Thread: Russian Military Doctrine

Originally Posted by highsea

Kind of like the SA-6/Akash.

Actually there are significant differences between the two systems. The basic structure of the missile is based on the SA-6 configuration, but it uses a different propellant/ internal schema. Nor did India receive Russian assistance for the SA-6 project- its somewhat of a touchy subject in Indo-Russian relations, as the Russians are never too happy about anyone even making anything similar to their products on their own, but without kowtowing and taking permission etc.

Originally Posted by Janes Missile and Rockets

The 6.5 m long, 700 kg Akash is similar in general appearance to the Russian SA-6 `Gainful' but with more advanced technology.

It uses a 4.5 second burn HTPB solid propellant rocket booster motor to accelerate to around 510 m/s (M1.5) whereupon an advanced 30 second burn ramjet rocket sustainer cuts in for the remainder of the M2.8 to 3.5 20 g acceleration powered flight phase. The ramjet sustainer system utilises a gas generator which is fed by a high-energy composite solid propellant with a double-base formulation. This uses finely powdered magnesium as the metallic fuel component rather than
the more usual aluminium fuel additive and, it is believed, nitrocellulose and nitroglycerine as the other components.

The oxidisers are atmospheric oxygen and probably ammonium perchlorate. The booster and sustainer rocket motor cases are flow-formed from maraging steel and titanium alloy respectively. Maximum engagement range is stated to be 27,000 m with the guidance system being, in the first phase of the flight, inertial with mid-course radio command updates from the radar and then semi-active homing for the terminal part as the microwave seeker is switched on 3 to 4 seconds before impact. The warhead weight is 60 kg with a lethal radius of 20 m. A pulse-Doppler radar proximity/contact fuze assembly is fitted. Minimum engagement range is said to be 5,000 m but the system is being re-engineered to reduce this to 1,000 m. Maximum engagement altitude is 18,000 m and minimum altitude 30 m.

The realization of the ramjet tech and challenges almost crippled the Akash program acc. to its developers at DRDL, till it was finally cleared in 2001-02.

Originally Posted by Ruskiy

Maybe, but they are wrong from any side of the coin....

Uhhh.... what? I have no idea what you just said.

Originally Posted by highsea

Russia is spending a big portion of her defense dollars on new ICBM's, and the conventional forces will continue on in a state of disrepair.

I would say that Putin has promised the Russians a revitalized Russian Empire, and this is the only way to deliver something today. And I agree with RickUSN that making NATO and the US the bad guys is the only way Putin can justify the plan.

The losers are the Russian people, spending large amounts of money on weapons that can't be used.

Russian and US nukes are set by treaty. Russia's actual capability has fallen well below the allowed levels. Putin would have been a lot smarter to use the unbalance to argue for further reductions in strategic weapons, rather than spending huge amounts of money to try to catch back up. Then take that money and modernize the conventional forces and develop some good missile defense to level the playing field back up.

Putin would be the complete fool if he decided to reduce the nuclear weapon while the Americans are creating their anti-missile system. The value of modern conventional weapon is very-very high. In case of Russia, having its own nuclear technologies, nuclear industry, rocket plants – all that needed to produce new ICBMs – this is the easier and cheaper way to guarantee the impossibility of ANY external attack. While Russia is able to make a retaliatory strike this situation will be kept. Despite what conventional weapon the opposite side has.
Putin doesn’t need to make NATO and the US the bad guys. The war against Yugoslavia strongly affected consciousness of the Russians. Russians realized that the US is not only democracy but the dangerous and unpredictable country that does what it wants and how it wants.

Originally Posted by MrFirst

Putin would be the complete fool if he decided to reduce the nuclear weapon while the Americans are creating their anti-missile system.

He wouldn't have to reduce anything- just pressure the US to reduce to a comparable level. This would give Putin the "moral high-ground" as they say, and put the onus on the US.

But he doesn't do this- he spends money on more ICBM's, when what's really needed is modernization to the conventional forces.

Originally Posted by MrFirst

The value of modern conventional weapon is very-very high. In case of Russia, having its own nuclear technologies, nuclear industry, rocket plants – all that needed to produce new ICBMs – this is the easier and cheaper way to guarantee the impossibility of ANY external attack.

It guarantees nothing. This is the fallacy. Russia is completely vulnerable to attacks and harassments that fall below the nuclear threshold.

Originally Posted by MrFirst

While Russia is able to make a retaliatory strike this situation will be kept. Despite what conventional weapon the opposite side has.

MAD? When you don't have anywhere near the levels needed to make that work? The US has had first-strike advantage for many years now, don't you know? Do you really think Russia could mount a credible second-strike deterrence today?

Originally Posted by MrFirst

Putin doesn’t need to make NATO and the US the bad guys. The war against Yugoslavia strongly affected consciousness of the Russians.

So why the demonization of the US and NATO?

Originally Posted by MrFirst

Russians realized that the US is not only democracy but the dangerous and unpredictable country that does what it wants and how it wants.

Right, like preventing genocides, promoting democracies, and other unsavory bahaviors like that...

Originally Posted by highsea

He wouldn't have to reduce anything- just pressure the US to reduce to a comparable level. This would give Putin the "moral high-ground" as they say, and put the onus on the US.
But he doesn't do this- he spends money on more ICBM's, when what's really needed is modernization to the conventional forces.

Put the onus on the US? Are you serious, Highsea? If the US just throw off this “onus” like the anti-missile treaty of 1972, and what Russia will be with? It seems Putin believes Russia needs something more essential for arguing and pressing the US than "moral high-ground”. I think he is right. Yes, Russia needs the modernization to the conventional forces but less than nuclear arsenal’s maintenance. There is no direct threat for Russia from any country armed by conventional weapons.

Originally Posted by highsea

It guarantees nothing. This is the fallacy. Russia is completely vulnerable to attacks and harassments that fall below the nuclear threshold.

If it guarantees nothing, suggest your government to nuclear disarm. What the US’s nuclear weapon for? It’s not needed. US have a lot of conventional forces and absolutely protected, they don’t need nuces. Yes?
Russia after you...

Originally Posted by highsea

MAD? When you don't have anywhere near the levels needed to make that work? The US has had first-strike advantage for many years now, don't you know? Do you really think Russia could mount a credible second-strike deterrence today?

Yes, I really think. Nobody hasn’t tried to make sure in converse yet. Do you really think that the US remained unpunished and not damaged if they attack Russia? Are you sure in your safety?

Originally Posted by highsea

So why the demonization of the US and NATO?
Right, like preventing genocides, promoting democracies, and other unsavory bahaviors like that...

That’s not a demonization. Only a sober view on US policy. The bombardment of Yugoslavia killed the last romantics of US-Russian friendship. Perestoika is ended.

Originally Posted by Stan187

Russification in Georgia imported Russians themselves into Georgia, and made it impossible for Georgians to advance unless the spoke Russian, assumed parts of Russian culture, etc.

I was talking to the chief of the Equality Institute a couple of days ago, who is Georgian. The fact that I was able to speak Russian with him, or to probably any other successful person in Georgia, is a legacy of the Russification. People couldn't be successful without russifying themselves, because of the discrimination that they faced if they didn't.

(My excuses to Highsea…)

OK, as I understood from your words, the Russians made the Georgians who wanted to get advance in USSR to learn Russian language. That’s horrible, you’re right. Very cruel discrimination. Even though it was impossible to get advance in Georgia not being Georgian. The Georgians like to tell about how Russians discriminated them this way and that though they have independence already for more than 15 years. This is more than enough to forget Russian and the Russians and speak only Georgian with Georgians. But if you believe this was a cruel discrimination – let it be. This is a very convenient excuse for crazy Georgian policy.