Russian Ground Forces: News #2

I think that having a unified vehicle family with all the vehicles in a brigade belonging to one family will be unfeasable. Maybe it might be better to have that unification but instead, at a battalion level. Looking at a contemporary Russian Motor Rifle brigades as an example, the Tank Battalion could have all of its MBTs, command tanks, recovery and combat engineering vehciles all based on the Armata, while the Motor Rifle Platoons could have all of their IFVs (Or APCs), command vehicles, Self-propelled mortars, SPAAGs (maybe??), etc... all based on the respective Kurganets or Boomerange platform.

That way instead of having all the vehicles in a particular brigade all based on the same chassis, each battalion will have one family of vehicles. Dont quote me on this, but I think that a current Russian brigade would have atleast a dozen different vehicle types with different chassis, engines, sensors, etc.. But I think that having a brigade with just 5 (or 6) vehicle families would be better than the whole one brigade=one vehcicle family concept.
You would have the armata family, used by the tank battalion (and maybe the SPH batteries)
the Kurganets IFV, used by the equivalent of the current BMP battalion, the Boomerange APC (or wheeled IFV) used by the equivalent of the current two BTR battalions, and a family of truck vehicles. Maybe throw in some light vehicle family for the recon units and for general purpose use.
Also its not like having 5 main vehicle types will mean each will have its own unique set of sensors and active and passive protection systems. All families should share a lot of commonality with the rest.

What are your thoughts on this?

mY thoughts are that you are not getting the concept.

You don't have heavy battalions or heavy platoons... we are talking about divisions.

A whole division is about the smallest unit you would send out on its own in a proper mission.

If the division is a heavy division it will be completely armata based.

If it is a medium wheeled division it will be completely Boomerang based.

there wont be any mix of vehicles in the division so the division logistics train will only need spare wheels and engines and transmission parts and sub systems for the vehicle it operates with.

There would be the following types of divisions:

Heavy, Medium tracked, medium wheeled, and light.

There will be tank divisions and there will be motor rifle divisions.

A heavy tank division will all be based on armata chassis and will have more MBTs than IFVs and APCs.

A heavy motor rifle division will also all be based on armata chassis and will have more IFVs and APCs than MBTs.

A light tank division will be Typhoon based and have more gun platform vehicles than APCs or IFVs

etc etc.

That means a light tank division only needs parts and ammo and fuel for Typhoon vehicles.

Sensors, weapons, and equipment will be standardised where practical... meaning the MBT of the heavy and medium divisions will use 125mm smoothbore main guns. IFVs of the heavy and medium divisions will have a 57mm high velocity gun.

the light vehicles might not be able to carry such heavy weapons and might substitute a 120mm gun/mortar for the 125mm gun for the MBT, or perhaps it will be a gun platform and have a 57mm gun plus Kornet-EM missiles for anti tank use.

152mm heavy artillery in the light units might be replaced by 120mm gun/mortars.

depending on the weight capacity.

Even the air defence vehicles the light gun/missile vehicle might use the much lighter SOSNA-R missile system instead of Pantsir-SM.... just because of weight... or it might have morfei.

the point is that heavy and medium MBTs will have similar optics and weapons and performance... just the medium vehicles will be lighter and in the wheeled and tracked versions will have different mobility levels.

GarryB wrote:mY thoughts are that you are not getting the concept.

I get the concept of different chassis brigades just fine. But IMHO they are not the most effective concept, because some vehicles in the brigade will always be comprmised because of the physical constraints that will be imposed upon them by the brigades chassis family.

You don't have heavy battalions or heavy platoons... we are talking about divisions.

A whole division is about the smallest unit you would send out on its own in a proper mission.

If the division is a heavy division it will be completely armata based.

If it is a medium wheeled division it will be completely Boomerang based.

So when did we jump to divisions instead of brigades. As far as I know, only two former tank brigades switched back to division status.

Also I highly doubt that a division will be the main manuever element within the Russian army. One of the reasons they switched to a brigade structure was because a brigade was more compact and more malleable to current threats. Which means that the principal manuever element within the Army will be battalion sized formations, formed from within a brigade, not an entire brigade itself, and certainly not a massive division.

There is also the issue that by forcing all vehicles in a brigade to be all based on the same family, you impose severe restrictions on some roles. Earlier in this thread there was the discussion about a 65 ton SPH based on the Armata chassis. Yes, while heavy MBT level protection is nice, it also imposes a strict weight penalty. It doesnt just affect raw mobility performance like road speed, acceleration, etc... but also on a strategic scale as well. A 65 ton vehicle wont fit on a lot of bridges or even some roads that an Msta or any other T-series based SPH could. Not to mention that it wont be carried by an Il-76 (or Il-476) because of its weight. Which isnt really desirable when one the biggest of the New Look Army, is rapid reaction. Granted if a brigade is being airlifted an SPH probably wouldnt be first in line, but still. An SPH really doesnt need tank level armor, because as Morpheus Eberhardt pointed out its not a front line unit, and if it does come up against enemy armor then that most likely means something has gone seriously wrong at the front line.

There also the issue of a recon vehicle. While having an armoured recon vehicle is nice, having a smaller stealthier vehicle that can actually do recon without being detected, instead of the drive-into-an-enemy and then call it recon-by-fire method, is better. And even if a armata based recon vehicle wont weight 50 tons, it would still have significant weight, meaning it wont be amphiobious, it wont have nearly enough outright mobility and of course being based on a tank chassis, wont exactly be sneaky.

My point overall is that instead of having four vehicle families and then have four brigade types with each brigade having ONE vehicle vamily, still have the same four vehicle families but ALL of them within a brigade, but instead have the different battalions within that brigade each have ONE vehicle famiily. The armata family for the tanks, the Kurganets for the IFV battalion, and the Boomerang for the APC battalions, while the Typhoon family for the recon battalion + use as a GP light vehicle. And then having a unified truck chassis with 4x4, 6x6, 8x8 and 10x10 vehicles should provide a nice family to plop AD systems, EW systems and even SPH systems.

But IMHO they are not the most effective concept, because some vehicles in the brigade will always be comprmised because of the physical constraints that will be imposed upon them by the brigades chassis family.

the only vehicles that would suffer would be the medium and light weight vehicles supposed to be MBT.

I would suggest to you that even a 70 ton MBT is not invincible and a land mine will blow any size or weight tank to hell, while the new armour types. soft kills systems like shtora and NERA, and hard kill systems like APS systems that can intercept even APFSDS rounds suggests that even a 25 ton class vehicle with a 125mm gun and modern sensors including FLIR and radar should be able to do most jobs a 50 ton tank can do.

Other than the MBT all the other vehicles are much better armoured... even in the medium brigades the command vehicles will have much better armour than the modified MTLB ACRV-1 chassis used now.

The IFVs in the wheeled and tracked medium units are at least 7 tons heavier than a BMP-3... 25 tons vs 18 tons.

So when did we jump to divisions instead of brigades. As far as I know, only two former tank brigades switched back to division status.

The structure is designed for high mobility and fire power. They talk about divisions because that is what it was designed for originally.

I don't see any reason why it could not be applied to Brigades as well.

Earlier in this thread there was the discussion about a 65 ton SPH based on the Armata chassis. Yes, while heavy MBT level protection is nice, it also imposes a strict weight penalty. It doesnt just affect raw mobility performance like road speed, acceleration, etc... but also on a strategic scale as well. A 65 ton vehicle wont fit on a lot of bridges or even some roads that an Msta or any other T-series based SPH could.

At a strategic level it is an enormous improvement... the entire division... light and both mediums are fully amphibious. The heavy divisions will ford rivers and streams just like the MBTs in divisions have always done.

Not to mention that it wont be carried by an Il-76 (or Il-476) because of its weight. Which isnt really desirable when one the biggest of the New Look Army, is rapid reaction.

armata brigades will hardly be the VDV poster force that is the rapid reaction unit of first choice...

Most heavy units around the world are still delivered via ship and or train.

even the US in desert storm delayed the fighting on the ground for 6 months so their heavy armour could be brought forward.... and it was all brought via the sea.

Granted if a brigade is being airlifted an SPH probably wouldnt be first in line, but still. An SPH really doesnt need tank level armor, because as Morpheus Eberhardt pointed out its not a front line unit, and if it does come up against enemy armor then that most likely means something has gone seriously wrong at the front line.

You are assuming there will be a front line. Have the enemy stopped using special units behind enemy lines to attack soft targets?

Even in Afghanistan artillery was based in fire bases... were they totally safe from attack?

There also the issue of a recon vehicle. While having an armoured recon vehicle is nice, having a smaller stealthier vehicle that can actually do recon without being detected, instead of the drive-into-an-enemy and then call it recon-by-fire method, is better. And even if a armata based recon vehicle wont weight 50 tons, it would still have significant weight, meaning it wont be amphiobious, it wont have nearly enough outright mobility and of course being based on a tank chassis, wont exactly be sneaky.

You have clearly not heard of UAVs and unmanned ground vehicles.

I rather doubt a heavy brigade will be used in situations where long range recon by vehicle is needed, they will more likely be used in built up or forested areas where the enemy has plenty of RPGs and knows how to use them... so sending a jeep to scout ahead would be a suicide mission anyway.

The armata family for the tanks, the Kurganets for the IFV battalion, and the Boomerang for the APC battalions, while the Typhoon family for the recon battalion + use as a GP light vehicle. And then having a unified truck chassis with 4x4, 6x6, 8x8 and 10x10 vehicles should provide a nice family to plop AD systems, EW systems and even SPH systems.

So your logistics pool just quadrupled in size and what was the advantage again?

Because you think tank level armour is too much for artillery vehicles.

So four different levels of protection and four different levels of mobility and trucks within the same unit.

Why not just leave it as it is with 20 different vehicle types and just as many different engines and transmissions and wheel types?

I understand what you are trying to suggest and it doesn't make sense in terms of developing families of vehicles to create standards and improve mobility and reduce costs.

65 tonnes would not be nearly enough. Do the calculations.

MSTA at 42 tons is slightly lighter than the T-80 tank it is based upon... I rather doubt the T-72 engine it is fitted with changed the weight that much.

Assuming the armata mbt is 52 tons, that means the turret could be 13 tons heavier than the turret fitted to the MSTA and the final weight would still be 65 tons... sounds reasonable to me.

I obviously don't have enough time to write as prolifically as you can; so I'll just briefly address this part.

Your "estimates" are not correct. You are incorrectly using weight "estimates" for SPGs that correspond to "thinly armored" vehicles.

Firstly, let me correct a general forum myth (including Janes Defence Weekly type myth): it is the armor areal mass density that is of significance, not it's thickness. Thickness is significant when you are talking about, let's say, homogeneous armors of the same type, not composite armor.

To try to make a Msta-S with the same armor protection level as that of a T-80 and a reasonable mobility, with the same technology level as T-80, you'll run into a design runaway situation.

The solution requires exotic approaches, like using 4 tracks, for example. That is exactly why Ob''ekt 279 had 4 tracks; Ob''ekt 279 technology and design wasn't because of the gibberish they write about it in the "journals" and "books", like about it being a "swamp tank" or for it having been designed not to overturn due to a "nuclear" blast.

You ask why? Well this is the science and technology that can't be explained here, especially in the atmosphere of a forum. Suffice it to say that you can't just do it by increasing the vehicle weight and the engine power.

This is exactly why an Abrams has a lower level of armor protection and mobility than a T-72. The fundamental reason is that the Abrams level of technology is generations behind the level of T-72 technology. Please note that this is not due to only their respective levels of armor protection per unit of areal mass density.

I have never read anywhere that the MSTA has reduced hull armour.

That's not correct, you read it here. If I was under the impression that you had read it somewhere, I wouldn't have written it in my extremely concise post. Many so-called "experts" (paid ones, that is) also think that 2S19 has the same armor protection as a T-80.

http://gurkhan.blogspot.nl/

Dembel tards have slipped a LOT of interesting photos. Check em out in Khlopotov's latest several posts.

That's not correct, you read it here. If I was under the impression that you had read it somewhere, I wouldn't have written it in my extremely concise post.

Even if the T-80 chassis used for MSTA does have reduced armour... that is totally irrelevant.

the MSTA has small arms and splinters level turret armour, there would be little sense to keep the hulls full level of protection just to protect the driver and not even the turret crew or ammo.

The Koalition is supposed to have the protection FOR THE CREW equivalent to all other Armata vehicles, so it would not make sense to reduce the armour on the hull of the Coalition SPH.

Latest Communication Stations Ladia to Join Russian Armed Forces in 2015

Latest Russian compact communication stations “Ladia”, intended for communication between ground air defense control units, will begin to enter the army in 2015, the representative of the station developer – “United Instrument Manufacturing Corporation” (included in “Rostec”) told RIA Novosti on Wednesday.

“The station “Ladia” passed combat tests and was approved for supply as part of an automatic control system “Perspectivy-ASU” developed by “Almaz-Antey”. This year, it will begin the delivery of the automated control system of air defense and aviation,” – a spokesman said.

He explained that the small-sized digital radio relay station of OTH communication can be made both in stationary version and for installation on a vehicle – car, jeep, and others.

https://rostechnologiesblog.wordpress.com/2015/03/11/latest-communication-stations-ladia-to-join-russian-armed-forces-in-2015/

Excellent! The most lengthy footage of various drones being developed by Russia, a must watch for all the rare and unique footage:

magnumcromagnon wrote:Excellent! The most lengthy footage of various drones being developed by Russia, a must watch for all the rare and unique footage:

Interesting, thx.

-----------------

Artillery units of the South MD have started receiving the "Aistenok" radar reconnaissance system.

Apart from having a counter-battery function, it also has ground reconaissance capabilities (detects moving vehicles at 20km)
and according to some sources it has a UAV command & control function.



________________

Source:
http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/59735/


Specifications (Rus + Eng):
http://s00.yaplakal.com/pics/pics_original/7/0/2/4626207.jpg

_________________

And it's already been used in the Donbass

Cyberspec wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:Excellent! The most lengthy footage of various drones being developed by Russia, a must watch for all the rare and unique footage:

Interesting, thx.

-----------------

Artillery units of the South MD have started receiving the "Aistenok" radar reconnaissance system.

Apart from having a counter-battery function, it also has ground reconaissance capabilities (detects moving vehicles at 20km)
and according to some sources it has a UAV command & control function.



________________

Source:
http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/59735/


Specifications (Rus + Eng):
http://s00.yaplakal.com/pics/pics_original/7/0/2/4626207.jpg

_________________

And it's already been used in the Donbass

Nice post! BTW, what I found most interesting about the track based drone in the beginning was about how simple it was for them to attach the Kord 12.7x108mm HMG mount. The drone was modular enough that alot of weapons could just as easily be placed there, and it looks simple enough that a conscript could handle it.

Nice vids... thanks for sharing... voted for magnum so will have to wait till tomorrow for your vote cyberspec...

One of the things I like about the new technology Russia is developing is that they often combine the functions of several systems into one system.... they started with combining Shilka and Strela-10 to create Tunguska...

Being able to multitask means fewer men needed to do the same or better job...

GarryB wrote:Modern digital communications will enable much higher bandwidths and much higher data rates for Russian military C4IR equipment.

This will likely make communications much much better but also lead to reduced radio device size as well.

higher bandwidth consume more energy? Cause would be more easy to alternate lower bandwidth whit random broadcast. Ofcourse this could be intercepted by use separate equipment for every bandwidth. But cryptography should resolve that.

George1 wrote:Latest Communication Stations Ladia to Join Russian Armed Forces in 2015

Latest Russian compact communication stations “Ladia”, intended for communication between ground air defense control units, will begin to enter the army in 2015, the representative of the station developer – “United Instrument Manufacturing Corporation” (included in “Rostec”) told RIA Novosti on Wednesday.

“The station “Ladia” passed combat tests and was approved for supply as part of an automatic control system “Perspectivy-ASU” developed by “Almaz-Antey”. This year, it will begin the delivery of the automated control system of air defense and aviation,” – a spokesman said.

He explained that the small-sized digital radio relay station of OTH communication can be made both in stationary version and for installation on a vehicle – car, jeep, and others.

https://rostechnologiesblog.wordpress.com/2015/03/11/latest-communication-stations-ladia-to-join-russian-armed-forces-in-2015/

radio stations on cars cant reach far distances? Because of this would be util to have a close bigger radio station not mobile that receive from cars and transmit to aircrafts and far away troops. Placed around country would be a ideea. Or also a system in which troops can transmit data trought internet from civilians. Also internet or better intranet stations could be placed

Instead of placing laser on tank the ATGM could see the tank in video and guide rocket whit light. Same whit aircrafts and SAMs.

Optical guidance is not new and in the case of anti tank or anti aircraft use suffers from dust/smoke or cloud respectively... or just heavy rain reducing visibility.

GarryB wrote:

Instead of placing laser on tank the ATGM could see the tank in video and guide rocket whit light. Same whit aircrafts and SAMs.

Optical guidance is not new and in the case of anti tank or anti aircraft use suffers from dust/smoke or cloud respectively... or just heavy rain reducing visibility.

Well that is the same problem for SALH,LBR and CCD/IIR guidance, even MMW guidance is affected by sand and rain.

Interesting, at the 2 minute mark you see what seems to be the modern day equivalent to chainmail for flakjackets/ballistic vests. This is not unheard of, for ex. the British have specially designed body armor (because in Britain your more likely to get stabbed than shot due to strict gun control laws over their citizens) includes chainmail. British body armor includes chainmail like structures within their vests that they provide to law enforcement to prevent serious damage from stab wounds.The chainmail shown in the video seems to be of a higher grade than the ones used in British body armor, the one presented for Russia seems to be used to prevent shrapnel from causing serious injury towards internal organs, and prevent the loss of appendages and limbs.

That chainmail is for protecting gasoline tanks, not people. As it is weights less and provides the same level of protection. But it's too heavy for body armor.

ult wrote:That chainmail is for protecting gasoline tanks, not people. As it is weights less and provides the same level of protection. But it's too heavy for body armor.

OK thanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNPhQdzi-ic&feature=player_embedded

Object 292 is apparently alive and well, even driving.

Russian Peacekeepers Take Delivery of New Communications System



The peacekeeping motorized rifle division of the Central Military District has received a new digital communications system P-240I-4 Pereselents under the state defence order. This was reported by the press service of the Central Military District.

According to the information available, the complex is designed for organizing communications between control points in the field. The new system comprises a radio station, radio relay station, digital radio relay equipment, user terminal, and message processing equipment.

It should be noted that the Pereselents complex can be used to create more than 100 cryptographic channels with a total capacity of 2,000 Kb/s. The communications range is at least 40 km. The software supports all existing and future communications standards. The hardware is mounted on the KAMAZ-5350 (Mustang) vehicle.

Well that is the same problem for SALH,LBR and CCD/IIR guidance, even MMW guidance is affected by sand and rain.

Quite true but fitting optical sensors to weapons, while making them fire and forget also increases their cost to use and deploy.

Both IIR and MMW have much better allweather day night capability than just CCD, and LBR is much cheaper and less likely to alert an enemy to attack than SALH.

GarryB wrote:

Well that is the same problem for SALH,LBR and CCD/IIR guidance, even MMW guidance is affected by sand and rain.

Quite true but fitting optical sensors to weapons, while making them fire and forget also increases their cost to use and deploy.

Both IIR and MMW have much better allweather day night capability than just CCD, and LBR is much cheaper and less likely to alert an enemy to attack than SALH.

Aggreed.

http://codename-it.livejournal.com/962448.html

BAZ trucks towing Giantsint-B.

Nice to see them instead of the KAMAZ monopolists for once.

http://codename-it.livejournal.com/930112.html

Some interesting photos.