Iskander-E 'designed to counter Western TMDs'

Janes Defense Weekly ^ | April 5, 2005 | ALON BEN-DAVID

[TapTheSource]

=="Missileers are usually wary of showing their hands regarding countermeasures," said Rubin. "I can only interpret the Russians' bout of transparency as a marketing effort toward customers who face TMD systems."

Gee, I wonder which enemies our "Ally in the War on Terror" (Russia) is marketing these OFFENSIVE missiles to??? I wonder what Dubya thinks of Putin now.

[TapTheSource]

ping!

[EagleUSA]

Frankly, why should anyone be suprised. Russia was feeding complex weaponry to Saddam right up until the invasion. Every scumbag country in the world will be buying from the Russians who need hard cash -- like North Korea, France, Germany, they will sell any type of onerous device to the highest bidder, be damned with world security -- the short term buck is far more important to these bottom-feeders.

[ProudVet77]

But the other side of the coin is, that whenever the Russians supply technical systems to a customer it doesn't really work as advertised.
The stuff the Iraqi's had was garbage and was easily destroyed. Everytime it's come to a test in the last 25 years the Russian gear worked as well as their Space Shuttle.

[konaice]

Well the only countries which might think they need to take on the US/Israeli Patriots are Iran and N.Korea.

Of these Iran would seem to be the most likely customer, because they have large numbers of missiles targeting the the Straights which would likely be countered by Patriots. The Iranians would like seek any advantage that preserved the effectiveness of their batteries.

[spetznaz]

Actually the Buran performed very well. It went to space, performed two orbits (it couldn't do more because its memory couldn't handle it), and landed safely. And all this was done without a human piloting it. Although the first orbital flight of Buran was unmanned, it demonstrated much promise. The autopilot that landed the shuttle was able to overcome a 34 mph crosswind to land within 5 feet of the runway center line. Also, of the 38,000 heat shield tiles that covered Buran, only 5 were missing.

The shuttle had promise. But once they found out that the NASA shuttle was actually not a military weapon, and with their financial situation getting more dire by the month, the politicos had to divert it elsewhere.

[Siobhan]

Ineresting name ... Iskander ...

[Nick Danger]

[TapTheSource]

Very funny Rumsfeld impersonation! But it's not an anti-missile, it's an offensive missile designed to give our defensive missiles the slip.

[ProudVet77]

One flight does not make a known entity. If it were to have had crew, which changes the requirements, and flown a few missions, then it would be worth noting.
It's also rather odd how it is such a close replica of the shuttle, just like the Yankee class subs were a replica of our presidential series of subs.

[ProudVet77]

"IMO it was successfully even if it did not get a 'head shot' on every scud."
Actually the Patriots were not designed to make a direct hit, they were designed to use a proximity fuse. Having learned you can't mess up a heavy warhead like a Scud, we switch to a hit to kill in the PAC-III. Against a thin skinned aircraft and not a Scud the PAC-II works fine which is what it was designed to do. That is why we still make it and it uses a proximity fuse.
What did work as advertised when it $hit the fan were the Apaches, the M1A2s, F-117s, Tomahawks, AE6 Prowler, F-15E and others too numerous to mention.

[spetznaz]

While I agree with you that one flight does not even come close to awarding it a gold star, by any measure, that one flight was still an astounding success. Particularly once you consider when it flew, and that it was a Soviet design (they generally weren't known to be the apex of bleeding edge tech but more along the lines of rugged, but short-term, ability). Yet the thing still managed to go up, orbit twice, and land in pressing conditions but still within 5 feet. Without a pilot. A feat that would still be remarkable today.

You made it seem as if the Buran was a failure in itself. It wasn't. It was a failure of political will, a failure of intelligence (the main impetus of building it was the fear that the NASA shuttle was a military weapon, and the Soviets were all wrapped up in their extremely stupid strategy of trying to match everything Uncle Sam did .....a strategy that literally drove them to the ground).

What the Buran was NOT was a failure in itself. It performed remarkably well, even for today's standards. The project was killed once the Soviets realized that there was no real tangible military benefit, and the project was sucking up much needed (especially then) funds. But the Buran in itself was far from a failure. It is the Soviets who failed. (And if the heat shields in the Columbia were as robust as the ones in the Buran it wouldn't have faced the same level of danger due to frozen foam packing impacting on the heat shielding)

As for it been a replica of the shuttle. Yep, and I wouldn't be surprised if some Soviet spooks had something to do with that. The Soviets were caught off-guard by the US' announcement in the early 70s that it would make the Space Shuttle a primary project of its manned space program. In order to counter the 'Shuttle Threat' they started the Energia-Buran project in 1976. While there were some differences between the NASA shuttle and the Buran (eg in the Buran a heavy-lift launcher could be used with or without a winged orbiter), there is a very good possibility that the NASA designs somehow made their way to Moscow.

Actually another 'interesting' US-Russian similarity in design can be found when you compare our B-1B Lancer with their Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack.

B-1B Lancer:

Tupolev TU-160

[AmericanArchConservative]

ping to my closest FRiends only. Ping others as you wish.

A.A.C.*



{*the most conservative member of F.R.}

[Cronos]

Iskander = ALEXANDER

[GOP_1900AD]

I suspect that the PRC have been codevelopers of the Iskander series. What tells me this is, out of the blue, at the last big November Airshow in the PRC, they unveiled a short range missile that was suspiciously similar to SS-X-27. For a few years now, Russian missile engineers have been resident in the PRC and while difficult to prove, there is a suggestion that Russia uses covert "outsourced" / offshored labs, R&D facilities and other sites, in the PRC, to develop stuff under the radar screen (and, more importantly, not subject to SALT-2, INF and the like!). This is not their original idea. Between WW1 and WW2, Germany developed stuff off the books (and not subject to the Treaty of Versailles) in Russia, Czechoslovakia, and the Netherlands then insourced it after Hitler came to power.

[Paul Ross]

Actually the Soviet Space Shuttle, the Buran, worked extremely well...

[Paul Ross]

It's also rather odd how it is such a close replica of the shuttle, just like the Yankee class subs were a replica of our presidential series of subs.

Not really. Jimmy Carter's NASA let them have all the blueprints for the price of the photocopies...

[Paul Ross]

Pinging.