Mighty_Zuk
-
Posts
1,631 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Everything posted by Mighty_Zuk
-
You do realize that all the did was: 1) Debunk their previous and very similar presentation, in full, meaning they could release yet another similar presentation that debunks the current one. 2) Even further lose credibility, as even they must be aware that these press releases are seen by more than just the Russian public.
-
The NGCV now includes both the AMPV and MPF, under the same program. Why do you think programs cannot be altered retroactively?
-
Russia's sponsoring of Iran is basically sponsoring of Iran's military branches, which include Hezbollah and PIJ. Really? Not even free reign in Syria and I don't really see how. Israel can assassinate Assad while taking only a political backlash. Russia cannot really retaliate militarily in any way. Only covert or political measures that will be of lower magnitude than the damage inflicted by Assad's removal. Then maybe next time Russia can monitor the area and prevent Iranian troops from entrenching very close to Russian forces. Part of the agreement is that Russia will not interfere in Israel's ongoing conflict with Iran, other than as a mediator perhaps. Russia claims Israel used the Il-20 as a shield in at least 2 of their versions (who knows what they may claim in the next one), but they say nothing about Iran using Russian bases and troops as shields. And yet they didn't blame the Iraqis for downing their planes, have they? What does it matter if they continue literally firing the S-200 in every direction, on ballistic trajectories, hoping the radar would pick up at least some targets along the way? They fired like a bunch of retards and it now cost them a Russian plane. Except it's no longer the case. Putin said Israel is not to blame for the incident, while the Russian MoD said that Israel is the only one to blame (even though there were at least a dozen stupid mistakes made by the Russian and Syrian forces alike in that incident). It will also definitely not prevent such incidents from occurring in the future, unless the VKS start putting IFF equipment on their planes, for the Syrians to see. It may indeed put some order, and allow Syria to observe its skies better, preventing accidents by eliminating other errors from the chain, but it could also be a marketing nightmare if Israel targets this system. You forgot this part though: This is putting Russia straight on a collision path with Israel.
-
@MRose The NGCV did not fail in any way. The AMPV is just one of several vehicles that are procured as part of the NGCV project. The rest are the MPF which is in a good state at the moment, an MBT whose development hasn't yet started, and the OMFV for which the US Army funded several prototypes already, to be built by 2020 and 2022.
-
The added range only really becomes useful if the artillery does move forward with the maneuvering forces. It extends their counter battery range and capabilities, allows them to hit strategic targets like bases and/or staging areas that would usually be far out of reach, and other targets of high value. Allowing artillery to stay farther behind is not a good reason to extend its range, especially if range extention costs good money. M109 is indeed old as fucc, but the new variants are only 'M109' by name. The M109A7 is basically a new hull and chassis based on the Bradley, and what will likely be called M109A8 will have a new turret, on the A7's hull. Therefore an entirely new vehicle, capable of going up to 50 tons, but with the old name M109 despite having absolutely no commonalities.
-
At the moment, the IDF seems content with its conventional artillery reaching out to 40km with both rockets and shells. Of course, it would be great to have the L/58 gun developed in the US, with some RAP rounds, but that would probably be something for the next 20 years.
-
This is a far more politically motivated show than a practical one. And as always, there are far more holes in each Russian official version than there are not. Let's talk about all the claims: 1) No warning given - The Israeli delegation presented its own report, and Russian MoD has yet to comment on that data. 2) F-16 used the IL-20 as cover - Russia's inability to pinpoint the location of the F-16 (only by 3rd version they claimed F-16 were in the area), shows their claims of some 'typical' use of aircraft as cover, is hardly based on facts, and again there are no comments on Israel's report that shows the F-16 were hundreds of kilometers away by then. 3) Israel only warned 25 times and always on short notice - With well over 200 attacks inside Syria, Russia is basically claiming that Israel only very rarely notified ahead of attacks, which would be very inconsistent with their past claims that the deconfliction and cooperation line is working very well. 4) Russia is a benevolent regional ruler while Israel is ungrateful for Russia saving Israel from harm - The recent, and likely still continuing supply of advanced arms to Hezbollah, the continued relations with Hamas, and practically sponsoring of Iran and all its proxies, shows that in the eyes of Israel and western countries, Russia is still far more of a hostile country than a friendly one. All that even though clearly Russia needs this cooperation agreement far more than Israel does. That is because Russia cannot take any military action against Israeli interests in the region, without sparking a war between nuclear powers. But Israel, on the other hand, can retaliate militarily for these accusations and provocation in a manner that would not justify a Russian retaliation, but would inflict severe harm to Russian interests. Basically Israel has leverage. 5) Russia has created a 140km Iran-free zone from Israel's border with Syria - Also infactual, as there are Iranian assets as close as 40km from the border. This one is partially true at best. 6) Russia conducted search ops for Israeli people's remains - The area at hand was held by ISIS, and upon capturing was immediately transferred to the SAA. This is the only one that is true. Seems like the whole "Israel is entirely to blame" charade is to deflect from the fact that Russian forces screwed up big time and don't want any political backlash against that. They failed to install proper IFF on the IL-20M, failed to notify the Syrians of the IL-20's path, failed to properly observe non-stealth planes coming from hundreds of kilometers away with combat load and in a predictable path, failed to notify the Il-20's crew even though they had both a verbal warning and radar warning a long time ahead. They also failed to call off the hour-long indiscriminate fire that miraculously didn't hit anything else (missiles were basically fired in every direction). They failed to inform SAA air defense operators (they have 'advised since 2015) of standard AD drills. And of course the very frequent change of versions even days after the incident, alert us of massive failures from anywhere between the air control and AD operators in Syria, and the Ministry of Defense, as a simple incident has managed to create a great confusion among the highest ranks for a protracted period of time, which means they are ill prepared for any serious events, especially active wars, without going into terrible miscalculations. Of course, it does seem odd right now that the Russian MoD is seeking to sever ties with Israel, while Putin and his administration are doing the contrary, trying to preserve the mutual ties. Judging by the rhetoric, the MoD may have wanted to sever ties for a long time and has looked for opportunities to do that, and an opportunity just popped up.
-
Russia has now proceeded to the 5th version, according to which Israel is to fully blame for the attack: https://sputniknews.com/world/201809231068261218-russia-israel-il20/ This is, however, only the 3rd version thag blames Israel, out of 5, therefore statistically Israel is only 60% to blame for the incident. This is sufficient to say it carries most of the blame. Syria statistically carries 20% of the blame, and so does France.
-
The Soviet Tank Thread: Transversely Mounted 1000hp Engines
Mighty_Zuk replied to T___A's topic in Mechanized Warfare
So no direct frontal protection? Nice. -
Finally this whole thing comes to an end: Russia accepts Israel's version on the downed jet. https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-russia-accepts-our-take-on-syrian-downing-of-plane-coordination-goes-on/ The key points in Israel's version are that the SAA has fired indiscriminately and practically maniacally for almost an hour, with the first missile only being launched about a minute before the final Israeli bomb landed. The Russian plane was downed long after IAF planes were already back home. And the IAF gave a warning of "well over a minute" but do not specify how long, simply implying they gave a standard warning. This whole thing can potentially be a very embarrassing for Russian AD units, so I'm guessing a thorough investigation is underway.
-
You mean K9A1, I suppose, and from what I've gathered it's only rather small upgrades to the vehicle.
-
https://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2018_global_defense_security_army_news_industry/us_army_details_next_generation_combat_vehicle_requirements.html Requirements for the NGCV are quite vague. Actually, NGCV is a very broad program and the core of it, that we've been talking about, is the OMFV - Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle. It consists of: MBT. OMFV. Robotic Wingman. MPF. AMPV. Two quite notable requirements of the OMFV are a capability to fit 2 vehicles inside a C-17 from which we infer a maximum GVM of 37.5 tons (if we round down the payload to 75 tons from 77.5 to account for less than ideal weight distribution). And of course 6 men capacity. A 6-man capacity was the main issue they had with the Bradley back in the GCV program. Literally as a key improvement to keep the Brad viable, they looked almost entirely on its capacity. They wanted 9 men. How can they make the very same mistake with a clean sheet design? They gotta change their mindset on this one. Change the tool, not the hand that uses it!
-
NEWS that Russia is not pleased with IAF's report and request a new one instead.
-
The Soviet Tank Thread: Transversely Mounted 1000hp Engines
Mighty_Zuk replied to T___A's topic in Mechanized Warfare
Grab the Afganit's CPU and radars and put them in the Arena within Arena's architecture and you solved the aging problem. The issue is that they're basically turning a niche vehicle (niche: being relatively very cheap and worthy of investment as backup reserve vehicle) into something that kind of defeats that niche, which in turn delegitimizes the entire concept of upgrading thousands of Soviet-era MBTs instead of buying hundreds of "Russia-era" MBTs. -
The Soviet Tank Thread: Transversely Mounted 1000hp Engines
Mighty_Zuk replied to T___A's topic in Mechanized Warfare
1.2. Работы по договору выполняются в обеспечение исполнения государственного оборонного заказа – государственный контракт № 1719187317821452241002092 от 27.12.2017 по ОКР «Совершенствование-А»-2.1 Исполнитель согласно оформленным Спецификациям обеспечивает Заказчика:2.1.2 Оригинальными заготовками, необходимыми для модернизации танка Т-72Б3 установкой КАЗ типа Т09-А6. Russian MoD is buying T-72B3 with some sort of un-named APS. Since I don't see any room left for an Afganit-type setup, I believe it will be Arena. -
This version seems to stem from the Israeli report, apparently. IAF reports that Syrian AD kept firing for about 40 minutes after the attack has ended. https://www.timesofisrael.com/syria-fired-missiles-for-40-minutes-after-israeli-strike-hitting-russian-plane/
-
Yeah I remember back in the day I used to shit on the Archer as much as I do on the Chally 2 nowadays. It could be a decent system but completely fucked up by a lack of a very simple feature called emergency manual loading. And of course a very small ammunition belly that removes all prospects for mission flexibility. But this one is not the same, if we're going to judge by the Sholef.
-
Far clearer than any version so far due to actual timeline, but are they real about an S-400 launch?
-
It will use TopGun, but not exclusively. Even in urban settings there is some room for statistical firing. For the more accurate jobs, the artillery corps will actually prefer to utilize the rocket artillery systems that are already equipped with precision guided weapons.
-
No, appears to be at least some iteration of LAV-700. It shares the same front shape but its rear is different.
-
Automated enough to start saying "beep bop" if it had a speaker. Okay on a more serious note, Elbit said the whole thing would basically need only 1-3 people, so the turret itself is completely automated to the point that they can stay in the cabin. The only thing it needs is a target's coordinated, after which it creates its own firing solution and fires on command.
-
Take that, my dudes: Also, apparently the Ofek is just an armored relay station between the maneuvering forces and the mobile command center. Source:
-
I see some bulge on the rear so it might be it.
-
1)To me it seems more like a line that shows the entire path of the airplanes, not just some doodled approximate area of where the fighters could be. Because if it was the latter, then I don't think they'd be in a position to make any assumptions about an alleged use of the Il-20 as decoy. Does any official source say whether this is supposed to be a large area or an accurate path? 2)Then they should have, because this is clearly within the range of their radars and if they want their joint IADS to work they have to monitor it, otherwise they're setting themselves up for failure. 3)I have looked at it but went with info I read on, I believe, sputnik, or RT, on the matter. Either way I'll go with the 2207 claim. Seems a bit strange to me they were able to track its exact path, point and time of communication cut-off which shows that someone was at least watching the skies. 4)Yes, in scenarios like in Ukraine I believe, is what you're referring to? Not exactly an example of top notch technology. It's not just about the reckless firing, but the fact that either the Syrians did not bother to check for FF, or somehow did not see it on their systems. 6)I think it's quite disingenuous to call this "aggression". Israel and Syria are de jure and de facto at war. A war that started as early as 1948 and officially and practically never ended. Israel and Iran are also, de facto but not de jure at war, since pretty much the 1980's. What is happening right now is that Iran is trying to gain foothold in Syria, and Israel does not agree to that, so they're having this war of attrition, or more like a cat and mouse game, where Israel has the legitimacy to bomb however it wants because Syria chose to reject the peace treaties that were offered to it during Olmert's term, that would officially end the state of war between them in exchange for the Golan's transfer to Syria. Israel has been countering Iran's movements in Syria for a long time, long before Russia became involved in the war, and will continue to do so, otherwise it'd jeopardize its own security. This is necessary self defense, not aggression. If I were asked to point towards the aggressors, I'd point towards the IRGC and their militias, who are (likely deliberately) putting Russian forces in harm's way by concealing their infrastructure and weaponry very close to centers of Russian presence. Why else would they position themselves inside Latakia? You mentioned T4 airbase before, from which Iran launched drones into Israel. Why station their troops there if Russian forces could be nearby?
-
Wait, you mean they are ordering new-built, non-refurbished T-90 tanks? Because if that is true then it can show a great level of retardation. I suspected the RU MoD may have a strong lobbying group consisting of morons only, when people there started talking about how the Kurganetz was too tall (god forbid the troops actually have some room to straighten their backs and put their backpacks and gear), but how could none see through this?
