Russian Doomsday Missile: Iskander-E - Page 2




 
--
 
December 8th, 2008  
Sven Ortmann
 
I used the AA-11 example because the Russians were ahead for many years (disastrously far ahead - NATO got shocked when the Eastern German AA-11 were investigated), realizing a technology that the U.S. gave up in the 70's (AIM-82 IIRC). There was no wide-spread discussion in the West at that time about it, we were clueless - and happy about the all-aspect AIM-9L (which weren't used for anything but tail shots in the Falklands War). Western systems get the hype, while the monkey model curse sticks to the Russians' reputation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rock45
In Georgia why wasn't Russia using satellite or aerial images to setup battle field tactical missiles (some were used) and air force assets using standoff smart weapons to take out key targets like CC, radar, SAM sites, Naval patrol Boats in the docks, strong enemy build up positions, the upgraded Su-24, a few have been upgraded to fire, launch, carry these weapons. Russia military PR release this information but yet very little advance weapons nor tactical planning was seen?

You can Google the Russian weapons including the upgraded Su-24 and a whole bunch of Russian made smart bombs, stand-off air to ground missiles and much more but it wasn't used on a tactical level not even information gathering. This is why I don't believe that this Iskander can pick what part of a target to hit.
Well, they used some T-62's as well, what does this tell us about T-90's? Nothing. Furthermore, there's AFAIK almost no information about what munitions the Russians used and to what effect. By the way; please recall the size of bridges. A width of no less than 10m is not uncommon and bridges are easily spotted targets (even a WW2 radar-guided fire & forget glide bomb was able to lock on bridges). Finally, I'd like to remind you that German guided bombs of 1943 were able to repeatedly hit tiny hut-sized targets in training - and almost three decades ago U.S. cruise missiles were able to match that performance. It's almost insulting in my opinion to deny the Russians such accuracy with a missile that's almost brand new.
December 8th, 2008  
A Can of Man
 
 
Again Ortman, the only thing Russian hardware has in abundance is excuses.
December 8th, 2008  
rock45
 

Topic: Designs


The T-90 design is pretty old itself and Russia doesn't field many T-90 regiments themselves? A Russian poster in a different forum I'm in said Russia is on it's third new "mechanized Battalion" bought in almost ten years. Were talking Battalion not Brigade or even Division, so no I don't share much faith that Russia builds and produces a lot of these systems.

What Germany could do years ago has little to do with Russia military factories produced in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Look at the Russian FCS on their tanks and where they are just about now, western counterparts been doing that for ten plus years already.

Russian smart weapons are interesting and I see the short films, and read the weapons releases and all I'm no expert by any means and don't claim to be, but. How many of the new smart weapons we see and read about actually produced are fielded in active Russian units world wide? How many units really see and test and trained with these weapons? Most are made for export markets which is where Russia's military arms industry is geared for. Russia themselves don't buy a lot of new weapons sadly.

What's right behind those advance T-72s Russia's front line troops are using are what next in reserve ex-T-55's? A good part of Russia's artillery is very dated as well.
Learning from real soldiers here in this forum and others you can only learn and train on basically what you have. If a Russian Infantry units has D-130 cannons and BMP-2 and few T-72s to fill out a Battalion then that's what they have to trained with,if ammo and fuel is available.
In most cases a little depending on terrain a modern mechanized forces would rip through a unit made up of such weapons and low level trained personnel. There are other factors as well like air power, artillery, and more but basically the better trained and equipped forces wins. I watch how US Army tankers train and can't see Russian tanker getting the chance to train like that. That breaks down on why some of Russia's export customer do so poorly, Russians can only train their buyers how they were trained? I learned a lot from guys here training is the key.

I don't mean to sound insulting but today's Russian solider is ill trained and equipped compared to most western soldiers.

I'm sure a list can be made of western equipment to be fair.
*Try to find how the AA-12 was upgraded and the different models produce, if you can
*Look at Russia Su-35 a upgraded on a 70s design aircraft, just another heavy large aircraft the biggest target in the fighter world. Do you think Russia has a 5th generation aircraft in works while there still producing 70 designed fighters? I don't think so.
*T-95 in it's early form already a dated design and most likely never get funding
*Over 400+ Su-27 more then half of Russia's best fighters can't even fired their best AA-12?
* Is the AA-12 even produced in useful numbers?
*The Su-27 upgrade program going on for years already and less then 1 regiment of Su-27M1 produced.
* S-400 in testing? Again can it happen, can if detect targets like they say it can? are the claims real? will it ever make production on a large scale or only if an export buyer is found?
* Mig-35 not even produced yet even after India taking 9 nine years to make a fighter selection? They could have won this fighter selection five times over already.
* 4 subs built in over a ten year period
* 3 new Mechanized Battalions (equipment) bought in ten years
* Bases still closed
* Only two of those Mig-31BM or what ever the super model was suppose to be produced. 3 or 4 regiments of old 3rd generation fighters guarding China's border
* India's aircraft carrier late
* India's Mig-29K built out of old stocks 18 aircraft taking almost five years, late
* Not producing enough engine parts for one of their best selling transport helicopter the Hip-17 series and lost sales.
* Fire control problems in India's new T-90s
* Algeria return SMT Fulcrums?
* Most of Russia's navy is armed and equipped with 70s/80s tech. They have a big navy with high number of ships but most are not upgraded nor is there trained personnel to manned them.

Sorry but having somebody trained on equipment that works and is modern enough to see a target 60 miles away and then choosing what part of the target hit for most Russia units would surprise me.

The training isn't there and most cases neither is the equipment
--
December 8th, 2008  
Sven Ortmann
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rock45
The T-90 design is pretty old itself and Russia doesn't field many T-90 regiments themselves? A Russian poster in a different forum I'm in said Russia is on it's third new "mechanized Battalion" bought in almost ten years. Were talking Battalion not Brigade or even Division, so no I don't share much faith that Russia builds and produces a lot of these systems.
They bought only kind of pre-serial batches T-90's, I was talking about quality, not quantity.

What Germany could do years ago has little to do with Russia military factories produced in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.

Actually, it does. It shows state of art. Technologies disperse over educated countries - there's no reason to believe that the Russians couldn't match Maverick's early 70's accuracy with essentially similar Iskander terminal phase seeker. They probably even had the blueprints since decades.

Look at the Russian FCS on their tanks and where they are just about now, western counterparts been doing that for ten plus years already.

The Russians slept over thermal and low light sensors, no doubt. They catched up a bit. Today you could even use commercial equipment and harden it and still exceed mid-90's MilSpec performance.
Night sight technology was actually one of the few technology fields where the Russians neither kept up nor pursued a different path but lagged badly.
There's much Cold War propaganda still in the air about Russian technology - and the Russians tend to not show their new stuff, but only 10 y.o. stuff. They never showed off Arena-2 AFAIK. The latest Russian APS that I know about is 15 years old. Heck, they invented APS - they surely developed much newer stuff.
The information asymmetry exists even between the English/Hebrew speaking Western nations and non-English speaking NATO countries. I've yet to encounter any American who knows about the German AMAP ADS, but I've seen lots of articles about the U.S: and Israeli systems (which are apparently lagging one or two generations behind in capability).
Imagine the effects of the language barrier to Russia!


Russian smart weapons are interesting and I see the short films, and read the weapons releases and all I'm no expert by any means and don't claim to be, but.

I visited the Russian company's booth that promoted Iskander and other missiles at Eurosatory 2008. The widely distributed information is pretty much all that's publicly known about the missile. I have an original promotional CD, with few additional info.

How many of the new smart weapons we see and read about actually produced are fielded in active Russian units world wide? How many units really see and test and trained with these weapons? Most are made for export markets which is where Russia's military arms industry is geared for. Russia themselves don't buy a lot of new weapons sadly.

The Germans developed the 8,8cm Flak 18 in 1928 and used it to great effect till 1945, but didn't procure it in quantity till the mid-30's. A look at the technology tells about quality and potential, production (especially of a MUNITION like Iskander) can happen quickly if necessary.

What's right behind those advance T-72s Russia's front line troops are using are what next in reserve ex-T-55's? A good part of Russia's artillery is very dated as well.

T-62's. I recall no info about T-55's being used. The Russians have a habit of using two different inventories of tanks; training tanks and wartime tanks. It may be very well that they used old tanks for training a unit in basic tank warfare and sent that one to combat.

Learning from real soldiers here in this forum and others you can only learn and train on basically what you have. If a Russian Infantry units has D-130 cannons and BMP-2 and few T-72s to fill out a Battalion then that's what they have to trained with,if ammo and fuel is available.

Not necessarily.
D-130? Do you mean D-30? That's actually a great gun for its calibre. Much better overall concept than M777.

In most cases a little depending on terrain a modern mechanized forces would rip through a unit made up of such weapons and low level trained personnel. There are other factors as well like air power, artillery, and more but basically the better trained and equipped forces wins. I watch how US Army tankers train and can't see Russian tanker getting the chance to train like that.
Some tactics require less training than others.
U.S. training on many systems was apparently reduced to save fuel and spares as well (and to train for COIN instead of for major conventional war). The Russians aren't well-known for high quality training, but that can change rapidly in time of crisis or war.
Interestingly, Iskander needs almost not raining and especially no complex of CAP, SEAD, airfields, tankers and EW to hit a target. It works also fine during enemy air superiority. That's the true value of the missile - it's an allternative to demanding Kosovo-style strike packages.


That breaks down on why some of Russia's export customer do so poorly, Russians can only train their buyers how they were trained? I learned a lot from guys here training is the key.

Actually, Third world customers of Western weapons suck almost all the time as well. The Soiets/Russians just never were so openly aggressive in the Third World. That means that very rarely Western Third World armies had to face first class opponents.
The Iranians sucked with Western equipment, the Iraqis did, the Argentinians did (remember how mcuh their Western air defense weapons failed)...on the other hand the Serbs did a fine AD job over Kosovo with ancient Soviet hardware (kills ain't everything, especially not at such odds).


I don't mean to sound insulting but today's Russian solider is ill trained and equipped compared to most western soldiers.

There's a certain hype about Western troops involved. The Israelis found their reputation on 1973 (where they had in fact a mixed prowess), but have a vastly changed army since the late 70's, disappointed in the 1982 Lebanon invasion, were slowly ruined by Lebanese and Palestinian occupation and embarrassed themselves in the 2006 invasion.
The Western troops didn't have a fair fight since 1942, but still had many rather mixed results.


I'm sure a list can be made of western equipment to be fair.
*Try to find how the AA-12 was upgraded and the different models produce, if you can
We can discuss today's R-77 in ten years, that's how the Russians handle these things.

*Look at Russia Su-35 a upgraded on a 70s design aircraft, just another heavy large aircraft the biggest target in the fighter world. Do you think Russia has a 5th generation aircraft in works while there still producing 70 designed fighters? I don't think so.
PAK-FA. It makes sense to be few years late behind F-22 to build a better plane as this fighter generation will likely last for three decades at least.

*T-95 in it's early form already a dated design and most likely never get funding
T-95 is like F-19 - won't happen like rumored, but eventually there will be something. We cannot know whether ti will beoutdated from the beginning, as we know nothing about it. By the way; Russian MBTs were systematically underestimated by the Wett in the Cold War, and this habit still sticks. Their only real fault was poor mitigation of behind-armor effects.

*Over 400+ Su-27 more then half of Russia's best fighters can't even fired their best AA-12?

Such detailed knowledge is a) questionable (->maskirovka) and b) such problems could be fixed within weeks. Btw, a similar problem plagued hyped-up F-4's in the 60's.

* Is the AA-12 even produced in useful numbers?

Obviously, unknown. We cannot learn anything by asking without expectation of an answer.
Quantity tells nothing about quality anyway.


*The Su-27 upgrade program going on for years already and less then 1 regiment of Su-27M1 produced.

As I wrote earlier - they are saving money by developing, but not producing. That's a wiser budget decision than going broke on military spending like the USA does.

* S-400 in testing? Again can it happen, can if detect targets like they say it can? are the claims real? will it ever make production on a large scale or only if an export buyer is found?

S-400 is at the very least a system that has no Western rival and is well-suited to challenge an opponent's AEW/CAP/SEAD-based air superiority.

AD systems ias an area where the USA cannot really claim to have had always good systems. The USN is only now about to introduce an active radar seeker SAM (SM-6), a move that should have happened 20 years ago!


* Mig-35 not even produced yet even after India taking 9 nine years to make a fighter selection? They could have won this fighter selection five times over already.
The Indians have serious procurement bureaucracy problems, selling them anything is exceedingly difficult now.

...

Well, you get the picture. The state of the Russian Armed forces, the performance of exported (often monkey) hardware and even even their technology history give no decisive information about their modern systems' quality.
About Western arms/troops quality - well, it isn't all gold that shines.



Sorry but having somebody trained on equipment that works and is modern enough to see a target 60 miles away and then choosing what part of the target hit for most Russia units would surprise me.

The training isn't there and most cases neither is the equipment
..........
December 8th, 2008  
Sven Ortmann
 
(2nd part, the message got too long due to quoting.)

SAR/GMTI radars have ranges in excess of 200 miles and aren't exactly news. The first ones were used in the 60's, the modern generation originated in the late 80's and current models are tiny.
http://www.ga-asi.com/products/lynxSAR.php
I bet the Russians didn't sleep over this technology entirely. It's no technology that you need to show off, unlike a ifficult-to-hide new ship of aircraft.
But SAR/GMTI was about the sight range issue, which is not applicable to Iskander anyway.

---

There's no need to "see" a distant target for Iskander.

It works apparently like this;

a) Target and launcher coordinates get fed into the system, target image and hit location get fed into the system.

b) launch

c) An inertial navigation-based autopilot (possibly enhanced by Glonass signals) guides it to the target area and suffices for a CEP of just a couple dozen meters (even ancient INS systems of the 60's would only have an error of few hundred meters over 400 km distance.

d) target is close, an electro-optical sensor looks at the target area, uses image recognition software to recognize the target, aims at target point.
The missile is being guided for max accuracy on the final few km, but does some autopilot evasive maneuvers to counter ATBMs like PAC-3.


Technically it's very different from the Western strike package system and not very unlike Western cruise missiles (like the U.S. JASSM, which btw failed its fourth test in a row recently).
We are unused to precision TBMs because we don't use the tech (we expect air superiority and to succeed with strike packages instead), that doesn't mean that it wouldn't work fine.

Iskander's guidance is really not very difficult. I could arrange a proof of principle for the system with a commercial video camera, a laptop, some COTS image recognition software, two months time and 8,000 for a programmer.

---

In general it's no good idea to trust those who make the loudest claims more than those who are almost silence, or to keep potential opponent's proficiency at low regard.
The Russians excel quite often, but the circumstances usually don't contribute to a corresponding reputation.
Their public relations work is still stuck in a very distinct, alien style. I recall bulletproof vest advertising with models that looked like straight from the 50's. The Russians improve in this regard, but they simply aren't interested to tell the Western public about their qualities. We're no customers.

And guess what? The Russians in the Russian forums think that M1 Abrams are crap !!!
December 8th, 2008  
rock45
 

Topic: Info


Thanks for the info and for taking the time to explain the Russian side of things to me. This is interesting I'm sorry for such a long post I'll cut and paste a few and we can disgust more of them.
Quote:
* Mig-35 not even produced yet even after India taking 9 nine years to make a fighter selection? They could have won this fighter selection five times over already.
The Indians have serious procurement bureaucracy problems, selling them anything is exceedingly difficult now.


A Russian poster in a different forum went off on how there's no pleasing them on anything.

We seem to have different opinions on certain things and I think we both suffer a little 'Cold War" times drilled into our heads/thinking.


#1
The T-90 design is pretty old itself and Russia doesn't field many T-90 regiments themselves? A Russian poster in a different forum I'm in said Russia is on it's third new "mechanized Battalion" bought in almost ten years. Were talking Battalion not Brigade or even Division, so no I don't share much faith that Russia builds and produces a lot of these systems.
They bought only kind of pre-serial batches T-90's, I was talking about quality, not quantity.

Hi Sven Ortmann
Questions - Why would Russia only buy them pre-serial batches doesn't Russia's army have a lot of tank regiments that need replacements? The T-72 series doesn't match up well against newer western types in armor and crew protection and FCS? Does Russia see China as a threat are Russia's forces on China's border better equipped?

Quote:
The Russians slept over thermal and low light sensors, no doubt. They catched up a bit. Today you could even use commercial equipment and harden it and still exceed mid-90's MilSpec performance.
It's 2008 not the mid 90s and Russia's FCS is behind. Maybe were see upgrades on later model T90s or if the T-95 gets produced. I did hear good things about the FCS on the BMP-3 30mm gun/system

Quote:
they surely developed much newer stuff.
To develop new equipment, systems, takes money R&D costs cost billions for any country. I don't have blinded faith that Russia's R&D does produce new and advance weapons, systems, etc. This is a subject that's hard to prove either way
Quote:
The information asymmetry exists even between the English/Hebrew speaking Western nations and non-English speaking NATO countries.
I only know of one Hebrew speaking nation but I get what your saying.
Quote:
German AMAP ADS
What is it please explain it

Quote:
I visited the Russian company's booth that promoted Iskander and other missiles at Eurosatory 2008. The widely distributed information is pretty much all that's publicly known about the missile. I have an original promotional CD, with few additional info.
That's pretty cool I assume it's not in English? I got some promotional stuff from the Rafale booth and more from a Greece air show, sent by a friend.

More later
December 8th, 2008  
Sven Ortmann
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rock45
It's 2008 not the mid 90s and Russia's FCS is behind. Maybe were see upgrades on later model T90s or if the T-95 gets produced. I did hear good things about the FCS on the BMP-3 30mm gun/system

Again, we don't know much about their current FCS technology, we barely know about what they have in their inventory (basically 80's hardware).

To develop new equipment, systems, takes money R&D costs cost billions for any country. I don't have blinded faith that Russia's R&D does produce new and advance weapons, systems, etc. This is a subject that's hard to prove either way

Actually, there are huge differences in development costs. Different salaries, different design approaches, different organization...you can easily design two very similar systems in two different countries for costs that differ by factor 10. Look at the Swedes; such a small nation, but they pulled off the Visby corvette, the JAS Gripen, the Erieye radar ...

What is it please explain it
http://www.soldat-und-technik.de/10-08/heer.pdf
It's apparently a radar-less APS that seems to work by directing blast at the incoming threat. It's apparently effective even against APFSDS and EFP (the high-speedslug, not just the warhead). The reaction time is being reported as less than a millisecond - you could launch an RPG at 2m distance and it would be intercepted. The table in the PDF is the most comprehensive I've ever seen (although I've seen conflicting info on some production dates and a technical parameter) and shows the differences between some of the main new APS.

That's pretty cool I assume it's not in English? I got some promotional stuff from the Rafale booth and more from a Greece air show, sent by a friend.

Actually the CD is in English and Russian, I think. I looked at it in the Russian mode. The additional info is mostly about the trucks and training aids.
The CD has some videos.
I believe it's OK not to be impressed by much of the Russian military hardware and to doubt claims.

I believe as well that Western systems are often hyped while some of the Russian systems (especially when they pursue a different approach than we do) are simply world-leading.

examples;
- FAE/thermobaric (Russians were 15 years ahead) incl. RPO-A
- APS (Russians were almost 20 years ahead)
- ERA (Russians were about 10 years ahead of all else except the Israelis)
- HERA (heavy ERA, Russians were apparently ahead of the West by about 10-15 years)
- R-77 (Russians were ahead by almost 20 years)
- Khrizanthema (interesting dual seeker, still unusual in the West)
- Iskander (no Western counterpart except probably late ATACMS)
- S-300/S-400 (outstanding range)
- KS-172 (no counterpart anywhere)
- Kh-31 (Western counterpart French ANS wasn't realized)
- the Sadarm equivalent that entered service in large calibre MRL rockets around 1990
- Shtora (simple SACLOS jamming tech, pretty mcuh neglected by the West)


Btw,
" We seem to have different opinions on certain things and I think we both suffer a little 'Cold War" times drilled into our heads/thinking. "

I am Western German and always was.
The reason for why I doubt so many Western highlights is my military history reading and my skeptic mind.
December 8th, 2008  
A Can of Man
 
 
You don't seem to question Russian sources at all though.
E/O guidance isn't even that great. You've totally ignored that. The truth of the fact is, although claims for Russian hardware has always been high, in war they have done poorly. And these aren't just against Americans but against other countries armed with American hardware.
December 8th, 2008  
Sven Ortmann
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
You don't seem to question Russian sources at all though.
E/O guidance isn't even that great. You've totally ignored that. The truth of the fact is, although claims for Russian hardware has always been high, in war they have done poorly. And these aren't just against Americans but against other countries armed with American hardware.
E/O is great in the right weather and daylight conditions. Iskander is for the destruction of immobile targets - there's usually no need to attack at night or during poor weather. A radar seeker as in Pershing II could be jammed.

The Russians haven't fought much since WW2 - Afghanistan was hardly a material war. They defeated the Germans in their last major war (yes, 60% of the work was done by Russia) - they proved to be different, but first class in their own way. (There are still some wrong perceptions about the role of superior Russian quantity in WW2 floating around because German figures about Red Army material strength were exaggerated by about a factor of almost two.)

I recall that subsonic MiG-17's without missiles were a huge problem for supersonic F-4's, the early 60's supposed wonder weapon, equivalent of today's F-22.

Soviet/Russian hardware was never used in war by a first rate power (judged by non-material criteria) after 1945.
Western hardware failed badly or proved itself in wars after 1945 when used by 3rd, 2nd and 1st class powers.
There was simply no fair and really conclusive test (yet).
December 9th, 2008  
rock45
 

Topic: Info


Quote:
The Russians haven't fought much since WW2
No not directly but a few proxy wars wouldn't you say most with adviser working hand and hand using lots of their equipment.

Quote:
Afghanistan was hardly a material war
Compared to WW-II no but Russia doesn't have the capabilities to even come close to what the US forces have done there.

Quote:
They defeated the Germans in their last major war (yes, 60% of the work was done by Russia) - they proved to be different, but first class in their own way. (There are still some wrong perceptions about the role of superior Russian quantity in WW2 floating around because German figures about Red Army material strength were exaggerated by about a factor of almost two.)
Not sure if I agreed with the 60% percent quote and always thought the Russians were playing to their own tune and never an allied. That's just my opinion and WW-II doesn't have a lot to do with modern Russia producing weapons and providing the proper training to use, never mind support them after the fact.

Quote:
I recall that subsonic MiG-17's without missiles were a huge problem for supersonic F-4's, the early 60's supposed wonder weapon, equivalent of today's F-22.
The Mig-17, wow what a blast from the past saying it was a huge problem doesn't really describe the situation very well. The stupid rules of engagement and a certain President not letting his commanders fight played a huge part in the Mig-17, 19, and 21, success. Do you think if we were allowed to bomb the bases much early on and take out the shipping that it would have even lasted so long. I would have bomb those Russian and Chinese supply ships and every air field on the map, think the Mig-19s would have caused any problems then? Sure your not from East Germany?

Quote:
equivalent of today's F-22.
Nothing is equivalent to F-22, I guess your one of those people from the Russia side of thinking since you don't have it, it must not be that good.

Quote:
Soviet/Russian hardware was never used in war by a first rate power (judged by non-material criteria) after 1945
Again going back to 1945 you can look at in different ways if you like but Russian gear just hasent been as good.

Quote:
Western hardware failed badly or proved itself in wars after 1945 when used by 3rd, 2nd and 1st class powers.
It was good enough to beat Russian made hardware most of the time even by 2nd rate governments. For a West German you seem very anti-western you remind me of a poster in a different forum.

There was simply no fair and really conclusive test (yet).
Yet it's like your almost hoping interesting.
 


Similar Topics
Sea-Based Missile Defense System Shows Promise
The Future Of U.S. Missile Defense
Pentagon Invites Kremlin To Link Missile Systems
Russian Criticizes U.S. Plan For Missile Defense System
"Sweden under attack !" A possible future scenario