Russia unveils "next generation" Military uniform

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Kittamaru, Jun 30, 2017.

  1. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    They don't want to be a US-like "player".

    Aircraft carriers are useful for bombing much weaker states all over the world. You need them to have an empire based on suppression of small nations. For a nation not interested in this they are not really useful. One or two may be useful, ok, for such anti-terrorist operations like in Syria. But even in this case, the land-based aircraft was superior.
    sculptor likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Well... Forward air support, and superiority, is still important. Granted, aircraft have much longer operational ranges than previously possible, but the ability to launch and rearm near where they are needed is still advantageous.

    The big question is... Is this supposed hypersonic missile they have actually as good as they claimed.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Why must you twist everything just to justify more ad hominems, Kittamaru?

    Again :
    Kittamaru : Nowhere did I state, aver nor imply in any way that "this is NOT in fact a design for a next generation combat uniform".
    Those are your words, not mine.

    I do not wish to "Argue" at all, Kittamaru.
    Again those are your words, not mine.

    Further there is no reason, nor need to argue, Kittamaru.
    Simply read the article...

    The article : , clearly states "this is the prototype for a combat suit that Russia hopes will give its soldiers the edge on the battlefields of the future." , and ; " 'On display is our vision of the suit we would like to develop within the next couple of years.' " ...
    - the ^^above Quoted^^ from :
    Both of those statements make it crystal clear that, at this point in time, it is Actually Currently NOT the "next generation 'Star Wars' combat uniform", Period!!!

    And, again : Those words, Kittamaru, quoted directly from the article make it very clear that the "prototype/vision" pictured and described in the article is simply one Research Institutes exercise in developing a Possible Product...a design for a possible next generation combat uniform
    However, nowhere in the article does it state that the "prototype/vision" pictured and described is indeed "Russias next generation 'Star Wars' combat uniform".

    Ergo, the Issue that I have tried to Point out in relation to the Pop Science Pablum linked in OP, is simple : The article fails to support the sensationalist headline : "Russia unveils its next generation 'Star Wars' combat uniform".

    So, Kittamaru, again - Nowhere did I state, aver nor imply in any way that "this is NOT in fact a design for a next generation combat uniform".
    Those are your words, not mine.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    It is important if you want to attack far away countries, yes.

    I will not speculate about the quality of various weapons. I think what matters is that it is always easier to shoot a rocket than to defend against those rockets. The defense has to be a rocket too, and has to catch a flying rocket of the enemy. Instead, all the attacking rocket has to do is to explode near the target, which is a quite big ship, thus, not really a big deal. But the defense rockets have to be much better than the attacking ones to be able to catch them. Even if they are, the attacker does not have to care about the ability to hit the target with every shot. If only 5% go through, so what? All one has to do is 20 shots, say 30 to be safe. So even a quite large superiority of the own defenses would not make the carriers safe.
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Mod Note

    For god's sake!

    Are you suggesting that the author of the article did not write his own headline, where he, the author of the article, clearly states:

    "Stormtrooper 2017: Russia unveils its hi-tech motorised 'Star Wars' armour for soldiers complete with exoskeleton, night vision and helmet"

    The first paragraph:

    It might resemble something out of Star Wars, but this is the prototype for a combat suit that Russia hopes will give its soldiers the edge on the battlefields of the future.

    You know, just so that you can understand that it is a play on words and Kitta was merely following along the same line as the author of the article.

    Do you know why the author said that it looked like something out of Star Wars?

    *Shock, both hands clap both cheeks a la Home Alone*

    It actually looks somewhat like a stormtrooper uniform from, yes, I know, *gasp, clap hands to cheeks again*, from.. wait for it.. waaaiiitt.. Star Wars..

    It would help if you actually understood things like comparisons, tongue in cheek comments as exhibited by the author, and recognising that the author was not saying that it was a stormtrooper's uniform but that it "resembled something out of Star Wars", because OH MY GOD! *gasp, hands to cheeks yet again*, it actually does look like something out of a Star Wars movie.

    And it would really, really help if you understood that Kitta was quoting from the article. You have already received a warning for your behaviour in this thread and frankly, doubling down and coming out with things like this:
    When it was not Kitta who said it but that the article clearly stated, in the first paragraph, that *gasp once again, hands on cheeks in shock* it "resembled something out of Star Wars".

    So how about you stop right here and cease and desist with the trolling. That was not a polite request by the way but a warning that if you keep this rubbish up, you will receive another warning and you will be banned from participating in this discussion, and this time it will be from me. Understood? So so glad we could have this little chat!
    Kittamaru likes this.
  9. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    It is also important if you want to protect far away countries, especially ones with less developed static assets (airbases, et al).

    AMS isn't quite that complicated - especially with missiles flying at high speed, since they cannot maneuver effectively. They are basically straight-shot, so you lead the target and put some munition/flak in front of it - it will shred itself on the fragments. Most anti-missile missiles don't have to strike the target - they detonate nearby and, either through shrapnel or pressure wave, damage the incoming weapon enough to knock it off course.

    Now, what you said about a near miss is true, and it is one of the things I have bemoaned about us using so few ultra-large carriers... but supposedly, the Navy is looking into some smaller alternatives (in the 65,000 ton range) - my opinion is that having three or four escort carriers would be far more effective and capable in battle than a single super-carrier - especially in the face of hypersonic anti ship missiles.
  10. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    As previously pointed out to you, if they aren't interested as you assert, then why are they trying to buy them? Egypt's shinny new French built aircraft carrier was once intended for your beloved Mother Russia before Russia invaded and annexed the lands of its neighbors.
  11. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    This was a sort of deal. France played fair to Russia in the Georgia crisis, Russia paid by buying those carriers. The deal was criticized a lot by many in the military, and that it finally was stopped made the Russians quite happy. They got the money back, with compensation, and have anyway got, for free, a lot of information how to build such things. So, if they in some future decide to build one, they have a good starting point. As I have said, one or two of such carriers may be useful under some circumstances.
  12. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    No comrade it wasn't a sort of a deal. It was a deal. Your beloved Mother Russia very much wanted the deal. But after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, France terminated the deal.

    The point is if Russia doesn't want a carrier as you have asserted, why did Russia attempt to purchase 2 of them from France? Is Russia the Russian that incompetent or corrupt that it buys stuff it doesn't want and doesn't need? Is Russia that out of control? If Russia is that bad at nautical engineering, and needs to rely on a foreign power for ship designs, well that says a lot doesn't it? There was nothing in those ships worth stealing. Why do you think they are now in the Egyptian navy? By the way, Russia didn't get all of its money back.
  13. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Will we see a fully armored robo-grunt in our lifetimes?
  14. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Body armor already exists, but it's heavy and cumbersome. So a seriously armored suit would have to have a powered exoskeleton if a soldier is expected to wear it for very long, while moving strenuously. Especially if he had to carry loads at the same time, such as extra ammunition. (Ammo is heavy.)

    They've already experimented with 'Iron Man' suits, but the complexity is daunting. There's a huge number of actuators necessary, along with problems with the delays between when the man inside moves and the suit responds. There are power supply problems and all kinds of difficulties.

    Some of which are discussed here:

    I expect powered exoskeletons to appear in the construction, warehouse and heavy industrial contexts before they appear on the battlefield, to enable humans to perform heavier tasks 'by hand' so to speak. In these applications they won't have to move as freely or have as much endurance. They can be connected to an external power supply.

    Some elements of this are likely to appear on the battlefield before others, such as helmet head's-up displays and data-links. Jet pilots already have that, so I expect that foot-soldiers will get it before long.

    Speaking of aircraft, there's a huge amount of development work being done on what they call 'UCAVs' (unmanned combat air vehicles), basically armed remote-control or autonomous drones capable of maneuvering more violently than meat inside could withstand. The familiar Predator and Reaper 'drones' are the first wave of this development.

    I expect unmanned ground battlefield robots to appear fairly soon. Armed combat robots probably won't be driven by AI at first, but more likely by remote human operators using some kind of virtual-reality telepresence. The practicality of that will depend on how robust the data links are. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some of the newest tanks have an optional no-crew mode.

    But I don't expect the first ground battlefield robots to be humanoid 'grunts', or men in 'Iron Man' suits. They will be armored vehicles.

    If one is blown up, you won't lose a trained crew, the remote operators' VR displays will just go dark.
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2017
  15. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Learn to read, I have explained it. France behaved diplomatically nice to Russia in a situation where the US was very angry because their Georgian puppets lost the war against Russia. As a big thank you for the diplomatic support, France got a big military contract.
    They have never build such helicopter carriers, so they would have to learn that from zero. But that it would be better to do this, if necessary, oneself was one of the main arguments of the Russian criticism of this contract. tells something why the Russians think such a helicopter carrier may be useful, and writes about full compensation.

Share This Page