Skip to comments.
Russia to deploy new hypersonic missile systems
RIA Novosti ^
| 16:46 | 27/ 09/ 2005
Posted on 09/27/2005 9:21:27 PM PDT by eks41
MOSCOW, September 27 (RIA Novosti) - President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday that Russia would deploy new hypersonic missile systems that would be virtually invulnerable to enemy defenses.
"We are developing and will deploy new strategic high-precision systems that have no rivals across the globe. These hypersonic systems will be capable of changing the course and altitude. They will be practically invulnerable, including to air defense systems," the president said speaking on live television and radio.
Commenting on the president's statement, an air defense expert, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that Putin must have meant state-of-the-art air defense systems, or "weapons of the future" that specialists and researchers had been working on for a long time.
The expert added that the new system would combine the functions of air defense, missile defense and space defense.
The expert said the Russian army already had sea- and land-based missile complexes such as Bulava and Topol-M.
Putin also said that Russia would continue providing its army with mobile missile systems, state-of-the-art tanks, new and modernized air defense systems.
He added that last year Russia overcame an important psychological barrier when "allocations for army re-equipment topped the $5-billion profits from arms exports," while only a few years ago, Russia did not buy anything for the army.
"A great deal has been done in the past few years to restore the defense industry's financial health," Putin said, adding this included debt settlements and jobs.
He also said that expansion to foreign markets was a way to support Russia's defense sector financially. "If our specialists make it to foreign markets and uphold our interests there, it will be a very good job," the president said.
TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Russia; Technical
KEYWORDS: arms; bulava; dictatorship; missiles; putin; rasputin2; russia; topol
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 next last
To: RunningWolf
No,
In a T72 vs. a M1 you end up like in Iraq- a bloodbath, TWICE. An example that our Russian friends MUST downplay. A T72 is "junk". A BTR70 is "junk". A BMP1 and 2 is "junk".
When 762x51 M80 ball tears through the armor on a BTR70 at 200 meters, when 25mm M919 tears through a T72 at ranges over 1500 meters you got "junk".
The Russians had and still have an Army of "mass" not quality. Take a look at Russian NVG's. They call them Generation 3 or 3+ but they are WAY behind some of the stuff we issue our truck drivers after the Infantry phases them out.
Yes, their Army is equipped with what we would describe as "junk".
The people who tend to buy their stuff often have NO OTHER CHOICE because the US, Germany, France, GB, S. Korea, Italy, or Israel won't sell them what they want. I gave examples: Syria, Iran, Libya........ REAL WORLD examples I can back. If given a choice, few will prefer a T-80 over a M1, Leo2, Chally, LeClerk. Those buying the T80 have no other CHOICES. Iran is interested in advanced SAMs from Russia, do you think the US will offer any to Iran? Israel? The Russians are bottom feeders in defense. They make their deals where others are unwilling to sell. Coincidence that N. Korea flys new MIG29s?
Red6
41
posted on
09/28/2005 5:19:49 AM PDT
by
Red6
To: Red6
42
posted on
09/28/2005 5:52:59 AM PDT
by
eks41
To: eks41
Don't forget that NASA just inked a deal to buy russian rockets for launch vehicles.
43
posted on
09/28/2005 5:56:27 AM PDT
by
Rebelbase
("We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." --Hillary Clinton)
To: Red6
Red6,
Okay you like the word 'junk' lol, it does not bother me.
I think the Iraq battlefield is not the best place to make these determinations because we had so much superiority there in every way. Also another opponent would not have just sat there and let us bomb the s*** out of them.
The Sherman was junk against the Panzer and the Tiger, but like one German WWII combatant pointed out, for every 10 Shermans they blew up, another 20 Shermans popped up. Most everyone I knew thought the M113 was junk, the Sheridan was definitely junk.
The US turned its nose up at the Mig17 too, but the Mig17 took on and knocked out of the sky much US equipment, including the Phantom.
BTW they they ever determine what knocked out that M1 in Iraq with a hole the diameter of a pencil burned halfway thru it?
BTW why are you including Israel with Iran?
Wolf
44
posted on
09/28/2005 6:00:42 AM PDT
by
RunningWolf
(U.S. Army Veteran.....75-78)
To: eks41
" You mean Buran? It's not a full copy of american shuttle, it's better but too expensive"
All I see is a copy of what looks like an American Shuttle. How can you claim it's "better" if it was never even launched?
45
posted on
09/28/2005 6:01:16 AM PDT
by
Rebelbase
("We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." --Hillary Clinton)
To: Rebelbase
It was launched in 1989. Read
here.
46
posted on
09/28/2005 6:03:15 AM PDT
by
eks41
To: eks41
I don't see any lift-off photos in that link. I do see what appears to be a firing of an engine on the launch pad but it's nowhere near being a launch.
Please understand my skepticism is based on years of listening to Radio Moscow English language broadcasts and comparing those with Western News accounts of the same stories and actual film footage of the events.
If there were a photograph for propaganda in the dictionary, The Hammer and Sickle would be there, right beside the Swastika.
47
posted on
09/28/2005 6:12:04 AM PDT
by
Rebelbase
("We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." --Hillary Clinton)
To: Rebelbase
How can you claim it's "better" if it was never even launched?
I don't know if its better but they saved a whole lot of money for one thing. Did we, do we really need the Shuttle?
Wolf
48
posted on
09/28/2005 6:15:44 AM PDT
by
RunningWolf
(U.S. Army Veteran.....75-78)
To: eks41
They will be practically invulnerable, including to air defense systems
Strong statement. I've heard this before about many obsolete weapon systems.
Good for building national pride. The Russians are a proud people, they earned that right.
Ive said this before, we blew it in the 90s. The Russian people removed a corrupt stale government and wanted help from us. We turned our backs and jumped in bed with China.
Welcome to FR.
Jammer
49
posted on
09/28/2005 6:23:53 AM PDT
by
JamminJAY
(This space for rent)
To: Rebelbase
Well, you are mistrustful guy :)
Do you trust NASA?
The Russian Shuttle Buran And
here is much info about Buran with photogallery and videogallery.
50
posted on
09/28/2005 6:26:24 AM PDT
by
eks41
To: eks41
The Russians couldn't even defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. Now, they try to turn defeat into victory. Putin is good, Russia is good, but neither are that good.
Without the Nazi help, they like the U.S. wouldn't have any missile systems.
51
posted on
09/28/2005 6:27:25 AM PDT
by
hgro
(ews)
To: eks41
Yeah, that's why our (Russian) old rockets "Soyuz" fly to ISS without any problem and your "Shuttles" stand somewhere in the ass.Didn't you guys try to copy our Shuttle a few times?
On one of my visits to Moskva, I believe I saw the decaying relic of that attempt. The Buran, you called it? Pity you couldn't get it working.
52
posted on
09/28/2005 6:30:56 AM PDT
by
Lazamataz
(Islam is merely Nazism without the snappy fashion sense.)
To: JamminJAY
The Russian people removed a corrupt stale government and wanted help from us. We turned our backs and jumped in bed with China.
And we know where to lay that at the feet of, Clinton Gore.
Wolf
53
posted on
09/28/2005 6:32:18 AM PDT
by
RunningWolf
(U.S. Army Veteran.....75-78)
To: eks41
You even put the jet's wings on backwards!
54
posted on
09/28/2005 6:32:35 AM PDT
by
Lazamataz
(Islam is merely Nazism without the snappy fashion sense.)
To: eks41
Very good. I'll take that source.
I'm still doubtful that Buran "was better" than the shuttle when it's only orbital flight was unmanned and was restricted to 2 orbits only due to "computer memory limitations".
But I will give credit to your country's space agency for recognizing they could get the same thing done cheaper using disposable launch vehicles.
We are only now realizing that 24 years later.
55
posted on
09/28/2005 6:33:29 AM PDT
by
Rebelbase
("We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." --Hillary Clinton)
To: eks41
You mean Buran? It's not a full copy of american shuttle, it's better but too expensiveIf you define 'better' as smaller and heated up to 700 degrees in the interior during re-entry, then I will concede Buran was 'better'.
56
posted on
09/28/2005 6:34:35 AM PDT
by
Lazamataz
(Islam is merely Nazism without the snappy fashion sense.)
To: Lazamataz
You even put the jet's wings on backwards!
They can't get anything right can they LOL ;)
Wolf
57
posted on
09/28/2005 6:39:22 AM PDT
by
RunningWolf
(U.S. Army Veteran.....75-78)
To: eks41
Russian women are smart and beautiful. Just thought I'd let you know :-)
To: eks41
RUSSIA- CHINA- IRAN- VENEZUELA the new quadruple alliance. It's based on long term oil contracts, military equipment sales and transfer of nuke and missile technology
59
posted on
09/28/2005 6:40:32 AM PDT
by
dennisw
(You shouldn't have other people get your kicks for you - Bob Dylan)
To: RunningWolf
Yes.
We are just starting to pay the dues for the two terms of the gang that couldn't shoot straight.
60
posted on
09/28/2005 6:41:20 AM PDT
by
JamminJAY
(This space for rent)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson