Russian Ground Forces: News #1

Photo from Kurganmash.

TR1 wrote:

Photo from Kurganmash.

BMP-3Ms or BMD-4Ms??

BMP-3.

They are still working on the BMD-4M and Rakushka production hall, so it is a separate space.

Also the BMD-4 uses a Bakcha-U turret, much more angular.

Those B3s are at least as good as the B(M) 1989 mod. right?
K-5 armour?

And they are still making BMP-3s?
I though production was wrapped up ahead of the Kurganets-25 introduction?
Or is this for an export order?

T-72 in 1989 had nothing as good as Sosna-U (actually, nothing on the planet at the time did ) , so yeah it is better.
No Relikt sadly yet.

TR1 wrote:

Photo from Kurganmash.

For domestic customer or for export?

No domestic purchases right now AFAIK.

http://www.vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-7813.htm

40 new Ural-4320 trucks have been delivered to Russian forces in Tajikistan.

New Arctic camo looks interesting.




http://englishrussia.com/2014/03/28/new-polar-climate-uniform-for-russian-frontiers/

Can some one tell me what Rogzin is telling in this interview ?

Interesting article:

What America Can Learn From Russia's Cheap But Deadly T90 Tank
Link

Interesting look in the mentality of U.S defense industry and there budgetary problems.   

A few errors there Alpha... an APFSDS round does not turn the inside of a tank into an oven... the white hot sparks and metal fragments and vapour on the other hand can be lethal in inhaled by the crew and of course pose a serious fire risk for fuel, and ammo.

Second, the T-80 was a fuel guzzler, though all large tank engines burn a lot of fuel. Late model T-80s had 1,250hp engines too.

Also it is wrong to describe the T-90 as being a T-72 hull with a T-80 turret fitted to it.

Very simply the T-72 was the cheap mass production tank that was supposed to replace all the T-54/55 and T-62 and older vehicles still in the inventory.

The T-80 was the quality tank to create gaps in the enemy front for the T-72s to flow through.

At the end of the day the T-90 is a T-72 with the useful high tech upgrades fitted to it, but it retains a few critical things like the underfloor autoloader which makes it much safer when penetrated than the autoloader arrangement on the T-80.

Armata MBT, Kurganets MBT, Boomerang MBT and Typhoon MBT will further improve crew safety by moving them away from all fuel and ammo and protecting them under the heaviest armour on the vehicle.

GarryB wrote:A few errors there Alpha... an APFSDS round does not turn the inside of a tank into an oven... the white hot sparks and metal fragments and vapour on the other hand can be lethal in inhaled by the crew and of course pose a serious fire risk for fuel, and ammo.

Second, the T-80 was a fuel guzzler, though all large tank engines burn a lot of fuel. Late model T-80s had 1,250hp engines too.

Also it is wrong to describe the T-90 as being a T-72 hull with a T-80 turret fitted to it.

Very simply the T-72 was the cheap mass production tank that was supposed to replace all the T-54/55 and T-62 and older vehicles still in the inventory.

The T-80 was the quality tank to create gaps in the enemy front for the T-72s to flow through.

At the end of the day the T-90 is a T-72 with the useful high tech upgrades fitted to it, but it retains a few critical things like the underfloor autoloader which makes it much safer when penetrated than the autoloader arrangement on the T-80.

Armata MBT, will further improve crew safety by moving them away from all fuel and ammo and protecting them under the heaviest armour on the vehicle.

Fully agreed Garry, i was fully aware of the article's deficiencies, but as i mentioned in my post, it was his thoughts about the mentality of the U.S Defense industry/DoD and the consequences of this mentality with respects to there defense budget that intrigued me.

With respects to the Armata project, i was not aware that Kurganets, Boomerang and Typhoon would all have MBT variants, i thought Kurganets was to replace the BMPs, Boomerang was for BTRs and maybe BMDs and Typhoon was for 2S19-Msta ??

Fully agreed Garry, i was fully aware of the article's deficiencies,

Sorry... didn't mean to imply the mistakes were yours....   

With respects to the Armata project, i was not aware that Kurganets, Boomerang and Typhoon would all have MBT variants, i thought Kurganets was to replace the BMPs, Boomerang was for BTRs and maybe BMDs and Typhoon was for 2S19-Msta ??

A common mistake to think Armata is a tank, Kurganets is the new IFV (BMP/BMD), Boomerang is the new APC (BTR-82) and that Typhoon is the new light patrol vehicle (BRDM)

Heavy brigades will be equipped with ONLY Armata vehicles... so every vehicle in a  heavy brigades will be Armata based. This means the logistics tail for that brigade is small because one engine type, same transmission and gearing, main components all the same.

In operational terms it also means that all the vehicles will have similar levels of protection and mobility so the enemy wont be able to pick off the IFVs and APCs and leave the tanks vulnerable to infantry attack.

There will be heavy brigades with armata vehicles, medium tracked brigades with Kurganets, medium wheeled brigades with Boomerang, and light brigades with typhoon vehicles.

Each vehicle in each brigade will have a weapon and sensor suite like an aircraft, so there will be a MBT suite of equipment that will be fitted to all MBTs... of course the 10-15 ton Typhoon light wheeled MBT vehicle might be fitted with a 57mm main gun rather than a 125mm main gun, but it will have all the sensors and ballistic computers and electronics as the MBT version of the armata MBT. The IFV (BMP/BMD) version of the Armata might have a high velocity 57mm main gun for dealing with enemy IFVs plus Kornet-EM long range ATGMs for dealing with heavier armour... the kurganets IFV and the boomerang IFV might have the same gun but the Typhoon IFV might have a 30mm cannon instead so that there is enough space in the vehicle for troops (to make it an IFV rather than a light tank).

The vast majority of Russian armoured forces will be highly mobile wheeled vehicles, but then a division might include  heavy, medium, and light brigades for different uses.

Division level artillery would include Koalition artillery based on trucks or non standard chassis... but with the new rocket artillery getting rocket flight range increases and Koalition firing guided shells 70km the division vehicles should be able to support light brigades operating well away from the base the division is based at.

Each vehicle family includes all the vehicle types in a division so there are MBTs, IFVs, APCs, Engineering vehicles, Command vehicles, Air Defence Vehicles, tube and rocket artillery vehicles, recon vehicles, ambulance vehicles, mortar carriers, etc etc

that means for every vehicle type there will be Armata versions, Kurganets versions, Boomerang versions, and Typhoon versions.

there will likely be new models of ATGM vehicles and even UAV launch and control recon vehicles etc etc.

It is even possible that small UAVs might be organic to MBT vehicles so they can find their own targets better and also have better situational awareness around their own position.

GarryB wrote:

It is even possible that small UAVs might be organic to MBT vehicles so they can find their own targets better and also have better situational awareness around their own position.

This is something that I've been pondering about for awhile, I'm suggesting the T-99 Armata should have areas where micro-uavs could be held internally then lifted in to place when needed. By micro-uav's, I'm suggesting micro-helicopter uavs and not micro propeller driven plane uavs, because micro-helicopter uav's would be better suited fore the Armata MBT because of it's hovering ability plus a tank is designed to hold ground. The micro-helicopter should be dual prop and designed by Kamov so that it can handle heavier winds than normal. Hopefully the Armata MBT will have 4 micro-helicopters, 2 on the look out, and 2 as backups while charging there batteries...or 4 launched at once in a Grozny type scenario.

A micro-plane uav would be better suited for the Armata Koalition because it would be better suited for spotting distant targets, and the reconnaissance team could have a dedicated UAV Armata with both micro-helicopter and planes, 4 micro-planes, and 6 micro-helicopters with 10 total uav's.

From @Gurkhan , preparation for Victory day parade with some new toys



"Kryzantema" system

http://twower.livejournal.com/1256532.html

Nice, new vanity pack for the army.

Between that and the showers, we might actually get somewhere .

Regarding vehicle mounted UAVs I have seen small UAVs that use 4 or 6 or more main rotors and are in effect platforms that can hover like a helicopter but are more stable and likely fault tolerant. I suspect such aircraft would be useful for recon for individual vehicles... in fact I suspect a dedicated UAV control vehicle might be included in each armoured unit with the video feed datalinked to all the vehicles in the unit.

A standard vehicle with the two vehicle crew in the front... driver, and commander, with the rear perhaps split into 4 with 4 workstations and 4 UAV operators flying up to 4 separate UAVs at once with perhaps a stack of a few dozen UAVs packed on the roof ready for launch.

the information can be passed directly in real time to all the vehicles in the unit. Perhaps a small turret with a HMG and perhaps a grenade launcher and coaxial PKT mg with optics for visually tracking UAVs and self defence could be fitted too.

http://vitalykuzmin.net/?q=node/557

Some pictures from parade trainings from Vitaly Kuzmin. Interesating is Khrizanthema ATGM, which have old day time only optical sight and not new day-night sight with TI. Libyans got them with TI sights, but Russians didn't.

Noticed the same thing, MOD cheaped out.

Are you sure the sight is day only?
I guess it uses radar for night time.

medo wrote:http://vitalykuzmin.net/?q=node/557

Some pictures from parade trainings from Vitaly Kuzmin. Interesating is Khrizanthema ATGM, which have old day time only optical sight and not new day-night sight with TI. Libyans got them with TI sights, but Russians didn't.

mega pic

Yeah, the sight housing does look different. The old sight opens by going upwards, the new one opens by going to the side.

TR1 wrote:Noticed the same thing, MOD cheaped out.

Are you sure the sight is day only?
I guess it uses radar for night time.

The old optical sight was day time only sight, new optical sight with two windows have thermal imager inside and is day/night sight. Having day time only optical sight is big degradation of Khrizantema as in day time it could use both radar and optical channel to engage two targets simultaneously, while at night could use only radar to engage one target. Having day/night optical sight enable use of both radar and optical/laser guidance against two targets 24 hours / day.

Interesting article about product 1V172-2

Universal machine for fire control

Noticed the same thing, MOD cheaped out.

Are you sure the sight is day only?
I guess it uses radar for night time.

They might be active units in the parade... I have photos of Krisantema in books before 2000, who is to say it has not been in service for 10-15 years and that in 10-15 years time the upgraded models might be shown in the parade after being in service for 10-15 years?



-------

https://www.russiadefence.net/viewtopic.forum?t=3199

I find the whole build up of Russian forces near Ukraine so worrisome....

If your army invades there will be many deaths, since Ukraine will not just let it happen..

I hope for a peace resolution