ikalugin
-
Posts
773 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by ikalugin
-
-
2 hours ago, Oleg said:
Russian APS is pure fantasy. Even prototype of T-90AM that was actually built for parades but never even considered to be in service does not have and never even tested this fantasy APS.
While ukrainian APS is real and even exported to other countries, like Turkey. Ukrainian APS should have much much lower rarity ingame, and allowed to be mounted not just to Oplots but also to BTR-4s.
In service T72B3 with Arena.
How many APS equiped BTR-4s does Ukraine operate?
-
3 hours ago, Oleg said:
Russia in this game is uber over equipped. IRL they dont have t-90am in service, they dont have bmp-2m and and bmp-3m in service, they dont have brm-3k in service. Almost every shiny tech that russia has in this game irl is just fantasy or just prototypes. And those that is actually in service made overpowered in game. For example btr-82a irl has much worse optics than btr-4, but in game its reversed. Airburst munitions for btr-82a is not produced by russia, it was ordered from europe, and after sanctions its not possible anymore. Kornet atgm is much much older and inferior system than Scif, but in game they are equal or even kornet stronger. And so on.
How many game relevant Oplots are in Ukrainian service?
-
Which T-90?
-
Atleast it is not the "we would be making 120 Oplots per year in 2017" story.
Ukraine had 477/490 and the like for decades, recalling the Soviet and then Russian efforts to develop a new generation of MBTs, the current situation with new tank manufacturing in Ukraine (ie the Thai contract situation), I have my doubts about the plausibility of a new tank being developed and mass produced, even under the most favourable scenarios.But if you have something concrete on the new developments - that would be nice to see.
-
Apparently this would be separate of military aid.
-
100 T64BV m2017 would not be enough to arm the brigades, so the brigades have mixed equipment by that logic.
-
4 hours ago, DerKommissar said:
In which regard? Surely the D30 is more powerful than a 120mm mortar. If I remember correctly, the 2s1 also carries more ammo.
Nona&co have more potent ammo options, which are broadly comparable with 152mm classics.
That is one of it's main selling points so to speak.
This is achieved by having thinner walls in shells that use lower ballistics.
-
To be honest 120mm gun-mortars can be better, ie Nona and it's derivatives.
-
It is in Ukrainian, so Haiduk could provide a more accurate translation.
So from top to down, nominal today USD (for a rough feel relevant to foreighn procurement in USD) for 2019 and 2020:
- National security and defense council of ukraine 7350000, 1160000000
- Ukrainian MoD 424000000, 4240000000
-- Command and control 27200000, 27200000,
-- Day to day activities, training, medical, veteran affairs 3440000000, 3470000000
-- procurement, modernisation and repair of equipment 702000000, 702000000
-- Housing 34700000, 34400000
-- Scrapping of ammo and arms, maintenance of warehouses 63000000, 63000000
- Special transport service 33100000, 38600000
- Military intelligence service 118000000, 118000000
- Ministry of internal affairs 3440000000, 3470000000
-- National guard 512000000, 514000000
-- EMRCOM 570000000, 573000000
-- Border guards 447000000, 449000000
-- Police 1220000000, 122000000
- Internal/counter intelligence service 399000000, 400000000
- External intelligence service 83700000, 83700000
- Secure communications and informational security service 121000000, 121000000
- VIP security service 55500000, 55500000
Note that Hrivna does appear undervalued and that wages in Ukraine are low, so the purchasing power of those funds in Ukraine may be higher than indicated by their nominal USD value.
-
1 hour ago, Haiduk said:
No, this is US military aid program. But Ukraine can pay for next parties if new missiles will not be in the list of this program again
That would work, though I wonder if there are hidden costs, ie with the now common practice of selling something for free but forcing the buyer to go with overpriced maintenance or whatever.
-
The promo clip is ok I guess.
It is interesting to see that the "terrorists" have an Army sized formation, supported by air defenses and air power amongst other things, and which penetrated 150km into the depth of the defender.
-
ATGMs were never the Ukrainian Armed Forces weak point in my opinion.
If Ukraine would have to pay for those imported weapons then there may be a problem, because they would be priced in USDs and not Hrivnas while the Ministry for Defense budget seems to stay around the same in nominal Hrivna as it was in 2019, ~102,5bn of the overall MoD budget, out of which ~17bn or ~0,7bn nominal USD seem to be planned for procurement, modernisation and repair of arms.
While 700m USD could allow such procurement, this does seem to account for everything, so I would assume that buying domestic ATGMs may be the more cost effective option. And ofcourse I assume the best case scenario, where the funding is fully allocated and used efficiently.
-
Well, Center-2019 is quite interesting, with regimental scale VDV paradrop.
-
55 minutes ago, Haiduk said:
I know, but western terminology hasn't a word "divizion" for definition of artillery&missile unit, consisting of several batteries. It names "battalion".
Yes, but because not all complexes are divizions (for example look at the S300V that Ukraine operates - there a system is called a divizion) calling complexes battalions is a bad practice and is misleading the reader in my opinion.
Same applies to Russia etc ofc, which is why I tend to try to use clear cut terminology.
-
On 8/26/2019 at 12:30 PM, Haiduk said:
Military budget for 2018 was too fat ), but pre-election factor also could take place.
New small arms in 2014 could be only of "Fort" state factory. "Fort" during pre-war time produced weapon only for police and for civil market. So, it production capabiliies too limited. I remember, in 2014 they produced for army about 500 Fort-223 rifles, mostly for airmobile, special forces and National Guard.
The line has a word "SAM COMPLEXES", so this is not MANPADs 100%. Complex=battalion, though in can be also single vehciles Osa and Strela-10 of ground forces.
Battalion is a misleading translation because ЗРК=/=ЗРДН.
And yesm sinlge Osa units would qualify too.
-
New model for the Okhotnik-B UCAV:
-
-
I think it would be fair to say that at this point the Ukrainain AFV production industry is both zombified via internal problems (ie corruption) and has it's lifeblood (workforce) drained (ie by Russian and Polish companies).
But it would be nice to see agregate confirmed delivery figures on domestic orders over the past 5 years of new AFVs and for deep modernisation. While 100 upgraded T64BVs may sound impressive, they should be compared against either the opposing force or the VSU's own losses (79-175 lost?).
-
2 hours ago, IMHO said:
Chine does not need Russian technology much. They'll catch up all by themselves sooner rather than than later in those few areas where they're behind Russia.
Sanctions hit Russian economy pretty hard. However much state propaganda may put a brave face on a sorry business the reality is the economic impact was very significant. And it'll have a lasting effect for many years to come even if sanctions are lifted miraculously.
Nothing has changed on the ground. Russian elite still belong more to Monaco, Switzerland and London. They're fervent patriots in words but not in deeds. The most anecdotal story was with the former head of Russian Railroad monopoly - biggest employer, biggest recipient of state subsidies and one of the... errr... least transparent
companies in Russia. So this former head is an ex-KGB, Putin's personal friend of decades etc. When he was finally pushed off his seat for gross incompetence he transferred his personal wealth into a "charity" fund called "The Center for the Protection of Russian Heritage". Suffice to say the fund is Swiss-based and incorporated in the canton of Zug - least taxes, as much confidentiality as possible for bank operations and shareholder privacy.
Nope, sanctions did really worked, they severely limited budget allocations to the military. Actually the Russian affair in Syria was initially thought of as an attempt to connect with US not to defy them. The idea was that Russia can be helpful to fundamental US interests in combating Islamic extremism.
Sanctions were the least important factor in the recent economic downturn.
I guess you know more about what is happening in Russian elites than the Russian elites themselves, heh.
How did sanctions limit budget allocations to the military? Spending has been fairly stable in the past ~5 years.
-
22 hours ago, IMHO said:
What do you mean "covered by security provisions"?
Seems like we're speaking different languages. The Treaty is the ban on nuclear tests PLUS the verification mechanism to prove the signatories do no conduct banned test covertly. So yes, you're right testing nuclear rocket engine is not prohibited but the Treaty contains the verification mechanism in the form of monitoring stations to collect data to ensure this one was a rocket engine test and not a A-bomb's. Monitoring stations network surely provide information of intelligence value but that's EXACTLY why they exist. The Treaty does not ban the collection of intelligence information - on the contrary it facilitates it. Like Open Skies treaty exists to provides a legal framework to collect intelligence data not to ban it.
Means that you can restrict the data provided etc.
The verification measures were intentionally limited during the treaty write up due to the security concerns regarding other activities, this is why those provisions are in the treaty.
Now you can argue that this weakens the verification regime, but this is how it was intended and writen.
-
26 minutes ago, IMHO said:
No, you misunderstand the Treaty. It exists not to look after the nuclear tests (they are banned) but to ensure seismic/nuclear events ARE NOT OVER-CRITICAL NUCLEAR TESTS. So monitoring stations network exists exactly to gather seismic and radionuclide data and to use this information to prove that such an event is not a banned test event.
PS I'd rather say it's in a kind of limbo. It's not ratified but all the parties took voluntary obligations to observe it. And US's egocentric MAGA-esque behavior can ruin this one as well. US wants to ban sub-critical hydronuclear tests as well. They are allowed as of now.
Well this is where the test of logic comes into the game. For example if a US spacecraft with a prototype reactor has it's booster explode on the launch pad - would this be covered by security provisions?
In my (and it seems fairly common legally speaking) reading of the treaty it will have the right to do so, in fact this is the kind of situation those provisions were writen into the treaty according to some of the authors I talked to - so the stations could not be used to collect intelligence data.
-
37 minutes ago, IMHO said:
The problem is this situation is EXACTLY what is covered by the Treaty. Explosion, release of radioactive materials - the monitoring stations network was exactly created to verify events like this do not represent over-critical nuclear tests. So invoking this article is kinda lame IMO.
The treaty is there to cover tests of nuclear weapons. Unless you have a reasonable belief that this indeed was a nuclear weapon test (and I have not see any serious allegations to that end) this falls under those articles, as this was an event involving nuclear power plant of some sort, not a nuclear weapon explosion/test.
The test of logic here would be: if a terrorist drives an aircraft into a nuclear power plant (on say a nuclear submarine) - would this be covered by the CTBT, as the event both produces an explosion and radioactive fallout?Plus, because US (and a bunch of other countries) did not ratify the treaty - it is not yet in force.
-
11 hours ago, IMHO said:
Can you quote the exact language of the treaty?
Sure thing. Source:
https://www.ctbto.org/fileadmin/content/treaty/treatytext.tt.htmlGeneral provisions 7-8-9:
7. Each State Party shall have the right to take measures to protect sensitive installations and to prevent disclosure of confidential information and data not related to this Treaty.
8. Moreover, all necessary measures shall be taken to protect the confidentiality of any information related to civil and military activities and facilities obtained during verification activities.
9. Subject to paragraph 8, information obtained by the Organization through the verification regime established by this Treaty shall be made available to all States Parties in accordance with the relevant provisions of this Treaty and the Protocol.
I guess citing them as articles may have been misleading/incorrect.
-
Yea, seems like Russia went with articles 7-8-9 of the CTBT to preclude the use of those stations by foreighn powers for intelligence data collection.
Ukrainian tank numbers?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
By this logic T14 is more real as Oplot, as more of them were built. Here is CAST reporting on two T90M contracts:
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3315325.html