Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Russian Kilo class have also been sailing to and from Syrian naval base
plenty of Russian submarine activity in Mediterranean recently
plenty of Russian submarine activity in Mediterranean recently
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Hold on to your Borsht! The Drive has an odd one.
They are reporting that Tass
is reporting that Russia is looking to make an AN12 Gunship.
Given Russian operations in Syria it’s not a impossible thing.
Since the majority of Russian ground attack is unguided the accuracy of a flying artillery base might make up some.
They are reporting that Tass
is reporting that Russia is looking to make an AN12 Gunship.
Now I like anyone here has heard the rumor of a Y8 gunship, Y8 being a copy of AN12. Of course I always chalked that up to Call of Duty Fanboi. Now it seems life is imitating art.
Given Russian operations in Syria it’s not a impossible thing.
Since the majority of Russian ground attack is unguided the accuracy of a flying artillery base might make up some.
Meh. The Russians have the helos.
The Su-25 Frogfoot needs a replacement though.
It used to be built in Georgia but now that is no longer an option.
So they keep fixing the old aircraft but I think they should design a new one.
I thought about this a couple of times.
They could make a twin-engine RD-33 powered aircraft to replace the Frogfoot.
The Su-25 Frogfoot needs a replacement though.
It used to be built in Georgia but now that is no longer an option.
So they keep fixing the old aircraft but I think they should design a new one.
I thought about this a couple of times.
They could make a twin-engine RD-33 powered aircraft to replace the Frogfoot.
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
They might use the zis-2 57mm anti tank guns instead for a bigger punch against the roofs of armoured vehicles and bunkers. If the Russians are looking for a final load out similiar to that of the AC-130, then we can expect a Gsh-6-30 rotary cannon or the 23mm version if the recoil proves to much for the airframe to handle. There is no Russian equivalent for the m102, but they might work around that by installing a 120mm gun mortar instead, which despite being larger caliber has small recoil due to the design.
All of this would make a Russian An-12 gunship a formidable fire platform indeed.
All of this would make a Russian An-12 gunship a formidable fire platform indeed.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
They tried with a variant of the Yak130 trainer. Much like the US A10 they are a unique platform and mission set that will it seems never have a true replacement.
As the mission they were designed to do back in the day keeps being pushed as the requirement for said replacement but that mission is virtually suicide. So you either end up with a coin aircraft or a fighter taking the mission and both using long range stand off missiles and bombs.
At least the AC130 wasn’t designed for use against tanks it was at its origins an evolution over the AC47 which was an anti infantry weapon. Basically a world war 2 transport bird with two M134 Gatling guns mounted in the hull used to lay waste to attacks on fire bases. AC130 then evolved taking on heavier weapons to offer danger close fire support.
The latest version of the AC130, the AC130J Ghostrider and the AC130W Stinger II use a 30mm Bushmaster gun a 105mm howitzer and a selection of bombs and missiles having traded off the Gatling gun and Bufors for a chain gun.
The BM57 57mm’s origin as a anti aircraft gun and mix of anti personal weapons from its targeted adoption for IFVs would I think render the Gatling gun superfluous. As to tank busting depending on the reason this may have come about that may not even be considered or might be rolled to a pylon of ATGM.
The problem with the Yak-130 is that it can never be a proper replacement.
The engine thrust on the Yak-130 is much lower at 24.7 kN vs 44.18 kN on the Su-25.
This means you cannot put heavy armor or as many heavy weapons on the aircraft.
The RD-33 has 50 kN thrust. So it has enough thrust to be a replacement engine.
However the MiG-29, which is the aircraft which uses the RD-33 right now, isn't armored either.
So you would need a new airframe. But the engines are available at least.
I think this would have a rather small development cost as the A-10 program showed.
The engine thrust on the Yak-130 is much lower at 24.7 kN vs 44.18 kN on the Su-25.
This means you cannot put heavy armor or as many heavy weapons on the aircraft.
The RD-33 has 50 kN thrust. So it has enough thrust to be a replacement engine.
However the MiG-29, which is the aircraft which uses the RD-33 right now, isn't armored either.
So you would need a new airframe. But the engines are available at least.
I think this would have a rather small development cost as the A-10 program showed.
Jura The idiot
General
It is kind of lame, but we expected this. It would cost more in R&D resources and mess up the logistics side of things.
Still, the fact the platform was designed with that in mind means it can be upgunned in the future if requirements change.
To be honest I am more concerned at them not moving the artillery chassis to the Armata platform like originally planned.
They need to share it among as many systems as possible to have economies of scale.
The Heavy IFV with the 57mm gun looks awesome though.
Still, the fact the platform was designed with that in mind means it can be upgunned in the future if requirements change.
To be honest I am more concerned at them not moving the artillery chassis to the Armata platform like originally planned.
They need to share it among as many systems as possible to have economies of scale.
The Heavy IFV with the 57mm gun looks awesome though.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
This is exactly what I was talking about.
The emphasis on trying to build a flying tank again. Yet that tank is just as vulnerable to MANPADS and anti aircraft missiles as those that exist today.
The method by which A10 and SU25 were supposed to kill tanks back in the day is extremely high risk boarding on suicide. The Idea was that they would be rapid attack systems that would reduce the numbers of enemy tanks to a manageable level in a hot Cold War and although they would be shot down, they would at least take as many tanks as they could with them.
Fast forward to today and the rational fails. Improvements in weapons make it a mission profile that is hard to rationalize. Guided munitions mean that flying at grass level to attack with 30mm cannon isn’t the first choice of attack on tank formations. It also means that engagements can happen well beyond the ability of Manpads to counter rendering the armor less critical.