China's nuclear warheads should match the US and Russia

[Martian2]

Well, according to the Chinese government's website:
"Among the nuclear-weapon states, China has performed the least number of nuclear tests and possesses the smallest nuclear arsenal. It has never taken part in any nuclear arms race or deployed any nuclear weapons outside its territory. "

This would put China's nuclear arsenal below 200.

You have to be careful. You could be jumping to a false conclusion. You have to interpret the Chinese government's statement from a lawyer's view and recognize the ambiguity in their claim.

http://www.nukestrat.com/china/Book-35-125.pdf

"Estimating the size of the Chinese nuclear arsenal has always relied almost exclusively on U.S. intelligence estimates, while Chinese government information about the size or composition of its nuclear forces has been almost non-existent. In the Chinese view, secrecy increases the potential adversaries’ uncertainty about Chinese capabilities and therefore increases the deterrent effect, although it may also – as in the case of the United States – cause that adversary to assume the worst. Perhaps in recognition of this dilemma, the Chinese Foreign Ministry in April 2004 published a fact sheet that included the statement: “Among the nuclear-weapon states, China ... possesses the smallest nuclear arsenal.”93 Since Britain has declared that it has less than 200 operationally available warheads, and the United States, Russia and France have more, the Chinese statement could be interpreted to mean that China’s nuclear arsenal is smaller than Britain’s.94

Not surprisingly, the devil is in the details. When the Chinese statement uses the word “arsenal,” does that mean the entire stockpile or just the portion of it that is operationally deployed? To add to the confusion, Britain has not disclosed the size of its stockpile but only declared that “less than 200 warheads” are “operationally available.” This strongly suggests that there may be additional British warheads in storage." (see pp. 38-39)

 

[below_freezing]

our declared nuclear arsenal is below 200, just like israel's declared nuclear arsenal is 0.

zhu chenghu even said, if china is attacked we'll nuke 200 US cities. now most US cities are spread out over several hundred km2, and over complex terrain. it would require at least 2x megaton level warheads to take out one city. those 400 warheads have to be delivered by comparable ICBMs.

 

[gambit]

our declared nuclear arsenal is below 200, just like israel's declared nuclear arsenal is 0.

zhu chenghu even said, if china is attacked we'll nuke 200 US cities. now most US cities are spread out over several hundred km2, and over complex terrain. it would require at least 2x megaton level warheads to take out one city. those 400 warheads have to be delivered by comparable ICBMs.

So you do support a Chinese nuclear first use option. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[mDumb]

Biography of Zhu Chenghu:
Professor Zhu Chenghu is an active officer serving as the deputy director of the Institute for Strategic Studies, National Defense University, the People's Liberation Army. He graduated from the college of International Relations at Nanjing, the Military College, and Post-Graduate School of National Defense University. He has been teaching ad researching in the university for 27 years. His major interest of research lies in the Sino-US relations and Asian-Pacific security.

Professor Zhu has been quite prolific. His recent books include: "Retrospect and Prospects of Sino-US relations," "The Relations between the Major Powers in the 21st Century," and "The Problems that the World is Facing." The forthcoming books include: "The US Military Strategy" and "Contemporary Military Affairs in the United States." He has also published many articles at home and abroad.

Professor Zhu married a neurologist and has a daughter learning economics in business school.

<So you do support a Chinese nuclear first use option. Thanks for clearing that up.>

Dude, lighten up. China's policy on nuclear weapons has been posted on this thread. Furthermore, Mr. Zhu is not a CMC member. I am not sure if he is even from the SMF (Strategic Missile Force). However, he is a major general from the PLA.

 

[mDumb]

China's nuclear warheads according to this source:
An anonymous poster (123889@anon.penet.fi) sent an internal document of the Chinese Defense Ministry to the Hong Kong magazine The Trend (Dong Xiang). This document reveals that China at present has a total of 2,350 nuclear warheads. This number i s about 8 times larger than the 300 generally cited in the Western media. Among the 2,350 warheads are about 550 tactical nukes and 1,800 strategic nukes. The document also reveals that the annual production of warheads was about 110-120 i n the 1980's and about 140-150 at present.
Those figures are reasonable. According to China Built The Bomb (a book published in U.S. during the late-1980's), data from various U.S. intelligence agencies show that, in the mid-1980's, China was producing at least 800 kilograms of U-235 and 4 00 kilograms of Pu-239 per year:

Lanzhou Gaseous Diffusion Plant 400kg U-235/year
Helanshan Centrifuge I 400kg U-235/year
Helanshan Centrifuge II ???
Yumen Breeder Reactor 250kg Pu-239/year
Baotou Breeder Reactor 150kg Pu-239/year
Guangyuan Breeder Reactor ???
A typical fission-only nuclear device (N-bomb) in U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals uses an average of 15 kilograms of U-235 or 5 kilograms of Pu-239, with a typical yield in tens of kiloton TNT. In fact, a fission nuclear device can be built with just 1 .8 kilogram of Pu-239 by using the neutron reflection/multiplying technique with U-238/Beryllium tamper in addition to the normal implosion technique, but the yield will be barely kiloton TNT or ever sub-kiloton TNT. However, this will be enough as the f ission trigger in the thermonuclear device (the so-called "Hydrogen-bomb").

Except for the fission-trigger, the thermonuclear device could be built without the additional U-235/Pu-239, just the Lithium6-Deuteride fusion core plus the U-238 pusher and U-238 jacket in the normal fission-fusion-fission H-bomb, or the fusion core wit h the Tungsten pusher and jacket in the fission-fusion Neutron-bomb. Given the amount of fissionable material (U-235/Pu-239) being produced, it is very likely that China is making 140-150 nuclear warheads a year and she has accumulated 2,350 nuclear warh eads so far.

This is the latest figure of the US nuclear warheads:
The US announced that it has 5,113 nuclear warheads now, down from 22,217 warheads in 1989. The declassified figure is close to previous estimates made by military observers.

So, using the data above: China should have (5113 - 2350) additional 2763 warheads.

 

[applesauce]

So you do support a Chinese nuclear first use option. Thanks for clearing that up.

read: if attacked

did he mean nuclear attacked? maybe maybe not, he didn't clarify but we can only go by what the government has say which is nuclear response to nuclear attack thus we can only conclude at best that he means if attacked by nuclear arms.

so stop putting word in other peoples mouths

 

[Communist]

This is the latest figure of the US nuclear warheads:
The US announced that it has 5,113 nuclear warheads now, down from 22,217 warheads in 1989. The declassified figure is close to previous estimates made by military observers.

So, using the data above: China should have (5113 - 2350) additional 2763 warheads.

Do you really believe in the US announcement that it has only 5113 war heads?

In reality US seems to have more than 50,000 active war heads. To keep and maintain active warheads, one needs to spend huge amount of money. And if we look at the US defense budget, it becomes apparent that US is keeping that large number of warheads ready for action, if not deployed on the launch pads.

China urgently needs to build more than 20,000 warheads, with at least 10,000 warheads actively deployed.

And one more thing, at least 2/3 of the warheads should be of strategic nukes.

 

[mDumb]

<Do you really believe in the US announcement that it has only 5113 war heads? >

Washington (CNN) -- The United States has 5,113 nuclear warheads in its stockpile and many thousands more that have been retired and are awaiting dismantling, according to a senior defense official.
The release of the number of warheads marks only the second time in U.S. history the government has released the once top secret information. Also, other news articles report the same number.

<In reality US seems to have more than 50,000 active war heads>

I don't think so. It's definitely less than < 10000. It's expensive to maintain nuclear warheads. I think the US spends about $6 billions annually.

 

[gambit]

read: if attacked

did he mean nuclear attacked? maybe maybe not, he didn't clarify but we can only go by what the government has say which is nuclear response to nuclear attack thus we can only conclude at best that he means if attacked by nuclear arms.

so stop putting word in other peoples mouths

Then perhaps he should be more careful in thoughts BEFORE putting them into words. The US is overwhelming in conventional arms regardless of how much rhetorics Chinese fanboys spews about our economic situations, Afghanistan and Iraq. If there is a shooting fight between US and China, we do not need to use nuclear weapons. After Desert Storm, supposedly a retired Indian general advised everyone not to fight US without nuclear weapons. The rhetorical point is clear, that unless a country is willing to use nuclear weapons, if said country is a nuclear weapons state, then said country had better prepared to be defeated in conventional arms and on its own soil.

 

[ptldM3]

Between the advanced Kongo-class Aegis destroyers intended to control a bubble of airspace and the advanced American fighters in the Japanese Air Self-Defense Force, I'm willing to bet on the better-equipped and better-trained Japanese to soundly defeat the Russians in a conventional battle for the Northern Territories/Kuril Islands.

Soundly defeat? The Russian airforce is large and still well equiped and Russia still has elite piliots. Lets say the Japanese airforce get the best of us what happens when the S-400 comes into the picture? With the S-400 it's 'they fly they die'.

Bulava Launch Failure and the Crisis of Russian Defense Industry
"Dec 18, 2009 ... The recent Bulava launch failure has implications for US-Russian arms .... that the Russian military industrial complex is falling apart. ..."

yes but some how we still keep comming up with advanced systems such as S-400 and new concepts such as the pak-fa. With the recent crashes of J-10's does this mean the Chinese military industrial complex is falling apart too?

In the US's easy defeat of Saddam Hussein's army, Russia sees a lesson for its own conventional forces.

And this is a bad thing? Russia see's what works and what doesn't and adjusts accordingly.

The Iraqi Army - which was cloned from the Red Army in the final decades of the Soviet Union - mounted only a feeble defense before falling apart.

Christian science monitor Clone??? Sweet mother of god, this is a stupid claim, since when did Russia use T-54 and T-55s? Since when did Iraq have satelites and intelligence agencies aqual to Russia? Since when did Russian generals and military planners equate to Iraqi generals or military planners? Since when were Russian pilots as poor as Iraqi pilots? Since when did Russian soldiers equate to poorly trained and cowardly Iraqi soldiers?

The swift victory by mobile, high-tech American forces over heavily armored Iraqi troops dug in to defend large cities like Baghdad has jolted many Russian military planners. "The Iraqi Army was a replica of the Russian Army, and its defeat was not predicted by our generals," says Vitaly Shlykov, a former deputy defense minister of Russia.

Did he really think that an army equiped with ancient weapons and led by incompedent commanders was going to win?

Last week, the independent Council on Foreign and Defense Policy - a group of top Russian military experts and former policymakers, including Mr. Shlykov - met to assess the implications of the US triumph in Iraq for Russia. Their conclusion: The Kremlin must drop all post-Soviet pretense that Russia remains a superpower, and make rebuilding and redesigning the nation's military forces a top priority. "We cannot afford to postpone this any longer," Boris Nemtsov, head of the liberal Union of Right Forces, told the meeting.

This proves what?

Twelve years after the USSR's collapse, the most unreformed branch of Russian society remains its armed forces. Though its numbers have been halved to about 1.2 million personnel, and its annual budget has dropped to a mere $10 billion, the structure, weaponry, and doctrines of today's Russian military remain those of its Soviet predecessor. Each Russian defense minister since 1991 has pledged sweeping reform, yet more than half of the Army's combat forces remain ill-trained conscripts required to serve for two years for just 100 rubles ($3) a month. Aside from the strategic nuclear forces, no branch of the Russian military has acquired significant quantities of modern weaponry in more than a decade.

Again first things first, this artical is 7 years old and it's a failure of biblical proportion what about the Russian Navy? Commissioning and laying down billion dollar ships and submarines isn't "significant"

According to a Defense Ministry survey in early 2003, cited in the daily Izvestia, more than a third of Russian officers and their families live below the poverty line, and fewer than half of the officers want to remain in the service.

Yes because poverty doesn't exist in the glorious Rupublic of China. Again what's your point?

Others say that Russia also must define a clear post-Soviet security doctrine. "How can we reform our Army when we have not defined the threats it must deal with?" says Mr. Dvorkin. "We must first identify our national interests, then we'll know who our enemies might be."

And this is bad because....???

As the US prepared to invade Iraq, many Russian military experts warned that American forces would come to grief in the streets of Iraqi cities. Some predicted the battle of Baghdad would resemble the Russian Army's two assaults on the Chechen capital of Grozny - in 1995 and again in 2000 - each of which lasted more than a month and cost hundreds of Russian casualties.

The US military has come accross Chechens in Iraq and they arn't your typical fighters, US marines were ambushed by Chechens, after taking some causualties the US desided to call in a tank and destroy the location were the Chechens were held up because the Chechens were unwilling to give up, can't say the same for Iraqi soldiers...

Some in Russia's military establishment still appear reluctant to accept the sweeping military verdict in Iraq. "I think American dollars won the war, it was not a military victory," says Gen. Makhmut Gareyev, president of the official Academy of Military Sciences in Moscow. "The Americans bought the Iraqi military leadership with dollars. One can only envy a state that is so rich."

Clearly this guy is a moron, Iraq lost because it was outdated and incompedent.

Why didn't Russia get its *** kicked by Georgia after all Georgians were trained by US marines and alot of their equipement was western.

 

[ptldM3]

You bring up a good point. The Japanese don't like the Russians. The Japanese want their Northern Territories/Kuril Islands back. This actually makes it quite dangerous to allow the Japanese to have nuclear weapons.

Suppose a right-wing Japanese party wins an election. The new Imperial Japanese Army may try to retake the Northern Territories by conventional military means. They will succeed. The Russians have no answer for the six Japanese Kongo-class Aegis destroyers. The Russians may retaliate with nuclear weapons. Now, we have a nuke war in East Asia.

you're saying that Russian submarines and destroyers can't sink Japanese destroyers? What about Russian's Udaloy class distroyers or....i don't know the intire god damn Russian Navy?

In the best-case scenario, there may only be a few radioactive clouds blowing over Chinese territory. In the worst-case scenario, the Japanese might trigger a full-fledged nuke war. In this nightmare, after Moscow and St. Petersburg are nuked by the Japanese in retaliation, the Russians may decide to take everyone else with them.

You have some imagination

 

[Martian2]

ptldM3, you forgot to read post #17 (reproduced below):

In my opinion, combat-proven advanced fourth-generation U.S. fighters are superior to Russian fighters that are comparable only on paper. Are you claiming that you think Russia will win a conventional war over the Northern Territories/Kuril Islands against technologically-advanced Japan (e.g. $5.1 trillion-dollar GDP), which also possesses an economy four times larger than Russia (e.g. $1.2 trillion)?

The Russian military will be flying planes built by a decrepit military-industrial-complex. See fifth article below.

Russian Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Air Force continues to suffer from a lack of resources for pilot training. In the 1990s Russian pilots achieved approximately 10&#37; of the flight hours of the United States Air Force. The 2007 edition of the IISS Military Balance listed pilots of tactical aviation flying 20&#8211;25 hours a year, 61st Air Army pilots (former Military Transport Aviation), 60 hours a year, and Army Aviation under VVS control 55 hours a year.[9]
...
On 5 June 2009, the Chief of the General Staff, Nikolai Makarov said of the Russian Air Force that "They can run bombing missions only in daytime with the sun shining, but they miss their targets anyway".[19] Maj. Gen. Pavel Androsov said that Russia's long-range bombers would be upgraded in 2009 with the aim of being able to hit within 20 meters of their targets.[20]

In February 2009, the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported that 200 of the 291 MiG-29s currently in service across all Russian air arms were unsafe and would have to be permanently grounded.[21] This action would remove from service about a third of Russia's total fighter force, some 650 aircraft."

Russia to re-arm military as Nato expands - Europe, World - The Independent

"Russia to re-arm military as Nato expands

Reuters
Tuesday, 17 March 2009

President Dmitry Medvedev, who seeks to improve chilly ties with the United States, today said Russia would rearm its military and boost nuclear forces because US-led Nato is expanding towards Russia's borders.
...
Medvedev said the large-scale modernisation of the army and navy would begin in 2011."

Newsvine - Russia: They like us, they like us not...
"Mar 18, 2009 ... Russia is increasingly having to deal with a military that is underpaid, underfunded, and falling apart. They also have a world stage to ..."

Weak Russian Military Suggestive of Nuclear First Strike Doctrine | 1913 Intel

"Weak Russian Military Suggestive of Nuclear First Strike Doctrine
Posted by Matt in December 27th, 2009

The bottom line is that Russia reserves the right to launch a nuclear preemptive strike to protect itself and its allies.

Russia&#8217;s military is falling apart, therefore, it&#8217;s becoming clear that Russia will increasingly rely on its nuclear weapons for protection. This will include threats and/or preemptive nuclear strikes.

Therefore, Russia now announced its right to use nuclear weapons not only in case of aggression against itself, but also as a &#8220;response to a threat of using (or usage) against itself and (or) its allies of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction, as well as a response to the aggression with regular weapons in the situations critical for the Russian Federation."

As Its Military Industry Withers, Russia Looks to Buy Arms Abroad

"As Its Military Industry Withers, Russia Looks to Buy Arms Abroad

MOSCOW -- Ask a Russian what the country makes well, and the answer, more often than not, will be the Kalashnikov rifle.
Russian-made cars may be rickety, and its passenger airplanes such fuel-guzzlers that even the country's flag carrier, AeRoflot, has switched to a mostly Western fleet. But Russians could always point with pride to the fearsome reputation of their weapons -- the Kalashnikov and the MIG and Sukhoi fighter jets.
Indeed, until recently, Russia's military exports were second in volume only to the United States.
But in today's Russia, the $40 billion military equipment industry is withering alongside civilian manufacturing.
Once-legendary Russian weapons are suffering embarrassing quality-control problems. Algeria, for example, recently returned a shipment of MIG jets because of defects.
An aircraft carrier refurbishment for India is four years late and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget.
In perhaps the most poignant sign of trouble, Russia's own military is now voting with its rubles: Moscow is in talks with France to buy four French amphibious assault ships. If a deal is struck, it would be Russia's most significant acquisition of foreign weapons since World War II.
The purchase of Mistral-class ships would be ''the most salient example of the deficiencies in the Russian defense industry,'' said Dmitri Trenin, a military analyst at the Carnegie Moscow Center, a policy research organization."

 

[ptldM3]

ptldM3, you forgot to read post #17 (reproduced below):

In my opinion, combat-proven advanced fourth-generation U.S. fighters are superior to Russian fighters that are comparable only on paper. Are you claiming that you think Russia will win a conventional war over the Northern Territories/Kuril Islands against technologically-advanced Japan (e.g. $5.1 trillion-dollar GDP), which also possesses an economy four times larger than Russia (e.g. $1.2 trillion)?

Outdated Mig-29's going up against F-16 in mock dogfights was a "paper' claim? What about MKI's that are made up of mostly Russian avionics going up against F-15's?



Russian Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Air Force continues to suffer from a lack of resources for pilot training. In the 1990s Russian pilots achieved approximately 10&#37; of the flight hours of the United States Air Force. The 2007 edition of the IISS Military Balance listed pilots of tactical aviation flying 20&#8211;25 hours a year, 61st Air Army pilots (former Military Transport Aviation), 60 hours a year, and Army Aviation under VVS control 55 hours a year.[9]

Search harder China fanboy:

DEADLY WHITE SWANS

Some of our pilots now spend 100 hours and even more - up to 200 hours - in the air annually...

On 5 June 2009, the Chief of the General Staff, Nikolai Makarov said of the Russian Air Force that "They can run bombing missions only in daytime with the sun shining, but they miss their targets anyway".[19] Maj. Gen. Pavel Androsov said that Russia's long-range bombers would be upgraded in 2009 with the aim of being able to hit within 20 meters of their targets.[20]

Again search harder China fanboy, Russia now has day and night capable platforms such as the SU-34, SU-35BM and TU-160, ground attack such as the SU-25 that lacked night capability and precision weapons are now being replaced by SU-39's.

Reuters
Tuesday, 17 March 2009

President Dmitry Medvedev, who seeks to improve chilly ties with the United States, today said Russia would rearm its military and boost nuclear forces because US-led Nato is expanding towards Russia's borders.
...
Medvedev said the large-scale modernisation of the army and navy would begin in 2011."

And....???

Newsvine - Russia: They like us, they like us not...

"Mar 18, 2009 ... Russia is increasingly having to deal with a military that is underpaid, underfunded, and falling apart. They also have a world stage to ..."

Russia came out of an economic depression that was many time worse than the great depression, what they are doing and accomplishing now is nothing less than amazing, and although military pay isn't the best it is improving.

Weak Russian Military Suggestive of Nuclear First Strike Doctrine | 1913 Intel

"Weak Russian Military Suggestive of Nuclear First Strike Doctrine
Posted by Matt in December 27th, 2009

weak i can also find **** sources that claim the US is weak

Weak militaries don't come up with new inovations and have budget increases each year.

This is just some of what Russia has come up with in the last decade or so: SU-35bm, pak-fa, S-400, SU-34, Topel-M, ka-50, NIIP AESA, ZHUK AESA....and much more. Moreover the Russian navy has commisioned and is in the process of commissioning more submarines and ships, let not forget that Russia planes to build atleast six aircraft carriers with in a 20 year period.

Russia&#8217;s military is falling apart, therefore, it&#8217;s becoming clear that Russia will increasingly rely on its nuclear weapons for protection. This will include threats and/or preemptive nuclear strikes.

And i can also find articals on Russian military resergence.



As Its Military Industry Withers, Russia Looks to Buy Arms Abroad

But in today's Russia, the $40 billion military equipment industry is withering alongside civilian manufacturing.
Once-legendary Russian weapons are suffering embarrassing quality-control problems. Algeria, for example, recently returned a shipment of MIG jets because of defects.

Algerian scandal: swapping MiGs for MiGs | Top Russian news and analysis online | 'RIA Novosti' newswire



Let me give you another artical relating to the Algerian mig SCANDAL:

The rather suspicious Algerian scandal should not be used to assess the potential of Russia's defense industry. According to some analysts, the incident was provoked by European aircraft producers attempting to oust Moscow from the lucrative North African market.

By fueling the scandal, Algeria may have hoped to sign a more profitable contract.

Ironic how they gladly excepted SU-30's...

In perhaps the most poignant sign of trouble, Russia's own military is now voting with its rubles: Moscow is in talks with France to buy four French amphibious assault ships.

If a deal is struck, it would be Russia's most significant acquisition of foreign weapons since World War II.
The purchase of Mistral-class ships would be ''the most salient example of the deficiencies in the Russian defense industry,'' said Dmitri Trenin, a military analyst at the Carnegie Moscow Center, a policy research organization."

The US bought Russian engines to power their Atlas rockets, so does this mean the US is incapable? What about the Abrams and its German made barrel or its British based armour? The Mistral is unique and Russia had the money so they purchased it, also the main driving factor in the purchase was the Mistrals' ability to get equipment and men to the battle front quickly and after the Georgian conflict the was a top priority.

 

[Martian2]

In case anyone believes that I'm being unfair by saying: "In my opinion, combat-proven advanced fourth-generation U.S. fighters are superior to Russian fighters that are comparable only on paper."

Rest assured that my view is an informed opinion. I try to be as objective as possible based on known information. After reading the following article, I think you might also adopt a more skeptical attitude toward Russian military hardware.

A fourth-generation fighter is a magnitude more complex than a simple missile. If Russia is having this much trouble with an inducted missile, I will reserve judgment on Russian fourth-generation fighters until they're proven to function as claimed.

Dud missile(Russian cruise missiles)

"Dud missile(Russian cruise missiles)
India Today ^ | January 10, 2008 | Sandeep Unnithan

Sandeep Unnithan

January 10, 2008

It was dubbed Baby Tomahawkski, a short-legged Russian version of the eponymous US cruise missiles. Fired from the torpedo tube of a submarine, it could fly over 300 km delivering a 400 kg warhead to a target with pin-point accuracy.

It would give the Indian Navy’s submarines capability to attack targets on land. Yet, the Kilo class submarine INS Sindhuvijay and the land-attack missiles it is equipped to fire have today joined aircraft carrier Vikramaditya as another bone of contention that India has with its largest defence supplier, Russia.

The navy recently refused to take the delivery of Sindhuvijay, which completed refit at the Zvyozdochka shipyard near St Petersburg after its missiles failed to find their targets.

The 50-man crew sent to Russia to sail back with the submarine is set to return to India with the naval brass taking a stern line by asking the shipyard to fix the problem before it takes the delivery of the submarine.

The Sindhuvijay, which completed its year-long refit in Russia last year, sailed to a test range in the Barents Sea for a series of firings on land targets.

The 3M54E1 Klub cruise missiles, however, failed to hit the targets in as many as six consecutive test firings carried out in the Arctic between September and November.

In certain cases, the snub-nosed subsonic missiles veered several kilometres away from their intended targets leading the navy to take this drastic step. It will take another year to rectify the defects and prove it in trials.

Delays seem to have become a common feature with some of the recently acquired Russian equipment. Last year, India had suspended payments for one of the three IL-38 maritime patrol aircraft upgraded with the Sea Dragon submarine detection equipment, because they did not meet performance parameters.

The navy has detected hull vibrations on the three Talwar class frigates bought from Russia during 2003-04 and interface issues with the Ka-31 airborne early warning (AEW) helicopters flown off these frigates.

Russia has also indicated a six-month delay in the delivery of the Akula-II nuclear-powered submarine, Chakra, moored at the far eastern shipyard of Komsomolsk on Amur."

 

[Martian2]

In case anyone believes that I'm being unfair by saying: "In my opinion, combat-proven advanced fourth-generation U.S. fighters are superior to Russian fighters that are comparable only on paper."

Rest assured that my view is an informed opinion. I try to be as objective as possible based on known information. After reading the following article, I think you might also adopt a more skeptical attitude toward Russian military hardware.

A fourth-generation fighter is a magnitude more complex than a simple missile. If Russia is having this much trouble with an inducted missile, I will reserve judgment on Russian fourth-generation fighters until they're proven to function as claimed.

Dud missile(Russian cruise missiles)

"Dud missile(Russian cruise missiles)
India Today ^ | January 10, 2008 | Sandeep Unnithan

Sandeep Unnithan

January 10, 2008

It was dubbed Baby Tomahawkski, a short-legged Russian version of the eponymous US cruise missiles. Fired from the torpedo tube of a submarine, it could fly over 300 km delivering a 400 kg warhead to a target with pin-point accuracy.

It would give the Indian Navy&#8217;s submarines capability to attack targets on land. Yet, the Kilo class submarine INS Sindhuvijay and the land-attack missiles it is equipped to fire have today joined aircraft carrier Vikramaditya as another bone of contention that India has with its largest defence supplier, Russia.

The navy recently refused to take the delivery of Sindhuvijay, which completed refit at the Zvyozdochka shipyard near St Petersburg after its missiles failed to find their targets.

The 50-man crew sent to Russia to sail back with the submarine is set to return to India with the naval brass taking a stern line by asking the shipyard to fix the problem before it takes the delivery of the submarine.

The Sindhuvijay, which completed its year-long refit in Russia last year, sailed to a test range in the Barents Sea for a series of firings on land targets.

The 3M54E1 Klub cruise missiles, however, failed to hit the targets in as many as six consecutive test firings carried out in the Arctic between September and November.

In certain cases, the snub-nosed subsonic missiles veered several kilometres away from their intended targets leading the navy to take this drastic step. It will take another year to rectify the defects and prove it in trials.

Delays seem to have become a common feature with some of the recently acquired Russian equipment. Last year, India had suspended payments for one of the three IL-38 maritime patrol aircraft upgraded with the Sea Dragon submarine detection equipment, because they did not meet performance parameters.

The navy has detected hull vibrations on the three Talwar class frigates bought from Russia during 2003-04 and interface issues with the Ka-31 airborne early warning (AEW) helicopters flown off these frigates.

Russia has also indicated a six-month delay in the delivery of the Akula-II nuclear-powered submarine, Chakra, moored at the far eastern shipyard of Komsomolsk on Amur."

You must be wondering, were "the six consecutive failures of the 3M54E1 Klub cruise missiles, subpar IL-38 maritime patrol aircraft upgraded with the Sea Dragon submarine detection equipment, detected hull vibrations on the three Talwar class frigates bought from Russia, and interface issues with the Ka-31 airborne early warning (AEW) helicopters" isolated cases?

It does not appear to be so. The Russians have been working on their high-profile Bulava program for 15 years. The majority of tests were failures and the Russians, as of May 3 2010, still have no clue what's wrong. Does this inspire confidence? They can't get a relatively simple SLBM to work. Do you still believe that Russian versions of complex fourth-generation fighters are the equals of rigorously-tested and proven American combat planes?

Let's look at the current Russian RIA Novosti's report on the multi-billion dollar Russian Bulava SLBM (i.e. sub-launched ballistic missile).

Russian military yet to identify causes of Bulava missile's woes | Top Russian news and analysis online | 'RIA Novosti' newswire

"Russian military yet to identify causes of Bulava missile's woes

20:03 05/03/2010

The Russian military is still working to establish the reasons for the misfiring of the troubled Bulava ballistic missile, Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said on Friday.

The Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) has officially suffered seven failures in 12 tests. Some analysts suggest that in reality the number of failures was considerably larger, with Russian military expert Pavel Felgenhauer contending that of the Bulava's 12 test launches, only one was entirely successful.

"So far the Bulava tests have not been very successful, but we are looking for the causes [of the failures] and working to rectify them, and we will definitely bring this work to conclusion," Serdyukov said."

http://defense-update.com/features/2009/july/russian_sub_test_240709.html

"However further development of Russia's failure-prone Bulava ballistic missile could be assigned to another design bureau if the project remains in the works, a Russian military expert said last week. "For 15 years the money [for the project] has been thrown down the drain. I think [work on] the missile will be ultimately given to another firm," said Anatoly Tsyganok, head of the Moscow-based Military Forecast Center. The missile, which is being developed by the Moscow-based Institute of Thermal Technology (MITT), has had six failures in 11 tests, and the general director of the institute resigned last week over what is believed to be a serious setback in the development of Russia's top nuclear deterrent."