Nice pictures! Hmm yeah I see the problem indeed. But since the rumors say it's gonna be a Gorshkov-style refit, so goodbye granit and kinzhal, that should free up a bit of space. Add to that massive redecorating inside, I think the engineers will think of something.Originally Posted by _GDS_
I just want her to have modern electronics and engines that don't break down as often as they do nowadays. That by itself should make it actually deployable, as opposed to the on-off service she's doing now.
April 22, 2012
The envoy of the president of Russia in Uralsk the Federal district Evgeny Kuyvashev reported: "according To our information, will not be resumed supplies of BMP-3 in the army. Also the Ministry of defense has refused purchases of BMD-4M, although was the initiator of his development".
I get the not needing the BMP-3 for now with new vehicle projects underway and prototypes looming on the horizon but not buying BMD-4M's?!! It has a better chassis then the BMD-4 and is far more efficient in crew tasks, eliminating a crew member to make room for an additional soldier. By buying 4M's, you can phase out the older BMD-1's and 2's, giving the VDV a good increased tactical punching power in form of the main weapon systems of the 4M.
----
Anyways, I am quite confused about the R-74:
-Is the R-74 a further development of the R-73M, R-73M1 or the R-73M2?
-Does the R-74M have the same 75 degree off-bore seeker head range of the R-74E ("normal" R-73 has a 60 degree off-bore)?
-Does the "R-74-PD" exist in some form or another? On Ausairpower.net, Carlo Kopp posted an article talking about a possible R-74 modification in which you put the R-74 on top of the Rocketbooster of the R-27 to transform the R-74 into a BVR ranged missile with WVR missile performance. Here is the link to the page i am talking about (Scroll to about a quarter to a third the way down):
>>http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-200408-1.html
The decision surrounding the BMP's is most likely related to armata. Since that platform will be used to develop a true APC, capable of performing well on today's battlefields.
The main problem with the BMP family is the low protection against anti-tank equipment and mines, while the system itself is armed as a light tank.
So this decision is parallel to the lack of MOD interest in the T-90MS.
Not Armata, Kurganets. That is the codename of the medium tracked platform being developed right now. Armata is a heavy platform and is not suited for IFV role as it will not be amphibious.
Ah damn you're right indeed. I forgot.
But I though there would be some heavy stuff in the works a la the Namer or Achzarit?
Possibly, but it will be for special units, not as a general purpose IFV. The Russian army intends to keep a large scale amphibious capability as far as I know, so any heavy IFV will be for special units only.
That does make sense I guess, especially since a true heavy IFV will probably be too costly to introduce to the army in massive numbers.
Heavy stuff is not really in our doctrine. The Armata would probably be pushing it; with the increased weight I'm not sure how many bridges will be able to withstand it. Would this platform also have snorkeling equipment and be able to drive along the river bed if needed?
Maybe - this is due to a decrease in the role of "parachuting" and increase the role of "airmobile". That is quite different things, and makes it possible to equip the VDV more than heavy machinery.
But this - version...
Interesting, I just forund answer to that -
"Armata" will go under water?
- This is a mandatory requirement for a prospective tank. almost all the machines in this family will get Ability to overcome the water barrier on the bottom.
http://www.vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-875.htm
Im not sure it is really a workable solution for an APC to ford a river along the bottom. For Russian tanks the fording training is fairly rigorous, requires breathing apparatus for the crew, preparation, and strong psychology. It would be a pain to apply that for an APC carrying infantry.
After tank paves the way sure, why not?
Because you then need to provide much more extra training to all of the infantry. ie: how to use the gas/oxygen masks, how to perform an emergency underwater evacuation of the APC, etc. Is it feasible to train just normal (mostly conscript) infantry to do this?
I don't think it will be used as a general APC which would ever come into the situation to need to cross a river.
The Kurganets and Boomerang IFV's and APC's will not be fording, but swimming. Only the Armata, like any other tank chassis, will be fording because it can't swim. And the number of heavy tank-based APC's will probably be relatively small and restricted in role (only be available to be used by units when doing tasks which require them over a regular IFV) and geography (I doubt they'll be used somewhere where there is no real need for heavy infantry carriers).
What does them being conscripts have to do with anything? The tanks crews that learned that also were conscripts, so that's no difference. But as I said, I doubt that the heavy Armata-based APC will be fording anything*, and that it will even be the regular vehicle of any unit. I think it will, if it is even bought, only be a secondary vehicle to be used for special purposes, while all soldiers will be attached to regular APC's and IFV's generally.
*(they said "almost all", not "all", I think that excludes special vehicles like the APC and the artillery)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote