Originally Posted by TakeIt
Reply With QuoteThe nose of the aircraft contains the ground scanning radar. The mast mounted radar is for scanning for aerial targets and operates in a longer wavelength.What makes you say there's a radar there?
I disagree. The Kamov models were superior and would have been a better choice with unlimited money and a clean slate. The Mil offer was cheaper even if it was less capable it is significantly superior to what it is replacing and should do a good job. It also has components that can be retrofitted to existing Hind Helos for domestic use and export which makes it even cheaper regarding logistics and mass production reducing component costs.If russian army had decided for one helicopter instead of funding two completely different but equal capabilities projects, there would be already a serious number of them in service instead of remaining in prototype stage for over 20 years.
The real performance advantage of the Kamov aircraft will not be realised till both aircraft are fully fitted with air to air and air to ground radar that works. Till then the Mi-28 is significantly better in the field.
Everything has to work together to make a whole system, but when you are still developing some components it makes sense to test them on their own so you can isolate problems quicker. Once it works properly then you just have integration problems instead of teething problems and integration problems all at once...What's a point of making more prototypes deprived of essential equipment.
Yakhont is the export model that Brahmos is based on. Onyx is the Russian version with no limits on it except if it is land launched.I thought that the Yakhont was to have a 400+km or so range, and the Brahmos 300km to fit within the MTCR, or is that the Oniks?
Might be crap as an ABM system but having an aircraft that can kill at the speed of light aerial targets 400km distant might be interesting.Correct me if I am wrong, but is that the ABL flying test bed the Soviet Union was using in the 80s? Why in the world would Russia want to resurrect that project, the entire concept imo is retarded and the Americans were right to scrap their 2nd test-bed and put the brakes on the project.
Hard to tell. Large number of Russian companies design UAVs. Very few actually in service.Does anyone have any information as to what Russia will use as a combat UAV (hunter drone)?
Click on link below picture...WOW
Impressive!
Some information about that UAV ?
I didn't ignore it. I just don't know. A lot of other people in same boat as me on this. Don't take it personally if you don't get a reply.But when I asked the question last, people just ignored it.
Out to 1,000m or so the standard anti tank weapon was not the AT-3 ATGM due to guidance minimum range issues. At ranges beyond 1,000m using the AT-3 the BMP-1 must be stationary to fire its missile for a long period till the missile hit. The US/UK equivelent didn't stop as they were the M113/FV 432 respectively and didn't have any anti tank capability. The Replacement Bradley and Warrior changed the situation because the Bradley has an ATGM, but it has to remain stationary during missile launches. The Warrior does not have an anti tank missile. Stopping to fire a 73mm round was not such a penalty it appears even today.I am pretty sure they have stabilizers, they are just not good enough for sustained cross country fire while moving.
When it was introduced the 73mm round would penetrate an M60s front hull cleanly. Can't say the same now though.
It was Soviet procedure not to put fuel there in combat. The other users of the vehicle did not adopt the same procedures.But having said that, if fuel is not usually put in the rear tanks in action, why is this always quoted as a 'grave weakness' of the BMP?
Closer to 1,200m and rather more like an SPG-9 round than an RPG round, though the latter is not the worst weapon to be compared to as it is rather effective.It's basically RPG-7 fired rocket with lightly modified propulsion to increase range, effective up to 500m, yepee.
It was designed to stop the standard NATO APC round of the time, which was 20mm AP. It could stop it in the frontal arc when fired from about 500m or so. The sides were supposed to stop HMG rounds but not armour piercing HMG rounds.What are your thoughts on BMP-1 armor in practice?
Western thoughts on the BMP tend to be rather negative because they prefer armour to amphibious capability. Used properly it should be effective enough.
). As for what it represents..well, it's pretty clear from the picture that it's the Finnish white guard/anti-communist beating the Russian (communist) bear with a club.
.
