Hypersonic weapon and the Su-57 are ineffective, and the T-14 tank is absent. What is the problem with Russian weapons?

Russian weapons
Share

In the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian conflict, a distinctive feature of the Russian army’s operations is the heavy use of backward conventional combat forces, hypersonic missiles fired twice, the Su-57 has participated a few times, the Su-34 was shot down several times, the T-14 tank was only a sample cargo, the S-400 also achieved nothing, the Moskva cruiser was sunk, and so on.

At the Russian “Army-2022” defense exhibition, Russian military companies used Chinese-made robot dogs as platforms and carried RPG-26 launchers, which became the material for media in various countries to make fun of. However, after reflection, the Russian media believes that such a weapon development path is the right one, and it is far more promising than the expensive platform of the Russian military playing “tall”.

According to Russian experts “, Russia often sees “high-tech weapons” in exhibitions and military parades, but in the war or real battlefield, they use only old and Soviet-era weapons, but these high-tech weapons can not reverse the situation of military conflicts at all”.

For example, the Russian T-14 is a combat platform designed according to the concept of network center, but there are few in total. The new equipment added by the Russian military in recent years is mainly the traditional T-80BVM and T-72B3. The same embarrassment includes the Su-34, Su-57, and so on. In fact, there are many examples of the failure of Russian weapons development, such as the BMPT “Terminator” fighting vehicle, the “Kurganets-25” infantry fighting vehicle, the T-15 “Amata” infantry fighting vehicle, and so on. These weapons are either unreliable, highly costly, or do not conform to future operational trends, and the development work is completely adrift.

So, what are the main problems in the development of Russian weapons and equipment?

First, the thinking is outdated and not suitable for modern warfare. The most obvious representative is the Su-34, an expensive heavy front-line fire support attack aircraft, but the absence of precision-guided weapons makes this bomber useless. Russia has a large number of strategic bombers, but only equipped with expensive long-range cruise missiles, and lacks ammunition with a range of about 100 kilometers, or precision-guided weapons.

Second, the technical reserves are not enough for mass production. The most obvious example is the Su-57 and the Russian A-100 early warning aircraft, due to the lack of active phased array radar technology, Russia’s advanced early warning aircraft and fighters rely on imported components, precision-guided weapons production relies on Western chips, and witout chips advanced combat platforms can not be mass production, precision-guided missile are even more insufficient, and performance stability is also not good.

Third, the cost is too high, and the Russian army simply does not have the money to purchase a large amount. The obvious example is the T-14, which is relatively high-profile in military parades and cannot go to the front line when fighting a war. This type of weapon is expensive to procure and logistical support is very complicated. In the case of limited military expenditure, it is simply unaffordable weaponry. Advanced technology is not necessarily suitable for the army, this is a military philosophy problem, The U.S. is clearly more realistic in this regard as they have more advanced variable cycle technology, but they have yet to use the F-35 due to a number of issues. The negative impact is greater than the performance advantage brought.

Compared with the advanced weapons of the Russian army, the “Iranian drones” may not be so advanced, but it’s cheap and doing really well in ongoing war: First, the concept is advanced and suitable for future wars; Second, the technology is mature and can be mass-produced, of course, Third, and the price is particularly cheap.

Maybe Iranian drones look poor and are very low-end. However, it can really cause serious deficiencies to the Ukrainian army on the battlefield, and the value is cheap and sufficient, which is an important symbol of a good weapon.

Leave a Reply