The dark side of Humanity is weapon and wars, but who says the war is worse than humiliation?
I really like the Tigr GAZ-2975 armored vehicle ,I saw there was another vehicle T-98 Kombat which is armored as well and of same class.So what is the difference between the two ? And which of them is the better one ?
BPM-97 Vystrel is of more heavy class, than Tigr. Is defended against 12.7 mm. Also up to 30 mm autocannon can be installed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIusqUtCZ_0
No I mean difference between Tigr and T-98 Kombathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-98_Kombat
Hi Igorr. Nice video:). What is the maximum range of the Topol-M? And I heard it is the only missile that can change its course after re-entry.. Is it true? Also it seems the START treaty dosent concern the Topol series of missiles.. Is it correct? Sujith
to Austin:Oh, i though you have mistook. Anyway, T-98 Kombat - is a civilian car with bulk armor, no rumors about potentially use in army.
to sujith:the range of Topol-M is 11,000 km, with a new prospective maneuverable warhead it has broader area of reach after re-entry to atmosphere. However, it's in development. START treaty was expired, sure TOpol class was not forbidden by START.
Thanks Igorr. I was referring to the new START, the one being finalized as we speak. And how many MIRVs can it support? 10? 12?
By the way it was mentioned in Russia Today that in the new START the Topol class has no restrictions as the americans do not have similar missiles to mutually restrict these missiles. Regards
to sujith:Topol class platforms (TOpol, Topol-M, RS-24) can be equipped with up to 8 MIRVs, 200-250 Mt each. In reality it will be 3 + decoys on RS-24. No rational to put there more MIRVs coz more carriers mean more probability to overcome the AMD system. At the end it will be dependent of the new-coming START agreement - warheads and carriers limitations.As regards to current START negotiations, indeed the American side claimed transferring full information about Russian mobile complexes in real time. In answer Russians asked the similar about American nuclear submarines. Currently the question was dropped at all, if reports are right.
I was under the impression that the TOPOL was developed at a time when START II looked like it would be signed so it didn't have a model with more than one warhead as per the START II treaty.The TOPOL-M was developed after it was clear that START II was dead and the Moscow Treaty was signed which had no limits except for numbers of warheads for a specific date (something like 12 Dec 2012).The RS-24 was developed to make up numbers because Topols and Topol-Ms were single warhead and tri warhead missiles but the missiles being withdrawn were SS-18s and SS-19s with 10 and 6 warheads respectively so it was either greatly increase Topol production or develop a missile that could carry more MIRVs.The RS-24 is supposed to carry 8-10 warheads so that it can replace SS-18s and SS-19s on a one for one missile basis as those missiles retire....or am I way off?
to GarryB:Many things are dependent from the new-coming treaty framework. If, as claimed Russia, the number of carriers will be limited by 600-800, warheads by 1500-1700, and only minimal revers-potential allowed for two sides, there is no rational for putting 8 warheads on each Topol-class missile. It would be more rational to be with more carriers instead, to exhaust the carriers limits at the first hand. However, if the treaty allow a big revers- potential Russia will need to keep the option for quick upgrade one-warhead missiles with multiple MIRVs. In that case they probably will accelerate RS-24 production with 3 warheads and the possibility to carry 8 if needed. Since Russian economy doesn't allow luxury to keep hundreds of carriers in spare, they probably would prefer to keep the warheads there.
it would really be nice if only atleast 10 such topol with multiple nucelar warheads are targetted agasint england-but why restrict to 10 such topols -we shoudl have atleast 25 such topols with multiple nuclear warheads to smash england to smithness because that is the one country which plots and manipulates others to create trouble and mayehm the world over. the real enemy of russia and of humanity is england and all the scumbags anglosaxon pigs which came out of that wet cold miuserable country-let it be destroyed -it is high time .
hmm few things are certain about the START treaty although its yet to be signed , based on political statement at highest level1 ) Russia will continue developing new Missile but this will replace the existing type ( Topol/SS-19/18 ) but will not add to over all numbers.2 ) US will continue to develop its ABM systems , though it may not deploy it in places close to Russian borders3 ) The Topol-M and RS-24 does have a future and will replace the existing Topol and SS-19 , the SS-18 will be replaced by a new heavy liquid fuel ICBM4 ) Though RS-24 in theory is capable of carying 8 to 10 Warheads ( the yeald will vary for large number of warheads ) , but it only comes at the cost of decoys reducing its claimed anti-ABM capability ,three warhead with decoys seems to be the optimum combination and will remain so on deployed systemsBy and large the START agreement is more about how get the right numbers of warhead/carrier ( reduce it to keep anti-nuclear lobby happy in both states ) and maintain their supremacy over other nuclear powers
Hi Igor,Any idea how's the bulava slbm progressing ?And what is this Austin^^ just said about replacing SS-18 with a new heavy liquid propelled ICBM?
to anon March 15, 2010 8:43 PM:Bulava is a highly innovative missile, with very authentic build. The key technologies were taken from Topol, but not the overall design. It's much more short than Topol. Indeed it has started its tests directly from the submarine, without stand testing. So the number of failure tests hardly can surprise.The future heavy ICBM doesn't to be liquid. I rather expect a missile with solid propellant, based on Bark technology for example. Russia has got far along solid propellant technology since USSR dismissal. Considering better serviceability and less maintenance cost the missiles with solid propellant on unified technology most probably will be the backbone of Russian strategic forces after 2020.
Regarding the new missile:"Commander of the Russian Strategic Missile Force Nikolai Solovtsov said that in theory, this measure could help reduce the urgency of the problem and give Russia more time to develop the production of new ICBMs, including heavy missiles, to replace the Voevodas. If the new missile is developed, Russia will be all set - it will have RS-12M2 Topol-M, a light ICBM with one to three warheads; RS-24 Yars, a six-warhead medium missile, and, finally, a heavy ICBM, a potential successor to the Voevoda. "From: http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20081222/119122883.htmlI have read somewhere that the heavy missile to replace the SS-18 will be a liquid propellent rocket using storable liquids that can be stored in the missile for its lifetime (except when it needs to be moved, when it can be emptied of liquid fuel and pumped up with inert gas and transported far more easily.)One of the goals of its design is to make it a fully dual use rocket that can be used for launching satellites.A lot of money has been recovered using old stock SS-18s for launching satellites to destroy the missiles and the new missiles will be purpose designed to do the same or better.Despite the west loving solid fuelled heavy rockets they are not perfect.One of the Russian Akulas (Nato TYPHOON Class) was nicknamed Red October because an SS-N-20 loading accident where the missile broke open and burst into flames, burning the outer hull of the vessel leaving it red with rust where the sound protection material was burnt away.Thanks for the responses Igor.
All in all the new START seems to be favorable to russia.. Mostly because of the mobile platforms. By the way why don't the americans develop similar road mobile systems? Even the chinese have them(most probably with soviet help) and it is being developed in India.. Is it something to do with their doctrines or is it deemed unnecessary?
Liquid Gel fuel is one promising area , it can be stored in rocket as solid fuel and like liquid fuel it can be stopped and restarted in flight.Though its Isp is slightly higher than solid fuel but slightly lower than conventional liquid fuel
to sujith:US long time live/lived in 'preemptive strike' illusion. They believed, that the best way to inflict higher causalities to the enemy - is to strike first. They learned the Hitler end Zionists experience, but IMHO didn't interpret it right. First of all Hitler lost at the end, and Israel loss too in the long run, being single nuclear state, who was successfully attacked by non-nuclear forces (1973, 1991). So, can see, that 'preventive strike' is not a guarantee of security, since it attracts troubles more, than prevent.In case of US: let them strike Russian N-forces 'preventively' and they will lost a half of population during following Russian retaliative answer, which will include not only ICBM and SSBM missiles, but cruise missiles and even tactical N-weapon strikes via Alaska.However, the structure of US strategic forces was pointed for 'preemptive strike' purpose. By logic of such conception SSBNs are more effective, than ICBMs, since the former can approach to the coast and to strike with short flying time. They gave up their plan for building mobile MX missiles coz nobody really believed, that Russia will strike first. THey though, only the 'clever' Americans have enough guts and craziness to strike first. THey were right indeed :)
to Austin:The main problem of liquid and gel fuels - they make a missile to be sensitive to the hydro-kinetic strike. Then solid fueled missiles can withstand times more acceleration level, than their competitors. This feature is critically important in ABM era, when high-G maneuvers are needed for ABM system overcoming.
Igor-what ever may be the Russia doctiren of doing no preemptive strike but with enemies like nelgand and usa you cannot let enemies sleep peacefully. besides itis imperative for england to eb destroyed for rusia;s sake and for the sake of world because itis england which si the prime sopurce of all trouble for Russia and for the west european copuntries and the rest of the world-ofrocirse impotant english cnanot do anything except through sceming and using american arms and infleunce to harm others.england runs a [proxy war agasint the world.
Any speculation about what the PAK DA will look like?Personally I would prefer to see something subsonic, with some stealth but primarily designed for large capacity conventional loads.Perhaps going for enormous internal and external payload capacity.This means that in non WWIII type scenarios you can fill it up with lots of conventional weapons and have it loiter over the target area for long periods.In a WWIII scenario nuclear weapons are relatively light and the extra weight capacity could be used for internal and external fuel tanks to give truly strategic range.This would mean you can make the plane smaller and make it more flexible.It could also be used for other purposes including maritime patrol aircraft and even semi stealthy transport.Stealth is not critical for the PAK DA except as a first strike weapon.Even a Bear is adequate as a strategic bomber simply because when it arrives in a WWIII scenario the ICBMs and SLBMs have already landed several hours ago and there will be few operational enemy air defence systems operational.Add to that 5,000km standoff cruise missiles and the Bear is probably better than the Blackjack, especially with the Bears ability to carry external cruise missiles.I wonder if a supersonic flying wing is possible?Perhaps two flying wing stealthy designs, with one using fuel efficient modern turboprops and the other with turbofan or even turbojet engines for transonic or supersonic flight.Such a low drag design as a flying wing should be able to supercruise and with wing mounted radar like those L band AESAs but in the X band it could have all round ears and eyes.A Bear is much cheaper to maintain than a Blackjack, but for some purposes a Blackjack is much more capable.In other areas the Bear would work out better.The Irony is that most speculation on the PAK DA show pictures of the T-4M and T-4MS, designs that were rejected in favour of the Tu-160 design.Just speculation on my part but would be interested in the opinions of others.
to GarryB:about PAK DA, whatever I know:1) stealth features are obligate and confirmed by number of officially declarations.2) supercruise is already achieved on Tu-160 and is not something extra-ordinary in such a big dimension plane.3) engines - will be 4 engines - 5+ gen successors of 'index-117'.so the dimensions will be slightly smaller than BlackJack but with almost the same range.4) the changeable wing geometry + changeable level of engine bypass - for long term patroling, so the problem you said will be solved just by another way.
When I read changeable wing geometry I immediately thought of swing wings, but do you mean swing wings or do you mean adaptable wings.In the Su-33KUB development they designed the flight control system for the flanker to change the slats and the flaps to change the shape of the wing from high lift (high drag) to low lift low drag depending on the flight regime at the time to improve the performance of the wing.I read in an interview regarding the PAK DA that Tupolev were working on a, what they called fundamentally new design (for Russia) so perhaps some form of flying wing might be the result as an efficient low drag design with max internal capacity and good visual and radar stealth characteristics.Perhaps we might see a T-4MS sometime in the future.Whatever they manage I am looking forward to see the choices they make.Regarding the Tu-160 supercruising, I did not realise it was capable of this.I remember reading about a Yakovlev paper project of an enlarged Yak-141 with a more stealthy shape (a bit like a cross between an F-22 and a Yak-141 actually) but with the 25 ton thrust engine from Blackjack.I think they called it the Yak-43 or something.BTW any word on the new Assault Rifle being developed by Tula?Will it be related to the ADS, or something different?It would need to be something pretty revolutionary to warrant the cost of replacing the AK.
to GarryB:Have spoke with Tula's guys on an arm exhibition at autumn. The Army is very interested by ADS, they said. Besides - the details of issue are classified. I guess, they try to transform the special force weapon (ADS) into something suitable for common Army units. Will be tender between them and Izhevsk for sure for a new assault rifle for infantry. anyway, ADS is already on service in Marines SpecOp units.
Thanks for the info, the ADS looks like a very good rifle.The ability to fire special ammo underwater and also fire standard 5.45mm ammo make it fairly unique.Having a bullpup configuration with forward ejection of shells means it can be fired left or right handed too, which would be useful in combat so you only expose the minimum of your chest when shooting around cover.I thought this was quite interesting too:http://russiandefpolicy.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/vdv-chief-of-staffs-year-ender/
igorr! we dont find any of these SP howitzers,amphibians ,APC s etc with indian army! Are they too sophisticated to be sold to india?
Not only the US but the world is on a suicide course because the bloody fools in the Pentagon aim to achieve a disarming and unanswerable first strike capability, maybe "only" for diplomatic blackmail. Trident missile engineer Bob Aldridge -www.plrc.org-wrote me on the missiles in Bulgaria, Romania and Poland: "Whether they are on ships or land, they are still a necessary component for an unanswerable first strike." To take out the missiles surviving First Strike with Minuteman-3 and Trident-2. According to Bob Aldridge the US Navy can track and destroy all enemy submarines simultaneously. This leads to Launch On Warning, probably by 2014. Bloody evil in the Pentagon !As revealed by William Arkin in early 2002, "The Bush administration, in a secret policy review... [had] ordered the Pentagon to draft contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons [The 2001 Nuclear Posture Review approved by the Senate in late 2002] against at least seven countries, naming not only Russia and the "axis of evil"--Iraq, Iran, and North Korea--but also China, Libya and Syria. (See William Arkin, "Thinking the Unthinkable", Los Angeles Times, 9 March 2002) In addition, the U.S. Defense Department has been told to prepare for the possibility that nuclear weapons may be required in some future Arab-Israeli crisis. And, it is to develop plans for using nuclear weapons to retaliate against chemical or biological attacks, as well as "surprising military developments" of an unspecified nature. These and a host of other directives, including calls for developing bunker-busting mini-nukes and nuclear weapons that reduce collateral damage, are contained in a still-classified document called the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which was delivered to Congress on Jan. 8. (ibid)The preemptive nuclear doctrine (DJNO) --endorsed by the Obama Administration-- allows for the preemptive use of thermonuclear weapons in conventional war theaters directed against "rogue states". While the "guidelines" do not exclude other (more deadly) categories of nukes in the US /NATO nuclear arsenal, Pentagon "scenarios" in the Middle East and North Africa are currently limited to the use of tactical nuclear weapons including the B61-11 bunker buster bomb. The fact that Libya had been singled out by the Pentagon for a possible 1997 mini-nuke "trial run" was a significant element in the formulation of the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).===============================================================From-- 'US To Recoup Libya Oil From China'Interview with Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary of US Treasuryby Dr. Paul Craig Robertshttp://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24366
quote-"to sujith:the range of Topol-M is 11,000 km, "good.then it can attack england and nnihilate that parasite coungtry many times over because england si the main enemyu of russia and of the world usa is just stooge working for evil england.war it is the english race so called British who are instigating the perpetual war of course the English are too coward and weak to fight on their own so they have arranged a charade called NATO to do their dirty work.Decisions in nato are made not in berlin or Belgium but only in London and some british agents’ place in washington. NATO WAS CREATED TO KEEP THE INFLUNCE OF WEAKNED BRITISH BASTARDS TO KEEP EUROPEANS DOWN (ESPECIALLY GEMRNS AND FRENCH) AND KEEP RUSSIAN THREATEND. IT WAS NOT CREATED TO counter Russia; it was created to give support by americans to the British agenda of keeping the world for the e benefit of English and anglosaxon race and that only.
4th June, 2007. President putin is wrong when he says that russia should or will target the missile on europe if america goes with anti missile defence plan in Europe.Russia must target (rather than should) the nuclear missiles with multiple war heads against all the cities, towns and big villages( including military instalations) of england because this cold war -like the one before- is being started by england for the benefit of english race only-.it is race war between the english parasite race versus the rest of the world-the sooner the rest of the world realizes that better it is for the world.look how germany wes villified soon after fall of soviet union-look how russia is being vilified immediately after Putin made russia strong. look how american has been isntagated for perpetaul awar by the british bastards. Aritish spy naill faergussan and huntingtosn go to usa and preach hatred and racial inflammmatory speech telling americans that the time for religious and civilization war has come-why do these english bastards not figtht their war by thier own means rather than on shoulders of american arms?thse same biriths bastrds talking of religious(chrisitan and muslim ) war propagandasie hispanics, iriash , ger,ams , french as not in american chritisan groups. they also do not think those white europeans to be thier kind wich desreves to be ion america-such is the evil propaganda of britihs spies inside america. .poland is nothing but a proxy for the british bastards.itis no use targetting poland -target the main villain which is england and the english race which m ust be aniihilated fromt the face of the world.=============================================================28th april,2007.The foreign policy sections of Putin's Message were relatively brief, but pointed. They continued what he began Feb. 10 in his speech to the Munich "Wehrkunde" Conference on Security. Putin zeroed in on the types of programs that go by the name of Project Democracy (since the founding of the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy, in the 1980s):"There are those who, making clever use of pseudodemocratic phraseology, would like to bring back the recent past: some, in order to be able to loot our national wealth with impunity, as in the past, to rob the people and the state; others, to strip our country of its economic and political independence. In addition, there is a growing influx of foreign money, used for direct interference in our internal affairs. If we look to more distant times in the past, we see that during the hey-day of colonialism, there was talk about an alleged civilizing role of the colonizing states. Today, 'democraticizing' slogans are used. But the goal is the same: to achieve unilateral advantage for one's own benefit and interests."