Russian Ground Forces: News #2

Will you spot it ? 

Isos wrote:Will you spot it ? 

Exoskeleton

tomazy wrote:

Isos wrote:Will you spot it ? 

Exoskeleton

Keep in mind we don't hear what the actual soldiers are saying about this model.

It could be clunky and uncomfortable as fk and they can't wait to get this immature tech showpiece off.

flamming_python wrote:

tomazy wrote:

Isos wrote:Will you spot it ? 

Exoskeleton

Keep in mind we don't hear what the actual soldiers are saying about this model.

It could be clunky and uncomfortable as fk and they can't wait to get this immature tech showpiece off.

Apparently you missed that we discussed this already. It isn't for show, the passive exoskeleton was successfully tested in Syria by Sappers/Engineer troops, it increased carry weight by 30 kgs, and it significantly decreased fatigue.

https://www.russiadefence.net/t4926p175-ratnik-combat-gear#258569

Wont be perfect, but is basically step one on an interesting path... that is why they call it progress...

GarryB wrote:Wont be perfect, but is basically step one on an interesting path... that is why they call it progress...

And the US is still hyping up its Iron Man suits, spending money on selling the idea to the public via Hollywood.

Russia just quietly moves forward with things.

Hahaahahaha... thanks for posting that page... the video gave me a good laugh.

The Hind helicopters shown flying around with four external fuel tanks to be specific... that was identified in the 1980s as the Mi-24 Hind G model which was a notorious chem and bio warfare model that sprayed chem and bio weapons on poor innocent Afghan freedom fighters in the 1980s... those damn evil commies...


Hahahaha.


Interesting article though... Tunguska vehicles defending Iskander vehicles engage ground targets as part of an exercise... nice.

It mentioned that S-300/400s can strike ground/sea targets- I wonder: at what max range & how accurate would they be?
If they will have them on CGNs, then they could use them not only for their AD, but also as BMs against targets ashore & ships.

PapaDragon wrote:

Hole wrote:http://i.servimg.com/u/f10/19/89/13/22/002711.jpg

Chemical warfare

Cold War was wild

Lol, technically it's possible, but then again it why would soviets make life harder for their own infantry. Fuel bombs were popular in early 80s afaik.

Cold war paranoia... a helicopter with external fuel tanks must have an evil purpose... lets invent an entire variant of the aircraft for chem and bio use.

In fact there was one, but not for deploying chem or bio weapons... instead of wing tip ATGMs it had claws that could be lowered to grab soil samples for testing and had all sorts of sensors on board for detecting chem and bio weapons... the fuel tanks were fuel tanks to allow it to operate for longer periods in contaminated areas...

It mentioned that S-300/400s can strike ground/sea targets- I wonder: at what max range & how accurate would they be?
If they will have them on CGNs, then they could use them not only for their AD, but also as BMs against targets ashore & ships.

Most Russian and Soviet large SAMs had ground to ground capability and were rather accurate, though obviously only for use against targets in line of sight or targets with suitable signatures.

They would pretty much be like ballistic missiles so would be vulnerable to intercept like other ballistic missiles.

SA-19 missiles of the Tunguska can be aimed at ground targets too and being command guided they are accurate and relatively cheap, but they are not intended to penetrate armour... but then a fairly fast moving missile with a 9kg HE warhead would obliterate any non armoured vehicle fairly easily... a burst of 200 x 30mm rounds would also ruin the day of most ground targets of course.

GarryB wrote:Cold war paranoia... a helicopter with external fuel tanks must have an evil purpose... lets invent an entire variant of the aircraft for chem and bio use.

In fact there was one, but not for deploying chem or bio weapons... instead of wing tip ATGMs it had claws that could be lowered to grab soil samples for testing and had all sorts of sensors on board for detecting chem and bio weapons... the fuel tanks were fuel tanks to allow it to operate for longer periods in contaminated areas...

It mentioned that S-300/400s can strike ground/sea targets- I wonder: at what max range & how accurate would they be?
If they will have them on CGNs, then they could use them not only for their AD, but also as BMs against targets ashore & ships.

Most Russian and Soviet large SAMs had ground to ground capability and were rather accurate, though obviously only for use against targets in line of sight or targets with suitable signatures.

They would pretty much be like ballistic missiles so would be vulnerable to intercept like other ballistic missiles.

SA-19 missiles of the Tunguska can be aimed at ground targets too and being command guided they are accurate and relatively cheap, but they are not intended to penetrate armour... but then a fairly fast moving missile with a 9kg HE warhead would obliterate any non armoured vehicle fairly easily... a burst of 200 x 30mm rounds would also ruin the day of most ground targets of course.

Well the US had a tendency to project on the Soviets what it tended to do itself so...

KoTeMoRe wrote:

GarryB wrote:Cold war paranoia... a helicopter with external fuel tanks must have an evil purpose... lets invent an entire variant of the aircraft for chem and bio use.

In fact there was one, but not for deploying chem or bio weapons... instead of wing tip ATGMs it had claws that could be lowered to grab soil samples for testing and had all sorts of sensors on board for detecting chem and bio weapons... the fuel tanks were fuel tanks to allow it to operate for longer periods in contaminated areas...

It mentioned that S-300/400s can strike ground/sea targets- I wonder: at what max range & how accurate would they be?
If they will have them on CGNs, then they could use them not only for their AD, but also as BMs against targets ashore & ships.

Most Russian and Soviet large SAMs had ground to ground capability and were rather accurate, though obviously only for use against targets in line of sight or targets with suitable signatures.

They would pretty much be like ballistic missiles so would be vulnerable to intercept like other ballistic missiles.

SA-19 missiles of the Tunguska can be aimed at ground targets too and being command guided they are accurate and relatively cheap, but they are not intended to penetrate armour... but then a fairly fast moving missile with a 9kg HE warhead would obliterate any non armoured vehicle fairly easily... a burst of 200 x 30mm rounds would also ruin the day of most ground targets of course.

Well the US had a tendency to project on the Soviets what it tended to do itself so...

They called Agent Orange, Purple, White 'pesticide' instead of what it was....chemical weapons.

Well the US had a tendency to project on the Soviets what it tended to do itself so...

Standard propaganda tactic... blame your opponent for your own sins and if they respond that you are doing it too it just sounds like sour grapes, or them blaming you for doing what they are doing wrong.

I mean case in point.... Russian hackers and Russian interfering in US elections... geez guys... look in a mirror much...

They called Agent Orange, Purple, White 'pesticide' instead of what it was....chemical weapons.

Indeed, spray it on lush thick jungle in the morning and by the afternoon it is all dead and brown, but I am sure it will be safe for the locals...

Hey bro, you've been AWOL for ages

Good to see you

x2.

Indeed. I'm back. Couldn't really get the time to participate, busy with moneymaking. Thank you for the kind words.

Also heh, the Themess died I see.

KoTeMoRe wrote:Indeed. I'm back. Couldn't really get the time to participate, busy with moneymaking. Thank you for the kind words.

Also heh, the Themess died I see.

The mess was a....mess.   The glorious have fallen, and their fall has been....glorious!  The smarmy swine from mp.net getting humbled to the to point that their just some random dieing page on facebook has just been such a delicious irony.

back, but remember kids counterfeiting is illegal M'kay.

KoTeMoRe wrote:Indeed. I'm back. Couldn't really get the time to participate, busy with moneymaking. Thank you for the kind words.

Also heh, the Themess died I see.

Missed your insights about firearms. Glad to see you back.

October 1st is Ground Forces Day, here is an interview with the commander:

http://redstar.ru/pobednuyu-tochku-stavit-nam/

Computer god of war

The military department is conducting an experiment to increase the effectiveness of missile forces and artillery. In addition to the development of fundamentally new systems and the modernization of those already in service, new organizational and staff structures of divisions, regiments and brigades are being developed. A check of the latest artillery appearance was the recent strategic exercises Center-2019.

"Artillery reform" in many ways remains closed to the general public. Moreover, for a layman, what seems to be chaotic throwings. For example, in the near future the unique Coalition-SV self-propelled howitzers will begin to be armed with the Ground Forces. At the same time, the Ministry of Defense is returning to service and the legacy of the Cold War - long-range guns 2S7 "Peony" and super-heavy mortars 2C4 "Tulip". Also, the Krasnopol guided projectiles were returned to service, although their release was discontinued in the mid-90s.

Let’s try to figure out what missile troops and artillery will represent in the near future, why the old artillery and missile systems will return to operation, and also evaluate how effectively pleasant innovations passed the test by fire on maneuvers.
By the will of ROCK

The main direction in the development of missile forces and artillery is their maximum integration into the so-called unified information space. In simple terms, artillery and missile systems in real time should receive information about targets and their characteristics and immediately proceed to their fire defeat.

Currently, the first stage of work has been completed. Gunners directly receive information from unmanned aerial vehicles, as well as from units at the forefront. The latter transmit all the necessary information using the Sagittarius intelligence management and communications complex (KRUS). The interaction of artillery and missile systems with Sagittarius was successfully verified during an operation in Syria. But now the military is facing a more difficult task.

Initially, the introduction of the concept of reconnaissance and strike contours (RUK) began in the troops. The RUK works as follows: the firing unit (usually a battery or a division) is given drones or personnel equipped with the Sagittarius Cruz. The interaction goes directly between UAVs (fighters with Sagittarius) and artillerymen. But at present, RUKs are already considered obsolete and, according to the military leadership, no longer meet modern requirements. In their place came reconnaissance and fire contours (ROC), implemented taking into account the network-centricity of modern wars and armed conflicts.

The principle of operation of the ROCK is quite simple. All units and subunits operating on the battlefield equipped with automated control systems report identified targets. Information also comes from unmanned aerial vehicles and electronic intelligence equipment. The received data on the goals are transmitted to the higher command.

Further, the headquarters, using all the information received, distribute targets between artillery units. At the same time, many factors are taken into account, from the tactical and operational situation on the battlefield to the presence of ammunition at the gunners and weather conditions.

The gunners at the position received the coordinates of the target, as well as the necessary consumption of ammunition for its destruction. All that remains for the calculations is to complete the assigned fire mission and proceed to the next.
Robots and Nerobots

But in order for the missiles to be as effective as possible, it is necessary to integrate missile and artillery units and subunits into a single information space. For this, since 2015, the Ministry of Defense has been actively working on equipping artillery and missile systems with modern radio stations and terminals of automated control systems.

It should also be noted that the latest self-propelled gun mounts "Coalition-SV", 2S19M2 "Msta-S", multiple launch rocket systems "Tornado-S" and "Hurricane-M1" were originally created so as to be integrated into a single information space. But the older 2C1 "Acacia", 2C3 "Carnation", as well as the "simple" 2C19 and MLRS "Hurricane" and "Grad" have to be modernized. Currently, active work is underway in this area, in particular, the Gradov improvement program has been launched this year.

It must be understood that, unlike more modern systems, modernized systems have a number of limitations. For example, the “Coalition”, 2C19M2 “Tornado” and “Hurricane-M1”, after receiving the fire mission, independently carry out all the calculations. Further, their control systems expose the guns or launchers to the necessary angles. The calculation remains only to press the button. No wonder such systems are called robots. But on older howitzers and MLRSs there is no such automation. Having received the initial data for firing, the calculation has to do everything on its own - set the necessary angles, calculate the consumption of ammunition and more.
Post-syrian rotation

Meanwhile, the entry into service of new artillery systems forced the leadership to revise the organizational structure of the artillery units and subunits. In particular, in the artillery regiments of motorized rifle and tank divisions, heavy batteries of the Uragan MLRS began to appear.

Until recently, these multiple launch rocket systems were armed only with army artillery brigades. But in the near future, the latest modular MLRS Uragan-M1 will displace them from artillery brigades, which, unlike their predecessors in the M1 arsenal, have a whole set of high-precision munitions. Due to the released “simple” “Hurricanes”, the firepower of artillery of motorized rifle and tank divisions will be significantly increased. Even a single battery of such MLRS is an impressive force that can create serious difficulties for the enemy.

It is also planned that the latest self-propelled artillery mounts "Coalition-SV" and 2С19М2 will gradually replace older, but modernized 2С19 "Msta-S" in artillery brigades. The latter will not be written off, but will go into service with artillery divisions and artillery regiments of combined arms brigades, as well as individual artillery divisions of motorized rifle and tank brigades.

The experience of military operations in Syria has shown the high efficiency of towed artillery. Artillery batteries and divisions equipped with D-30 and 2A65 Msta-B howitzers can make marches for hundreds of kilometers. But artillery mountings on a caterpillar chassis cannot boast of such mobility.

Initially, it was expected that the towed artillery systems should be replaced by the Coalition-SV variant, on a car base (a tower with a 152-mm gun mounted in the back of a four-axle truck). But the fighting in Syria showed that conventional towing vehicles with howitzers on a trailer have serious advantages over wheeled artillery systems. Therefore, the Ground Forces will remain artillery brigades equipped with towed 2A65 howitzers. It is not yet clear whether the towed version of the “Coalition-SV” will replace them. Such plans were voiced by the military department, however, so far there is not even a hint of starting work on the towed Coalition.

Syria also gave a second life to the legendary towed 122-mm howitzers D-30. They began to systematically withdraw from service in the early 2010s. Until recently, these artillery systems remained in service with the Airborne Forces, but it is possible that in the near future the D-30s will begin to return to the Ground Forces.

The experience of military operations in Syria has shown the high efficiency of towed artillery. Artillery batteries and divisions equipped with D-30 and 2A65 Msta-B howitzers can make marches for hundreds of kilometers. But artillery mountings on a caterpillar chassis cannot boast of such mobility.

Initially, it was expected that the towed artillery systems should be replaced by the Coalition-SV variant, on a car base (a tower with a 152-mm gun mounted in the back of a four-axle truck). But the fighting in Syria showed that conventional towing vehicles with howitzers on a trailer have serious advantages over wheeled artillery systems. Therefore, the Ground Forces will remain artillery brigades equipped with towed 2A65 howitzers. It is not yet clear whether the towed version of the “Coalition-SV” will replace them. Such plans were voiced by the military department, however, so far there is not even a hint of starting work on the towed Coalition.

Syria also gave a second life to the legendary towed 122-mm howitzers D-30. They began to systematically withdraw from service in the early 2010s. Until recently, these artillery systems remained in service with the Airborne Forces, but it is possible that in the near future the D-30s will begin to return to the Ground Forces.

Well... Eehnie would be interested in reading this...

As I read through it, the first part mentions towed guns being better than tracked vehicles, which made me think that heavy artillery on wheeled vehicles might be the better solution, but it specifically states that towed guns are also better than self propelled guns on wheeled mounts.

It does not surprise me that they recognise that the D-30 is still a great gun, because it is.

AFAIK they had a 152mm gun improvement that was mounted on the D-30 chassis to give full 360 field of fire when in place like the D-30 122mm gun.

Of course with guided rounds it is even better...

It is good that they can test these things in real war situations, but I hope they realise that Syria is a specific setting and their forces need to be able to fight other threats including peer threats. The of course know this better than the US with their experience in Chechnia where the enemy pretty much had a lot of the equipment they had along with a lot of the training too.