barbaria

These questions I have too but found no information other than mere forum speculations. Even on the Chinese 'side' of the internet. The Chinese are reluctant to share anything about their military engines, be it piston or turbine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79yT7F8esJ4

Does Latvian COIN capability make it harder or impossible for Russia to instigate such a rebellion knowing that they would need to take direct military action against a NATO members' asset in NATO airspace and thus triggering article 5? Yes -> Russia is deterred (for now at least)

Mother of all shifting the goalpost reaction... Let me break it down for you: Latvia vs Russia: Russia could beat Latvia by merely farting at it-> Latvia enters NATO and Russia is deterred from direct military action -> Russia needs to find another way to endanger Latvia -> Latvia has 25% ethnic Russians who could instigate a rebellion -> Latvia understands this and seeks the best COIN weapons their money can buy -> Latvia gets armed drones -> Russia now has one less tool in its toolbox to militarily threaten Latvia =Russia deterred until the next threat comes up. Is there any other way Russia can militarily threaten Latvia? Perhaps, but the two main military threats against Latvia are deterred by: 1 NATO membership 2 UCAV capability

I've yet to see footage from inside Armenian SAMs where their radars where jammed. I've seen more footage of them using their radars successfully to detect, track and even shoot at drones, ones even smaller than the TB-2. I've also seen more than once where the tracking radars where aimed at the TB-2's but they still got hit. Not with the same effectiveness and cost-efficiency. The Azeri's lost 1 Su-25 with its pilot and two TB-2's. I'm sure they would've have traded more than one TB-2 for an Su-25 and its pilot. You lack reading comprehension. Latvia is protected by NATO membership against a direct Russian attack. Against a hybrid attack involving an ethnic Russian rebellion not so much, similarly to what happend in Ukraine. Would NATO countries jump in to help Latvia in such a case? Sure, even if they are not obliged to since it is de jure Latvian citizens who are rebelling. But with these drones, Latvia can suppress such an ethnic Russian rebellion mostly by themselves, without breaking the bank. Perfect for such a small and weak country with serious security issues.

I swear I heard a rooster crowing...

Strawman. What about the Pantsirs, radars and EW systems? The TB-2's were used during a geopolitically sensitive period for Turkey. If it used its fighter aircraft and attack helicopters in Libya and Azerbaijan it would receive much more flak than it did with the drones. The TB-2 made the Egyptians deploy armored formations along their borders, the Russians scrambled MiG-29's to Libya and the Frenchies wetted their pants. And what abut the already present UAE fighters and their Chinese drones? This is what a remote controlled airplane the size of a Cessna accomplished together with some supporting elements. It forced the adversary to escalate by bringing huge and expensive weapons systems because they couldn't cope with it and thus lost the escalation initiative. It is never good to be the one who escalates, because it means you couldn't cope with the lesser threat.

The majority is and the rest is the best tech NATO can provide Tell that to those at the receiving end of the TB-2 But what enabled the Turks to be aggressive though? Could they've done it with the F-16 or F-4? With the T-129? Impossible Tell it to the Russian general staff. They seem to like the 'shit' very much

It's also a great ISR platform which can see dozens of miles away. It has its use in both peace and war in a modern army. While loitering munitions where used against radars and SAM's, more then 50% where destroyed by TB-2's: I corrected it for you if you don't mind. Ukraine is not in NATO but Latvia with 25% ethnic Russian population is. Russia cannot use the same force against Latvia as it would invoke article 5. Russia can use hybrid tactics like little green men and supporting ethnic Russian rebels, but faced with a UCAV capability, this becomes very difficult to implement if not outright impossible. And thus some sort of a deterrence has been achieved for Latvia in this case. These tactical UCAV's are not wonder weapons, but in the right circumstances they can tip the balance in favor of the user.

It does make it more difficult for Russia to employ its 'little green man' tactic. It would need to escalate things to neutralize the TB-2 in a way which would trigger article 5. This a nice deterrence for a small and weak country such as Latvia.

After the Polish deal for 24 TB2's, the Latvians are considering it too: https://twitter.com/Pabriks/status/1401845841904783363

What's so special about the Msta?

It does come with its own drawbacks though IMO. What about the repearability after penetration of the ammo compartment? Wouldn't an internal ammo cook-off destroy the turret beyond any cost-effective repair, seeing how the turret contains all the sensitive and expensive parts. Of course for this to happen the APS needs to run out of interceptors or malfunction. So I guess the chance of the aforementioned problems to play out seems very slim though. IMO, there seems to be a clear cut-off for when at least an autoloader and a subsequent unmanned turret is a necessity in a tank and that is when the shells are becoming too heavy for a human loader to handle. I think this is what we are going to see when we go beyond the 120/125mm caliber, both for the western and eastern tank designs. Anything less than that is manageable by a human loader and thus an autoloader and a subsequent unmanned turret is not necessary IMO.

1:19 fire on the move at a target 3000m away