Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Footage of workshops producing Russian kamikaze drones “Geran-2” has been published. Although it was previously reported unofficially where the production is located, we cannot disclose this. The Geranium-2 drone is a modernized and localized version of the Iranian Shahed-136 drone; there is a review of the drone on the channel. As can be seen from the video, truly mass production of drones has been established. Some drones are painted black for use at night, and some drones are known to be coated with a special radio-absorbing material. British experts examined one of the drones, and it follows from them that the drone has already become Russian. The body is now made of fiberglass and carbon fiber, the manufacturer has optimized and simplified the design. The drone's satellite navigation unit is based on the Russian Comet receiver; the antennas are integrated into the body. The Gerany-2 drones use boards with elements created on a 3D printer and an inertial measurement unit, which allows them to operate in conditions of poor satellite signal. The Russian drone “Geran-2” uses an engine produced by the Chinese company Beijing MicroPilot UAV Flight Control Systems MD550, it is similar to the Iranian engine MADO MD 550, the engine costs about 13 thousand dollars
They made the right decision if you ask me. Doesn't matter how super duper awesome your tank is when it can be spotted by drone and then obliterated by artillery. They should stick to tanks that are easy to make, operate and deploy while being just good enough to perform their intended role within russian doctrine and keep their crew alive (basically T90M with a slightly better mobility).
I mean, UVZ priority right now is getting T-90M's and T-72B3M's out the door. Make sense the T-14 would go into the back burner for now, specially until you can incoporate the lessons learned from the war into the design.
The T-14 Armata is like 5 million USD. The T-90M costs 3 million USD brand new. A T-72B3M tank upgrade might be 1-2 million USD. In a situation like the current one where you have a wide front and need as many tanks as you could have to cover it the cheaper tank makes more sense.
Not engaging in T-14 Armata mass production wouldn't be anything new. The Soviets also didn't engage in serial production of whole new medium tanks in WW2 to continue T-34 mass production and keep armor numbers up. But development of medium tanks did continue. The T-34M, T-43, T-44 were developed. The turret of the T-43 was put into the T-34 to make the T-34-85 model. The T-44 entered serial production near the end of the war as more production capacity became available. And it led to the T-54 in the post war period.
Not engaging in T-14 Armata mass production wouldn't be anything new. The Soviets also didn't engage in serial production of whole new medium tanks in WW2 to continue T-34 mass production and keep armor numbers up. But development of medium tanks did continue. The T-34M, T-43, T-44 were developed. The turret of the T-43 was put into the T-34 to make the T-34-85 model. The T-44 entered serial production near the end of the war as more production capacity became available. And it led to the T-54 in the post war period.
I don't thik there's sufficient advantages to producing the T-14. It would exand tactical options for Russian units and probably improve survivability, but is that really necessary?
Even older T-72B seem quite survivable. I really don't see catastrophic explosions nearly as much as before, something OSINT analysts missed or just don't bother remarking on. Most vehicles are disable and hen abandoned, to be recovered by either side later, which are then easily patched up in repair depots or field workshops.
Sacrificing floor space for fewer, albeit slightly better, tanks seems like a foolish proposition considering the needs of the Russian army today, which needs more and more armored vehicles. I don't think this has anything to do with "cost". Money really isn't an issue if you're working in the Russian defense industry today.
Even older T-72B seem quite survivable. I really don't see catastrophic explosions nearly as much as before, something OSINT analysts missed or just don't bother remarking on. Most vehicles are disable and hen abandoned, to be recovered by either side later, which are then easily patched up in repair depots or field workshops.
Sacrificing floor space for fewer, albeit slightly better, tanks seems like a foolish proposition considering the needs of the Russian army today, which needs more and more armored vehicles. I don't think this has anything to do with "cost". Money really isn't an issue if you're working in the Russian defense industry today.
Footage of the use of a flight simulator of the Yak-130 aircraft by the President of Russia, at the Krasnodar Higher Military Aviation School of Pilots named after. Hero of the Soviet Union A.K. Serov. The Russian flight simulator is a complete copy of the control system of the Yak-130 and L-39 fighters. The Yak-130 combat training aircraft is recognized by experts as the best in terms of price-performance ratio; more details about the Yak-130 can be found in the link to the video in the comments to the video. Future pilots are allowed to fly an aircraft only after 17 hours of training flight time on this simulator. The flight simulator is used to practice difficult flight conditions, actions in case of equipment failures and simulate the main mistakes of pilots. The President of Russia flew and landed on a flight simulator.
Wow ... what a cute scheme!
PS: As it seems, they are for Kolyma Aviation
PS: As it seems, they are for Kolyma Aviation
Last edited: