IMHO

Guess that must be Ukraine who creeps up on Moldovan land... Since there's no such thing as Russia-Moldova border...

R&D programs in unmanned military vehicles

Sinai: an VBIED tries to attack an Egyptian Army column, fails to explode and gets run over by a tank

Well for RUS MoD the prices may well be even above those for US-produced equipment. It's just you're a private customer - you may buy or pass on. RUS MoD has no such luxury Actually a general rule of the day is RUS MoD has to pay more for RUS-produced equipment than what Western-made equipment of the same class fetches on the international market

I mean most probably eBay stuff is quite authentic

@Sgt.Squarehead, and just to be precise - average flight time for an average RUS pilot is not particularly impressive as well. Significantly higher than UKR but still times less than US/UK practice. The exact figures were deemed confidential when they reduced the standards

That's 4-6 times less than US, France, UK if you take an average of about 200 hrs p.a. I'd rather deal with numbers - you may decide what it should mean in terms of experience.

Average annual flight time for UKR pilots for 2016 (2015 is given in parenthesis): Army Air Corps - 54:42 (98:13) Air Force – 46:23 (53:49) Naval Aviation – 34:58 (52:07)

It's sold quite openly in RUS including plate carrier and plates themselves. Complete body armour goes for about $350-400

5K Kcal is not that much. Half-marathon at descent tempo with no vertical gradient is 2K Kcal. Add this to baseline 2K Kcal and you're already at 4K Kcal. And that disregards low temperature / high humidity, mountainous terrain, additional gear weight and higher stress / faster metabolism / higher calorie consumption.

@John Kettler, what about Michelin stars to MREs?

I'm sure 100 of those will be produced sooner or later. So has it passed state trials by now? In your opinion have ALL systems planned for the vehicle complete FULL state trial before the vehicle will be called operational? PS Me anti-Russian... That's a new milestone of my forum life

1. Guns are the same. I don't know whether each is dual-fed or not. You should understand that BMPT has been a mere prototype developed with no requirements or tactical role from the Army. 2. It's interesting how a gradual realisation of how much a vaporware T-14/T-15 platform is at the moment gives birth to new projects.

It's neither a vaporware nor a full-scale acceptance. UVZ was able to peddle a test batch to the Army. The reasons are: a) commercial; concept testing for heavy IFV. Theoretical assessment hasn't changed an inch - dubious applicability of this particular piece for its price. Out of two guns only one can shoot at a time - i.e. BMPTD is no more than an up-armored BMP-2. AGS-30 with very limited traverse, range and accuracy yet requiring two full crew members looks like a strange choice (to be corrected in the next version).

Army surplus shops, obviously...

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/2Б23 If you scroll down to the greenish table - those are the mines. Lines under "Выстрелы семейства орудий «Нона»" are Nona's. Those below "Отечественные мины для 120-мм гладкоствольных миномётов" are "modern" standard ones. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/2С31#.D0.9F.D1.80.D0.B8.D0.BC.D0.B5.D0.BD.D1.8F.D0.B5.D0.BC.D1.8B.D0.B5_.D0.B2.D1.8B.D1.81.D1.82.D1.80.D0.B5.D0.BB.D1.8B Again scroll down to the greenish table. "Нарезные" are Vena's, "Гладкоствольные" are standard ones. Nona/Vena's HEFRAG weight is from 19.8kg for the Soviet mines to 26kg for the Russian ones. Soviet Nona mine contains 4.9kg of explosives. Standard smoothbore HEFRAG mines weigh about 16.1kg with 3.16 / 3.43 kg of explosives. I guess taking into account higher quality of modern steels Nona/Vena effectiveness must be even higher than the direct comparison of explosive weights.

Oldies. Explosive contents is the second column from the right. Main HEFRAGs are lines 2,3 and 5

We have enough concept graphics artists...

Looks like Yerevan. Armenia.

@Haiduk, you ought to put more trust into people checking sources before posting I have the report and that's exactly why I asked. The quote is not in the MB paper, not on the Web - just in CrowdStrike report and those guys have less than stellar reputation

Can you elaborate? My reasoning is: Technical feasibility: MW radars: current and next generation of APSes have short detection radius. That's done not to overload APS processing with the task of discriminating between too many objects flying over the battlefield. So the tank will know the direction milliseconds before the impact not immediately after launch as in CMBS. LWRs: LWRs do not give you exact direction to the launcher - again current CMBS behaviour does not fit. UV/IR rocket motor spectrum discrimination by FLIRs: everyone's researching like crazy land-warfare applications but not even a proof-of-concept prototype. Real combat reports: Syria/Yemen - we see exactly the opposite to what CMBS demonstrates. Israel/Gaza - in a couple of cases Trophy was "even able to pinpoint the direction", launchers were engaged by arty not the tank. Again MW - too late for CMBS model. Israel/Lebanon - MW/Trophy was sometimes reported to point the direction direction and launchers were engaged by tanks. But certainly these were very isolated cases (if any) - we know there were multiple and continuous launches to each IDF tank hit. No sign of immediate destruction of ATGM after first launch. So I wonder why? @Battlefront.com?

@Haiduk, no, 80% is from the annual IISS Military Balances. 15-20% is the quote from CrowdStrike's report and it attributes these words to an IISS analyst. I couldn't find any other source for the quote. CrowdStrike is far from being pro-Russian - it's one of the main PR force behind DNC hack story. But it has quite a controversial reputation in infosec circles for being PR-heavy and substance-light. I don't dispute 15-20% - just asking if you know another source. Then 15-20% would be quite valuable.

@kinophile, it's easier to leave out some isolated behaviour rather than build it in. We know tanks react to ATGMs but not RPGs - a selector. We know not all vehicles react to ATGMs - another selector. My belief (though based on ****ing nothing ) it's a design decision rather than a bug. I guess if this behaviour is removed cheap RUS/UKR long range ATGMs severely limit the use of US armour. The combat may basically break down into battle-taxiing grunts safely then conducting purely infantry-on-infantry fighting. Which is exactly what we see in Syria and Yemen. It'd be interesting to hear the authority, @Battlefront.com

@Haiduk, interesting as per the numbers. Do you have another source for the quote other than CrowdStrike? I couldn't find any and CrowdStrike is now right in the heat of PR battle of its own in the realm of infosec. InformNapalm carefully states they found no GPS payload in exploit code Bull****ting for the masses We disassembled an unloaded gun, the only energy storage we found was the return spring but it cannot conserve enough energy to propel a projectile to a high velocity so we conclude guns cannot shoot PS @Haiduk, let's move it into a separate thread. I'd be glad to join if you think it's worth continuing.

@Haiduk, we've gone though this before. Just to recap: IISS numbers state how many UKR had before and after but not the reason of decrease. UKR president gave official estimations for UKR equipment losses that match IISS figures. UKR MoD position is COMBAT losses were not so severe but MoD is careful not the dispute the end numbers and refuses to provide their own. A sudden and massive decommissioning of equipment might theoretically be a reason for such a decrease. But this decommissioning mysteriously coincides with the very heat of the battles. So strictly speaking one's free to believe in... whatever... May we close this line of discussion or at least move it to a separate thread? Within this very topic I honestly believe first two points in my post may be way more important.