Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
High-speed driving of nuclear missile systems Yars of Russia. In the Ivanovo region, the results of the competition of Russian strategic missile forces for the title of the best driver-mechanic of the autonomous missile launcher "Yars" have been summed up. During the week, the driver-mechanics of the missile associations competed in quickly overcoming limited passages, artificial and natural obstacles on the missile launcher "Yars". The best driver-mechanic was a serviceman of the Barnaul missile formation, Senior Warrant Officer Sergei Sotnikov.
Ministry of Defense of Russia
Russian Aerospace Forces received a new heavy transport aircraft Il-76MD-90A
As part of the implementation of the targeted tasks set by the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation for the delivery of highly demanded models of weapons and equipment to the troops, the crew of the Aerospace Forces accepted the Il-76MD-90A aircraft.
USC handed over the ice-class patrol ship "Ivan Papanin" to the Navy
A solemn ceremony of raising the Naval flag and accepting the newest ice-class patrol ship "Ivan Papanin" of project 23550 into the Navy took place in Severomorsk. The ship was built at the Admiralty Shipyards of USC according to the design of the USC Almaz Design Bureau.
The event was held under the leadership of the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, Hero of the Russian Federation Admiral Alexander Moiseyev.
Also participating in the ceremony were the First Deputy General Director of USC Andrey Buzinov, Deputy General Director of the Admiralty Shipyards of USC Sergey Yurchuk, and Chief Engineer of CMKB "Almaz" Mikhail Aleshin.
"Ivan Papanin" is the lead ship of project 23550. It combines the features of a patrol ship, icebreaker, and tugboat, capable of guarding and monitoring water resources in Arctic latitudes, escorting and towing detained vessels to port, accompanying support ships, and participating in rescue operations.
The icebreaker is named after the Soviet Arctic explorer, twice Hero of the Soviet Union, Rear Admiral Ivan Papanin.
"It became known that specialists are starting to create a new engine for the Mi-26 helicopter. Chief designer Pavel Chupin said this:
- The company (UEC-Kuznetsov) has several programs. We are starting to develop a new helicopter engine PD-8V to replace the Ukrainian D-136 for the Mi-26 helicopter. This is the heaviest transport helicopter in the world. Now we are starting to develop an import substitute. Its special feature is that it is unified in terms of the gas generator with the PD-8 engine for the Superjet aircraft.
Pavel Chupin noted that they plan to complete the work by the end of 2031:
- The task is solvable, and we are taking on it with pleasure and enthusiasm. This is a new experience, a new opportunity for developing the competence of the design departments of the enterprise first of all and for developing the production block of the enterprise."
- The company (UEC-Kuznetsov) has several programs. We are starting to develop a new helicopter engine PD-8V to replace the Ukrainian D-136 for the Mi-26 helicopter. This is the heaviest transport helicopter in the world. Now we are starting to develop an import substitute. Its special feature is that it is unified in terms of the gas generator with the PD-8 engine for the Superjet aircraft.
Pavel Chupin noted that they plan to complete the work by the end of 2031:
- The task is solvable, and we are taking on it with pleasure and enthusiasm. This is a new experience, a new opportunity for developing the competence of the design departments of the enterprise first of all and for developing the production block of the enterprise."
There is some more from UEC Kuzentov visit. Russia should not have difficulty making over 200 fighters per year. i presume this Mi-26 and An-124 are the most important for logistics when you add earlier statements. The larger the platforms the greater its importance.
No info about Bomber engines.
They dont put date on it but indirectly it gives info that Tu-160M2 is designed for 24 hours. This can be replacement for all special mission aircraft pending PAK-DA. when Putin was in Alaska the E-3 that was coordinating flights barely managed 500km/hr ahead of IL-96
This Russian academy of science paper about Silicon Carbide. Laser and Quantum has certain success.
No info about Bomber engines.
laser are already in tests in various locations.
They dont put date on it but indirectly it gives info that Tu-160M2 is designed for 24 hours. This can be replacement for all special mission aircraft pending PAK-DA. when Putin was in Alaska the E-3 that was coordinating flights barely managed 500km/hr ahead of IL-96
This Russian academy of science paper about Silicon Carbide. Laser and Quantum has certain success.
Note: This is not news, it is a discussion.
In light of the PLA's new Type 100, I thought I would post a discussion about IFVs that occurred on a Russian website. [Topwar.ru is not a military professional website, and the comments section should be taken as a populist exchange.]
An opinion article from August 30th provided detailed suggestions for a new Heavy Infantry Fighting Vehicle. It contains some history of IFVs, particularly Soviet ones.
The suggested HIFV has 35-ton weight, modern tank engine, specialized track, steel hull, 75mm self-loading cannon, two .50 calibre MGs paired with the main gun, or possibly bow-mounted, 4 130mm guided missiles, 300 km cruising range.
Here is a link to a Google translation of the article:
Since Russia is not in a position right now to mass-deploy Armata and Kurganets families of vehicles, or something like the Type 100, not everybody agreed with these 'dream' specs.
There was a line of argumentation that it is time to mass-produce IFV variants of the T-72 family.
It went as follows:
Instead of developing an expensive new vehicle, which will take a great deal of time and money, let us look at what is actually needed.
What is needed is a HIFV for "right now." Something built on a T-72/90 chassis, of which there are many in stock. Front-engine, rear ramp, tank armour, with a modified combat module from the Kurganets. About 40 tons.
Spacious, versatile compartment for up to 8 people. Regularly 4-6. Side-screens, no amphibious capability. It would come in two variants, the TBMP [heavy BMP] and TBTR [heavy BTR] using the combat module from the BTR-82A with a more stable barrel. Factory-ready for cope cages and other spaced armour.
With a modified 30mm cannon, capable of accepting the newest AP rounds, perhaps programmable-fuse HE, it should be relevant on a modern battlefield.
It is important to save on development time and cost, and not try to trial too many new innovations.
The issue of doctrine is paramount. The TBMP is an assault vehicle, the TBTR delivers troops to the combat line. Tanks are behind the TBMP, and provide fire support from a distance.
The reason for this arrangement is that tank fire is too disruptive when right next to attacking infantry, they are safer to use at a distance.
Putting a Kurganets / BTR-82A CM on a rebuilt T-72 chassis could be done quickly and affordably. It would share commonality with the T-72/90 and BMPT in formations. It could be built using repair-plant facilities. There are also up to 2500 T-64Bs that could be rebuilt into these vehicles.
"Battle taxi" functions could be taken up by the BMP-3 "Manul." Stock BMP-3 should only be used for fire support and evac. There should be a category of BMP known as "fire-support BMP," which the BMP-3 would fall into.
The argument presented in the critique is that Russia did not make the best use of its existing industrial capability - the thousands of tank hulls sitting around could have been refurbished into heavy IFVs using existing systems. The BMP "Manul" could have gone into production a decade ago.
So you could say that these are the practical questions that the Russian mechanized forces have been faced with in the past decade, rather than deployment of Armata-like vehicles.
In light of the PLA's new Type 100, I thought I would post a discussion about IFVs that occurred on a Russian website. [Topwar.ru is not a military professional website, and the comments section should be taken as a populist exchange.]
An opinion article from August 30th provided detailed suggestions for a new Heavy Infantry Fighting Vehicle. It contains some history of IFVs, particularly Soviet ones.
The suggested HIFV has 35-ton weight, modern tank engine, specialized track, steel hull, 75mm self-loading cannon, two .50 calibre MGs paired with the main gun, or possibly bow-mounted, 4 130mm guided missiles, 300 km cruising range.
Here is a link to a Google translation of the article:
Since Russia is not in a position right now to mass-deploy Armata and Kurganets families of vehicles, or something like the Type 100, not everybody agreed with these 'dream' specs.
There was a line of argumentation that it is time to mass-produce IFV variants of the T-72 family.
It went as follows:
Instead of developing an expensive new vehicle, which will take a great deal of time and money, let us look at what is actually needed.
What is needed is a HIFV for "right now." Something built on a T-72/90 chassis, of which there are many in stock. Front-engine, rear ramp, tank armour, with a modified combat module from the Kurganets. About 40 tons.
Spacious, versatile compartment for up to 8 people. Regularly 4-6. Side-screens, no amphibious capability. It would come in two variants, the TBMP [heavy BMP] and TBTR [heavy BTR] using the combat module from the BTR-82A with a more stable barrel. Factory-ready for cope cages and other spaced armour.
With a modified 30mm cannon, capable of accepting the newest AP rounds, perhaps programmable-fuse HE, it should be relevant on a modern battlefield.
It is important to save on development time and cost, and not try to trial too many new innovations.
The issue of doctrine is paramount. The TBMP is an assault vehicle, the TBTR delivers troops to the combat line. Tanks are behind the TBMP, and provide fire support from a distance.
The reason for this arrangement is that tank fire is too disruptive when right next to attacking infantry, they are safer to use at a distance.
Putting a Kurganets / BTR-82A CM on a rebuilt T-72 chassis could be done quickly and affordably. It would share commonality with the T-72/90 and BMPT in formations. It could be built using repair-plant facilities. There are also up to 2500 T-64Bs that could be rebuilt into these vehicles.
"Battle taxi" functions could be taken up by the BMP-3 "Manul." Stock BMP-3 should only be used for fire support and evac. There should be a category of BMP known as "fire-support BMP," which the BMP-3 would fall into.
The argument presented in the critique is that Russia did not make the best use of its existing industrial capability - the thousands of tank hulls sitting around could have been refurbished into heavy IFVs using existing systems. The BMP "Manul" could have gone into production a decade ago.
So you could say that these are the practical questions that the Russian mechanized forces have been faced with in the past decade, rather than deployment of Armata-like vehicles.
The T-14 is being mass produced though, albeit in a LRIP capacity but the initial +100 or so contract is getting fulfilled. The issue with the Kurganets is one of the design not offering a worthwhile increase in performance over the existing vehicles given the cost.
The issues with the Kurganets are multiple. The MoD decided the infantry soldiers needed to carry more equipment while in the vehicle. So it needed redesign internally. The engine did not work as well as expected. And supposedly the head of Kurganmash embezzled money given for the Kurganets.
The first two problems were allegedly solved and it should be in trials right now. As for the manager he was arrested.
The first two problems were allegedly solved and it should be in trials right now. As for the manager he was arrested.
Last edited: