Μilitary Questions & Answers

Werewolf wrote:Raytheon and Lockheed Martin also propagate that their Javelin and Hellfire are AShM's which they are not with lousy 8-10kg warheads with barely 8km range which would not make much more difference then using the normal HE-Frag warheads of Hellfire. Those are not AShM's.

The first pic shows that the missile was fired from the coast or from very close to the coast. We do not know what type of cargo the ship was carrying. If it was something inflammable then a ATGM can cause a lot of damage.

1. How effective are modern day air to ground missiles and bombs against an enemy that possesses countermeasures? By countermeasures I mean camouflage kits that mask in IR vavelength as well as passive electronic countermeasures. Is it possible to bring the accuracy of bombing down to Vietnam/ww2 levels with these things?
2. How effective are BVR missiles against aircraft with good ECM capability?

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:1. How effective are modern day air to ground missiles and bombs against an enemy that possesses countermeasures? By countermeasures I mean camouflage kits that mask in IR vavelength as well as passive electronic countermeasures. Is it possible to bring the accuracy of bombing down to Vietnam/ww2 levels with these things?
2. How effective are BVR missiles against aircraft with good ECM capability?

You have to be a little more specific. No Air Force anywhere in the world can enter Russian airspace with immunity and carry out strikes. Pantsir S1 will shoot down most of the incoming missiles.

BVR is frankly oversold. NATO Air Forces wanted to avoid USSR fighter, therefore they came up with this concept which is effective only against legacy aircraft flown by poorly trained pilots.

Artjomh, slightly off topic. What are the challenges designers have to overcome if they have to install a missile/bomb in an aircraft that is from a foreign vendor?

For example, say Russia exports the Mig 29K or Su 30 to a foreign country and that country chooses to fit the Mig 29K with the Harpoon or the Su 30 with the Brimstone.  How difficult will this task be to integrate the Harpoon or Brimstone on a Mig 29K or  Su 30? Many thanx.

jhelb wrote:
Artjomh, slightly off topic. What are the challenges designers have to overcome if they have to install a missile/bomb in an aircraft that is from a foreign vendor?

For example, say Russia exports the Mig 29K or Su 30 to a foreign country and that country chooses to fit the Mig 29K with the Harpoon or the Su 30 with the Brimstone.  How difficult will this task be to integrate the Harpoon or Brimstone on a Mig 29K or  Su 30? Many thanx.

Lots. Not only wiring and electronics but various issues related to aerodynamics and how the weapon will interact with the aircraft, it may involve quite numbers of wind tunnel testing, to ensure that the weapon can be safely carried and released by the aircraft.

Plus for guided weapon, this may involve re-programming the avionics to accept the weapon. It seems radar guided weapon is more complex to integrate than infra red one. Saw South African Mirage carrying R-73.. but never saw any carry R-77 or other radar guided weapon.

Stealthflanker wrote:Lots. Not only wiring and electronics but various issues related to aerodynamics and how the weapon will interact with the aircraft, it may involve quite numbers of wind tunnel testing, to ensure that the weapon can be safely carried and released by the aircraft.

Plus for guided weapon, this may involve re-programming the avionics to accept the weapon. It seems radar guided weapon is more complex to integrate than infra red one. Saw South African Mirage carrying R-73.. but never saw any carry R-77 or other radar guided weapon.  

Thanks Stealthflanker my vote. However, aren't fighters like Su-30 supposed to be open architecture and therefore weapons/sensors from any vendor can be easily installed on them?

During ww1 an attack frontage of an infantry division was about 2km (1km at somme for the British), about 7km during ww2 and 15-25km during the 1980s.

What is the attack frontage for a modern day mechanized division in US Army? Other NATO armies? Or in Russia? This is an obscure topic, yet fundamental to the conduct of war. Need to know more.

Couple moths ago in vpk-news.ru was K. Sivkov wrote an article about "an asymmetric response" to danger of US/NATO aggression. He mentioned both tsunami torpedoes and triggering super-volcano in Yellowstone.

OK dreamer. Then after 6 months passed System 6 news popped up... I wonder if Russia is working also on Yellowstone trigger weapon. You might say - oh no this might be extinction level, but dead hand system is not such a class?
Explosion of super volcano just makes sure nothing is left of former USA. and is used only to make sure Russia is not attacked and millions of Russians killed. And if attacked then nothing is left of the aggressor...

Do you think such weapon has a chance to be considered?


1) Sivkov article http://vpk-news.ru/articles/24405

2) Scientific theory that super-volcano is triggered externally...like eartrhquake http://phys.org/news/2015-11-supervolcanoes-triggered-externally.html

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Couple moths ago in vpk-news.ru was K. Sivkov wrote an article about  "an asymmetric response" to danger of US/NATO aggression. He mentioned both tsunami torpedoes and triggering super-volcano in Yellowstone.

OK dreamer. Then after 6 months passed System 6 news popped up... I wonder if Russia is working also on Yellowstone trigger weapon. You might say - oh no this might be extinction level, but dead hand system is not such a class?
Explosion of  super volcano just makes sure nothing is left of former USA. and is used only to make sure Russia is not attacked and millions of Russians killed. And if attacked then nothing is left of the aggressor...

Do you think such weapon has a chance to be considered?


1) Sivkov article http://vpk-news.ru/articles/24405

2) Scientific theory that super-volcano is triggered externally...like eartrhquake  http://phys.org/news/2015-11-supervolcanoes-triggered-externally.html

The problem with all of these sorts of claims is that they fail to appreciate the energy involved. Much like all the claims about weather control.
No nuclear device approaches the energy of even a moderate earthquake. Now suppose some genius decides that a perturbation is enough to
set one off so even the small energy of a nuclear bomb is "enough". This genius now needs to model how to apply the perturbation to set off
an earthquake in the right location and with the right magnitude. The genius needs to give up before starting since there is no model he can
use. It is possible to formulate a general visco-elastic model but there is insufficient information about the rock distribution and most importantly
the tension/stress distribution in the fault network. The model wouldn't even be able to properly represent the faults since some sort of
continuum approximation has to be made to pose the equations in the first place. There is no such thing as an atom by atom numerical
scheme. This problem is simply intractable.

Yellowstone will go off when it feels like it. Humans will have no role to play.

Assuming a SAM is fired towards a fighter jet but it misses. Will the missile have enough legs to make a U-turn and come chasing the fighter once again? Thanks.

GarryB wrote:equally if the target evaded the missile when the missile was going faster than mach 2 or three then when it turns and is subsonic the low speed airflow means its manouver performance would be pathetic compare with that of a manned aircraft...

Suppose the missile has proximity fuse. How will that change the equation?

GarryB wrote:
Depends.

If it is set correctly then it will detonate the warhead within range of doing damage to the target... which is the goal of launching the missile.

How do they time the fuse? Systems like the Buk for example, are command guided.

Does the same protocol apply for the S-400? In other words a timer detonates the warhead? Thanks.

GarryB wrote: but the risk is that the detonation command could be identified and used to defeat the missile.

Garry, can you shed some light as to how the detonation command is identified and subsequently defeated?

Hi a friend who works in the defence industry dug out an old assignment that he was given during his studies and game me a copy to look at, I thought it would be fun to see what people on here would do. Its based on small country and its armed forces how best to use the force and its mainly based around procurement and upgrades to make the best with what you have. The country itself is landlocked, partially mountainous, flat plains, and forest, however my friend has changed parts of the equipment and various parts about the county in order to hide the identity of the country. They currently have one bordering country which is at times hostile towards them and still have a fair sized armed forces with more armoured vehicles the country. The current budget is sitting at around $500m but this also includes procurement. They can produces most of their ammo apart from larger missiles based on aircraft and missiles on there air defence systems (minus Sa-7 and Sa-14 of which they can produce). They also have capabilities to upgrade various systems in the form of welding/engineering, however things such as optics and some electronic components etc would to be imported. The country had a clear out of equipment through the last decade and sold a lot of equipment to help the economy. The economy has now stabilized and has very slow growth rate.
(PLEASE NOTE THIS HAS BEEN GREATLY SIMPLIFIED AS THE ORIGINAL ASSIGNMENT WAS MORE COMPLEX).

here is a list of current equipment followed by some equipment in storage.

ARTILLERY
2S1 x48
2S9 x24
Bm-21-1 x24
Frog-7 x12
RPU-14(BM-14) x24
RPU-14 x2 monuted on T-54 chassis. x12
D1- 152mm x24
D-20 152mm x24
D-30 122mm x48
M-30 122mm x24
M-46 130mm x24
T-12 100mm x24 (anti tank gun but also used as artillery)
BS-3 100mm x24 (anti tank gun but also used as artillery)
2S12 Sani X48
120-PM-43 x48
2B14 Podnos X48
2B9 Vasilek X24
2B9 Vasilek Mounted on MT-LB x12

Wheeled vehicles
BRDM-1 x24
BRDM-1 armed with AT-2 x12
BRDM-2 x24
BRDM-2 armed with AT-3 x12
BRDM-2 armed with AT-4 x12
BRDM-2 armed with AT-5 x12
BTR-152 x24
BTR-152 armed with ZPU-4 x12
BTR-60 x48
BTR-80 x48

Tracked vehicles
BTR-50 x24
MT-LB APC x24
MT-LB ** x48 (** specialist variants such command, engineer etc etc)
MT-LB armed with ZSU-23-2 x12
MT-LB armed with AT-6 x12
PT-76 x24
T-34-85 x24 (upgraded with additional armour and day and night sight, engine up rated used as infantry support)
T-55M x48
T-72A x48
BMP-3 x24
ZSU-57-2 x24 (used as ground support with welded roof on turret)
ZSU-23-4 x24 (used as ground support as well as air defence)

Anti Air
Sa-7 x100
Sa-14 x50
Sa-8 x12 (upgraded)
Sa-9 x24
Sa-13 x24 (upgraded)
Sa-6 x24 (upgraded)
Sa-2 x24 (upgraded)
Sa-3 x24 (upgraded)
Sa-5 x12 (upgraded)
Sa-11 M1 x12
S-60 57mm x48
M1939 61-K 37mm x48
ZSU-23-2 x100
ZPU-1 x50
ZPU-2 x100
ZPU-4 x48

air force
Mig-21 Bis x24
Mig-21R x 6
Mig-29S x6
Su-22M3 x6
Su-25 x 12
Su-24 x8
Mig-23MLD x12
Mi-8 x16 (+ undisclosed amount of specialist variants from artillery recce, medivac, SAR etc etc,)
Mi-8TVK x3
Mi-24D x12
Mi-2 x6
An-2 x6
An-24 x3
An-26 x3
IL-76 x2
L-39 x18 (capable of ground attack)


Small arms
Tokarev
SKS
AK-47
AKM
RPD
RPK
PKM
SVD
DShK
NSV
SPG-9 x100 + 50 mounted on 4x4 pick up
RPG-7
RPG-22
AT-3 x250+(locally produced and upgraded able to produce this very cheaply)
AT-4 x50
AT-5 x50
various anti personnel and anti tank mines.



In storage they have the following
Mig-25RB x6 (recently retired)
ZiS-2 57mm x48
D-44 85mm x48
2B14 Podnos x48
120-PM-43 x24
SPG-9 x48
M1943 160mm x24
M-240 240mm x12
M30 122mm x24
M-46 130mmx24
T-12 100mm x24
S-23 180 x 12
M1942 (ZiS-3 76mm x48
KS-12 85mm x48
KS-12 100mm x48
KS-30 130mm x48
Sa-4 x12
2K6 Luna frog-3/5 x12


Turrets from the following
T-34-85 x24
BMP-1 x24
PT-76 x24
chassis from the following
T-34 x24
T-54 x24
MT-LB x100

also have various trucks in storage as well as x48 ZIL-135 trucks.


and views on this would be great but please bear in mind this is just for fun, we could go really in depth and look at every aspect in detail but that would take far too long, I will post my views at a later date.

You have 20 billion $ and you have to make your navy with russian ships.

No nuclear ship.

Assume you are a fictif country hostile to NATO.

You have 6 naval bases on open ocean and mediterranean sea. Geographic position similar to Egypt .

Don't think about if you can maintain ships or not, not the question here.

Old ships like Udaloys, Sovs or Kilo are bought to Russia because they retired them so they offer it to you at low prices. If you bought an Aircraft carrier

You need escort ships with it. Make reasonnable choices.

All ships are fully armed. If you chose an other ship which is not in the list, give a reasonnable price.

All prices are fictif.

No comments about the utility of doing this or prices, just make your lists.

Give total price at the end.

Aircraft carrier (36 mig 29k +5 heli+2 yak 44 max) = 3 000 000 000 $ Diesel propulstion, without aircrafts

Gorshkov = 500 000 000 $
Grigorovich= 250 000 000 $

Udaloy= 300 000 000 $
Sovromeny = 250 000 000 $

Steregouchshy= 130 000 000 $
Buyan-M= 80 000 000 $
Molnya (16Uran) = 60 000 000 $
Molnya (4 Moskit)= 60 000 000 $

Kilo = 150 000 000$
Improved Kilo= 250 000 000$
Lada = 350 000 000$
Akula class (10 years lease) = 1 800 000 000$

Alexandrit-class minesweeper = 60 000 000$

Tanker project 23131= 60 000 000 $
Rubin class (4 Uran)= 30 000 000$

IL-38 = 85 000 000 $
Tu-142= 65 000 000 $
Mig 29k = 40 000 000 $
Yak 44 = 130 000 000 $
Ka-27 = 20 000 000 $
Ka-31 = 30 000 000 $


Kh-35U = 500 000$
Mosquit = 800 000$
Oniks = 1 000 000 $
Klub = 1 000 000 $
Shkval = 1 500 000 $
533 mm torpedo= 700 000 $

1 pack of 16 Redut missiles = 2 500 000 $
1 pack of 16 shtill missiles = 1 500 000 $

Do you think it's possible to put radar reflectors in a antiship missile and release them while attaking ? Naval radars can detect like 2000 targets, so puting 500 2mm radar cone reflectors could sature radars. I'm not talking about a cloud of chaffs.

Just one question, how is the design of a seeker for an Air-to-Air missile different from the design of a Air-to-Ground missile?