Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Russian modernization accelerates

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   
The Russian Air Force is pushing a huge modernization program over the next 10 years. They are looking at replacing as much as 70% of their current fleet. The Air Force alone is looking at $136B in modernization programs. By 2020, they're looking at 1600 new aircraft.

In 2013, the Air Force received 86 new and modernized aircraft, along with 100 new helicopters. Next year, they're expected to receive 120 new aircraft, along with 90 helicopters. To date the primary aircraft appear to be Su-34, Su-30M2/SM, and Su-35 aircraft. One training regiment will be reequipped with Yak-130 training aircraft. The T-50 will enter evaluation testing next year. By 2025-2030, the plan is to replace the Tu-160, Tu-95, and Tu-22M3 bombers under the PAK-DA program.


A massive modernization push is imminent for Russian aerospace defense: The air force alone could receive 4.5 trillion rubles ($136 billion) over 10 years, about one-quarter of the overall drive to upgrade Russia's Soviet-era weaponry.

The money will help replace about 70% of the air force fleet by 2020 and position it to acquire the Sukhoi T-50—a fighter advanced enough to rival the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter—as well as a stealthy, long-range bomber, and to overhaul its surface-to-air missile stockpile. However, analysts caution that the plan's financial scope may be unrealistic.

For now, the investments are on track. During a series of briefings by military officials and defense manufacturers in late November, Russian President Vladimir Putin approved the procurement program adopted in 2010. The meetings amounted to the first public audit of the program to ensure that the investments are on track—a domestic show of support for the Russian defense industry, despite the country's economic stagnation.

The list includes accelerating replacement of old aircraft in the air force fleet. Putin has announced that the military will have received 86 new and, modernized fixed-wing aircraft and more than 100 new helicopters this year, and will take delivery of up to 120 fixed-wing aircraft and 90 helicopters in 2014. In 2011 and 2012, just 263 new aircraft were delivered to the military units.

Russian modernization




posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   
It's just a first thought/question..

Is it to keep "up to date" or prepare for something--since Putin has been in power for so long and this has been in the works for a few years?
edit on 12/15/2013 by Chamberf=6 because: clarify



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 


Their military has been in trouble for several years. They're actually in worse shape than some of the US units due to production problems they've had over the years, as well as maintenance, and training issues. They're spending like mad now to become a military power again, and within about 15 years they're going to be stronger than ever.



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Blimey,it wasn't all that many years ago that planes like the Mig 25 were still using vacuum tubes in their avionics equipment!



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Imagewerx
 


Those tubes reduce the effects of an EMP.
I'm wondering how Russia will fund their build up.
Natural gas is a small option, as is selling their military hardware.
Printing money like the Weimar Republic or, the USA,
is another. Perhaps they would consider having China float some bonds as well.
Underestimating Russia will have disastrous results.
S&F



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Violater1
 

I thought it was because they were totally impervious to the effects of an EMP,unlike transistors which would be permanently damaged?



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Imagewerx
I thought it was because they were totally impervious to the effects of an EMP,unlike transistors which would be permanently damaged?


More like permanently destroyed but i never did enough reading to decide if this was a design decision ( but i doubt it) or more of a side benefit of the industrial base they were stuck with at the time. The Mig-25 was simple a good point defend interceptor that could fly further at high speed than ( and the Mig-31 took this to a new level in the early 80's) it's likely interceptor competitors. While it ultimately failed in it's original design goal of being able to effectively intercept a new class of very high altitude American supersonic bombers and interceptor aircraft strategic deception on the Soviet part, trough clever use of Mig-25's, did as AFAIK play some ( perhaps small given the in house sabotage going on in the USA at the time) part in those planes never being deployed.

The very large size and effective power output of the vacuum tube system did also these planes to burn trough ECM/Jamming suits and over gun or short range missile ranges the Smerch-A could even be said to have a weapons effect!

Stellar



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 


Their military has been in trouble for several years. They're actually in worse shape than some of the US units due to production problems they've had over the years, as well as maintenance, and training issues. They're spending like mad now to become a military power again, and within about 15 years they're going to be stronger than ever.


Just between you and me: I have to wonder with some of the new detection equipment and air to air or surface to air missiles getting ready for deployment; if the next war will be like a WW1 fighter pilot or a Vietnam helicopter pilot having a 2 week life expectancy ? War may become such a hazard for the players no one will want to play ? Drones make allot of sense in that situation, no? Who knows ? But for certain it will be an extremely hostile environment to survive in. Air, land, and sea with everyone having a big target on their heads.. A new war is gonna suck more than it ever has IMO if the big boys get into it even without the nuclear option..



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   

727Sky
Just between you and me: I have to wonder with some of the new detection equipment and air to air or surface to air missiles getting ready for deployment; if the next war will be like a WW1 fighter pilot or a Vietnam helicopter pilot having a 2 week life expectancy


In modern warfare with guided weaponry, I think if you're detected your're dead---if the enemy has ordnance.

The determinants of victory then are superiority in information and logistics.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky
 


The scariest new Air to Air missile being released by far is the Russian K-77M upgrade of the R-77. There is currently no defense against it, and it is almost impossible to detect by current threat detectors until it's far too late.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 12:24 AM
link   
If you took the Typhoon DASS system, as soon as the missile switched its AESA on, the system would take over, even if there were 10 missiles it would deploy decoys, jammers and chaff on behalf of the pilot at a phenomenal rate.

Now Im not saying I want to be in that cockpit, but wouldnt some well placed chaff still confuse an AESA, then all you need to do is change direction to bleed off the missiles energy and target the source with Meteor.

Does a BVR of even AMRAAM get a second chance?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   
All of this is controlled by economics as much as political intentions.

Two ways this can go, economic collapse in the very near future. this heavily reduces, if not kills, major upgrades by ANY country. the U.S. sits with arguably the best current inventory. With an economic collapse, the advantage is with the U.S..

If there is no collapse, even an economic recovery, then the U.S. funds also increase for upgrades, etc.. Still having the technological edge, again, Russia and China will find themselves trying to catch up to where the U.S. has already left.

The history of the Soviet Union's collapse is a perfect example.

Russia's revenue is resource based. Lousy industrial exports. heavy natural gas and oil. World prices are dropping and will continue to drop. Norway is now a major player in oil and natural gas in direct competition with Russia for European business.

I'm not too worried about this....yet.





new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join