Russia flexing muscle again!

aidan_dunne

Russia fires long range missiles

---

October 13, 2008, 5:32 pm
MOSCOW , (AFP)

Russia fired three long-range missiles and pronounced its nuclear deterrent strong in an extraordinary show of force experts said had not been seen anywhere since the days of the Cold War.

Two of the missiles were fired Sunday from nuclear submarines in the Asian and European extremes of the sprawling country while a third was watched by President Dmitry Medvedev on land in northwest Russia , news agencies reported.

It was the second Russian intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) test in as many days and the latest in a series of high-profile military exercises of conventional land, sea and air forces as well as strategic nuclear units.

"This shows that our deterrent is in order," Medvedev was quoted by RIA Novosti news agency as saying after Sunday's missile launches.

"We will of course be introducing new types of forces and means into the military," he added, without elaborating.

Independent military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer said the exercises reflected Russia's determination to prepare for major military conflict.

"This was a dry run for a war with the United States," Felgenhauer said of the missile launches, part of major military manoeuvres billed "Stability 2008" involving all military branches.

"These are the biggest strategic war games in more than 20 years. They are on a parellel with those held in the first half of the 1980s. Nothing of the sort has been seen either in Russia or the United States since then," he said.

Russian navy spokesman Igor Dygalo confirmed the near-simultaneous ICBM test-launches from submarines in the Sea of Okhotsk north of Japan and the Barents Sea northeast of Norway, saying they had been planned well in advance.

Speaking to AFP from northwest Russia , Dygalo admitted it was unusual for the navy to conduct three ICBM test launches in two days -- a submarine in the Barents Sea also fired a missile Saturday -- and called the tests successful.

"The missiles hit right on target," he said. News agencies said the missiles launched from the Barents Sea and the secret base at Plesetsk hit targets on the Kamchatka peninsula thousands of kilometres (miles) to the east.

The missile fired from the Sea of Okhotsk hit on target near Kanin Nos, a finger of land jutting into the White Sea in extreme northwest Russia , the reports said.

The Sineva missile launched Saturday -- an exercise also watched by Medvedev from aboard an aircraft carrier -- travelled more than 11,500 kilometres (7,145 miles) in what the Russian president claimed was an all-time distance record.

The missile tests came a day after Russia announced that a small naval flotilla led by the nuclear battlecruiser Pyotr Veliky (Peter the Great) had paid a call at the Libyan port of Tripoli.

The ships, including a submarine destroyer and support vessels, were to conduct exercises at unspecified locations in the Mediterrannean Sea before heading toward Venezuela for joint exercises there in November, officials said.

Two Russian Tupolev-160 strategic bombers -- each capable of carrying 12 cruise missiles armed with single 200-kiloton nuclear warheads -- carried out exercises in Venezuela last month.

Last week, Japan scrambled a pair of US-made F-15 fighters to intercept and escort Russian bombers on patrol near, but not inside, Japanese territorial waters.

The Kremlin, alarmed and angered over new US missile defence plans in eastern Europe and the expansion of the US-led NATO alliance into countries once allied with Moscow , has stressed for a year that it will respond in kind.

Washington has shrugged off Russian moves over the past 18 months to resume strategic bomber patrols around the world and reactivate use of its navy to project power on the seas, questioning if the hardware was up to the task.


An American president wanting to build a defensive missile shield, the Russians flexing their military muscle and test launching missiles, major autumn/winter wargames starting, the country in recession, unemployment climbing, emigration increasing........... wow, we really are going back to the 1980s, aren't we? How long before we hear a re-release of 'Two Tribes' and '99 Red Balloons' and other Cold War era songs into the charts? :P

Leadership

Looks like another Cold War is on the way but I would use the term a "Chilly Stand Off" rather than a Cold War. Russia is a little worried, in all recent conflicts its hardware on all levels has been well and truly beaten by Western equivalents. So apart from their very latest equipment its largely obsolete so I think its a gentle reminder that they can still destroy the world at the touch of a button. I guess apart from the States who are really abusing their position of the worlds only superpower China is another concern with recent events.

Tabnabs

Nato will also flexing be their muscles.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2703483.ece

Victor

Leadership wrote: »

Looks like another Cold War is on the way but I would use the term a "Chilly Stand Off" rather than a Cold War. Russia is a little worried, in all recent conflicts its hardware on all levels has been well and truly beaten by Western equivalents. So apart from their very latest equipment its largely obsolete so I think its a gentle reminder that they can still destroy the world at the touch of a button. I guess apart from the States who are really abusing their position of the worlds only superpower China is another concern with recent events.

Be careful of this. The only substantial conflicts that Russia has been directly involved in in the last 20 years have been Chechnya and Georgia. You can't say Georgia was a (military) failure.

The Soviet exports were always of inferior models compared to domestic use.

Leadership

Victor wrote: »

Be careful of this. The only substantial conflicts that Russia has been directly involved in in the last 20 years have been Chechnya and Georgia. You can't say Georgia was a (military) failure.

The Soviet exports were always of inferior models compared to domestic use.

The internal conflicts are not a gauge of the military strength and the news blackouts would not show damaged military hardware that get towed away at night. As for the hardware being inferior models I agree and also disagree as the kit they use is still a much lower standard than the Western equivalent.

If we take Tanks (not that good on air or water) and compare them

T72 - Export Tanks did not have reactive or ceramic armour, in some cases the armour was thinner. On the Gunnery front some exports didn't have laser range finders. Has an auto loader that reduces the fire rate, every tanky knows manual is quicker on a well drilled team. The only comparison for these is the Chieftain/M60/Leopard 1 etc and even then all of these would out perform the T72 and even the T64's that Russia didnt export and modified to be a modern tank.

T80 - Is not much more than a uprated T64, reliability is poor and the Russians couldnt sell these at all. Again this is Cheiftain level of technology. I spent 4 hours playing with one of these in Bovington and they are not very impressive at all.

T90 - Not a bad tank at all and this is exported with all the bells and whistles on it. But this is only early Abbrahams/Challenger 1 Technology and survivability, a Challenger 2 would run rings around this and the only thing Russians have going for them is the amount of Tanks they have.

I am sure I could run through a similar pattern with aircraft and ships, the quality is not up to speed with Western forces and in later years these are not being maintained correctly

Fratton Fred

Leadership wrote: »

T90 - Not a bad tank at all and this is exported with all the bells and whistles on it. But this is only early Abbrahams/Challenger 1 Technology and survivability, a Challenger 2 would run rings around this and the only thing Russians have going for them is the amount of Tanks they have.

Sorry, off topic.

How good is the Challenegr 2? I was involved in developing a trailor for CRARRV about 10 years ago and they were purring about how good the Challenger 2 is, is it all it is cracked up to be?

Leadership

The Challenger 2 was being phased in as I was being phased out so to speak but I did see these in action in Bovington and in a couple of other theatres.

One test I went to/involved with was a survivability test, my role was to set off a bar mine underneath the belly, an off route mine aimed at the turret ring and a large IED type charge that was 35kg of PE4 (Plastic explosive).

The full test went something like this:

I set off IED
I Set the off bar mine (probably the most powerful un-modded mine in service anywhere)
I set off the off route mine
Infantry fired a milan AT missile - side shot
Infantry support platoon mortared it with 82's for 2 minutes
Artillery fired HE ground burst for 2 mins fire for effect
Artillery fired HE air burst for 2 mins fire for effect
Artillery fired cluster munitions 1 round from each gun
Artillery fired MLRS, one salvo
Challenger 2 from 1000 meters fired 2 120mm CHARM rounds (DU) - Frontal shot

Now I would love to say that thing drove away, well it didn't but exactly 19 minutes later it did. After all that all it needed was a track repair and the optics changing. It did move backwards and forwards as it had one track intact and the turret traversed and could have engaged a target only that most the vision blocks were too damaged.

As for reliability is up there with the best and the MBT would have a similar reliability to the CRARRV that you would be used to.

That trailer BTW is a mad piece of engineering, must have been some project.

getz

i just dont get it --i sailed on a british ship to the black sea port of poti at that time it was still part of the USSR the black sea fleet was in dock and four submarines tied up along side us --all were world war two submarines--even the sailers had pigtails--and this was when they were sending people into space

Run_to_da_hills

A country with old dodgy unreliable equipment would probably be more of a threat than a country with state of the art eqiuipment.

Leadership

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A country with old dodgy unreliable equipment would probably be more of a threat than a country with state of the art eqiuipment.

Not sure what you mean here?

Fratton Fred

Leadership wrote: »

As for reliability is up there with the best and the MBT would have a similar reliability to the CRARRV that you would be used to.

That trailer BTW is a mad piece of engineering, must have been some project.

its er, robust to say the least. It was based on the AVRE trailer and beefed up, a lot:D

I didn't see the tests myself, but one of my colleagues went to Bovington to watch them carried out. At times the trailor was leaving the ground by about three feet, which doesn't sound amazing until you realise that with the spare engine on top it weighed about 12 tonnes i believe (Doesn't the Challenger power plant weigh about 5 tonnes or something like that?).

As you can imagine, the driver was loving it. his instructions were hitch this trailor to the back, take it around the track a few times (this was everyday for three days) and see if you can break it! At one point, the ABS failed and the trailor ended up being literally dragged around a two mile track in beautiful Dorset:D

there's a couple of pics here http://www.reynolds-boughton.com/military-gallery.asp

Leadership

Fratton Fred wrote: »

its er, robust to say the least. It was based on the AVRE trailer and beefed up, a lot:D

I didn't see the tests myself, but one of my colleagues went to Bovington to watch them carried out. At times the trailor was leaving the ground by about three feet, which doesn't sound amazing until you realise that with the spare engine on top it weighed about 12 tonnes i believe (Doesn't the Challenger power plant weigh about 5 tonnes or something like that?).

As you can imagine, the driver was loving it. his instructions were hitch this trailor to the back, take it around the track a few times (this was everyday for three days) and see if you can break it! At one point, the ABS failed and the trailor ended up being literally dragged around a two mile track in beautiful Dorset:D

there's a couple of pics here http://www.reynolds-boughton.com/military-gallery.asp

LOL There is no better job in the world than destructive testing! I know the AVRE trailer well being a armoured engineer in my younger days.

Run_to_da_hills

Leadership wrote: »

Not sure what you mean here?

The time Iraq launched a skud missile attack against Israel during the 1991 Gulf War, all of these landed off course. A 40Yo ICBM launched against the west could do the same and hit a wrong target. :eek:

Fratton Fred

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The time Iraq launched a skud missile attack against Israel during the 1991 Gulf War, all of these landed off course. A 40Yo ICBM launched against the west could do the same and hit a wrong target. :eek:

"ave zat you decidant British capitali.....oops, sorry comrades, a lick of paint and in 30 years or so Dublin will be as good as new"

"Ah sure Boris, its grand, it landed in Tallaght and no one will miss that so"

Leadership

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The time Iraq launched a skud missile attack against Israel during the 1991 Gulf War, all of these landed off course. A 40Yo ICBM launched against the west could do the same and hit a wrong target. :eek:

I wouldn't worry about off course Russian ICBM's, they are the most accurate missiles around and the program took at least 25% of all the defence budget to develop them for the best part of 30 years. These are much more accurate than anything the Americans has so much so that america had to switch its priority to mobile missile units from silo's.

The Scuds launched by Iraq were modified for distance at a loss of accuracy and were fairly useless although one landed a couple of miles away from us in Saudi and made us crap our pants they didnt cause too much damage.

Grizzly 45

Dunno about the USSRs missiles being more accurate than the USA.The US developed Minuteman "dense pak" as a deterrent,after the mobile system via rail was way too vunerable and expensive. The only "mobile" missiles the US has is the sea launced ICBMS and cruise missile and they have a 99.9 % accruacy rating.
Nor does it help to go and try and hit hardend targets with a nuke and the thing detonates a mile off target when it has to be on top of the target for effect..