It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russian General reports on schedule delivery of T-95 tank and project 955 sub.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   
RIA news reports;

Russian Army General Nikolai Makarov, the director of procurement department of Russian Armed Force announced that in 2009 Russian Army is to receive a new tank which is substantially more advanced then existing models.

Makarov clarified that the new model is the next generation tank with “absolutely new hull, drive train, power plant, fire control system, armament, targeting system and surveillance equipment.” Currently test are being conducted which will be completed in 2008.

Most likely Makarov is referring to T-95 developed by “Uralvagonzavov” design bureau in Nizhni Tagil. Earlier it was reported that T-95 demonstrations were planned for the beginning of next decade. Currently Russian Army fields T-90s, modernized T-72s and T-80s.

Additionally, Makarov announced that project 955 “Yuri Dolgoruki” which is armed with the latest ICBMs “Bulava” will join the ranks of Russian nuclear strategic forces in 2008.

Sources;

www.lenta.ru...

Previous announcements about T-95s development;

www.tanksim.com...

Video clip a T-95 on a transport;

www.defencetalk.com...


Video of the Project 955;

news.ntv.ru...




posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 09:17 AM
link   
I wonder what its going to replace....

I would say the T72 myself but then wasnt the T90 ment for that so maybe the T80 still?



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha
I wonder what its going to replace....

I would say the T72 myself but then wasnt the T90 ment for that so maybe the T80 still?


The T-90 replaces the T-72.

The T-95 the T-80???



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Arent they still making new T72 variants?



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by iskander
 


With all the test failures of bulava, I am highly skeptical that bulava will be ready for service in 2008. This past November, bulava failed again. As security tightens around the project, questions only mount. Is the bulava a repeat of the r-39m? Seems so.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by KINGTIGER10
 


Russians are simply testing the crap out of it,

The difference is that during Soviet era the iron curtain did not allow failures to seep into main-stream western media.

Soviets/Russians traditionally tested and still test the snot out of everything they put into production, and to them a string of failures is just the learning curve.

So far the score on Bulava is 5 successful verses 4 failed launches.

Either way it’s still stuck in testing, so unless they get have a series of successful launches I too have to doubt that they’ll be done with it by 2008, but in any case, they will have it down by 2009.

Otherwise more heads will simply roll. Anyways, historically Russians seem to make early leaps and bounds, then stagnate and procrastinate up until it is absolutely necessary, and only then they bust it out with sparks flying.

I’m betting that by 3rd quarter of 08 Bulava will be in there.

russianforces.org...



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by iskander
 



Russians are simply testing the crap out of it


I do not recall any ground tests. They went straight to submarine based launches.



The difference is that during Soviet era the iron curtain did not allow failures to seep into main-stream western media.


The russians are still tight lipped about failures. The iron curtain never fully fell.


So far the score on Bulava is 5 successful verses 4 failed launches.


Please read your source carefully. The first two tests where pop-up tests and the first was just a mock-up of the real missile. Two other tests where questionable.



Anyways, historically Russians seem to make early leaps and bounds, then stagnate and procrastinate up until it is absolutely necessary, and only then they bust it out with sparks flying


The bulava is very similar to the trident c-4. I do not see any leaps or bounds. Then again, russians have been lagging in solid propellant slbms. So this missile is state of the art for the russians.

Mod Edit: Quoting Etiquette – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 12-1-2008 by sanctum]

[edit on 12-1-2008 by sanctum]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 03:48 AM
link   
The T72 and T80 were the `cheap` and the `advanced` tanks- the T80 has a turbine etc - but it is alot more expensive than the T72 - now the T90 is replacing the T72 - but the T95 is a new design - crewless turret for a low profile with adanced K5 ERA and arena with laser offence system is darn good tbh


hmmm project 955 looks like a `new` delta IMO , still nice to see there building boomers again - gimme a typhoon though they are awesome pieces of kit


also want to mention serial production of the SU-34 `Fullback`

www.defenseindustrydaily.com...

another lovely plane

[edit on 12/1/08 by Harlequin]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by KINGTIGER10
reply to post by iskander
 



The bulava is very similar to the trident c-4. I do not see any leaps or bounds.


Nope, Bulava is a modified Topol-M, which is an effort to standardize the manufacturing process.

941 Typhoons were scrapped because it was such a massive, multi-state project, and among other major issue Russians could not replenish the RSM-52s which were specifically designed for the 941.

52 was designed by Makeyev Design Bureau which was created to specifically design SLBMs and up until now was the sole bureau that designed all of Soviet SLBMs, but as usual Soviet design bureaus have nothing to do with the manufacture of the item.

For security reasons manufacturing was usually spread out through out the country with a final assembly plant.

Bulavas launching problems are to be expected, because initially it was designed as a “dry” missile, and now it has to be converted into SLBM.

Heck, RSM-52 development in 1971 and it was put into production in 1983, so Bulavas schedule is outstanding in comparison.


Then again, russians have been lagging in solid propellant slbms.


How do you figure that? Let me know, because I judge Russian sp by the payload capacity they have been enjoying for decades.


So this missile is state of the art for the russians.


Topol-M is state of the art, and as per Western military analysts, not only for the Russians, but state of the art period.


Russian defense officials have disclosed that the bulk of the supplemental funds will be used to acquire three additional mobile, state of the art Topol-M ICBM launchers, which will be deployed in the Central Russian Vladimir region, as well as four silo-based Topol-Ms and at least one Mk 955 Borei-class nuclear ballistic missile submarine.


www.afpc.org...

So naturally a Bulava version of Topol-M will be a slightly smaller brother of the Topol-M.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by iskander
 





Nope, Bulava is a modified Topol-M, which is an effort to standardize the manufacturing process


Thank you captain obvious. The dimensions , payload, weight, etc. are nearly identical to the trident c-4, with the edge going to the trident.

russianforces.org...



How do you figure that? Let me know, because I judge Russian sp by the payload capacity they have been enjoying for decades


Topol M: payload: 1000-1200kg Weight: 47.2 tonnes year: 1997
Minuteman III: payload 1150kg Weight: 36 tonnes Year: 1970

Bulava: payload 1150-1200kg Weight: 36.7 tonnes Year: 2009??
Tridedent C-4: payload: 1500kg Weight: 33.142 tonnes Year: 1979


Trident d-5: Payload 2800 kg Weight: 58.5 tonnes YEar: 1989
RSM-52: Payload 2550 kg Weight: 90 tonnes Year: 1983

Quite clearly, russians are behind in payload capacity




Topol-M is state of the art, and as per Western military analysts, not only for the Russians, but state of the art period


Topol-m is nearly identical to the minuteman III




The single-warhead RT-2UTTH Topol-M is an advanced version of the silo-based and mobile Topol intercontinental ballistic missile. While the SS-25 Topol is generally similar to the American Minuteman-2, the more sophisticated SS-27 Topol-M is comparable to the American Minuteman-3. The Topol-M is 22.7 meters (75 feet) long and has a diameter of 1.95 meters (6 feet 3 inches). The missile weighs 47.2 metric tons and has a range of 11,000 kilometers (6,900 miles).



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by KINGTIGER10
reply to post by iskander
 





Nope, Bulava is a modified Topol-M, which is an effort to standardize the manufacturing process


Thank you captain obvious. The dimensions , payload, weight, etc. are nearly identical to the trident c-4, with the edge going to the trident.

russianforces.org...



How do you figure that? Let me know, because I judge Russian sp by the payload capacity they have been enjoying for decades


Topol M: payload: 1000-1200kg Weight: 47.2 tonnes year: 1997
Minuteman III: payload 1150kg Weight: 36 tonnes Year: 1970

Bulava: payload 1150-1200kg Weight: 36.7 tonnes Year: 2009??
Tridedent C-4: payload: 1500kg Weight: 33.142 tonnes Year: 1979


Trident d-5: Payload 2800 kg Weight: 58.5 tonnes YEar: 1989
RSM-52: Payload 2550 kg Weight: 90 tonnes Year: 1983

Quite clearly, russians are behind in payload capacity




Topol-M is state of the art, and as per Western military analysts, not only for the Russians, but state of the art period


Topol-m is nearly identical to the minuteman III




The single-warhead RT-2UTTH Topol-M is an advanced version of the silo-based and mobile Topol intercontinental ballistic missile. While the SS-25 Topol is generally similar to the American Minuteman-2, the more sophisticated SS-27 Topol-M is comparable to the American Minuteman-3. The Topol-M is 22.7 meters (75 feet) long and has a diameter of 1.95 meters (6 feet 3 inches). The missile weighs 47.2 metric tons and has a range of 11,000 kilometers (6,900 miles).





Look at the SS-18/19/20/24/25 They have bigger payloads yields, and Range that the C-4, Minuteman 2/3, Trident d-5 and most of them have solid propelants



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by KINGTIGER10
 



Thank you captain obvious. The dimensions , payload, weight, etc. are nearly identical to the trident c-4, with the edge going to the trident.


KINGTIGER10, you are aware that current generation ICBMs perform evasive/deceptive maneuvers while still in atmosphere and upon re-entry, right?

Remember the whole “we got Star Wars” vs. “we got missiles that maneuver and breach your star wars” thing?

Throwing stuff up into the orbit is no longer a big deal, just look into commercial satellite delivery.

Topol-M is not just a taxi-cab for the warheads; it’s a bird that’s designed to breach multiple layers of defensive systems, that includes maneuvering hypersonic warheads.

Comparing numbers like you do is like attempting comparing a MOPAR dragster to a Ferrari, and while both might have the same time at the finish line, it’s the Ferrari’s that cuts into the corners.

If you think that ICBM technology is still in the generation of mere payload capacity, you’re way behind. Those birds have been doing tricks in the air for decades now, and it’s the one that has the best dance (maneuverability) that delivers its payload to the target.

Look into that, things get interesting there, especially with instant air braking which develops a thermodynamic shield which in turn dissipates infrared chem laser radiation.

Stuff like that.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   


Look at the SS-18/19/20/24/25 They have bigger payloads yields, and Range that the C-4, Minuteman 2/3, Trident d-5 and most of them have solid propelants


Perhaps YOU should look at them. SS-25 is a 45 tonne missile with a mere 1000kg payload. No solid propellant russian icbms have even close to the payload capacity of U.S. icbms when adjusted for weight.





KINGTIGER10, you are aware that current generation ICBMs perform evasive/deceptive maneuvers while still in atmosphere and upon re-entry, right?


What happened to:

""How do you figure that? Let me know, because I judge Russian sp by the payload capacity they have been enjoying for decades.""

Changing the topic to avoid looking stupid?



Topol-M is not just a taxi-cab for the warheads; it’s a bird that’s designed to breach multiple layers of defensive systems, that includes maneuvering hypersonic warheads.


Yet, the D-5 can carry 7 marv warheads to intercontinental range. The fact is the payload of the Topol-m is anemic.




Topol-M is not just a taxi-cab for the warheads; it’s a bird that’s designed to breach multiple layers of defensive systems, that includes maneuvering hypersonic warheads


1 claimed marv, that is being replaced by conventional mirvs. Still Topol-m marv is vulnerable to mid-course interception. Please stop with the "hypersonic" talk. An icbm is by default hypersonic.




If you think that ICBM technology is still in the generation of mere payload capacity, you’re way behind


I guess the sp payload capacity that enjoyed by the russians is meaningless because it is indeed false. But if it were true, it would not be so meaningless, now would it?




Look into that, things get interesting there, especially with instant air braking which develops a thermodynamic shield which in turn dissipates infrared chem laser radiation.



No lasers have been developed to engage warheads during reentry. The ABL can engagei cbms in boost phase liquid propellant missiles from 400 miles away (ss-18) or solid propellant missiles form 200 miles away (SS-27).



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by KINGTIGER10
 


Welcome to ATS KINGTIGER10.


""How do you figure that? Let me know, because I judge Russian sp by the payload capacity they have been enjoying for decades.""

Changing the topic to avoid looking stupid?


Keep that up KINGTIGER10 and you’ll march right up into the KinderGARDEN section of the ATS. (www.thekindergarden.net/)

I recommended that you first go through ATS archives; dig around a little, use the search engine, see what’s up. It’s a community thing. People know each other here, and some been here for some time, so take your time to settle in.

Gee, look at this! What a quick ATS search can pull right up!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by iskander
 




Gee, look at this! What a quick ATS search can pull right up!


you forgot to add the link with the FOAB that has a 2600m blast radius.


I guess cl-20 is not the most powerful explosive anymore




Please do not respond to my comments unless you address the points I made.


For example, i addressed your point:




Let me know, because I judge Russian sp by the payload capacity they have been enjoying for decades.


So...
Do russians enjoy sp payload capacity over the U.S.?



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by KINGTIGER10
 


KINGTIGER10, as you will find curiosity is just the right kind of stuff for ATS forums.

I’ll get you started, and you feel free to just take it from here.

First, you have to properly categorize what is being discussed, and not just tossing numbers around like they were colored cubes.

Here’s an example;

Topol(M) – “Road Mobile Transporter Erector Launcher” ICBM (think “Spies like us”) – what does that mean for fuel stabilization/environmental/service life requirements?

Minuteman – “Silo” ICBM = climate controlled “nest”. Comfy chairs, entire facility spring isolated, coffee maker, microwave, newspapers…

TRIDENT – SLBM developed under Navy's Fleet Ballistic Missile (FBM) program. Try to figure out why the physical dimensions of the FBM SLBMs are standardized. (T2 is wee bit longer)

Bulava – SLBM, gee weez, what is the “type/size” of project 955?


RSM-52 – SLBM custom built for (BIG) 941, why "dry launched" SMMLS? What does it do for its launch depth and its launch tube hatch covers? (thus the need for increased construction strength) Why does 941 has a swimming pool, a solarium, why was it completely automated, and what does it all have to do with Satna?

The problem is that here’s where typical half-a$$ed analysts get lazy and begin comparing apples to oranges, and it goes something like this;

“The RSM-52 is the Soviet counterpart to US Trident I SLBM.”

Wrong!

When you get there, feel free to ponder upon what “throw-weight” really means, why SALT specifically zeroed in on Soviet “heavies” and snipped them to a maximum of 5 tons.

10 tons is a lot of swing on one stick, and it was more then we could handle.

Popquiz, SS-9/18 = what to SILO based ISBMs and what was the "SMG"? (hint -- think THX)

Enjoy your ATS expiriance!



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by iskander
 





Topol(M) – “Road Mobile Transporter Erector Launcher” ICBM (think “Spies like us”) – what does that mean for fuel stabilization/environmental/service life requirements?


Perhaps you should learn more about missiles before you comment?
Most topol-m are Silo based. Fuel, ammonium perchlorate/aluminum based propellants, are not the issue. Heavy motor casings, interstage sections, guidance systems, TVC systems, etc. reduce feul mass fraction. That is one reason why russian sb icbms have such low throw weights



Minuteman – “Silo” ICBM = climate controlled “nest”. Comfy chairs, entire facility spring isolated, coffee maker, microwave, newspapers…


Minuteman IIIs are not cold launched, and thus suffer a small reduction in delta V. What is your point? You are making things up as you go along.




RSM-52 – SLBM custom built for (BIG) 941, why "dry launched" SMMLS? What does it do for its launch depth and its launch tube hatch covers? (thus the need for increased construction strength) Why does 941 has a swimming pool, a solarium, why was it completely automated, and what does it all have to do with Satna?



Dry launched missiles should not see a significant reduction in throw weight. AS you put it, the russians take a lot of risks. Like hydrogen peroxide torpedoes and liquid propellant slbms. I'm sure they can use that hot tub when they are dieing at the bottom of the ocean.




“The RSM-52 is the Soviet counterpart to US Trident I SLBM.”

Soviets where unavable to make a counterpart to the C-4 until Bulava.




When you get there, feel free to ponder upon what “throw-weight” really means, why SALT specifically zeroed in on Soviet “heavies” and snipped them to a maximum of 5 tons.


I am aware of what throw weight means. You should review your START documents Maybe you should look up the definition. You should also look up why the U.S. didn't deploy marvs in the 1970s when they had them.




ISBMs


What does the International Society of Behavioral Medicine have to do with missiles>


Pop-quiz:
Does the FOAB have a 2600m blast radius?



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by KINGTIGER10
 



Perhaps you should learn more about missiles before you comment?


Reagan was an actor. A bad one, but hey, he pulled it of with a straight face. The “force” was strong with him. The irony is that for all the difference it could’ve been Mr. T

You have some homework to do Mr. KINGTIGER10, the questions still stand.

Finding out why is the only way to learn. Acceptance is the big part, it gets easier from there.

Why would somebody bother making a separator coupling which is rated to -50 degrees Celsius, and what would the chain reaction on the rest of the engineering hierarchy be?

RSM-52, what depth?


You should also look up why the U.S. didn't deploy marvs in the 1970s when they had them.


If you drop the attitude, take some time and actually contribute something to this thread, I’ll tell you what a seeder is.

Forget about orbital bombardment stuff, this is Tesla land.

p.s.


What does the International Society of Behavioral Medicine have to do with missiles>


As long as it messes with your head, whatever.


Pop-quiz:
Does the FOAB have a 2600m blast radius?


Move. That means off topic.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   


You have some homework to do Mr. KINGTIGER10, the questions still stand.


My questions have stood from the beginning of the thread. You keep side stepping them



Finding out why is the only way to learn. Acceptance is the big part, it gets easier from there.


You are the one who needs to learn. Your russian bias is so evident. you can't even concede that U.S. sp icbms are superior to russian ones. What is next? russian women look better then American women? I know now why russia consumes so much vodka.





Why would somebody bother making a separator coupling which is rated to -50 degrees Celsius, and what would the chain reaction on the rest of the engineering hierarchy be?


Trying to use this as an argument to explain the sp payload capacity advantage of U.S. icbms ifs futile. A ~2010 has performance identical to trident c-4. BTW look up ss-13

russianforces.org...



orget about orbital bombardment stuff, this is Tesla land


Nice try, but FOBS was not it. You should look into depressed trajectories.





Move. That means off topic


Simple yes or no answer. That is all i am asking for. YES or NO.


I'm really new to this stuff. Remind me when the first successful sp U.S. icbm was deployed and also when the first russian successful sp icbm was deployed?



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by KINGTIGER10
 


KINGTIGER10, you are sadly mistaken, there never was a piss!ng contest.

You are, as submariners “may” say, out of your depth.

Keep that snorkel up!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join