Jump to content

BRM-3K combat reconnaissance vehicle


Recommended Posts

This vehicle has sophisticated sensors and communications equipment. Surveillance equipment includes the 1PN71 thermal sight, 1PN61 night vision sight, and a mast-mounted 1RL-33-1 ground surveillance radar. The vehicle is also fitted with navigation systems and communications systems for radio and data links.

 

Question: how to use it? Because of radar it has better spotting for long range? Your opinion?

 

I send 2 tanks and behind them i placed BRM-3K, not sure if it was good idea...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All recon vehicles are challenging to use in Combat Mission because they are intended for operational or grand tactical level reconnaissance, ie. to report to brigade HQ if there's enemy forces in an area the size of a CM map and if they are moving, blocking roads or such. After that they're just poorly armed and armoured vehicles with slightly better sensors than usual and should be used accordingly, ie. with special care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ground radars should be modelled but you might not notice the difference in practise. Radars can, depending on type, cover HUGE expanses of land - quite useful in the steppe or desert. Since you can't extend the mast though in CM and ranges are generally shorter I don't think it will show you much that you wouldn't catch through thermal sights or plain eye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't recall anyone doing extensive testing to try out the recon vehicles capabilities (maybe they did but I just didn't notice). Put them at the far end of a huge foggy map and see if they start picking up opponent vehicles before anyone gets actual LOS. I'd be curious if they offer an advantage, myself.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Observation vehicles were pretty much useless for what they were designed to do, in CM:Strike Force. The maps were too small. The advantages observation vehicles in a defilade enjoy in real life are negated by certain "line of sight" limitations of the game engine.

 

This does not appeared to have changed much in Black Sea. The only possible exception is that some maps are bigger, open and more expansive than before.

 

The short version: Dismount those FOs! Or they will be destroyed along with their mount!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marwek77,

 

Were I in your shoes, I would not run the BRM-3K around with tanks. Rather, I'd try to find it a series of protected locations from which it could observe the terrain to find enemy troops, vehicles and camouflaged positions via comprehensive sensors, which include the ability to establish target position to 20 meters, more than adequate for artillery fire. This thing is a super spotter and is typically tied to an artillery battalion to the rear. Here is the list of its capabilities. And just look at the BRM-3K sensor suite.

 

(Fair Use)

 

"Equipment installed to enable the vehicle to carry out its specialised reconnaissance role includes the mast-mounted 1RL-133-1 battlefield surveillance radar, which can be retracted into the vehicle when not operating; the 1PN71 thermal night observation device; the 1PN61 night observation device; and the ID14 periscopic laser range-finder.

The electro-optical devices are mounted on either side of the turret and, when not being used, the optics are covered by a hinged shutter that opens to the left.

 

The 1D14 periscopic laser range-finder has a magnification of x 7.3 and x 18 and a maximum range of 25,000 m. This laser is mounted on a turntable and can be used by the vehicle commander for reconnaissance purposes with an arc of 60° regardless of the position of the turret.

 

The 1PN61 active pulse night vision device with laser illuminator has a magnification of x 7 and a range of 1,500 m in the passive mode and 3,000 m in the active mode. This is mounted externally on the right side of the turret.

 

The 1PN71 thermal observation device operates in the 8 to 14 |im waveband and has a magnification of x 3.7 and x 11.5 and maximum target identification range is 3,000 m. This is mounted externally on the left side of the turret.

 

The 1RL-133-1 radar detects vehicles out to a range of 8,000 to 10,000 m and people out to a range of 4,000 m, with the actual ranges depending on the terrain. The radar can be elevated to a height of 1 m and traversed 240° left and right regardless of the turret position.

 

It is also fitted with the latest TNA-4-6 navigation device, 1T129 coordinator and the 1G50 gyrocompass to enable it to determine quickly its own position on the battlefield."

 

Given the above, I think it's profoundly ill advised to go gadding about the battlefield with a brace of T-90s for company. This thing's sensors probably put its cost, not to mention the highly trained crew needed, at several T-90 equivalents.

 

stikkypixie,

 

In light of what I now know about the BRM-3K,  I believe it's significantly more capable than a B-FIST, not least because it also has a BSR fitted.

 

gunnersman,

 

Though I seriously doubt it's modeled, the BRM-3K is set up for remote spotters from 500 meters by wire and  up to 6 km by portable UHF radio.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well playing a quick battle i noticed my BRM-3K could spot a tank past a line of trees that was a LOS blocker (could not "T" target the area)  i was able to set up an ambush on the tank with my tank hunter, not really a scientific test but worth mention.

 

i should add this was hard spot i could "see" the tank not soft spot with "sound" markers

Edited by Bennay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ChrisND,

If the BSR doesn't operate at full power, at what level does it operate, and what does that do to combat range? I'd think the better course would be to aperiodically radiate at full power, but only briefly, enough to create a battlefield snapshot before switching the radar to dummy load and following up via EO methods if feasible. Switching on the radar from dummy load for brief engagement is a tactic dating back to at least the Vietnam War. Switching back on for the duration of an artiilery shoot for fire adjustment and damage assessment would, of course, take longer than that. Even so, sitting in one place blazing away with the BSR is, in my estimation, not likely to bring down prompt air attack (would take overworked SEAD/DEAD assets to find it), but could, depending on hostile ESM capabilities, bring rapid artillery or mortar fire via near instant DF cuts and/or various other ISR assets. Hard kill of the other side's acutely limited means to observe and bring all WX fire on the battlefield would be a fairly high priority for the ground commander. After all, there are only a few such vehicles in a Brigade, manned by highly skilled, mostly officer, hard to replace crews. Believe baseline enemy tacair would have lots more important things to address, starting with not getting shot down!

 

Meanwhile, one of Putin's latest battlefield surveillance systems, the ARC-1 Lynx, not ever in Ukrainian service, has been spotted vacationing there, together with a friend. Lynx and Leopard together! Foreign Policy has what started out as a great article on Russian advanced BSR/FDR vehicles operating in Ukraine, but the FP arm-twisting software to force registration, which keeps throwing up opaque placards over the text, made me give up on the rest.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't recall anyone doing extensive testing to try out the recon vehicles capabilities (maybe they did but I just didn't notice). Put them at the far end of a huge foggy map and see if they start picking up opponent vehicles before anyone gets actual LOS. I'd be curious if they offer an advantage, myself.  :)

 

 

Just did a quick tests with a ukrainian BRM-1K...

Map lenghth: 4100m, no features other than grass and weeds and flowers...

Targets on the field: truck, BRDM-2, T-90

Conditions: thick haze

Time of the day: 12.00 day

 

The line of sight is cut at 3000m (probably for the thick haze or for a standard setting). Brought the BRM at roughtly 2000m from the targets, no sight.

 

Repeated the test, this time at 2000m from the targets the BRM found the BRDM-2.

Repeated the test with an elite BRM (first was regular), nothing found at 2000m.

 

Will repeat with different conditions.

 

Same as above, but

Conditions: clear

BRM was Elite

Line of sight was free up to max distance this time

BRM found the T90 at 4000m in about 20 seconds.

 

No way you can spot with a binocs at that distance, so it was found by the radar.

 

I will repeat adding a buddy, such as a tank, to the BRM.

Edited by Kieme(ITA)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be mistaken, but there were times when I thought that skeleton crew of 3 is not enough for the radar to work in-game (has something to do with the way crew & roles are implemented), meaning you need additional people to fill all the seats just to be sure it's working. Not sure if it was the case, or maybe I'm just delusional, or whatever, but you should definitely take that into consideration if you do the testing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pnzrldr (and BFC),

 

I have some questions for you regarding targeting priority for the BRM-3K and the two BSR/FD systems reported above and known as Lynx and Leopard, together with what I believe is a solid argument for removing the present range strictures on such RSTA systems. Apparently, under guise of an argument that operating at full power would get it killed by NATO air, the BRM-3K's BSR/FDR has been greatly reduced in terms of ERP (Effective Radiated Power, what actually gets sent from the radar antenna), considerably reducing its range and maybe more. Higher ERP goes directly, after all, to the critical S/N (Signal to Noise) ratio which is at the heart of the ability to separate a target from the radar background to begin with.  My argument is that the better way to operate would be at full power, but only coming out of dummy load briefly. The object is to secure a series of snapshots for SA, but to only radiate continuously as needed, such as when monitoring a fire strike on a target for purposes of adjustment or damage assessment. I'd like to raise some issues regarding the core arguments used to substantially defang the BRM-3K and, presumably, other such platforms whether vehicular or static.

 

Challenged Premise

 

The premise is that NATO air can "hear" the BSR/FDR and localize it well enough to permit prompt attack. I seriously doubt this to be correct, not least because RWRs are programmed to recognize SAM and ADA threats, which exist aplenty, not BSR/FDRs which pose no direct threat to the aircraft. Since so far I lack the operating freqs of the BRM-3K's radar, I can't say whether it's even in the freq range of radars the RWR would recognize in the first place. Based on prior knowledge of earlier systems, am strongly inclined to doubt the RWRs would even notice the emission.

 

What I might deem a technically credible argument is that the much more capable intercept equipment of the various dedicated SEAD/DEAD platforms, if it knew what to look for, and had the necessary spectral coverage, could potentially find the BRM-3K via its BSR emissions. But how likely is that? Not very. The Wild Weasel and such are dedicated intimidators and killers of SAM sites/launch vehicles and ADA sites/vehicles, of which there are far too many. In my informed view as someone who's read the relevant F-4G WW docs and had the chance to be briefed about the WW by a former top USAF WW pilot (who unprecedentedly was so much in demand the Air Force let him come back after he tried military aerospace and didn't like it), who was in my department, there was zero mention of any use of the F-4G for anything other than SEAD/DEAD.

 

If the above fairly states the military-technical issues correctly, then at the very least, most of the argument for defanging the BRM-3K goes away. Why not all? This is where pnzrldr comes in. The people who likely would be interested in the radar emissions from the BRM-3K would be the ground force commanders for the Army and Marines. I know jammers are already high priority targets, but what about the BRM-3K, and the bugaboo Lynx and Leopard systems described above, to name but two others? How big a threat are they perceived to be, if at all, and can you say anything about such systems being on the commanders' "this needs killing" list? Since there are only a few such vehicles to begin with, and each apparently supports an artillery battalion, it seems to me that removing the owning artillery battalion's best means of observing the battlefield, finding targets (including camouflaged ones), directing and adjusting fire, to including lasing for Krasnopol and such, would make such systems a fairly high collection priority and subsequent target. Is this, in fact, true? If so, I'd expect artillery fire to be the primary problem remover, with armed scout choppers or attack helos as the fallback position, particularly if there's a strong CB threat.  

 

Summing Up

 

I believe there's a sound case to be made for restoring full capabilities to the BRM-3K and any other such systems. It's bad enough that systems with extendable active sensors and weapons can't simply expose those while remaining defiladed, as a result of a maddening game engine limitation, but to compound the damage by cutting active sensor range seems both unfounded and unfair. If the argument is survival vs NATO FW air, then I think it's an argument highly porous at best. In my estimation, after that it comes down to the Army/Marines side of things. There I do believe the strong potential for localization and targeting exists, but what combat activity doesn't entail risk? I believe it should be up to the owning player to decide how best to use such systems as the BRM-3K. The Russians are no dummies when it comes to operating emitters in the face of counterfire, and you can presume they weigh the cost/benefit ratio very closely.  But does it make any sense to spend a boatload of money on radar, for a full-on modern war, that can detect, recognize and target items of combat interest: armor, trucks, personnel--at considerable ranges and not plan to use it in combat? Additionally, while this radar issue may not matter much on a small map, it's possible to envision situations where it could be a big deal indeed. How about the steppe? As the radar horizon calculator shows, if we set the BSR antenna height as 1 meter (awfully low since it's on top of a vehicle) and the searched for target at 3 meters tall, the BSR has a radar horizon of just over 11 km, more than enough to fully utilize its design range. Here's the radar horizon calculator HORCALC. I invite anyone interested to run the numbers. I sincerely believe BFC needs to revisit this matter ASAP, possibly fixing it in the first patch, if possible.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

gunnersman,

 

If you like HORCALC, not to be confused with a horcrux, a real first in a CM discussion, then you'll love this. Dad was a degreed electrical and electronics engineer. And branched out from there in a 40 year career. Before it was all said and done, he'd done radar, radar propagation studies, ECM, ECCM, FLIR, lasers, EOCM, EOSM, EOCCM, LLTV and goodness knows what else, to include work for the Agency. Dad was a charter member of the Old Crows, the radar countermeasures society.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BRM-3k seems like the ultimate manifestation of the Recon Vehicle Question that's been around since at least CMSF.  Its something very cool, unique, and with very capable abilities in reality that for the purposes of the game are inherently stunted.

 

Anyone know the manner in which the 1RL-133-1 radar displays and records contacts?  Is it capable of type-classifying them etc?  Would a treeline more or less block it totally, like it would IR-observation devices?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would emplore BFC to consider the addition of mast mounted sensors and radar capabilities in a patch.

 

And dont even start on "you dont know how hard it is to implement things ingame". I have done plenty of developing in my time thanks. Im sure if the devs put the cards on the table and the facts about why such things dont work instead of just saying "it doesnt work", somebody could figure out a workable solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...