Russia building anti-satellite weapon




 
--
 
March 5th, 2009  
Balkan-MiG
 
 

Topic: Russia building anti-satellite weapon


MOSCOW - Russia is working on anti-satellite weapons to match technologies developed by other nations and will speed up modernization of its nuclear forces, a deputy defense minister was quoted as saying Thursday.
The statement by Gen. Valentin Popovkin signaled the government's intention to pursue its ambitious plans to strengthen the military despite the money crunch caused by a worsening financial crisis. He said the military will procure enough new missiles to deploy near Poland if the U.S. goes ahead with its European missile defense plans.
Popovkin said Russia continues to oppose a space arms race but will respond to moves made by other countries, according to Russian news reports.
"We can't sit back and quietly watch others doing that; such work is being conducted in Russia," Popovkin was quoted as saying.
Russia already has some "basic, key elements" of such weapons, he said without elaboration.
Popovkin, who previously was the chief of Russian military Space Forces, reportedly made the statement at a news conference in response to a question about U.S. and Chinese tests of anti-satellite weapons.
In February 2008, a U.S. Navy ship launched a missile that hit a dying spy satellite. The test boosted the credibility of missile defense advocates. In 2007, China destroyed one of its own defunct satellites with a ballistic missile.
The Kremlin has criticized U.S. plans for space-based weapons, saying they could trigger a new arms race. Russia and China have pushed for an international agreement banning space weapons, but their proposals have been rejected by the United States.
As part of missile defense plans developed by the previous U.S. administration, the Pentagon worked on missiles, ground lasers and other technology to shoot down satellites.
George W. Bush's administration plan to locate missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic put it at odds with Russia, which opposed the move as a threat to its security.
President Barack Obama has signaled that he might forgo an anti-missile system in Eastern Europe if Russia helps end a standoff over Iran's nuclear ambitions.
The Kremlin has welcomed Washington's moves to improve ties, but Russian officials continue to emphasize the need for modernization of Russian military arsenals.
Popovkin said the military this year will procure several dozen new short-range Iskander missiles. Russia has threatened to send such missiles to its westernmost Kaliningrad region if the U.S. locates missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, but media reports said the military now only has a few such missiles.
Popovkin said the government budgeted 1.5 trillion rubles ($42 billion) for weapons purchases this year. He said a quarter of that sum will be spent on strategic nuclear forces.
The military will use the money to put more than 10 new intercontinental ballistic missiles on line by year's end, Popovkin said - a much faster pace of deployment than in previous years.
"We are giving priority to strategic nuclear weapons in order to be able to inflict irreparable damage to anyone who would attack us," Popovkin was quoted as saying.
Popovkin said the military also intends to complete tests of the Bulava intercontinental ballistic missile and put it into service by the year's end. Russian leaders have boasted of its capability to penetrate missile defenses and described it as a key part of the military's future nuclear arsenal.
But the Bulava, intended for Russia's nuclear submarines, has failed in five of its 10 test launches.
"Any weapon may fail during tests," Popovkin was quoted as saying. "We were forced to increase the number of tests because of a series of failures. We have checked the entire production chain and found a number of flaws."
Popovkin said the Russian air force will receive about 50 new planes and 50 military helicopters this year. The figure is significantly higher than the total number of combat aircraft commissioned by the military since the 1991 Soviet collapse. He also said a next-generation fighter jet is set to make its maiden flight in August.
Popovkin said the military will also focus on obtaining high-precision weapons and will procure new ships to protect Russia's interests in the Arctic, where several nations have conflicting claims on the ocean shelf believed to contain rich energy resources.
He also said the military will beef up its forces in the south in response to Russia's war with Georgia last August.

[Link: http://www.military.com/news/article...=1186032310810]
March 9th, 2009  
Gunner13
 
 
This is really not news at all, now is it
March 9th, 2009  
Balkan-MiG
 
 
It is, what makes it not news? It means Russia [As always] has the technology, power and manpower to create weapons and other systems to counter western ones [As so many Westerners think Russia still uses the Ak-47 and T-34 tanks]
--
March 10th, 2009  
A Can of Man
 
 
That's not exactly true.
Some of the Russian stuff is pretty good.
But during a faceoff with a few exceptions, Russian stuff just falls behind the quality and performance of the American stuff.
March 10th, 2009  
Balkan-MiG
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
That's not exactly true.
Some of the Russian stuff is pretty good.
But during a faceoff with a few exceptions, Russian stuff just falls behind the quality and performance of the American stuff.
Can you give me a example?
March 10th, 2009  
A Can of Man
 
 
I smell a piss fest.
SU25 vs A10. Come on seriously.
Any of the Russian tanks vs M1A2.
BTR-80 vs AAV (and the AAV is much older)
AK-47 or 74 vs current M-16s. Wonder why the pros stick to M-16s? It's not because they're stupid.
Combat rations.
Boots.
Gas masks.

Used to be a bit of a fan of the Russian stuff back in high school. But the more I learned about them it was obvious they were pretty crap.
March 10th, 2009  
Balkan-MiG
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
I smell a piss fest.
SU25 vs A10. Come on seriously.
Any of the Russian tanks vs M1A2.
BTR-80 vs AAV (and the AAV is much older)
AK-47 or 74 vs current M-16s. Wonder why the pros stick to M-16s? It's not because they're stupid.
Combat rations.
Boots.
Gas masks.

Used to be a bit of a fan of the Russian stuff back in high school. But the more I learned about them it was obvious they were pretty crap.
What? The two are pretty equal in performance. The Su-25 has faster climb rate and speed, A-10 has higher service ceiling and larger combat radius. The A-10 can carry more munitions, but the Sukhoi is more agile. I consider them EQUAL.

I prefer the T-90S. India has become quite fond of them aswell. The T-90 has a 125mm smoothbore gun with Anti tank missiles, which is quite a shocker. The Abrams has a .50 Cal, which is better than the 7.62mm coaxial on the T-90S, but the T-90 has a air defense machine gun. Im not sure, but I think you can fit a Plamya onto it aswell. The T-90S has a much longer range and they are both roughly have the same top speed.

Whats wrong with the BTR-80? The armaments of both vehicles are pretty good alltogether [Im positive the AAV has a .50 cal]. Yes, the AAV carries more soldiers, but it goes painfully more slower and has a shorter range than the BTR-80.

As im sure it was discussed on another thread, the old 'Ak-47 V. M-16' debate is just pointless. It depends on the soldier using the weapon. Of course, if you are used to western type weapons you would use the M-16 and vice versa. The Ak-74 is a ripper at close range, no denying that. I also hear that some NATO soldiers in Afghanistan have started using Ak-47's and 74's instead of the 'standard' weapons.
March 10th, 2009  
A Can of Man
 
 
Think of what the SU-25 and the A-10 were made for. Ground support. The A-10's engine configuration makes it far more durable against ground fire and it's GAU-8 gun which can split open tanks makes it the superior CAS platform. Service ceiling and rate of climb between the two aircraft is a non factor. I see that in your comparison you have conveniently left out the GAU-8. And yes, I'd want my CAS bird to carry more munitions.

As with the T-90S, we're yet to be given anything solid on its armor. The M1A2's armor is battle tested and proven to live up to the hype. Can't say the same for Russian tanks currently.

AAVs are currently outfitted not only with .50s but also with 40mm AGLs. Yes speed is a bit of a problem however.

As for NATO troops using AKs, often some former Eastern Block countries like Poland who use a LOT of American made gear but pack ex-Soviet firearms make people mistake them for American troops using AKs. Would a formation of NATO troops suddenly start switching to stuff they find on their enemies? It's highly doubtful. Unless there was something seriously wrong with their weapons, the switch would not happen at least on a massive scale.
March 11th, 2009  
Balkan-MiG
 
 
Oh yes, id prefer my CAS to have more weapons. The Gsh-30 has a longer service life, though. But even so, against modern SAM missiles both of the aircraft would get owned.

Whats so strange about that? Russians are known to be secretive [A old Soviet habit], and the Indians seem to be very happy with it [They prefer if their weapons are vastly more superior to Pakistans].

I read a year or so ago that some marines in Afghanistan use customised AK-47's/74's instead of the US model weapons. I guess theres a good reason for that, the Ak-47 is much easier to clean AND packs a hell of a punch [at the expense of accuracy].
March 11th, 2009  
tomtom22
 
 
WARNING!

Stick to the subject of the thread, which is: Russia building anti-satellite weapon
 


Similar Topics
Russia launches new early warning satellite
Building on Common Ground With Russia
Russia Steps Up Effort To Keep Georgia Out Of NATO
NATO's Message To Russia
Russia Doubts Motive In U.S. Satellite Shot