Roman Alymov Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 6 hours ago, glenn239 said: The point is that prior to the war, the Russians were going down the wrong path on their military thinking. The war has given them hard lessons, and they are now focused on expanding their capabilities and force structure in a way that is to the maximal disadvantage of NATO. Even worse, these lessons are being transferred to Russia's allies in realtime, all of which whom are feverishly adapting as well. None of this is to say that this is a one-sided race. But 3 years ago, it wasn't much of a race at all, now everyone one of America's self-made enemies is running at breakneck speed, whereas before, they were casually walking. Not maximum disadvantage: huge money are still wasted on expencive (and, probably, useless) things like nuclear submarines, surface navy etc. Strategic bombers are also of questionable use. Much more optimal way is NK/Iran way of ground launchers covered in trucks etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyinsane105 Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 (edited) 1 hour ago, Markus Becker said: Use more submunitions? My guess is that it’s off by several dozen meters. If it’s off by 100 meters or more, even submunitions use wouldn’t be as impactful Plus submunitions are good at certain things like infantry and light vehicles, but not against hardened targets, which is what HIMARs and JDAMs are primarily hitting Edited May 1 by crazyinsane105 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted May 1 Author Share Posted May 1 1 hour ago, Markus Becker said: Use more submunitions? = heavier warhead = shorter range with same dimensions of rocket/missile or larger rocket for same range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Alymov Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 7 hours ago, glenn239 said: They don't seem concerned about depleted uranium ammunition? May be with Bradley DU shells fired around (not to mention constant danger of drone or HIMARS or artillery shell) DU dust from burned out wreck is not seen as danger.... Even in Moscow, no prorective measures visible (may be because nobody knows about such danger) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted May 1 Author Share Posted May 1 1 hour ago, Markus Becker said: Use more submunitions? = heavier warhead = shorter range with same dimensions of rocket/missile or larger rocket for same range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Becker Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 20 minutes ago, bojan said: = heavier warhead = shorter range with same dimensions of rocket/missile or larger rocket for same range. Yes, it's not a free lunch but particularly missiles got plenty of range. Ukraine just didn't get the versions with the longest range for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 59 minutes ago, crazyinsane105 said: My guess is that it’s off by several dozen meters. If it’s off by 100 meters or more, even submunitions use wouldn’t be as impactful Plus submunitions are good at certain things like infantry and light vehicles, but not against hardened targets, which is what HIMARs and JDAMs are primarily hitting It depends what is being used and how big of a bang or submunition pattern it creates. ATACMs have 300 to 1000 submunitions depending on version; the older ones don’t even use GPS. Ditto the CBU-87s with “wind correction “: INS only with a couple hundred submissions with six release altitudes varying from a 30x30 meter area to like 200x300. But something like the small diameter bomb is going to need accuracy to make all of 40 lbs HE count; it’s basically an especially energetic 8”/203mm shell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 43 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said: May be with Bradley DU shells fired around (not to mention constant danger of drone or HIMARS or artillery shell) DU dust from burned out wreck is not seen as danger.... Even in Moscow, no prorective measures visible (may be because nobody knows about such danger) I can’t imagine DU is even useful or necessary, though I know it was supplied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyinsane105 Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 2 hours ago, bojan said: = heavier warhead = shorter range with same dimensions of rocket/missile or larger rocket for same range. Also heavier rocket and slower and easier to intercept with Russian air defense. Probably another why HIMAR is losing it’s effectiveness is that Russian Pantsir and updated Buks are able to shoot them effectively Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyinsane105 Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 1 hour ago, Josh said: It depends what is being used and how big of a bang or submunition pattern it creates. ATACMs have 300 to 1000 submunitions depending on version; the older ones don’t even use GPS. Ditto the CBU-87s with “wind correction “: INS only with a couple hundred submissions with six release altitudes varying from a 30x30 meter area to like 200x300. But something like the small diameter bomb is going to need accuracy to make all of 40 lbs HE count; it’s basically an especially energetic 8”/203mm shell. True, but how often are Russians utilizing tightly packed armored formations these days where using ATACM with submunitions is worth it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 6 minutes ago, crazyinsane105 said: True, but how often are Russians utilizing tightly packed armored formations these days where using ATACM with submunitions is worth it? ATACMs is not really anti tank oriented; it’s more soft area targets. Ukraine seems to focus them on airfields and SAM sites. The point is simply some weapons will suffer more than others in a GPS denied area. Large explosives like the Russian 1500kg glide bombs or wide area cluster dispensers like ATACMs might be largely unaffected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyinsane105 Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 9 hours ago, Roman Alymov said: Not maximum disadvantage: huge money are still wasted on expencive (and, probably, useless) things like nuclear submarines, surface navy etc. Strategic bombers are also of questionable use. Much more optimal way is NK/Iran way of ground launchers covered in trucks etc. Submarines are still one of the best survivable assets Russia has. It’s not a waste that they are still being prioritized. USN is spending an ungodly amount to maintain the existing fleet and build ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seahawk Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 8 hours ago, Roman Alymov said: May be with Bradley DU shells fired around (not to mention constant danger of drone or HIMARS or artillery shell) DU dust from burned out wreck is not seen as danger.... Even in Moscow, no prorective measures visible (may be because nobody knows about such danger) Nice to see the people gathering to see the success of their soldiers. I hope they will pressure the government to start fighting the war for real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Alymov Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 1 hour ago, crazyinsane105 said: Submarines are still one of the best survivable assets Russia has. It’s not a waste that they are still being prioritized. USN is spending an ungodly amount to maintain the existing fleet and build ones. Submarines are best survivable when at high seas. In Russian case, they will be destroyed in harbors/bases or at exiting their bases, by surprise attack by diversion groups, cruise missiles, drones and pre-positioned NATO submarines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 3 hours ago, crazyinsane105 said: Submarines are still one of the best survivable assets Russia has. It’s not a waste that they are still being prioritized. USN is spending an ungodly amount to maintain the existing fleet and build ones. They are arguably are being prioritized, the problem is , they take forever to build the damn things. Yasen was laid down in 1993, and only entered service 11 years later. Which seems to be about par for the course of the rest of the class. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasen-class_submarine Compare that with the Virginias, which are entering service at a rate of one every 3 or 4 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alejandro_ Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 Very interesting article on manufacturing of UAVs in Ukraine: There are currently 75 people working on the production line, which begins by pressing fiberglass mesh into molds shaped like wings, tails and noses. After 11 hours of curing in the oven, the parts are assembled to make a small aircraft with a 2m wingspan. The engine and explosives are installed at another plant. The factory can only produce one or two bodies of each type of drone per day. To increase capacity, the businessman recently purchased a second polymerization oven. He plans to expand the premises and hire 50 more people to work two shifts. At the same time, he is developing his own drone model with a planned range of more than 1,000 km. According to one drone manufacturer, manufacturing costs range from $30,000 to $300,000 per unit. But this is still significantly less than the cost of a cruise missile. According to a Ukrainian military intelligence officer who was involved in the drone launches, only about 20% of them reach their target due to Russian obstacles. https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2024/04/30/7453571/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 (edited) Closeup of an Abrams, might be one of those destroyed earlier. Edited May 2 by TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alejandro_ Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 (edited) 42 minutes ago, TonyE said: Closeup of an Abrams, might be one of those destroyed earlier. A few days ago Russian units were seen towing a second one. There should be others left in no man's land, but nothing dramatic. Regarding the possible acquisition of retired MiGs in Kazakhstan Kazakhstan denies trade in decommissioned military aircraft May 2, 2024, AEX.RU – The Kazakh enterprise Kazspecexport , operating in the field of arms import and export, denied information that appeared on social networks about the sale of decommissioned aircraft equipment abroad. Interfax reports this . "The information disseminated on the Internet does not correspond to reality. All auctions for the sale of aircraft with the condition of mandatory liquidation were conducted by the enterprise in strict accordance with the requirements of the current legislation among legal entities of the Republic of Kazakhstan that have the appropriate licenses issued by the authorized body. Foreign companies were not allowed to bid ", says the Kazspecexport message. The recycling process is completely controlled by the balance holders. “In accordance with the terms of the concluded agreements, all aircraft, components and assemblies for it will be disposed of on the territory of the balance holders by cutting (cutting, crushing) and other methods that exclude their restoration to their original condition, and will be removed from the territory only in the form of scrap non-ferrous metals ", the message says. The Kazspetsexport enterprise was created by the government of Kazakhstan in order to provide the Armed Forces, other troops and military formations of the republic and works in the areas of import and export of weapons and military equipment, as well as military property. https://www.aex.ru/news/2024/5/2/270882/ Edited May 2 by alejandro_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KV7 Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 (edited) Various media sources gives a good view of the NERA array + backing plates on M1150: Edited May 2 by KV7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Alymov Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: They are arguably are being prioritized, the problem is , they take forever to build the damn things. That is dependent on what yardstick you use - for example, last year Rus Navy got two new nuclear-powered submarines. How many new toys of that class Royal Navy have recieved in 2023? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Alymov Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 Driver's view from pro-Rus tank plowing minefields at speed https://t.me/Vladimir_Orlov1977/13692 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Alymov Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 New version of "Tsar-mangal" https://t.me/rusengineer/3774 i wonder how long will it take to reinvent this http://otvaga2004.ru/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/otvaga2004_bm11_03-300x145.jpg https://i3.guns.ru/forums/icons/forum_pictures/001599/1599857.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yama Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 8 hours ago, TonyE said: Closeup of an Abrams, might be one of those destroyed earlier. Well that one's barrel is properly depressed for show, why didn't the Russians drag off this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soldier36 Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 Footage of work in Ukraine of an unknown Russian electronic warfare system installed on armored vehicles. In the video, the Ukrainian FPV drone loses contact with the operator and flies past the target, after which it sharply dives down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyinsane105 Posted May 2 Share Posted May 2 15 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: They are arguably are being prioritized, the problem is , they take forever to build the damn things. Yasen was laid down in 1993, and only entered service 11 years later. Which seems to be about par for the course of the rest of the class. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasen-class_submarine Compare that with the Virginias, which are entering service at a rate of one every 3 or 4 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine New generation of American subs are guaranteed to take really, really long. Not to mention mighty expensive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now