Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RuAF News and development Thread part 15

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 8 (0 members and 8 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Berkut
    Senior Member
    • Nov 2011
    • 2216

    I was hoping Status-6 was just "We can make this - but dont make us" type of weapon. With the news of testing from several sources, modifications to the subs and the official confirmation of its existence, it is clear they are very serious about it.

    I find it absolutely, utterly, insane that in almost 3 decades since Cold War practically nothing has changed on the nuclear front. Sure, there are less weapons in terms of numbers, but there are still enough to completely annihilate the world many times over. Nothing has changed in terms of requirements for a nuclear war to break out, it is still as flimsy and simple as it has always been. Nothing has been learned by the close calls during cold war either. We should be moving towards a nuclear free world, not running towards more of them with a larger number of options to deliver them in and in case of Status-6, extremely damaging ones. Just makes me depressed man. But what do i know, i am just a goddamn hippie living in Norway.

    Comment

    • Alpha Bravo
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Mar 2012
      • 625

      Interesting, that ASM from the MiG-31 seems similar in concept to the Chinese CM-400AKG, not to mention similar overall design, but maybe slightly larger.

      Comment

      • paralay
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Aug 2005
        • 1418

        Click image for larger version

Name:	592.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	184.8 KB
ID:	3679216 Click image for larger version

Name:	dc8d2aa9aeb1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	26.6 KB
ID:	3679217
        Last edited by paralay; 1st March 2018, 19:07.

        Comment

        • haavarla
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Dec 2008
          • 6715

          That thing looks identical to Iskander-M, does it not?
          In my mind, if Mig-31 are indeed intended to carry those things, why not reshape the hull just a tad, and make them semi-recessed.. It would make a world of difference in terms of drag coifficent.
          Thanks

          Comment

          • haavarla
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Dec 2008
            • 6715

            I was hoping Status-6 was just "We can make this - but dont make us" type of weapon. With the news of testing from several sources, modifications to the subs and the official confirmation of its existence, it is clear they are very serious about it.

            I find it absolutely, utterly, insane that in almost 3 decades since Cold War practically nothing has changed on the nuclear front. Sure, there are less weapons in terms of numbers, but there are still enough to completely annihilate the world many times over. Nothing has changed in terms of requirements for a nuclear war to break out, it is still as flimsy and simple as it has always been. Nothing has been learned by the close calls during cold war either. We should be moving towards a nuclear free world, not running towards more of them with a larger number of options to deliver them in and in case of Status-6, extremely damaging ones. Just makes me depressed man. But what do i know, i am just a goddamn hippie living in Norway.
            I agree with the NC should be less not more.
            But the truth is that this road was carved out by US a long time ago with their Missile AEGIS and Navy Missile shield around Russia, and more recent the totally braindead European missile shield..

            Its like, - Yeah, lets totally try and contain the largest country on Earth with its largest NC stockpile and the most prominent rocket platform tech.. cause that would totally work..
            Last edited by haavarla; 1st March 2018, 19:55.
            Thanks

            Comment

            • FBW
              FBW
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Dec 2011
              • 3294

              God your either dense or brainwashed.

              Neither system can intercept ICBMs from Russia. Been down this road before. This is Putin firing up the base for the election.

              And even IF any of those systems were even marginally effective against Russian ICBM, there is the question of sheer numbers. You think any of these theater missiles defense systems have a 100% intercept rate?

              Its like god - lets ignore reality and buy into this saber rattling thats been going on (from both sides), its only nuclear weapons.

              Comment

              • nkvd
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Sep 2013
                • 227

                from reuters;
                In Moscow, the Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, said Russian defense experts consider the site a threat.


                “We still view the destructive actions of the United States and its allies in the area of missile defense as a direct threat to global and regional security,” Ms. Zakharova said.

                She said that the Aegis Ashore launchpad was “practically identical” to a system used aboard Aegis warships that is capable of launching Tomahawk cruise missile

                While the United States says it has no Tomahawk missiles at the site in Romania, Russian officials say the launchpad violates a 1987 treaty intended to take the superpowers off their hair-trigger nuclear alert, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, by banning land-based cruise and medium-range missiles with a range from 300 to 3,400 miles.

                The short flight time of these missiles diminished to mere minutes the window Soviet leaders would have had after a warning to decide whether to launch a second strike, raising the risks of mishaps. Any redeployment of nuclear-capable missiles in Central Europe would roll the clock back to this nerve-racking 1980s status quo.
                Douglas Lute, the United States’ envoy to NATO, said NATO would press ahead with NATO’s biggest modernization since the Cold War. “We are deploying at sea, on the ground and in the air across the eastern flanks of the alliance ... to deter any aggressor,” Lute said. (he is talking about MDS and so how is RF supposed to react)

                Comment

                • nkvd
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Sep 2013
                  • 227

                  take note of the "practically indentical" statement

                  Comment

                  • FBW
                    FBW
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Dec 2011
                    • 3294

                    Just wow..... anyone else see an issue with this claim about nuclear tomahawk first strike weapons? Who are they trying to convince with this obvious B.S.?

                    Who would have thought MK.41 vls systems would be virtually identical?
                    Last edited by FBW; 1st March 2018, 21:19.

                    Comment

                    • nkvd
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Sep 2013
                      • 227

                      Poland and Romania are more than willing to host US offensive or denfensive platforms with the US showing little regard for RF concerns.who knows what the future holds for these bases and this is what worries some Russian planners

                      Comment

                      • haavarla
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Dec 2008
                        • 6715

                        FBW@
                        God you are slow.. Who in the Jesus and Holy father said any launch pads from ashore tommahawk would be armed with Tactical Nukes for a first Strike. Its an OPTION that US is pushing on Russia. Its about oversaturate WITH coherence of AEGIS tommahawk capabilitis.
                        Your comments is just as stupid as ANY other deployment of offensive and defensive systems.
                        Yeah its the exact Same as Russia deploy a S-400 regiment on Cuba, ISKANDER-M Teals, but short of the missiles that follow. Then invent those idiotic Iran Threats. Exactly the Same.
                        And incase you still don'T get this, its not a question of what US want everyone to think about the missile shields. Its about what they really think. You know, my thoughts are my own.

                        Pentagons information war just failed big time on me.. oh well.
                        Last edited by haavarla; 2nd March 2018, 05:26.
                        Thanks

                        Comment

                        • FBW
                          FBW
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Dec 2011
                          • 3294

                          Well at least you proved you dont read the posts, you just default to Yay Russia

                          Look at NKVDs post, see the phrase second strike regarding Russia?

                          If your thinking for yourself, I hope you have someone else living with you. What is the number for social services where you live? Hate to see you go without supervision.

                          Let me connect the dots for you:
                          No TLAM-N in service, no easy way to convert current ones to nuclear capable.
                          No reason to put a couple of conventional tomahawks at a BMD site.
                          No violation of intermediate range treaty because there are no tomahawks there.
                          Referring to former concerns about strike warnings and second strike.

                          Dont you get how propaganda works? Fear mongering a specter of nuclear capable cruise missiles in Romania. Notice how the article never mentions that there arent any nuclear capable tomahawks?
                          Last edited by FBW; 1st March 2018, 22:26.

                          Comment

                          • MSphere
                            Senior Member
                            • Feb 2010
                            • 8983

                            Originally posted by Berkut View Post
                            We should be moving towards a nuclear free world, not running towards more of them with a larger number of options to deliver them in and in case of Status-6, extremely damaging ones. Just makes me depressed man.
                            I think a nuclear-free world would be far more dangerous because there would always be someone who would want to misuse the nuclear technology to gain the upper hand.. the most stable situation is nuclear balance..

                            Comment

                            • nkvd
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Sep 2013
                              • 227

                              dont you get how an inch ends up being a mile?

                              Comment

                              • nkvd
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Sep 2013
                                • 227

                                Israel blah blah blah.i am out

                                Comment

                                • stealthflanker
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Sep 2015
                                  • 1026

                                  US still pursuing GBSD anyway to replace their aging Minuteman. and there is nothing wrong with more means for nuclear delivery. Bypassing NMD and ensure deterrence value.

                                  anyway i heard Putin stated "nuclear powered cruise missile" Well. This really reminds me of project pluto. Design wise it would be very dirty as the reactor would be unshielded (likely) and work at very high temperature.

                                  Comment

                                  • TR1
                                    TR1
                                    http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
                                    • Oct 2010
                                    • 9826

                                    FBW:

                                    This is Putin firing up the base for the “election”.
                                    I don't think so. Do you think the Russian electorate much cares or knows WTF Status-6 is? Do you think they closely follow American Nuclear Posture Reviews and how it relates to Russian forces? If the goal was just appearing strong, it would make imminently more sense in just parading something existing and over-inflating its capabilities. No need to commit to a new program (at worst) or not-subtle-messages to the US (at best) of a fundamentally destabilizing nature. These steps potentially have an actual cost in Russia to its international standing and negotiating capability, while having a rebadged Topol or Kalibr or Iskander to show off to public, woud not. Tanks, ballistic missiles, new planes on Red Square, that is all inline with a strong-leader image. Not this.



                                    Unconventional deterrence measures like shown recently are clearly a message to the US that Russia takes threats to its deterrence as very worrying.

                                    And even IF any of those systems were even marginally effective against Russian ICBM, there is the question of sheer numbers. You think any of these theater missiles defense systems have a 100% intercept rate?
                                    Right so, the issue here is the fundamental lack of trust. All Russia has to go on that the US won't base Tomahawks in Mk41 silos is "they promised not to". They can't even tour them. All it has to go off that there won't be more in the future, that ABM interceptors will not be replaced by improved variants, that Russia's second strike capability will not be potentially threatened, is a promise not to. Again, trust for a nation that unilaterally pulled out of the ABM treaty, steadily grown its huge military alliance to Russia's borders* and makes liberal use of its overwhelmingly powerful conventional forces across the globe.

                                    note, I think it is entirely in Eastern European countries right to join NATO, but again, that doesn't mean Russia has to ignore the strategic impact.
                                    Not saying Russia has been a saint globally itself, but you had to REALLY cover your eyes and ears up to not see the signals they are sending.
                                    Last edited by TR1; 2nd March 2018, 07:37.
                                    sigpic

                                    Comment

                                    • TR1
                                      TR1
                                      http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
                                      • Oct 2010
                                      • 9826

                                      Interesting, that ASM from the MiG-31 seems similar in concept to the Chinese CM-400AKG, not to mention similar overall design, but maybe slightly larger.
                                      CM-400AKG just looks like a smaller, conventional Kh-15 or similar simple aeroballistic rocket missiles.

                                      I would expect a new Russian Hypersonic AShM to be a little more interesting.

                                      Just makes me depressed man. But what do i know, i am just a goddamn hippie living in Norway.
                                      True, but let's not forget the shiny toys we masterbate over on this forum have killed far more civies than nukes have in the past 70 years.
                                      Last edited by TR1; 2nd March 2018, 07:56.
                                      sigpic

                                      Comment

                                      • Austin
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Oct 2003
                                        • 6506

                                        The weapons presented in Putins speech are technology destabiliser which wont be deployed in large number the standard weapon will still be the Topol-M ,Bulava, RS-26 etc that forms the core of nuclear capability and even without the weapons he mentioned that is more than enough to destroy the world and then some.

                                        It is obvious the withdrawl from ABM treaty will eventually cause an arms race with exponontial growth of ABM system it would eventually cause offensive systems to be developed by Russia China India etc to offset the ABM its a chain reaction , ABM treaty was the corestone of strategic stability else the US and SU would be building Nuclear Weapons in thousands to offset each other and their ABM systems which infact they did till they had ABM treaty in place and then others like START
                                        "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

                                        Comment

                                        • Alpha Bravo
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Mar 2012
                                          • 625

                                          CM-400AKG just looks like a smaller, conventional Kh-15 or similar simple aeroballistic rocket missiles.
                                          According to reported sources, the CM-400AKG is somewhat more sophisticated than a "simple aeroballistic rocket missiles", including mid-course updates and multiple seeker head options, including imaging IR.

                                          http://www.asian-defence.net/2012/11...or-jf-17.html/

                                          It is a fire-and-forget precision-guided weapon that can be fitted with several seeker options, which are understood to include an active radar seeker and an imaging infrared seeker with target-recognition (TR) capabilities. PAF sources say the missile can be pre-programmed with digital imagery for highly precise attacks against fixed sites in TR mode, but it can also be retargeted in flight by using the radar seeker option.
                                          The missile flight profile shown in the video clip with the MiG-31 suggests similar capabilities - the option of a lofted ballistic trajectory supplemented with mid-course guidance and perhaps target identification by imaging IR.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X