Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Army & Security Forces

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures




Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence








Russian Army/Ground Forces Discussion and Updates

This is a discussion on Russian Army/Ground Forces Discussion and Updates within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Toblerone Well, the T-72B3M has integrated Relikt ERA so I assume it has better passive protection than ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 5 votes, 4.20 average.
Old March 26th, 2017   #466
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 14,920
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toblerone View Post
Well, the T-72B3M has integrated Relikt ERA so I assume it has better passive protection than the earlier T-72 models.

Or maybe you mean it lacks in active protection?
Apparently Relikt was not included, the turret tiles are still K-5. I'm not sure what the side-skirts are packaged with, but they're long overdue. The BMO-T has had a quality side-armor package for a while now. It's silly that it took this long to get it on front-line MBTs, especially when Russia is fighting regular wars.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 21st, 2017   #467
Senior Member
Lieutenant Colonel
Haavarla's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,191
Threads:
Feanor, What is the current status for Russia VDV forces.
Is there some new APC in their role?
Haavarla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 21st, 2017   #468
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 14,920
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haavarla View Post
Feanor, What is the current status for Russia VDV forces.
Is there some new APC in their role?
They've settled on the BMD-4M platform. The associated APC is the BTR-MDM Rakushka. Deliveries began last year and are continuing this year.

’”’ *оссии полƒ‡или последнŽŽ па€‚иŽ б€оне‚€анспо‚е€ов ‘Т*-œ”œ по ‚€е…ле‚немƒ кон‚€ак‚ƒ - bmpd

They're also working on air-droppable Tayfun 4X4 and Tigr 4X4 armored cars (the first an MRAP) with a 30mm autocannon module.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2017   #469
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 14,920
Threads:
The Uran series UGVs are making progress in terms of integrating them organically into Motor-Rifle units at the platoon level. Leaving aside the asinine level of commentary to the video, it's interesting that the UGVs are programmed to recognized faces, and to identify what weapons enemy infantrymen are holding to prioritize targets. There's also some discussion, though not very informative, about the AI vs the human operator in terms of effectiveness. It also appears to have variable weapon mounts for ATGM, MANPADS, and other rocket and missile types including the rocket-propelled flamethrowers used by Russian RKhBZ platoons. The control rig for the entire thing is man-portable by a single operator. Meaning an infantry platoon could potentially integrate 1-4 of these machines by simply including operators into the TO either as platoon level assets, or one per infantry squad.

The concept is ripe for combat testing, and Syria would be an ideal battle ground. Assuming these vehicles do well in trials in Russia, I wouldn't be surprised to see a pair of them supporting the SAA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWVNNE_n07I.

Сборка Уран-9 - Andrei-bt
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2017   #470
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Waylander's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
Posts: 4,922
Threads:
It's quite an interesting concept. Especially in a MOUT environment. I expect it to be sturdy enough to give the enemy some real headaches when one rounds a corner to put a RPG or Shmel into an enemy strongpoint. Apart from it not being impressed by suppression fire I also imagine it to be very hard to hit with an AT weapon before it engages it's target.

HMGs and AMRs might be the best answer to these little critters.
Waylander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2017   #471
Senior Member
Lieutenant Colonel
Haavarla's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,191
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
The Uran series UGVs are making progress in terms of integrating them organically into Motor-Rifle units at the platoon level. Leaving aside the asinine level of commentary to the video, it's interesting that the UGVs are programmed to recognized faces, and to identify what weapons enemy infantrymen are holding to prioritize targets. There's also some discussion, though not very informative, about the AI vs the human operator in terms of effectiveness. It also appears to have variable weapon mounts for ATGM, MANPADS, and other rocket and missile types including the rocket-propelled flamethrowers used by Russian RKhBZ platoons. The control rig for the entire thing is man-portable by a single operator. Meaning an infantry platoon could potentially integrate 1-4 of these machines by simply including operators into the TO either as platoon level assets, or one per infantry squad.

The concept is ripe for combat testing, and Syria would be an ideal battle ground. Assuming these vehicles do well in trials in Russia, I wouldn't be surprised to see a pair of them supporting the SAA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWVNNE_n07I.

Сбо€ка У€ан-9 - Andrei-bt
My thoughts exactly Feanor!
I'm surprised that we haven't seen a light or mediocre VDV deployment over the Eastern oilfields of Syria already, if none other reasons to secure them and take some cruicial intersection area, that way they halt the SDF/US advancement southwards.
And as you say, it would test the VDV newly forces.

https://syria.liveuamap.com/

Last edited by Haavarla; April 25th, 2017 at 07:01 AM.
Haavarla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2017   #472
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 14,920
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haavarla View Post
My thoughts exactly Feanor!
I'm surprised that we haven't seen a light or mediocre VDV deployment over the Eastern oilfields of Syria already, if none other reasons to secure them and take some cruicial intersection area, that way they halt the SDF/US advancement southwards.
And as you say, it would test the VDV newly forces.

https://syria.liveuamap.com/
No. Nothing like that. I'm talking about a team of 4 operators, a squad of marines for escort, and a trailer with a pair of the Uran-9 UGVs to test them and them specifically in combat conditions.

As for deploying ground forces, Russia prefers to send military police units.

EDIT: Some interesting materials, photos of the interiors of the T-15 and T-14.

http://btvt.info/6photos/armata/armata01.html
http://btvt.info/6photos/armata_bmp/armata_bmp01.html

And a photo of a hypothetical Tornado-G MLRS mounted on the same DT-30 that the Arctic variants of the Tor and Pantsyr were. I'm not sure if the 80th and 200th currently have MLRS but if they do, it would certainly improve their cross-country mobility.

http://btvt.info/6photos/rszo/rszo01.html

Last edited by Feanor; April 25th, 2017 at 01:21 PM.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2017   #473
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 14,920
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander View Post
It's quite an interesting concept. Especially in a MOUT environment. I expect it to be sturdy enough to give the enemy some real headaches when one rounds a corner to put a RPG or Shmel into an enemy strongpoint. Apart from it not being impressed by suppression fire I also imagine it to be very hard to hit with an AT weapon before it engages it's target.

HMGs and AMRs might be the best answer to these little critters.
I can't help but wonder about the protection level. HMGs would certainly destroy a lot of the exposed equipment on the outside. Even a medium machinegun could hit some of the exposed electro-optics and externally mounted missiles. This was one of the criticisms of the combat module on the BMPT, too exposed. Would these be used for dedicated MOUT ops? Right now Russia is playing with a concept of dedicated assault battalions for MOUT using heavy MRAPs, and having one of the 3 companies equipped with special heavy infantry armor. But there's no word on including UGVs in that force org. Meanwhile this testing is all about integrating them into a standard Motor-Rifle formation.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2017   #474
New Member
Private
Blue Jay's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 47
Threads:
While it currently looks like much of the turret and systems are exposed, wouldn't a modular/scalable protection package be reasonable to expect? Something like additional plating to be wrapped around the turret so that things aren't just bare? The difference between the BMP-T and BMPT-72 turret protection comes into mind.

Also, most AFVs do have a minimum of protection against at least HMG/AMR caliber rounds like the .50 cal or 14.5mm, so wouldn't this UGV to be the same at least around the hull, even if the optics and such aren't?

Or perhaps, those things would defeat the point of using UGVs in place of manned AFVs, due to the added cost and weight?
Blue Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2017   #475
Senior Member
Lieutenant Colonel
Haavarla's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,191
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Jay View Post
While it currently looks like much of the turret and systems are exposed, wouldn't a modular/scalable protection package be reasonable to expect? Something like additional plating to be wrapped around the turret so that things aren't just bare? The difference between the BMP-T and BMPT-72 turret protection comes into mind.

Also, most AFVs do have a minimum of protection against at least HMG/AMR caliber rounds like the .50 cal or 14.5mm, so wouldn't this UGV to be the same at least around the hull, even if the optics and such aren't?

Or perhaps, those things would defeat the point of using UGVs in place of manned AFVs, due to the added cost and weight?
Yes, cost, size and weight.
If you're required to give all mech-units the needed protection, then why not only build them on MBT chassis in the first place..

As it is, Mech-units in VDV's has to fit inside the Il-76. Thus such mech-units has limitions on weight and size. Of course they could mount up some Anti-TOW explosive plates, but agan, there is cost's involved.

APC, AFV, will always be easy pray for a modern RPG or TOW system.
Haavarla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2017   #476
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 14,920
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haavarla View Post
Yes, cost, size and weight.
If you're required to give all mech-units the needed protection, then why not only build them on MBT chassis in the first place..

As it is, Mech-units in VDV's has to fit inside the Il-76. Thus such mech-units has limitions on weight and size. Of course they could mount up some Anti-TOW explosive plates, but agan, there is cost's involved.

APC, AFV, will always be easy pray for a modern RPG or TOW system.
His comment was about the Uran-9 UGV. Not about the VDV line of light armor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Jay View Post
While it currently looks like much of the turret and systems are exposed, wouldn't a modular/scalable protection package be reasonable to expect? Something like additional plating to be wrapped around the turret so that things aren't just bare? The difference between the BMP-T and BMPT-72 turret protection comes into mind.

Also, most AFVs do have a minimum of protection against at least HMG/AMR caliber rounds like the .50 cal or 14.5mm, so wouldn't this UGV to be the same at least around the hull, even if the optics and such aren't?

Or perhaps, those things would defeat the point of using UGVs in place of manned AFVs, due to the added cost and weight?
I think that the Uran-9 needs to stand up to .50 cal. HMGs aren't that rare, and it would be a very expensive and vulnerable piece of equipment if it couldn't do that.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2017   #477
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
Ranger25's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Si Vis Pacem. Para Bellum
Posts: 536
Threads:
Armata looking like 2020 or beyond for IOC

Looks more and more like it won't be until at least 2020 until the T14 is deployed to its first filed unit
By 2020 the US Army will be co ducting final testing in the M1A2 SEP v4 which will is slated to include APS as well as other protection and lethality upgrades

Russia's ground forces have announced that the next-generation Uralvagonzavod T-14 Armata main battle tank (MBT) will enter into initial operational service with the 1st Guards Tank Regiment within the 2nd Guards Tamanskaya Motor Rifle Division, Izvestiya reported on 12 May. The report cautioned, however, that the new tanks would not enter service before 2020.


Russia announces delivery plan for first batch of Armata tanks | Jane's 360
________________
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Ranger25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2017   #478
Senior Member
Lieutenant Colonel
Haavarla's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,191
Threads:
Well that figures.. Russia recently announced their defense budget for 2018-2015 period.

In reality they have pushed back a lot of different programs across the different defense branches.

A good deal fewer Helios unit, several new Navy projects is pushed back, PakDa is pushed back.
As for T-14, i guess its still on Trials. But one would think its a priority program for the Army.

https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3299342

https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3298425
Haavarla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2017   #479
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
Ranger25's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Si Vis Pacem. Para Bellum
Posts: 536
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haavarla View Post
Well that figures.. Russia recently announced their defense budget for 2018-2015 period.

In reality they have pushed back a lot of different programs across the different defense branches.

A good deal fewer Helios unit, several new Navy projects is pushed back, PakDa is pushed back.
As for T-14, i guess its still on Trials. But one would think its a priority program for the Army.

https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3299342

https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3298425

Combination of low crude and continued economic sanctions due to their Crimean operation may be taking a toll.
________________
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Ranger25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2017   #480
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 14,920
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger25 View Post
Combination of low crude and continued economic sanctions due to their Crimean operation may be taking a toll.
That's certainly part of it but another part is that the MoD was told back in ~2012 that they shouldn't expect to keep getting buckets of money indefinitely and that the GPV-2020 will be a massive wave of funding followed by lower funding post 2020. They're cutting the budget a tad early because of the reasons you mentioned but it was always in the works.

EDIT: On the T-14 specifically, I'd wait until we see what actually happens. There have been quite a few contradictory statements over the last few weeks.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:49 AM.