StarDestroyer.Net BBS

What events would have to happen in the world for Russia to actually go to war, and obliterate its enemies. I don't think Iraq would spark anything, North Korea? ..hrmm no
Iran however, maybe? Russia built them some nice nuclear reactors, which the US is now shittings its pants over...

So question, what has to happen for Russia to go to war
opinions?

In the current world climate, only if Russia's vital interests were directly attacked. By that I mean, a direct assault on her own territory.

As for attacking any other nation, it just wouldn't happen- Russia has no interests worth going to war over outside her borders. Though you'd have to be crazy to attack Russia. Not only will you have a 99% chance of getting your ass kicked, but you'd reap the nuclear whirlwind.

The only possible exception I could see would be the neighbouring former Soviet republics- in particular say Georgia- whoose quite the little shit neighbour. Maybe if Georgia was supporting the Chechens, with whom Georgia shares a border (remember that Chechnya is part of the Russian Federation, and is not another country).

Omega-13 wrote:What events would have to happen in the world for Russia to actually go to war, and obliterate its enemies. I don't think Iraq would spark anything, North Korea? ..hrmm no
Iran however, maybe? Russia built them some nice nuclear reactors, which the US is now shittings its pants over...

So question, what has to happen for Russia to go to war
opinions?

Given the state of their armed forces? only a direct threat to Russia itself..or the ressurection of Stalin.

Stuart Mackey wrote:
Given the state of their armed forces? only a direct threat to Russia itself..or the ressurection of Stalin.

You know it was the anniversary of his death a week or so ago. A lot of old communists went to his grave to pay their respects. The fogeys miss him. And some of the younguns do too, if the news reports are to be believed.

Russia's already fighting a moderate civil war in Chechnya, though there isn't very much fighting now. Overall, I think they would put considerable effort into avoiding any form of external war before at least 2010. They couldn't afford it, and the Russian economy is finally moving progress, an international war would probably throw it back five years.

For Russia to go to war, they need to suffer a signfiacnt attack on there territory. But the only nation thats in a position or has a reason to do that is China. But Russian and Chinese relations have greatly improved in the last couple years.

Naval deployments and sending peacekeepers to the Balkans is is course another story.

Vympel wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:
Given the state of their armed forces? only a direct threat to Russia itself..or the ressurection of Stalin.

You know it was the anniversary of his death a week or so ago. A lot of old communists went to his grave to pay their respects. The fogeys miss him. And some of the younguns do too, if the news reports are to be believed.

I know, but hey, everyone thinks the past is golden and facts have nothing to do with popular history.

As for attacking any other nation, it just wouldn't happen- Russia has no interests worth going to war over outside her borders. Though you'd have to be crazy to attack Russia. Not only will you have a 99% chance of getting your ass kicked, but you'd reap the nuclear whirlwind.

Agreed, they really have no need to go to war at all, no one is really pissing them off,
And I agree, you'd be nuts to attack them. Though I do enjoy everyone's CNN or TLC extreme machines impression of Russia's equipment as rusted scrap heaps....

Congress was shitting its pants about the new Russian SAMS and Sunburns...
they got tons of things more advanced than the U.S.

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Omega-13 wrote:What events would have to happen in the world for Russia to actually go to war, and obliterate its enemies. I don't think Iraq would spark anything, North Korea? ..hrmm no
Iran however, maybe? Russia built them some nice nuclear reactors, which the US is now shittings its pants over...

So question, what has to happen for Russia to go to war
opinions?

Given the state of their armed forces? only a direct threat to Russia itself..or the ressurection of Stalin.

Lenin's body is in better shape I'd expect.

Omega-13 wrote: Agreed, they really have no need to go to war at all, no one is really pissing them off,
And I agree, you'd be nuts to attack them. Though I do enjoy everyone's CNN or TLC extreme machines impression of Russia's equipment as rusted scrap heaps....

Yeah- Which of course comes from the wonderful experience in Iraq- as if that was some sort of awesome test

Congress was shitting its pants about the new Russian SAMS and Sunburns...
they got tons of things more advanced than the U.S.

Well, the USAF did show videos of the Su-35 doing its stuff to make Congress loosen the purse-strings on the F-22

Omega-13 wrote:

As for attacking any other nation, it just wouldn't happen- Russia has no interests worth going to war over outside her borders. Though you'd have to be crazy to attack Russia. Not only will you have a 99% chance of getting your ass kicked, but you'd reap the nuclear whirlwind.

Agreed, they really have no need to go to war at all, no one is really pissing them off,
And I agree, you'd be nuts to attack them. Though I do enjoy everyone's CNN or TLC extreme machines impression of Russia's equipment as rusted scrap heaps....

Congress was shitting its pants about the new Russian SAMS and Sunburns...
they got tons of things more advanced than the U.S.

Well, we can directly blaim Klinton for canceling Sea Snake in favor of buying Kh-31's that couldn't do a fraction of what was required.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Omega-13 wrote:What events would have to happen in the world for Russia to actually go to war, and obliterate its enemies. I don't think Iraq would spark anything, North Korea? ..hrmm no
Iran however, maybe? Russia built them some nice nuclear reactors, which the US is now shittings its pants over...

So question, what has to happen for Russia to go to war
opinions?

Given the state of their armed forces? only a direct threat to Russia itself..or the ressurection of Stalin.

Lenin's body is in better shape I'd expect.

I have a image of Stalin and Lennin in the 'return of the living dead'

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Well, we can directly blaim Klinton for canceling Sea Snake in favor of buying Kh-31's that couldn't do a fraction of what was required.

Those weren't Kh-31s. They were MA-31s, drone monkey versions.

What was Sea Snake?

And I love it when you guys spell it Klinton!!! Though I don't think he had any direct responsibility in that.

Stuart Mackey wrote:
I have a image of Stalin and Lennin in the 'return of the living dead'

The Simpson's episode.

*Lenin bursts out of his glass case*

"Must, crush, CAPITALISM .... GRRRRRRRAHHHHHHHHHHHH!"

Vympel wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:
I have a image of Stalin and Lennin in the 'return of the living dead'

The Simpson's episode.

*Lenin bursts out of his glass case*

"Must, crush, CAPITALISM .... GRRRRRRRAHHHHHHHHHHHH!"

*snigger* I wish I had seen that...

Vympel wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Well, we can directly blaim Klinton for canceling Sea Snake in favor of buying Kh-31's that couldn't do a fraction of what was required.

Those weren't Kh-31s. They were MA-31s, drone monkey versions.

What was Sea Snake?

And I love it when you guys spell it Klinton!!! Though I don't think he had any direct responsibility in that.

Yes he did, the administration specifically had it canceled. Sea Snake is an improvement of the Vandal target drone, which in turn is a modified Talos SAM. Sea Snakes would have been new built. It had significant longer range on the deck then the MA-31s that where purchased, though it had somewhat lower speed, mach 2.2 vs. 2.7

But the USN's requirements where for a target which could fly 50 miles on the deck. MA-31 can go 16, Sea Snake could go 55. It's a larger missile, but similar size to things like the SS-N-22 which is what the USN was concerned about anyway.

There was also considerable interest in modifying the Sea Snake to serve as an ultimate ARM weapon to deal with SA-10's and SA-12's. Flying high its has a range of over 75 miles at mach 3. Making HARM look like a peice of shit. In Vietnam it proved quite effective against radar stations in addition to its MiG kills.

Vympel wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:
I have a image of Stalin and Lennin in the 'return of the living dead'

The Simpson's episode.

*Lenin bursts out of his glass case*

"Must, crush, CAPITALISM .... GRRRRRRRAHHHHHHHHHHHH!"

"Soviet Union, but I thought you guys broke up?"
"That's what we wanted you to think!"
*Presses button flipping name plate*

That was great.

Sea Skimmer wrote: Yes he did, the administration specifically had it canceled. Sea Snake is an improvement of the Vandal target drone, which in turn is a modified Talos SAM. Sea Snakes would have been new built. It had significant longer range on the deck then the MA-31s that where purchased, though it had somewhat lower speed, mach 2.2 vs. 2.7

Ah ok then- I meant Clinton probably didn't specifically order drone KRYPTONs.

But the USN's requirements where for a target which could fly 50 miles on the deck. MA-31 can go 16, Sea Snake could go 55. It's a larger missile, but similar size to things like the SS-N-22 which is what the USN was concerned about anyway.

Yeah- China buying some and all that. And it's pretty common among the Russian Navy as well.

There was also considerable interest in modifying the Sea Snake to serve as an ultimate ARM weapon to deal with SA-10's and SA-12's. Flying high its has a range of over 75 miles at mach 3. Making HARM look like a peice of shit. In Vietnam it proved quite effective against radar stations in addition to its MiG kills.

That sounds like a dead ringer for Kh-31P. The Kh-31P has a range of 110km and flies at somewhere around Mach 4 (sources differ- Mach 3.6 to Mach 4.5). The Kh-31PD, yet to enter service, has a range of 150km. Currently, only the Su-24M takes it, but the next generation aircraft and the Su-32P 'Prowlerski' will all make use of it.

Actually, the Russians are sending two Udaloys to the Gulf, but that's only to safeguard their interests in Iraq - Countries do that all the time when there's a conflict that's not involving them directly but does involve their nation's economic interests indirectly, or if one of their civilians gets caught up in it and taken hostage or killed. That's why the Maine was in Havana when she blew up.

Sea Skimmer wrote:There was also considerable interest in modifying the Sea Snake to serve as an ultimate ARM weapon to deal with SA-10's and SA-12's. Flying high its has a range of over 75 miles at mach 3. Making HARM look like a peice of shit. In Vietnam it proved quite effective against radar stations in addition to its MiG kills.

How did Talos-ARM compare with Standard-ARM?

Vympel wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote: Yes he did, the administration specifically had it canceled. Sea Snake is an improvement of the Vandal target drone, which in turn is a modified Talos SAM. Sea Snakes would have been new built. It had significant longer range on the deck then the MA-31s that where purchased, though it had somewhat lower speed, mach 2.2 vs. 2.7

Ah ok then- I meant Clinton probably didn't specifically order drone KRYPTONs.

His administration didn’t come up with the idea to buy them instead; it was already on the books from when the Sea Snake project started. But he did specifically cut Sea Snake and order that the Russian alternative be bought.

Vympel wrote:
That sounds like a dead ringer for Kh-31P. The Kh-31P has a range of 110km and flies at somewhere around Mach 4 (sources differ- Mach 3.6 to Mach 4.5). The Kh-31PD, yet to enter service, has a range of 150km. Currently, only the Su-24M takes it, but the next generation aircraft and the Su-32P 'Prowlerski' will all make use of it.

But whats the warhead?

One of the more consistent statistics, the warhead is generally 90-100kg

90kg is what the Journal of Electronic Defense says.

Of course, the 160km range Kh-58U has a 150kg warhead, but is 200m/s slower. It's actually the most common ARM in the Russian arsenal.

What's 900m/s in 'Mach' anyway?

phongn wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:There was also considerable interest in modifying the Sea Snake to serve as an ultimate ARM weapon to deal with SA-10's and SA-12's. Flying high its has a range of over 75 miles at mach 3. Making HARM look like a peice of shit. In Vietnam it proved quite effective against radar stations in addition to its MiG kills.

How did Talos-ARM compare with Standard-ARM?

AGM-78 Standard ARM
Range: 75 miles high
Speed: Mach 2
Warhead: 223 pounds HE
Total weight: 1350-1800 pounds depending on model.

Sea Snake
Range: 75 miles high
Speed: Mach 3+
Warhead: 800 pounds HE
Total weight: About 7000 pounds


Sea Snake would have had to been fired from a B-52, but the higher speed is very useful when dealing with somthing like an SA-10 and the huge warhead would ensure much more then just knocking holes in the search radar.

Vympel wrote:90kg is what the Journal of Electronic Defense says.

Of course, the 160km range Kh-58U has a 150kg warhead, but is 200m/s slower. It's actually the most common ARM in the Russian arsenal.

What's 900m/s in 'Mach' anyway?

Thats only HARM level then. I dont want the radar dead, I want to take part of the site with it while turning the control van into a crater.

900m/s is 2017 miles per hour. Mach factor is dependant on altitude, but that would be around mach 2.8 at sea level I think.