Ratnik combat gear

It is still new... and is certainly no Iron Man suit.

Perhaps they could design it with wheels so when you don't want to walk around with it attached to you you could set it up to act like a trolley or trailer you drag behind yourself that you can put your heavy gear on.

Worst case scenario you can ditch it to run to cover when needed and then from cover pull it by rope to your position or whatever.

I would think a better idea most of the time is to have a small electric vehicle you and your fellow soldiers can put your heavy packs on an water and extra ammo with hydrogen tanks inside it to run fuel cells to power and charge all your electronics and carry your stuff... put a small gas turbine on it with some fuel so if needed even with flat batteries it can roll around with you... perhaps even a light trailer with side armour you can lie down injured and take you packs and ammo while it takes them back to a rear area to get looked after...

It could have a tethered drone and a sniper rifle or machine gun so you could position it to provide support as well...

Regular wrote:It's nice and all, but I'm 100% positive it will be only used by sappers and logistic crews as the last skeleton they used wasn't as comfortable or agile. I doubt that as a soldier you would like to crawl through the mud or with it. It looses all support function and becomes a burden as soon as you go into prone position.

Soldier comfort is literally an afterthought on any planner's minds when drafting the requirements. A passive increase in carrying capacity and thus combat staying power is too much to pass for most militaries, as is the potential billions saved in medical bills due to wear and tear issues.

The real question is... will they use these exoskeletons to allocate soldiers to just carry more around the place, or will they use them to increase potential... for instance at the moment a Metis team is three guys with one guy carrying the launcher and a missile and the other two guys carrying two missiles each... meaning 5 missiles ready to use before they need resupply... but with an exoskeleton meaning a 60kg capacity then the lead guy could carry the launcher and missile and 2 spare missiles, while his two teammates could carry four missiles each... so 3 plus 4 plus 4, so 11 ready to fire missiles.

Of course with the new Bulat missile design the Metis could possibly become wireless and much faster with laser beam riding guidance... say 3.5km range for Metis-M2, with 950mm armour penetration and much higher flight speed because it is no longer dragging a wire, but with laser beam riding they could also carry Bulat missiles for targets that don't need a heavier missile to penetrate... like enemy positions and light armour... so the standard team with ES could carry 5 Metis missiles, or a combination where 2 Bulats are carried instead of one Metis, so for example 2 Metis missiles and 6 Bulat missiles or 10 Bulat missiles where the enemy has no heavy armour...

Call me cynical, but I would think a robot like a small vehicle that would carry my pack and extra ammo behind me, together with another vehicle I could send ahead to check for land mines and fire on enemy positions while I stay behind cover watching for muzzle flashes and thereby assisting directing its fire sounds best for me... plus a half dozen drones flying around shooting down any of their drones...

GarryB wrote:
Call me cynical, but I would think a robot like a small vehicle that would carry my pack and extra ammo behind me, together with another vehicle I could send ahead to check for land mines and fire on enemy positions while I stay behind cover watching for muzzle flashes and thereby assisting directing its fire sounds best for me... plus a half dozen drones flying around shooting down any of their drones...

Such an asset would be quite expensive to buy and operate and would necessitate changes to the squad level, while an unpowered exosuit would literally be a drop in complement to your bergan.

Regular wrote:
And this is an afterthought for a soldier who wants to survive.
Armouries are not run by bureaucrats. As I've said, this will not see combat any time soon, carrying capacity is only deciding factor on paper.

Prone position is the most used one in a firefight, there's no support provided when crawling, it would even hinder a soldier. Soldiers these days get lighter and almost special forces like. Russian ratnik gear is very light and offers great protection. Russian ATVs and bikes are getting very popular, Kalashnikov makes all terrain bikes that are able to haul quite a load. Wait till UGVs will enter and act like mules or fighting platforms.

Soldiers do wear and tear, mostly VDV jumpers and artillery men. Would love to see device that helps paratroopers to land more gently.

I served in infantry for very long time and you wouldn't get me to wear this in battle, but would love to have it when loading a truck, filling hesco, ammo boxes and etc.

Going prone has never been less effective a means of preventing artillery casualties. If you are going up against an enemy with a mere 10 seconds from recon to engagement cycle you are probably dead where you are lying prone. I'd much rather carry the heavy jamming equipment stowed in the Tigrs to prevent getting spotted in the first place or extra armor than take my chances against artillery.

Light vehicles are an added logistical complication too. The thing I like about this exosuit is that in most other designs the leg support harness is at the back whereas here its in the front so you sit inside vehicles. You can't stow your bikes or ATVs within your fragmentation and bullet proof troop carrier, while you can fit exosuit soldiers minus one or two guys just fine.

flamming_python wrote:
No comfort is pretty important, it would effect endurance

And certainly all requirements such as going prone will have to be met, and without the permission of adverse effects on such

magnumcromagnon wrote:
Indeed, the idea that comfort is a 'afterthought' is really a desk-jockeys delusion. No one wants to march 20km in uncomfortable boots, and climate control in armored vehicles prevents dehydration, and other climate related ailments. Besides that this exoskeleton system is passive and doesn't require and external power source, and a different version of an exoskeleton was proven successful with sapper units. Here's an older video:

I'm not saying creature comforts and practical ergonomics aren't important. Its just compared to other metrics like firepower, protection, mobility, communications, production, logistics, etc. its not as important. There are vast tradeoffs associated with favoring one design aspect for another and you can always train your crew to suck it up, which is exactly what most militaries have done. Like literally just look at all the seats on most troop carriers in service: I doubt most of them could even be counted as proper seats according to the standards on motor vehicles in the countries they serve.

As I've said, this will not see combat any time soon, carrying capacity is only deciding factor on paper.

It probably has enormous potential in old folks homes and for those injured in warfare or by accident or whatever reason have limited mobility.

I can't see it as being an urgent requirement for combat, unless it really does not get in the way to doing things you have to do like take cover etc, and provides capabilities that are useful.

As I said if it just means they will carry more equipment then that is not a good enough reason to have it... it would be better to have vehicles and ground and air based drones for that sort of thing...

Honestly I thought the Ratnik stuff was a bit airyfairy... but after a few decades of telling people it is not important for a military unit to have the same camouflage colours that match... or even tops or bottoms that match, I think they have done a great job of sorting out camo and also other equipment.

Most modern views of their army show well equipped forces... obviously the backwater units might not have the latest, but it is radically better than it was before.

Yes, sounds very good. Rather than creating spacemarines we should keep direct human involvement to a minimum.

Long range weapons and warfare by remote control... it sounds good but also sounds frightening... you could end up like the US and start wars because you haven't had any in a while and the factories that make frontline robots have made the bots that are needed so we need to use some up in combat, otherwise we will have to close the factory and lose that capability to replace them over time...

And of course when every human killed is on the other side and can be described as a terrorist with a few machines destroyed in the process... war becomes much more acceptable than it ever should be allowed to be.

Cheap drone swarms will be here very soon.

The useful thing is that technology used to deal with drone swarms could be used against nature swarms that are problems like locusts, wasps and bees, ants, etc etc.

While we are at it, I think we should get robot politicians too so there won't be need for shooting in the future.

The problem with AI is that it doesn't care... just like a bribed politician... instead of giving it cash you make your request or argument in terms that make it logical to invade or attack... don't get me wrong... politicians are normally the problem... one way or the other.

No comfort is pretty important, it would effect endurance

Of course comfort is important... but not to the planner... it is very important to the designer so they don't just take it off when they get into combat as mentioned by Regular, and it is important for the user of course for obvious reasons.... the word in English is Sabotage and it comes from early industrial Europe where machines were taking jobs away from the peasants so the solution was to take your shoe (sabot) and throw it into the gears of the machine to break it and require time and money to fix it... in the mean time the peasants did the job the way they always used to do it.

Wouldn't take much to short circuit or bend or break something so you have to take it off and hand it in....

A friend of mine was in the military in Singapore and they kept getting computer mice requests... which is unusual because you don't normally have to change a computer mouse very often. Turns out they were unplugging them and having fights with them swinging them like Conkers... not malicious... just stupid.

Here's an older video:

Doesn't seem to be bulky or awkward, and clearly makes carrying loads much easier and the loads can be dropped if required easily enough too by the looks of it.

The question of course is how much stuff will the average soldier have to carry around normally... especially as many will be troops from a BTR or BMP, which could carry equipment rather more efficiently most of the time... Obviously there will be things you need on your person like firearms and ammo and med kits and body armour... instead of being used to make the man a pack mule, it should be used to improve mobility with proper armour and ammo and equipment... your belt order...

Such an asset would be quite expensive to buy and operate and would necessitate changes to the squad level, while an unpowered exosuit would literally be a drop in complement to your bergan.

I would think most squads will be taken from place to place in a BTR or BMP or Tigr or whatever anyway, so some robots would be rather redundant, but for something like perimeter security at an airfield or base then often the squad of troops could actually be replaced with a robot with a machine gun, maybe with prepared positions around the place for troops to allow them to fire from covered positions and direct robots on the ground and in the air.

We really need to define what sort of troops could use such systems that would be excellent for logistics forces carrying boxes of ammo and loading and unloading vehicles etc etc.

Going prone has never been less effective a means of preventing artillery casualties. If you are going up against an enemy with a mere 10 seconds from recon to engagement cycle you are probably dead where you are lying prone. I'd much rather carry the heavy jamming equipment stowed in the Tigrs to prevent getting spotted in the first place or extra armor than take my chances against artillery.

I think he was meaning a fire fight where enemy soldiers are shooting at you... mobility is less useful than making yourself a smaller target that is harder to hit.

With air burst artillery lying flat on the ground is certainly a bad thing, but normally I would think when you come under fire you drop and try to determine where the enemy fire is coming from and if you are in the firing line. Most of the time when you drop, you would look for somewhere that offers cover, but of course if this is an ambush often the areas you can hide like a drain along the side of a path or road might be mined and booby trapped...

Your first instinct should be to get down and behind something that will provide cover and protection... a bush offers cover but no protection as even small arms rounds will go straight through. A low concrete wall might provide cover and protection if it is thick enough....

The thing I like about this exosuit is that in most other designs the leg support harness is at the back whereas here its in the front so you sit inside vehicles.

I noticed the leg support down the front as well, which should offer good protection to the shins... it is only 6kgs so I would not expect it to be armoured, but just offering some frontal cover from bumps and bruises is a good thing too.

The thing is that with mounted troops would they get the full benefit of an exosuit... obviously special forces in the field for a couple of weeks means those first few days with full packs they could cover more ground faster and have better mobility, and less resupply means less chance of exposing their position or existence...

There are vast tradeoffs associated with favoring one design aspect for another and you can always train your crew to suck it up,

One rule of tramping and hunting is that if you buy a really big pack the temptation is to fill it and you end up carrying an enormous weight of stuff around with you all the time. If you expect your soldiers to carry 50-60kg packs then don't be surprised if you get injuries and problems in the field. A lot of troops will just remove kit that is too heavy that might not be essential to the mission... they might get dehydrated or run out of ammo because water and ammo are heavy and are an easy thing to leave out... more so water if you think you can pick up water from the environment.... an empty plastic water bottle is easier to carry around with you... but water is also critical if your food is dehydrated to make it compact, so not only will you not be drinking, you wont be eating either without water.

Some sort of high flying Drone with a huge 10 litre water tank with wings and batteries and control surfaces could be flown to a high altitude and then just glide silently to your special forces position at night... they get 10 litres of water and relatively fresh batteries and anything else they might need like ammo or other equipment that they might need.

Its Reddit, lol who cares? I too can spout BS sourced directly from my rear and have similarly minded cretins like my post. Its really that simple.

limb wrote:
The guys Im arguing with say that NATO ELINT aircraft can send coordinates to NATO artillery that can flatten the general area where the radar was detected for cheap. There are also claims that in ukraine it was standard practice to flatten buildings from which ground radar is detected.

And they are that exactly, claims. If it was so common it shouldn't be difficult to even produce one example.

limb wrote:
The claim that russians can't produce NV sights is BS because the 1PN58 has been in use since the 70s AFAIK. As for thermals I'm not sure. I know the ratnik has thermal sights, but are they in service. Will they be standard issue for non-SF infantry? Where there any non-vehicle thermals issued before the Ratnik?

I severely doubt even most US rangers have thermal sights "per each crew served weapon"

There's bound to be some elite units with all the best kit the Russian industry can supply with or failing that, hard currency can buy. But thermals for line infantry? I doubt it. Its simply too much cost for so little gain. Like, even in daylight conditions you can expect the vast majority of shots fired to be at known or possible enemy positions, not actual enemy combatants themselves. If your soldiers are shooting to suppress invisible targets, then why spend the premium outfitting them with thermal sights when a gen II NODs works about just as well in the same role?

I saw a thread on a generally unbiased military subreddit about russian infantry mounted radars, and there are claims that radars are a compensation for complete Russian inferiority in building NV and thermal sights for infantry.

Hahahaha... yes, and they have missiles launched from their tank gun barrels to make up for their long range inaccuracy of their tanks guns... which is also total bullshit.

Thermal imagers are of no use in a snow storm... shock... horror... mobile radars can be mounted on weapons like a HMG like Kord or a 30mm automatic grenade launcher and cover a sector 24/7 no matter what the visibility is... smoke, rain, snow, hail, day or night.

They didn't make them small enough to mount on assault rifles... if they wanted to use them instead of thermals wouldn't that be an obvious thing for them to do?

And tank gun fired missiles were not an attempt to make super long range missile tanks like the US tried with the Sheridan and M60A2.
The radar is a way of providing troops with the ability to watch areas in any weather conditions no matter what smoke ordinance is used to hide an attack.

Actually the irony is that the Soviets worked on low light television systems with autotracking equipment instead of thermals which were very very expensive.

The results of their LLTV work meant systems like the Shkval system in the Ka-50 and Su-25TM could be developed and also the systems used for the Kornet and Tunguska and Pantsir and TOR and a range of other new systems using autotrackers and optical systems to shoot targets... including tank gun fired missiles...

As an example, can you tell me what the Russian standard issue NV system is?

Amusing... he is telling us the Russians are backward, but asking us what the Russian standard issue NV system is... assertion from a position of ignorance... interesting debating technique.

I'll say this regarding radar detectability: Remember driving down the road in the late 90s and early 2000s when your dad had one of those $80 police radar detectors and it would beep when you would drive a couple hundred meters past a radar activated security system or door? Those were very low powered emitters aimed at the ground. Now imagine if you will a multi-million or billion dollar piece of equipment in the air or on the ground and what capabilities that brings.

Hilarious... and what is that billion dollar plane going to do about spotting tens of thousands of ground based radar systems... and for that matter all those Apache helicopters with radars mounted above their main rotors.... are they dead meat too?

Or if you like you can get on an SDR and listen to RADARs buzzing through the atmosphere from thousands of miles away.

Yeah, and if you get a radio and turn it off the station so you just hear the static... it is stronger at night... because that is background radiation you are listening to... but where exactly is it coming from.... what is the source of the white noise... can't tell? Of course you can't because when it sends out a signal it is directional but by the time it gets to you it has bounced off all sorts of things... so enjoy listening to the buzz as your troops get grinded up with HMG and grenades coming from a target they can't see with their thermals...

The funny thing is that the Russians make thermal imagers, they are standard on their ATGMs, and their new and upgraded vehicles all have them as standard... they are even putting them on drones and rifle scopes and helmet mounted systems...

Ratnik 3 will start to enter service in about 2025... most Russian forces are already on Ratnik 2.

But even with new and old gen devices in service, US doesn't have ability or even need to issue thermal sighting devices for all soldiers.

New Zealand has a rather small military force so they are normally rather well equipped... when my brother switched from the Air Force to the Army they went from using tracers to using NVGs.

Now ground radars - who the hell will waste antiradiation missile on an infantry target?

Hahaha... reminds me of a story I heard in the 1980s... it was some place in Scotland where they fly Tornados... the ground attack ones... low and fast and it pisses off the locals so as a joke one of the local cops sent a ticket to the local airbase for so many thousand pounds for flying at 800mph or something in a 50mph area. The reply he got was a bill for 3 million pounds and a warning that the pilot had been operating in low level penetration mode and it was only his quick reactions that prevented a 3 million pound anti radiation missile from being automatically launched to defend the aircraft from his speed gun.

Was all bullshit of course, the battlefield radars operate in MMW radar frequency and if there were anti radiation missiles that could hit radars emitting such frequencies then the Apache would be dead and Hellfires would be much easier to shoot down...

Just a case of we didn't invent it so it must be crap syndrome...

The IT-1 and IT-2 were supposed to be missile tanks... tested and not put into widespread service because an MTLB is much cheaper with a much more potent missile.

The smoothbore gun of the T-62 is not inaccurate... the Israelis wouldn't have used them till the captured ammo ran out if they were inaccurate... but they replaced them with 105mm guns for standardisation reasons... the 115mm smoothbore was a good gun.

The first missiles they developed were a bit ordinary, but the current ones are pretty good and offer an anti helicopter capability most other tank fired guns can't compare with.

They don't see them as compensating for long range inaccuracies... the problem with long range shooting against a moving target is that any moves it makes after you have fired your APFSDS rounds cannot be compensated for so you miss... no matter how amazingly accurate your gun and ammo is.

With guided rounds the more the move the easier it is to see them...

There are several Russian makers of thermal sights... Belarus used to be their optical centre, but they have since bought and licence produced some excellent French models and other models from around the world.

The Armata has long and medium and short wave IR sensors so it can see like a normal thermal imager but it can also see through glass and water and rain quite well too...

The real future of night vision is digital night vision... like a CCD camera in a video camera that can see IR and UV and has the light sensitivity to pick up tiny levels of light in low light situations.

The advantages over image intensification include sensor life... some III gen II sights only work for a few thousand hours, while a digital NV sensor can work for hundreds of thousands of hours. It can work day and night so you don't need lens covers with tiny holes to use them during the day, and because it is digital you can process the image in real time to highlight specific things like targets.

The guys Im arguing with say that NATO ELINT aircraft can send coordinates to NATO artillery that can flatten the general area where the radar was detected for cheap.

Every HATO unit is networked, so that network communication traffic should indicate to every Russian EW aircraft the location of every HATO unit... doesn't that mean HATO is dead... because Russian Artillery seems to outrange them, and MiG-31s with R-37Ms will be hunting down those Elint aircraft pretty quick too.

Which level intel access does he have?

Good question... but another would be... if battlefield radars are so vulnerable how much experience does HATO have in taking them out?

Did they spot any in Ukraine for instance?

The potential to be able to lock it at a specific height is also interesting because often when surveying the area the gap you are looking for is not always at an ideal height... you could set this to the correct comfortable height and then just crouch there for very long periods... that would be excellent for snipers and recon troops observing an area.

BTW just looking through a thread on Egypt and I see they are buying ground radars from Thales.. now if Thales make ground based radars does that not suggest they can't make decent thermal imagers and have to resort to using radar instead... don't they know that HATO tracks all ground radars and destroys them all quickly and efficiently with artillery... are they not afraid that their radars might get confused with Russian ones?