Friday, December 12, 2014
BTR-MD Rakushka (Shell) in use by Russian Airborne Forces...
This is the "other" Russian armored airborne vehicle that is often overlooked by might prove to be even more important than their infantry fighting vehicle.
Once again another nation is doing something that we've only talked about. While our Army toils mightily to put into service an airborne personnel carrier (unarmored at that), we look up and see the Russians putting into service both a dedicated IFV and APC...not to mention other armored vehicles to give their Airborned forces mobility and striking power away from the drop zone.
I'll sit back and let the Soldier boys punch walls on this one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
Solomon, there is a catch: Russian airborne troops and marines both in several times smaller then your “Semper Fidelis" guys. Reinforcement of small troops is cheaper, at minimum.
ReplyDeleteAnd one more thing - in short - VDV is a very special case. All military has different situation with Army's renew.
Our airborne troops (VDV) are very popular among public and has a charismatic leader – general Shamanov who has in turn pretty well political back-up. So he can force the new vehicles for his “sons”. In Russian military in general is a real mess when it comes to such yummy thing as Army's procurement. During last several years it was several kits of standard military clothing approved. Then was another approved and being purchasing for army, than this kit became “old-fashioned” and the new kit appears. Our army is surrounded with a lot of sell-buy firms where military-dogs' familiar people sit on warm places and sucking money. Only story about only clothing renew became a real dog-and-pony show.
http://i.imgur.com/DZaFQtZ.jpg
And I'm really scare to think about what we will see when line Armata-Boomerang-Kurganec comes to real procurement.
Government bureaucracy seems to operate by the same playbook all around the world :(
DeleteBureaucracy... the universal language on whole world.
DeleteAnd the Armata, it's start to look like some mythical monster that everyone hear about it but nobody saw it. I'm really interested what it will look, but the only pic I saw is some not that good quality model (it was looking cool imo) and I think that one with some chassis in work but I'm not sure it was from Armata.
We were promised to watch Armata in 2015 Victory day Parade. I've read that well known model from presentation to Rogosin - is a canceled variant, but chassis is close to the Truth. Rumors go that by now the turret will have another form.
Deletehttp://s4.uploads.ru/BjD76.jpg
A liitle puzzle - find Armata here.
The chassis from model is on the left, I think... but I'm not sure it have the same turret, from that angle hard to say. But that in the middle, it's look like... big fraker, remind me one of Reich concept of E models http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/german/e100_bkeaney1.jpg
DeleteI found this conic shape of turret more tecnological at least.
DeleteThere are Reports that Armata may be canceled soon Cost overruns and performance issues.
Delete@There are Reports that Armata may be canceled soon Cost overruns and performance issues.@
DeleteMay be...or postponed.
Armata is mostly PR-project (IMHO, of course), than today need, for which T-72Б3 is more then enough. Kurganec and Boomerang platform are more pressing concerns.
T-72B3 is a piss poor upgrade of tank that´s long in the tooth.
Delete"Shas Did you mean this vehicle ?
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/gest/1413825/9694/9694_original.jpg
That's not armata but an sort of fire support vehicle kinda like BMPT or assault guns of old on Armata chassi.
As far as Armata being being mythical ? it's been not even 5 years yet since it's been under development. Look how long they kept Object 195’ in development and in secret. What are you expecting ? That they have a tank and especially one that's going to be a base platform for other vehicles done in 2 or 3 years from paper to functional ready to be produced machine ?
~There are Reports that Armata may be canceled soon Cost overruns and performance issues.~
DeleteWould like to see this reports of yours !
http://itar-tass.com/en/russia/760399
Deletehttp://www.gazeta.ru/politics/2014/12/10_a_6336601.shtml
@Robert
DeleteYep, this one... look's cool. But for a model is rather, bad quality, also the scale is... hell I don't know what scale it is. If we take a Tigr as reference it's fucking HUGE! Just look at the track, almost the width of Tigr. But I almost sure those models are in different scale... in other words, fuck up presentation.
The mythical part is mainly absolute lack of information about it, only "maybe" & "or" & "if" some wet pants concepts from fan boys. That model and the pic of chassis... in theory of ARMATA. But I don't think it is from a tank, them ore I look in to it the more I'm sure that this is probably more from Boomerang.
http://s.tvp.pl/images2/c/0/a/uid_c0afc20df0d72686cdbb68dbd484c0041418561211122_width_633_play_0_pos_0_gs_0_height_356.jpg
what about the sheridan airborne tank or M113 ? they surely better than nothing
ReplyDeleteWhat about the M41 Bulldog Buntmiester.....or for that matter M3 Stuart or even the M24 Chafee?
DeleteDo you know the difference betwwen a niche light tank and an APC that you are comparing vs. nothing at all ?
Because people actually think that humvees and infantry with javelins can replace airborne armor. They are dead wrong.
DeleteAnd the 113? there is no way. With the procurement of the Stryker, anything associated with the 113, to include the concept 113A4/MTVL, was thrown out with the bathwater. Instead, the next "big idea" is a the ULCV.
I actually got reminded of the M41 from a post Solomon posted waay back. And then the Stuart and the Chafee came right in the thought.
DeleteSheridan was retired back in 1996. M113 is slated for retirement in the next few years with phase out by 2018.
ReplyDeletethe Stryker was never really meant to be a Airborne vehicle nor was it supposed to take the backbone position of the Army. It was always a Interim vehicle. but at this point the Army seems lost. Due to thee Styker's weight she seems ill suited to the Airborne role as she would take the entire C130 cargo load. so Stryker ICV and MGS is questionable. The M8 vehicle although it went through the motions never entered production and would have been perfect for the job. heck the "Thunderbolt" Armored Gun System (Block II) demonstrator even had a 120mm cannon and room for 4 scouts. BAE should own the rights and a IFV derivative if it was funded could be C130 rated. failing that There are other armored Vehicles the BAE SEP program offered a 13.5 ton APC on either a wheeled or Tracked chassis, MRAPS, like the M1117 there is a APC version called the TAPV that offers a 3 man crew+8 troops with a weight of 17 tons. but the rear mounted engine means that it forced entry and exit through side doors. not a great option.
Looks like a lighter variant of the venerable M113, with almost zero survivability on modern battlefield. Or they are preparing to hunt down hungry hordes of desperate unarmed people marching to Moscow?
ReplyDeleteTo understand what is russian military is really capable of, it is worth looking this rather old video of cat rescue operation involving russian soldier:
http://youtu.be/V_Nr31Lv6H8
While it is fun to watch, this is exactly how russian army plan and executes military operations... This is why Russia was never conquered...
Russian airborne forces can move out from the drop zone at 30+km per hour. US and allied forces (with the exception of the Germans who use an airborne truck) can move out at about 3km per hour. so tell me how vulnerable they are on the "modern" battlefield again?!
ReplyDeletethey have mechanized airborne forces. the west doesn't. if we did then we'd be looking at a similar vehicle and instead of it being looked at as a major step forward for our airborne forces, we'd have people bitching that it doesn't provide MRAP type protection!
you can't have 'great' protection with an airborne vehicle!!!!! YOU CAN HAVE GREAT MOBILITY AND FIREPOWER THOUGH!!!!
Whats the point then in air drop in the first place? Just to run as hell from it? Risking to get into ambush at nearby crossroad in this thin armored vehicles? One Abrams guarding key location most likely would be enough to wipe all this high speed motor show.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is nice to have at least some armor at drop zone, it seems it is planned to be used against low tech poorly armed forces in a difficult terrain with minimal roads, like Russian North region. Weapon against rebelled russian citizens.
what is the point?
DeleteThe Russians have figured out (or always knew) that you aren't always given the luxury of months-long preparation in well-maintained, non-contested ports in allied nations to insert your expeditionary forces. This assumption we have always operated on is a ridiculous one, especially if we want to prioritize a "pacific shift".
So while they are not designed to go toe to toe with heavy mechanized forces and establish breakthroughs against the enemy main force, such vehicles are certainly better options than just deploying light skinned vehicles and encumbered paratroopers.
Airborne forces arent characteristically heavily armored to begin with. What they inherently lack in armor, they are supposed to make up for in mobility and firepower, which is what Sol's point was.
What we have to get over is the idea that we will be able to have 30mm and then some protection for all vehicles that troops are transported in. Casualty aversion, once again, rears its ugly head and we will be worse off for it. The neglect of our airborne insertion capabilities, given the magnitude of operations we have been involved with since WW2, is simply stunning to the mind.
Mobility and fire power yes, but why using armor which protect only from AK/M16, and can be penetrated from sides even by 7.62 machine gun?
DeleteMaybe its better to have unarmored vehicles and take more more weapons and ammo than to carry thin armor as a dead weight?
Like the RFSS Ranger Fire Support System 120mm Mortar Carrier:
http://youtu.be/7yAB4hX6fTI
Were are you getting that a 7.62 round will penetrate the sides of the BMD-MD ? At least from a distance?
DeleteIn the end any armor is better then no armor. And keep in mind BMD-MD and BMD-MDM's are APC's BMD-4M's are IFV's and they are more heavily armored. VDV forces are supposed to jump behind enemy lines were the enemy is at it's vulnerable and weakest. If VDV comes across enemy tanks, they have anti-tank missiles and light tanks for that to deal with said armor.
@Weapon against rebelled russian citizens.@
DeleteOMG! To be more impressive your you should add to “killing people” in each your post another part “ and eat them”. And something about “Putler”.
VDV is for fast respond and surprise operations. To disperse disorders or oppress internal rebels we have another forces.
BMD-MD's are heavier then M113 BTW.
Delete~While it is fun to watch, this is exactly how russian army plan and executes military operations... ~
You're showing your ignorant's here big time buddy.
"one abrams guarding a key location can wipe out..." what is it with young people today ? did they lost their ability to think objectively and clearly ? or they just mindlessly drinking goverment kool aid about the invurnerability of M1 Abrams ? this kind of thinking , if it permeates even the military, will lead to embarrasing losses in future conflicts.. Like those german tankers who believed the myth of Tiger Tank invincibility , they forsake sound armour tactics and go head along thinking their tank is indestructible.. only after some losses did these german tankers learn to apply sound tactics again..
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly is wrong with the ULCV sol? Airborne and Air Assault may get to their location fast, but they are fucking slow once they hit the ground. ULCV is intended to be a cheap expendable transport and it shows promise.
ReplyDeleteDoes that mean we don't need armored vehicles like the Russian airborne? Of course not, we still need light tanks at the very least. ULCV is just a part of a three-vehicle program for our airborne, one of the other vehicles vehicles is the Mobile Protected Firepower vehicle which basically has the same requirements as the old AGS, except with the addition of belly blast protection when fully armored... It would be nice if they removed that last requirement and just bought fricken M8's. It will unfortunately take awhile until the MPF vehicle comes around, but the airborne is looking into it, better late than never I guess.
War man the same weight restrictions on the ULCV are applied to the LRV as they are both supposed to be slung under Blackhawks. MPF is the only one that actually calls for any real level of armor. and it's targeted as a light tank/Tank Destroyer.
ReplyDeleteIn what way did I say that ULCV or LRV would be armored? All I said the ULCV is supposed to be a cheap expendable transport. I am aware that they both lack any actual armor to save weight.
DeleteYes, I believe I mentioned something of the sort about the MPF, basically same requirements of the old AGS program, but with blast protection as an additional requirement. I do not mean any disrespect if I sound like I am, just saying.
i got a crazy idea, what if the US airborne troops equipped with mountain bikes ? they are cheap, stealthy and cool looking.. didnt history proves that japanese imperial army bicycle troops overran british army in malaya ? with the help of a little armour i believe..
ReplyDeleteBuntmiester strikes again.
DeleteShas Vader.....come on man...you know you want to.
NO! the light side don't have a power over me!
DeleteNah lad, this poor fool is not worth it, we have an old saying "don't argue with a fool, he will take you to his own level and defeat you with experience". So just ignore him, like all the trolls.