Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Miragedriver

Brigadier
Beriev A-40 Albatros is revived??

A project for construction of water aerodrome in Kamchatka will cost 67 million rubles
Russian Aviaton » Wednesday June 3, 2015 19:51 MSK

FSUE Tsentralnoye proektnoye obyedineniye (stands for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, part of the Spetsstroy of Russia, issued a tender for development of a project for construction of water aerodrome in Zavoiko settlement (Kamchatka Krai); 67,5 million rubles will be allocated for this project, the request was posted at the website to state procurement, RIA Novosti Nedvizhimost reports.

“The parameters of A-40 “Albatros” (amphibian aircraft) are used for calculations at design stage,” said in the document.


A main contractor must design the aerodrome having dimensions of 6х4,5 km and a depth of around 5 meters; the territory must be fitted with floating lights and special reference points. It also must have parking for four seaplanes, two seaplane ramps and a quay for staff boats.

Moreover, the contractor will have to design drainage facilities, control center, asphalt-concrete site for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and vehicles, parking for staff cars, hangars, warehouse, checkpoint and roads located inside the aerodrome’s territory.

The applications must have been submitted until May 12th, RFP stage was completed on May 26th. The project must be implemented in 45 days after signing the contract.

Link:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



Back to bottling my Grenache
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Of course not . 57 mm caliber is not enough even for front glaces and front part of turret of T-55 tank . It contains much less propellant then 120 mm round . Sabot is therefore smaller, and KE penetrator shorter and lighter . As such, it hold much less kinetic energy and loses speed much faster then its big brother . Tank armor is made of various composite and steel layers sandwiched together , and they hold up pretty nicely even in event of multiple hits .

That's cool. Like I said we'll have to agree to disagree. :)
 

Miragedriver

Brigadier
If The tank is hit in the tracks, wheels, optics and is rendered immobile or unable to fire, then for all effective purposes it is considered “taken out” remember that the tank hull (behind the wheels) has only 30mm to 50mm of armor and would be subject to penetration. A 57mm would do that nicely ;)


Back to bottling my Grenache
 

thunderchief

Senior Member
If The tank is hit in the tracks, wheels, optics and is rendered immobile or unable to fire, then for all effective purposes it is considered “taken out” remember that the tank hull (behind the wheels) has only 30mm to 50mm of armor and would be subject to penetration. A 57mm would do that nicely ;)

Back to bottling my Grenache

Despite popular opinion, it is not that easy to disable tank by hitting its tracks or wheels . You would usually need hefty amount of explosive, as in all common anti-tank mines . As for optics, they are small and usually moving target , again almost impossible to hit at normal combat ranges (not in urban environment tho ) .
Side armor is a complex story , it is not uniform . It is not thick as front armor but it tends to be thicker around vital parts . 57 mm KE penetrator could be lethal against some tanks from the side and rear, but trick is to get into that position . Even green tank crew would know to turn correct side of its vehicle (front) towards enemy , especially if that enemy tends to be another armored vehicle (unlike infantry very visible target)
 

Miragedriver

Brigadier
Despite popular opinion, it is not that easy to disable tank by hitting its tracks or wheels . You would usually need hefty amount of explosive, as in all common anti-tank mines . As for optics, they are small and usually moving target , again almost impossible to hit at normal combat ranges (not in urban environment tho ) .
Side armor is a complex story , it is not uniform . It is not thick as front armor but it tends to be thicker around vital parts . 57 mm KE penetrator could be lethal against some tanks from the side and rear, but trick is to get into that position . Even green tank crew would know to turn correct side of its vehicle (front) towards enemy , especially if that enemy tends to be another armored vehicle (unlike infantry very visible target)

True, It is very hard to hit. However, consider the high rate of fire of a 57mm auto cannon. Something is going to hit somewhere and cause damage to some part of the vehicle.

I would not what to be inside the tank that id been pounded by tens of 57mm rounds.


Back to bottling my Grenache
 

Black Shark

Junior Member
I'm confuse so are you saying it can or can't ? lol
I'm saying a 57 mm auto cannon would totally destroy a tank. The trick is multiple rounds. I'll admit I'm far from a lland warfare expert however I know that modern armor especially those with ceramic, carbon and other alloy blend layering or honeycomb while being able to withstand a lot of pressure, they also quickly lose their strength and integrity when hit on the same spot multiple times.
Each successive round hitting the same spot over and over would eventually penetrate. It's just the law of nature.
I have never heard of a tank armor defeating 30 mm DUs from a GAU 8 before. It MAY defeat a couple of rounds but not 100 rounds hitting within a sq ft for example.
Only the front projection of any MBT is made of composite armor with enough thickness, all the rest of the tank is made of simple RHA steel, no ceramics, no titanium alloys nothing fancy, just simple WW2 known RHA steel of lower thickness than 90mm most of the time less than 50mm. 57x348mm Sabots will not penetrate frontal projection of composite armor unless you manage to hit the turret ring or shoot right into the barrel through the breechblock, but that is highly unlikely. A-10 shoots not from frontal projection but from top projection, so it is of course easy for an aircraft with massive 30x173mm ammunition to penetrate the weak armor roof armor of turret or engine compartment, be it DU or simple lead it will not matter.


Despite popular opinion, it is not that easy to disable tank by hitting its tracks or wheels . You would usually need hefty amount of explosive, as in all common anti-tank mines . As for optics, they are small and usually moving target , again almost impossible to hit at normal combat ranges (not in urban environment tho ) .
Side armor is a complex story , it is not uniform . It is not thick as front armor but it tends to be thicker around vital parts . 57 mm KE penetrator could be lethal against some tanks from the side and rear, but trick is to get into that position . Even green tank crew would know to turn correct side of its vehicle (front) towards enemy , especially if that enemy tends to be another armored vehicle (unlike infantry very visible target)

Except that your situation is a Duel of 1vs1 Tank duel. Reality is different, usually you have formations of tanks, while part of your tank fleet keeps fight another part of your tanks tries to flank the enemy if there are no other assets on the battlefield like choppers to deal with enemy tanks. A crew has no chance observing the battlefield of tank vs tank battlefields all the time, meaning sooner or later some tanks will be outflanked, especially in European thatre where tank battles would be 2km on open fields or less. That is the reason why NATO has not send tanks into Serbia 1999, they would be massacred without using even tanks from Serbians.
 
Last edited:

thunderchief

Senior Member
Except that your situation is a Duel of 1vs1 Tank duel. Reality is different, usually you have formations of tanks, while part of your tank fleet keeps fight another part of your tanks tries to flank the enemy if there are no other assets on the battlefield like choppers to deal with enemy tanks. A crew has no chance observing the battlefield of tank vs tank battlefields all the time, meaning sooner or later some tanks will be outflanked, especially in European thatre where tank battles would be 2km on open fields or less. That is the reason why NATO has not send tanks into Serbia 1999, they would be massacred without using even tanks from Serbians.

Let me put it like this : if you have 57 mm auto cannon, and I have 120 or 125 mm cannon, I would have great advantage because I would be able to engage your tank at far larger distances and from the front . You on the other hand would need to flank me , i.e. you would need to get out of your cover and expose yourself to my fire .
Similar situation already occurred in history - in summer of 1943 T-34 were not able to penetrate front armor of Panthers, Tigers and even PzIV ausf H at normal combat ranges . So, they were forced to close in or try to flank them , loosing hundreds of vehicles in the process . At the end they were successful but cost was great . I doubt any country could sustain such losses in modern times .
 
the Bear news (its picture with an F-22, and inflight footage, inside):
Russian Grounds Tu-95 Bear Bomber Fleet
The Russians have grounded their Tu-95 Bear bomber aircraft fleet after one of the aircraft caught fire while trying to take off from a base in Russia’s southwest region.

Russian officials said the country’s air force has launched an investigation to seek the cause of the fire. Officials didn’t say how long the grounding of the Bear fleet would last.

“The accident occurred during a practice flight at the Ukrainka airfield in the Amur region at 17:00 Moscow time. The Tu-95 ran over the runway during acceleration. There was no ammunition onboard. According to preliminary information, engine fire was the cause behind the accident,” the Russian ministry said in a statement.

In April, two of Russian Bear bombers
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in Alaska. This week, Russian fighters have flown over U.S. Navy ships as the Navy conducts exercises with NATO allies.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
India...perhaps. I seriously doubt China will buy them.

actually the Russians recently noticed the Chinese were criticizing the Armata, and the article
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"The Chinese Competitor Of Uralvagonzavod Named Armata's Shortcomings"
links to
Tank maker seeks to increase exports on land armaments
(but I don't know much of tanks so don't blame me if there's anything wrong inside :)
Norinco promotes weapon features on WeChat, a common messaging app

In an effort to increase sales of its tanks in the face of declining global demand, China North Industries Group Corp, the country's biggest developer and maker of land armaments, is turning to a popular smartphone social networking app.

WeChat is often used by Chinese arms producers to release comparisons between their weapons and other nations' products - contents that they would not put on their websites in consideration of diplomatic issues.

So, like many other State-owned defense technology enterprises, Norinco, as the tank maker is known, is promoting its brand and products to WeChat's more than 500 million users.

Most recently, it posted an article on its account that touts the ways its tanks are more usable than Russia's most-advanced T-14 Armata.

"Production lines of tanks have been closed in Western countries for a long time, so among large tank makers, only China and Russia have such facilities, which means if an international client wants to buy a new tank, it can only choose between China and Russia," said Norinco, the sole tank maker in China.

"Currently, Russia has only one new tank that is available for export - the T-90S. In contrast, we have the low-end VT-2, middle-end VT-1 as well as the high-end VT-4, covering the requirements of almost every client in the international market," the company said.

China is Russia's main competitor in developing countries seeking to buy tanks, and the tight market is becoming even more competitive for tank exporters. A report last year by the Center for Analysis of World Arms Trade in Moscow indicated that the global demand for new tanks will sharply decline from 2014 to 2017 compared with the previous four-year period, which is expected to further fuel the already fierce competition.

The T-90S, a third-generation Russian main battle tank, is just able to compete with the VT-1, while its upgraded version, the T-90AM, has no substantial improvements, according to Norinco. The VT-4's wide recognition on the international tank market is forcing Russia to put its cutting-edge T-14 on the market to change the situation, the company said.

Russia debuted the T-14 Armata on May 9 during a grand parade to celebrate the 70th anniversary of victory in World War II. Russian media noted that the weapon was the first fourth-generation tank to enter service globally, saying it would be one of the most powerful tanks in the future battlefield.

However, the assertion is being challenged by Norinco, which claims the Russian tank is weaker than the Chinese VT-4 in terms of automation, mobility, fire-control systems and cost competitiveness.

"The T-14's transmission is not well-developed, as we saw through a malfunction taking place during a rehearsal before the May 9 parade. By comparison, the VT-4 has never encountered such problems so far," Norinco said in the WeChat article. "Our tanks also have world-class fire-control systems, which the Russians are still trying to catch up with."

It continued: "Another important issue is the price - the T-14 is reported to have a price as high as that of the United States' M1A2 Abrams. ... Why don't buyers consider Chinese tanks that have well-developed technologies and equipment as well as much-lower prices?"

Features touted

To further influence potential buyers, Liu Song, a senior manager of research and development at Norinco, touted other VT-4 features: strong firepower as well as a cutting-edge data exchange network.

"It has an advanced fire-control instrument, a new-type active protection system and a state-of-the-art, fully automatic transmission device," he said. "In addition, the inter-unit network connects commanders of tanks and armored vehicles under a combat group, enabling them to share battlefield data in a real-time manner."

According to Feng Yibai, chief designer of the VT-4, the tank is equipped with an electronic-controlled diesel engine with 1,200 horsepower, giving the tank a cruise speed of 68 km per hour. Its main gun is a 125-mm smoothbore that can fire various shells, including kinetic energy penetrators and high-explosive anti-tank warheads. It can fire anti-tank missiles with a maximum range of 5,000 meters.

Even with heavy protective armor and strong firepower, the tank is much lighter in weight - 52 metric tons to 60 tons for its foreign rivals - making the VT-4 much faster, Feng said.

The VT-4 can compete with any first-class tank used by Western militaries, including the US M1A2 Abrams and Germany's Leopard 2A6, Liu said.

During a promotional event in August in the Inner Mongolia autonomous region, diplomats, military officials and defense contractors from 44 countries were shown a field performance by the VT-4 tanks and some other combat vehicles made by Norinco.

"Several countries have expressed interest in the VT-4 after their officials saw the tank's display, and we are negotiating with them on this matter," Liu said, without providing more details.

Feng said Pakistan's army will test the tank.

Rising competitor

Pakistan will not be alone in deploying the VT-4, as the tank will have strong appeal to Middle Eastern countries, according to Shi Yang, an independent military observer in Beijing.

One of VT-4's predecessors, the VT-1, has been in service in several nations, including Pakistan, Morocco, Bangladesh and Myanmar, and Norinco is sparing no effort to promote it to more buyers, especially developing countries, foreign media reported.

China also is developing a new-generation light tank specifically designed for operations in mountainous regions. The tank is equipped with a hydropneumatic suspension system that ensures better maneuverability and higher survivability, an earlier report said.

China exported a total of 461 tanks from 1992 to 2013, according to the United Nations' Register of Conventional Arms, which began to record conventional weapons transfers between UN member states in 1992. Pakistan bought 296 Chinese tanks during the two decades.

Russia sold 1,297 tanks during the same period, with Algeria being the largest buyer.

The biggest tank exporter during the period was the United States, which reported sales of 5,511 tanks. It was followed by Germany, which sold 2,680 tanks.

In 2013, the latest year for which data is available, China sold 98 tanks to foreign buyers. Bangladesh, with a 44-tank deal, was the largest customer through, the UN said.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

delft

Brigadier
The Russians have grounded their Tu-95 Bear bomber aircraft fleet after one of the aircraft caught fire while trying to take off from a base in Russia’s southwest region.
------
“The accident occurred during a practice flight at the Ukrainka airfield in the Amur region at 17:00 Moscow time.
Odd. The Amur region is in the South-East of Russia.
 
Top