Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Share
    avatar
    Flanky

    Posts : 182
    Points : 191
    Join date : 2011-05-03

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Flanky on Tue May 10, 2011 6:38 am

    Garry < Sorry i missread. You are right encryption is something slightly differrent. Im not a video codec expert nor cryptographic expert, but even using both, i think the encoding is able to sav huge amounts of data so that the encryption overhead added to the encoded data will be still less than without encoded data. And when it comes to encryption - today you can have relatively small cpu node clusters that can try differrent key variations fairly quickly and there are also modern noise filters. So it is still vulnerable. On the other hand i don't think that ultra secret information would be passed through this kind of network. If it would be passed - it might be some kind of message that after decoding might gave enemy a false idea of meaning.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16172
    Points : 16803
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Tue May 10, 2011 11:10 am

    No worries Flanky... Smile ...when I make a mistake or remember something incorrectly hopefully you can put me right.

    Your point about the encoding of video and other information is quite right too... you just need to look at the MPEG encodings to see that Mpeg2 which was standard high quality video and digital stereo sound has been superseded by the Mpeg4 codec that offers an 11 to one compression ratio without losing frames.

    For non-computer geeks this means that a 1GB movie in Mpeg-2 format (common on DVDs), can be converted into an Mpeg-4 format with the same quality and number of frames and pixels in a 90MB file size. The problem of course is getting a DVD that will read and play that format and of course there is a lot more processing involved to play the video smoothly.

    With a decent computer on the end however the MP4 video streams more efficiently than MP2 video because there is less to download so it comes down quicker.

    Note MP3 is another encoding format but it does not have a video component and is only digital stereo sound that is a rather popular music format.


    http://twower.livejournal.com/399656.html

    This page has photos and vids about an exercise last October where a new battle management and command and control system was tested apparently. There is the odd picture of electronic boxes etc.
    avatar
    Flanky

    Posts : 182
    Points : 191
    Join date : 2011-05-03

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Flanky on Tue May 10, 2011 11:51 pm

    Well to my knowledge mp4 is not the best container to be used when it comes to ratio size:quality. There is one better which is H.264 codec. Ofcourse please let me know if im wrong Smile
    Also when it comes to front-end hardware, most modern multimedia chips do have built in hardware acceleration for decoding h.264 content. So this is not a problem.
    But as said there is not much need to video feed other than live footage from surveilance systems.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16172
    Points : 16803
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 12, 2011 10:04 am

    But as said there is not much need to video feed other than live footage from surveilance systems.

    This is a critical point.

    If you have seen the movie Aliens, where a space marines unit enters a nuclear reactor powerstation that is terraforming an alien planet to find survivors from a colony, the fighting team go in with an armoured vehicle with the team leader sitting in front of a set of video screens watching the video output from each soldiers camera and directing "his" soldiers "from the rear".

    That is bad enough but imagine generals and higher ups being able to watch live feed and being able to communicate to troops on the ground...

    The vast majority of communication will be the location of enemy units, your position, and commands. Images of unidentified targets might be sent for further closer examination by recon assets... most of the time still images of an area forming a panorama would be more use than a video clip of a pan.


    Well to my knowledge mp4 is not the best container to be used when it comes to ratio size:quality. There is one better which is H.264 codec. Ofcourse please let me know if im wrong

    MP4 is a rather old standard, and at the time I remember it being called a lossless compression for MP2 files. Its primary problem was it was hardware intensive so it didn't really catch on. The H.264 codec is also called MP4 AVC.

    My digital video camera was a fairly cheap model ($300 NZ which would be about $200 US) and can record MP2 or H.264. Neither is in high definition... it is a cheap camera.
    Basically it uses the better codec to compress the video to get more recording per memory card. H.264 is just called long play and can be converted with the software on the camera to something that can be recorded on a DVD and watched.
    avatar
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 535
    Points : 651
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  nightcrawler on Thu May 12, 2011 5:12 pm

    Flanky & Garry good info. So what I understand is that if video is highly compressed its become more hardware intensive but consumes less bandwidth..& vice versa.
    Now assuming we are talking about military netcentric communication don't you think a more compressed video form requires a more expensive gadgets (more processing power) & with a speed of 19mb/sec I would rather suggest the the video should be least compressed as gadgets costs may supersede bandwidth costs...ur views.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16172
    Points : 16803
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 12, 2011 6:31 pm

    Modern multi core processor chips should be able to handle it... if the system has a bandwidth of 19MB/s then it is not the bottleneck.

    When developing systems it is all about bottlenecks.

    Consider an old computer with an ancient 286 processor running at 10Mhz.

    The RAM will be old as well, as will be the motherboard.

    It is not just a case of replacing the slow processor, you also need faster RAM and a faster motherboard.

    As you improve one you often find you have to replace other components.

    Pretty soon USB speeds are too slow for USB 2 so you move to USB 3. Problem is... what if USB 3... which is certainly fast enough, is replaced by Thunderbolt... which is a new type of cable connection from Intel and Apple?
    avatar
    Flanky

    Posts : 182
    Points : 191
    Join date : 2011-05-03

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Flanky on Fri May 13, 2011 7:56 am

    Heres the deal. Current multimedia chip manufacturers have what is called chip famillies. In other words its a group of products that are only slightly differrent between each other. However from the performance point of view the most cheapest one is still able to decode H.264 content without problem.
    That might be universal multimedia chip. Then there are special dedicated video encoders/decoders chips. They are used purely for video handling. And... last thing, if in the mean time there is a new technology, or a particular need for better cpu, when creating the solution (gadget) you can use a socket providing the current and future chips will have the same packaging. Meaning the physical outer appearance of both chips will be the same. This way you can design a system with possible hardware upgrades in mind and quite powerful and cheap one. Today electronic components are not expensive. Computer CPUs are relatively expensive, however most of the applications for the netcentric warfare does not need the raw computing power of a RISC/CISC 64bit dual or quadcore cpu. Most of the time you are fine with single core, 32bit, running at 600 Mhz. Modern smartphones are able to handle HD video and THAT was usually resurce demanding. When it comes to end price for the electronic products. From this price only like 25% is the manufacturing price of the gadget. Rest of it is brand, marketing, logistics, reseller. So if in this case some state owned institute will be designing and manufacturing hardware for this netcentric warfare, i can very clearly see the relatively cheap price of such solution.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16172
    Points : 16803
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 13, 2011 1:11 pm

    I wouldnt go so far as to say any CPU and therefore any computer can manage.

    PC computers have video cards that process video data, and an ideal setup will have minimal CPU input in the process.

    If the CPU is doing all the work then the computer will be slow and jerky and your pointer will look like an hourglass most of the time.

    I have a 512MB graphics card in my computer and it wont play HD video full screen smoothly.

    At quarter screen size most of the definition and quality is lost but it runs smoothly.

    Most nodes in a net centric system will not have desktop PC power and considering what they are used for it doesn't make sense for them to be able to do that.

    When I first started in computers the big infrastructure thing was centralised computing.

    Personal computers were toys... in business you had a huge multi million dollar mainframe with lots of dumb terminals to allow access. In other words a big mainframe computer with lots of people accessing it through a keyboard and a computer monitor.

    A mouse was no use at the time because it was not a click and drag environment.

    Later on in the 1990s the desktop computer started to get rather more powerful and the new architecture was distributed processing... instead of spending $10 million dollars on one big computer you spent $200,000 putting a computer on each desktop and adding all the cabling and servers to connect them up in a network and of course bought licences for software for each machine. Instead of on central computer you had lots of computers all over the place doing work.

    Right now the big thing is a new architecture called the Cloud model where you almost move back to the old thin client system where the machines on the desks just run programs locally but all the software and data and storage is offsite... perhaps not even in the same country. Everything is online.

    You don't have to buy Microsoft Office and install it on every machine to make is usable for all your employees. You rent it on a monthly basis and run it from a webpage. That way the webpage owner is responsible for managing the software upgrades and security patches. When a new office comes out you don't need to worry about upgrading as the website upgrades it for you.

    The point is that with a cloud structured system the hand held computers and computers in vehicles and aircraft etc can be much simpler and much cheaper.

    Rather than shooting video all the time for instance a recon unit can simply have a map running on a palm computer and when they come across enemy units they can use a laser range finder and the GPS of their own location to precisely position enemy on a digital map display that they can then transmit back to HQ. As they observe different enemy units/vehicles etc they can add that data to the map and transmit that information back to their own forces. A nearby friendly tank unit might notice the two enemy TOW units the recon team have just spotted appear on their maps and the local HQ might order that tank unit to deal with the threat.
    In such a case the information being sent is more useful than a video... which might be fun to watch, but of little use to the local units. What they need to know is what forces are spotted with info about numbers and what equipment they have and where they are located.
    avatar
    Flanky

    Posts : 182
    Points : 191
    Join date : 2011-05-03

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Flanky on Sat May 14, 2011 6:13 am

    GarryB wrote:I wouldnt go so far as to say any CPU and therefore any computer can manage.

    PC computers have video cards that process video data, and an ideal setup will have minimal CPU input in the process.

    If the CPU is doing all the work then the computer will be slow and jerky and your pointer will look like an hourglass most of the time.

    I have a 512MB graphics card in my computer and it wont play HD video full screen smoothly.

    At quarter screen size most of the definition and quality is lost but it runs smoothly.

    Most nodes in a net centric system will not have desktop PC power and considering what they are used for it doesn't make sense for them to be able to do that.

    When I first started in computers the big infrastructure thing was centralised computing.

    Personal computers were toys... in business you had a huge multi million dollar mainframe with lots of dumb terminals to allow access. In other words a big mainframe computer with lots of people accessing it through a keyboard and a computer monitor.

    A mouse was no use at the time because it was not a click and drag environment.

    Later on in the 1990s the desktop computer started to get rather more powerful and the new architecture was distributed processing... instead of spending $10 million dollars on one big computer you spent $200,000 putting a computer on each desktop and adding all the cabling and servers to connect them up in a network and of course bought licences for software for each machine. Instead of on central computer you had lots of computers all over the place doing work.

    Right now the big thing is a new architecture called the Cloud model where you almost move back to the old thin client system where the machines on the desks just run programs locally but all the software and data and storage is offsite... perhaps not even in the same country. Everything is online.

    You don't have to buy Microsoft Office and install it on every machine to make is usable for all your employees. You rent it on a monthly basis and run it from a webpage. That way the webpage owner is responsible for managing the software upgrades and security patches. When a new office comes out you don't need to worry about upgrading as the website upgrades it for you.

    The point is that with a cloud structured system the hand held computers and computers in vehicles and aircraft etc can be much simpler and much cheaper.

    Rather than shooting video all the time for instance a recon unit can simply have a map running on a palm computer and when they come across enemy units they can use a laser range finder and the GPS of their own location to precisely position enemy on a digital map display that they can then transmit back to HQ. As they observe different enemy units/vehicles etc they can add that data to the map and transmit that information back to their own forces. A nearby friendly tank unit might notice the two enemy TOW units the recon team have just spotted appear on their maps and the local HQ might order that tank unit to deal with the threat.
    In such a case the information being sent is more useful than a video... which might be fun to watch, but of little use to the local units. What they need to know is what forces are spotted with info about numbers and what equipment they have and where they are located.

    Exactly. So the entire point is that video is not that much needed. And Video calls can be between commanders maybe but not that much important between commander and his soldiers.
    What is important are the data describing enemy units being transferred across the entire front.

    Regarding the CPU power. Today in a smartphone you have hardware acceleration of HD video. ARM v7 architecture has this, and it is still able to do true multitasking beside playing this video. Everything in 600-800 Mhz frequency range and 1350 mAH battery. CPUs like that (pure chip without support circuitry) is arround 70$ range. Which is very cheap compared to its capabilities. That said those are multipurpose. Then there are ASICs (application specific integrated circuit) - specifically built to decode video which are even cheaper. Regarding the cloud. Cloud might be a good idea for the military use since the data won't be stored locally rather uploaded to a centralised server and thus if the unit with its hardware is somehow captured there is high data safety from unauthorized retrieval. However with sophisticated evasdropping equipment you can catch quite a lot of wireless communication. So there needs to be developed advanced cryptographic methods. Im not an expert on this but the best protection on this would be not to send any data at all. Or send only those that are the most urgent. Cloud in personal use is not of my taste. Because i am giving up on my data to some remote location where i do not have any other form of access than virtual. The possibility of data theft in this case, or unauthorized use of my data might be very high. So despite all the advantages of my data being available from any place on earth with internet connection, i prefer to store the data locally on my computer. Same goes for social networking. If you are interrested about possible new approach to social media you might google project danube.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16172
    Points : 16803
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 15, 2011 11:58 am

    Regarding the cloud. Cloud might be a good idea for the military use since the data won't be stored locally rather uploaded to a centralised server and thus if the unit with its hardware is somehow captured there is high data safety from unauthorized retrieval.

    I am a bit skeptical about the Cloud structure... I suspect Microsoft like the business model of renting software instead of selling it. If you read most EULAs (end user licence agreements for those non geeks) a lot of the time you are not buying the software, you are paying for the use of the software on a specific number of machines anyway.

    Im not an expert on this but the best protection on this would be not to send any data at all.

    Ironically in addition to encryption another protection is to send lots of garbage along with important info so that any eves dropping enemy will have to work out which is which and will also waste time decrypting rubbish.

    Most units will use all sorts of methods for communication but they will also not want to give away their position by transmitting all the time. Burst transmission and using a range of frequencies at once can be used as well as using low power transmitters that will barely reach another unit that is dedicated to comms that can boost the signal and get it back to HQ without revealing the source location of the original signal with its transmission.

    Action and counter action... it is all part of the game.

    i prefer to store the data locally on my computer. Same goes for social networking. If you are interrested about possible new approach to social media you might google project danube.

    Have never even been to facebook or twitter... just because I am paranoid... doesn't mean the whole world isn't out to get me... Embarassed Twisted Evil

    Austin

    Posts : 6195
    Points : 6601
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Acacia-M portable command and control system

    Post  Austin on Sun May 29, 2011 12:41 pm

    COMMAND AND CONTROL

    By the end of 2012, the Russian Armed Forces will have been totally equipped with the Acacia-M portable command and control system. Nowadays, it is in service with the auxiliary command post of the Russian Armed Forces General Staff and C2 elements of the Voronezh army and Moscow Military District.

    The Acacia-M is a field military computer network ensuring the work of the so-called ‘military Internet’. It enables personnel operating one type of communications gear in stationary command posts to stay within the same information environment when gong on exercising or deploying on operations.

    Every Acacia-M mobile C2 centre is equipped with an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that provides the operational-level commanders with the on-line imagery of terrain to figure out, for example, where specific command posts are in the field.

    Two personnel operate the system. The UAV’s operating time is 1.5 hours at a speed of 120 km/h. Its camera range is up to 15 km. The aircraft is equipped with two video cameras, with a photo camera or an infrared imager as an option.

    Austin

    Posts : 6195
    Points : 6601
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Austin on Sat Jun 11, 2011 12:05 am

    MRAP Demonstration

    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5670
    Points : 6319
    Join date : 2009-08-26
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Viktor on Sat Jun 11, 2011 6:49 am

    Well, now with great joy we can surely say MRAP gap is cosed Very Happy

    Austin

    Posts : 6195
    Points : 6601
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Austin on Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:35 am

    http://www.redstar.ru/2010/10/01_10/1_01.html

    In the transition to a new look at battle of the Army provides a compound of heavy, medium and light types. Accordingly, at the initiative of the High Command of the Army defense industry began to develop a complex of three families of combat and support vehicles on the basis of heavy, medium and light unified platforms.

    First, the level of protection the main tank, designed for combat at close quarters with the enemy. They will come into service heavy-duty compounds.

    The second family car with a level of protection will be equipped with the BMP compounds designed to act in difficult terrain and in areas of coastal waters, making raids behind enemy lines, as well as to deal with small-sized (portable), antitank weapons of the enemy.

    The third family car is supposed to create on the basis of the automobile in an armored military equipment to the installation of performance on these advanced models of weapons, including precision and on new physical principles, systems and command, control, communications, reconnaissance, electronic warfare, etc.

    In planning the improvement of weapons and military equipment in the medium term, we clearly envision what should be the face of the Army in 10-15 years. To do so, participate in drafting the State Armaments Program for 2011-2020, which main idea should be to create a weapon system that meets the requirements of the XXI century.

    At the same time upgrading the Army plans to carry out in two stages. In the first (2011-2015) the main focus will be on procurement of modern arms and military equipment designs, especially for rocket and artillery units, intelligence units, electronic warfare and communications, and automated control systems for tactical level.

    At the same time continue to develop a new family of platforms such as light ("Typhoon"), medium ("Boomerang" and "Kurganets-25") and heavy ("Armata").
    In the second phase (2016-2020 years) is scheduled to begin a complete equipment and units with new modern types of weapons and military equipment on the base of unified platforms.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16172
    Points : 16803
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:13 pm

    We know from other sources that the Boomerang will be a 25 ton class wheeled vehicle... which makes it significantly heavier than existing BMP vehicles.
    We know it will be amphibious which suggests it might be quite large as well, or have exotic armour including NERA and Plastic elements to improve armour protection levels while keeping weight low.

    I would assume the point of having two medium size/weight vehicles is that the other vehicle is tracked with a higher level of cross country mobility and perhaps fire power as well.

    The real question is will the Typhoon be a very light MRAP like vehicle like Tigr-M, or will it be a BTR-90 like vehicle with improved layout and more sophisticated lighter armour of better performance?

    The burning question of course will be regarding the heavy brigades.
    What armament will the heavy APCs be equipped with?
    Will heavy armament on the heavy APCs lead to cramped conditions and fire traps if the ammo stores are hit?
    Will this lead to a new type of fire support vehicle being developed... a BMPT based on the Armata chassis?
    Will they revisit the issue in 2020?

    Personally I like the concept of the BMPT, I just think they made mistakes in implimenting it.

    In WWIII full scale war with top of the line opponent I think the firepower of a BMPT type vehicle will be useful. In lesser conflicts I think the firepower of the BMPT would actually be more suitable than the firepower of a tank which is often skewed towards dealing with enemy tanks.
    The BMPT should have been armed and equipped differently... it needed short range protected firepower but also direct and indirect HE firepower.

    In many ways the armament of the BMP-3M is ideal with a few modifications.

    First of all the turret ring ammo storage needs to be replaced with external turret rear bustle autoloader so that if the ammo catches fire the crew are safe.
    The 100mm gun should be mounted externally and raised up so that it gets much better depression and elevation angles and also makes more room at the front of the vehicle for wide low flat weapon turrets mounting a 30 cal machinegun and a 40mm grenade launcher with wide fields of view and aiming optics.
    Another 40mm grenade launcher at the centre rear of the turret like on the BMP-2 upgrade would round out excellent firepower.
    The 40mm grenade launcher has a curved trajectory which means it can fire over cover more effectively than 30mm cannon. The 30mm cannon would be useful for use against light armour and light aircraft and the short flight time improves performance against targets like troops in the open.
    The 100mm gun has a good range and heavy HE shell for tough targets like bunkers or buildings and for point targets like snipers or ATGM teams harrasing the unit or an adjacent unit a 100mm missile could be used to extended ranges with excellent accuracy.

    All this without putting lots of ammo in the crew compartment.

    Crew would stay the same as for the BMPT with three seated side by side in the front hull with the driver in the centre and a gunner on either side with a PKT MG and a 40mm auto grenade launcher. In the turret seated below the turret ring is the commander and gunner operating the turret mounted weapons of a PKT, a 100mm rifled gun with rear turret bustle autoloader with one piece HE shells and missile ammo, and one 2A72 30mm cannon with two ammo boxes for the dual feed HE and AP ammo types. The HE rounds can be the time fused models as used in the T-90 with the ANIET system that have been adopted for the BTR-82A. And finally at the rear of the turret elevating with the other weapons and with 400-500 rounds on a flat magazine that the rear of the turret is a 40mm BALKAN automatic grenade launcher. A 2.5km range with a big heavy powerful grenade and no empty case like their underbarrel 40mm grenade launchers.

    Variations on armament might be to replace the 100mm rifled gun with a 120mm gun/mortar/missile launcher.

    Austin

    Posts : 6195
    Points : 6601
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Austin on Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:27 pm

    GarryB wrote:I would assume the point of having two medium size/weight vehicles is that the other vehicle is tracked with a higher level of cross country mobility and perhaps fire power as well.

    I would think one would be BTR replacement and one would be BMP replacement hence the mention of two vehicle.

    The real question is will the Typhoon be a very light MRAP like vehicle like Tigr-M,

    Yes it would be MRAP/Tigr like vehical and others thats under development that is the concept of light vehical , these would carry weapons , sensors , EW equipment , Radar ,ESM , Jammers etc

    The burning question of course will be regarding the heavy brigades.

    I think the heavy vehicle will be a Tank and support vehical like logistics ,ARV based on its chassis and Howitzer based on its chasis

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16172
    Points : 16803
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:52 pm

    I would think one would be BTR replacement and one would be BMP replacement hence the mention of two vehicle.

    Except that the BTR-80/82 and the BMP are in different weight classes at 14 and 18 tons respectively.

    It is more a case of one being a replacement for the BTR-90 and the other a replacement for the BMP-3... except that the BTR-90 weighs 20 tons and the BMP-3 weighs 18 tons, so at 25 tons these new vehicles are 5-7 tons heavier.

    The BTR-82/80 are closer to 14 tons.

    In many ways the BTR-90 was a cheaper more mobile BMP with slightly lighter armour and potentially the same firepower and more powerful engine.

    I guess it makes sense though. An extra 5 tons of armour and revised ramp rear and side door exits would make the Boomerang a useful vehicle. I think a bigger heavier BMP-3 might sell well too... especially if its engine arrangement is sorted to allow a proper ramp rear door an heavier armour fitted.

    I think the heavy vehicle will be a Tank and support vehical like logistics ,ARV based on its chassis and Howitzer based on its chasis

    If we look at the current use, we have tank, Heavy APC, 152mm artillery, Bridging vehicle, recovery vehicle, Engineer vehicle... to which I would add Air Defence vehicle, and possibly fire support vehicle with heavier armament than that fitted to the APC. There might even be an unmanned land vehicle model for resupply.

    Austin

    Posts : 6195
    Points : 6601
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Austin on Mon Jun 20, 2011 9:05 pm

    GarryB wrote:Except that the BTR-80/82 and the BMP are in different weight classes at 14 and 18 tons respectively.

    If you read the Army Chief comment , he mentions two vehical in medium class "Boomerang" and "Kurganets-25" , so one would be a BMP class and other will be BTR class ....... atleast that makes more sense to me, considering they are replacing every thing.

    Plus he mentions these vehical should be mobile ,amphibious and must be able to withstand portable weapons

    The second family car with a level of protection will be equipped with the BMP compounds designed to act in difficult terrain and in areas of coastal waters, making raids behind enemy lines, as well as to deal with small-sized (portable), antitank weapons of the enemy.

    That is one of the reason for higher weight which is better armour and protection
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16172
    Points : 16803
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:32 pm

    The idea of having cheap light wheeled vehicles like the BTR-80/-82 is to be discontinued and replaced with the more expensive but better protected BTR-90 concept.

    The question will be are the wheeled Boomerang going to have the light BTR-82 armament or a heavier BTR-90/BMP armament.

    I guess it comes down to whether they want a tracked and wheeled vehicle in the same weight class for cost reasons (wheeled vehicles are cheaper to buy and to operate in terms of fuel use and maintainence), or for mobility reasons or both.

    If it is for mobility reasons (which I suspect) then brigades in areas where there are more roads there will be more wheeled models and in places where roads are a myth then the tracked vehicles will dominate the medium Brigades.

    My suspicion is that the cheap simple light vehicle will be a MRAP type light truck like the SPM-3 which might inherit the BTR-82s turrets and optics, while the medium Boomerang will replace the idea of the BTR-90 with BMP armament and armour but still wheeled and amphibious and quite mobile.
    The BMPs will clearly be heavier too, but whether that is all due to armour or if they will be enlarged to make more room for the troops or if there will be a drastic change in firepower is another question.
    Perhaps they will go for mixed firepower options with heavy HE firepower and auto cannon (ie BMP-3M armament) with a new anti IFV high velocity gun in the 45mm, 57mm and perhaps 60-65mm calibre range that could take on even MBT from some angles at extended ranges.
    Perhaps to force NATO to go to a Tank APC too?

    Looking forward to seeing them... Smile

    Austin

    Posts : 6195
    Points : 6601
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Austin on Tue Jun 21, 2011 3:31 am

    GarryB wrote:The question will be are the wheeled Boomerang going to have the light BTR-82 armament or a heavier BTR-90/BMP armament.

    I really see no reason why Boomerang and Kurganets-25 should be equipped with light armament , it would be equipped with heavy armament much better then BTR-90 and BMP-3.

    The light armament will come with Typhoon light vehicle.

    I also think none of the heavy,medium and light vehical will replace the existing orbat from 2015 in significant number ,I see BTR-80a/BTR-90/BMP-3/T-90/80 will remain in service for the next 15 - 20 years from now and then these will be replaced by newer types
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16172
    Points : 16803
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:46 am

    The Russian government has committed itself to 70% all new state of the art equipment by 2020.
    This means the process of getting these new vehicles into service is fairly urgent because they will need to make an enormous number of these vehicles to fill all the roles they will be needed for.

    The economies of scale really only apply when each brigade has its family of chassis in service. Having a hodge podge of different types of vehicles would be worse than what they have now because you'd have the old and the new.

    I rather suspect that vehicles will be introduced a brigade at a time when enough chassis are available to fill the required roles.

    The top units, or the units in the front line will likely get the new kit first.

    Regarding the light armament comment I made I was thinking in terms of what they have now.
    A current motor rifle brigade will have a small number of tanks and depending on where it operates it will have BTR-70s, BTR-80s and BMP-1s and BMP-2s and BMP-3s.
    A Tank brigade will have a much large number of tanks but also APCs and IFVs too.

    The thing I am thinking is that if Boomerang replaces BTR-80As and Kurganets-25 replaces the BMPs will the Boomerang have BTR-82 and BTR-82A level armament or will they upgrade them to BTR-90M armament which was basically BMP-3M armament (100mm rifled gun and 30mm cannon) or will they arm the Boomerang with all new "BMP-4" armament that the Kurganets-25 will likely have that might include 30mm cannon and 100mm rifled gun or 120mm gun mortar, or perhaps a 45/57mm cannon, and 120mm gun mortar? Or the Kurganets might come in a choice of armaments and the Boomerang might come with the same choices.

    Right now the expensive but capable Catherine Thermal sights are to be fitted to the BMP-3 and the T-90. Will both Boomerang and Kurganets-25 get the same sights or will Boomerang get lesser sights as fitted to the BTR-82.

    Note with the old Buran Soviet Thermal sight the T-80U could see and hit targets at up to 2.1km in complete darkness. With the Catherine Thermals sights targets can be engaged at 5-7km range in complete darkness.

    It is the big gun and excellent optics that make tanks useful vehicles on the battlefield.
    Having the same optics in a Boomerang and decent direct and indirect fire power would make it a very useful vehicle for a range of conflict types.

    Austin

    Posts : 6195
    Points : 6601
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Austin on Wed Jun 22, 2011 9:02 pm

    GarryB wrote:The Russian government has committed itself to 70% all new state of the art equipment by 2020.

    Yes they mean 70 % of equipment overall in armed forces which does not mean each piece of equipment in every department will be 70 % new , it means some department will get 90 or 100 % new equipment some will be 60 % some will be 50 % but overall the armed forces will have average 70 % new equipment.


    This means the process of getting these new vehicles into service is fairly urgent because they will need to make an enormous number of these vehicles to fill all the roles they will be needed for.

    Yes for most part it would be but BTR-80a and BTR-90 are relatively new and will have another 15 - 20 years of life left depending when they were made and how well they would be maintained and used , more ever Armata/Boomerang will start coming post 2015 or even later so they will take time to set up production and numbers will gradually grow in years , I would expect the Armada will slowly replace T-72's to start with and not t-90 and Boomerang etc will replace the BTR-70/ older BTR-80 and BMP-2 and not the newer BTR-80a/90 and BMP-3 they still have atleast a decade of service life left.

    And by the time these would be replaced you would see some upgrade model of Armata and Boomerang replacing it.

    And i would expect the Armata/Boomerang to be quite well armed as these are newer and expensive system so they would have Netcentricity right from startup and new class of armament , as to how it will compatred with BMP or BTR we cant speculate there , need to wait as see.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16172
    Points : 16803
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:29 am

    Yes they mean 70 % of equipment overall in armed forces which does not mean each piece of equipment in every department will be 70 % new , it means some department will get 90 or 100 % new equipment some will be 60 % some will be 50 % but overall the armed forces will have average 70 % new equipment.

    The old structure was three levels of combat readiness.

    The first line troops had all their gear and all their personel ready within hours to move. The second line troops had full gear but a lot of the gear was not state of the art and they had half their personel. To mobilise the second tier forces would take a week or two to get the personel and equipment ready and operational. The third line troops were skeleton forces with most of their kit in storage that was all previous generation stuff. It would take a month to mobilise such a force.

    The new structure is all ready forces so even though the forces are a fraction of the size of the old three tier forces in actual combat terms they are actually more ready to fight straight away than before.

    The point is that you are going to have units in the potential front line and you are going to have units in the backwaters. In 2006 despite the fighting in Chechnya the Army located there was considered second Tier at best and was not equipped with the best stuff. Now with Georgia being a problem that has probably changed... I can't say for sure, but the fact that there are photos floating around of T-90s deployed to Abkhazia and South Ossetia and lots of other new stuff I suspect their status has changed. The hubub about the Kirile Islands and the claims by Russia that it will start spending money in the Far East suggests to me that the shock of the attack in South Ossetia has made them realise how vulnerable the Far East is from a Japanese attack. 5 Years ago anyone would think a Japanese attack would be highly unlikely, but a bad economy... a bad economy forecast for the next 10 years, a radical government making promises to get into power... what might they do when they get it?

    What I am saying is that in areas where the perceived threat is highest the units will always get the best gear. The new model of the military forces however means that old equipment has less value because there are no skeleton forces that would be better armed with T-55s than nothing at all so most of the old stuff will have to go.

    When you start getting rid of the old stuff you need to buy new stuff or you will have no stuff.
    What you say is perfectly accurate... all units will not have 70 percent new stuff... one third of the units will have 100% new stuff and two thirds will have 50 percent new stuff... which means production of the new stuff needs to meet the requirements of one third of the forces.
    They will likely equip brigades at a time, and the production rate of light vehicles means that the light and medium brigades will most likely get their vehicles first and fastest.

    Yes for most part it would be but BTR-80a and BTR-90 are relatively new and will have another 15 - 20 years of life left depending when they were made and how well they would be maintained and used

    AFAIK there are very few if any BTR-90s in Russian Army service. The FSB and other government branches might have bought some but I rather doubt it is in mass production. I haven't seen it on exercise yet.
    The BTR-82 and BTR-82A are in production... no doubt to replace the BTR-60 and BTR-70 models in service first and then BTR-80 models next.

    The final result of production I think will be a reserve of BTR-82 vehicles that will serve well as basic trainers and for exercises with the new recruits and for first line use in rear areas. The point is that most equipment in service is not just old, it has had use but has not been upgraded and maintained the way it should have been.

    For instance a lot of Su-27s in service now are just original bog standard Su-27s the same as they were when they entered service in the 1980s. In comparison aircraft like the Mig-21s and Mig-23 had dozens of models they were updated to throughout their service lives. From 2015 to 2020 the focus will move from updated and optimised old models like BTR-82 and BMP-3M and T-90AM to production of brand new models... namely Boomerang, Kurganets-25, and the Armata (which will not be like the T-95 UVZ was working on though it may share some of its features). Production of Typhoon should be very quick because it is a light vehicle and would be mass produced in fairly large numbers fairly quickly. Boomerang should be produced relatively quickly too... though a Kurganets type armament might increase costs and slow entry into service.
    The Su-27 had a similar problem in that the air frames were produced much faster than the radars and avionics so there was a large number of airframes waiting for electronic bits that took longer to make. A cheaper simpler armed Boomerang would make production cheaper and faster. The Armata chassis will be the slowest to get into service, but the economies of scale will help because each brigade type will be built around a chassis family so instead of having dozens of vehicle types for each unit there will be three main family types.

    I would expect the Armada will slowly replace T-72's to start with and not t-90

    Agree, but would suggest Armata will most likely replace the T-80s first with T-72s getting upgrades... perhaps the Russians will sell their T-80s to the Ukraine or South Korea or Cyprus... or all three. Being the gas turbine powered model they are the most expensive to operate.

    not t-90 and Boomerang etc will replace the BTR-70/ older BTR-80 and BMP-2 and not the newer BTR-80a/90 and BMP-3 they still have atleast a decade of service life left.

    On paper the Armata will likely replace the T-80 and the T-62 and T-64 and T-55/54, but in practical terms the Armata will replace T-90AMs and those T-90AMs will replace upgraded T-90S tanks and those T-90S tanks will replace upgraded T-90A tanks and those T-90A tanks will replace upgraded T-72 tanks. Any unit that had T-80s will likely also get them replaced... either with T-90AMs or Armatas.

    The same for the other vehicle classes, but it will be more complicated because you are changing from a Motor Rifle and Tank Brigade to Heavy, medium, and light brigades.

    A Motor Rifle Brigade would have a mix of tanks and BMPs and BTRs. A Tank Brigade of the same tier would have the same types of vehicles but in different mixes... the Tank Brigade having a larger proportion of tanks to IFVs and APCs.

    A heavy brigade will have all tank vehicles but what will the proportion of tanks be in such a formation? One presumes it will be tank heavy for fire power, but combat in cities and strong points needs manpower too. Perhaps it will be balanced evenly between tanks and IFVs.

    The Medium Brigade needs mobility as well as firepower and would probably have more IFVs than tanks.

    The Light Brigade needs mobility and fire power to compensate for lack of armour... it needs surprise and impact.

    In practical terms the new force structure is quite different from what was previously used, so I suspect the new units will be formed as the new equipment becomes available.

    The family concept of vehicles only works when all vehicles in the unit conform to the concept... having T-90AMs in a heavy brigade only really makes sense when all other vehicles in the brigade use the T-90 chassis.

    I rather suspect production right now will fill gaps and keep existing forces equipped but after 2015 as the new vehicles become available the old tank and motorrifle units will be replaced by a complete Heavy, Light, or medium brigade when the vehicles are ready. I suspect there will be a ratio of 1:4:6-8 in terms of heavy, medium, and light brigades as the mobile light units will have a variety of uses and no doubt will be cheaper to equip and operate. I suspect the light brigades will use UAVs and UCAVs extensively too.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16172
    Points : 16803
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Armored vechiles discussion

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:40 pm

    Actually I remember reading an article about Russian ownership of the the Kurile Islands and it mentioned that there were units on the Kuriles that were still old formations based on the old MotorRifle and Tank units.

    I believe it was an artillery machinegun support unit they were particularly talking about but they seem to suggest that other Russian units had already been changed to brigade units.

    Their final heavy/medium/light equipment will not start entering service till 2015 onwards so I am wondering what they have done.

    A heavy brigade right now will not have heavy APCs unless they have built some on the sly.
    Equally medium brigades would be almost all BMPs because the BTRs in service and in production now (ie BTR-80 and previous models in service and BTR-82s in production) don't match the BMPs in armour... except the BTR-90 and its production is supposedly on hold till Boomerang replaces it.
    The light brigades could be Tigrs and Volks and BTR-82s with perhaps the odd BMP-3 for firepower till the Typhoons are finally ready.

    The point is that current brigades will have a mishmash of vehicles that will vary from region to region greatly.

    The intial focus should be on C4IR systems in upgraded current vehicles so current brigades can train to operate the way they will operate in the future.
    Hardware can be tested like communication and sensors, and all the little upgrades like new ERA and new APS systems can be put into full scale production and experience gained. The money earned with sales to integrate ARENA for example should generate the funding and design and production experience to further develop the system and make it more capable while improving the performance of the fleet straight away and investing in the future of the system to make it more capable in the future.

    As such I would probably say 1,500 is the limit for the T-90AM including upgrades of existing T-90s to T-90AM standards. Of the 5,500 other tanks I would say keep the T-80 in service for another 4 years and then they can be replaced first by the first Armata tanks. It should be kept in mind that equipping a heavy tank brigade is not just about Armata tanks, but Armata chassis for every main vehicle in a heavy brigade so even if they spend a lot of money on the Army in the 2015-2020 period I don't think that the entire fleet of heavy brigades will be fully equipped because for every tank there will be a dozen other vehicles that use tank chassis.
    For the 5,000 tanks minus the available T-80s... lets assume there are 2,000 T-80s in good condition... that leaves 3500 T-72s of which 1,500 could be upgraded.

    This means that in 2015 when Armata presumably becomes ready for production the Russian Army will have paid for 1,000 T-90AM tanks and T-90S and T-90A upgrades, which they can keep using with upgrades till Armata is produced in numbers to replace them. The 1,500 T-80s are expensive to operate but need only minor upgrades... perhaps fitting it with the new V-99 engine might make it cheaper to operate, but we don't want to spend too much money on it as it can be the first to go as it has little parts commonality with the T-72/T-90 series and so with Armata would be a third different tank type. And 1,500 upgraded T-72s leaving 2,000 un-upgraded T-72s.

    The T-72s and the T-80s will be used for small scale exercises and training while the T-90s and upgraded T-72s will be used on big exercises and during conflicts if there are any. This means the majority wear and tear will be on the older models which will be scrapped or donated to an ally in 2015.

    According to the CFE agreement... which Russia has signed but has said will not honour till other participants have signed and started honouring the Russian forces are allowed something like 2,000 operational tanks with 4,000 in storage in European Russia so perhaps I need to revise my numbers with some more T-90s and perhaps more T-72s for the Far East including vehicles used for training and in operational storage for real conflicts.

    Either way there is a balance where upgrades and new vehicles need to be bought, but not so much money spent so that when the new vehicles are available there is no money left to build them. You need enough upgrades and new build vehicles to keep the factories working, keep the workforce trained and tooled with the latest production equipment and methods, and of course the subcontractors making 125mm ammo and ERA and ARENA active protection systems making products so they can earn the money to develop and improve their products.
    Having ARENA in production and service means to a potential customer that there will be an ARENA 2 and it will get better.

    ARENA as it is already is useful against the RPG which is amongst the most prolific threat on the battlefield which alone makes it worth it.

    Austin

    Posts : 6195
    Points : 6601
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Austin on Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:36 pm

    Looking at this video on BMP-3M , its pretty awesome even of old
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjJzvwPLb84

    I am just wondering of Bomerang or what ever replaces BMP-3 what kind of firepower should it have.

    Would replacement of 30 mm Anti Aircraft gun with 57 mm and replace 100 mm Gun with 105 mm gun or even a 120 mm MG with guided projectile capability ?

    Just imagine if a 120 mm or 105 mm caliber gun can fire Verba like missile with true fire and forget capability , that would significantly upgrade its anti-aircraft and anti-missile capability.

    With a small MMW radar like you see on Mi-28N or Ka-52 and IR/TI/EO sensor to back it up

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:37 am