Reply With QuoteIf they can make it better and cheaper and much more efficient then this is an opportunity to do so. The retired SS-18s have been very useful for launching satellites commercially and have a very good reliability record. Building a replacement with the same good performance that can also be "retired" in the same way or can even be designed as a fully dual use system that can be used for either role would be beneficial. It means Force sizes can be increased rapidly if needed, but more importantly any excess ICBM capacity can be used launching satellites instead of just being scrapped.Hopefully there shouldnt be too many problems. All they really need to do is make a Russian version of the SS-18, replacing Ukrainian made components. No need to do anything revolutionary.
Sorry, I can't read or speak Russian.I'm not sure, but it was mentioned that they developed a new highly durable plastic.
“We succeeded in creating the plastic, which exists and works at a temperature of 200 degrees and functions at temperatures to 600 degrees”
well you can read it here
From the comment about resisting high temperatures however I am begining to think they might actually mean the body of the shell to reduce overall shell weight as in penetrator rounds. For example a full bore penetrator round will generally have a light alloy outer case with a very hard core that penetrates the target. This gets rid of the problems with Sabot components that might get sucked into intakes of aircraft, or injure nearby friendly troops. It also improves accuracy because there is no inconsistent sabot seperation. It does mean higher drag on the way to the target so more velocity is lost but as I said accuracy is generally better and aircraft can fire it without problems.
It might also be used in rounds that don't rely on shell fragmentation for effect like the cargo round for the GSh-301 (like AHEAD but without the ability to set the timed fuse) or for blast HE rounds.
Let you in on a secret... the US wasn't really the first to try "shock and awe". During the withdrawl of Soviet forces from Afghanistan many western "experts" actually thought they were escalating rather than withdrawing. The British lost a whole army withdrawing from afghanistan in the past... the Soviets didn't want to repeat all of Britains mistakes there.On top of the photo it says "The bomb FAB-3000 that was used by the crews of the 840th regiment in flights to Afghanistan in February 1989" (The Soviet troops pulled out on the 15th of February).
The idea of trailers is not really new, the Soviet tanks often towed small trailers with extra ammo and items in afghanistan. Vehicles like the DT-10P and DT-30P actually benefit from the hydraulic link between the two vehicles for mobility. As an example with being able to use the connection to manouver the other component such an articulated amphibious vehicle can actually get out of water onto floating ice and rescue itself. In deep snow or mud in most situations I would expect such a set up would also allow self recovery from sticky situations too.Seems like another strange project -
In practical terms it might also be dictated by the fact that the entire turret of the vehicle with the main gun might be filled to capacity with an auto loader system that precludes the crew number being more than 2 or three inside the vehicle (ie in the hull). As such another vehicle would make sense to carry extra equipment and crew. The question becomes is there benefits in making that a seperate support vehicle or an attached vehicle as in this case.
At the rate of introduction of new vehicles perhaps it is for both?It seems Berezhok turret is in serial production for russian army (they are green). Anyone know if they are intended for modernized BMP-2s or for new BTR-90 vehicles? What is elevation for Kornet launchers?
Elevation of Kornet would probably not be much greater than about 30 degrees. As the missile is guided after launch it shouldn't matter too much however.
Originally Posted by Baron Harkonnen
