure Very Happy Very Happy  


    Employment of Air Forces in conventional conflict "scenario" are ,as usual, horribly influenced by typical NATO operations against its usual third world opponents ; the first time a conflict against even only a moderately strong opponent equipped with advanced weaponry will ever erupt the images of totally devastated airbases with dozen if not hundreds of aircraft reduced to small smoking scraps and high flames rising from fuel storages (very likely even before the first mission would be conducted in the theatre of operation !) will very abruptly reset the common opinion on the real possibility to conduct air campaigns as done in the latest conflicts against an advanced opponent and vividly remind to anyone why long range missiles are strictly limited and/or controlled by International treaties and agreement and not aircraft.

    avatar
    SOC

    Posts : 583
    Points : 632
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 39
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Venezuela-Russia military cooperation:

    Post  SOC on Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:51 am

    spotter wrote:Are you absolutely positive they started making NK12 engines again? last i heard was they ceased production...
    if it's true they're rolling the lines again, then i stand corrected.
    All I can tell you is that the current plan involves re-engining with new, upgraded NK-32s. Given that they've begun the program and paid for the first three, I assume that they're making the engines.

    spotter wrote:furthermore, i didnt know the M upgade includes the RAM treatement, not so sure about it.
    All of the operational BLACKJACKs already have RAM in the intakes. This is why operational airframes, when displayed publicly, used to be displayed with covers over their intakes. The new RAM treatments are supposed to be applied to the airframe, I assume they're looking at things like the wing-body junction and elements of the forward fuselage to get forward-hemisphere RCS lowered.

    spotter wrote:btw, you missed the point with mig25 comparison. tu160 is supposed to get real close for LGB/Glonass bomb delivery. if it's detected with airborne IRS on time, well, it's on a one way trip.
    If you're using conventional ALCMs like the already integrated Kh-555 the ability to launch from long range, turn around, and haul ass home makes you survivable. With the low-RCS Kh-101 the whole process becomes even more effective.

    One assumes that dropping a PGM on someone's head is reserved for lower-threat areas, such as a Chechen stronghold or something along those lines. Alternatively, if the RAM treatments make a difference, you could drop from high speed and altitude, which reduces reaction time on the ground and again makes you more survivable. With proper EW and/or SEAD support there's no reason it can't be effective in the same way the B-1B is used. Sometimes having the ability to get a large payload to the target is very useful. And there's still the Russian equivalent of the diamondback JDAM, although I forget what it's called. The Tu-160 can employ those from speed and altitude and get a pretty good standoff range I'd assume, the same way the USAF does with the JDAM version.

    spotter

    Posts : 10
    Points : 10
    Join date : 2013-10-26

    Re: Venezuela-Russia military cooperation:

    Post  spotter on Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:16 am

    Mindstorm wrote:
    spotter wrote:@mindstorm:
    you talked about the all out nuclear exchange scenario, which is exactly what i refuse to talk about. sorry, but i dont believe there is a chance for the nuclear egagement, thus i only consider the tu160's conventional punch.
    You refuse to talk of efficiency ,as nuclear delivering system, of class of aircraft mainly conceived for..........nuclear weapon's delivery and representing one of the legs of the respective nation's nuclear triad ?

    Interesting position and intellectual stance for sure Very Happy Very Happy  


    Employment of Air Forces in conventional conflict "scenario" are ,as usual, horribly influenced by typical NATO operations against its usual third world opponents ; the first time a conflict against even only a moderately strong opponent equipped with advanced weaponry will ever erupt the images of totally devastated airbases with dozen if not hundreds of aircraft reduced to small smoking scraps and high flames rising from fuel storages (very likely even before the first mission would be conducted in the theatre of operation !) will very abruptly reset the common opinion on the real possibility to conduct air campaigns as done in the latest conflicts against an advanced opponent and vividly remind to anyone why long range missiles are strictly limited and/or controlled by International treaties and agreement and not aircraft.

    My friend, you live in the 1970s lol No offence, ofc.
    Should i remind you there are other birds built with a nuclear delivery in mind, yet, those planes now employ the full array of advanced conventional punch? In doing so, they, at least partially, justify their drain on the budget. That's the line all tu160 should be optimised along. Those 6 which wont undergo the M upgrade (if that's a true upgrade in terms of weapons integration) will be better off retired.

    Imho, your stance is obsolete and has little relevance to the present day geo-pol. Focusing on "all things nuclear" is not a name of the game anymore (though it was back in the 70s).
    Still, i accept you see it differently than myself. You'll have to accept the same and live with it.

    SOC wrote:
    All I can tell you is that the current plan involves re-engining with new, upgraded NK-32s. Given that they've begun the program and paid for the first three, I assume that they're making the engines.
    Appreciate it, thanx for clarifying.

    SOC wrote:
    If you're using conventional ALCMs like the already integrated Kh-555 the ability to launch from long range, turn around, and haul ass home makes you survivable. With the low-RCS Kh-101 the whole process becomes even more effective.

    One assumes that dropping a PGM on someone's head is reserved for lower-threat areas, such as a Chechen stronghold or something along those lines. Alternatively, if the RAM treatments make a difference, you could drop from high speed and altitude, which reduces reaction time on the ground and again makes you more survivable. With proper EW and/or SEAD support there's no reason it can't be effective in the same way the B-1B is used. Sometimes having the ability to get a large payload to the target is very useful. And there's still the Russian equivalent of the diamondback JDAM, although I forget what it's called. The Tu-160 can employ those from speed and altitude and get a pretty good standoff range I'd assume, the same way the USAF does with the JDAM version.
    Right, i just had doubts that even after the M upgrade, the platform would still remain a dedicated cruise missile launcher. It would be a shame cause those toys dont come cheap so you immediately have only a limited usage opportunity for a quite expensive aircraft.







    Vann7

    Posts : 3450
    Points : 3568
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Venezuela-Russia military cooperation:

    Post  Vann7 on Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:58 am

    spotter wrote:Beautiful birds, those Blackjacks...though of questionable value by today's standards, save for the muscle-showing games.
    If you think Russia likes to waste billions on planes "for beauty " or "for fun" or "show of force" the country that went first to space ,that were the first to send a control remote robot to the moon ,who navigated the surfaace of the moon for 2 years taking photos and were the first to research and formulate the science required to create stealth shape planes 20-30 years earlier than Americans Scientist.. and that their works were copied and implemented in the F-117. then your seriously mistaken. Russia will never maintain and support their strategic bombers if they have a little doubt that they can do the job and work as a nuclear deterrence against the Americans.. As a matter of Fact.  Somewhere i read ,US had to negotiate with Russia to stop mass producing their Strategic bombers. Because they can do the job and be as effective as a B-2.  

    As other have explained to you the Tu-160 never was designed to fly inside enemy territory ,is not needed at all. All that Russian Strategic bombers needs is to fly close enough to any US coast and bang launch a nuclear cruise missile in a massive attack ,before any american combat plane can intercept them. Even though the cruise missiles have a range of 3,000km , even one with 300km will do the job.

    US have a VERY Large coast that they cannot defend every inch of it with Sam systems. So all that Russia needs to get very close to US is find a spot on US territory not well defended and get withing a couple of hundreds km of distance from the coast and fire hundreds of nuclear cruise missiles from dozens of supersonic strategic bombers.. the more closer they launched to the US coast the less time they will have to counter it.. Nuclear Missiles for example flying at Mach 5.0 that Russia have.. can cover a distance of 100km in 60seconds and 300km in 3minutes. Poor the americans radar operators who have to go the bathroom when such cruise missile attack is about to happen.
    Just think about that.. That Russia have the capabilities to launch hundreds nuclear cruise missiles thanks to and old supersonic bomber with "questionable value" on any US Coastal city  and that they can reach their targets in under 5 minutes


    So good luck trying to detect a cruise missile if their trajectory use as cover a mountain. Another thing.. that makes challenging cruise missiles to intercept is the curvature of earth.. and you might know the earth is not flat. But there is a curvature that can only be detected over very long distance. And no radar can track missiles that hides behind a mountain of rock ,or hide behind the earth curvature.(in this case behind water). In the case of warship.. they cannot see a cruise missile flying low beyond 50km . The only way to extend that range is using AWACS . So all that Russia needs for their bombers to become "stealth" and hide to US radars and penetrate deep inside US coast with nuclear weapons withing a hundred of km of distance is fly low over zones not well defended.

    Even a fishing boat with a hidden nuclear cruise missile will be equally deadly as a B2 or a Tu-160 ,if manage to position in the right place and launch the missile. But an strategic supersonic mach 2.0 bomber for sure is far better can travel long distance fast ,and can even escape over any combat squadron chasing it. After all what kills is not the bomber but the missiles.

    So for the most naive and brainwashed people US/NATO can defend against any thing Russia have.. but for the people with more understanding thats not the case.  So the goal of Russia is to have a powerful enough nuclear deterrence capabilities to dissuade even US
    of any attack. When you see things clearly from a practical point of view,you will realize ,you can do anything with a supersonic strategic bomber . Because each plane carry a dozen of nuclear missiles and Russia can send them withing a few hours to any part of the world and position them in any place ,launch a hundreds of nuclear missiles and escape without having a scratch.



    a good article that talks about Nuclear deterrence and defense against a nuclear war..

    http://www.crazedfanboy.com/roth/missiledefense.html
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16276
    Points : 16907
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Venezuela-Russia military cooperation:

    Post  GarryB on Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:05 pm

    Criticism concerning tu-160 shouldn't be really directed against the plane itself but possibly against non stealthy bombers in general.

    What usual roles can a bomber have?
    Russia is hardly going to send Tu-160Ms to bomb France or the UK... more likely uses will be against targets in Afghanistan or Chechnia where no other platform could carry such a weapon... weapons like the FAB-3000, FAB-5000, and FAB-9000 plus of course the Father of all bombs would be practical roles for the Tu-160M in a limited war role.

    It could still be used against more capable enemies but there would need to be a lot of SEAD done first.

    you talked about the all out nuclear exchange scenario, which is exactly what i refuse to talk about. sorry, but i dont believe there is a chance for the nuclear egagement, thus i only consider the tu160's conventional punch. other than that, as i said, tu160 is great for muscle-showing.
    So we are going to ignore what it was designed to do and call it a failure because it is not something it was never designed to be?

    Is SS-18 also a failure as it has no conventional role?

    In a conventional conflict the Tu-160M should be as useful and as effective as any US bomber with a greater payload and range and at higher speed... which is important for weapon range including gliding and powered weapons.

    thanks for your detailed repy. Are you absolutely positive they started making NK12 engines again? last i heard was they ceased production...
    They are restarting production.

    In fact discussions about "another" 5th gen engine suggests they might develop it so that it can be retrofitted to the Tu-22M3M and Tu-160M but also act as an engine for the PAK DA.

    if it's true they're rolling the lines again, then i stand corrected. furthermore, i didnt know the M upgade includes the RAM treatement, not so sure about it.
    The original Tu-160 had RAM, including on the front blades of the engines to reduce RCS.

    Don't you think they might take it a step further when they give it a thorough overhaul that upgrades pretty much all the electronics and increases the weapon load to 45 tons?

    btw, you missed the point with mig25 comparison. tu160 is supposed to get real close for LGB/Glonass bomb delivery. if it's detected with airborne IRS on time, well, it's on a one way trip.
    Who is Russia going to bomb that has anything like a modern IADS?

    The most likely target for Russia at the moment will be Afghanistan in about 3 years time when the Taleban are trying to take over again.

    The Blackjack is a tool... an option... when you only have a hammer then you have to treat every problem like it is a nail... having hammers (Bulava, TOPOL-M, Kh-102) and having screwdrivers (Father of All Bombs et al) and having pliers and other tools means the Russian leadership can select any option they like when they like.

    Problem with somali pirates they could send a Tu-160M with Kh-101 conventionally armed cruise missiles to attack several point targets in Somalia within a few hours. Or they could wait a couple of days for an attack sub to sail there from Russia with a few Kalibr missiles on board to do the same thing... either way the Somali military will likely know nothing about it till there are explosions lighting up the night sky.

    is RuAF able to provide such an environment for their bombers?
    By the time all the Tu-160s are Tu-160Ms they will have Su-34s, PAKFAs, Su-35s, and Mig-35s... what makes you think they wont be able to suppress the enemies air defences?

    using it as a standoff ALCM platform is great, as i said, i just think this machine is too expensive if that's its only role.
    Against a modern IADS the biggest problem is having enough platforms that can launch long range cruise missiles outside the range of air defence systems. Your fighter aircraft with JDAM will be shot down... JDAMS and all by S-400. A long range bomber however, able to carry much larger weapons and to fly around the enemy and attack from directions he least expects to be attacked from can give you an enormous edge.

    Even just 45 tons of very heavy bombs (ie 1,500kg and up) can have an effect no other conventional aircraft can deliver... as the allies in WWII showed... HE bombs first to blow open the building structures and then incendiary bombs to ignite the contents creates a fire storm far more effective than just more HE could have achieved.

    And being able to loiter over the battlefield for days able to support the troops at a moments notice.

    The Tu-160 was a one trick pony for a very long time, but it was the best at what it was designed for. Now they will use it for more... and with new avionics it will be even better.

    The previous production of the Tu-160 meant each plane was slightly different as the plane slowly got better and better.

    The new upgrade to Tu-160M means for the first time they will all be the same with the same radar and the same systems and able to use a wide range of the weapons of the Russian arsenal.

    The only bad thing about the Blackjack is that they aren't making any more because the heavy aluminium one piece box structure the swing wing design is built around was made in the Ukraine by a company that does not exist now, and even if it did couldn't make a paper clip let alone a huge aluminium forging for the centre section of a supersonic bomber.


    Should i remind you there are other birds built with a nuclear delivery in mind, yet, those planes now employ the full array of advanced conventional punch? In doing so, they, at least partially, justify their drain on the budget.
    I am pleased to see the Tu-95MSM, Tu-160M and Tu-22M3M get upgrades to allow the use of conventional weapons and the unification of radars and systems and weapons should reduce operational costs for all three aircraft but at the end of the day there are very few cases where they will likely be used in anger, and even less cases where they might come up against any IADS... Russia is not the US remember and has no world police role to play out when it suits.

    I therefore think it is funny that spending even more money on these aircraft and adding a wide range of very expensive new air to ground ordinance to their pools of weapons makes them better in your eyes.

    Those 6 which wont undergo the M upgrade (if that's a true upgrade in terms of weapons integration) will be better off retired.
    The 6 that wont be upgraded by 2020 have already been upgraded.

    Still, i accept you see it differently than myself. You'll have to accept the same and live with it.
    The most valuable role the Blackjack and Bear play today is nuclear deterrent... you might not recognise that but that doesn't make it not true.

    Right, i just had doubts that even after the M upgrade, the platform would still remain a dedicated cruise missile launcher. It would be a shame cause those toys dont come cheap so you immediately have only a limited usage opportunity for a quite expensive aircraft.
    Do you plow fields with Rolls Royces?

    The Kh-555 cruise missile is not that expensive... they are already made as Kh-55 cruise missiles anyway.

    Why risk an expensive large bomber hauling 250kg or 500kg bombs when you already have a range of planes that can already do that?

    Which plane in the US inventory can carry FAB-3000 bombs or FAB-5000 bombs... or for that matter FAB-9000 or FOAB bombs?

    Saying the Tu-160M is a failure because it would need an escort for missions over a modern battlefield is like saying the B-2 is a failure for the very same reasons.

    There is no evidence that the B-2 can fly over Russian airspace with impunity from air and ground based radars and EO systems.

    British thermal cameras easily tracked B-2s at UK airshows... why wouldn't Russian thermal cameras in Su-35 and Mig-35 aircraft do the same... a B-2 could not out run or hide from either fighter and even if the B-2 rendered all their radar guided missiles useless they both have cannon and IR guided weapons.

    At the end of the day Russia has a range of tools for a range of roles... they already have Su-24s and Su-34s and Tu-22M3Ms for bomb trucks over considerable distances and with fairly heavy payloads.

    The Tu-22M3M can carry more 250kg bombs than a B-52 can carry, though obviously over a shorter flight range.

    The main value of the Bear and Blackjack is their speed and range with a heavy payload which is truly strategic... saying using cruise missiles is expensive is dishonest... the fuel the attack would use and pretty much any other kind of modern guided payload would not be that much cheaper anyway. The cruise missiles they would use are re-engineered ex-nukes... in other words they are recycling them anyway.

    If the Blackjack was American it would be the biggest and heaviest and fastest bomber in the world today... because it is Russian it is "not stealthy".

    The US would love to paint the Blackjack as some sort of white elephant, but I rather suspect the PAK DA will be influenced by the experience with the Blackjack.


    Last edited by GarryB on Fri Nov 01, 2013 4:13 am; edited 1 time in total


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Giulio

    Posts : 163
    Points : 186
    Join date : 2013-10-29
    Location : Italy

    Re: Venezuela-Russia military cooperation:

    Post  Giulio on Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:50 pm

    Hello.
    If possible:
    1) Is it possible know the Tu-160 route over the Central America? If they came from the East. where are they passed for landing in Venezuela? Over Mexico?
    2) Is the Il-96 also a tanker?
    3) What's writen on the Tu-160 nose?
    4) Why the yellow/blue stripes on the nose? Ukrainian colors?? Thanks.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Venezuela-Russia military cooperation:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:28 am