ikalugin
-
Posts
773 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by ikalugin
-
-
2 hours ago, John Kettler said:
ikalugin,
Thanks for that. Please post anything else you can on this, as am keenly interested. Found this. Losing 40,000 rounds worth of 122 and 152 powder charges, plus maybe the shells as well, will put a dent in both military capabilities and the defense budget. As noted earlier, that rocket which landed on the road now shows conclusively there was more in that depot than just powder charges w/wo shells.
John KettlerThis may sound like a lot, but this is a fairly small ammo dump by ammo dump standards and in a way has solved that specific ammo disposal problem faster than intended.
-
Yea, one dude got a gamma spectrometer and did not detect tell tale signs of reactor leak (Iodine etc).
-
59 minutes ago, Erwin said:
Maybe that's the new Turkish missiles getting delivery delays...
That site was dealing with tube artillery ammo from what I recall.
-
The bridge is fairly high (after all it needs to allow the navigation of Russian ships through the straits), the issue is with various Kiev Loyalist side actors discussing how it is either desirable to blow it up or how they are capable of doing so or how they plan to do it. Which lead to all the security measures around it.
We have completed the rail line part of it as well.
Bal and other AShM systems were in Crimea before then. -
5 hours ago, John Kettler said:
in late November of 2018, the Russians first fired upon, then seized by FSB Spec Ops, three Ukrainian vessels in the Kerch Straits. Because I was swept up in the non-stop whirlwind of a large family vacation (people driving or flying in from all over the country) and watched no TV at all, nor was on the Internet, I never knew this happened. Nor was I aware that war could easily have broken out and that Porochenko did declare martial law, but took no military action against Russia's naked Act of War. Probably just as well, given the extremely adverse Correlation of Forces. Believe it or not, I first learned something was supposedly going on in Ukraine involving a Russian attack in a TV show where an American is video dating a Ukrainian beauty who tells him she can't come meet him in Mexico because "the Russians have invaded" and "everything's shut down." The article has a picture of a bunch of Ukrainian tanks deployed near the Sea of Azov, the port of Mariupol, Ukrainian entrenchments and a war-damaged building.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/11/26/on-the-brink-of-major-war-ukraine-grapples-with-russian-attack/Regards,
John Kettler
Because the status of the waters is disputed and the presense of important infrastructure in the straits (the bridge) Russia set up the procedure to pass through the straits that included early announcement of intent, standing in que for the pilots, receiving pilots and so on. This is how Ukrainian ships (including combat boats) passed through the place.
However Poroshenko apparently had some problems at home and thus ordered a provocation, as martial law (if he managed to pull it off) would have delayed the elections and so on.
https://russiamil.wordpress.com/2019/01/07/the-kerch-strait-skirmish-a-law-of-the-sea-perspective/
May be of interest as the western expert view. -
1 hour ago, HUSKER2142 said:
I wonder whose engine costs KB "Saturn" or "Klimov"?
In general, it has long been necessary to equip our Orion UAVs with an analogue of Hellfire missile.Most likely Saturn/Salyut AL31 derivative of some sort.
It seems that we really do not like Hellfire idea. UCAVs are getting guided munitions though it seems, maybe LMUR.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boUaHTI6JxE
Okhotnik-B UCAV flight -
The Soviet tradition was to do unit or formation wide rotations, ie in WW2.
So you first spend your formation, then send it into the rear for it to recover while a fresh formation takes it's place.
-
7 minutes ago, MikeyD said:
I saw a comment in an article a couple years ago that Ukrainian 'rebels' were fielding a larger operational tank fleet than the whole German army.
Yes, but they are still sitting in positional warfare and small unit tactical fighting.
-
On 7/20/2019 at 7:55 PM, MikeyD said:
Back circa 2000 Donald Rumsfeld was calling it 'transformational warfare', using technology as a force multiplier. It didn't always work as advertised (sometimes it didn't work at all). But often it was quite useful. The US no longer has a monopoly on 'transformational warfare'. When the Pentagon made a study of 'lessons learned' from the Ukraine conflict they reached some worrying conclusions about their own preparedness. Its been a long time since they've gone toe-to-toe with a technologically sophisticated first world opponent.
The irony is that the war in Ukraine is not exactly representative of large scale mechanized warfare either.
-
Artist's impression yes. Basically the bulk of T14 "turret" is thin sheet cover over the armoured gun mount and various unprotected stuff ie scopes, stow bins etc.
-
-
Regarding recoil and shots - in that specific clip they were firing from a stop at close range and a single round, there is no need for the stabiliser to be on. Yet you somehow use that as basis for the plywood theory (which silly due to welded construction). Recoil management uses both the stabiliser and chassis. The high line of fire was selected intentionally for tactical resons.
About comparisons - what you are looking for is armoured volume and frontal cross section T14 has little of either in the armoured gun mount.
https://rg.ru/2019/06/28/ves-tanka-i-bmp-na-platforme-armata-rassekretili-na-armii-2019.html
You may also check your mass sources.
-
-
Ahh, the "plywood Armatas" myth.
So the video of a T14 firing in 2015 (4 years ago) is used as evidence that the new LRIP (under the larger and later contract) Armata is a plywood mock up. And nothing about say nature of the suspention system is mentioned, or the increased muzzle energy of the gun, or the higher mounting of the gun or any other number of factors. As to the T14 firing with a stabiliser on, how many videos of T14 firing exist?
So you seriously want to use that as your argument?
-
I wish I was married
-
Tactical exercise.
-
15 minutes ago, Sublime said:
I love the fact that I *know* I can years on still come to the Black Sea thread and the RA underequipped thread will be alive. Another couple of years and itll last longer than the Peng threads!
Feel free to contribute.
-
1 hour ago, IMHO said:
Well seems we have dissenting opinion on this
AFAIK it's still a 1'200hp engine and "peacetime mode" is actually normal mode of engine operations at which it passes lifetime requirements. Nizhny Tagil has been struggling with overcoming 1'200 limit for decades. They don't have technological know-how of modern engine building when one tunes engine operation by playing with ECU. So to formally meet 1'500hp criterion they bolted on a powerful turbocharger. But it reduces MTBF beyond comprehension.
It's not me who was expecting - it's Russian MoD. The plan was for 2'300 Armatas by 2020
The initial price was 17M USD apiece
And that's excluding R&D costs that were under separate contracts. By the beginning of 2019 there were about 80 Armatas produced. Now the plan is to have 132 by 2022. Where do you see the source of massive economies of scale? I'd say even more Armata in its current state is not even designed for mass production - e.g. Russian industry cannot produce 2A82 en masse. Have a look at the production plants participating in Armata programs - they are still in 60s in terms of technology. Armata/Su-57 is not about producing a plane or a tank - they are about building whole new industries. And that's impossible without established positions on the international civilian market. To build 2A82 you need to have high quality steel production plus steel processing plants. These plants cannot subsist producing just a handful of 2A82 tubes per year. So no, the idea of Russia producing next generation weapons en mass was a mere delusion with a 650Bn USD price tag.
PS Another example, Japan (not without US involvement
) stopped supplying Toray fibers to Russia. Here comes the end to the current design of Su-57 and Avangard hypersonic. I doubt we will ever be able to catch up with Toray technological level but even establishing production of inferior fibers would take years if not a decade. And this production cannot exist solely for Avangard and Su-57 - it's simply economically unfeasible. Toray supplies its fibers to the whole world, when do you think Russia will start having a significant share on this market? Just as a background Toray generates 9Bn USD in revenue from fibers.
Considering engines are neither designed or made in Tagil I doubt they have any problems, but it does make me wonder what non problems they may have, considering how they discuss 2200hp special boost (форсаж) mode. Maybe you are mistaking the normal practice of boosting from mod to mod (форсирование) for the destructive special boost mode? But surely you must have reliable and authoritive sources?
That was in 2010, before those programs hit (expected) delays. The allocated money was spent on procurement elsewhere, the programs were pushed left.
Those costs (citation needed) and early LRIP contracts for test companies do not reflect the bulk production costs. Also, in addition to your misperception of our IC the small contracts should not be both seen as a consequence of Russian inability to produce Armatas and at the same time the cause for it, if they do not come from the lack of funding but rather from programs creeping left. Furthermore those order numbers look bizarre and need sources.
-
18 minutes ago, IMHO said:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/12/russia-having-trouble-building-hypersonic-weapon-putin-hyped.html
You have a remarkable knowledge of Russian fibers industry!
They are misreporting. Note how they go with "few" and then name 60 HGVs as a figure, which is about all we would deploy in next 10 years. Fibers (for mil uses) are not seen as an issue. The same thing happened with "no more Su57S, PAK-FA cancelled" and "no more follow up Borei of any kind, they are cut" etc.
p.s. 60 Avanguards is:
- 20 Avanguards on 20 (or fewer, the scale of desired deployment on this booster is a topic for discussions) UR-100-N-UTTh boosters taken out of storage, with some of them (3-10) going operational this year, this is for experimental services of HGVs in general.
- 36 Avanguards on 12 Sarmat ICBM (3 per each ICBM), which did not even finish testing yet.
Considering the standard developmental timelines for Sarmat and how it is likely that we would deploy them with a variety of payloads (light monoblocks, MIRVs/MaRVs with parralel deployment etc) I do not see how this alleged production issue is going to impact deployment. -
1 hour ago, IMHO said:
The initial requirement and UVZ promise was to install a 1'500-'1600hp class engine as in modern MTU pieces. In the end they produced an engine that's theoretically capable of reaching 1'500 but at this power output it becomes dead metal in no time. So they limited the engine to 1'200hp - same level as in upgraded T90.
Correct me if I'm wrong but there was not a single Armata delivered to MoD in 2018. And remind me how much an Armata costs?
It's actually cheaper to buy top notch modifications of Leo2 than to produce Armatas.
There are three systemic problem of the Russian military industrial complex. Firstly it lacks scientific base to produce truly next generation weapons except for a very few areas (air defense). Russia is a hopeless **** hole for any sensible scientist willing to develop a world class career. In most technological areas that require mass production Russia is 15-25 years behind the West. Secondly Russian military industrial complex was and is financed too lavishly. They are not used to living on budget, they don't know how to optimize production costs and they see no reason to learn how. And thirdly Russian military industrial complex produce only toys for Russian MoD and it does not have the base of a vastly bigger civilian market to develop and test new technologies unlike MTU, GE, Pratt and Whitney etc.
Initial plan of Russian MoD was to quickly move the backbone of the army to the new platforms - Su-57, Armata etc. But now they drastically reduced the purchases of "next generation" platforms and the reason is they are both too expensive and they do not offer drastically improved capabilities when compared to upgraded platforms of previous generation - T-90, Su-30/Su-35 etc.
You seem misinformed, 1200hp is the peacetime mode of operation to significantly increase engine lifetime (beyond requirements), 1500hp is the standard mode with the required lifetime, 2200hp is the boosted mode. After the initial LRIP ("parade") batch (of 10 each) for testing there was a period of re-design based on the recomendations from that testing. Now there is an outstanding order for the IOC BDE set, which would be building vehicles with the design accounting for the recomendations. Then we expect another phase of re-design based on that unit level testing before final variant for mass adoption. So why were you expecting follow up Armatas in 2018 if this wasn't standard procurement practice?
The price would change with economies of scale and design maturity, same as with all other programs for new equipment.
Well that is an amusing extension of the Soviet era bias and is does not actually represent reality properly. Especially the lavishly funded MiC (in 1990s-2000s when it was living at best from Export sales?), made me chuckle.
The issue is not the cost or inability to make them in general, the issue is that those new generation programs were delayed the same way such programs were delayed elsewhere, ie the JSF/F35 program in the US. Due to those delays the procurement money allocated was spent on other purchases, the money was there but it would have been stupid to sit on it.
Now that those programs are more mature there are outstanding hard signed contracts for IOC batches and those are now being produced. -
Staying on topic would be nice, but political discussion already bloomed in the other thread.
-
7 hours ago, IMHO said:
I was plain wrong - you are right. Rakushka is BMD and I meant they made a (properly) floating BMP-3.
Where's the new battleworthy and economically feasible tank platform? Where's the new engine designed by UVZ meeting MTBF goals? May be a new transmission all designed by UVZ?
BMP3 was amphib (and paradropable for that matter - this is where the heritage of amphib paradropable tank shows and where the rear engine placement helps) before, same as our other APCs and IFVs, and was already sold to marines in Indonesia. Though I guess there are always differences in capability between various vehicles.
It would be there when the program is complete. Compare and contrast with how the previous leader of the generation was born - the T64. First they built an IOC set, then took their time working the kinks out, then got to mass deployment (of T64As). They are currently in the process of building the IOC brigade sized set.
So the new X engine by Chelyabinsk, new transmission do not exist? Huh. I guess they are using a variant of T34 engine and transmission then (sarcasm).7 hours ago, IMHO said:Yes, they are simply inadequate to the task. You know, sometimes the reason is plain and simple. They are capable of a limited upgrade to existing platforms but they cannot design a decent new one. Just comes down to the management, design know-how etc.
And there we disagree, it is like accusing LM that they cant develop a new fighter in principle because their program went through delays.
-
I tried to keep this thread alive. O well.
Russian army under equipped?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Not enough tanks to fill all the new units.