Russian Ground Forces: News #1

I want one  

Bullpup PKP?

But the characteristics are different. The one in the poster is advertised as 105 mm and the tubes seem to look thinner.
Anyways it is an interesting system.

Different systems but possibly related as they have similar roles... ie short range area bombardment to get the enemies heads down during an attack.

The fact that one system is 105mm and the other is 140mm is no great surprise as the naval model... while it looks small is not that tiny being a 2 ton system, while the mounts used on a Tigr could not be made that heavy and still be useful.

What surprises me is that Grad already had 11km range lighter missiles on a fairly mobile truck platform that was also used for anti diver use... why they didn't just use those...

Also there was a towed 12 or 16 tube trailer mount of 140mm calibre for short range use by special forces that the Chinese copied and were used by the Muj in Afghanistan against Soviet occupied cities.

Equally there are 80mm and 122mm unguided air to ground rockets in rocket pods.

All of which could have been used to make a light unguided artillery rocket system for a Tigr... I wonder why they went for a new rocket calibre/type.

Perhaps the only relationship with the Ogon is that the picture was right as both will be fully retractable to hide it when not in use so they used the image of the Ogon even though it has 20 tubes instead of 22 and is of a different calibre etc etc.

Bullpup PKP:







I think this would be the best gun to fit a back pack mounted ammo feed system...

Did Zenith actually produce that bullpup modification?

sepheronx wrote:A new manpad was needed as manpads have shown their importance in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, and now with new UAV's floating around, a cheaper solution to take them down is needed.

You raise a good point here; a cheaper MANPAD-launchable missile would be useful against UAVs.

Only trouble is the logistics of it. Do you keep the cheap missile loaded so that it's ready to fire against UAVs, or the more expensive one to use against other aircraft? By the time you changed to one or the other the threat may be gone.

It would be better, with the decreasing cost of miniaturized electronics and sensors; to just make a cheaper all-round missile that the Verba can use while at the same time with a few improvements over the Igla-S

I think the ultimate anti UAV weapon would be a 57mm laser guided shell with an effective range of 16km or so horizontally and perhaps 5-6km in altitude...

Russia's Military Is Back

Austin wrote:Russia's Military Is Back

Oooh god, where to start.  

First of, comparing the Russian and U.S navy via there budgetary spending is stupid, rookie mistake.

Second, if NATO is "concerned" about there "out of area operations" then perhaps they should stop expanding eastward.

Third, harping (bitching) on about the Bulava and Admiral Gorshkov/Vikramaditya Standard western tactic as of late.

Fourth, Questioning whether Russia can locally produce anything of the next generation, because some nitwit (Serdyukov) decided to import some equipment like the Iveco, Mistral and some Israeli drones, then at the same time claiming that Russia is importing these systems to Reverse-engineer cause no analogue can be produced locally.
Sadly for this guy, i can read, now if i recall the Iveco's were practically useless ones there off-road, the Mistral are more of a stopgap for now and the only thing that Russia would revers-engineering are those UAVs from Israel.

Fifth, Oooowh, doubt in the Russian economy and population, again standard western tactic.

Sixth, Russia losing competitive edge to U.S, Euro and even Chinese defense firms cause it can't "keep pace with newer developments in defense technology"
Ooh yeah, i think we all know how far Nato is with there superduper very advance subsonic cruise missiles and China is still reliant on whatever Russia lets them have.

Seventh, "Whether the newfound confidence that results will make Russia more cooperative or obstructionist in the international arena is an open question."
No, the open question is, will the west continue there push eastward and continue their idiocratic crusade or will they stop before getting us all killed.

AlfaT8 wrote:

Austin wrote:Russia's Military Is Back

Oooh god, where to start.  

First of, comparing the Russian and U.S navy via there budgetary spending is stupid, rookie mistake.

Second, if NATO is "concerned" about there "out of area operations" then perhaps they should stop expanding eastward.

Third, harping (bitching) on about the Bulava and Admiral Gorshkov/Vikramaditya Standard western tactic as of late.

Fourth, Questioning whether Russia can locally produce anything of the next generation, because some nitwit (Serdyukov) decided to import some equipment like the Iveco, Mistral and some Israeli drones, then at the same time claiming that Russia is importing these systems to Reverse-engineer cause no analogue can be produced locally.
Sadly for this guy, i can read, now if i recall the Iveco's were practically useless ones there off-road, the Mistral are more of a stopgap for now and the only thing that Russia would revers-engineering are those UAVs from Israel.

Fifth, Oooowh, doubt in the Russian economy and population, again standard western tactic.

Sixth, Russia losing competitive edge to U.S, Euro and even Chinese defense firms cause it can't "keep pace with newer developments in defense technology"
Ooh yeah, i think we all know how far Nato is with there superduper very advance subsonic cruise missiles and China is still reliant on whatever Russia lets them have.

Seventh, "Whether the newfound confidence that results will make Russia more cooperative or obstructionist in the international arena is an open question."
No, the open question is, will the west continue there push eastward and continue their idiocratic crusade or will they stop before getting us all killed.

Pretty much

What's really scary is that this is the peak of Western intellectual discourse; or rather not the peak - but what passes for it all too often.
You will have US military officers, intelligence analysts, policy-makers, etc... read this biased non-article and will actually believe that they're reading a balanced report on the issue; a condensed version of what a subscription to Jane's might have led them to believe (a far more objective publication but one that few people other than select military professionals will ever take the time to keep on top of).

And then there is straight-up propaganda, like you can read about Russia's demographic, economic, military situation in some many US and European newspapers, websites, etc... although I'd imagine that most serious people will recognize them for what they are.

Not so with an article like this however. It retains just enough balance to keep its cover and and not be called-out for its subtle fact-twisting and biased reporting.

Whether the newfound confidence that results will make Russia more cooperative or obstructionist in the international arena is an open question

This quote was a favourite of mine too.
I mean is it really necessary to see all international relations through the prism of whether it directly serves American interests or not? Has the hubris and overconfidence really reached the point where it's fair to call any Russian defense of its legitimate interests even if they are odds with American - 'obstructionist'? And likewise call a situation where Russia might choose to serve American interests 'cooperative'?
Is it really that hard to just write:

'whether the newfound confidence that results will make Russia more inclined to compromise or more assertive of its interests in the international arena is an open question'

I guess it really is just that hard to write something like that. It's something I noticed with almost all Western journalists and political analysts - they practice a form of self-censorship; whether as a result of pressure from their editorial board or because of their own fears of not getting taken seriously if they dare to deviate too far from the accepted norm.
In this case - there is clearly no incentive for the author to be objective; there is nothing for him to gain in terms of appealing to his target audience, and few people will call him out on his writing I suspect - the soft propaganda and half-truths suit and soothe everybody I suspect..

You guys made it farther than me.

I made it to the first pic and closed the window.

To be fair, I did actually read through it later after reading your comments.

TR1 wrote:Bullpup PKP?

Aparently not. I was wondering the same. 

AlfaT8 wrote:

Austin wrote:Russia's Military Is Back

Oooh god, where to start.  

First of, comparing the Russian and U.S navy via there budgetary spending is stupid, rookie mistake.

Second, if NATO is "concerned" about there "out of area operations" then perhaps they should stop expanding eastward.

Third, harping (bitching) on about the Bulava and Admiral Gorshkov/Vikramaditya Standard western tactic as of late.

Fourth, Questioning whether Russia can locally produce anything of the next generation, because some nitwit (Serdyukov) decided to import some equipment like the Iveco, Mistral and some Israeli drones, then at the same time claiming that Russia is importing these systems to Reverse-engineer cause no analogue can be produced locally.
Sadly for this guy, i can read, now if i recall the Iveco's were practically useless ones there off-road, the Mistral are more of a stopgap for now and the only thing that Russia would revers-engineering are those UAVs from Israel.

Fifth, Oooowh, doubt in the Russian economy and population, again standard western tactic.

Sixth, Russia losing competitive edge to U.S, Euro and even Chinese defense firms cause it can't "keep pace with newer developments in defense technology"
Ooh yeah, i think we all know how far Nato is with there superduper very advance subsonic cruise missiles and China is still reliant on whatever Russia lets them have.

Seventh, "Whether the newfound confidence that results will make Russia more cooperative or obstructionist in the international arena is an open question."
No, the open question is, will the west continue there push eastward and continue their idiocratic crusade or will they stop before getting us all killed.

Problem that a lot of people don't understand about anything of anything of late, is Russian demographics and economy. While it is true that there are issues with things like stagnation and drug/alcohol abuse, things are changing. Alcoholism is down first time in over a decade, but drugs is a real issue.

Economy that people cannot seem to look past is that yes, stagnation is now becoming a semi-reality, but there are manouvers in place and MANY westerners are not getting that news, actually, even if they are, they learned to ignore it and just look at the problem black and white. What people don't know is that Russia's economy is changing big time, like domestic consumption is increasing while external is decreasing, foreign investments are up, and the middle class as well as lower income are increasing quite a bit in a short period of time. Economy for Russia as well has a big impact on military and in that response, Russia's military budget is highest since the Soviet Union; but don't let that stand in a way of a good ragefest from westerners.

Russian MiC couldn't be competitive now? So when they have more money, they are less competitive than in the days of the 90's where they were considered competitive, with no money? That makes very little sense. Common Sense is an oxymoron, as it really isn't common (it isn't hard for even a non-Russian speaking person to find news on development in Russia). USA is producing a 5th gen jet at same time as Russia now (F-35 vs PAK FA), and it seems that F-35 is forever in conflict with media and politicians, yet they love to tout it when they compare it to other countries equipment. So what is USA developing forever in, over Russia, that makes Russia less competitive? Actually, lets see China?

Only thing China creates is nice looking shells with no public knowledge on subsystems, so it is really hard to judge. China has trouble developing jet engines, so how can we expect them to make leaps in other technologies that are NOT off the shelf? Their air defence systems are not impressive at all, actually, just knockoffs of other technology.

USA has not produced any supersonic missiles, and their hypersonic development is about as close as Russia's in terms of R&D. Only recently USA has been able to be able to set up an air defence system capable of ABM that is semi-mobile, while Russia's S-300 series have had ABM capabilities for decades and is mobile. Their tank and armoured force is no longer brand spanking new, while Russia is investing in the Armata, Kurganets and Boomerang which is the way the west wants to move, a unified system using similar components, but they are not even close to something yet. USA is definately ahead in UAV technology and navy, and the NAvy is an easy understanding as their funding is astronomical for decades, and UAV technology was mostly shared with Israel for over a decade.

Heh remember the whole stupid "T-90MS has a hump!' nonsense that Tarsenko spread?

For fun, Oplot:

https://2img.net/r/ihimg/a/img856/6675/41qb.jpg
http://photo.vesti.ua/storage/asset/image/2013/10/15/6/79/cec/fa118fae983ff607d30f5ceeff_30e30448.JPG

Dat hump....

Check out that terrible HMG/panoramic sight installation as well.

TR1 wrote:Heh remember the whole stupid "T-90MS has a hump!' nonsense that Tarsenko spread?

For fun, Oplot:

https://2img.net/r/ihimg/a/img856/6675/41qb.jpg
http://photo.vesti.ua/storage/asset/image/2013/10/15/6/79/cec/fa118fae983ff607d30f5ceeff_30e30448.JPG

Dat hump....

Check out that terrible HMG/panoramic sight installation as well.

What is up with that in the first place? Is Tarsenko just a biased partisan who twists everything into "KHARKOV STRONG!" Its sad, but unless Ukraine is annexed by Russia and Russia throws some defence orders its way, Kharkov plant is probably going tits up soon.

Nice fun

http://defendingrussia.ru/

Vympel wrote:

TR1 wrote:Heh remember the whole stupid "T-90MS has a hump!' nonsense that Tarsenko spread?

For fun, Oplot:

https://2img.net/r/ihimg/a/img856/6675/41qb.jpg
http://photo.vesti.ua/storage/asset/image/2013/10/15/6/79/cec/fa118fae983ff607d30f5ceeff_30e30448.JPG

Dat hump....

Check out that terrible HMG/panoramic sight installation as well.

What is up with that in the first place? Is Tarsenko just a biased partisan who twists everything into "KHARKOV STRONG!" Its sad, but unless Ukraine is annexed by Russia and Russia throws some defence orders its way, Kharkov plant is probably going tits up soon.

Yeah Tarsenko has gone off the Ukraine-strong wall in the past several years, and has abandoned all pretenses of intellectual honesty.
He was always USSR strong though.

Something interesting- apparently the BTR-80s steel armor was changed in the BTR-82 for an alluminum alloy.

It is not as bad as it seems...

By weight and strength steel is obviously heavier and stronger than al.

However when you start getting down to thinner and thinner sheets the difference in strength starts to become less obvious, but the weight difference remains.

The point is that for x weight of steel you can have 3 times more al for the same weight.

If you look at tin foil sheet steel and sheet al would not be that much difference in terms of protection as both are too thin to be an effective barrier.

The strength difference does not become apparent until a certain thickness is achieved.

More importantly because of the weight difference al reaches larger thicknesses quicker than steel does.

In other words if you build a light armoured vehicle with 3mm steel armour it is not going to stop small arms fire. If you make it from 20mm steel armour then it will stop most small arms fire from a reasonable range (ie 200m or so).

Making the vehicle 20mm thick will make it heavy, but having a face plate of steel and 40mm of aluminium plus various cavities and layers to break up bullets and fragments you can end up with better protection and better structural strength with reduced weight.

Note the Bradley uses aluminium armour too.

An interesting side note steel armour reacts with DU and generates super hot fragments that readily start fires etc The DU reacts with the steel and softens it on impact and it ignites like magnesium.

Aluminium makes the armour thicker and with anti spall liners it actually protects better from small arms as well.

Its going to get interesting.  

More than 10 countries will participate in biathlon tank in 2014

https://2img.net/r/ihimg/a/img12/2416/mmwx.jpg

Koalition turret.

Also interesting naval things in the background.

TR1 wrote:https://2img.net/r/ihimg/a/img12/2416/mmwx.jpg

Koalition turret.

Also interesting naval things in the background.

It has some interesting faceting.

Some interesting news from janes full report

Russia completes SBA-60-K2 Bulat development  

More firepower offered for BMP-2 IFV

RAE 2013: Terminator 2 makes its debut

RAE 2013: Russia's latest BTR enters production

I love this thing:

Lots of new equipment is going to south military district  

SWAT SOUTH until the end of 2013, will receive about 60 new "Typhoon"

Viktor wrote:Lots of new equipment is going to south military district  

SWAT SOUTH until the end of 2013, will receive about 60 new "Typhoon"

This is a very good news; not only because the vehicle in question lie in a category of its own in comparison with cerresponding foreign products ,but also because Thyphoon's mass production will aid to tear down substantially the realization cost of the new generation of composites/ceramics armor in view, above all, of the high demand of efficient manufacturing lines for similar armor's material for the Boomerang and Kurganet family.