Jump to content

Russian army under equipped?


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, John Kettler said:

This article is most informative and has a great deal to say about the origins of the current Syria mess as well.

I found this book had a lot to say on that subject:

https://www.amazon.com/Line-Sand-Anglo-French-Struggle-1914-1948-ebook/dp/B005LW5K2A/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1478850096&sr=1-1&keywords=a+line+in+the+sand

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A little humor....ūüėé

I think the Abrams in CMBS is somewhat more godly than in reality. I also think the technical aspects of armored vehicles matters less in real wars than in war games. In an actual war between NATO and

Western tanks were designed to hold the Fulda. They're heavier, bigger and designed with ergonomics in mind. They were to hold out as long as they could, focusing on the anti-vehicle role. Disable as

Posted Images

The below article "Outnumbered, Outranged, Outgunned: How Russia Defeats NATO" is apparently based on a lot of RAND studies and extensive wargaming. It is most disturbing reading for the US and NATO. What I don't know, though, having seen none of the material on which the piece was based, whether it's at all valid. I will say that it makes some important points about Russian AD and its numerous impacts, BLUFOR CAS, combat effectiveness reduction occasioned by US renouncement of cluster munitions with higher than 1% dud rate, absence of MLRS from Europe, etc.

http://warontherocks.com/2016/04/outnumbered-outranged-and-outgunned-how-russia-defeats-nato/

Note: A quick peek at the link to the part regarding two years of wargaming suggests this may be/be related to the RAND study which has been Steve's bane for some time now. The referenced study at that particular link is a free download.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to post
Share on other sites

John, I do believe that that is the very same RAND study.  Not only that, but this article appears to have been written when that study caused a big brouhaha on these forums!  It does bring some interesting points, especially regarding air defense, though I think that has also been discussed quite a bit on these forums.  One other thing comes to mind at the end of this article about the nuclear threat.  "A war with Russia would be fraught with escalatory potential from the moment the first shot was fired; and generations born outside the shadow of nuclear Armageddon would suddenly be reintroduced to fears thought long dead and buried."  Maybe I've been reading too much Herman Kahn, but this line of thinking always seems dangerous to me. The nuclear threat is never over, and always paints every international decision, regardless of whether the states are acting friendly to each other or not.  Acting like it's suddenly a problem again is like being surprised that the sky is blue.

Finally, another point on cluster munitions.  I'm sure we're all hoping to see these show up in Combat Mission sometime! :D  I really do think they're a game changer from reports out of Ukraine, and hearkening back to the original topic one of the bigger things missing from the Russian arsenal in-game.

(As a side note, I hate that this blog that deals with lots of written numbers uses Georgia of all fonts. MI tanks indeed... <_<)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 19/10/2016 at 10:18 AM, hattori said:

Okay, thanks -- I guess I am personally not very observant, and don't look up too often.  I would likely be the sap that eats it on the first day of battle.

I also do a ton of work with cameras on moving objects, vehicle mounted, usually going 40 - 100 kmh.  What is the difficulty you guys face with drones and getting a good image at speed -- the vibrations in the drone?  The drone can't handle the weight of both a camera and good optical stabilization?  Or is it purely the distance and the size of lens you can mount?  Weight is definitely not an issue for me, so I don't have a good handle on what tiny lightweight cameras are capable of.  

I personally have thought that we would see a massive increase in drone usage in the future, of all sizes, but perhaps I am totally overestimating their capabilities.

 

There's a parallax effect that can kick in, and there are certainly weight limits on camera/lenses. I haven't seen proper,  large scale quadcopters,  capable of carrying a full, decked out Tier A Feature camera rig.  They are always simpler rigs and it's a simple shot that's called for. Drones have a very specific look/feel that is instantly recognizable to anyone in the biz, which is driven by their physical limitations. Moving at speed can affect wireless linkage between the quad and the Focus Puller, which easily ruins a shot. 

This is why drones (specifically quadcopters)  haven't overtake/replaced standard camera mounts (dollies/cranes/sliders). 

The stable static image is great for military spotting, but aesthetically severely limited for film/tv. 

They are also considered inherently dangerous -  when they go up,  we watch them like the unreliable bastard they are; if seen a quad stutter and drop meters directly over a crowd of extras. That was enough for the PM and 1st AD to call NO on a retake. We don't like having high speed spinning blades near unprotected,  half asleep Background Performers. Drones are mechanical accidents waiting to happen, 20'-100' up in the air.

And,  seeing as there's only so much you can lift, that limits what equipment you can use,  which limits what kind of shot you can do.

People get soooooooooooooo excited about the idea of a drone shot,  but literally - if you've seen one,  you've seen them all.

Meh. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, sburke said:

This is pretty embarrassing for the Kunetsov's first debut. Its a pretty big deal losing two planes as well because there aren't that many on there in the first place.

Edit: Its also important to note that the majority of the SU-33's are now flying FROM Syria instead of off the carrier.

Edited by Raptorx7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sources said the wire snapped. This is really dangerous because often you've slowed down to the point where you can no longer hit the blowers and power out ("Bolter"), leaving about half a second to eject. Here's a recent maximum pucker factor incident from an E-2. Thing is this happens like once a year in US Navy aviation, which has a whole lot more sorties than a single Russian carrier. The Russians gambled by sending an antiquated and ill-prepared beast out for propaganda purposes. It's time for it to return to port.

Here's the same type of plane (Flanker-D) doing the same thing in 2005.

Edited by Codename Duchess
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Codename Duchess said:

Sources said the wire snapped. This is really dangerous because often you've slowed down to the point where you can no longer hit the blowers and power out ("Bolter"), leaving about half a second to eject. Here's a recent maximum pucker factor incident from an E-2. Thing is this happens like once a year in US Navy aviation, which has a whole lot more sorties than a single Russian carrier. The Russians gambled by sending an antiquated and ill-prepared beast out for propaganda purposes. It's time for it to return to port.

Here's the same type of plane (Flanker-D) doing the same thing in 2005.

Yep, the Kuznetsov needs intense overhauls. Not only was it a PR move but it was also to get some carrier experience. Funny how just a disfunction of an arrest gear can screw everything up even if everything else runs fine. Looks to me the Kuznetsov doesn't have any spares made for the arresting gear. Those damn 90s really did hurt the Navy and the effects are even seen today. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Yep, the Kuznetsov needs intense overhauls. Not only was it a PR move but it was also to get some carrier experience. Funny how just a disfunction of an arrest gear can screw everything up even if everything else runs fine. Looks to me the Kuznetsov doesn't have any spares made for the arresting gear. Those damn 90s really did hurt the Navy and the effects are even seen today. 

In your opinion, would Russian public opinion regarding deployment of Kuznetsov (rather it's continued presence) have changed if either or both of those pilots died?

Also, it appears that the majority of it's airwing has been flying from land bases in Syria even before this most recent accident.

Edited by Codename Duchess
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

Yeah baby.  That's one where you clean up the gear and bang on the throttle quadrants all in one move.

That's pretty much what happened, a lot of crew coordination.  Here's the interview with them afterwards.  They all got medals for it, rightfully so.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/navy-pilots-recount-avoiding-crash-off-aircraft-carrier/

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:

In your opinion, would Russian public opinion regarding deployment of Kuznetsov (rather it's continued presence) have changed if either or both of those pilots died?

Also, it appears that the majority of it's airwing has been flying from land bases in Syria even before this most recent accident.

Well people would be sad for the pilots and more so than people, the Kuznetsov would be in a lot of trouble more so than they already are. A whole naval operation delayed just over arresting gear? If pilots would have died it would have been bad. But it would not change Russian opinion on the Kuznetsov deployment. I just want that thing to work properly and then once the operations are over I'd like it to go through extensive overhauls and modernizations, because it really isn't cutting right now. 

Also other things this operation highlights are the need for a CATOBAR on the carrier, the SU-33s weren't taking off with heavy loads in the Air to Ground role possibly because of STOBAR limitations. Maybe that's why at one point the SU-33s were launched from the airbase in Syria. However after the MIG-29K crashed there were still sorties flying out the Kuznetsov, I guess the gear wore out again probably lack of spares IMO. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

VladimirTarasov,

I've been a student of aircraft carriers and carrier warfare since I was a child, and was directly involved in FAD (Fleet Air Defense) analyses of the AIM-54C Phoenix missile during my time as a Threat Analyst, but somehow, until your post, I never read or heard of CATOBAR and STOBAR. These terms were never used in my 11+ years doing military analyses, and I had to go look them up after encountering what you wrote.  As a bonus, I found an excellent video of the the Marine's F-35 (whose design requirements drove the entire F-35 design) conducting STOVL ops as part of the workup for carrier landing qualification.
 

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to post
Share on other sites

OSV-96 12.7 mm Heavy Sniper Rifle

And on the I never heard of it end of things, here's the aptly named Bereg (Beach). When I first saw the thumbnail in the sidebar, my first thought was that maybe this was the affordable wheeled version of the Msta-S. Boy, was I wrong! While it's not directly relevant to CMBS (until the, ahem, Sevastapol module), I find the video of considerable interest. Has all sorts of goodies, including new to me footage of the Caspian Sea Monster (what we called it in the western defense community because of where it was imaged, its size and nastiness) Ekranoplan being armed with SS-N-22/SUNBURN/Moskit  supersonic sea skimming cruise missiles. That's at 11:33. The Russians have a very distinctive style in designing land warfare weaponry, and I like the looks of Bereg.  Title translates as

Mobile protection of maritime borders. MKBA "Beach"

 

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to post
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
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...