Russian Ground Forces: News #1

Janes: Russia launches new 2B23 NONA rifled mortar system, WEAPONS AND EQUIPMENT

More detailed information here

Tsniitochmashat New mortar Nona-M1 at IDEX 2011

Hey Austin... the company that makes that new mortar makes your plastic toy gun too...

http://translate.google.co.nz/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.tsniitochmash.ru/&ei=7oaKTf3DKoz0swP_0qGACA&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDMQ7gEwAg&prev=/search%3Fq%3DTsniitochmash%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DceY%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26prmd%3Divns

or http://www.tsniitochmash.ru/artillery.html

and

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.tsniitochmash.ru/equipment.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3DTsniitochmash%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DceY%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26prmd%3Divns&rurl=translate.google.co.nz&usg=ALkJrhjJzpOb-oghoT1VPrYDuThsh-ljUA

Future combat suits.

Postnikov elaborated some on heavy, medium, and light brigades.  Heavy will have tanks and tracked armor.  NG concludes
there won’t be a new tank.  Tanks in storage will get new electronics
and Arena active defense systems.  According to Postnikov, medium
brigades will get [among other things?] the Bumerang amphibious BTR now
in development.  This, says NG, is the first time anyone’s
heard Bumerang.  But if it isn’t successfully developed or produced in
sufficient numbers by 2020, the army will just buy armored vehicles
abroad since there’s already ample precedent for this.

Source: http://russiandefpolicy.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/postnikov-on-the-army-and-opk-part-i/

And the Boomerang amphibious BTR is likely what I have been calling Gilza. It is interesting they mention it is amphibious.
I have often wondered why they didn't design new vehicles with slat type armour fitted as standard, because if you include its design into the vehicle you could probably add floatation modules and external storage modules to it that might allow heavier armour and better storage options in a way that doesn't ruin the basic design by inhibiting the use of side or rear doors or viewing ports or effect the use of the main weapons/turret.

Hopefully by the time this vehicle is ready it will have NERA fitted as standard.

Interesting that the Boomerang vehicle is described as a BTR like vehicle but will be put into medium brigades... medium brigades are supposed to have vehicles with BMP level protection... so we are talking 20-25 ton weight class. It is hard to imagine how they will keep that sort of weight class vehicle amphibious...

OmPA "Radio Plant named after A. Popov, "began production IDTS

Omsk Production Association named after AS Radiozavod Popov, "began production of new digital IP telecommunications transmission systems and information security IDTS (Intellectual Defense Telecommunication System). The system is designed to create info-communications transport medium for rapid deployment specialized units of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and the CSTO.

The organizing principle IDTS - technology "embedded systems". Development of a high intellectual platform of new generation. IDTS system provides reliable communication at a distance of 200 km with a capacity of up to 155 Mbps. IDTS able to solve various problems, to simulate an unexpected enemy tactics and configuration information of the transport medium, especially in problematic regions.

IDTS system developed as part of the problem posed by the President of Russia on the digitalization of communication systems of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and the unification of applied solutions power structures of the Russian Federation.

For those not totally familiar with computer terminology 155 Mbps is a data rate... the speed at which data can be sent.
In comparison dial up internet is generally 56kbps... the letters translate into kilo(thousand) bit(binary digit) per second, so a 56 kbps modem can transmit and receive data at 56,000 binary digits per second, or 56,000 1s and 0s per second. A byte which is a bit like a character like the letter A or a or Z or the digit 7 requires 8 bits or binary digits, so to work out how many bytes per second (computer data is measured in bytes normally) you need to divide the 56,000 by 8 which is 7,000, so a 56kbps modem should download data at a max of 7KB/s... note the b is now a capital b and means bytes rather than bits. In actual practise the download speed will more likely be 4-5KB/s with most connections.

Applying this to the 155 Mbps speed of the new Russian Army system means 155 million bits per second divided by 8 is 19,375,000 bytes per second, or just over 19MB/s which is plenty... even for live realtime HD video footage with encryption.

One assumes rapid deployment forces means the VDV are getting these, and I hope more branches get access to this sort of communications technology too.

Hopefully the communication and combat management systems will be standardised with all branches of the Russian military... I have read that the Russian military has bought a combat simulation system from Germany and is putting its new brigades through it for training as an entire formation.

BΜD-3

Detailed report here http://worldwide-defence.blogspot.com/2011/04/bmd-3-with-berezhok-turret-russia.html


So they use BTR-80/90 , BMP-3 and BMD-3/4 for troop carrying and fighting ?

Now isnt that too much of a specialised platform to do the job ?

So they use BTR-80/90 , BMP-3 and BMD-3/4 for troop carrying and fighting ?

Now isnt that too much of a specialised platform to do the job ?

The BMD was necessary for the VDV... the BMP was too heavy to drop out of an aircraft, and the BMD is not as well armoured as a BMP so the regular troops are better protected with the BMP, while the VDV are better protected with a BMD because the alternative is trucks or walking.

The BMD is only used by airborne forces but it is their standard vehicle, with the standard BMD (with BMP like armament) as a standard firepower vehicle, plus a turretless troop transport model that is longer (and has an extra wheel on each side of the chassis), plus lots of other models including recon, jamming, 120mm mortar equipped models, plus engineer and other models... including the new Sprut 125mm gun armed vehicle.

I see that should make things clear , Thanks.

Why does BMP ,BMD ,BTR have amphibious capability , Do they envisage crossing river or landing near to the sea all the time ?

Do these vehical have restriction on the sea state where it can land , for eg can it just swim on a lake for 100 km without sinking ? Are they restricted by tidal wave ?

Any choke point is an ideal ambush for an enemy.
Any river has natural choke points built into them call bridges.
Most rivers in Europe flow north to south and there are lots of them, so if you want to move east or west you need to be able to cross water.
Having amphibious vehicles means you can cross in places of your choosing... without them you either send forces ahead to capture bridges (see western Operation Market Garden... and books and movies like "A bridge too far") or you need to take with you the engineering support vehicles to bridge the rivers yourself.
The Russians and the Soviets before them did both... ie amphibious vehicles where possible and bridging capability for smaller spans and large spans as well.

The Soviet Naval Infantry did use BTRs from ships, but they never intended them to be used for long distances. Most landing ships will drop BTRs a few dozens of metres from shore. In the unlikely event that hundreds of kms need to be covered they would be carried in fast landing craft or hovercraft like the AIST or Zubr class.
The Mistral have landing catamarans that will drop armour near the beach too, and I think that all the SNI PT-76s will likely get replaced with new vehicles... perhaps related to some of the vehicles the VDV are getting.

This is just my speculation but the VDV seem to be operating from boats more than they have ever done before. I have read about some training exercises recently where VDV forces have been cooperating with naval forces... which seems to be very new.
The difference in practical terms of course is that naval forces don't have the strict weight limits that air dropping create, so for instance the Soviet Naval Forces could use standard main battle tanks like T-80s.

In many ways the Russian Naval Infantry are elite like the VDV and they should work together in some areas and the RNI definitely need an equipment upgrade.

I would also like to see the VDV given their own aircraft including helicopters to deploy men and equipment and aircraft to deploy heavy equipment.
I have read about problems deploying VDV forces because there were not enough transport aircraft available at the time.

I should add that the amphibious vehicles will have sea state limits, where they can or cannot operate, the vast majority of the time however most amphibious vehicles will be crossing lakes or rivers... it would be rare for them to spend much time in the sea.
A freak wave that doesn't turn the vehicle over will likely just wash over them.
Very rough water however will likely lead to too much water entering the vehicle and swamping the engine and sinking it.
They generally have bilge pumps to remove water that leaks into the vehicle and most have a limit of engine operation in water, but it is something like 10 hours which should be plenty for any river or lake.

In most cases when a river or other water obstacle is confronted in most vehicles any rear door or side door is closed and the trim vane on the front of the vehicle is deployed and the bilge pumps are turned on. For BMPs a low gear is selected and the vehicle is powered in the water by the movement of the tracks. For the BTR and PT-76 they have internal propellers, so the driver drives into the water and when the wheels lose traction on the bottom he engages the propeller drive and uses the accelerator to move through the water.
On the other side the bilge pumps are shut down and the trim vane dropped and the engine is engaged to propel the wheels if that is necessary and the vehicle is driven out of the water and continues combat.

Thanks , I would think these vehical which have amphibious capability are well sealed so that water does not enter the internal compartment or into the engine.

I really like the concept that their BTR , BMP and BMD have amphibious capability , nice piece of engineering.

I just hope their new 25T Boomerang vehical has good amphibious capability.

Check the US Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle video quite good

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOfXL1yURu4


Amazing its a 36T amphibious vehical with high speed on water capability ,amazing feat.

It is a huge vehicle and not so mobile on land.

I heard it was cancelled too.

The LVT-7 was a huge vehicle and criticised for not being very well protected.

I think I remember in the Falklands during the initial invasion of the islands by the Argentines resulted in several of these vehicles being taken out with M72 LAWs.

The difference I think is that the LVT-7 and this new proposed vehicle are better boats than armoured vehicles... I would think that once on dry land the US marines would be rather better off with Bradleys.

The LVT-7 is certainly much better at sea than any BMP or BTR, but once ashore I would suspect the BMPs and BTRs would have much better mobility and they are certainly much smaller targets.

I think the main problem is that as vehicles have gotten better armour their troop capacity has dropped to keep them the same size.
The LVT-7 is a bit like the BTR-50 or an open topped BTR-60 in that it was designed for a larger squad than is used today... well firepower has improved and squads have gotten smaller, but they need better armour protection in smaller vehicles.

I suspect the amphibious capability will be good but not high sea state good.

It will be good enough for rivers and lakes but not for stormy seas.

BTW if you watch this vid:



At 3:40 it shows how the Shtora defeats a guided missile by basically blinding the automatic missile tracking component of the launcher...

Not sure if that is the case ,unless the autotracking uses Optical Guidance.

Shotra can defeat any thing that is optical , so be it IR or IIR or Optical Guidance and within its effective field of view.

To be fair Garry, the EFV is not designed to handle RPGs (neither is the BMD-4). The BMD-4, like Garry said, is basically an airborne BMP, designed to be light enough to be air dropped. The difference I heard, is that the BMD-4 has less armor, IIRC, only good for all around protection v.s. 7.62 mm rounds rather than the all around 14.5mm that the BMP-3 has.

Expanding on this with some impromptu research, the EFV in fact, has not been canceled, it has been recommended to be canceled by the Secretary of Defense however. In regards to the weight, that's apparently due to it's armor. It's protection level is roughly STANAG Ballistic Level 4 (all around protection v.s. 14.5mm AP) and STANAG Explosive Level 4b (10 kg mine under the center). It should also be able to handle a 155 mm HE round from 30 m away. So it's a very protected vehicle.

IronsightSniper wrote:To be fair Garry, the EFV is not designed to handle RPGs (neither is the BMD-4)

You mean the normal RPG like RPG-7,RPG-16/18 or the specialised one like RPG-29 ?

Austin wrote:

IronsightSniper wrote:To be fair Garry, the EFV is not designed to handle RPGs (neither is the BMD-4)

You mean the normal RPG like RPG-7,RPG-16/18 or the specialised one like RPG-29 ?

IIRC, all RPGs can do at least 300 mm penetration, so I mean any RPGs (and in that sense, even the non-Soviet ones).

If you look at the vid it pretty much shows how it works.

It generates an enormously bright signal in the IR frequency the incoming missiles gionometer operates at.

With a system like TOW or Milan the operator looks through a scope and places his crosshair on the target and fires the missile.
The missile is launched and the launcher can see the rear of the missile and determines its location by finding a flare or coded IR signal from the rear of the missile.
A small computer in the launcher determines the position of the missile (by its IR transmitter) using a gionometer and calculates what the missile has to do to get back to the crosshair aim of the launcher.
These manouver commands are transmitted down the wires trailing behind the missile to steer it back on course.
With SHTORA on however the IR signal is lost so the position of the missile cannot be determined so it can't work out what flight commands to send down the wires so the missile will simply miss.

Note it wouldn't work on a beam rider like Kornet because the missile is looking back at the launcher to find its own position in the beam so it can't see the SHTORA signal.

It would however work on HOT, BILL, TOW, MILAN, METIS and METIS-M, KONKURS, FAGOT, Malyutka and Javelin in CLOS mode.

It wouldn't work on Kornet, ATAKA, SHTURM, and Krisantema.

To be fair Garry, the EFV is not designed to handle RPGs (neither is the
BMD-4). The BMD-4, like Garry said, is basically an airborne BMP,
designed to be light enough to be air dropped. The difference I heard,
is that the BMD-4 has less armor, IIRC, only good for all around
protection v.s. 7.62 mm rounds rather than the all around 14.5mm that
the BMP-3 has.

Well the problem is that an airborne vehicle will most likely operate well behind enemy lines where enemy forces will not be first line equipped forces. The main features that are important here are fire power and mobility and the BMD-4 has plenty of both.
For the Marines however they need something that will swim but also act as an armoured vehicle. The problem is that the number of coastal areas that can be successfully landed on with ships is less than 20% of all beaches/coastlines... that jumps up to something like 70% with hovercraft, but neither the EFV, nor the LTTV are hovercraft.
As a boat they are excellent and much better than any BMP or BTR, but once on land they are slow, ponderous, large and not particularly well armed or well armoured.

GarryB wrote:The missile is launched and the launcher can see the rear of the missile and determines its location by finding a flare or coded IR signal from the rear of the missile.

The point is can Shotra can jam a coded IR signal , Shotra seems to me uses brute force jamming but in the optical/IR domain , as long as Shotra emit a more powerful jamming signal then the source , it would be able to supress the source or more like jam it.

Think of it in terms of a candle in front of a spotlight.
When the spotlight is on the flame of the candle is impossible to see, so it doesn't matter much if the candle is a steady flame or flickering at a specific rate to make it coded.

So it's a very protected vehicle.

14.5mm AP is the least of the vehicles problems, the most common threat will be man portable anti tank weapons from RPG-18 right up to the heavy guided weapons.

I am surprised they haven't fitted it with slat armour... that would deal with most RPG rockets which proliferate.

Note Slat armour works by increasing the standoff distance of the incoming rocket as the early RPGs particularly were designed to focus their energy into forming a beam penetrator designed to start working at the tip of the warhead so if the main armour was another 30cms or so away its penetration effect was greatly reduced.
Of course the main defeat mechanism is based on the way RPG-7 rockets worked.
In the nose of an RPG rocket there is a material that when crushed generates an electric current.
The effect is called the Piezio electric effect or something.
It means it simplifies the design... a HEAT warhead needs to be detonated from the rear so the solution they used was to put some piezio electric effect material in the nose of the rocket. When the rocket hits the target the material in the nose is crushed which generates a sudden charge. The inner and outer lining of the warhead form a circuit between the piezio electric material in the nose and the fuse at the rear of the warhead which sets off the fuse and the explosive explodes from the rear forward till it gets to the front where a copper liner is crushed into a beam of superheated material blasting forward at about 4km/s.
Slat armour works because unless the narrow tip of the rocket hits a slat dead on the tip will go between the slats which are strong enough to buckle the nose and short circuit the crush nose fuse so even when the rocket motor burns out the warhead will still not fire and the rocket becomes a dud.

The chance of a clean 90 degree hit with an RPG is complicated by the trajectory path of the rocket plus the movements of the vehicle and the fact that a real 90 degree hit is actually 90 degree in two directions (horizontal and vertical) results in slat armour being even more effective than one might think.

Of course with many other types of HEAT the slat armour offers little protection as a nose between the slats will not dud a Kornet for example and its warhead actually gets better penetration performance with a good stand off distance.

Actually Slat armour and Trophy would probably solve most of its problems....

Really, if you're hit with anything that resembles a rocket it's best to just pray. However, cost and weight wise it's easier to just "ignore" the other threats that your system might face, because like I've said before, you can't design a vehicle to fight everything.

But yeah, for a vehicle, it can handle any rifles that your standard infantry uses, including HMGs.

Really, if you're hit with anything that resembles a rocket it's best to just pray.

Hi, my name is GarryB and I am an athiest.

Rockets are not nearly as effective as you suggest... reread that RPG-7 book you posted yourself a while back.
As long as the vehicle isn't packed with fuel and ammo, even a complete penetration from one side to the other will not knock the vehicle out of action. It might kill or injure one or two people... or it might not hit anything important at all.

RPGs are used in volleys for a reason... they are not accurate enough to specifically target a specific point on the target. The best you can hope for is to fire from an angle to target a weak spot... like the rear, roof, belly, or side.

This amphibious vehicle has enormous sides, but slat armour is cheap and not that heavy... and gives the troops lots of space to strap their gear if they need it.
It is certainly better than a truck and is not vulnerable to small arms fire so really it could land in Libya right now except for the RPGs... and as I said Trophy, slat armour and lots of fire power to make standing and firing an RPG seem like a bad idea is not that hard or that expensive... considering the alternatives.

Putting a ship on a beach risks a ship full or people.

because like I've said before, you can't design a vehicle to fight everything.

You certainly can't stop everything... I am not suggesting making it laser guided bomb proof.
RPGs and LAWs are common however and are worth protecting against because even in places without running water there will be RPGs or M72s.

Well think about it this way, name one IFV that is fully RPG proof, including the modern stuff. None, so rifles it is

It is like the difference between the T-28 and T-34.

The T-34 was vulnerable to new ammo firing 50mm guns of the Panzers and of course the 88mms, but for most other threats it was relatively safe.

The T-28 had in some places comparable armour... though it wasn't sloped, but was horrendously vulnerable, though admittedly mechanical reliability was an issue too.

Most IFVs have slat armour fitted in combat zones so I think fitting it to this new vehicle as standard is completely justified.

Exactly so. If anything, the EFV is more like the A-20. EFVs are IFVs, which are not MBTs. They're bound to have less protection than said MBTs, add on slat armor would add on to the already hefty load (33 tons).

Ok... you can save a little weight and not fit slat armour... I disagree that would make it a tank... at 33 tons it is very similar in weight to the Bradley... but much much bigger and slower and less well protected...

I just think any ground force with decent AT equipment would see such a vehicle as a mouth watering target.