Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Share

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Russia to place air and space defenses under unified command in 2011

    Post  Russian Patriot on Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:37 am

    Russia to place air and space defenses under unified command in 2011

    RIA Novosti

    16:04 30/11/2010 MOSCOW, November 30 (RIA Novosti) - Russia must create a unified strategic command combining air, missile and space defenses in 2011, President Dmitry Medvedev said on Tuesday.

    "Next year we must focus on strengthening our air and space defenses, and combine the existing air defense and missile defense networks, missile early-warning systems and airspace monitoring systems under a unified strategic command," Medvedev said in his annual address to the Federal Assembly.

    The Russian political and military leadership have long considered plans to develop strong missile and space defenses by 2020, but no concrete steps have been taken so far and the country does not even have a well-defined command structure to tackle this problem.

    According to one proposal, the unified aerospace defense command will absorb some air defense units which are currently part of the Russian Air Force, and Space Forces units.

    The Russian military plans to build a comprehensive air and space defense network consisting of S-400 Triumf and future S-500 air defense systems and the Soviet-era MiG-31 Foxhound supersonic interceptors.

    The S-500 system is expected to have an extended range of up to 600 km (over 370 miles) and simultaneously engage up to 10 targets. The system will be capable of destroying hypersonic and ballistic targets.

    Russia's leading missile manufacturer Almaz-Antei said in March that it was developing at least six types of advanced air defense systems to be available for the Russian military around 2015.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2010/russia-101130-rianovosti02.htm

    KRON1
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 31
    Points : 35
    Join date : 2009-08-12

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  KRON1 on Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:52 am

    Thats funny, they already combined space and missiles in the late ninties, then four years later they separated them again because they got rid and dispersed too many specialists . Now they want to unify it yet again to save money. Razz

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  Russian Patriot on Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:55 am

    KRON1 wrote:Thats funny, they already combined space and missiles in the late ninties, then four years later they separated them again because they got rid and dispersed too many specialists . Now they want to unify it yet again to save money. Razz

    I rather they keep it seperate .

    The air force knows nothing about our space defense and will miss everything up!

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Thu Dec 02, 2010 2:01 am

    So really what they are talking about is the combination of the missile and radar components of the former PVO that were transfered to the airforce and the strategic rocket forces long range and space searching radars to form an space and air defence force.

    Would they be subject to the 4 districts control or would they offer a single unified command that covers all of Russian territory covering strategic targets?

    The idea of satellite support for air defence systems is pretty cool and additionally missiles that can reach into space yet are mobile enough to operate with an S-400 unit is very interesting.

    I think it makes sense for one organisation to monitor the airspace over Russia and the empty vaccuum above that air.

    As SAMs start being able to leave the atmosphere so the accompanying radars will need to shift to frequencies to see out into space, so mobile SAMs can contribute to the Russian view of space as well as much larger fixed radars and optical systems currently do.


    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  Russian Patriot on Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:09 am


    Russia to start building unified air and space defense system in 2011 - General Staff

    RIA Novosti

    12:30 14/12/2010 MOSCOW, December 14 (RIA Novosti) - Russia is planning to build the basis for a unified air and space defense base in 2011 to protect the country from missiles, the chief of the Russian General Staff said on Tuesday.

    "The state needs a shield to protect it against attacks from ballistic, medium-range and cruise missiles," Gen. Nikolai Makarov said.

    Last week Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said the country's space and air defense systems should be unified before December 2011.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2010/russia-101214-rianovosti03.htm

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:46 am


    The Russian military plans to build a comprehensive air and space defense network consisting of S-400 Triumf and future S-500 air defense systems and the Soviet-era MiG-31 Foxhound supersonic interceptors.

    I wonder if this means there is a future for a pure interceptor aircraft?

    I have seen ambitious plans of satellite supported radar coverage so aircraft might just be missile carriers using off platform sensors to detect targets, I would think larger aircraft that can supercruise with a heavy load of large long range AAMs would be an ideal replacement for the Mig-31. Stealth would no be so important but reasonably high speed and long range plus large payload of missiles would be important I suspect.

    Interesting they describe the new defence as being aimed at missiles with no mention of aircraft.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:07 am

    I think in theory setting up an organisation with the role of scanning the skies and space above Russia based on two organisations that already try to do so to an extent makes a lot of sense, especially if they can make that data available to the other services where and when they needed it.

    If they are going for a real netcentric environment all departments and organisations will need to share data, so even a tank commander can access an air state picture showing friendly and enemy aircraft and missiles in the airspace in his region. He will add to the ground picture using his sensors and transmit up his chain of command to form a part of the ground picture, though of course the majority of the ground picture will come from recon assets designed to cover much larger areas much quicker.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  Austin on Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:46 am

    Very nice article in latest Military Parade , it shows the future development in field of Air/Space warning that will take place in the next 2 decades and its from horses mouth. {Please do not post it anywhere}

    START III AND DEVELOPMENT OF MISSILE AND SPACE DEFENCE

    Author: Sergei Boev

    Sergei Boev, Designer General of the RTI Sistemy Consortium, designer general the missile attack warning system commercial-off-the-shelf radar

    The Russian president and his US counterpart, who signed the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START III) in April 2010, have taken a crucial step towards improving mutual nuclear safety and decreasing the level of the nuclear threat across the globe. When implemented, the commitments undertaken will significantly reduce nuclear potentials of the two great powers. At the same time the global strategic security will not be affected, despite the fact that there still are certain disagreements over key problems between our countries.

    The lack of understanding about missile defence constitutes one of such differences. The statement, issued by the Russian side after the Treaty had been signed, reads: “The Treaty can only be effective and viable, if there is no build-up of the capabilities and the strength of the missile defence system, which can ultimately result in posing a threat to Russian strategic forces.” “It is linked to the configuration of our potentials,” the Russian president said.

    The term ‘configuration' is a key one for defence industry experts, since it is the defence industry that is responsible for the configuration of the national defence potential.

    In terms of the line of work, pursued by the RTI Sistemy Consortium, to wit development of powerful super-radars for space surveillance, missile attack warning, and missile defence systems, this definition does not simply mobilise efforts. It has determined the necessity to revise the ongoing research and development of space and missile defence information systems, as well as to evaluate their current and future contribution to ensuring nuclear deterrence and maintaining strategic stability. We have to review time and again both ongoing and planned projects for compliance with the objective of maintaining strategic stability and the nuclear deterrence posture, sufficient to guarantee infliction of specified damage (as per the new Russian military doctrine) in the environment, to be established after the START III is ratified.

    Even the initial assessment shows that new issues and requirements, which were not as critical earlier, will emerge. It is obvious that as far as the development of space and missile defence information systems is concerned, the RTI Sistemy Consortium now faces challenges, demanding a total focus of intellectual and production potentials of its flagship enterprises, including the Radio Engineering Institute named after A.L. Mints and the Scientific Research Institute for Long-Range Radio Communications. We are now seeing a transformation of the power balance, created over the past few decades, as far as threats to our national security are concerned. We believe that the major factors of this transformation are as follows:

    1. Strategic conventional precision-guided munitions (PGM) (ballistic missiles with guided warheads, sea-launched cruise missiles (SLCM), hypersonic cruise missiles, etc.) become comparable to nuclear weapons, insofar their predicted damage and impact on strategic stability are concerned.

    2. The threat of PGM strikes against Russian strategic targets increases. There is a drastic growth in the risk of hostile cruise missiles suppressing the top chain of command, missile and space defence information systems, and command and control (C2) systems of the Russian Armed Forces.

    3. The established balance of mutual strategic nuclear deterrence may be tipped through the weapon-isation of space and deployment of strategic missile defence elements across the globe (both in Eastern Europe and in the Far East) all around Russia.

    4. The jamming and the target environment within the coverage of missile and space defence systems grows more complicated, which makes it difficult to generate timely and valid warning information in case of an attack.

    The list of threats and challenges is in fact considerably longer. However, the issue here is not the number of threats and challenges, but the task to make the configuration of potentials, mentioned by the Russian president, flexible and adaptable to any transformation or nascent threat.

    It would not be fair to say that Russia has not attempted to tackle the problem. Methods for solving this problem are based on time-proved efficient target-oriented planning programmes and proposals on missile and space defence information systems, introduced into the current State Arms Programme (SAP-2015). The SAP programme envisions elements of adaptation to the changing environment. Here are some examples to this end:

    1. A gradual replacement of missile attack warning radars with commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) radars, capable of quickly boosting performance and boasting a high scientific intensity.

    It was a complicated process. Development was conducted in the 1990s, given tremendous limitations of resources, including financial resources. It was necessary to solve an entire range of problems, starting with production of components, since back then manufacturing plants were in a deep crisis and suffered physically and morally obsolete production facilities, and a considerable attrition, and, therefore, shortages, of qualified experts. The Consortium managed to solve these problems despite dramatic hardships.

    The Consortium developed the Voronezh and the Voronezh-DM COTS radar prototypes, operating in difference bandwidths. The Voronezh radar, deployed in Lekhtusi, has already undergone state tests, while the Voronezh-DM, deployed in Armavir, is currently undergoing factory tests. We expect the Voronezh-DM radar to complete the state tests this year and to be fielded with the Russian Space Forces.

    2. The Radio Engineering Institute named after A.L. Mints and the Scientific Research Institute for Long-Range Radio Communications have worked out proposals on future development of space and missile defence radars. The proposals have been submitted for consideration to be included in the draft state arms programme through to 2020 (SAP-2020). They include the following:

    First and foremost, establishment of a central radar system designed for acquisition and processing of data, fed by space-based components of the missile attack warning system, over-the-horizon radars, perimeter acquisition radars of the missile attack warning system, and central radar field surveillance radars (Don-2N general-purpose radar, the Dunai-3U surveillance radar, and COTS radars). It will:

    • increase reliability of evaluation of possible targeted facilities, the scale of an attack, and targets, attacking crucial facilities;

    • detect and track potential targets, including ballistic missiles with gliding warheads and hypersonic cruise missiles, throughout their flight trajectories;

    • engage non-strategic ballistic missiles and provide information support to combat employment of air defence and missile defence systems;

    • acquire accurate information on space-based targets;

    • considerably increase survivability of the strategic deterrence forces information support.

    Secondly, development and production of new-generation re-deployable COTS radars designed to:

    • boost information support capabilities of space, missile, and air defence systems, operating in sectors posing increased threat;

    • establish remote radar stations;

    • monitor missile defence component tests at field ranges of foreign states.


    Thirdly, new radar development technologies, actively researched by the Consortium:

    • based on built-in dual-band automated phased arrays with an overall adaptive signal processing and control;

    • multi-dimensional digital 3D-frequency-time and polarisation aggregate signal processing;

    • flexible adaptive control over power, hardware, and software resources, multi-level troubleshooting and backup of general-purpose radars;

    • mutual synchronisation, reception, and processing of signals, emitted by other radars, and multi-positioning within a group of space and missile defence information assets.

    Much has been done, but even more remains to be done. There is no time for idling. Unfortunately, we have yet to capitalise on advantages, offered by such large-scale integrated enterprises as the RTI Sistemy Consortium, incorporated a decade ago, to the full extent.

    The consortium management, which realises tougher requirements to space and missile defence information systems in light of the START III Treaty, understands short- and long-term priorities, facing the company.

    Our major scientific and engineering efforts are focused on ensuring the required high intellectual level of information systems, which, being the ‘eyes and ears' of the Russian president, who is also Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Armed Force, will have to discharge every task assigned.

    Much theoretical, engineering, and methodological progress has been done in this sphere.

    Engineering and design solutions are tested by developing mathematical models on a specially designed multi-purpose stand. This approach will increase the efficiency of testing algorithms and monitoring operation of strategic space and missile defence information systems and reduce their commissioning time without significantly expanding the number of experts involved.

    When space and missile defence systems are fielded and operated, it is necessary to address such problems as current assessment and prediction of basic specifications and capabilities of items produced, analysis of performance of tracking systems, control systems, etc. In order to solve such problems experts simulate space target environments to carry out necessary experiments. Traditional gauges, available at strategic defensive systems' deployment sites, are sometimes as accurate as the hardware they are supposed to monitor, which is clearly not sufficient. This fact results in the necessity of finding new ways to solve the afore-mentioned problems.

    Mathematical and in-line simulations become major methods of testing defence algorithms and techniques, as well as basic specifications of existing and advanced radars.

    New technologies, developed by the RTI Sistemy Consortium, will streamline financial, material, and human resources in the course of the development of efficient and science-intensive information

    assets for missile attack warning systems and space and missile defence systems, and ultimately solve the problems specified.

    Thus, the analysis of the environment, space surveillance, missile attack warning, and missile defence systems will have to operate in, as well as tasks, which will face their designers and manufacturers after the START III comes into force, allows the following conclusions to be drawn:

    1. Given the reduction in nuclear arms, the focus is shifted towards conventional offensive weapons. According to experts, in the next five to seven years the effect of a massive PGM strike will be comparable to that of a nuclear attack.

    2. The new START III Treaty will be able to increase the stability of the strategic nuclear deterrence only given a corresponding level of information assets for space surveillance, missile attack warning, and space and missile defence systems, since timely and reliable information, provided by such assets, prevents an aggressor from delivering a surprise missile or nuclear strike. Given appearance of new types of targets and a growing role of conventional PGMs, a natural way of developing space and missile defence information systems consists in their integration into a single missile and PGM attack warning system.

    3. The new draft State Arms Programme for 2011-2020 should envision research and development of efficient target detection systems and integration of space and missile defence information systems into a single missile and PGM attack warning system.

    Editorial note

    The article by S.F. Boev raises issues that determine the efficiency of future space surveillance, missile attack warning, and space and missile defence systems, which are crucial components of the national security. Military Parade invites everyone, working on the configuration of defence potentials, including military commanders, scientists, and defence industry designers, to share their views, which will be published in our magazine.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jun 07, 2011 6:31 am

    So under the current reforms the Russian military has changed from 6 to 4 military districts and each district command structure has complete control of all forces within its area except for Airborne forces, Strategic Missile Forces, and Air and Space defence forces.

    This means Army, Navy, and Airforce units are under one command in each district.

    I think this will mean that the Airborne forces will need their own transport aircraft, fixed wing and helos if it is to be truely independent.

    The Air and Space defence forces is relatively new and is basically the PVO plus all the over the horizon radars and space tracking bits of the Strategic Missile forces.

    Their new role is to monitor the air and space above Russia to look for and deal with intruders.

    The PVO had its own budget and its own custom designed equipment. A Flanker of the PVO forces had different radar frequencies and different missiles that were not compatible with Frontal Aviation Flankers for instance.
    The PVO tended to use datalinks and had much tighter control of aircraft than Frontal Aviation did.
    Aircraft unique to the PVO included the Tu-128 Fiddler which was a huge long range interceptor. Other aircraft used by the PVO included the Su-9, Su-11, and Su-15 series interceptors. The Su-9 and Su-11 looked like Mig-21s but were much larger and were pure interceptors. They also were the major user of the Mig-31 and Mig-25 in the interception role.

    I therefore assume that the air and space defence branch of the military will get its own budget and will likely be looking for new designs to upgrade its existing equipment.
    I look forward to see what they want to replace the Mig-31...
    There is no huge hurry, but developments with the PAK DA might be relevant if it is a large supercruising long range aircraft with a large radar and a significant payload capacity.
    Perhaps a non stealthy PAK DA scaled down a little with a reduced number of engines that can supercruise over strategic distances and with the extreme stealth features removed to reduce costs would be ideal. There is a whole range of new AAMs being developed for the PAK FA that can be launched from internal weapons bays, so these weapons could easily be compatible with a future interceptor variant of a PAK DA... and perhaps even by the PAK DA itself.

    With longer wave radars mounted on wing leading edges of fighters... imagine the sort of arrays that could fit on a flying wing design... Quite useful for an interceptor.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  Austin on Tue Jun 07, 2011 6:50 am

    Mig-31 will be replaced with some variant of PAK-FA and perhaps Mig-31 will be the last breed of dedicated interceptors

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jun 07, 2011 7:02 am

    PAK FA would be a poor replacement for the Mig-31.

    A replacement for the Mig-31 needs long range but also high speed... and not high dash speed, it needs to be able to fly around all the time at high speed.

    It doesn't need stealth.

    It needs the capacity to carry lots of heavy missiles and it needs a large powerful radar to find small elusive targets.

    That doesn't say PAK FA to me.

    Bigger aircraft are more expensive to operate, but long range and high speed are necessities.

    To be honest probably the best two options right now to replace the Mig-31 would be a Mig-31 with new 5th gen 18 ton thrust engines, and a new large AESA radar.
    The other option that I like too is put a new huge AESA in a Tu-22M3 with 6 long range two stage R-37M AAMs in the rotary launcher in its bomb bay.
    Conformal missile positions covering the belly of the aircraft could also be used to carry 20-24 missiles meaning that a single Backfire could replace four Mig-31s.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  Austin on Tue Jun 07, 2011 7:04 am

    Certainly they wont be funding a dedicated manned interceptor after Mig-31 so it could be PAK-FA derivative or some big UCAV.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 08, 2011 7:25 am

    Why wouldn't they fund a dedicated long range high speed interceptor?

    They are funding a light 5th gen fighter.

    Remember that it is not the Air Force that will be paying for it... now that the PVO is transferred to the Air and Space Defence structure that is not subordinate to the four military districts they will likely get money thrown at them.

    The Mig-31 is very successful at what it does, there is no reason to suspect they will not replace it with a customised design.

    The focus is not on stealth but long flight range at high average speed with the biggest and most powerful radar they can shoehorn into the nose of the aircraft.

    To be brutally honest the Su-34 would be a better candidate than PAK FA.

    Besides the PAK FA will not be very cheap anyway, and would be more use in places where dogfighting and manouver are important. Interceptors need long range radars and big missiles and to launch those missiles from high altitude and high speed to maximise the range of those missiles.

    Should add that in addition to the reforms I mentioned above the Army Aviation has been moved to the Air Force and also the coastal fighter and anti ship/strike component of the Navy has also been transferred to the Air Force.

    That is a whole lot more Tu-22M3 airframes for the Air Force, and Su-24s as well.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  Austin on Wed Jun 08, 2011 7:49 am

    GarryB wrote:Why wouldn't they fund a dedicated long range high speed interceptor?

    Probably because UCAV can do a better job or for manned fighter PAK-FA can do the same job , they can fit long range missile on external pylons of PAK-FA.

    Mig-31 after modernisation will serve for another 15 year or atleast till 2025 , post that period it would be ucav

    They are funding a light 5th gen fighter.

    The recent news of light fighter based on ACM statement is just a myth , probably lost in translation and stuff like that.

    I think the days of dedicate long range interceptors are gone , it would be big UCAV and Long Range SAM taking that role.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 08, 2011 9:07 am

    If UCAVs could perform the role then why bother developing the PAK FA... surely a UCAV can do that job too?

    The truth is that hunting enemy cruise missiles and stealth bombers is easier with a huge radar on board and an IRST and real people and I doubt that will change in 15 years.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  Austin on Wed Jun 08, 2011 9:19 am

    ^^ because PAK-FA was designed 8-9 years back when there was no mature UAV technology forget about UCAV technology.

    15 years from now they would have UCAV technology and netcentric capability to make it useful and viable to replace Mig-31 types if it gets decommisioned from RuAF , I personally think Mig-31 will stay till 2030 after refurbishment.

    Till such time UCAV gets deployed in sufficient numbers they can always use derivative of PAK-FA in that role.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:11 am

    I disagree.

    The Mig-31 can be upgraded with new 5th gen engines and new radar and 5th gen avionics which should make it cheaper to operate... the new engines should even allow super cruising potential if the new avionics reduce weight enough... and of course the new engines should be more fuel efficient as well.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 6086
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  Austin on Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:15 am

    GarryB wrote:I disagree.

    The Mig-31 can be upgraded with new 5th gen engines and new radar and 5th gen avionics which should make it cheaper to operate... the new engines should even allow super cruising potential if the new avionics reduce weight enough... and of course the new engines should be more fuel efficient as well.

    They can but for how long , the airframe has technical life and if recent Indian Mig-29 upgrade is an indication , they can extend the airframe life to atleast 20 years , so lets says Mig-31 get deep refit which actually they did and its going on , its 20 more years which is 2025-2030 , unless they start building new Mig-31 they need to be decommisioned.

    So what ever replaces Mig-31 will need to start coming out by 2025 atleast or 15 years from now , good enough time to get UCAV in next 15- 20 years and in interim period get a modified PAK-FA for intercept role.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:25 am

    So far even the countries with the most experience with UAVs have used them for recon and assassination.

    I just really don't think a UCAV will be developed in 15 or 20 years time that can reliably perform air to air roles effectively enough to approach the performance and capabilities of manned aircraft.

    Remember it is not longer the PVO, it is air and space defence... they will likely go to satellites before they go to UCAVs.
    The most likely UCAVs they would employ would be airships rather than fixed wing UCAVs.

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  nightcrawler on Thu Jun 09, 2011 10:53 pm

    @Austin

    I don't think the UCAV is anything but matured. We know because we had the first hand experience in the face of their victims. The precision targeting is all but BS. UCAVs just can't fire an adequately aimed missile but yes its good for recon. Evey time they fire a missile 4-5 civilians get killed * in a documentary US generals himself proclaimed that without public intel from the ground UCAVs are all but dumb

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Russia to build sea-based 'missile shield'.

    Post  Russian Patriot on Sat Sep 24, 2011 1:12 am

    Russia is planning to develop its own sea-based missile defense system, a Foreign Ministry official said on Thursday.

    "According to our analysis, this system will be very efficient and meet the norms of international maritime law," said Vladimir Kozin, a deputy director of the Russian Foreign Ministry's information and press department.

    Kozin did not give any further details on the future missile defense system. He was speaking at a video conference between Moscow and Kiev on European security.

    The move is almost certain to be interpreted as Russia's response to NATO's European missile shield, which it says it needs to counter potential missile attacks from "rogue states," such as Iran and North Korea.

    The NATO "shield" includes U.S. warships equipped with Aegis ballistic missile defense systems capable of shooting down short- and medium-range ballistic missiles.

    Russia has retained staunch opposition to the deployment of missile defense systems near its borders, claiming they would be a threat to its national security.

    Moscow has repeatedly warned NATO it would create both defensive and offensive means to counter any missile threat and to penetrate any missile defense if the sides did not agree to cooperate on the issue.

    http://www.en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20110922/167048033.html

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sat Sep 24, 2011 5:23 am

    It is funny really, it is US actions that have prompted this policy, and it is the US with the most to loose.

    Previously the US had no problems putting radars and missiles and all sorts of things all round Russias border, while Russia really only had Cuba to reciprocate.

    With the US developing Naval ABM systems, and Russia following suit the result for Russia will be the ability to park ABM missile equipped vessels very close to Britain and France and the US in the likely path of strategic missiles... something they likely only previously dreamed of.

    Of course there has always been a double standard... a USN ABM system will contribute to peace and stability and is a positive move. A Russian system on the other hand, will upset the balance and negatively effect peace and stability and is a worrying development. Rolling Eyes

    Just like the Chinese shooting down one of their own satelites was reckless and would add to the problem of space junk by adding to the existing debris field.
    When a secret US satellite was going to come down and they decided to shoot it down to protect their secrets it was sensible and responsible and the right thing to do...

    The amusing thing is that add another booster and an ABM system becomes an anti satellite weapon. Russia can send payloads to the moon so the high orbit of geostationary satellites is no problem.

    Pervius
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 259
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  Pervius on Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:11 pm

    Garry B,

    What makes you think the Chinese shot down "one of their own satellites"?

    Because the news said so?

    Didn't you find it odd shortly after they did that....the US shot down a satellite in space. Was it 'their own'....or a counter strike?

    I'd guess....counter strike.

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  SOC on Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:36 am

    Pervius wrote:Didn't you find it odd shortly after they did that....the US shot down a satellite in space. Was it 'their own'....or a counter strike?

    I'd guess....counter strike.

    Of course it was our own. The whole point was to demonstrate to China that guess what, we could do it too. All politics. The difference from a debris standpoint was that the US shot was done at lower altitude, allowing the majority of the bits to re-enter and burn up far quicker than the higher-altitude Chinese shot.

    As for a sea-based ABM system, that sounds like a navalized S-500. Why not? A sea-based ABM/ASAT like the S-500 is actually more valuable in some regards than a land-based version, as it can be deployed where needed to intercept satellites when convenient before they get a chance to overfly Russia. With the USN looking at an SM-5 or 6 or something to have genuine ABM capability, it's no suprise Russia is thinking along the same lines.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Tue Sep 27, 2011 3:56 am

    The amusing thing was that the Chinese interception was stupid and silly and did this or that harm to the world, while the US interception was a triumph of technology and American ingenuity. Smile

    I see one of the roles the Russians are suggesting for their new nuclear powered rocket is to fly around earths orbit picking up debris and space junk... of course in addition to making trips to and from Mars or the moon much shorter.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Aerospace Defence | Ballistic Missile Defence: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 12:11 am


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:11 am