ikalugin

True, it does go above 45 degrees in elevation though (the entire 100mm+30mm+7.62mm package is elevated together, 30mm is used for AA). The better comparison would be with a light howziter I guess.

NLOS dead space as in what? It could be used for direct fire so there is no dead area immediately around it.

The videos indeed are many in number, and the notion that Russia supplies separatist forces is not disputed. What those videos do not prove is that regular Russian Armed Forces participate directly in fighting.

An interesting point to note - Bahcha-U (turret on BMD4M and availiable for BMP3 upgrades) not only has modern FCS related equipment, it has a very curious capability. Firing from a NLOS position at a target 7km, with it's parameters fed via the network centric command system (data is input into FCS automatically via the datalink and command equipment in the vehicle). This means that a unit armed with those vehicles has a very substantial organic light artillery capability right there and then.

Rogatka = T72B2. T72BM and T72BA often refer to the post 1987 T72B versions, which received K5 ERA and other upgrades (T72 models identification/classification is a very lengthy and confusing topic). p.s. http://periscope2.ru/2015/01/19/8298/ this article does discuss the military part after the historical/political one. Note that the author suggest a more classical encirclement move, including a strike on Rostov-Mariople axis, with later northern turn.

I see. Are you talking about the US usage of thermobarics in the last paragraph?

That point (the rear aspect stealth) is obvious due to how the round nozle vs rectangular nozle works. My point about the energy reserves (both for the radar and the missiles) of the S300V series systems that allows engagement of F22A/F35A targets on normal combat ranges even if impossibly good RCS reduction levels are assumed still stands.

Again, nothing conclusive as to that it is a Russian regular unit and not separatists using the equipment provided by Russia. Or for example Russian unit transferring arms to a separatist unit. Some points on it: - cammo patern they claim to be Russia exclusive is not clearly seen. - there are no T72BMs, only T72Bs of various vintages.

Panzer, I think you misunderstand my post on the Russian AT weapons. What happens is that: - we have standard, issued per OOB AT weapons - those are reloadable RPGs (RPG7) and ATGMs. ATGMs are concentrated on higher levels to simplify training (and to allow the higher commander to concentrate his AT firepower where required) but at the same time could be pushed down. Note that the thermobaric rounds could be used out of standard issue RPG7s. - we have non standard single use RPGs/thermobaric grenade launchers, which are mass issued when and where required. Ie if we expect a tank attack - we would give everyone their disposable RPGs. If the unit is expected to attack an infantry position - they would be issued with single use thermobarics in addition to their RPG7s. - specialist units with all sorts of thermobarics.

At the same time it is as consistent with simple delivery of vehicles, as there is no actual specific geolocation, much less independently verified geolocation. The video appears to be filmed from the car registrator. Also, regulational green is the standard colour for essentially all Soviet/post Soviet vehicles. Thus this video does not actually prove direct Russian participation in fighting, it only provides strong (but not legally conclusive) evidence that the rebels indeed did receive equipment from Russia.

I think Avtonomia (Javelin equivalent) has been in development since like 1990s: http://nevskii-bastion.ru/autonomy/ There is only very sporadic information about it - for example the direct shot range (and no range figures for to attack profiles for example).

The closer example would be Russian speaking air softers from Baltic states, as Ukraine is largely Russian speaking (2 main languages - Russian and Ukrainian plus the intermediate mix of those - surzhik).

Says "Ukrainian rebels", not "Russian Armed Forces".

And interesting plane to look into (not in 2017 time line probably, but in a longer haul) is the T50, it is better suited for SEAD than the JSF, if only because it could carry 4 ARM (Kh58UShK) rounds internally (plus 2 self defence AAMs internally).

F35 has poor rear stealth, thus if it turns back it would be easier to engage (considering know interceptions for the S300V4 occurring at 400km range I think there would be sufficient energy reserve for those shots to happen). F22A is not affected as much, but it still suffers from the stealth performance decrease. And the "stealth" aircraft (or any aircraft) were not used against a modern air defence system for a long, long time.

Taliban is not known to field ballistic protection en mass, especially not of the BZK type. Using BZK sets, such as Permchanka-M series would essentially negate the usefulness of the XM/M25 weapon. We have ongoing shift from PKM to PKP (just nitpicking thats all). Javelin, well we have a similar missile system in the works I think. Speaking of unique capabilities - what Russian infantry does get is a lot of thermobaric weapons of various types. Even though those are standard issue only to the specialist troops (the reusable launchers), they are often issued as supplementary weapons (the single use launchers, same way as single use RPGs)

About Ukrainians - the issue is that their quality is very mixed. While they did receive some new vehicles (such as BTR4s) they are essentially limited to those at the moment, as the production is not ongoing (mainly funding problems). BTR4s themselves suffer from various problems (namely hull cracks). The quality of infantry depends greatly as to who the sponsor is, as that is where they get their optics and comms. In general I think it is safe to assume that the Armed Forces would be using mostly old Soviet equipment, while the various volonteer units may have advanced civilian items.

On the vehicles - BMP3M with the ERA plating and Bahcha series turret should be at an advantage over the M2A3 Bradley, as they have comparable protection (ERA, protection vs 30-25mm rounds in safe angles of manuever), they have similar level of optics (Bahcha has 2 independent combined panoramic scopes for gunner and commander), with BMP having firepower (7km ranged 100mm airburst round) and mobility (amphib capability is retained) advantage but with the disadvantage in terms of ergonomics (it is not as convenient to dismount from the BMP3). At the same time Russia would most likely field the new generation of vehicles such as Kurganets and Bumerang (Armata too), however as the external looks are still classified those are not going to be in the game during the release and probably the initial DLCs/packs.

On the topic of Russian infantry/US infantry/Ukrainian infantry. Declaimer - the future is unclear, and I am aware of only 50k sets of Ratnik being procured this year. I (possibly faulty) assume that Ratnik would be standard issue here to the Russian infantry line troops invading Ukraine in 2017. With Ratnik the true advantage US infantry would have would probably in terms of inidvidual google type optics and the M25 grenade launchers, as individual troops receive their encrypted radios/datalinks and platoon commanders receive their long range comms and command sets. While the Javelin is a cool capability, I am not sure if it is a significant one for the mechanised infantry, as mechanised infantry gets support from their vehicles (which have high end ATGMs) and/or field long range ATGMs when dismounted. In any case I think we would probably receive that capability with Ratnik, as there is a missile system in development/testing at the moment which appear to be developed on the hand held ATGM lines.

A Russian company sells those scopes for civilian users: http://inwetech.ru/media/IWT%20LF640%20MK%202 Which are of alleged Russian manufacture, though I don't know for sure.

Ratnik is actually a set of equipment developed under the Ratnik research topic. It includes amongst other things: - clothing, we have seen elements of a Ratnik set in Crimea (the jackets I think). - ballistic protection, this is the generic helmet/ballistic protection vest. - comm equipment. Comm equipment includes secure radios/datalinks and the Uragan sat-nav system receiver. An Inforgraphic: Only around 50k sets are expected to be delivered this year, hence the question rises as to if it would be in mass service by 2017. A thermal or a combined thermal/NV system is to be expected.

The R was not really mass spread and had semi experimental status I think.

Also, an amusing article: http://periscope2.ru/2015/01/19/8298/

Ok, on the important points: - Gazetchik does not emulate the main lobe of the radar (as it is narrow and is not used by the ESM systems of ARM seekers for that matter). Gazetchik emulates the side lobes (which are used by ESM systems and ARM seekers) and for those it has adequate power output. - SAR type sensors (from long range ISR assets such as JSTARS) would be jammed from stand of range, simply because ground based jammer has a power availability advantage. You don't need to jam the IR sensor systems, as those imply that you are already in range of terminal defences. - Those saturation attack weapons have low speed, arriving after the vehicle has finished it's engagement and left, if shot from stand of ranges. Otherwise the shooters come into the IADS range themselves. Morever those weapons do not provide a valid saturation capability against the current (Panzir in variants) and future (Morphey) CPGM systems. - the -40 decibel/m2 figure is an empty number, as it was given to us in one article without the conditions it applies for. The (reflective) canopy alone would give you a larger average RCS in x-band/front aspect, in my opinion the -40 decibel/m2 figure refers to some sort of local minimum, not average values. Normal RCS value S300V2 (outdated version from 1987) was guaranteed to intercept is 0.01m2 class, which should be around where the frontal averages for the F22A are, the side aspect would be even better ofcourse (massive vertical fins). However, should we assume that the RCS of the F22A does have an average x-band value of -40 decibel/m2, then it would still be engaged from 150km or so due to the energy potential of available radars.

Interesting line of thought, or one could trust the sources he sees without verifying those, for example like with the AK100 usage myth. Note - AK100 is actually a 100mm ship borne cannon, Ukrainian media was showing those rifles off, while in reality they were fairly regular AK74Ms (for example in case of Strelkov), which in turn is a 1991 version of the rifle. Add in a preconception, exposure to conspiracy theories (such as the perceived influence of various actually fringe groups on the unfolding events), selective sourcing and you would get a well made, consistent, well descriptive, yet ultimately false version. Hence why I would prefer a rational, objective discussion, where every point is clearly referenced and sources, as memory alone could play dirty tricks on us.