Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Combat tracked amphibious vehicles BMD-4M © Vladimir Astapkovich / Sputnik

1 posted on 05/06/2016 8:22:22 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: sukhoi-30mki

Ivan sure knows how to make tactical AA systems. The US has never developed a comparable system, see Sgt. York fiasco.


2 posted on 05/06/2016 8:26:38 AM PDT by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Hrmmm the missile can only lock-on higher than 5,000 meters... Not sure how that helps you fight off an A-10 straffing.


4 posted on 05/06/2016 8:36:49 AM PDT by miliantnutcase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: sukhoi-30mki

The last 10 years of my contracting career was on armored vehicles. I venture to say that it is nearly impossible for the military/industrial/political complex to produce a design that will be efficient on the battlefield. Congress tries to send big pieces to their preferred companies and thus divide the contract so that huge compromises must be made on all aspects of the design. To get enough votes companies have to pool their pocket-Congressmen. Then, the military finally gets a shot at a new vehicle and every command wants that vehicle go be one they can use with no modifications. They fight over their needs and you end up with a race horse designed by a committee. Then Congress ladles on its green agenda, gay agenda, diversity agenda, consulting stuff for supporters, small business requirements, etc. By the time the contract is let it is essentially doomed to failure, like the Future Combat Systems vehicle. If I cancelled a meeting on that project I’d get angry emails and calls telling me I had to hold it because they had “charge numbers they had to burn.”

The process is so broken it amazes me the military gets anything it needs. (Incidentally, everybody involved knows what the issues are. But nobody has the power to overcome them.)


5 posted on 05/06/2016 8:45:27 AM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: sukhoi-30mki
The Russians seem to be continuing with their innovation and are looking to include another option and become more adaptable in operations.

.....If they can keep costs in control.

6 posted on 05/06/2016 8:45:35 AM PDT by Navy Patriot (America, a Rule of Mob nation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Reminds me of the ZSU-23 (the “Gun” in VN) or the 2S6 later update except it’s on a truck body.

Added missiles to replace the guns for the +30K altitude shots. Guns for low altitude.

Kinda like a cross between the 2S6 and a SA-15


7 posted on 05/06/2016 8:46:14 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: sukhoi-30mki
will be able to protect paratroopers from enemy aircraft operating at high or medium altitudes

That is usually provided by air support

10 posted on 05/06/2016 8:58:13 AM PDT by RightGeek (FUBO and the donkey you rode in on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: sukhoi-30mki

A 19 mile range is not going to cut it. Hunk of burning steel in the real world battlefield.


11 posted on 05/06/2016 9:03:34 AM PDT by buffaloguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson