Russian Ground Forces: News #1

Nice   





New modification of an armored car "Tiger-M Spetsnaz" put into serial production

New "Beasts of Crimea" destined for Spestnaz.

that multi-EFP anti-helo mine looks nasty. you need a hardkill APS designed to tackle multiple smaller projectiles moving at close to APFSDS speeds to reliable protect against it- which more or less means helos wont have much chance against such things.

collegeboy16 wrote:that multi-EFP anti-helo mine looks nasty. you need a hardkill APS designed to tackle multiple smaller projectiles moving at close to APFSDS speeds to reliable protect against it- which more or less means helos wont have much chance against such things.

EFP's are fired with above 7 Mach, there is no APS that could do the job and APS aren't safe to use on helicopters anyway.

Those anti helo systems pictured in Morpheus's post range in age from 10-30 years old... I suspect they are now available for more wide deployment and perhaps export.

Earlier models include a MANPAD launcher with a sound sensor fitted that was designed to be set up in a tree at the end of a runway. It could be tuned to detect a specific engine type and as the engine noise got louder the system would do nothing it would be pointed in such a way so that the optical sensor was facing away from the runway so as a heavy aircraft taking off flew past as the engine noise started to get quieter it would have a "look" for a target and then launch. A heavily laden aircraft taking off was extremely vulnerable to SAM attack.

These EFF based anti helo systems were based on experience in Afghanistan... certain high points around a base would be ideal to attack from using helos... putting a few of these anti helo mines there was a good way of dealing with the potential threat of attack helos.

EFP's are fired with above 7 Mach, there is no APS that could do the job and APS aren't safe to use on helicopters anyway.

More to the point if you have an array of 12 or 16 penetrators all coming at once few APS systems will be able to intercept them all... and even then you wont get them on a helo.

VladimirSahin wrote:Can someone tell me the inventory of the Russian armed forces.  For example, how much t-90s or so, but I would like to see the whole inventory including aircraft, tanks, ect.

U.S source here

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=russia

RTN wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:Can someone tell me the inventory of the Russian armed forces.  For example, how much t-90s or so, but I would like to see the whole inventory including aircraft, tanks, ect.

U.S source here

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=russia

Global says ~ 15,500 tanks  ,so if Russia have ~500 T-90  then they should have about  15,000 t-72 tanks..
Probably from those 8,000 T-72s of them not operable condition that needs repairs and or upgraded.
And about 4000 reserve and 3,000 T-72 active . But since russia is too big..in real amount of tanks or aircraft Russia can use is much less per district , Unless they leave totally unprotected other zones in the center and far east that is..  He is a summary of combat ready forces Russia could use in case of a war in the short term against Ukraine .



http://russiamil.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/how-not-to-do-maps-of-military-strength/

In the case of Ukraine if Russia fight alone could deploy 270 tanks ,80,000 soldiers , and 140 combat jets.
IF they get belarus help another 500- tanks without leaving empty their other borders. and about 50 more combat jets. What will be nice to see if Shangai Corportation headquaters military base in the Southern side of Russia and perhaps another near the baltic NATO states. With India ,China ,kasatan military airplanes and tanks there but also a SCO naval base in the western side of Crimea. To counter NATO expansion to Russian borders.

Russian forces in the western side border with Europe are not really that big ,but still good enough to hold any invasion ,specially with the help of S-400s and s-300s. In a long war they can for sure pull more forces.. from other zones.

Taking Ukraine for the Russian Federation is as easy as sending in a team of special forces to just assassinate those terrorists in charge of Ukraine right now then the people of Ukraine can handle the rest.

http://www.province.ru/habarovsk/news/item/523

The BMP-2 that detonated earlier.

Taking Ukraine for the Russian Federation is as easy as sending in a team of special forces to just assassinate those terrorists in charge of Ukraine right now then the people of Ukraine can handle the rest.

I like this plan best as it sends a clear message to the US, but it also ends up hurting only the people responsible for this mess on the ground in Ukraine... whereas a full blown civil war will hurt everyone there.

At the end of the day I think the best result would be a free and fair Binding referendum... the obvious problem there is that the west has a history of ignoring referendums and votes whose results don't suit their agenda.

Sure the Ukrainians can rise up and take direct control of their own destiny but the forces they are working against are foreign... perhaps direct action to cut those foreign ties would be best for everyone concerned and let them decide for themselves...

The rare "Bereg" SPG:

http://eagle-rost.livejournal.com/158910.html

Bereg is not so much an artillery support vehicle like 2S1 or 2S3, it is actually a truck mounted mobile coastal artillery system that includes multiple trucks including accommodation, command, and support vehicles.

It can operate with a range of similar missile based systems including Uran and Yakhont/Onyx/ or for older models Bastion.

Guys, i've been wondering, after watching some presentation and vids (like about those 3d-printed Chinese houses) a thought hit to me, what if Russia started making giant 3D-printing machines not just to make cheap high quality houses, but also Tanks, armored vehicles, ships and perhaps even aircrafts, has there been any indication/news that Russia is heading in this direction or perhaps already has??  

High quality houses?

Are you serious?

If there is a critical need to rapidly produce some fox holes or firing positions they might be useful depending on how effective the material they use is... I suspect not very.

If Russia is going to the moon and they take some big 3D printers to mix moon dust and water to make buildings like mud buildings on earth then it might make sense, but complex layered armour structures are likely too difficult to create with a 3D printer and the printing materials they use.

The concept is good for a printer to be taken where the print media can be found already and processed through the printer to create the 3D object, but if you have to take the high strength materials with you... you might as well make it properly and take the completed item.

I doubt a tank could be printed properly as its armour would likely be weak, while all its complex electronics would need to be added to the shell.... like I said... simple homes OK, complex vehicles... no.

GarryB wrote:High quality houses?

Are you serious?

If there is a critical need to rapidly produce some fox holes or firing positions they might be useful depending on how effective the material they use is... I suspect not very.

If Russia is going to the moon and they take some big 3D printers to mix moon dust and water to make buildings like mud buildings on earth then it might make sense, but complex layered armour structures are likely too difficult to create with a 3D printer and the printing materials they use.

The concept is good for a printer to be taken where the print media can be found already and processed through the printer to create the 3D object, but if you have to take the high strength materials with you... you might as well make it properly and take the completed item.

I doubt a tank could be printed properly as its armour would likely be weak, while all its complex electronics would need to be added to the shell....  like I said... simple homes OK, complex vehicles... no.

true, true. esp. armor materials. how exactly can you print armor-grade ceramics or amorphous metals, or even RHA steel?

GarryB wrote:Bereg is not so much an artillery support vehicle like 2S1 or 2S3, it is actually a truck mounted mobile coastal artillery system that includes multiple trucks including accommodation, command, and support vehicles.

It can operate with a range of similar missile based systems including Uran and Yakhont/Onyx/ or for older models Bastion.

Russia should just pull out of the INF and missile exportation range treaty already, we need to see a MLRS theatre range ballistic missile system, and seeing Poland wet their pants in itself would be well worth the effort! 

Pulling out of the INF treaty is a big step so I think they should keep that card as long as they can.

On paper the introduction of S-400 and S-500 should allow a wide range of ballistic missiles to be defeated including pretty much all those weapons in the IRBM range class so the INF treaty really would become redundant, but considering it is an agreement between the US and Russia and on paper the US has no reason to make such weapons just to engage Russia, while Russia has plenty of Intermediate range targets that could be much more efficiently targeted with shorter range weapons a change needs to come at some stage.

A couple of missiles slightly bigger than Iskander but with a 2,500km range would be very interesting... Scramjet powered missiles are another option too.

I am pretty sure quite a few countries would spend billions on such products...

reactions from Poland would be fun, but I don't think the west would understand that this was their fault... the result would be another pointless expensive arms race...

GarryB wrote:High quality houses?

Are you serious?

If there is a critical need to rapidly produce some fox holes or firing positions they might be useful depending on how effective the material they use is... I suspect not very.

If Russia is going to the moon and they take some big 3D printers to mix moon dust and water to make buildings like mud buildings on earth then it might make sense, but complex layered armour structures are likely too difficult to create with a 3D printer and the printing materials they use.

The concept is good for a printer to be taken where the print media can be found already and processed through the printer to create the 3D object, but if you have to take the high strength materials with you... you might as well make it properly and take the completed item.

I doubt a tank could be printed properly as its armour would likely be weak, while all its complex electronics would need to be added to the shell....  like I said... simple homes OK, complex vehicles... no.

Compared to any American build house this 3D printed china made houses are luxus.

Americans build their houses made of plywood, you can crash the entire house with your fists, each wall made of plywoods, not a single brick. The strongest segment of american made houses are the Door frames.

Werewolf wrote:Compared to any American build house this 3D printed china made houses are luxus.

Let's not get carried away here. I'd rather have a more un-biased discussion.
I've lived in America for some time, and it's not bad housing materials that's their problem right now, it's rather their economy, the Kleptocrasy that most Americans despise, their hypocritical foreign policy that makes many nations hate them, their blind support for oppressive regimes, their moral bankruptcy, their decadence and their apathy, the consumerist populace, etc. Many problems to solve that have the priority before the building materials, which by the way, aren't bad at all.

Werewolf wrote:Americans build their houses made of plywood, you can crash the entire house with your fists, each wall made of plywoods, not a single brick. The strongest segment of american made houses are the Door frames.

So?!
The English have build theirs with clay and straw, and they're still standing after many centuries.
We've had mostly stone houses throughout our history, that now lay in ruins in many of our abandoned villages.

Anyway, enough of that.

On the point of building military machines with massive 3D printers, I don't think that 'll work. For the reasons that were stated previously. The only way to use a 3D printer for military technology at the moment is to make molds for parts, which I think the Russians already use. At least I hope they do.
It's not a bad idea per se, it just not within tech reality at the moment. But this definitely doesn't mean that they should not do R&D on this and might turn out to be a good project.

I can't help but find a huge contradiction, hypocrisy even, between this statement:

macedonian wrote:
I've lived in America for some time,  

and this statement:

the Kleptocrasy that most Americans despise, their hypocritical foreign policy that makes many nations hate them, their blind support for oppressive regimes, their moral bankruptcy, their decadence and their apathy, the consumerist populace, etc. wrote:macedonian

BlackArrow wrote:I can't help but find a huge contradiction, hypocrisy even, betwen this statement:

macedonian wrote:
I've lived in America for some time,  

and this statement:

the Kleptocrasy that most Americans despise, their hypocritical foreign policy that makes many nations hate them, their blind support for oppressive regimes, their moral bankruptcy, their decadence and their apathy, the consumerist populace, etc. wrote:macedonian

Contradiction?
How do you reckon?

The only way I can think of to make a decently protected vehicle using a 3D printer would be some sort of resin based material that becomes a super strong plastic when its components are mixed.

For very light vehicles steel can become ineffective because using very thin sheets of it makes it weak, but using a strong plastic that is 30 times thicker but weighs the same can be made stronger. ie say for example you have a sheet of steel 2mm thick that weighs 5kgs per square metre. For the same weight you might be able to use plastic material 60mm thick that would be much stronger structurally and more resistant to bending or impacts... that could be printed rather than built as pieces and assembled.

Problem is that to print it, you need to liquefy it, which means a HEAT round would cut through it like a hot knife through butter...

GarryB wrote:The only way I can think of to make a decently protected vehicle using a 3D printer would be some sort of resin based material that becomes a super strong plastic when its components are mixed.

Worth the effort . It is essential to remember a couple of things about mitigating the effects of severe blast waves on vehicles  .

First it is not really an energy absorbing problem or energy redirection problem. There is a HUGE amount of energy in say one pound of TNT, let alone the typical anti-vehicle landmine or IED. As for the human, anti-personnel landmines are severely injuring the lower extremities more so that the torso .

What is truly occurring in mitigating blast effects on vehicles is an Impulse transfer extension of time (spread the impulse over time to reduce the peak acceleration) and reducing the resulting surface pressure by reducing the "Reflection Factor" that occurs when a blast wave impinges on a structural surface.

For example, in "ideal" air the reflection factor can be as large as eight . Therefore, a 1,000 psi impinging blast wave could induce almost an 8,000 psi surface pressure on the structure. Except, in a typical landmine "non-ideal" atmosphere (air mixed with the products of detonation) reflection factors as large as fifteen (15) have been measured (via transferred impulse.

What is transferred impulse? How high does that 15,000 pound vehicle's CG jump? That is directly related to impulse.

Those high reflection factors are measured against structural surfaces that do not move appreciably during the blast loading. Given that the blast wave almost always has a duration of less than a millisecond, even the motion of the structure is not enough to alleviate the peak reflected (surface) pressure. Yet, a crushable core in a sandwich construction, will cause the front surface to move (appreciably) during the loading and reductions of surface pressure in excess of twenty-five percent have been measured, as well as the spreading the acceleration profile.

A several pound equivalent TNT detonation would require a few Inches of movement during the loading phase. Your liquid filled tubes do not provide that much motion before the front face will "bottom out".

Also, these blast attenuation techniques must survive storage temperatures that by  range from minus 65 deg F to positive 220 deg F. That is an extreme range for most liquids, without freezing or boiling.

Ergo , whatever technique you come up with , your technique should provide some level of blast induced response amelioration.

Whether that amount of reduction is sufficient or cost-effective is the proof that you and your product must provide, throughout the Operational temperature extremes of -40 deg F to +180 deg F (as compared to the storage temperatures).

http://www.metronews.ru/novosti/v-moskovskij-muzej-privezli-novye-russkie-broneviki/Tponef---SJuS16YYzBd4M/