Soviet era reserve vehicles.

But they have the grenade launcher for anti personnel so why replace with 23mm lol.

That is the question... a grenade launcher would compliment a flat shooting high velocity gun but the muzzle velocity of the 30m grenade launcher is less than 200m/s... there is a new grenade that will reach 2.1km or so but most rounds go to about 1.8km or so.

The 14.5mm is a threat to light armour out to about 2km including aircraft and fires its rounds at 1km/s, but then the 23mm round is a similar size but of much larger calibre.

Previously I would have said the difference is that the 23mm round has an enormous and much more effective HE payload travelling at about 700m/s which is not super flat but certainly is not a rainbow either. The extra mass means more momentum so while it will slow down fairly rapidly while supersonic when it gets to subsonic speeds it will tend to travel much further than a lighter round going faster initially.

The point is that it is a flatter shooting round and should be able to reach to much greater ranges than the grenade launcher so it could possibly be worth it at a time when the 14.5mm is starting to struggle with full calibre rounds to penetrate a lot of targets on the battlefield because most HATO vehicles are designed to be resistant to it.

The shift however is with the APFSDS rounds for the 57mm and 30mm calibres of different types we have seen including 57mm grenade calibres.

An APFSDS round for the 23mm would be even more powerful than a similar round for the 14.5mm calibre... the larger diameter tube means it could operate at higher pressure and push more energy down the barrel, so you get a heavier projectile/penetrator and a faster moving dart.

The problem is that you need separate belt feeds because the trajectory of the HE round is going to be totally different than the trajectory of the APFSDS round so a mixed belt would mean one type of round hits and the other type misses completely. Changing between belts means changing trajectory scales or ballistic tables... which makes sense anyway simply because neither round would be multi purpose, so you would fire one or the other but not both and the presence of the 30mm grenade launcher means soft targets can be engaged immediately... so I suspect most of the time the APFSDS rounds would be loaded and if there is no time to change then the grenade launcher is used... a twin belt feed mechanism that allows push button feed and push button changes of feed with the separate elevation of the two weapons you could in fact line up the target and calculate angles and have both weapons elevate and start firing with the grenade launcher at a target at 1,500m and then change the KPB to 23mm HE in a second or two and then start firing with that too and the 23mm rounds would probably still land first...

But they have the grenade launcher for anti personnel so why replace with 23mm lol. I always thought the brdm-2 needed a grenade launcher along with its 14.5mm simple things like this can make a difference. I know some don't like it see OT as out dated and prefer mrap and other armoured 4x4 but for me these are still useful and they have one advantage over the armoured 4x4 and mrap and that's that they swim proper amphibious

I totally agree, the 30mm would fully compliment either a 23mm gun or a 14.5mm gun, and those upgraded models recently sold to a CIS country with the bolted on extra armoured plates... I reckon they could go a step further and make them proper box tiles that contain cavities and ceramic armour to massively increase protection but also boost buoyancy to perhaps even improve amphibious potential.

It also had modern night vision equipment, but I don't think they fitted a grenade launcher.

I like the fixed model fitted to the upgraded BMP-2 at the back of the turret that can elevate but doesn't need to traverse... but the BRDM-2 turret is not big enough to fit it centrally as it would interfere with a centrally mounted main gun.

I would think and enlarged turret with the entire rear half being a magazine for 30mm or 40mm grenades... you could get 600 in there if you wanted to... with light armour skin front and back and isolated from the turret inside with a 40mm or 30mm grenade sitting on the top of it offset to one side so it is not shooting grenades into the barrel of the main gun when the main gun is elevated and the grenade launcher is shooting at closer targets.

Effectively the current rear of the turret armour would have a tiny 5mm air pocket and then the armoured inner skin of the ammo bin and then the grenades loaded in one continuous belt... and then an outer skin that is rifle calibre bullet proof... and then a gap of 20mm and then another 15mm thick plate to protect it from small arms fire. Ceramic panels could be slid down the 20mm gap if required.... and a metal cage frame around the rear that contains smoke grenades firing forward that you can strap gear to if you want as well...

I could use it for hunting in areas with rivers and lakes...

Do they use the belly wheels much?

I would think I would talk to an experienced operator to find out how often they are used because they would add weight and complication... if they never get used I would get rid of them and increase the internal height space inside the vehicle... perhaps keep the same height and use it for fresh water or buoyancy... ropes or tools or equipment...

I suspect that might be a way forward... the remote unmanned turrets they are developing for Tigr-M and other vehicles could within reason be attached to the BRDM... but turrets with bulky ammo like 82mm mortars might need more internal space than is available.

The twin barrel 23mm gun has a rate of fire of about 50 rounds a second (3,000rpm) which is probably a bit high for anything other than shooting at air targets.

If they can limit the bursts to 5-10 rounds then perhaps they would be rather effective... imagine a group of troops standing out in the open ...a 10 round burst could be fired in a tenth of a second... a mere tap of the trigger and ten 23mm HE shells on their way to land in a cluster all around those troops... spread in a cluster around the point of aim like a cluster bomb with the rounds going off almost at the same time... quite devastating.

The single barrel KPB will be lighter and would take a full second to fire 10 rounds but that one second is not long enough to take cover so ten explosions a second would be effective enough and a half second burst of 4-5 rounds would probably reduce the ammo consumption too... but less effective against airborne targets...

I would think combinations of rifle calibre and HMG and light cannon along with auto grenade launcher weapons would be best... with stabilisers and night vision thermals and the new box shaped aircraft rocket pods it should achieve reasonably good accuracy out to reasonable distances for suppressing point or area targets.

Interesting idea about anti armour ammo for the 82mm but I suspect such ideas might be eclipsed by the new Bulat mini missile... I would expect it would have a range of up to 5-6km and tandem full calibre HEAT warhead of perhaps 65-75mm calibre should manage a 500-600mm penetration performance at zero degrees.

AFAIK the range of the Vasilek mortar is about 4km indirect, with a 2km semi direct fire mode (ie direct fire but significant drop from boresight point of aim...

Like the 120mm gun/mortar used on Vena and Nona you could have HEAT rounds and shells with bag propellent charges with improved range and performance... replacing the four bomb clips with a sort of belt feed would be interesting, but I think primarily it would be anti personel with HE bombs fired in bursts... 4kg HE bombs at about 120 rounds per minute cyclic would be pretty devastating.

Not being a flat shooting weapon you could park it behind cover and lob half a dozen shells to saturate an area and then leave before the first round hits the ground with just one vehicle.

A roof mounted 12.7mm kord and 40mm Balkan on one side and some Bulat missiles on the other...

Will be interesting to see what they do to upgrade the SPG-9 to improve its performance without making it too expensive to use.

I would expect an upgrade of the sight to add thermal night vision and a laser range finder with a ballistic computer so you lase the target and it will generate a point of aim to assure a hit.

Improvements to the rounds could include better fragmentation pattern, more HE, higher velocity... perhaps a ramjet sustainer to flatten the trajectory... the RPG-7 uses a rocket motor to reduce flight time and flatten the trajectory to target... but on the RPG-7 the rocket motor is 40mm.

The RPG-16 increased the calibre of the rocket motor to about 57mm, and reduced the diameter of the warhead to 57mm so the whole round sits inside the tube.

The RPG-29 like the SPG-9 has a warhead the same calibre as the rocket motor...

Will be interesting to see what they do.

The problem is that to remain cheap you need cheap ammo, while improvements to performance that add capability often make the ammo more expensive.

A case in point the American 20mm grenade launchers... they looked at the Soviet 30mm grenades and realised that it is the side walls that create the fragments so a small calibre round can be effective if the body is made long enough and what they learned with the Soviet 40mm underbarrel grenades is that an air burst grenade is vastly more effective than one that explodes on impact.

They thought they could use technology to be the commies so they used highly precise Swiss electronic timers in their grenades so the grenade launcher is pointed at the target and with the laser rangefinder and ballistics computer the distance calculated and therefore also time to impact. To get a 2m airburst above the target the angle of the weapon is increased by a tiny amount and a tiny fraction of a second is taken off the time of flight speed. That amount of time is passed to the round by induction coil as it leaves the muzzle to set the electronic fuse to get the round to explode over target.

The launcher at the time was about 20K dollars which is actually quite cheap for a US weapon but the ammo was very expensive whether used in direct fire or air burst mode.

The Soviets got their underbarrel 40mm grenades to airburst by adding a small charge in the nose that blew the round up into the air on impact with a short delay fuse and then the main charge goes off at between 1.5 and 2m elevation at any range... no expensive launcher and no expensive timing electronics that can resist the violence of being launched to 200m/s from a tube less than 50 cm long.

For their 30mm ammo they use rear facing optical sensors and shine a laser on the rounds when they want them to explode... all the complex electronics is in the vehicle and is reused over and over... the rounds have relatively cheap light sensors facing back at the gun firing them so they can't be blinded by the enemy target they are approaching...

A similar optical detecting band around an 82mm mortar bomb or 82mm shell the gun fires would be you could detonate them at the ideal moment without the enormous cost of making them guided.

Of course Bulat could possibly be loaded and fired from an 82mm tube if required... it is clearly bigger than 57mm calibre but also less than 82mm calibre too.... the missile carried by the BMP-3 (100mm rifled gun, MT-12 100mm smoothbore gun, and 100mm rifled gun of the T-54/55, and also the 115mm smoothbore gun of the T-62 all use the same missile... in the larger calibre it uses a sleeve to fill the barrel... for Bulat they could do the same... the high elevation potential of a mortar would allow interesting options in terms of trajectory choices.... a rapid climb to altitude with a booster section added and then a laser beam controlled trajectory out to targets who knows how far away...

Anti armour 82mm bombs and shells would be limited to direct fire range of perhaps 1.5 to 2km range, so for targets at greater distances a tube loaded and launched Bulat could reach targets further away.

An 82mm anti armour shell could be elongated and have two full calibre warheads spaced apart so that the gap between could have a solid rocket booster like a Kornet missile has to flatten the trajectory for targets less than 3km away.

Could be used against bunkers or hardpoints.

The real value of the 82mm mortar would be its ability to rapidly deliver quite decent sized HE bombs over ranges where small arms return fire is not so effective... and because of the trajectory can fire from behind cover in indirect engagements perhaps with drone support... even just a tethered drone hovering 50m above the vehicle itself...

As for new spg-9 it will be interesting I definitely think range and sights etc will have to be part of it, penetration is adequate. But overall it has to be cheap, with frag rounds if they do make one with similar range to Bulgarian version then have frag rounds with proximity fuses could be used to target uav heli low flying aircraft etc.

The SPG-9 ammo could be improved by replacing the rocket motor booster with a simple ramjet... it wouldn't even need to be a scramjet.. accelerating the round up to mach 3 or mach 4 and holding that speed for a few seconds could extend its useful range to 5-6km for area targets... as you say the key is to keep the price per shot down while maximising accuracy and power and range. Anti air rounds with proximity fuses would be interesting... a proximity fuse would make shooting at air targets useful... with standard rounds a miss by 1cm means a total miss and also a threat to friendly ground forces where that round lands and explodes.

I would think using the laser range finder to also set off the warhead on command might be useful too... even just a simple thing like a dual laser range finder that can range the out going missile in real time and the target... when the distance to the missile is 1-3m less than the distance to the target flash a coded laser signal to set off the round next to the target.

That round could be designed with a forward facing fragmentation warhead under an aerodynamic cone to reduce drag... when it explodes it sends a shower of fragments like 3mm ball bearings forward at very high speed in a narrow but expanding cone... set it off 5-10m before impact to blast a kg of bbs at the target like a super shotgun... most light structured drones would be shattered... and you could also use it against soft targets like troops in the open... devastating.... and not particularly expensive in terms of ammo.

A fragmentation charge down the core of the rocket to fragment the motor section too would increase damage as well without increasing cost too much...

For a big object like a helo you could flash a code to the rocket as it is going out, to penetrate 2m into the structure before exploding (based on time delay after impact).

Nice.

The MTLB and MTLBu families of tractors are very widespread in Russia including the GTSM family of vehicles.

Used as transports or towing vehicles for a range of weapons... and also in civilian use to explore the Arctic and Siberian far east...

The basic vehicle was also used instead of BMPs in places of very soft ground like swamps and deep snow because while their fire power was not as good and it armour was just bullet proof its mobility was excellent and it was widely used as an artillery tractor too.

Trying to come up with a list of Russian vehicles/equipment sitting in reserve that are still useful. Highlighted in bold what I think can be employed with the Russian military today in case it needs to quickly expand
I'm including the equipment that's either out of service, or where part of it is in service but with another part of it sitting in storage
And here we're talking about army equipment, rather than air force, naval, Rosgvardia, RVSN or VDV
I'm also excluding small-arms and anything man-portable, otherwise the list will go on forever.

Tanks
- T-55/62s; I doubt it. Some can be handed over to African or Central Asian allies with cheap upgrades. I guess the T-62s can be useful for the Rosgvardia if they feel they need more firepower
- T-64s; probably better assigned to the LDNR and Pridnestrovian armies, they have experience with them
- T-72s; there are more of these than anything else. Russia can robotize part of them, form some new battalions with others with B3 upgrades, while the rest can act as a pool of reserve tanks to replace destroyed ones
- T-80s; probably makes sense to upgrade more to the BVM level. The BVs and Us are good enough to man newly formed battalions with as is, maybe just with some new thermals
- PT-76; doesn't really have a role anymore as far as European realities are concerned. But it still has its fans around the world if they want them.

APCs
- BTR-60s; too old for anything. There are upgrades for it but you might as well build a new BTR-80/82 instead. Convert some for EMERCOM or civilian use.
- BTR-70s; also little point to them in Russian service in any capacity, but as I heard some are modernized and sold to poorer states such as Kyrgzystan, Nicaragua and Mongolia.
- MT-LBs; these are still useful as all-terrain transports, can definitely be used to form new battalions with. Especially with the MT-LBM upgrade. Also can be converted to utility vehicles, ATGM carriers or to the Strela-10M4 standard.

IFVs
- BMP-1/2s; huge amount in storage and a wide variety of different upgrades available for them, everything from the Bakhcha-U turrret to the Basurmanin. Can be converted to ATGM carriers, engineering vehicles and whatever else

Recon vehicles
- BRDM-2s; just too legacy a platform to fuss around with. There are better options today. A lot of CSTO countries still use them as well as friendly countries elsewhere; and many have already been sold abroad with upgrades.

AAA/SHORADs
- Zu-23-2s; in a modernized form they can form the basis for a short-range gun-missile air defense complex but there are better options. They're still highly useful for fire-support based mounted on trucks or towed by them
- Shilkas; outdated for any sort of anti-aircraft use, while for fire support you might as well use something lighter (truck-mounted Zu-23-2s), or more specialized (BMPTs). Might be useful with a cheap upgrade for poorer allied states around the world.
- Strela-1s; too old a platform and the anti-air capabilities are out of date. Offer them to Kyrgyzstan or Laos.

Medium-range air-defenses
- Kubs; dunno if there are any in storage but best not to waste money/effort
- Buk-M/M1s; I think some of these older Buks have been phased out, but recently and the people who are familiar with their analogue equipment are still around. Makes sense to use them, they're still capable especially when integrated into a wider air-defense network
- Osas; I wouldn't bother with them and would instead hand them over for modernization to Belarus if they or anyone else, particularly in the CSTO, are interested

Anti-tank guns
- MT-12s; you don't want to waste 6 men on fielding a 100mm anti-tank gun in 2022

Towed artillery
- D-30s; as the Ukrainian conflict proved, very employable today in an entrenched position or in a concealed ambush role, while being lighter than its replacement the Msta-B. With Kitolov 122mm guided shells and spotter UAVs, they can function as precision weapons, although this will require the Malakhit fire control system too. In any case there will be a need for new 122mm towed artillery battalions
- Msta-B; the most modern towed howitzer in the Russian arsenal, and with most in storage
- Giantsit-B; plenty available in storage and there are a host of modernization packages
- D-20; probably not needed, there are enough Msta-Bs and Giantsit-Bs. If allies are in need of howitzers, there's plenty to spare here
- Vasilek mortars; still very cool
- Sani mortars; yep, highly contemporary
- M-160s; potentially usable but I doubt any ammunition has been produced for this caliber for the last 50 years at least

Self-propelled artillery
- Gvozdikas; yes, with the Khosta upgrade ideally
- Giatsint-Ss; yes
- Akatsiyas; yes
- Msta-Ss; there are some in storage, can be given the SM upgrade as well
- Pions; yes
- Tyulpans; ready to go

Rocket artillery
- Grads; easily, especially with a quick GLONASS upgrade
- Uragans; ditto
- Tochkas; their rockets are getting past their expiration period. Best to give them to Belarus, Russia has little use for them

In summary I can say that what Russia has enough of in the mobilization pool are tanks, IFVs, tracked APCs, fire support vehicles/guns and artillery of all stripes
What it may find it has a deficit of would be wheeled APCs, light/recon vehicles, air defense vehicles of different types and AT guns - for which it will need to focus on more production of modern types

Sad that this all needs to be discussed, but it is what it is.

Well funny you should say that because a while back there was a range of missile seekers on display by AGAT I think and it included a range of different sized missile seekers with a range of different calibres and one seeker that stood out was an ARH seeker that was an odd diameter that didn't really match any in service missiles...

Perhaps it might be the seeker used on the 9M100 missile currently used, but equally it might be something you could attach to an older missile to make it fully fire and forget and quite state of the art.

OSA or even Strela-10 could have these seekers fitted... not every single missile but perhaps two or three per launcher to add performance potential for more difficult targets.

d_taddei2 wrote:Not sure if you remember eehnie on the forum that annoying pest. I proved him wrong a while ago that he stated Zu-23-2 was no longer in production. He still maintained this despite me showing him a current catalog saying that the ammo, barrels, and complete system was still available to buy new. New upgrades improve the system the ZOM series of upgrades adds a host of radar guidance etc and the options of adding MANPADS or strela 10. I suspect in the future there may even be an option to add 2-4 SOSNA R.

You can do that but why would you want to if you can instead use a Gibka mount on a Tigr-M, or another such more compact vehicle than the type you would place a Zu-23-2 onto?
If you're going to go to the trouble of adding Sosna-R missiles.. well why not just go for a full Sosna-R complex mounted on something?

The 23mm cannon is cool but it's main use today is fire support. For AAA you would want something like the Pantsir's autocannons or the 57mm cannon with fused shells. Preferably the later for use against UAVs; you need precision.
Otherwise, most things just tend to be too small (UAVs), or fly too fast. While helicopters have become longer ranged platforms that can strike you from outside the range of any 23mm cannon if they spot you.
It's still a viable ambush platform but it's range is short

What I would do with any Zu-23-2s; whether truck-mounted, or used in the VDV mounted on BTR-Ds, or towed - is just add a couple of MANPADs to it and a new digital sight. Just a very cheap upgrade. It's main job would still be fire support, but it would be ready to engage any aircraft that did enter its range at least.

As for MT-12 anti tank gun I do find this one a bit odd. Russia still has it in service mostly I believe in eastern units. Although now mostly used as artillery gun, it's a bit of a jack of all trades, anti tank gun, artillery and able to use Bastion ATGW round. Although it's a jack of all trades it doesn't Excel at either role. And Russia has enough 122mm and 152mm artillery systems in storage that they could replace these. There must be a reason as to why they still use it. I remember reading some years back some island in the Kurils was still using 100 mm BS-3 anti tank guns as a coastal gun. Most likely it was cheaper using what was already there than shipping in something else.

Well your guess is as good as mine if it turns out it really is still used

I know that Russia only has a limited contingent of the Sprut-B AT guns in service and thus the MT-12s may simply not have replacements, although why it hasn't made more is an open question.
The MT-12s today would only be able to fulfill their role in Africa or south-east Asia; pretty much everywhere else armies have moved onto tanks that the MT-12 will not be able to reliably penetrate.

There is of course a difference between a gun, and a howitzer like the 122mm and 152mm artillery systems. Even if the later can be depressed sufficiently, they would not have any sophisticated targeting systems or accuracy guarantees, would take longer to reload, and the recoil would be an issue.
A direct-fire gun is more compact, has a faster rate-of fire, is optimal for entrenchment, being placed in ambush positions against any advance of enemy armour. Can also be used in a direct fire role against other targets with different shells.

As for BDRM-2 it's still useful especially it's amphibious capabilities which could help in river crossing or beach landings. We saw them in Syria with caged armour and addition of AGS-17 a cheap upgrade that adds benefits. I would rather have the protection of this then a soft skinned 4x4.

It's not that it's not useful, it's that it's not useful enough to justify a logistics tail for an entire vehicle family; when you have other newer vehicles today that can do the same thing (minus the amphibious capabilities), but with better visibility, lesser weight and perhaps better protection. Although I am aware that Russia still has some BDRM-2s somewhere still in service.
At the end of the day, if you really do need amphibious capabilities, you can always procure more Gaz Vodniks, which is the most direct successor to the BDRM-2. None of these types of vehicles are expensive or take long to churn out.

As for PT-76 it's largely outdated due to armour protection but yet again rather have this protection then nothing and it never was meant to have heavy armour due to its amphibious role. Light armour and at the time a fairly powerful gun. It's 76mm gun would still make a mess of buildings and IFV. Some were later given a 57mm gun upgrade. Also a PT-76 dug in on a beach somewhere would act as fire support/pill box to protect a secured beach front.

Well today it's essentially a BMP-1 minus the troop carrying capacity. It can't function as a light tank in the Russian theater.

You're better off with Sprut-SDMs or BMP-3s; those essentially fulfill the PT-76s role today.
Or BMP-1s with a new turret, if you need these types of vehicles urgently.

Another thing I have seen is the use of T-34-85, T-54/55, PT-76 turrets being used on coast guard ships in Russia. PT-76 turrets were used on patrol boats. And I guess for this role these turrets are useful.

These patrol boats don't take long to churn out, so you might as well arm them with some cheap modern gun-missile weapon system.
Those turrets can still be used on armored trains, as those are always bespoke.

Another thing I have seen is Indonesia upgrading it's BTR-40 with new turrets giving then a new lease if life. And Vietnam turned some of its BTR-152 into ambulances for UN duties. BTR-50 used as command vehicles due to large internal space, and some have even been modified into ambulances. BTR-60  original version without a roof could easily be used as mortar carriers carrying 82/120, and 82mm automatic mortar. The BTR-60PA can be used by police and paramilitary forces as riot control vehicles or for protection of buildings etc. Or used by militias for troop transport.

Well it's exactly in places like Indonesia and Vietnam where those sort of vehicles will still be useful. Poorer countries, where there are shorter ranges of engagement due to foliage, and where your neighbours don't have anything better either.

For Russia, there are vehicles in reserve that can be converted and are newer and better suited for all those roles; not to mention ones that there are already supply chains and repair bases for. MT-LB, BMP, BTR-D chassis; there are plenty of them. Whereas for wheeled platforms you'll be better off producing new trucks adapted to the role, Typhoon or Tigr type platforms. Trucks and automobiles can be mass-produced quickly.

2A36 Giatsint-B is still a very good gun and could be useful mounted on a wheeled chassis or a ship. D-20 not so long ago Iraq purchased some obviously wanted a cheap towed artillery gun with a punch. The two older 122mm artillery systems Russia sent some to Syria, and I have seen Chinese versions where they mounted them on tracked chassis.

The Giatsint-B is definately excellent and still the longest-range towed artillery piece Russia has AFAIK. It's been spotted on the way to the Ukraine.
The D-20 - nothing wrong with it, but Russia has plenty of Giatsints and Mstas in reserve.

I guess the older artillery systems, and anti aircraft guns could be still be mounted on ships and boats of various sizes and used in artillery or direct fire role. Germany during WW2 used some of there flak cannons in direct fire role I would imagine Soviet 85mm, 100mm and 130mm anti aircraft guns would have lethal shrapnel against light vehicles and troops.

They can be, but any such patrol-boat artillery is simple and cheap so you might as well produce new and adapted to the vessel.
If you're the Ukraine and desperately trying to arm anything you can - then that's the situation in which you would want to put old AAA or howitzers on boats or wherever you can. But if you're in that situation then you already lost.

The houthis turn their Sa-2 into a surface to surface missile system inflicting serious damage to Saudi forces. I always thought the sa-4 with its large missiles could be turned into a surface to surface missile system using current missiles or thermobaric missiles of same size. Or due to their large size turned into an EW/ EMP missiles. Could be useful for drone swarms. The mind can think up many variations. The AT-2 ATGW missiles at one point we're mounted on BRDM-1 most likely only really useful against light armour and buildings. If I remember I think they had 2.5km range. I would say it has more use as ground system that being mounted on a Heli these days. Most missiles will getting towards end of life.

As for T-55 Syria has shown us that it's still useful in such conflicts and it can still use Bastion ATGW rounds, and with some minor upgrades be useful. Sagger and SPG-9 proved useful in Syria as well being used as cheap anti armour and for destroying troops in buildings. Cuba put T-55 turrents on BTR-60 as well as some form of fire support.

Cubans in fact have put just about every artillery gun on a truck making it self propelled. Algeria mounted it's MT-12 on trucks, small upgrade but can make a difference. India a d North Korea mounted their M-46 130mm artillery guns on tracked chassis, these guns are still good, and the NK version is a full enclosed turret they actually did a good job of it. A lot of tracked and wheeled vehicles can still be used for command vehicles as well.

Sure you can do all that. If you're the Houthis, or Cubans, or Syrians.

We tend to find it seems that it's better to remove the turrets from chassis and mount something else on the chassis and put the turret on something else  
Greece removed their BMP-1 turrets and replaced with zu-23-2 and seemed happy with and converted more. T-34 chassis was used in Syria to mount D-30 gun. I have also seen BM-14 a double pack mounted on MT-LB and T-54/55, I have pic somewhere that took in Cambodia where they had this on aT54/55. Even some obsolete AD systems like Sa-9 or even Sa-6 could have their missiles removed and replaced with a streets system of 6/8/12 Verba, or even SOSNA R, these could even be mounted on BTR-60/70, T-55, T-62, BMP-1, BRDM-2 chassis. Zsu-57-2 in Serbia had their turrets enclosed and was used as a ground support vehicle. Iran even turned those turrets onto a wheeled AD systems, and used the 100mm KS-19 into a full automatic self loading AD system the sa-ir. North Korea has mounted twin 37mm anti aircraft guns on BTR 60/70 as a form of fire support. Even old Luna-M (frog), the older luna rocket systems chassis could be used replacing the rockets with something else, TOS, Polonez, kalibur, Bal, or use the Luna's rocket shells/casings and convert it into a thermobaric rocket or HE-frag with GPS guidance. In fact I reckon you could mount two racks of BM-21 on a Frog-7 chassis, giving u the ability to launch 80 grads within seconds, then drive off.  The combinations are endless.

Russia also mounted Zu-23-2s on trucks and BTR-Ds

It's just a matter of what you have, what you need, and figuring out the most optimal option. If you have Iskander-level technology, you really don't need Luna-Ms in any capacity - yes they can kill people, but they're inaccurate, will kill civilians, and you'll waste personnel on manning them, servicing them, etc.. instead train your manpower on something else; preferably something that you already have in service and that you have trained specialists for

And although these retired systems may not have much use to Russian forces they can be good for donations, countries looking cheap equipment etc etc. Don't get me wrong some systems even older than these are pretty much no good other than target practice or museum pieces or sold to private collectors. And had it not been for all this equipment in storage Russia would have had costly problems supply Syria with aid as well as other CIS countries donations. I am bit of an advocate of using certain pieces of older equipment still being useful. Although like everything cost versus benefits and also if u already have it in stock helps. No need to scrap everything can be sold, modified upgraded, donated.

Absolutely. Donations and sales with cheap upgrades is the name of the game.
Russia together with its CSTO allies (+ Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, CAR, Vietnam, etc..) need to figure out who should have stocks of what. Then ship out the equipment, train personnel, form cadres, establish logistics and repair bases with spare parts. Because there really is no need for Russia to keep around MT-12s or T-55s or BTR-60s or PT-76s or Tochkas for that matter. I have a suspicion this is already being done to some extent.

Now for the air force and VDV
Listing the equipment/vehicle classes that are either in reserve, or are in service but with a substantive amount in storage
Once again, highlighting in bold what I think can be used

Air-defense systems
- S-125s; Belarus has a good modernization for them, they can do the job and put them into service themselves or give it to Kazakhstan, or any other customer. For Russian service they tried out their own modernization, it didn't perform to spec, and there are better options today
- S-300Ps; for a range of reasons, it's best to hand them over to CSTO allies, rather than employ them. If a greater density of air-defense is needed, it's best to focus on production of new S-350s

Fighter/interceptor aviation
- MiG-29s; many older models have been withdrawn from service in recent years, but their airframes tend to be finished from corrosion and stress by then. If Russia needs light fighters on the cheap at the moment, it's only real option is the production of new MiG-29M/M2s
- Su-27s; there should be a couple hundred baseline Su-27s and other older models in storage, having been withdrawn over the past 10 years. With such a large pool it'll be possible to find a large amount of airframes that are still in good condition and upgrade them to the SM standard or a more modern equivalent
- MiG-31s; some older models are in storage, but the plane is long out of production, planes in service are lost through attrition, and there is no replacement yet which makes the MiG-31 class irreplacable for the interception role, as well as for its new Kinzhal-carrier role. The current pool of reserve MiG-31s is needed just to ensure replacements for those squadrons already in service

Tactical fixed-wing aviation
- MiG-27s; they were all withdrawn from service in the early 90s and moved to storage bases. There are reports most of them have been recycled/reclaimed by now. If any are left though regardless, there haven't been any pilots trained on them in Russia for 3 decades, with the only countries still using them being Kazakhstan and India. Who presumably are provided with spare parts from the pool
- Su-24s; the M/M2s were due to be withdrawn from service but the present reality is that Russia has a deficit of fighter aviation. That might be what's behind the latest news of Su-34s being eyed for the air-to-air role. Thus the Su-24M/M2s will have to be kept around - as well as the necessity for more bombers in general if ground forces are expanded. Low-level penetration bombing remains a viable tactic even if a risky one. Some airworthy baseline Su-24 models which were withdrawn can be modernized to the M2 standard and made compatible with a wide range of modern precision-guided weapons. There should be a lot of such aircraft in storage
- Su-25s; there should be reserves, maybe as many as 80 were withdrawn from service over the last 15 years, although some will have reached the end of their airframe lives. As it's still in production it should be possible to get the better part of the withdrawn airframes back into service and upgraded to the SM or SM3 standard relatively quickly. These planes would be vital for supporting the operations of expanded ground forces

Strategic aviation
- Tu-22Ms; should be a large number of M3s in storage as well as the earlier M2s; a few dozen were withdrawn over the past 10 years. For the primary role as a heavy bomber and cruise missile carrier, Russia probably has enough of this class in service for the time being, but if NATO expands then more may be needed. It should also be assessed whether other modifications can be useful, such as the MR variant for ELINT and reconnaisance, or the long-range interceptor variant that was on the table once.
- Tu-95s; for the purposes of strategic aviation, there are enough of these in service to fulfill the role of nuclear deterrent, even if there are extra aircraft in reserve

C4I/Reconnaissance aviation
- MiG-25RBs; there were around 20 still in service up until 10 years ago, although they could have been converted into monuments by now. In any case it's an outdated plane that's long out of production, with no available modernization packages, that there will be trouble with spare parts for
- Su-24MRs; there will be some reserves of the MRs, at least a couple dozen, and apparently there is a modernization program on the way for the ones in service.
- A-50s; there are a certain amount in reserve, maybe as many as 10-15, and if additional AWACS are required promptly then their upgrade to the current A-50U standard is a no-brainer

Transport/logistical aviation
- L-410s; there are up to 60-70 of these in storage or otherwise retired, mostly older models. But as production is mostly localized, it should be possible to bring many older airframes into service for either ferrying personnel around, or for conversion into light cargo planes as some of the L-410 variants in Russian service have been already
- An-24/26s; old planes, but simple ones. Light transports can be levied from the stowed away An-24Ts/RTs of which there are a couple of dozen, and the An-26s of which 60-70 are not in active service. I'm sure China makes a copy engine for its Y-7 if new engines are needed
- An-12s; 2-3 dozen in storage, but in practice all remaining aircraft have basically reached the end of their service lives, and the stored models are likely needed for parts just to keep the flying aircraft going. If planes in this class are urgently needed, it's easier to order the Chinese Y-8 doppelganger
- Il-76s; overwhelming majority of them seem to be flying. The 30 or so out of service look to often be in bad condition and might be used for parts. It's easier to just build more Il-476s.
- An-22s; similar situation as with the An-12s except more critical. There are only a handful left in service and if more could have been reintroduced, it probably would have been done already.

Helicopters
- Mi-2s; there are a few dozen of these retired at various levels of integrity, and a repair facility in the Moscow region that specializes in restoring/servicing them, but IMO these choppers are just too old to be worth any hassle over regardless, at least for the military
- Mi-8s; there are near 300 of these in reserve in varying levels of condition, and of different modifications not just the pure transport role. Mi-8s for cargo, assault-transport & medevac can be used as is after servicing, just with GLONASS navigation upgrades. For the role of jammers, command posts, ELINT; more work might be necessary.
- Mi-26s; a nice pool of these out of service, 40-50 or so. Don't know how many might be needed, but as with the Mi-8 range they can be pretty much be used as is after servicing & repairs, no real upgrades are necessary other than GLONASS navigation
- Mi-24s; there were some 1500 in Russia after the break-up of the USSR, and only about ~150 in service now. Even if we assume that a lot of these were morally outdated A/B/C/D models, some were exported, lost or used for spare parts - we can still only imagine how large the reserve park of this class is today of usable machines, that can be upgraded to PM and VM standards

Airborne vehicles/equipment
- 2S9 Nonas; there are huge stocks of the earlier models, that can be quickly upgraded to the 1M standard as part of servicing
- BMD-1/2s; Russia has over 2000 in reserve, more than it could possibly ever need - but VDV troops are valuable and you do really want to give them the best equipment and protection possible. I'd say the BMD-1/2s make less sense as a frontline vehicle for any VDV units, and more sense converted to self-propelled guns, ATGM & mortar carriers, and utility vehicles, as well as given out to allied states
- BMD-3s; Russia should have some in storage still, but they've mostly been converted to BMD-4Ms, BTR-MDs or other modern-gen VDV vehicles, and it makes more sense to continue with that
- BTR-Ds; there should be a surplus of several hundred that have been withdrawn from service over the last decade to make room for the BMD-4 based vehicles. These can still be used as APCs or converted to various supporting vehicles such as command machines, Zu-23-2 carriers and so on
- Nona-Ks; looks like there could be a few dozen of these pieces in storage, although it may prove to not be enough especially since replacements for existing units come from the same pool

In general, we can see that there are the reserves available to expand the scope of army-supporting aviation used such as tactical bombers and helicopter gunships, and the fighters needed to cover those ground forces. There is a surplus of light transport aircraft to ferry personnel and supplies, as well as helicopter transports for air mobility. There are Tu-22Ms and extra AWACS, reconnaissance aircraft available if needed to be put into action.
However, expanding air defense coverage or interceptor aviation (also part of the air defense network) would necessitate new production. A deficit of strategic airlifters would also become evident.
When it comes to aircraft, the real challenge for rapid expansion would not be the hardware, even if that itself takes months to bring about; but the pilots - into whom years of training need to be invested. There will be a certain reserve of existing pilots and it's possible to hire out more on the CIS market, as it were. For transport aviation, it will be possible to recruit pilots from civilian service. Also the retirement age for serving pilots can be raised until new cadres are ready.

The VDV upon expansion would have reserves available for most of its vehicle park thanks to the surplus of BMD-1/2s, BTR-Ds and 2S9 Nonas, but would be better served with new BMD-4Ms for the assault role, and they might also face a deficit of towed artillery.

Sometimes you find equipment is donated although the receiving country may have to pay for the overhaul or that Russia gets a commodity or resource in return. Then of course you have the geo political aspect keeping them under Ur wing

Important that the donated stuff is still actually useful obviously.

Another factor is that for many countries buying weapons is just buying weapons... they might not want to get under anybodies wing.

During the 1990s there were the problems of eastern europe getting rid of a lot of ex soviet stuff... they wanted rid of it so it was bargain basement prices, so many countries around the world took advantage of that and got some very cheap gear... sometimes they sold excess aircraft but kept what was useful for themselves so they also obviously wanted to keep their own entire spare parts pool so you get a cheap airframe but no spare parts but you get it way cheaper than the maker could ever afford to sell it to you for so you buy it... but now you need spare parts and you know how you refused to buy their planes and now you want contracts for spare parts.

Shock and horror those spare parts will not be cheap.

If you had spent a bit more and gotten the planes from the maker you could have gotten a great deal on the spare parts and support which is where most of the money is made in aircraft and vehicles and vessels.

There are plenty of companies around the world that make good money servicing and supporting ex soviet kit...

The issue with ammo is interesting because the Russians and Soviets kept stocks of old equipment and also obviously kept stocks of old ammo so they could be used if needed. As older equipment is scrapped or given away the stocks of those ammo types can be given away too to a point where their age makes them unsafe to sell or use and they have to be disposed of. Depending on how widely such weapons are used you might continue to make new ammo for those weapons or you just might stop production and let third party companies deal with that issue.

You will have x number of munitions factories so you want the majority to be making new material in case you need enormous volumes quickly so old factories making old ammo can be put into use making newer ammo for periods of need and can go back to older ammo types when you have refilled your storage of new ammo.

Most of the time it would make sense to just upgrade your customers weapons to take newer ammo so you can end production of the old ammo and focus on the newer stuff.

Being able to spend your money on fewer types of ammo is a good thing in terms of production and storage and also upgrading and innovation.

The customers who can't afford Pantsir or TOR should be able to afford Sosna... it has capable optics but essentially is a cheap simple laser beam riding missile that should be able to be mass produced in enormous numbers and used in a number of roles... its potential as a missile for aircraft is enormous because its speed makes it very easy to use.

Making affordable weapons for poorer countries makes sense for Russia because Russia does not want super expensive weapons that it can't afford to buy and use in enormous numbers itself.

Quite often an RPG-7 will get the job done in the third world, and the upgraded SPG-9 will be quite potent and portable too.

Not sure if you remember eehnie on the forum that annoying pest. I proved him wrong a while ago that he stated Zu-23-2 was no longer in production. He still maintained this despite me showing him a current catalog saying that the ammo, barrels, and complete system was still available to buy new. New upgrades improve the system the ZOM series of upgrades adds a host of radar guidance etc and the options of adding MANPADS or strela 10. I suspect in the future there may even be an option to add 2-4 SOSNA R.

I think his main problem was that he believed in evolution and upgrades so in his eyes a towed ZU-23-2 is what you used before you got a Shilka which was superior in every way... except that is not true.

To start with ZU-23s were very very handy to position near bases because it is small and light and relatively cheap but also very very powerful.

Footage from Syria of HMG on the back of light civilian trucks shows mobility and fire power are always useful. Horribly vulnerable to return fire of course, but a Shilka is not that well protected either... any HMG and it is in trouble.

The point he didn't understand was that towed guns of all types are useful in specific situations and when towed are very mobile too... but for instance the chances of putting a Shilka on the top of a building or a few floors up is zero, or up the side of a mountain etc etc.

Towed guns have a place and are very very useful and may never be totally replaced because they have several niche roles.

I suspect part of the issue is that until about the early 1970s the Soviets didn't really use self propelled guns like the west did... except of course they obviously did but their self propelled guns were more like assault guns like the SU-76 and ISU-152 types... the latter would follow armoured forces but operate about 5km behind their lines and open fire on targets ahead of the friendly tanks that needed more fire power than the tanks could provide... heavy building structures or heavy tanks or pillboxes etc. In the 1970s the 2S1 and 2S3 started to appear, but ironically most of the rest of the Soviet forces were more mechanised than the west... BTRs used where the west would be using two ton trucks...

As for MT-12 anti tank gun I do find this one a bit odd. Russia still has it in service mostly I believe in eastern units. Although now mostly used as artillery gun, it's a bit of a jack of all trades, anti tank gun, artillery and able to use Bastion ATGW round. Although it's a jack of all trades it doesn't Excel at either role.

It is the sort of thing you can use to defend a base or attack tanks that is much smaller and lighter and easier to hide than a T-55 tank.

It would also be cheaper too. When you say artillery of course direct fire artillery... it has a range of just over 8km because its elevation is from about +7 degrees to about minus 6 degrees and about 50 degrees traverse...

It is a smooth bore gun firing useful ammo... small enough to hide very very well... you could dig them in in a postion where tanks can't attack directly and have to go around... say a minefield, or the flanks of an ATGM team. A powerful combination... MT-12, Kornet, RPG-29, and land mines.

And Russia has enough 122mm and 152mm artillery systems in storage that they could replace these. There must be a reason as to why they still use it.

They don't use it as artillery, direct fire artillery is not the same.

I remember reading some years back some island in the Kurils was still using 100 mm BS-3 anti tank guns as a coastal gun. Most likely it was cheaper using what was already there than shipping in something else.

High velocity flat trajectory, and armour piercing rounds hitting just on or just below the water line on landing ships would be devastating.

Another thing I have seen is the use of T-34-85, T-54/55, PT-76 turrets being used on coast guard ships in Russia. PT-76 turrets were used on patrol boats. And I guess for this role these turrets are useful.

For third world countries if they already have these vehicles in use then taking older turrets and mounting them at borders to overlook check points or crossing points with under ground facilities with concrete around them to protect them from artillery and they are actually quite sensible. The vehicle chassis could be used for parts or as a different type of vehicle like a troop transport or cargo or well armoured jeep replacement.

For patrol boats I would think a few new remote weapon stations being developed for armoured vehicles and also for unmanned ground vehicles would be interesting too as it would contain all the optics and stabilisation equipment and being unmanned would be more suitable for a boat too.

The AT-2 ATGW missiles at one point we're mounted on BRDM-1 most likely only really useful against light armour and buildings. If I remember I think they had 2.5km range. I would say it has more use as ground system that being mounted on a Heli these days. Most missiles will getting towards end of life.

Most ATGM would be useful if you replace the warhead with a HE frag warhead and just use them for hitting firing positions like most RPGs are used for these days out to greater ranges of course.

Some sort of unified launcher that accepts or is compatible with all types of ATGMs would be useful where you could load up old missiles and hit targets but if an armoured threat pops up you can stick a Metis or Bulat or Kornet on and smoke that too.

I seem to remember us talking about a towed mount with seats for two that was designed to allow all sorts of weapons to be mounted and used on it from rifle calibre machine guns to HMG and grenade launchers and cannon with a sighting system and all weather optics etc... perhaps even recoilless rifle type weapons and straight out rocket launchers too.

Even old Luna-M (frog), the older luna rocket systems chassis could be used replacing the rockets with something else, TOS, Polonez, kalibur, Bal, or use the Luna's rocket shells/casings and convert it into a thermobaric rocket or HE-frag with GPS guidance. In fact I reckon you could mount two racks of BM-21 on a Frog-7 chassis, giving u the ability to launch 80 grads within seconds, then drive off. The combinations are endless.

It really comes down to what they have in storage and who or how it could be used... assuming it is still usable.

I would think they will have a few FROGs in storage too, but then a lot of things they can use during exercises and tests where the old munitions are used for targets.

Equally every year there are often ice dams that have to be destroyed to prevent flooding and other problems so the warheads from old ordinance would be a good source for those sorts of roles.

Other times it might just not be safe and the propellent and warheads might just need to be chemically reduced or burned to make them safe and then perhaps turned into fertiliser...

What I would do with any Zu-23-2s; whether truck-mounted, or used in the VDV mounted on BTR-Ds, or towed - is just add a couple of MANPADs to it and a new digital sight. Just a very cheap upgrade. It's main job would still be fire support, but it would be ready to engage any aircraft that did enter its range at least.

There was also a four wheel vehicle with a rear flatbed with a ZU-23-2 mounted on the rear that could be remote fired from the cabin... not so much air defence and more fire support... or even mobile base or convoy protection type roles.

It's just a matter of what you have, what you need, and figuring out the most optimal option. If you have Iskander-level technology, you really don't need Luna-Ms in any capacity - yes they can kill people, but they're inaccurate, will kill civilians, and you'll waste personnel on manning them, servicing them, etc.. instead train your manpower on something else; preferably something that you already have in service and that you have trained specialists for

Most of them had payloads of about 500kgs so perhaps the idea of replacing their warheads with actual KAB-500S satellite guided bombs... make the warheads detachable in flight and then once released it is just a guided bomb... for use in locations with heavy air defence capacity... you could use the coordinates of the enemy S-300s for the bombs... launch a dozen at a time... not expensive or complex... modify Iskander launchers to carry them till you run out of stock.

Russia has three options. 1) leave them to rot and rust. 2) scrap them with takes time and costs money. 3) sell, upgrade and sell, or donate.

Funny you list three options and missed the actual reason... resources to arm newly formed up forces in a full scale war... newly called up forces will likely have trained on the older stuff so will be at home on that equipment and also familiar with it.

As for the zsu-23-2, why would u use the system simple because u already have a d don't have the money to buy Panstir but you have the money to upgrade.

Think of it as a HMG that outranges enemy HMGs and also enemy grenade launchers. For base defence or fire power support they are still excellent.

Against transport helicopters and transport aircraft they are devastating... in fact they will devastate most helicopters that get near it and spotting it before it opens fire is not that easy.

As for the MT-12 I no longer see this as an anti tank gun but more of an anti armour/ anti material gun. It wont take out tanks but can Destroy IFV and APC.

But that is OK because it wont be used on its own... it will likely be used with Kornet and also Konkurs and RPG and other types of weapons... it is small and easy to hide.

A possible reason for keeping them and not replacing with D-30 for example could be that the D-30 in storage are more attractive to foreign countries to buy than the MT-12, so this would give Russia a large pool of Surplus D-30 to sell while MT-12 sales will only be for customers who already use it and want to replace worn out systems.

D-30 is a totally different type of weapon... it is proper towed artillery.... ironically the MT-12 could do with its towed mount.

Anyway I guess Russia needs to make decisions on what it has laying around, scrap/Destroy, or just leave it to rot and rust or sell upgrade or donate, I do prefer the latter lol.

They have a lot of old stuff and they seem to have gotten rid of a lot of it... they recently had to buy T-34s for parades which suggests they are out of operational stocks, and I suspect later tanks are all being used up of scrapped, which gets rid of a lot of useless calibres, and presumably stocks of those old calibre ammo types as well.

Rather than flogging off ancient stuff to poor countries I would like to see Russia trading with these countries and helping them get out of their poverty so they can start looking at more capable equipment... obviously in some situations they wont need 203mm artillery and 152mm tank calibre guns, but imagine a high pressure 100mm smoothbore gun based on the BMP-3 gun where the huge HE shell is supplimented with an APFSDS round with a metal dart an small front mounted SABOT and all the rest propellent... able to penetrate light tanks and IFVs for third world countries that don't need any better.

The 125mm gun from the Sprut for anything else.

d_taddei2 wrote:Aircraft is a completely different matter, the condition is paramount and I also don't think it would do much for troop morale putting them into old transport aircraft that's not in good condition. I flew on a Ukrainian an-24 back in 2009 and they had to drain water out of the wings, they had crudely welded pipes to drain the water, and used a pipe that they screwed onto the wing and a glass jar was hung at the bottom of the pipe to catch the water, the tyres were showing threads some as long as 4-5 inches. The rivets were also rusty, and the plane was full of damp. I will have to find the pics on my laptop.

Most aircraft will be cannibalised for those that are still in service. Plenty of mig-29, Su-25 , mi-24 around the world. India I believe got rid of mig-27, Kazakhstan has a small number.

Aircraft could be used as flying targets or turned into kamikaze aircraft unmanned of course

Su-24 if in reasonable condition could be sold to poorer nations or sold to countries already using them. But we maybe find a newly created Novorussia could well inherit a couple of squadrons of su-24 maybe more depending on how big Novorussia gets

Give them a fresh coat of paint and troop morale will be fine. They need not know all the details

Kamikaze aircraft are definitely a good idea. Russia has plenty of old An-2s for that and can use them as Azerbaijan did.

Many of these aircraft are still basically in production. The L-410s, MiG-29s, Su-27s, Su-25s, Il-76s, Mi-8s, Mi-24s, Mi-26s; all of these models are basically produced in more modern forms to this day, and in Russia. Some other aircraft meanwhile such as An-24s/An-26s and An-12s are still produced by China. So it becomes a matter of at the worst, salvaging airframes in reasonable condition, and combining them together with new engines, parts where they're needed, then spit & shining the whole thing. It's a reasonable amount of work, but still quicker and cheaper than churning out a brand new aircraft on the assembly line.
Aircraft assembly lines have limited capacities and you'll want them producing the new high-tech stuff, military and civilian, that are needed most; Ka-52Ms, Mi-28NMs, Ka-62s, Ka-226Ts, Mi-38s, A-100s, Su-30SM2s, Su-34s, Su-57s, An-124-100Ms, Il-476s, Il-112Vs, Il-114-300s, Il-96-400s, Tu-204s, Sukhoi Superjets, MS-21s, DA42M-NGs, LMS-901 Baikals... those kind of aircraft

As I mentioned, we'll need the Su-24s for the time being. We'll need a lot of aircraft, even old ones from storage, if we have to expand the military. These will be stopgap aircraft of course, until better things can be put into service and new pilots trained on them, or the current period of tension starts to dial down. Point is, you have to be ready.

A thought that springs to mind would be to rig An-2s from storage with remote guidance and load them up with thermobaric bombs. The plane has a 2-ton or so payload capacity, not nearly enough for the FOAB but good for something smaller. They can fly low at a 50m altitude to avoid detection, and slow in order to maximize range. In essence a guided bomb.

The old drones such as Tu-141s/Tu-143s could be launched as decoys to cover actual cruise missiles, or launched in the hopes of enemy air defenses revealing their positions.

BMD-1/2s meanwhile could be potential candidates for robotization like the T-72s, given that there are so many in storage. They can be used in this capacity as scout vehicles and fire support for robot T-72s.

The problem is that there are probably only very worn out An-2s around and most available would be better used as parts to keep the others flying until the replacement aircraft are ready.

For the cost of rigging an An-2 or other old aircraft for remote control and the fuel used to deliver a 2 ton payload... it would probably be cheaper to use an existing aircraft type... even a transport plane.

Much of the old stuff should just be either scrapped or used up where it makes sense... now that might be in a war Russia is currently involved with or it might be a peace time situation... An-2s were very good aircraft... simple and strong and capable... but running out of air hours.

They should have loads of old SAMs they could convert to ballistic rockets, but is that worth it?

With existing command guidance systems you could convert them very easily to be drone targets for testing air defences.

I would expect they have enormous numbers of heavy anti ship missiles they might have been keeping for a big conflict... to use against unprotected civilian ships to damage an enemies logistics... so maybe they will want to keep those, but over time using them up in training and exercises they are going to be replaced anyway.

A drone designed for the job is always going to be better in the role of delivering ordinance rather than modified aircraft except maybe a transport plane optimised for altitude flights using assisted bomb aiming and delivery.

Perhaps cheap satellite guided bombs rolled out the back end of a transport plane at 10km altitude that guide to specific point targets on their own... maybe a few wing mounted targeting pods locating targets and using GLONASS and laser rangefinders to calculate the targets precise location that could be transmitted to bombs as they roll out the back of the plane... with glide fins to extend the distance away from the path of the aircraft that they can hit targets from...

Glide kits and GLONASS guidance are relatively cheap and the transport plane and its avionics are fully reusable...

Obsolete vehicles redesigned as robots is another good idea... especially if you eliminate the weak points.

For instance on many vehicles there are known weak spots that you can target... a good example was the early BTR-60s where the front wheel could be fired at with concentrated fire from a PK to shred the tire and then penetrate the wheel arch where the armour was thinner than the rest of the vehicle where the commander and driver were sitting.

Well in a robot model there is no commander or driver sitting there so that weakspot is eliminated completely without needing to redesign or increase weight.

Needless to say with a robot vehicle you want to encourage the enemy to target locations the original vehicle was vulnerable to but teh robot version is not.

A good example would be to make a human shaped robot but don't put anything important in the head or upper chest. A human shooting at a human shaped robot will naturally try to hit the brain or heart but as a designer of a robot there is no need to put such vulnerable components in such exposed locations... making them much less likely to be "destroyed".

Russia has 1000s of An-2s in civil service, waiting to be replaced by the new Baikal aircraft, which is going to enter mass-production soon.
Of course, these are civil aircraft, and still in service - so perhaps the idea is premature. But they could get started at least

I don't honestly know if designing & mass-producing a new drone designed for the task will be cheaper than converting old An-2s. Could be.
But my thinking is based on other calculations

The reason I forward these ideas, and talk about modernization in general - is because production and modernization use two different sets of capacities.

Production is high-tech assembly lines, automated processes, a lot of engineers and so on. There are limited amounts of such production sites in the country and you really do want to make use of say drone production lines for the types of drones that are most needed and critical.

Whereas modernization happens in repair plants, or even workshops. These are places which are essentially production sites too, but without any assembly lines, the work is done manually. This makes them very inefficient for mass production; typically you will only get prototypes or bespoke aircraft produced there. However, they are ideal for the modernization of existing equipment - as assembly lines can't be used for that anyway, and modernization is really just an advanced form of repair and servicing that workers will already be experienced with.
And there are plenty such aircraft repair plants, workshops around the country whose capacities can be used for converting An-2s, while the production lines focus on more important aircraft and drones.
All you would need is to produce the robotization parts and systems themselves (or order them from China) and then they can be fitted at the shops to An-2s.

And the same arguments are valid for any type of modernization - they are not only generally cheaper, but they save the actual factories and production plants for producing more pressing things.

MonkeymodelBananaRepublic wrote:There must be hundreds if not thousands of drone being used in ukraine battle. Why not send the shilka in to blow them out of the sky on the cheap (sa missiles cost way more)?

Get some more use out of them before scrapping/donation

There are some Shilkas around. I think in service with the LDNR

Russia has those Zu-23-2s whether towed or truck-mounted. They've been using them exactly against drones