Russian Ground Forces: News #1

What is the purpose of the odd gap towards the rear of the projectile?

GarryB wrote:Precursor charges dont tend to need probes of their own and often actually act as probes for the main charges on most missiles that have initiator charges.

The probe is basically to provide stand-off, meaning it should have a certain length. The diameter and the geometry of the probe is there for structural and aerodynamic reasons. All of this is taken into consideration for precursors also, otherwise the precursor would lose a lot of their effect. You can see that if you look at cross-sectional diagrams that are widely available.

For precursors that are designed for reasonable penetration roles, like the one I was postulating about, these considerations become as important as those for the main charges. If the precursor is purely for defeating certain types of reactive armor panels or if there are space limitations in a design, then compromises are made with respect to these considerations.

GarryB wrote:Just look at RPGs with precursor charges to see.

There are plenty of cross-sectional diagrams out there. Take a look.

GarryB wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:I am not really certain, but two tiers of launchers of the same type can be seen in the Bulat picture. Also the launchers are too short for a normally sized ATGM. Additionally, the launchers resemble the launchers to the rear of the turret in the following picture.

Those launchers on the model look to small to fit the missile in the drawing...

What scale are you using?

Zivo wrote:

What is the purpose of the odd gap towards the rear of the projectile?

I have been thinking about it too. It is, of course, an annular gap, which complicates things a tiny bit. Irrespective of that, it should be the area where the rocket motor nozzles are. There may be many pairs of nozzles arranged circularly, with each pair possibly firing in tandem. This explanation, I think, is a good match to the outward appearance of the missile and also to the dynamics of solid rocket motor operation.

The rocket motor geometry I am postulating here would be somewhat like that of a PG-7 second stage, i.e. with the grain/grains behind the nozzles.

As an aside, the missile is almost certainly a rolling airframe missile.

too lazy to post something from mp.net but the backpack ammo belt PKM looks awesome.
Even better would be PKP bullpup. The only thing missing would be a juggernaut suit hehehe.

collegeboy16 wrote:too lazy to post something from mp.net but the backpack ammo belt PKM looks awesome.
Even better would be PKP bullpup. The only thing missing would be a juggernaut suit hehehe.

  

I think this kind of ammunition feeding system is a double edged sword.

If he comes into situation that has immidiatley to retreat from his position because an armored threat is coming closer to him in urban warfare for example, he could get stuck with his feeding system somewhere.It also looks like he could be less mobile and has probably harder time to move his upper body over objects if has to climb.

The other point would be that with such a feeding system he wouldn't be able to store anything else into his backpack and would need to rely on his comareds to carry necessary equipment for him, or he would have a 2nd backpack which would slow him down even more.

Werewolf wrote:I think this kind of ammunition feeding system is a double edged sword.

If he comes into situation that has immidiatley to retreat from his position because an armored threat is coming closer to him in urban warfare for example, he could get stuck with his feeding system somewhere.It also looks like he could be less mobile and has probably harder time to move his upper body over objects if has to climb.

The other point would be that with such a feeding system he wouldn't be able to store anything else into his backpack and would need to rely on his comareds to carry necessary equipment for him, or he would have a 2nd backpack which would slow him down even more.

I think it's best suited for specialized cases, for example your teammates in Dagestan could be overran by jihadists (2-to-1, 3-to-1, 10-to-1 scenario) and a guy with that feeding system could give his team mates continuous suppressive fire.

Werewolf wrote:I think this kind of ammunition feeding system is a double edged sword.

If he comes into situation that has immidiatley to retreat from his position because an armored threat is coming closer to him in urban warfare for example, he could get stuck with his feeding system somewhere.It also looks like he could be less mobile and has probably harder time to move his upper body over objects if has to climb.

The other point would be that with such a feeding system he wouldn't be able to store anything else into his backpack and would need to rely on his comareds to carry necessary equipment for him, or he would have a 2nd backpack which would slow him down even more.

thats why bullpup is best. the ammo belt remains tuck beneath the armpit so it doesnt interfere with your movements. Also the user may be less mobile but he has a bag full of ammo to suppress anyone- in urban combat the user can prolly demolish the edges of walls with sustained fire.

That + Kord + the guy at 2:40...

Zivo wrote:That + Kord + the guy at 2:40...

The guy at start of the video was already not that small with the GM-94 but the guy with the RShG 2 was about 2m.

There's actually a more refined self-feeding backpack made by TYR tactical for $4,000.

Unfortunately is says: RESTRICTED: US Government Sales Only

http://www.tyrtactical.com/products/details/backpacks/mico-light-and-heavy-machine-gunners-assault-pack/


If you want to keep your arm and leg, SRVV makes one for $300 and you can buy the PKM feeder for $100.

http://www.srvv.org/en/catalog/1332/29249/

GarryB wrote:BTW +1 for other thread...

Thanks, Garry.

What is the purpose of the odd gap towards the rear of the projectile?

Hard to say...

The probe is basically to provide stand-off, meaning it should have a certain length. The diameter and the geometry of the probe is there for structural and aerodynamic reasons. All of this is taken into consideration for precursors also, otherwise the precursor would lose a lot of their effect. You can see that if you look at cross-sectional diagrams that are widely available.

If you look at Russian and Soviet rockets with precursor charges mounted on nose probes they tend to bulge at the tip where the charge is mounted... the are not smooth aerodynamic probes like the one shown on this missile.

What scale are you using?

Scale is not relevant... look at the "launcher boxes" on the back of this turret (model):



And look at the missile shown. the length to diameter ratio of the missile and you can tell immediately it wont fit in such a short box.

the box next to the poster however only holds two missiles which are parallel forward mounted which would not be ideal for Drozd.

the boxes in the model image above are likely part of an APS system, while the larger tube launchers near the poster of the missile are likely ATGM tubes.

I have been thinking about it too. It is, of course, an annular gap, which complicates things a tiny bit. Irrespective of that, it should be the area where the rocket motor nozzles are. There may be many pairs of nozzles arranged circularly, with each pair possibly firing in tandem. This explanation, I think, is a good match to the outward appearance of the missile and also to the dynamics of solid rocket motor operation.

I rather doubt this is Dragonski... they would not adopt such a failed missile design now.

Personally I think it is a minor body extension to shift cg during flight... most ATGMs roll slowly in flight so two opposed rocket motors with their exhaust somewhere around that ring would suffice to provide propulsion for the missile to its target.

backpack ammo belt PKM looks awesome.
Even better would be PKP bullpup. The only thing missing would be a juggernaut suit hehehe.

It is an assault backpack and would probably hold up to about 450 rounds of ammo ready to fire.

Carrying that much ammo would restrict mobility, but having all the ammo on the gunner ready to fire means he is actually more mobile and better able to provide support in a fluid situation.

Normal operating procedure is for other soldiers in the unit to carry ammo boxes and when the unit stops the gunner sets up position and troops carrying ammo deliver it to him as needed.

If you have to move then that ammo has to be collected up because the gunner wont be able to carry it all.

With this backpack it means the gunner is ready to fire most of his ammo at all times.

There's actually a more refined self-feeding backpack made by TYR tactical for $4,000.

Unfortunately is says: RESTRICTED: US Government Sales Only

Hahahaha... yeah... no one else in the world can make a backpack able to hold ammo so by banning exports no one else in the world can have it.

I rather suspect the US system is not designed for rimmed PK rounds so it would probably be useless anyway.

GarryB wrote:

The probe is basically to provide stand-off, meaning it should have a certain length. The diameter and the geometry of the probe is there for structural and aerodynamic reasons. All of this is taken into consideration for precursors also, otherwise the precursor would lose a lot of their effect. You can see that if you look at cross-sectional diagrams that are widely available.

If you look at Russian and Soviet rockets with precursor charges mounted on nose probes they tend to bulge at the tip where the charge is mounted... the are not smooth aerodynamic probes like the one shown on this missile.

That's not true. Look at some of them like Ataka for example.

GarryB wrote:the box next to the poster however only holds two missiles which are parallel forward mounted which would not be ideal for Drozd.

A number of inaccuracies in this statement, but look at the picture again. One of us has been drinking too much.

GarryB wrote:

I have been thinking about it too. It is, of course, an annular gap, which complicates things a tiny bit. Irrespective of that, it should be the area where the rocket motor nozzles are. There may be many pairs of nozzles arranged circularly, with each pair possibly firing in tandem. This explanation, I think, is a good match to the outward appearance of the missile and also to the dynamics of solid rocket motor operation.

I rather doubt this is Dragonski... they would not adopt such a failed missile design now.

Personally I think it is a minor body extension to shift cg during flight... most ATGMs roll slowly in flight so two opposed rocket motors with their exhaust somewhere around that ring would suffice to provide propulsion for the missile to its target.

Dragon uses the multimotor arrangement both for control and propulsion. The control system in Bulat is different; Bulat is a rolling airframe missile (by the way, that doesn't mean that it just roles); you can even see the pair of canard surfaces.

Back to the subject: as I explained in my post the justification for the arrangement I conjectured for Bulat is different.

That's not true. Look at some of them like Ataka for example.

It is true.. Ataka has two full calibre HEAT warheads so the front warhead could not be fitted into the probe of the missile. Also it has small nose mounted fin like structure on the nose tip.

The upgrade Malyutka-2 also has an extending (on launch) nose probe with a rounded nose tip. And it also has a rounded nose probe.

These smooth probes with no tip bulges are purely aerodynamic and contain no tip mounted precursor charges.

The missiles and rockets that do have probe mounted charges look like this:



(the left one).

The precursor charges are generally about 60mm in calibre so they are generally thicker than the probe tube would normally be for aerodynamic reasons only as that is a bit thick.

A number of inaccuracies in this statement, but look at the picture again. One of us has been drinking too much.

I am talking about this picture:

Dragon uses the multimotor arrangement both for control and propulsion. The control system in Bulat is different; Bulat is a rolling airframe missile (by the way, that doesn't mean that it just roles); you can even see the pair of canard surfaces.

If you mean there are side thruster rockets in that gap for controlling the missile... they would be too far to the rear of the missile to be effective in that role.

For the purpose of radically changing the trajectory of the missile they would need to be mounted near the centre of gravity so they shifted the whole missile sideways. Where they are located they would push the rear end of the missile in one direction or another making the missile veer in the opposite direction. That is what tail mounted controls generally do to the aircraft they are attached to, but in this case it would start a very sharp turn where the nose mounted control surfaces would be needed to bring it back to heading towards the target, or the conventional tail surfaces... it just doesn't sound like a good idea... with a high speed missile even small canards offer effective control.

"Typhoon-M" a Unmanned Combat Ground Vehicle (UCGV) in action, and it looks like they could be seen in use in the army as well as the Strategic Space Forces:



...Something I noticed off the bat is how the system could be easily modified to act as a mobile cover system for soldiers.

New version of Nakidka?

It's nice to see a practical UCGV produced for once. I could see these being used for guard duty and groups of 3-4  for patrols into dangerous environments. I'm not sure how useful they would being working offensively with infantry though, considering the infantry should have BTR's and BMP's nearby.

They need to make a Kornet version for the Army.

Zivo wrote:New version of Nakidka?

It's nice to see a practical UCGV produced for once. I could see these being used for guard duty and groups of 3-4  for patrols into dangerous environments. I'm not sure how useful they would being working offensively with infantry though, considering the infantry should have BTR's and BMP's nearby.

They need to make a Kornet version for the Army.

Actually Russian MOD declared that UCGV's will be assigned to guard ICBM bases:

http://en.ria.ru/russia/20140313/188363867/Russian-Military-to-Deploy-Security-Bots-at-Missile-Bases.html

...As far as the advantages goes they're probably less expensive than a BTR/BMP and their smaller stature gives them an advantage in tighter spaces like ally ways and such, it will allow soldiers to carry a significantly greater amount of supplies plus the slower speed (compared to a BMP or a BTR) prevents friendlies from being ran over and the UCGV's acts as a more practical cover fire deterrence than a LMG gunner with the ability to carry more ammunition without the worry of the LMG being KIA, all that's left is a mechanism that unfolds bullet proof shielding (probably more projectile resistant than ballistic shields carried by soldiers) from the sides that allow soldiers to hide and take cover.



Also there's versions of UCGV's with ATGM loadouts tested by the Russian MOD:

Looks like the same platform that had the 30mm gatling gun on it that was posted a while back.

Has lots of potential for carrying equipment and people and heavy weapons.

I agree the idea of side mounted heavy shields is a good idea and perhaps some shields at the rear because it is a little small.

Having room for a person lying down would be interesting... perhaps a trailer or snow sled could be added.

I would still be pretty nervous operating near one of these things with a live weapon mounted.

I would prefer to use cover rather that sitting out in the open like that...

For perimeter patrol I would probably send two or three to cover each other and if something is spotted that needs extra attention I would then send some troops and a vehicle/APC to investigate. I would think a PKT MG like the one shown and perhaps an auto grenade launcher would be the best combination... maybe 3 RPO-M ready to launch.

Lots of great news in english   

Can someone tell me the inventory of the Russian armed forces.  For example, how much t-90s or so, but I would like to see the whole inventory including aircraft, tanks, ect.

Nice   

Mines to destroy the helicopters will soon be adopted in Russia

Viktor wrote:Nice   

Mines to destroy the helicopters will soon be adopted in Russia

I hope its HE-frag, nothing beats soft-skinned vehicles like HE-Frag does. tho most likely it will be an EFP since its more compact as there is no need for a launch tube/rail. Also EFP would be tricky for helo hardkill APS as even a succesful interception is bound to shower energetic shards to the helo due to the remaining momentum.

Various PVMs and PVUs:

By the way, the objects to the write of the first and the eighth pictures show a Kh-25 missile family warhead with EFP + follow-through charge.

FKP GkNIPAS of "the previous forum fame" is the developer of all of these.