Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16191
    Points : 16822
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 08, 2011 5:45 pm

    Think of it in terms of a candle in front of a spotlight.
    When the spotlight is on the flame of the candle is impossible to see, so it doesn't matter much if the candle is a steady flame or flickering at a specific rate to make it coded.

    So it's a very protected vehicle.

    14.5mm AP is the least of the vehicles problems, the most common threat will be man portable anti tank weapons from RPG-18 right up to the heavy guided weapons.

    I am surprised they haven't fitted it with slat armour... that would deal with most RPG rockets which proliferate.

    Note Slat armour works by increasing the standoff distance of the incoming rocket as the early RPGs particularly were designed to focus their energy into forming a beam penetrator designed to start working at the tip of the warhead so if the main armour was another 30cms or so away its penetration effect was greatly reduced.
    Of course the main defeat mechanism is based on the way RPG-7 rockets worked.
    In the nose of an RPG rocket there is a material that when crushed generates an electric current.
    The effect is called the Piezio electric effect or something.
    It means it simplifies the design... a HEAT warhead needs to be detonated from the rear so the solution they used was to put some piezio electric effect material in the nose of the rocket. When the rocket hits the target the material in the nose is crushed which generates a sudden charge. The inner and outer lining of the warhead form a circuit between the piezio electric material in the nose and the fuse at the rear of the warhead which sets off the fuse and the explosive explodes from the rear forward till it gets to the front where a copper liner is crushed into a beam of superheated material blasting forward at about 4km/s.
    Slat armour works because unless the narrow tip of the rocket hits a slat dead on the tip will go between the slats which are strong enough to buckle the nose and short circuit the crush nose fuse so even when the rocket motor burns out the warhead will still not fire and the rocket becomes a dud.

    The chance of a clean 90 degree hit with an RPG is complicated by the trajectory path of the rocket plus the movements of the vehicle and the fact that a real 90 degree hit is actually 90 degree in two directions (horizontal and vertical) results in slat armour being even more effective than one might think.

    Of course with many other types of HEAT the slat armour offers little protection as a nose between the slats will not dud a Kornet for example and its warhead actually gets better penetration performance with a good stand off distance.

    Actually Slat armour and Trophy would probably solve most of its problems....
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat Apr 09, 2011 12:28 am

    Really, if you're hit with anything that resembles a rocket it's best to just pray. However, cost and weight wise it's easier to just "ignore" the other threats that your system might face, because like I've said before, you can't design a vehicle to fight everything.

    But yeah, for a vehicle, it can handle any rifles that your standard infantry uses, including HMGs.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16191
    Points : 16822
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 09, 2011 5:23 am

    Really, if you're hit with anything that resembles a rocket it's best to just pray.

    Hi, my name is GarryB and I am an athiest.

    Rockets are not nearly as effective as you suggest... reread that RPG-7 book you posted yourself a while back.
    As long as the vehicle isn't packed with fuel and ammo, even a complete penetration from one side to the other will not knock the vehicle out of action. It might kill or injure one or two people... or it might not hit anything important at all.

    RPGs are used in volleys for a reason... they are not accurate enough to specifically target a specific point on the target. The best you can hope for is to fire from an angle to target a weak spot... like the rear, roof, belly, or side.

    This amphibious vehicle has enormous sides, but slat armour is cheap and not that heavy... and gives the troops lots of space to strap their gear if they need it.
    It is certainly better than a truck and is not vulnerable to small arms fire so really it could land in Libya right now except for the RPGs... and as I said Trophy, slat armour and lots of fire power to make standing and firing an RPG seem like a bad idea is not that hard or that expensive... considering the alternatives.

    Putting a ship on a beach risks a ship full or people.

    because like I've said before, you can't design a vehicle to fight everything.

    You certainly can't stop everything... I am not suggesting making it laser guided bomb proof.
    RPGs and LAWs are common however and are worth protecting against because even in places without running water there will be RPGs or M72s.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat Apr 09, 2011 6:15 am

    Well think about it this way, name one IFV that is fully RPG proof, including the modern stuff. None, so rifles it is Very Happy
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16191
    Points : 16822
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 09, 2011 7:31 am

    It is like the difference between the T-28 and T-34.

    The T-34 was vulnerable to new ammo firing 50mm guns of the Panzers and of course the 88mms, but for most other threats it was relatively safe.

    The T-28 had in some places comparable armour... though it wasn't sloped, but was horrendously vulnerable, though admittedly mechanical reliability was an issue too.

    Most IFVs have slat armour fitted in combat zones so I think fitting it to this new vehicle as standard is completely justified.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat Apr 09, 2011 7:52 am

    Exactly so. If anything, the EFV is more like the A-20. EFVs are IFVs, which are not MBTs. They're bound to have less protection than said MBTs, add on slat armor would add on to the already hefty load (33 tons).
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16191
    Points : 16822
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:22 am

    Ok... you can save a little weight and not fit slat armour... I disagree that would make it a tank... at 33 tons it is very similar in weight to the Bradley... but much much bigger and slower and less well protected...

    I just think any ground force with decent AT equipment would see such a vehicle as a mouth watering target.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:31 am

    Really, the only difference between the EFV and the Bradley is the ERA on the Bradley, which makes it "Counter-RPG". The main difference however, is obviously the amphibious capability that the EFV has, which is essential for it's potential customer (the U.S. Marines).

    Austin

    Posts : 6203
    Points : 6609
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Austin on Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:02 am

    Nice Book on Russian BMP

    Russian BMP Infantry Combat Vehicles - Steven Zaloga
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16191
    Points : 16822
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:08 pm

    Thanks for posting that.

    Ironically it shows stuff that is just getting into service now like Krisantema and it was published in 1991.

    Don't know where they got their figures for Krisantema from however... 170m/s to 5km and 800mm penetration!
    More like 450 m/s to a range of 6km and 1,250mm penetration.

    Austin

    Posts : 6203
    Points : 6609
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Austin on Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:10 pm

    More like 2001 published

    Austin

    Posts : 6203
    Points : 6609
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Austin on Sun Apr 17, 2011 5:49 pm

    Nice Video on BMD-4

    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3170
    Points : 3260
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  medo on Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:36 pm

    Nice video of BMD-4. Anyone know, if BMD-4 is equipped with C4I data link? It have GPS/GLONASS navigation and 2 radios, 1 for voice and 1 could be for data.

    Are BMD-4 / BMD-4M still in production? For some time it's all quiet about them.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2178
    Points : 3070
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Apr 19, 2011 1:39 am

    medo wrote:Nice video of BMD-4. Anyone know, if BMD-4 is equipped with C4I data link? It have GPS/GLONASS navigation and 2 radios, 1 for voice and 1 could be for data.

    Are BMD-4 / BMD-4M still in production? For some time it's all quiet about them.

    No, BMD-4 has no C4I datalink for BMS. There is limited data transfer on the radios but no display map. The GPS navigation doesn't even come with a map, it is digital coordinates. Russian drivers get so fed up with the BS they put Garmins on the fucking console. I wish I had those in my BTR.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16191
    Points : 16822
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 19, 2011 3:49 am

    BFM.ru says
    Postnikov put the Ground Troops’ modern arms and equipment at only 12
    percent of its inventory at present with, again, the goal of 70 percent
    in 2020. At the end of this year, the army will get its first brigade
    complement of the newest automated C2 (ASU) system [i.e. presumably YeSU
    TZ]:
    <blockquote>“In November of this year, we plan to conduct research on the newest ASU and hand down our verdict.”</blockquote>
    According to BFM.ru, he said NATO and China already have analogous systems:
    <blockquote>“But for us it is still the future.”
    Without a C2 system then a battle management system doesn't really make sense.Once they start putting C2 systems in vehicles however the other 2 Cs follow as a natural consequence as command and control require communications and of course computers are used to do this.Making small GLONASS receivers is just part of the problem, they need a full constellation of satellites, but most importantly they need accurate fine scale digital maps.The Bakhcha is actually just a turret upgrade that can be fitted as shown in the video to the BMP-2, BMP-3, BMD, and BTR chassis. It is not really intended to add moving map displays for the driver.I would expect the next gen stuff to enter service now will likely have that sort of thing... ie BTR-82 and T-90AM etc.
    </blockquote>
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3170
    Points : 3260
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Nice Video on BMD-4

    Post  medo on Tue Apr 19, 2011 4:08 pm

    No, BMD-4 has no C4I datalink for BMS. There is limited data transfer on the radios but no display map. The GPS navigation doesn't even come with a map, it is digital coordinates. Russian drivers get so fed up with the BS they put Garmins on the fucking console. I wish I had those in my BTR.

    So BMD-4 don't have C4I datalink for now, but they have second radio and GPS/GLONASS navigation, what is necessary installation for C4I datalink. What they need is only a laptop to be connected on GPS and modem connected to second radio for radio data link with command post. Actually not that big upgrade to get C4I BMS.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16191
    Points : 16822
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:48 am

    The problem is not so much the vehicles... if you think in computer terms they already have radios for communication so in many ways they are like laptops with wireless connections... the problem is that they haven't decided on which network type they want to use and what software to pick to manage it all.

    Obviously it needs to be relatively soldier proof with a bit of training and it of course needs to do the job and be secure and have growth capacity.

    As assets are tied in to the network new features and requirements will come up.

    Right now the C2 is rubbish and is verbal.

    The Chinese really do have a better setup than the Russian Army in this regard.

    The point is that a few computers and high speed communications links will get their net down to vehicle level.

    The purpose of future combat suits like Felin is to extend that network down to the individual soldier so everyone shares information and resources and firepower can be used where needed when needed etc etc.

    Felin is expensive and will likely start equipping special forces only or a few elite units while cheaper simpler less capable Russian models have already been experimented with and improved a couple of times already. The good stuff that works from Felin will likely end up as part of the Russian kits and anything not working or not needed will be removed and hopefully more and more soldiers will be networked into the system.

    The Russians have bought some large scale training simulators from Germany that allow training of soldiers from individuals right up to entire brigades which should help with learning how to operate in a net centric force, and also improve interoperability with NATO.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3170
    Points : 3260
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  medo on Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:13 pm

    Hm, interesting. Russian army already have working C4ISR datalinks in air defense from the highest level to the firing units and as I know artillery units also are getting C4I datalinks. They could just modify it to work properly for ground troops. It is sad, that armor units will be the last to get it inside tanks, BMPs, BTRs,etc.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16191
    Points : 16822
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Indeed they do, and the PVO also had done a lot of work on datalinks.

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:08 am

    Indeed they do, and the PVO also had done a lot of work on datalinks.
    avatar
    Flanky

    Posts : 182
    Points : 191
    Join date : 2011-05-02

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Flanky on Thu May 05, 2011 11:34 pm

    Finally Russia is closing the last technology gap... Netcentric warfare. 155 Mbps is quite fast. Video calls are the most demanding on bandwidth but if proper encoding is applied to the image being transferred, the amount of transferred data could be largely reduced. I guess most of the time this network will carry data packets containing unit positions, statuses and 8kHz Mono telecomunication voip. This way one can hookup many units within the frontline where 200km operational range of the network is well enough for land based units.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16191
    Points : 16822
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 06, 2011 3:28 am

    You are quite right that video is probably the most demanding of bandwidth but this is made worse with encryption as this often adds to the volume of data that needs to be transmitted.
    Of course the extra processing required at each end to encrypt and decrypt the signal at each end shouldn't be a problem now because of multi core processor chips.

    This is a Russia wide military problem because although some branches already have battle management systems in operation... the Strategic rocket forces just put their 4th gen system into service recently, and the Navy also has a system that combines air, sea, and underwater situations in a system that shares data between all vessels equipped with the system (ie new and upgraded vessels) and will eventually include space coverage too... the problem is that these systems were developed independently and integration might create problems.

    During tests a few years back of a new army system some of the criticisms were that it could be attacked or listened to, but to be honest without it the army itself becomes a slow ineffective beast that operates at no where near its potential... the old voice communication system could be attacked and listened to as well but took 7 hours to get decisions to the front line. The new system took 20 minutes from frontline up to top and back down with orders and information. An enormous improvement.

    BTW one of the reasons that the relatively small American force was able to overpower a larger Iraqi force was because it was so much better managed... it is very much like a team taking on individuals in small piecemeal attacks.

    And for those thinking this is a NATO thing or a US thing... this is actually a German thing... lightning war or Blitzkreig involves mobility and firepower... which the Soviets had, and the British and the French, but it included communication and cooperation between the services which the non german forces neglected.
    avatar
    Flanky

    Posts : 182
    Points : 191
    Join date : 2011-05-02

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Flanky on Sun May 08, 2011 6:43 pm

    GarryB wrote:You are quite right that video is probably the most demanding of bandwidth but this is made worse with encryption as this often adds to the volume of data that needs to be transmitted.
    Garry < Not quite right. The encoding on the images by applying mathematic formulas to describe the image is done entirely to reduce the amount of data to transfer per one frame of video. Video codec were made to specifically reduce the video data size, otherwise there would be no reason for them.

    Regarding the tapping of communications. Modern datalink systems use a method called frequency hopping. This method makes it significantly more difficult to tap the communications, however it does not render it completelly impossible. Today digital signal processor chips are quite powerful and not very energy demanding so it is possible to setup a system of chips listening on all the major UHF,VHF channels to intercept the data link as it shifts from one frequency to another. And then rapid audio/video processing capabilities of modern CPUs make it possible to have nearly real-time video/audio streams of enemy communication. Im not taking into account the encryption as even the military grade encryption can be brute-forced 0 but it needs some time to do it. So no matter the netcentrc warfare hardware - it will never be completely safe.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16191
    Points : 16822
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 09, 2011 12:59 am

    Garry < Not quite right. The encoding on the images by applying mathematic formulas to describe the image is done entirely to reduce the amount of data to transfer per one frame of video. Video codec were made to specifically reduce the video data size, otherwise there would be no reason for them.

    With respect Flanky... I think you are confusing encoding with encrypting.
    Or more precisely you are confusing data compression with encryption.

    You can use mathematical formulas to store data about each pixel in a frame and then reduce data size by only then storing data on the pixels that change between frames for instance but if you send it as encoded it can be intercepted and played by the enemy.
    Encryption uses a two piece key to scramble the data in a way that only the person with the corresponding key can unscramble.

    If you know what you are doing you can make it more secure by adding noise after you encrypt it so to decrypt it you have to remove the noise first or it wont make sense with the correct key. With modern powerful computers a brute force attack can be used to try all the possible key combinations so the noise added makes that impossible.


    So no matter the netcentrc warfare hardware - it will never be completely safe.

    It is a strange irony that without a network there is nothing to hack in to.
    Of course the risk of having say your air defence networked hacked and exploited is less than not having a coherent air defence network in the first place.

    Austin

    Posts : 6203
    Points : 6609
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Austin on Mon May 09, 2011 8:56 am

    I just wonder with the leap of technology US has the the very wide and powerful capability that NSA holds , How much of Russian Military and Diplomatic communication are secure from the Wide Assets and Deep Pockets of NSA
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16191
    Points : 16822
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 09, 2011 9:03 am

    The point with a battle management system is that it just needs to do its job.

    Wars are not won by the best battle management system, they are often won by those prepared to take casualties and not give up...

    For the US war needs to be clean because it is a hobby and foreign policy tool.

    For Russia it is about survival and they take it rather more seriously.

    War will always be about measure and counter measure and secrets play a big part in that.

    The US certainly has the budget over everyone else, but they are also on the top of the pile and have to fight off everyone.

    Russia doesn't need to be top... it can remain high enough up to be untouchable, and it can concentrate on doing business instead of having an ideology to spread.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Jul 27, 2017 2:34 am