Novorossiya Armed Forces (NAF)

[quote="eehnie"]

medo wrote: If Im not wrong their Su-25 comes from here.

Despite it, Novorussia likely will try to form its air force from a modern basis.

Basically the first step would be UAVs. Small UAVs in enough amounts.

That Su-25 was merely painted in NAF colours, but there was a photo of it in the same spot untouched a year later. They had one of the L-29s taxiing up the runway, but no mention if they could get any of them flightworthy. They do have at least 3 Mi-2 and several An-2 but I think that is about it. A video of a NAF mechanic trying to repair one of the Mi-2s at that museum showed that they would need a lot of work and parts to get operational.

VARGR198 wrote:

eehnie wrote:There is something interesting to see:

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=es&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%25D0%2590%25D0%25B2%25D0%25B8%25D0%25B0%25D1%2586%25D0%25B8%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BD%25D0%25BD%25D0%25BE-%25D1%2582%25D0%25B5%25D1%2585%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B8%25D1%2587%25D0%25B5%25D1%2581%25D0%25BA%25D0%25B8%25D0%25B9_%25D0%25BC%25D1%2583%25D0%25B7%25D0%25B5%25D0%25B9_(%25D0%259B%25D1%2583%25D0%25B3%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BD%25D1%2581%25D0%25BA)&usg=ALkJrhjidtqZIIz57doyFAApelS0MIPSJw

If Im not wrong their Su-25 comes from here.

Despite it, Novorussia likely will try to form its air force from a modern basis.

Basically the first step would be UAVs. Small UAVs in enough amounts.

That Su-25 was merely painted in NAF colours, but there was a photo of it in the same spot untouched a year later.  They had one of the L-29s taxiing up the runway, but no mention if they could get any of them flightworthy. They do have at least 3 Mi-2 and several An-2 but I think that is about it. A video of a NAF mechanic trying to repair one of the Mi-2s at that museum showed that they would need a lot of work and parts to get operational.

[/quote]

There are interesting "gems" between the pictures of the museum. Somethings fairly more modern than what we see habitually in the reports. Nice to check about (early variants in some cases):

Su-27/30/33/35
MiG-29/35
MiG-25/31
Su-24
Su-17/20/22
MiG-27
MiG-23

Mi-8/.../24/...
Tu-95-142
Il-38

Not sure if must be restored or not. It would be fairly easier to restore own aircrafts than to receive entire aircrafts from Russia. But stil, Ukraine has some S-300. Not rare to see the Su-25 in the ground.

eehnie wrote:



There are interesting "gems" between the pictures of the museum. Somethings fairly more modern than what we see habitually in the reports. Nice to check about (early variants in some cases):

Su-27/30/33/35
MiG-29/35
MiG-25/31
Su-24
Su-17/20/22
MiG-27
MiG-23

Mi-8/.../24/...
Tu-95-142
Il-38

Not sure if must be restored or not. It would be fairly easier to restore own aircrafts than to receive entire aircrafts from Russia. But stil, Ukraine has some S-300. Not rare to see the Su-25 in the ground.

Restoring to flight/combat condition fighter that was stripped down 25+ years ago and spent... 25 + years on rain and snow with 0 preservation work?

I know you are not very bright person to start with but seriously now?

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:



There are interesting "gems" between the pictures of the museum. Somethings fairly more modern than what we see habitually in the reports. Nice to check about (early variants in some cases):

Su-27/30/33/35
MiG-29/35
MiG-25/31
Su-24
Su-17/20/22
MiG-27
MiG-23

Mi-8/.../24/...
Tu-95-142
Il-38
Su-25/28/39

Not sure if must be restored or not. It would be fairly easier to restore own aircrafts than to receive entire aircrafts from Russia. But stil, Ukraine has some S-300. Not rare to see the Su-25 in the ground.

Restoring to flight/combat condition fighter that was stripped down 25+ years ago and spent... 25 + years on rain and snow with 0 preservation work?

I know you are not very bright person to start with but seriously now?

Are not you reading that the fliying Su-25 comes from this same museum?

You are not looking at the pictures. Some are decent looking.

MiG-29

MiG-29

Tu-142

Mi-24

Mi-8

Su-25 (restored and flying)

Putting a coat of paint on a plane/helicopter does not make it operational. None of these planes/helicopters bar perhaps the L-29s have all their interior parts so would need completely new parts made up to put in them just to get the basic flight controls working. That Su-25 was just painted for the cameras then left static and was still pictured there a year later unmoved.

VARGR198 wrote:Putting a coat of paint on a plane/helicopter does not make it operational. None of these planes/helicopters bar perhaps the L-29s have all their interior parts so would need completely new parts made up to put in them just to get the basic flight controls working. That Su-25 was just painted for the cameras then left static and was still pictured there a year later unmoved.

This is obvious.

Also it is obvious that to rebuild completely one of those aircrafts keeping their identification numbers is easier, politically easier, than the donation of Russia to Novorussia of an entire aircraft coming fliying.

If is not being done is because the interest is low, taking into account that Ukraine still keeps some air defense.

It's nonsense to think Novorussia will rebuild planes from museum. Those planes are just bodies without anything inside. Building air force will take few years, so they could go slowly. First they need pilots. To train them, they don't need military planes, civil trainers are good enough. They should start with buying basic ciivil trainers from Il-103 to DA-40 from Russia. After them, they should buy civil trainer jets. They could be demilitarized L-39 from civil market or new build SR-10. When Novorussia will need those jets, SR-10 will be in production. For combat training on Yak-130, they could send their students to RuAF academies in Russia. To train their new pilots, Novorussia will need 4 to 5 years. In the mean time, they will be able to receive used combat planes from RuAF or order new ones.

Novorossiya has a couple of YAK-52 trainers that are flying.
They were part of a local flying club.
They have pilots too.
Anna news ran a reportage about that a while back.

So they have the seeds of a future air force. But they don't have combat aircraft at the moment.

Does Novorussia even need airforce? Artillery and UAVs can do the job even better.

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Does Novorussia even need airforce? Artillery and UAVs can do the job even better.

All states need air force and Novorussia will be no exeption. They will need air force, speciaqlloy their position as a barrier between Russia and Ukraine / NATO. Of course it will depend on how big Novorussian state will be at the end. Will it be only DNR and LNR, or it will be bigger and include other ex-Ukrainian oblasts as well. When we talk about Novorussian air force, it is about long time prespective and not in a view of today conflict with Ukrainian army.

TheArmenian wrote:Novorossiya has a couple of YAK-52 trainers that are flying.
They were part of a local flying club.
They have pilots too.
Anna news ran a reportage about that a while back.

So they have the seeds of a future air force. But they don't have combat aircraft at the moment.

It is good for a beginning, but not enough. A couple of Yak-52 is enough to make a selection of candidates and some basic trainings. This is enough to select candidates, which they could send to RuAF academies, to became full combat pilots. It would be wise for DNR and LNR if they already send young boys and girls to RuAF academies, but not only for pilots, but also for ground personel. I don't know, in what state is Lugansk airport now, buit when they will liberate whole teritories of DNR and LNR oblasts, than they will have military air base in Slavyansk with whole infrastructure. In the time, when their first pilots and ground personel will graduate, they will be able to obtain their first combat jets. Of course at first they will also need to hire Russian instructors to help them.

But first they will need to buy basic and jet trainers, that they could start pilot trainings at home, that they will not be too dependent on foreign academies and that they get their own instructors, who will teach new pilots.

There is a good question, how many boys from Donbass was in UkAF academies before Maidan revolution and graduate there and how many of them return home and become part of DNR and LNR armed forces. They could also become flight instructors for new pilots as well.

That looked like it exploded in the air when the ginger fired his shot...

The Mosin rifle had such muzzle mounted grenade launchers in WWII, but they were designed with hollow bases so normal rounds could be used to launch the grenades with standard ammo.... safer than having to use special rounds because in combat you might make a mistake...

GarryB wrote:That looked like it exploded in the air when the ginger fired his shot...

The Mosin rifle had such muzzle mounted grenade launchers in WWII, but they were designed with hollow bases so normal rounds could be used to launch the grenades with standard ammo.... safer than having to use special rounds because in combat you might make a mistake...

God knows how many lost their life due to that mistake in 90s here. As we used rifle grenades in huge quantities.

The only rifle grenade I would fire would be a shoot through grenade that allows normal ammo to be used...

Even then I would be a bit nervous...

I mean it is pretty simple in peacetime to load the grenade and then load the ignition round, but when you are cold wet and hungry and people are shooting at you it is easy to make a mistake.

The most critical thing in design is error prevention... work out what mistakes they might make and then change the design to make those mistakes non lethal...

The obvious problem is that a rifle grenade can carry rather more HE than a 40mm under barrel grenade and when you fire one it is more effective to fire a bigger one.

For an auto grenade launcher the small size of the grenades is not important because you can fire a burst of 5 or 10 rather quickly to cover the target area in fragments.

I remember a US weapon that attached under their M16 rifle that had this large ball warhead with a HESH payload that was supposed to be the next best thing in the 1980s... and I never heard of it again... wonder what happened to it.

Ok, that's an improvised rifle grenade of the cup discharger type, but what are they using as a round? Does not look like a 30mm BG. It's an autocannon round?

Ispan wrote:

Ok, that's an improvised rifle grenade of the cup discharger type, but what are they using as a round? Does not look like a 30mm BG. It's an autocannon round?

23mm anti-air rounds from ZU-23-2

Well I would say to start off with if they have the 23 x 152mm ammo and the ZU-23 cannon they would be better off using them as intended rather than risking their lives trying to simulate what has already been invented... ie under barrel grenade launchers with 40mm grenades.

If however they are using rounds from a 23 x 115mm cannon from an aircraft like a MiG-23 or 21, then I would still suggest using it in a purpose designed weapon the way it was originally intended... I would think a heavy rifle could be developed to fire 23 x 115mm rounds and perhaps 14.5 x 114mm rounds if armour piercing performance was needed too... like that south african anti material rifle... except a 23mm instead of the 20mm round...

I mean they have 30 x 165mm weapons for anti MRAP use, so this should be easier...

It seems not long enough to be 23x152mm. I would not rule out to be of 30mm.

There is a change in weapons of these calibers. I commented about before in this topic:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t3872p200-united-armed-forces-of-novorossiya-naf#195797

At this point air defense heavy towed weapons can be totally retired from the Armed Forces of Novorussia by needs in Syria:

014.5mm ZPU-1/2/4
057mm S-60
023mm ZU-23-2

And need replacement.

Other more modern options can reach Novorussia:

23mm: AM-23 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afanasev_Makarov_AM-23 ///// https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/АМ-23
30mm: NR-30 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudelman-Rikhter_NR-30 ///// https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/НР-30
23mm: GSh-23 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gryazev-Shipunov_GSh-23 ///// https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ГШ-23 (in production)

GarryB wrote:The only rifle grenade I would fire would be a shoot through grenade that allows normal ammo to be used...

Even then I would be a bit nervous...

I mean it is pretty simple in peacetime to load the grenade and then load the ignition round, but when you are cold wet and hungry and people are shooting at you it is easy to make a mistake.

The most critical thing in design is error prevention... work out what mistakes they might make and then change the design to make those mistakes non lethal...

The obvious problem is that a rifle grenade can carry rather more HE than a 40mm under barrel grenade and when you fire one it is more effective to fire a bigger one.

For an auto grenade launcher the small size of the grenades is not important because you can fire a burst of 5 or 10 rather quickly to cover the target area in fragments.

I remember a US weapon that attached under their M16 rifle that had this large ball warhead with a HESH payload that was supposed to be the next best thing in the 1980s... and I never heard of it again... wonder what happened to it.

We still use smoke and signal rifle grenades, as they can carry more "payload" than anything else suitable for that role. When i served we were just shown how rifle grenade works, we havent fired them, probably due to fact they are soon to be gone in our armed forces.

Composition of the armed forces of DPR and LPR



https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3123375.html

It seems not long enough to be 23x152mm. I would not rule out to be of 30mm.

It is just the projectile from a 23mm cannon round. The projectile from the 23x115mm and the 23x152mm are exactly the same so it could have been pulled from either of those cases... though as I mentioned unless it was 23x115mm and they don't have a ground based gun to fire it I could understand them using the ammo this way.

If it was from 23x152mm rounds then I would say it would be better to use them in the guns they were designed for.

The real question is, are they using this method of firing them because they have the ammo but not the ground based guns so this is how they are using them up, or is there a lack of 40mm under barrel grenade launchers and grenades... which would be rather more accurate, rather more powerful, and rather safer.

I suspect they have 23x115mm ammo and this is how they are using it up... would personally prefer to see them take it to the Russian border and swap it for 40mm grenades and underbarrel 40mm grenade launchers... much more effective and practical and much safer (for the user)...

runaway wrote:Many of the "pro russian separatists" tanks are T-80´s

No. DNR/LNR have T-64 and T-72/90.

KiloGolf wrote:

runaway wrote:Many of the "pro russian separatists" tanks are T-80´s

No. DNR/LNR have T-64 and T-72/90.

Wow the Donbas has T-90s what elese do they have flying saucers

When Russia decides that they want to take over ukropia they they will do it themselves with full aircover bombing the ukropi facists to oblivion and a torrential rane of Krasnopols or whatever they may introduce next.

Well maybe Russia will give away its T-72s,80 and 90s but only when their army is fully equiped with then modernized Armatas and probably some new tank.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

runaway wrote:Many of the "pro russian separatists" tanks are T-80´s

No. DNR/LNR have T-64 and T-72/90.

Wow the Donbas has T-90s what elese do they have flying saucers

Yeap, T-72B3 have been deployed there. Certainly not T-80s.

KiloGolf wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

runaway wrote:Many of the "pro russian separatists" tanks are T-80´s

No. DNR/LNR have T-64 and T-72/90.

Wow the Donbas has T-90s what elese do they have flying saucers

Yeap, T-72B3 have been deployed there. Certainly not T-80s.

Acording to who exactly? The B3 has K5 ERA and Sosna-U so it should be quite recognizable.

Aslo if they have these tanks then what ammunition do they have Svinets Svinets 1 <(both DU penetrators) Svinets 2?