Russian Strategic Weapon Modernization Plans

Last edited:
Not sure that's clever. I realize that Ukraine has, legally speaking, every right to strike at targets on Russian soil, and militarily speaking, many incentives to respond asymmetrically, but this is a super risky move for little potential gain. Unlike some other installations of the Russian nuclear forces (such as strategic bomber bases), this radar has no bearing on the conflict, it's destruction gives no tangible military advantage to Ukraine. At the same time it nudges Russian strategic calculations in a highly dangerous direction.

A waste of scarce Ukrainian munitions on a target of little direct value but significant escalation potential - i.e. not clever, as stated initially.

EDIT: Also not an action calculated to assuage skeptics of supplying weapons such as Taurus to Ukraine. Or rather, in that latter specific case, a welcome excuse for those refusing to hand it over to continue their obstinacy. Again, an own goal.
 
Last edited:
Trident said:
Not sure that's clever. I realize that Ukraine has, legally speaking, every right to strike at targets on Russian soil, and militarily speaking, many incentives to respond asymmetrically, but this is a super risky move for little potential gain. Unlike some other installations of the Russian nuclear forces (such as strategic bomber bases), this radar has no bearing on the conflict, it's destruction gives no tangible military advantage to Ukraine. At the same time it nudges Russian strategic calculations in a highly dangerous direction.

A waste of scarce Ukrainian munitions on a target of little direct value but significant escalation potential - i.e. not clever, as stated initially.
Click to expand...
It has no bearing on the conflict except that it's super-expensive to replace, and that's money that ultimately comes from the same pot that the war is being funded from just like oil revenue wrt refineries being targeted.
Trident said:
EDIT: Also not an action calculated to assuage skeptics of supplying weapons such as Taurus to Ukraine. Or rather, in that latter specific case, a welcome excuse for those refusing to hand it over to continue their obstinacy. Again, an own goal.
Click to expand...
Ukraine struck it with their own weapon. To date they haven't hit anything outside of Ukraine with NATO weapons or tried to because NATO hasn't permitted it, not even the Kerch Bridge, although there are noises around changing those permissions, especially after the recent invasion/attemped invasion of Kharkiv. It would likely be only against approved targets if those permissions were changed, i.e. objects directly participating in the war.

www.defensenews.com

Pentagon unveils new Ukraine weapons package amid Russian offensive

The $275 million aid package includes artillery, anti-tank weapons, mines and other munitions.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
Last edited:
www.defensenews.com

Putin announces new submarines, but the industry is strained

Moscow’s overall naval weapons mix has leaders hesitant to rush into additional production, as combat-support capabilities are in short supply.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
MOSCOW — Russia will build eight nuclear multi-purpose and strategic submarines for the Navy, according to the Russian president.

Vladimir Putin announced the plans after the launching ceremony last week of the new Perm nuclear submarine of the Yasen-M class. That boat will be the first full-time carrier of the Zircon hypersonic cruise missile.

Following the withdrawal of Soviet submarine, military officials originally wanted to field 30 Yasen-class submarines and 14 strategic Borei-class boats.

Putin’s announcement indicate a shift on objectives, with 10 copies to be built in each class.

Submarine manufacturing plant Sevmash has emerged as something of a bottleneck in the overall production scheme. The plant hasn’t been making enough boats, and only a year ago modernized its production facilities.

[snip]
Click to expand...
I suspect that the Russian Navy's leadership's (still dominated by the infamous 'submarine mafia') rather poor performance overall in the ongoing conflict also has something to do with the cutback in sub procurement.
 
There are all sorts of potential production problems, from labor to money to possibly even banned electronic components or tooling. Not surprising that pre war plans may have to be trimmed.
 
Last edited:
Even before the war though, the naval leadership was dragging its feet on surface warfare programs (even at times outright sabotaging them).
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom