Russian Airforce News & Discussion

Austin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
852
Likes
363
Came across this interesting info from MDB on MAKS

Perhaps the greatest surprise of the MAKS-2013 airshow was the Demonstrator, a new radar displayed by Almaz-Antey. No information was available about that radar prior to the exhibition in Moscow. The product displayed at MAKS-2013 was described as a "the Demonstrator, a new specialized civilian radar, 1:1 scale, transmitter and receiver stations". According to the information plate, the Demonstrator is a mobile specialized radar designed to monitor the launch of space carriers and the descent of reentry vehicles. The outward appearance of the Demonstrator is similar to the radars used in the US THAAD missile defense system and to the Israeli Elta Green Pine radar, which is used in the Arrow missile defense system. It appears that the product presented as a "civilian radar" at MAKS-2013 is actually a mobile early warning missile defense radar that will be used to detect missile launches and track missile trajectories in future Russian missile defense and space defense systems. The Demonstrator can detect targets at a distance of up to 1,500 km, and lock on targets with an RCS of 1 sq. m. at 600 km. The antennas used in the new radar are fully digital-receiver and transmitter-phased array setups.
Found the systems photo from Vitlay website ( scroll below to see Demonstrator radar )

МАКС-2013 - Комплексы ПВО, РЛС и пункты управления (MAKS-2013 - SAM systems, Radars and Command posts) | Vitaly V. Kuzmin

Specs ( in Russian )

http://77rus.smugmug.com/Military/MAKS-2013/i-cPvPNcp/0/O/MAKS2013part5-45.jpg
 

Austin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
852
Likes
363
START III AND DEVELOPMENT OF MISSILE AND SPACE DEFENCE
Author: Sergei Boev
Military Parade

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 weaponisation
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.
 

Austin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
852
Likes
363
Can some one who understands radar technology can explain the bolded part from the above article , Thanks

"¢ 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.
 

Austin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
852
Likes
363
About 4.5 trillion rubles ( $135 Billion ) are spent on promising aircraft to the Russian Armed Forces
Около 4,5 трлн руб могут направить на перспективную авиацию для ВС РФ | РИА Новости

Procedure 4.5 trillion rubles will be spent on the creation of promising aircraft equipment and weapons for her, said Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov at the meeting on Thursday.

"For these purposes provided for an appropriation in the amount of about 4.5 trillion rubles, or about 25 percent of the funding of the program of weapons" - quoted Borisov representative of the press service of the Defense Ministry and Information.

The bulk (85 percent) of these funds, according to the deputy minister, plans to spend on the purchase of new aircraft and weapons.

This should allow the 2020 to increase the share of modern technology in the fleet of the Armed forces of up to 70 percent.

Borisov said that, first of all, you need to create a regulatory framework of pricing, allowing to conduct a reasonable pricing policy and to ensure the transparency of its understanding of the customer.

You should also ensure the development of critical and basic industrial technology, allowing time to create advanced models of aircraft and weapons, superior world counterparts.
 

TrueSpirit1

The Nobody
Banned
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
1,575
Likes
1,024
@Austin @p2prada @Armand2REP @Decklander

Are the Russians weapons (especially, those launched from airborne assets) considered reliable/accurate enough ? Especially, when compared to their Western counterparts ?

Particularly, what's the IAF viewpoint ? The popular opinion, not the official one.

IAF seems to have this propensity of integrating weapons of all origins on all aircrafts...how useful is that (apart from the obvious cost-factor) ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
Can some one who understands radar technology can explain the bolded part from the above article , Thanks
I will try.

"¢ based on built-in dual-band automated phased arrays with an overall adaptive signal processing
and control;
Adaptive signal processing is a technique to separate relevant signals from noise signals.

"¢ multi-dimensional digital 3D-frequency-time and polarisation aggregate signal processing;
Complex technique. I don't know about it. Not necessary that we even use that same term.

"¢ flexible adaptive control over power, hardware, and software resources, multi-level troubleshooting and backup of general-purpose radars;
Generic. It just means it is easy to use, easy to troubleshoot and has redundancy. It is networked with other 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.
It can be networked with other radars. If a satellite emits radar waves towards a target and the echo bounces away from its regular path, then if there is a chance this other radar is in the bounced signal's path then it will process the signal like it was its own. It can act like a receiver in this case.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
@Austin @p2prada @Armand2REP @Decklander

Are the Russians weapons (especially, those launched from airborne assets) considered reliable/accurate enough ? Especially, when compared to their Western counterparts ?

Particularly, what's the IAF viewpoint ? The popular opinion, not the official one.

IAF seems to have this propensity of integrating weapons of all origins on all aircrafts...how useful is that (apart from the obvious cost-factor) ?
Russian weapons are not as accurate, but accurate enough to get a kill. The biggest problem is reliability. Over a third of all Russian missiles produced are reported with defects. Look at the CAG report on so many of their weapons = fail.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
Are the Russians weapons (especially, those launched from airborne assets) considered reliable/accurate enough ? Especially, when compared to their Western counterparts ?
The thing is the Russians have developed weapons for every possible situation. Take the example of BVR missiles. There is quite the unusual impression that the Russians like WVR contests over BVR. This is far from the truth. They actually have so many BVR missiles that you will need to start combining the works of multiple western nations to even match them in terms of projects. Pretty much all their AAMs are BVR weapons. They have different kinds of short range, medium range, long range and very long range missiles all working with different seekers, all for the purpose of air combat. They have semi-active seekers, active seekers and IR seekers with different range, speed and maneuverability performances and each missile equipped to handle a particular type of target as compared to the west's "one missile for all missions."

In comparison the western nations today have just one type or two types of BVR missiles as compared to Russia's 6 or 7 types.

Similarly they have different weapons for different missions when it comes to strike. While the Russian and Western weapons are not drastically different from each other, the Russians have developed multiple strike weapons to choose from. They still have the best stand-off land attack capability in the world when it comes to the number of weapons developed and the capability of the said weapons. The only problem is most of them are not for export.

What they do have for export are quite diverse and capable of different missions, from bombs to cruise missiles with multiple seeker types and multiple performance parameters. Most of them are very reliable. They are the only ones who have both subsonic and supersonic ALCMs for export.

Particularly, what's the IAF viewpoint ? The popular opinion, not the official one.
As long as it works and is reliable, they are happy. There is no real official or popular opinion in this case. Cost considerations are taken into view along with capability. Rafale was long known for not having an ARM. Dassault says they don't need that capability. Nevertheless, IAF wants the KH-31P on Rafale. IAF will have to pay for it, but it is a capability they want to have. There are limits to what Spectra can do, especially in an environment with long range SAMs. It may be plenty enough for France to engage a SAM site from 60 Km away, but IAF want to do that from 200-300 km away.

IAF seems to have this propensity of integrating weapons of all origins on all aircrafts...how useful is that (apart from the obvious cost-factor) ?
It is expensive to have so many types of weapons. But the enemy will also have to develop more technology to counter those weapons.
 

Austin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
852
Likes
363
Thanks for the reply P2P


Are the Russians weapons (especially, those launched from airborne assets) considered reliable/accurate enough ? Especially, when compared to their Western counterparts ?

Particularly, what's the IAF viewpoint ? The popular opinion, not the official one.

IAF seems to have this propensity of integrating weapons of all origins on all aircrafts...how useful is that (apart from the obvious cost-factor) ?
The question can be reversed too and asked if Western weapons system are as reliable or as capable as Russian one under the conditions Russian weapons operate , We really dont know the answer in absence of any reliable statistics.

A number of factor can affect weapons reliability right from designed life of weapons which may be higher or lower depending on weapon type to issues like Storage , Handling , Operating Conditions , Sticking/Ignoring SOP ( Maintenance etc ) , Weapons used during peace time ... by that I mean once you load an AAM on an aircraft and then unload it after a patrol mission even during peace time it can affect the life of weapons depending on how many times it has been flown etc.

There are unknowns too for eg the same weapon operated by IAF in Indian condition would show the same reliability when operating in Western or Russian conditions .....also the area of operations like extreme climate may affect their reliability or specific electronics inside the weapons.
 
Last edited:

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
The thing is the Russians have developed weapons for every possible situation. Take the example of BVR missiles. There is quite the unusual impression that the Russians like WVR contests over BVR. This is far from the truth. They actually have so many BVR missiles that you will need to start combining the works of multiple western nations to even match them in terms of projects. Pretty much all their AAMs are BVR weapons. They have different kinds of short range, medium range, long range and very long range missiles all working with different seekers, all for the purpose of air combat. They have semi-active seekers, active seekers and IR seekers with different range, speed and maneuverability performances and each missile equipped to handle a particular type of target as compared to the west's "one missile for all missions."
The VVS operates so many missiles because they haven't had the money to upgrade the entire fleet to operate new ones. R-77 is only operational in a few upgraded Flanker squadrons. R-27 is the main BVR of the VVS today and it has a horrid track record. R-73 is not a BVR by any stretch of the imagination when it has no data link nor an IR seeker strong enough to see BVR nor the range to maneuver that far. MICA IR accomplishes this with data link and 3rd gen seeker, not to mention 3X the range.

In comparison the western nations today have just one type or two types of BVR missiles as compared to Russia's 6 or 7 types.
Because we have money to upgrade and discard obsolete models, Russia does not.

Similarly they have different weapons for different missions when it comes to strike. While the Russian and Western weapons are not drastically different from each other, the Russians have developed multiple strike weapons to choose from. They still have the best stand-off land attack capability in the world when it comes to the number of weapons developed and the capability of the said weapons. The only problem is most of them are not for export.
Russia has the best strike weapons?

Outside of the US, France has the best strike weapons which dwarf Russian capabilities. VVS still uses RF video guided missiles. :rofl:



What they do have for export are quite diverse and capable of different missions, from bombs to cruise missiles with multiple seeker types and multiple performance parameters. Most of them are very reliable. They are the only ones who have both subsonic and supersonic ALCMs for export.
It was India that made Brahmos an ALCM, and the accuracy of that still hasn't been proven. All of Russia's land attack weapons are subsonic and horribly unreliable.


As long as it works and is reliable, they are happy. There is no real official or popular opinion in this case. Cost considerations are taken into view along with capability. Rafale was long known for not having an ARM. Dassault says they don't need that capability. Nevertheless, IAF wants the KH-31P on Rafale. IAF will have to pay for it, but it is a capability they want to have. There are limits to what Spectra can do, especially in an environment with long range SAMs. It may be plenty enough for France to engage a SAM site from 60 Km away, but IAF want to do that from 200-300 km away.
I have yet to here IAF requesting Dassault integrate KH-31 onto Rafale. The homing pod used by KH-31 couldn't dream of matching Spectra detection, location and classification capabilities. With the advanced nature of modern radars, KH-31P couldn't home on even latest Chinese radars, much less Western ones. As the Americans demonstrated, KH-31 range couldn't even match AASM without their own modifications. If Rafale needs to target a SAM sight 200km away, it would launch SCALP. With the low RCS of Rafale coupled with the sensitivity of Spectra, an S-400 site could be classified and targeted before Rafale was detected. Then this would happen...


It is expensive to have so many types of weapons. But the enemy will also have to develop more technology to counter those weapons.
Russians do not have so many for the point of diversity, they have them because they cannot afford to replace obsolete models.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
The VVS operates so many missiles because they haven't had the money to upgrade the entire fleet to operate new ones.
Right. Do you have a bomber program? Do you have a 5th gen program?

Most of their fleet is in the process of being upgraded. 150-180 Mig-29s to SMT standards. N-number of old Su-27s to SM3 standards.

Not to mention addition of ~200 Su-34s, 48+48 Su-35s, 90 Su-30SMs and 60 PAKFAs all by 2020. That's nearly 450 new aircraft for VVS alone and half that undergoing upgrades. This is not counting the navy's Mig-29 orders or Mig-35 orders for VVS which is in the process of happening. In that time France will have a paltry 180-190 Rafales. Yes, the Russians are broke. :rolleyes:

R-77 is only operational in a few upgraded Flanker squadrons. R-27 is the main BVR of the VVS today and it has a horrid track record.
Nope. They have standardized on R-77 because they need to buy R-27s from Ukraine, which they have not done in many years.

R-73 is not a BVR by any stretch of the imagination when it has no data link nor an IR seeker strong enough to see BVR nor the range to maneuver that far.
Try again. MKI during Red Flag were credited with kills at 32 Km, at least according to utube karnal. That counts as BVR. If the Americans thought the R-73 was shitty then they wouldn't have.

ADA has been advertising R-73 as a BVR missile for LCA.

MICA IR accomplishes this with data link and 3rd gen seeker, not to mention 3X the range.
Google R-27ET.

Figure out why IAF is going for this even today.
Ukraine Inches Closer To Sign the Deal to Sell R-27 Air-To-Air Missiles to India - Defence Now

R-73's and MICA IR's ranges are very similar.

Because we have money to upgrade and discard obsolete models, Russia does not.
Google the shelf life of MICA vs Russian missiles and see which gets discarded first.

Russia has the best strike weapons?

Outside of the US, France has the best strike weapons which dwarf Russian capabilities. VVS still uses RF video guided missiles. :rofl:
You mean TV guided. Sure, that's because they were operational 2 years before Rafale program even started and are still relevant.

France has 3 types of AASM. One is GPS guided, one is IIR and one is Laser. The LGB version is horrendously expensive. The GPS version isn't that great, comes with a 10m CEP. The IIR versions are better at 3m CEP and match the latest TV guided Russian versions. The 1980s version had a CEP of 4-7m.

Russia has TV guided as you so generously pointed out, then there's laser guided, satellite guided and two more, one is duel TV+IIR (to replace TV guided) and another is MMW. Nope, France won't have the effective TV+IIR guided version or the MMW version, let alone the extremely cheap TV guided version.

Don't worry though. I am pretty sure IAF will use AASM and Paveway for Rafale instead of KABs.

Anyway, you are only talking about bombs, not missiles.

It was India that made Brahmos an ALCM, and the accuracy of that still hasn't been proven. All of Russia's land attack weapons are subsonic and horribly unreliable.
Thanks for at least appreciating Indian participation on the Brahmos.

You need to google a lot on Russian missiles, both subsonic and supersonic.

Google KH-31, KH-32(check post #6) and KH-55 and show me a French equivalent for all three.

I have yet to here IAF requesting Dassault integrate KH-31 onto Rafale.


Then please read it in your own language. The discussions have already started.

The homing pod used by KH-31 couldn't dream of matching Spectra detection, location and classification capabilities. With the advanced nature of modern radars, KH-31P couldn't home on even latest Chinese radars, much less Western ones. As the Americans demonstrated, KH-31 range couldn't even match AASM without their own modifications. If Rafale needs to target a SAM sight 200km away, it would launch SCALP. With the low RCS of Rafale coupled with the sensitivity of Spectra, an S-400 site could be classified and targeted before Rafale was detected. Then this would happen...
SCALP? You don't even know how SCALP is used. SCALP won't chase moving targets. It has only an IIR seeker. By the time SCALP reaches the target after flying for nearly half an hour, the target would have already relocated to a more secure position.

So, SEAD is the job of the KH-31. The latest version of the KH-31 has a range of 250 Km and can travel that distance in 3 minutes. The target radar will still be packing at that time and is stationary. Please use simple common sense. Scalp is a subsonic cruise missile with IIR seeker. KH-31 is a high-supersonic missile with a passive EM seeker head. There is no comparison.

With the low RCS of Rafale and low altitude penetration capability, it might be able to penetrate some level of the system, but with weapons hanging outside it, no chance. But low altitude also means Rafale's sensor capability is limited to just a few tens of kilometers. Haven't you been reading this thread? The latest Russian radar can track a 1m2 object from 600 Km away.

Russians do not have so many for the point of diversity, they have them because they cannot afford to replace obsolete models.
Already debunked above. So called "obsolete" models are also inducted along with assumed "advanced" models. Case in point, we will still buy R-27s.

The only real advantage France has over Russia is the use of rockets on AASM and IIR seeker. Missiles, Russia wins hands down.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
Right. Do you have a bomber program? Do you have a 5th gen program?
We have a 6th gen bomber programme, it is called NEURON.

Most of their fleet is in the process of being upgraded. 150-180 Mig-29s to SMT standards. N-number of old Su-27s to SM3 standards.

Not to mention addition of ~200 Su-34s, 48+48 Su-35s, 90 Su-30SMs and 60 PAKFAs all by 2020. That's nearly 450 new aircraft for VVS alone and half that undergoing upgrades. This is not counting the navy's Mig-29 orders or Mig-35 orders for VVS which is in the process of happening. In that time France will have a paltry 180-190 Rafales. Yes, the Russians are broke. :rolleyes:
We have heard the same old story for the last 13 years... where is the upgraded VVS? :rolleyes:

Nope. They have standardized on R-77 because they need to buy R-27s from Ukraine, which they have not done in many years.
Tactical Missile Corp sells three versions of R-27... :taunt:

Try again. MKI during Red Flag were credited with kills at 32 Km, at least according to utube karnal. That counts as BVR. If the Americans thought the R-73 was shitty then they wouldn't have.
Kind of hard when its max range is 30km head on... which is 20km from point A to B.

ADA has been advertising R-73 as a BVR missile for LCA.
Do tell...

Google R-27ET.
Why? Tactical Missile Corp has a nice synopsis on their product page.

That was two years ago... where is it today?

R-73's and MICA IR's ranges are very similar.
30km head on vs 70km head on at Mach 2.5 to our Mach 4... how is that similar?

Google the shelf life of MICA vs Russian missiles and see which gets discarded first.
Russians of course, MICA has a shelf life of 25 years.

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/vl_mica_land_ds.pdf

You mean TV guided. Sure, that's because they were operational 2 years before Rafale program even started and are still relevant.
Yes, they were invented in WWII and quite obsolete. It requires the aircraft to stay within LOS of the missile and a danger to the aircraft. The F&F weapons of today are far more accurate and safe with large stand-off ranges.

France has 3 types of AASM. One is GPS guided, one is IIR and one is Laser. The LGB version is horrendously expensive. The GPS version isn't that great, comes with a 10m CEP. The IIR versions are better at 3m CEP and match the latest TV guided Russian versions. The 1980s version had a CEP of 4-7m.
The IR version comes with 1m CEP which dwarfs KAB accuracy and does it at far greater range with F&F capability. Russian strike weapons place its aircraft at high risk of interception.

Russia has TV guided as you so generously pointed out, then there's laser guided, satellite guided and two more, one is duel TV+IIR (to replace TV guided) and another is MMW. Nope, France won't have the effective TV+IIR guided version or the MMW version, let alone the extremely cheap TV guided version.
Russia's sat guided KAB requires a low altitude drop below 15,000ft. Their LGB seekers are rudimentary and do not give stand-off ranges. Comparing Russian bombs to AASM is like comparing Nintendo to the PS4.

Don't worry though. I am pretty sure IAF will use AASM and Paveway for Rafale instead of KABs.
Of course, IAF is not stupid.

Anyway, you are only talking about bombs, not missiles.
Anything that has propulsion is a missile. You are the one talking about bombs.

Thanks for at least appreciating Indian participation on the Brahmos.

You need to google a lot on Russian missiles, both subsonic and supersonic.

Google KH-31, KH-32(check post #6) and KH-55 and show me a French equivalent for all three.
I don't consider ARMs as strike weapons as they only engage one type of target, but if you want to call it such then touché. Our equivalent of the Kh-55 is ASMP for that purpose, or SCALP Naval for the cruise type. We make strike missiles over Mach 3 and cruise missiles over 1000km range and both are more accurate.

Then please read it in your own language. The discussions have already started.
It says Russian industry reveals, but it is Russia seeking a deal with Dassault. Russia is free to seek as much as it wants. Dassault won't even bother to comment on it.

SCALP? You don't even know how SCALP is used. SCALP won't chase moving targets. It has only an IIR seeker. By the time SCALP reaches the target after flying for nearly half an hour, the target would have already relocated to a more secure position.
Uh... who said anything about moving targets? It is a strike weapon. If an S-400 battery is in the process of being moved after launch it is a tactical error by their operator. It takes more than 20 minutes to tear down its radar mast anyways. If they did that, an ARM wouldn't have a chance of hitting it if it isn't transmitting.

So, SEAD is the job of the KH-31. The latest version of the KH-31 has a range of 250 Km and can travel that distance in 3 minutes. The target radar will still be packing at that time and is stationary. Please use simple common sense. Scalp is a subsonic cruise missile with IIR seeker. KH-31 is a high-supersonic missile with a passive EM seeker head. There is no comparison.
Yeah, sure it is. US Navy says it is less than AASM range. :laugh:

SCALP is stealth cruise missile with 1m CEP. If the target doesn't move within 20 minutes, it is dead.

With the low RCS of Rafale and low altitude penetration capability, it might be able to penetrate some level of the system, but with weapons hanging outside it, no chance. But low altitude also means Rafale's sensor capability is limited to just a few tens of kilometers. Haven't you been reading this thread? The latest Russian radar can track a 1m2 object from 600 Km away.
Hahaha... I have some interesting reading about that...

"Su-34 encountered great difficulty in striking a difficult mountainous and forested terrain. Radar could not find the target in such conditions, and thermal and TV channels were limited field of view. Coped with the problem, but with great difficulty, "- said the soldier of the Southern Military District, familiar with the situation.

According to the source, the foundation aiming complex "thirty-four" - a high-tech radar W-141 was useless in such conditions. The crew could not find the picture, wretched reflection of the different objects on the ground, the desired goal, and the front-line bomber was forced down to find the object. Fortunately, there is no air defense fighters.

Лучший самолет несостоявшейся войны - ВПК.name
So much for Russian radar. :pound:

It only compounds the point Russia has horrible stand-off strike capability coupled with poor recon assets.

Already debunked above. So called "obsolete" models are also inducted along with assumed "advanced" models. Case in point, we will still buy R-27s.
No No! Already debunked above...

The only real advantage France has over Russia is the use of rockets on AASM and IIR seeker. Missiles, Russia wins hands down.
France has the advantage in every aspect of strike. The first and most important step to a successful strike is target ID. As demonstrated on the Su-34, its SAR radar was incapable of detecting targets through ground clutter. Russia has contracted with Thales to provide Domacles so they can have a decent targeting pod UMOZ has been unable to deliver. You want to spout non-sense of a Kh-31P guiding aircraft having superior capabilities over Rafale's Spectra suite to ID targets when there is nothing, and i mean NOTHING in the VVS that comes close. Not to mention AREOS is decades beyond Russian surveillance. France owns Russia on the digital battlefield.
 

Austin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
852
Likes
363
I believe I already posted this , RuAF program has been documented officially and was disclosed few months back both for Upgrades and New Program

The tabular columns covers program 2013-2020 and 2021 - 2025
http://www.aviaport.ru/news/2013/05/14/254804.html

Future plans for the Russian Air Force in aeronautical engineering 2025


As reported web portal AviaPort.Ru, Assistant Minister of Defense of Russia, former Russian Air Force Commander Alexander Zelin, May 14, 2013 Air Force announced long-term plans for new and upgraded types of aircraft for the period until 2025 (probably in the framework of developing the state armament program for the years 2016-2025). .


Moscow. May 14. Airports - Russian Air Force plan for the period up to 2025 to create several types of new aircraft, said Assistant Secretary of Defense Alexander Zelin said. According to him, in the interests of the army aviation research is needed to ensure that the concepts and technical aspect of prospective high-speed rotary-wing combat aircraft. Its creation is due to the need to increase the combat capabilities for commands in strategic areas, as well as in the Arctic zone. should also conduct studies to determine the quantity and quality of complexes with unmanned aerial vehicles large and medium-range missiles, integrating them into a promising Air Force weapons system. You also need to work on the opening of the creation of a dedicated reconnaissance aircraft in the interests of groups of forces in strategic areas A. Zelin added.

According to him, during the period 2021-2025 years, the Air Force planned to set up a promising attack aircraft and light multi-purpose front-line aircraft. It also provides work for creation and production of a series of special, transport, combat training and other purposes by aircraft. According to A. Zelin, today formed a good potential to improve the system of agents. In particular, it is planned to establish long-term and purchase of tanker aircraft, development and procurement of tactical aircraft of the future fighter T-50 fighter of the 4 + + Su-35 and MiG-35, a promising attack aircraft, amphibious medium transport helicopter, light and medium military transport aircraft and a number of others. Has launched a series of helicopters Mi-28N and Ka-52, Su-34, Yak-130, Mi-8 MTV-5, Mi-8AMTSh, is being modernized Tu-160, Tu-95 and Tu-22 and Su-25 , MiG-31, Il-78M. Physical purchased and modernized the Russian Air Force military equipment is presented in the table. Physical purchased and modernized military equipment
CCL - tanker, apparently meaning the Il-78M-90A on the basis of "476"
MARK - shchito it? and even a new and long-range aircraft .. can research Altius-M?
WABT - IL-214 aka the MTA
SMS SUS - based on the MS-21 that BSMS
The An-70 again twenty-five, the same sort of covered this almshouse officially
PRN - attack, that is probably Ulan Udi Sioux 25UBM new construction
"Hawk" is the A-90
"Link-3C" - if IL-80 was a "Link 2", then it must also be VzPU
"Forward-M" - Wurth helicopter based on the Mi-8 MTV
UGC TNG - Yak-152
LMTSV - light multipurpose helicopter (ANSAT no "I"?)
PSTDV - a promising medium amphibious transport helicopter (MI-383?)


Though most of that has to do with Transport and Special purpose aircraft .... but among fighter there is a new CAS for Su-25 replacement and LMFS which is a Light Fighter in Mig-29 Class.

I wont be surprised though if they dont develop a manned light fighter but go for the 20 T UCAV under development by UAC as light fighter/LMFS

Even Europe is skipping a generation and from 4+ Gen Fighter its moving to UCAV
 
Last edited:

Austin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
852
Likes
363
New Variant of PS-90A engine ,this would superceed the PS-90A/A1 and A2 . Should be a good replacement for our own IL-76 Engine or IL-76 based other platforms we have.

PS-90А3 turbofan ----> PS-90А3 turbofan
PS-90A3u, PS-90A3u1, PS-90A3u-76 turbofans ------> PS-90A3u, PS-90A3u1, PS-90A3u-76 turbofans


The more advanced PD-14 under development , either the PD-14M or PS-90A3u ...will power the Indo-Russian MTA ......its not yet decided though.

PD engine family with a thrust of 9-18 tons -------> PD engine family with a thrust of 9-18 tons
 

Austin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
852
Likes
363
deleted double post # # # # # # ########
 
Last edited:

Austin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
852
Likes
363
"Su-34 encountered great difficulty in striking a difficult mountainous and forested terrain. Radar could not find the target in such conditions, and thermal and TV channels were limited field of view. Coped with the problem, but with great difficulty, "- said the soldier of the Southern Military District, familiar with the situation.

According to the source, the foundation aiming complex "thirty-four" - a high-tech radar W-141 was useless in such conditions. The crew could not find the picture, wretched reflection of the different objects on the ground, the desired goal, and the front-line bomber was forced down to find the object. Fortunately, there is no air defense fighters.

Лучший самолет несостоявшейся войны - ВПК.name
Hmm quoting some random unnamed soldier as source and taking it at face value has its pit falls :)

Considering BARS PESA have done well in MKI an optimised Ground Mapping Radar of Su-34 which is PESA wont be too much of a challenge.

Russia does not disclose capabilities of systems that are not meant for export , so knowing about Su-34 radar or capabilities unless its for export will be hard to come by
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
We have a 6th gen bomber programme, it is called NEURON.
That's just a small stealth UCAV. It is not a 6th gen program. Heck even we have one. Russia is reported to have one. They had the old SKAT anyway.

We have heard the same old story for the last 13 years... where is the upgraded VVS? :rolleyes:
Read up on what gadeshi has been posting all along.

Tactical Missile Corp sells three versions of R-27... :taunt:
Yes, the seekers come from Russia.

Kind of hard when its max range is 30km head on... which is 20km from point A to B.
30 Km head on is plenty to call it BVR. MICA is 50 Km head on. It is slightly larger.

Do tell...
Yup, they call R-73 a BVR missile.

Why? Tactical Missile Corp has a nice synopsis on their product page.
So read that. Just pointing out that there are 6 versions of R-27. 3 of them are in the same class as MICA and 3 exceed that class.

That was two years ago... where is it today?
MRCA deal was 7 years ago. Where is it today? Give it time since IAF is negotiating the contract.

30km head on vs 70km head on at Mach 2.5 to our Mach 4... how is that similar?
Apples and oranges. MICA's speed and range reduce to 15-20 Km and mach 1.2 at sea level.

Russians of course, MICA has a shelf life of 25 years.
Exactly. It means for every one MICA purchased, the Russians and even Americans have to purchase at least 1.5 missiles to match the life. At the same time, Russian and American versions are upgraded within that 12 years for better range and maneuverability performance. That's why there are various range versions for both Aim-120 and R-77 while there is really only one version of MICA with range performance equal to early R-77 and Aim-120 builds.

Anyway, MICA air to air version has a 18-20 year shelf-life compared to MICA-VL.

Yes, they were invented in WWII and quite obsolete. It requires the aircraft to stay within LOS of the missile and a danger to the aircraft. The F&F weapons of today are far more accurate and safe with large stand-off ranges.
Regardless, they are still relevant. 4-7m CEP is greater than AASM's decametric (10m CEP) GPS guided versions.

The IR version comes with 1m CEP which dwarfs KAB accuracy and does it at far greater range with F&F capability. Russian strike weapons place its aircraft at high risk of interception.
Wrong. IIR version comes with 3m CEP. It is the LGB version that comes with 1m CEP.

I wouldn't disagree about range because AASM comes with a very expensive rocket booster. Regardless, Russian missiles are quite cheap while come with greater range and can carry a wide range of warheads.

Russia's sat guided KAB requires a low altitude drop below 15,000ft. Their LGB seekers are rudimentary and do not give stand-off ranges. Comparing Russian bombs to AASM is like comparing Nintendo to the PS4.
You are comparing 1980s versions with your post 2000s AASM. Tickles my funny bone.

Of course, IAF is not stupid.
It has more to do with the laws of economics than laws of physics. It makes no sense for IAF to integrate Russian weapons when even Israeli weapons are available with all the integration software all ready today. Don't tell me Rafale does not carry Paveways. Paveways are plenty for the job for low value targets and French AASMs for high value targets and with Russian missiles for SEAD.

Heck, AASM is expected to cost $250,000 each. One KH-31 costs just twice that and can shut down an entire SAM site from stand off ranges. Paveways cost $20,000.

Anything that has propulsion is a missile. You are the one talking about bombs.
Semantics. What range does AASM give, 15-50 Km depending on launch height. KH-31 comes with 100+ to 250 Km depending on launch height and even speed.

A rocket propelled grenade is not a missile.

I don't consider ARMs as strike weapons as they only engage one type of target, but if you want to call it such then touché.
That's the point. Without radar you can't fire missiles. Take out the radar and the SAM site keels over. For this mission, taking out that one target is plenty.

You may not consider ARMs as strike weapons, but please spare IAF, VVS and USAF from your gyan.

Google ARM and SEAD together.

Our equivalent of the Kh-55 is ASMP for that purpose, or SCALP Naval for the cruise type. We make strike missiles over Mach 3 and cruise missiles over 1000km range and both are more accurate.
KH-55 comes in multiple version with ranges of 150 Km to 3000 Km. Nope. SCALP is not an equivalent. 30 or 60 minutes flight time don't give the aircraft any capability against radar systems which can pack up in 5-10 minutes.

ASMP is something else. KH-55 is not an equivalent. Brahmos and KH-31 are better equivalents. But ASMP is very expensive and earmarked for nuke delivery. So it is pointless to compare as far as roles are concerned.

It says Russian industry reveals, but it is Russia seeking a deal with Dassault. Russia is free to seek as much as it wants. Dassault won't even bother to comment on it.
Regardless, it is IAF who want this system. Russian industry reveals because it is their product. Duh. Russia has to sign a deal with France for the integration to happen. What do you think India will do when Rafale belongs to France and KH-31 to Russia?

When Catherines were added on T-90s, the deal happened between France and Russia. India isn't part of that negotiation process.

Uh... who said anything about moving targets? It is a strike weapon. If an S-400 battery is in the process of being moved after launch it is a tactical error by their operator. It takes more than 20 minutes to tear down its radar mast anyways. If they did that, an ARM wouldn't have a chance of hitting it if it isn't transmitting.
Lol. Once a radar is picked up, the KH-31 has guaranteed information that it should simply keep going. The radar does not have to keep transmitting for KH-31 to continue its course.

It doesn't take 20 minutes for any S-400 radar system. The advertised time is 5 minutes for deployment and pack up. That's why KH-31 finishes its entire journey in 3.

Google HARM and ALARM and figure out why they have supersonic speeds.

Yeah, sure it is. US Navy says it is less than AASM range. :laugh:
Apples to oranges. US was sold a downgraded 50 Km version of the missile, not the ARM version. Barely 10-15 Km at sea level. Remember MICA's range? Is is the same thing here. Missiles will deliver lesser performance at sea level.

IAF has 110+ Km version and latest export version is 250 Km.

Tactical Missiles Corporation JSC

SCALP is stealth cruise missile with 1m CEP. If the target doesn't move within 20 minutes, it is dead.
SCALP's RCS doesn't matter. The radar is packing up, remember? The target personnel have to be complete idiots if they stay there beyond 15 minutes after having packed their radar in 5.

SCALP is too slow anyway. The secondary and tertiary ground defense systems will take it out before it even closes in to the SAM site. Sorry, you need a high-supersonic missile for the job.

Hahaha... I have some interesting reading about that...

So much for Russian radar. :pound:
It is called physics. Even your thermal guided missiles will be useless in these conditions.

Anyway, that's not reliable information when the source is not named. Even if it were, it does not take away the fact that this issue does not affect us in our MKIs.

It only compounds the point Russia has horrible stand-off strike capability coupled with poor recon assets.
Google their recon capability.

No No! Already debunked above...
So, are you saying IAF is not buying R-27s? You have a funny definition for debunked.

France has the advantage in every aspect of strike. The first and most important step to a successful strike is target ID. As demonstrated on the Su-34, its SAR radar was incapable of detecting targets through ground clutter.
There is nothing called W-141 on Su-34. So, there goes your claim.

Russia has contracted with Thales to provide Domacles so they can have a decent targeting pod UMOZ has been unable to deliver.
The Russians are smart. They simply bought existing technology for their current aircraft in a competitive tender and are bettering the capability on PAKFA by placing pods and ground strike radars internally instead of carrying pods.

Heck even the Americans license produce Israeli pods. Big deal. Let the kids deliver the small stuff.

You want to spout non-sense of a Kh-31P guiding aircraft having superior capabilities over Rafale's Spectra suite to ID targets when there is nothing, and i mean NOTHING in the VVS that comes close. Not to mention AREOS is decades beyond Russian surveillance. France owns Russia on the digital battlefield.
Don't get carried away by the hype. Spectra is simply a self-protection system. What you need for SEAD is Growler like capability from multiple aircraft if you want to beat multiple double digit SAM sites. Google SAP-14 and see what in France comes close to it.

Spectra is great and all, but it is just an escort jammer. What you really need are standoff jammers and that's what was missing during Libya and Mali. Remember the Americans said they will have to provide Growlers for the strike missions, but the French waived it off saying it is not required. The real fact is France wasn't facing double digit SAMs. So, standoff capability wasn't really required against 1970 systems. Rafales could close-in on SAM sites without major issues and release AASMs. Gambit also pointed out the same thing. Spectra only refines the signal emissions using AESA, basically it does what every other internal jammer in the world does. The only thing special about it is that it is newer and was developed in the void when Russia and US had older but potent already developed systems. Now, both US and Russia have started developing newer systems under new large projects while France can do nothing but upgrade older systems.

So, come back once you have a SAP-14 or greater.

In India's case Rafale strike missions will be backed by MKIs in standoff jamming roles, so it is a good thing for us. So a Rafale with KH-31 and its low altitude performance, low RCS advantage and MKI with SAP-14 with its high altitude performance and large radar is a major SEAD capability to have. Who's complaining here, except you?
 

gadeshi

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
9,223
Likes
6,634
@p2prada:
SKAT is dead.
Tere is Sukhoi Okhotnik-B (Hunter-B) heavy (20 tons) UCAV program in development now.
And MiG Okhotnik-A UAV (surveyer) which is twice lighter (however, there are almost no info about Okhotnik-A program except for the rumors of different creadability).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
@p2prada:
SKAT is dead.
Tere is Sukhoi Okhotnik-B (Hunter-B) heavy (20 tons) UCAV program in development now.
And MiG Okhotnik-A UAV (surveyer) which is twice lighter (however, there are almost no info about Okhotnik-A program except for the rumors of different creadability).
I know gadeshi.

That's why I said:
They had the old SKAT anyway.
Past tense. I was just pointing out that a demonstrator project was already done in Russia.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Austin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
852
Likes
363
According to MOD Russian Airforce till 2020 has total budget allocation of $140 Billion and within that CAPEX ( Aircraft and Equipment ) procurement of $ 111 Billion

With the prospect of a half-century ahead
On the basis of Federal State Unitary Enterprise "Central Aero-Hydrodynamic Institute named after professor NE Zhukovsky, "Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov held a working meeting on the establishment of aviation equipment and armament of the new generation.

As is known, in accordance with the state armament program for the period up to 2020 to be a radical renewal of the Air Force.- The main priorities here is the creation of aviation equipment and armament of the new generation - said the deputy minister of defense. - Their distinctive features have become supersonic flight speed, high maneuverability and long range, a large weapons load, low visibility, the opportunity for effective action to defeat air targets as well as for all-day and all-weather ground attack objects with the use of precision weapons.

The deputy minister said that for these purposes will be allocated about $ 4.5 trillion rubles ( $140 billion ), or nearly a quarter of the funding of the program of weapons. 85 percent of the funds ( $111 Billion ) planned to direct the purchase of modern aircraft and equipment (ATV), which will by 2020 to increase the share of modern technology in the fleet of the Armed Forces of up to 70 percent. It is the task set by the President of Russia.

General Command of the Air Force and enterprises Industry and Trade Ministry as part of the LG-2020 performed a set of measures aimed at ensuring the effective development and maintenance of aircraft and weapons systems the Air Force, stated Yuri Borisov. He stressed that the Defense Ministry is doing everything to create for the defense industry enterprises comfortable in fulfilling orders. This is facilitated by the implementation of serial deliveries of aircraft on long-term contracts with maturities of 3 to 5 years, the development of projects on a state contract for the complete life cycle of individual samples ATV, increased load defense industry orders up to a maximum of Defense and the substantial funds for the development of their technological and production bases.

For the effective development of the Air Armament today "the need for error-free, rational and coordinated decisions with long-term planning that will enable our Air Force to successfully solve tasks assigned to them in at least a half-century term," said Yuri Borisov. And above all it is necessary to form a legal framework of pricing, allowing to conduct reasonable pricing industry and ensure the transparency of its understanding of the customer weapons, military and special equipment. Required as soon as possible to improve the methodological basis of price forecast ATV for a long term study of prices and methods for R & D to develop advanced models and systems of aircraft and weapons. In addition, according to Yuri Borisov, required to ensure the development of critical and basic industrial technology, allowing time to create advanced models ATV with specified performance characteristics superior to foreign counterparts, to work out a set of measures to unify and standardize the elements of combat aircraft, to determine the facial features are not only rational ATV and weapons, but also the basic systems and complexes, the arrangements for implementation in the practical sphere of modern methods of information support, modeling and lifecycle models ATV.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top