Russian Armed Forces News & Discussion thread

[artjomh]

What features of the Yakhont would make it a downgraded monkey model of the Oniks?

Hard to say, since the complete feature list of Oniks is classified.

But one obvious thing is range. Oniks almost certainly has longer legs than Yakhont's/Brahmos' 300 km.

Probably guidance accuracy/IFF systems have also been removed/downgraded, but I can't vouch for this for the reasons stated above.

[Andy_UA]

Others, like Dzahga for instance.

Loobaev rifles. Look it up. Also, you may have missed going through the Russian photos thread. They pump out newer optics as well.

So, if I may ask, what is your background?

As for myself in terms of shooting, it is mainly for hunting or for just target shooting on my weekends.

Talk is cheap when the story is good, right?

seph your overreacting, Indiana is right on this one..

1) Lobaev is no more. His bussiness in Russia closed and moved to UAE. And I think those aren't russian sights on his rifles. The new promising company is Orsis.

2) Russian sights are still qualitywise and pricewise not competitive and we talk about high-end military stuff. The newest sights are developed for carbines, but sniper stuff is too pricey and instable qualitatively for military to be purchasing them en masse.

Only recently russia developed NV sets comparable to western ones(I posted them )in the pic thread...

As for why the bought that model it is a MOD procurement logic. they bought it cause they were getting them for some time, so for commonality. And they never actually buy whats THE BEST out there, even among Russian products. But what can be bought in some sizeable ammount, for ex. for x SpN brigades or for x Armies etc.

P.S. Austin weak zones are more or less correct however the size of the T-84M intentionally smaller. And the roof of both tanks is not equally regarded as weakened zone.

[Indiana Jones]

In general, the problem is not that there is no expertise for building and maintaing precision small arms and optics in Russia. The prominence and successes of Soviet/Russian equipment and marksmen in various international competition shooting venues, especially smallbore, gives ample evidence to the contrary. The problem however is that this basis is very narrow, and largely anchored in the military field. Some of the reasons for that (beyond the general stagnation ie. in the nineties) lie in the extremely restrictive firearms ownership legislature in Russia, such as the requirement to solely own smoothbores for 5 years before being allowed access to rifled weapons in hunting, etc, which precludes the formation of a broad culture of shooting and gun ownership. The same goes for civilian production of fireams. To the extent of my knowledge, ie. Lobaev was actually the first and only(?) civilian to obtain a license for private firearms manufacture in post-Soviet Russia - and had to abandon his business rather promptly. Compare that to US or even several European countries, and it will be plain why Russia finds itself on the backfoot at present, especially in terms of optics.
Accompanying this of course is the price structure and markets. A relatively plain Remington 700 version with a bit of "tactical" hoopla, as an entry rifle in precision shooting, that goes for something like 700 USD in the US will set you back several thousand USD in Russian auctions. That makes several niche pursuits such as benchrest shooting which have provided important impulses to the industry almost totally unaffordable for somebody not in the highest of income brackets.

From you? Figured as much.

Hm. I don't recall we had a conversation before. Anyways, I pondered whether to respond in some depth but upon looking up a bit of your posting history I guess that would be a waste of my time. Yours too, as you appear to be a rather intransigent fellow trying hard to live up to your unflattering user title.

[sepheronx]

seph your overreacting, Indiana is right on this one..

1) Lobaev is no more. His bussiness in Russia closed and moved to UAE. And I think those aren't russian sights on his rifles. The new promising company is Orsis.

His business is gone, but there was replacement one mentioned in photos (and this) thread. Might be an Izmash rifle

2) Russian sights are still qualitywise and pricewise not competitive and we talk about high-end military stuff. The newest sights are developed for carbines, but sniper stuff is too pricey and instable qualitatively for military to be purchasing them en masse.

Only recently russia developed NV sets comparable to western ones(I posted them )in the pic thread...

Second part is very true about NV, but PSO-1, PSOP scopes I have used myself and never had any issues, but it is indeed more or less designed for rifles with a max range of 800M. Anything over that, then yes, maybe quality isn't best. I cannot say the same for the other scopes as I have never used them myself, but gathered from some others who have purchased from Kalinka optics, has no complaints (other than the price). Quality of newer optics is there, but the price range are ridiculous, and better off just purchasing equivalent foreign for cheaper (Accuracy international as an example). If the scopes are produced en mass then price will go down, but quality? I don't know. But saying the optics themselves are all crap or not competitive isn't right either.

[badger11]

Question for Russian member: What do you guys think about election that just happened? Is it fair or not? There seems to be quite a lot of protesting going on right now around Russia about the election.
Thank you.

[sepheronx]

Question for Russian member: What do you guys think about election that just happened? Is it fair or not? There seems to be quite a lot of protesting going on right now around Russia about the election.
Thank you.

This is the armed forces discussion thread.

[Dingor]

Question for Russian member: What do you guys think about election that just happened? Is it fair or not? There seems to be quite a lot of protesting going on right now around Russia about the election.
Thank you.

Wrong thread, try this one:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...Duma-Elections

[Rubick]

Hard to say, since the complete feature list of Oniks is classified.

But one obvious thing is range. Oniks almost certainly has longer legs than Yakhont's/Brahmos' 300 km.

Probably guidance accuracy/IFF systems have also been removed/downgraded, but I can't vouch for this for the reasons stated above.

So what is supposed estimated range ? 400~500 km ?

[Damian90]

Because none of those tanks was designed originally for that kind of warfare.

No tank is designed, it can be only adapted.

They are not less vulnerable from the sides than russian tanks discussed here, the fact that they need such up-armor kits explains it clearly.

And T-90MS or T-84M shows that neither they are enough protected if ERA was placed also on sides.

Of course You can manipulate further, but people reading our posts will make judge.

Judging protection by thichness is worthless, especially if you even do not know it´s composition. And apparent thickness may not be actual, as it can be composed of... spaced layers, which is a not so effective filler.

In conflicts that "thick" protection did not performed very well against monoblock RPG warheads.

I actually know more than You about these composite armors, of course I can't say details, many of them are still mystery for me, but You are very far from proper description of composite inserts in western tanks.

And especially talking about effectiveness of these inserts without any hard data, even from battle damage is just hilarious.

To say greater protection is an ignorant guess because of several reasons.

Of course, a composite armor + addon ERA or addon composite armor for example will offer less protection than ~70-80mm CHA or RHA + ERA.

Of course this doesen't mean that one solution is overall better than another, both are just different, only someone biased will say that something is overall better and something is overall worser.

Not just western armies. Weight is a universal problem and applies to everyone. Another matter is fight scenario, but that is a specific case from which no such conclusions can be made, as "it does not matter".

Of course weight is significant, this is why west just take different solution and philosophy in form of modular addon armors. There is no way You can make one universal effective in all situations solution, but real modularity and capability to adapt in every situation by adding different solutions to overcome problems is good enough.

No, regular T-90 upgrade, for urban scenario, same as western kits, add on elements, no preparation needed.

It is only proposal, nothing in reality.

If you refer to T-90MS like upgrade, current tanks would need some modification to be equipped with Relikt modules, but after that, it is an easily replaceable integral element. But that is in another level.

You see, the same situation as with western tanks. The side turret composite armor + addon ERA or addon composite armor will offer higher protection than CHA or RHA ~70-80mm thick + ERA, but this doesen't mean that one solution is better than the other as I said, they are just different to meet different demands and capabilitis.

So maybe You will stop with "my tank is better than yours" arguments and see good and bad sides of both designs.

Ammunition stored in autoloader within hull is much less exposed and better protected.

Less exposed, maybe better protected, but will not increase crew survivability if not completely isolated and with blow off panels.

In addition, if you need additional rounds you can have a detachable turret bustle storage as was realised in T-90MS for example, not exposed from safe manouvering angles, and in case of hit, will not cause catastrofic results as in some western tanks. Only a reduced amount of ammunition will be destroyed, so you continue in battle condition.

Ah but You can't use that ammo in detachable box for ammunition, You can't reload it from vehicle inside. As for western tanks I spend the last few months to make some research. The M1's that were completely burnt off and heavy damaged were victims of IED's and non extuinguished fuel fire, it is not uncommon with IED's. However dedicated anti tank weapons actually not made heavy damage, even ammunition cook off mostly occured only in one magazine while other ones stayed intact (yes, in M1 also bustle magazine is in fact two separated magazines). Everything depends on circumstances and what happened after attack.

I evena ctually compared Soviet made tanks and M1's attacked by dedicated (means no IED's or EFP's) anti tank weapons, even if vehicle was hit and disabled, M1's stayed mostly intact besides hit area, this also means rather powerfull ATGM warheads (AGM-114), while for example T-72B's used by Georgia hit in weakly protected areas mostly ended as completely destroyed hull without a turret.

It does not means that one is definetly better than another, and I will repeat it as many times as possible. It actually shows that wrong conclusions were made initially without deeper research in to subject, for M1's the ultimate threat were no dedicated anti tank weapons but IED's and EFP's as I said above.

However the other conflicts proved also that without complete ammunition isolation, the probability of catastrophic kill will greatly increase.

It is however immposible to effectively isolate ammunition in hull in significant numbers of rounds. So the turret bustle is a more optimal way to do this, You are however right that this solution expose ammunition much more.

This means that just classic design with manned turret have completely exhausted all further modernisation increasing capabilitis like survivability armor protection with optimal weight.

This is why as soon as possible tank designers should put all crew in hull isolated armored capsule behind thick frontal armor, and use unmanned turret with autoloader and ammunition isolated from the rest of tank in it's own compartment also equipped with blow off panels to increase effectiveness of ammo isolation.

Such design have future.

EOT.

[artjomh]

So what is supposed estimated range ? 400~500 km ?

I would expect something in that range, yes.

[Forestier]

What features of the Yakhont would make it a downgraded monkey model of the Oniks?

“A downgraded monkey model” are too strong words in this particular case.
Basicly, the export models differ from the “domestic” models only by writings and documentation in the foreign languages instead of Russian. All other differences are optional, from zero to very essential. For anti-ship missiles the essential differences are usually limited to software. The domestic models can have secret program features realizing specific evasive maneuvers, or sometimes even special jammers, which are based on intimate knowledge of characteristics and vulnerable traits of the particular air defence systems of proposed adversaries. Naturally, these specific features can be effective only until the adversary doesn’t know about their introduction, they are strictly classified and can not be disclosed to unreliable foreign customers.

P.S. And, of course, in case of Oniks/Yakhont, just as all other similar cases, Russia is not restricted by the internationally accepted 300-km limitation on the range of exported missiles.

[pythp3]

No tank is designed, it can be only adapted.

A tank can be designed to meet certain characteristics.

And T-90MS or T-84M shows that neither they are enough protected if ERA was placed also on sides.

Of course You can manipulate further, but people reading our posts will make judge.

I said that Western tanks mentioned are not better protected than discussed T-90, arguments on their favour were not valid.

I never said that russian tanks were better, just not worse.

I actually know more than You about these composite armors, of course I can't say details, many of them are still mystery for me, but You are very far from proper description of composite inserts in western tanks.

And especially talking about effectiveness of these inserts without any hard data, even from battle damage is just hilarious.

Even you don´t know, so why argue? There is no base for discussion.

Of course, a composite armor + addon ERA or addon composite armor for example will offer less protection than ~70-80mm CHA or RHA + ERA.

Of course this doesen't mean that one solution is overall better than another, both are just different, only someone biased will say that something is overall better and something is overall worser.

That is pretty ambigious. Spaced layers of composite (non effective use of apparent "thickness") ?, what kind of ERA ?

As I said, such blanket statements are not reflected in real world.

Of course weight is significant, this is why west just take different solution and philosophy in form of modular addon armors. There is no way You can make one universal effective in all situations solution, but real modularity and capability to adapt in every situation by adding different solutions to overcome problems is good enough.

This is a broad statement. What different philosofy has the west applied? If you refer to add on armour to overcome unsuitability of western tanks in urban warfare, it is not any different from "eastern" one. Abrams can be equipped with armour kits the same as can a T-72 or T-90 to suit needs.

If you refer to T-90MS or Oplot, those are new designed tanks and their are on their own league on that aspect. Adress of urban environment vulnerability was implemented in their design phase.

These are not counterparts to western "adaptations", add on kits for current T-72, T-90 are, like I showed.

It is only proposal, nothing in reality.

It is for implementation in combat, the same as western kits, like Arat (TUSK) or whatever.

Less exposed, maybe better protected, but will not increase crew survivability if not completely isolated and with blow off panels.

This is a different discussion. Survivability, in the sense of tank protection, or after perforation effect on crew? Russian tanks with mentioned configuration were survivable in both terms, as proven in Chechnia.

Ah but You can't use that ammo in detachable box for ammunition, You can't reload it from vehicle inside.

It certainly varies on the doctrine. For that scenario a high amount of ammunition may not be needed. In Chechnia conflict tanks with only autoloader load after expendance, were replaced by others. Such combat presence for tank may be reduced.

With a detachable ammo box you have the option to load additional rounds after retiring to safer position, and then continue your presence, but as said, that may not be relevant. Such configuration just opens your possibilities.

As for western tanks I spend the last few months to make some research. The M1's that were completely burnt off and heavy damaged were victims of IED's and non extuinguished fuel fire, it is not uncommon with IED's. However dedicated anti tank weapons actually not made heavy damage, even ammunition cook off mostly occured only in one magazine while other ones stayed intact (yes, in M1 also bustle magazine is in fact two separated magazines). Everything depends on circumstances and what happened after attack.

I evena ctually compared Soviet made tanks and M1's attacked by dedicated (means no IED's or EFP's) anti tank weapons, even if vehicle was hit and disabled, M1's stayed mostly intact besides hit area, this also means rather powerfull ATGM warheads (AGM-114), while for example T-72B's used by Georgia hit in weakly protected areas mostly ended as completely destroyed hull without a turret.

That pretty much says nothing. Without details (burn could took place on abandoned tank, etc).

Even so, your "comparison" with Georgian T-72 says much... from you.

It is however immposible to effectively isolate ammunition in hull in significant numbers of rounds. So the turret bustle is a more optimal way to do this, You are however right that this solution expose ammunition much more.

You again use your "statements". Can it be concluded, that consequences of a perforation for eg T-72 with only autoloader ammunition, are worse, than for a tank with turret bustle? no, atleast definitively not. Sure there is less ammo (but need?) and that can be solved with an adittional detachable box as was realised.

Turret bustle is far from optimal, even relatively speaking.

This means that just classic design with manned turret have completely exhausted all further modernisation increasing capabilitis like survivability armor protection with optimal weight.

This is why as soon as possible tank designers should put all crew in hull isolated armored capsule behind thick frontal armor, and use unmanned turret with autoloader and ammunition isolated from the rest of tank in it's own compartment also equipped with blow off panels to increase effectiveness of ammo isolation.

Such design have future.

That is sure the way, but current design philosophy of "eastern" tanks (autoloader, 3 man crew, manned turret) still suits modern times, you can see from new T-90/84 developements.

[GunshipDemocracy]

I would expect something in that range, yes.

still warhead of Oniks is significantly smaller -> 750kg vs 300kg. So 1:1 exchange ratio doesn't seem to be beneficial.

[Damian90]

A tank can be designed to meet certain characteristics.

For assymetrhic conflict this would mean resignation from heavy frontal armor to not increase weight and use more balanced armor over all surfaces.

No tanks is designed that way, but all of them can be adapted.

I said that Western tanks mentioned are not better protected than discussed T-90, arguments on their favour were not valid.

Over front, yes, protection is comparabale, over sides it depends on configuration of western tank, T-90MS have side turret protection on similiar level as western MBT's in their basic configuration, maybe even slightly better, however when ERA is installed on western tanks a composite armor + that ERA will offer more protection. T-90MS will not have there composite armor due to turret basic configuration, it can be added as add on modules but then weight will also increase significantly.

I never said that russian tanks were better, just not worse.

And do I say otherwise?

Yes they are not worse, but comparable.

Even you don´t know, so why argue? There is no base for discussion.

I do not know completely, but I know more than You, let's say I have my sources very close to the subject.

That is pretty ambigious. Spaced layers of composite (non effective use of apparent "thickness") ?, what kind of ERA ?

It is effective use of thickness, because we have using it to put there at least several dozen layers of non energetic reactive armor that besides typical for such armors materials use also heavy metal alloy layers, different polymers with or in place of ceramics and some other materials.

ERA is ERA, T-90MS also do not have heavy ERA over turret sides, in most such configurations light ERA is used.

As I said, such blanket statements are not reflected in real world.

And what is reflected in real world?

This is a broad statement. What different philosofy has the west applied? If you refer to add on armour to overcome unsuitability of western tanks in urban warfare, it is not any different from "eastern" one. Abrams can be equipped with armour kits the same as can a T-72 or T-90 to suit needs.

If you refer to T-90MS or Oplot, those are new designed tanks and their are on their own league on that aspect. Adress of urban environment vulnerability was implemented in their design phase.

These are not counterparts to western "adaptations", add on kits for current T-72, T-90 are, like I showed.

You are wrong because it depends on interpretation. I can do just the same with M1 or Leopard 2 I replace standard light ballistic skirts for example and as standard put on them current addon armors in form of composite modules or ERA, I can do the same with turrets, take out current storage baskets, smoke dischargers etc. and reconfigure all of this in new standard.

It is for implementation in combat, the same as western kits, like Arat (TUSK) or whatever.

It is only proposal on drawing, nothing made in metal, when it will be made in metal then it will be same.

This is a different discussion. Survivability, in the sense of tank protection, or after perforation effect on crew? Russian tanks with mentioned configuration were survivable in both terms, as proven in Chechnia.

Same western tanks, and Russians their selfes prooved that it is better to not store ammunition with crew. Ammunition only in AL decreased probability of catastrophic kill but it is still not perfect solution.

It certainly varies on the doctrine. For that scenario a high amount of ammunition may not be needed. In Chechnia conflict tanks with only autoloader load after expendance, were replaced by others. Such combat presence for tank may be reduced.

With a detachable ammo box you have the option to load additional rounds after retiring to safer position, and then continue your presence, but as said, that may not be relevant. Such configuration just opens your possibilities.

It is not perfect solution, because You need to rotate tanks, it is not good solution in each tactical situation. Still it is better than earlier implementations with all ammo stored in AL and in crew compartment.

That pretty much says nothing. Without details (burn could took place on abandoned tank, etc).

Even so, your "comparison" with Georgian T-72 says much... from you.

You may not agree, but still facts are facts.

You again use your "statements". Can it be concluded, that consequences of a perforation for eg T-72 with only autoloader ammunition, are worse, than for a tank with turret bustle? no, atleast definitively not. Sure there is less ammo (but need?) and that can be solved with an adittional detachable box as was realised.

Turret bustle is far from optimal, even relatively speaking.

It is not definetly worser but still less safe, and less ammo can be a problem, especially if You have not tanks to rotate, and on the battlefield such situations happens.

I agree that turret bustle is not perfect solution, but it is still safer for crew in any case, of course there is possibility to place isolated ammo magazine in hull connected with autoloader but this can mean bigger (longer) hull.

That is sure the way, but current design philosophy of "eastern" tanks (autoloader, 3 man crew, manned turret) still suits modern times, you can see from new T-90/84 developements.

Both currently used "western" and "eastern" design philosophy is not perspective, it can be good now, but how long if we want definetly increase all important combat characteristics of armored vehicle (mobility (weight reduction), firepower, protection)? This applies not only to MBT's but also other AFV's like IFV's, SPH's etc.

[Rubick]

still warhead of Oniks is significantly smaller -> 750kg vs 300kg. So 1:1 exchange ratio doesn't seem to be beneficial.

Either Yakhont or Brahmos have not warhead of 750kg.