Ratnik: Russia’s Warrior of The Future

a8284b.view

Russia’s next-generation infantry modernization program is in full swing, and while here at TFB we’ve covered two of the rifles, the AEK-571/A545 and AK-12, competing for orders as part of the program, but the program as a whole is more extensive than just a new infantry weapon. The project, called Ratnik (a Russian word equivalent to “warrior”) is a total modernization of infantry equipment, introducing over 40 new items, including camouflage, comms gear, sights, body armor, navigation equipment, designators, and, of course, small arms. A three-year order for Ratnik equipment was placed in October of last year, and is expected to consist of deliveries of 50,000 units per year.

Russian soldier in Ratnik gear with an AK-12 rifle, running. Note the Aimpoint red dot optic, or something very similar. Image source: rbcdaily.ru

 

Russian experts predict a 20% increase in the effectiveness of infantry small arms, and a 24-34 kilogram reduction in weight for Ratnik gear, compared to legacy kit. Ratnik body armor, such as the Tekhikom 6B45 ballistic vest and plate carrier, reportedly raises the rating according to the Russian GOST R standards from 3 for previous body armor to 6, giving protection against the SVD marksman’s rifle firing 7N13 hardened armor penetrating ammunition (roughly equivalent to US .30-06 M2 AP).

6B45_bulletproof_vest_-_InnovationDay2013part1-61

6B45 vest, a part of the Ratnik gear. The vest also displays a digital camouflage pattern, which appears to be the Russian EMR pattern or a variant. A plate can be seen behind the bust to the left. Image source: wikipedia.org

 

Armor plate after testing. Image source: rbcdaily.ru

 

In addition to the AK-12, Ratnik will also introduce new variants of the Pecheneg light machine gun, and the SVD marksman’s rifle, both now with adjustable folding stocks and new Picatinny-type sight rails.

1348889980_322553_463768593684127_186854738_o

The new modernized Dragunov rifle, as part of Ratnik. The stock is adjustable, and folds, and the receiver cover comes equipped with a Picatinny-type rail mount. The optic is a new thermal scope. The soldier is wearing the new 6B34 goggles, developed for Ratnik. Image source: topwar.ru

 

1056896

A Russian woman in Ratnik gear at an expo. She holds one of the new variants of the PKM machine gun, produced for the Ratnik program, featuring a new bipod, optic, suppressor and flash hider, and an adjustable folding stock.

 

1_22221311

Image source: baodatviet.vn

 

2_22221533

Image source: baodatviet.vn

 

The very expensive (380,000 rubles, equivalent to over $12,000 per unit with pre-Crimea exchange rates) Orsis T-5000 sniper rifle has also been displayed alongside Ratnik gear; it is a very modern chassis-based sniper rifle, and reportedly very accurate:

0_80379_6573d8df_orig

Image source: spacebattles.com

 

0_80373_a48cf4bb_orig

This image gives a good view of the ruck and bedroll arrangement introduced with Ratnik.

 

Ratnik is not just introducing body armor and small arms, however, but also smaller items, like a universal multitool/knife made by Milita, and a submersible watch made by Vostok-Design. The new 6B47 helmet is made of composite materials and very lightweight, at only 1 kilogram (the US ACH starts at 1.36 kg).

The 6B47 Ratnik helmet, weighing 1,242 grams fully loaded. The ACH in loaded configuration is 1.63 kg. Image source: rbcdaily.ru

 

6B47 Helmet after testing. Image source rbcdaily.ru

 

A further focus of the program is networked comms gear, allowing for better integration with electronics systems, and better communication within the organization of the Russian Army. This gear, perhaps somewhat optimistically, is expected to improve the infantry’s effectiveness by 1.5-2 times.

GLONASS GPS receiver with Ratnik gear. Image source rbcdaily.ru

 

A dummy wearing some of the comms equipment developed for Ratnik. A radio handset and personal computer are visible. While this does not resemble Strelets sets I’ve seen previously, it may be a variant or improved version. Image source: rbcdaily.ru

 

The Russian army is also introducing new “all-purpose” uniforms, called VKPO. This picture-heavy article by Denis Mokrushin goes into exhaustive detail about the VKPO uniform, for those interested. The Ratnik program will also introduce new camouflage pattern smocks, shown below:

zFxXILr

Ratnik camouflage smocks, in desert and forest patterns.

 

The equipment expected to be fielded with the Ratnik program has not yet reached service, but field tests began in May of this year. Paratroops who evaluated the new equipment are reportedly very happy with the new weapons, and vests, but there is some dissatisfaction with the optics, helmets, backpacks, and the user interfaces and software of the electronics (a common problem for military digital systems). Regarding the backpacks, below is a translated segment from the VZ.ru article linked above:

We were given two backpacks: the so-called “Raid” backpack (V-50 liters) and 10 liters – “Assault” backpack. If the “Assault” is very comfortable, thanks to good straps, “Raid” is very uncomfortable. Incidentally, inside of assault backpack there is armor plate inserted. It is not clear why they put in there, but if they are pulled out, the backpack loses its shape and becomes a bag.

(…)

Sleeping bag is too cold and again cumbersome. And the funny thing – it is difficult to fit into the compartment on the raid backpack designed specifically for it.

Some elements of Ratnik have already been adopted by the Russian Army, but fielding of most systems is not expected to begin until next year at the earliest. Reportedly, the Ratnik system has already been fielded with Siberian Army Special Forces units, though how much of the equipment they have received is unclear.

Finally, the Russians are looking ahead to Ratnik-2, a program expected to equip the Russian Army for the late 2030s. That program seeks fairly ambitious advancements in low visibility in the IR and thermal spectrums, as well as color-changing camouflage, and a power supply in the soldier’s vest.

 

Thanks to Retiv for his help with this article.



Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He can be reached via email at nathaniel.f@staff.thefirearmblog.com.


Advertisement

  • Alex Agius

    “Ðîññèÿ. Ìîñêîâñêàÿ îáëàñòü. 3 îêòÿáðÿ. Âîåííîñëóæàùèé ñ àâòîìàòîì Êàëàøíèêîâà ÀÊ-12 âî âðåìÿ äåìîíñòðàöèè íîâîé áîåâîé ýêèïèðîâêè “Ðàòíèê” íà ïîëèãîíå “Àëàáèíî” â Êëèìîâñêå. Ôîòî ÈÒÀÐ-ÒÀÑÑ/ Ñåðãåé Áîáûëåâ” – yes?

  • Don Ward

    Great article as always.

  • So Russia’s vision of the future is to look like US Marines…
    Got it.

    • Joshua

      Expect with crappier armor that won’t defend against even M855A1.

      • nobody

        Wat? Please post evidence that M855A1 can punch through an ESAPI/level IV plates, what the new Russian plates are equivalent to. I can see it being a problem for weaker plates that Russia is replacing (honestly, given their history I wouldn’t be surprised if this new gear doesn’t make it to anyone who isn’t special forces), as there are videos on youtube from a guy who acquired some M855A1 testing it against NIJ III AR500 and NIJ III+ AR680 steel plates and it punching through (no tests on AR500 Armor’s magical steel plates that can stop 7.62x51mm AP ammunition yet, the guy is going to do more tests on other armor though so hopefully he tests those soon).

    • Bloe Blosey

      The Marines have a rainbow patch and pink boots for breast cancer awareness

      • Grindstone50k

        Always nice seeing new trolls coming out of the woodwork.

        • Bloe Blosey

          Kiss-kiss- meet you in the barracks later, sweetie.

          • Grindstone50k

            Oh yes, I’m sure you’ve ever actually served in any military.

    • skusmc

      I was thinking a cross between marpat and flecktarn.

      • Kivaari

        The Army’s OD Green of the Vietnam (never official) works very well in woodland terrain.

    • Kivaari

      That’s what I saw in the photos. The Marine Corp style camo is a lot better than the ACU. Saying that, I found the ACU to perform the same as the night desert camo, with pale green digital looking and existing NSN. The US Marines have a superior camo to the entire Army ACU color scheme. At least the Russians knew better than our own army.

      • Uniform223

        no one will deny that the US Army’s UCP for their ACU (UCP is the pattern, ACU is the uniform) was not a good idea. USMC’s MARPAT was indeed the better pattern because their pattern seemed more thought out and of course it is climate/terrain specific. UCP could have been better if there was more color and the pattern was more refined.

        From personal experience the UCP worked but at the same time not work. I’ve seen it blend decently well in certain conditions and distances in places like Ft. Irwin, Ft. Hunter-Ligget, Ft. Bragg and even in the Sand Box. Then there are times where you just stood out like an offending sore thumb. Through NODs… it was a hell of a lot better than the old pattern used on the BDUs.

        • Kivaari

          I found the old GREEN NIGHT CAMO would have performed as well as the UCP/ACU. In my era, the NVD worked OK as long as they were washed with IR suppressing detergent. The Marines had more brains, by issuing the digital equivalent of woodland, desert and mountain. That old green night uniforms seemed to work as well as the UCP, when actually used in darkness. The coffee stain and chocolate chip worked pretty good in daytime desert. Most of the gear was good in NVDs. Our NVDs were still 1970 era quality.
          I never used current issue digital NVDs. Not in real conditions. I liked the auto gating PVS14, but that was in bright sunlight. How it did not flare out when looking in a dark spot, then swinging it into the sun. Impressive. With the old stuff, the nylon strapping “glowed in the dark”.

    • M40

      Russia has ALWAYS held the US Marine as the “ultimate opponent”. The Spetznaz use the Marines as a training model. They goad their men to train harder by telling them that the Marines are better… but if they keep training, someday they might be good enough to face a US Marine.

      • Max Glazer

        Keep underestimating them. Not a smart idea.

        • M40

          I’d tend to agree… if it was still the 1980’s. However, it’s now 30 years later and the “Bear” is now the “little bear cub”.

          Most of the Soviet era naval fleet has been rusting in port for decades. Most of their fighter jets and tanks are likewise planted firmly in weeds and unserviceable. Much of the serviceable equipment has been sold off to pay the bills. Their military is a tiny shadow of what it once was. Many Russian servicemen go unpaid for months at a time. They basically go AWOL and get other jobs to make ends meet.

          We who served back when there was still a real Russian threat tend to overestimate their capabilities today. Look into it, and you’ll see that they are mostly bluster these days and rely on that presumption that they could somehow still muster that old “bear” back to life. Don’t get me wrong, they still have a decent and somewhat professional military… it’s just that it’s a fraction of what used to be. The numbers game they used to rely on is no longer in their favor… not by a long shot.

          • Max Glazer

            You are talking 90s. Those days are long gone. Need proof? CM strikes on Syria. Old ships were scrapped and replaced and although not with the same amounts of them but with WAY better armed and superior ships.

            Pay has been vastly increased and sailors/officers live in towns built specifically for them.

            Bear is now a cub? Should I bring up B-52? Just as old. Not being able to drop LGBs from Tu-95 isn’t something Russia cares about as it uses other planes for this purpose. Can both fire CMs? Yes. Can both carry nukes? Yes.

            Russian forces are experienced enough to know how to fight. During Georgian war they were operating rather disjointedly and still managed to rout them in 4 days. Today with drones, networking, ECMs, ESMs, advanced fighters, stealth-defeating mobile ground radars, modernized CAS planes they only got better. Training regimen became a whole lot more potent and they get sudden drills a LOT. Large and small scale ones.

            By “somewhat professional” you refer to their ability to fight or you refer to the ratio of conscript-to-hired soldiers?

            One thing you need to realize is that comparing Russian capabilities to that of US through applying Russian equipment to US tactics, you’ll ALWAYS get a wrong idea as to what Russians do. Russian tactics are NOT that of USA and so is the terrain they are used in.

            Russia never claimed to be stronger. They merely claim to be able to repel the enemy. And mostly not by a direct confrontation but by asymmetric but highly effective means.

          • M40

            You’re comparing bombers? Now who’s stuck in the 80’s? What we can accomplish in a single precision strike (today) used to take dozens of carpet bombing missions by planes full of bombs. We don’t need the big lumbering beasts anymore. We still use them for various things (mostly with natl guard units), but developing new BUFF’s isn’t exactly high on anyone’s priority list.

            In any case, Russia’s military has modernized some, but is still nowhere near the feared giant it once was. Saber rattling by Putin is silly posturing. We’d make VERY quick work of their forces. Obama acting like an oft beaten puppy when he’s in Putin’s presence is shameful and demeaning to every American.

          • Max Glazer

            Wrong. What you accomplish in a precision strike today on Taliban or IS in Afghan or Iraq, against someone like Russia you’d have been shot down long before you’d make it to the launch point by mobile SAMs. S-300/400 at long range, S-350 (upcoming)/Tor/ Buk at medium range, Tunguska/Pnatsir at short/point-blank range. And those are laid out in a layered fashion and networked not just between each other but with multiple radar stations that have overlapping coverage and work in millimetric, centimetric, decimetric and metric bands. Or in western terms, X, K, Ka, Ku, L bands as well as VHF. Latter two make B-2A, F-35 and F-22 detectable at ranges where F-22 and F-35 are incapable to attack from. B-2 might make it to CM launch point. B-1B and B-52 wouldn’t be sent there full-stop as they wouldn’t make it to launching point either. They are long obsolete as too slow. Russia uses its bombers for not just bombing but as ASCM platforms. US relies only on Navy for that.

            As I said. VERY different models of combat application for different platforms.

          • M40

            You can have all the overlap and all the bands you want, but every Russian radar screen would simply light up solid white the second the jammers flew in… followed by the weasels to take them down… followed by the main strike force. We’ve faced plenty of Russian hardware before, and it’s NEVER been a big problem. Every facet of our systems and military prep is geared to the latest Russian stuff (which is still many years behind American counterparts).

            So again… all the saber rattling and bragging about Russian capabilities (which you’re quoting) are SALES PITCHES. They hock this stuff to anyone who’ll pay for it, and they make it sound like it’s up to modern standards… it ISN’T.

          • Max Glazer

            Before you send in jammers and wasels you got to find them. And I’ve seen how NATO managed to “find” things in Serbia. Your SEAD/DEAD missions epically failed. Serbs used obsolete and semi-mobile systems with strict EMCON discipline. And they had no LPI modes. Current Russian AESA do. And they pack up in 5 minutes. By the time a single jammer or weasel comes in, the SAM site is long gone. Just as was the case in Serbia. That is assuming your ESM will even detect them. What you faced everywhere were heavily degraded export versions with deliberately lowered capabilities. T-72 was a perfect example of this when US thought it a total death trap and then it got a shock when in 1996/7 it tested a Russia-only T-72B with K5 ERA and totally failed to penetrate it with all of its tank rounds, which lead to development of M-829A1 A2 and A3. And this practice was across the board. F-16A was mauled by MiG-29A of Luftwaffe before desert storm, S-300PMU2 and S-400 beat Patriot of all types (otherwise US wouldn’t cry so much about S-300 being sold to Iran). AK74 matches M4 for accuracy and totally beats it on price, reliability, simplicity of use.

            Keep your trademark american delusion of “We are the best, stuff the rest, because America”.

            Aussie and British soldiers I spoke to when served had a same line when it came to US forces: All the gear and no idea. Epic failure that is the ISIS bombing campaign is enough of a confirmation.

          • Secundius

            @ Max Glazer.

            They said the Same Thing about the Famous T-34 Tank that Save the World from Nazi Tyranny. Wound up being a Made Up Piece of SH|T. Virtually NOTHING in the Russian Military Works as Promised. Russian Federation, works on the Stalin Model. “Quantity over Quality”. The T-14 Armata Tank is a Joke, Tank gun was Design came from the Soviet-Era T-64 Tank, just with a Longer Barrel. STILL uses an Autoloader, except they made it easier to Destroy the Tank. A $4.4-Million USD. Piece of SH|T…

    • Max Glazer

      Look like US marines? Nah. Merely to be equipped well-enough to fight in a modern fashion.

  • Vitsaus

    Everyday we grow weaker, while they grow stronger.

    • Hardwood83

      We’re definitely getting weaker. Not sure they’re getting stronger- just more assertive to fill the vacuum left by the socialist pu$$y in the White House.

      • Esh325

        I’m not really a big fan of the U.S. Government or its military, but it’s laughable to say they are getting weaker. Your country spends more money on its military then any other country combined. Even with a few modest cuts in spending competing countries wish they had the capability the U.S. Military has. So don’t tell me this joke.

        • Joshua

          People are stupid. No one can deny we spend more on R&D and everything else military than the majority of the world combined.

          • Grindstone50k

            Well, we no longer treat LGBT people as second-class citizens, so therefore we are “weaker”.

          • Rock or Something

            Second class citizens? I didn’t know such things like voting, representation and most laws in the USA were predicated on your sexual preference, which arguable in most occasions is a private matter between two consenting adults.
            But back to the original point, it’s not a problem with spending amount, it’s a priority, political and bureaucracy problem.

          • Grindstone50k

            Having to hide who you are while serving? Yes, second-class. And yes, lots of laws were (and in many places, still are) predicated on your sexual orientation. And I absolutely agree, it is a private matter between two consenting adults. But before the repeal of DADT, LGBT troops could be discharged under other than honorable just for being who they are.

            So, yes. Second-class citizens. I am glad that my former brothers and sisters in arms (and who I still work with today) don’t have to live in fear anymore.

          • ostiariusalpha

            In fact, that private matter between consenting adults was completely illegal in 14 states till 2003.

          • Manny Fal

            Gender distinction is one of the most important factors of a successful society. And LGBT acceptance goes directly against that. Hence why latin americans will comprise the U.S of the future. Americans have grown soft and effeminate, it’s only natural they invite real men into their country to takeover. Meanwhile, Russia is probably going to fall to islam.

          • Max Glazer

            Russia fall to Islam? Not gonna happen.

          • AK™

            remov kebab?

          • William Burke

            I agree. I don’t like it, but then it’s not about me. It’s supposed to be about us, minus the corrupt leadership.

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            “I didn’t know such things like voting, representation and most laws in the USA were predicated on your sexual preference”

            Being a boring straight white empathy deprived male, no you probably wouldn’t notice anything like that. Also, it’s weird it’s almost as if the law is not some independent thing enforced by objective robots, and that that’s always done by people, with power, who are awful.

          • Stu Pidlib

            True that. By definition LGBT are weak or at least mentally flawed. There was time when social engineering wasn’t the primary goal of the military. If you didn’t measure up or you needed special treatment then you got the boot. Now it’s preferred status to be abnormal.

          • Grindstone50k

            Somewhere, some village is missing it’s idiot.

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            I hear facist germany was more your style you awful moron

          • 35Whelan

            Can spend all you want on R&D, weapons, and tech; however:

            That does not equate to “readiness”. You can have all the toys and lose in a micro second. We have shifted focus from using what we have now to get the job done, to scrapping what we have now for new tech that might work if all goes as planned. Then, when your new tech fails in the field, and you lose the initiative to an enemy using proven tech, fingers get blamed politically and everyone runs for the border.

          • Joshua

            I take it you have little experience in the Military? Most new tech goes to SoF or SF first and if proven to work eventually filters it’s way down through the other parts of the Military.
            I bet you’re one of those we don’t need no stinking optics types huh? Cause back in your day you went up a hill to school through the snow barefooted with iron sighted guns…Amirite?

          • 35Whelan

            So the SF are testing F-35’s, F-22’s, and Zumwalt destroyers? The big ticket items are the issue.

        • n0truscotsman

          Are armed forces are getting weaker, but its not for the reasons mentioned above. Its most certainly NOT because of any deficiencies in the defense budget.

          The discharge of trained, experienced personnel and the vast monies expended to theoretical, untested concepts such as LCS, FCS (then), etc is profoundly affecting readiness rates across the whole armed forces. This is especially true in the Navy and Air Force.
          That is not even getting into the problem of “special forces”-ization of the entire big army.

          That and this nostalgic fascination with fulda gap-style wars that will never happen again.

        • Hardwood83

          I was referring primarily to leadership.
          Also, $$ =/= strength.

      • Vitor Roma

        I once found a pretty good explanation of why the american armed forces seems to grow weaker, it was an anonymous guy but I find quite believable:

        “Reagan was easily the worst thing that happened to the military. Huge budgets undermine readiness. Big budgets create the focus on solutions that are expensive, not effective. All we get are costly programs and a huge staff.

        I was part of this mess until 2013 when I finally quit in disgust. The worst is the contracting. I was able to cut nearly half the spending but no one acted. “We have to spend it or we won’t get to use it.” The worst game is the cost plus incentive fee. This contract gives a portion of the “savings” to the contractor as extra profit. So what do they do? Blow up the budget so they can “save” back down to what they intended to spend, then pocket additional profit. Even after I created the most detailed and accurate ship repair model the Navy ever saw, which predicted final outcomes with a 97% accuracy, with the intent to use this with a 5% efficiency gain in labor and material utilization plus sending the CPI to the dustbin and using pricing indexes of the actual materials and labor used, simplified to filling in just 10 cells in an Excel sheet and 10 minutes of effort, it was rejected by command because BAE Systems didn’t like it. It would have cut their profits from 40% down to 8% and eliminated cost creep, after I cut their profits myself from around 55% by blocking their “firm” fixed price contract games and requiring similarly detailed cost inputs before approving contract changes.

        But no one cared. All I kept hearing was “our budgets are falling”. I could have repaired the entire fleet with 40% of the existing budget, but these guys kept making excuses why we had to pay 10% more for garden variety copper wire every year because “inflation” despite copper prices falling from $5/lb to $2.30/ lb.

        The only defending going on in the DoD is salaried positions and contractor profits so contract administrators have a cush jog after retiring from civil service.”

        • Seburo

          Concurrency, the best fantasy that will somehow improve our armed forces but really just feeds the pockets of Lockheed and retired officers.

        • Georgiaboy61

          Applaud your efforts to save the taxpayer’s hard-earned dollar, but the purpose of the five-sided puzzle palace known as the Pentagon isn’t to assure military readiness or the fielding of the best forces possible; it is to assure the continued flow of defense appropriations dollars. Once you understand that, everything else falls into place….
          Sounds like you did your best – you needn’t apologize for anything.

        • n0truscotsman

          Thats pretty damn true, from my personal experience.

          Its amazing how certain commenters/bloggers on the internet (not naming names) who frequently defend the DOD and their pet projects, frequently resort to the “but we need more money!” argument.

          I dare anybody in the Air Force to mention ‘budget’ around me when discussing acquisition problems…

        • Swiftright Right

          I wish I could find the author, that guts needs to be fast tracked up the ladder and made into a commisar at the Pentagon

      • William Burke

        More and more spent on the “military”, less and less on anything with a military connection. Straight into the pockets of Pentagon top brass.

        Suits me fine, in a way. I’d rather be led by Putin than any of the corrupt jackasses they put on the ballots. The cookies that come from their cookie cutters are pretty much indistinguishable from one another.

      • DonDrapersAcidTrip

        “I don’t actually know what socialism is”

        • Hardwood83

          I suppose you are implying Obongo isn’t a socialist? If so, then we agree completely that you are ignorant of the definition (and application) of socialism.

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            “Obongo” and thinks anything to the left of fox news is some wild ass radical socialism, yeah we got a real rocket scientist here lmao

    • Bloe Blosey

      The US could have reached out after the fall of the USSR but without a boogeyman the MIC and Pentagram don’t get paid so we didn’t.

    • Seburo

      More like they’re playing catch up. Though it doesn’t take a super spy to figure out where and what our military is buying.

    • DonDrapersAcidTrip

      This kind of ww3 fantasizing crap is basically the global gun nut version of the people who reblog made up memes about “new gang initiation tactics” and think it’s death wish 3 outside and call any gathering of more than one black guy a “bad neighborhood” despite living in small towns and never actually experiencing a crime in their lives ever.

      • Grindstone50k

        F**king served.

    • Secundius

      @ Vitsaus.

      Depend’s on What you call Stronger? Russian Federation Navy, ~75-Ship’s. About 80% are ACTUALLY Operational. Desertion Rate in Army exceeds 10%. Air Force in Better Shape, Depending on what you call BETTER…

  • anon

    I for one welcome our new slavic overlords.

    • ivan

      just why?

    • Grindstone50k

      So hows Donbass this time of year?

      • Bloe Blosey

        Are you a US Rainbow Warrior, sweetie?

        • Grindstone50k

          I did get into the closed beta for Rainbow 6 Siege, if that’s what you mean.

      • DIR911911 .

        the chinese will never let them have us

        • forrest1985

          Exactly! China would go bust without the west to buy their crap!

  • Phil Hsueh

    Very interesting, but I have to wonder at the practicality or necessity of mounting both a scope and a suppressor on a machine gun. Is doing one or the other, not to mention both, really worth the extra weight and expense? I do, however, like the look of that modernized Dragunov, whether or not it’s any good it sure looks nice and wouldn’t having one of my own.

    What I also find interesting is that camo pattern that they’re wearing, not the new pattern being shown off at the end but the one they’re wearing in pretty much all of the other pictures. It seems to me that the macro pattern is way too small and there’s so little contrast in the colors that it looks like a somewhat muddied OD. Wouldn’t they have been better off just sticking with a straight OD uniform than with a camouflage that barely even looks like camouflage?

    • CommonSense23

      Its absolutely awesome having a suppressor on a belt fed, helps tremendously when shooting standing, and the PKM is extremely accurate, having a optic is huge on those.

      • Joshua

        We ran suppressors on our M249s.

        • CommonSense23

          Yeah we had them on our 46s and 48s. So much better shooting them like that.

        • Uniform223

          bad ass…

    • Llewellyn Franks

      Whats on the PKM is actually just a hollow tube meant to soak up excess burning gases. Acting as a sound moderator, muzzle velocity booster, and flash supressor. They’re kinda neat and a feature not seen on a lot of guns.

    • iksnilol

      MGs are surprisingly accurate. Probably due to the heavy barrel. Having a scope on an MG is nothing new.

      Neither are suppressors, they’re a good idea. If you’ve ever seen the muzzle flash of an MG-42 you would understand why I am warm to the idea of suppressors on MGs.

      • Secundius

        @ iksnilol.

        The “Fallschirmjager” in WW2, were issued Suppressors for the MG42. Which was rated at 1,800rpm for the suppressor, it did eliminate to Flash. But the “sound” was reduced, but not by much and was deemed impracticable because it added more weight to the barrel…

  • Joshua

    Poor Russia. Their new armor is equivelant to 1/2″ AR500 Level III+ plates.

    Oh well, at least we know if we had to shoot it out we would be fine with M855A1 which cuts through those types of plates like a hot knife to butter.

    • Kitsuneki

      maybe just MOAR .50BMG?

    • No, it protects against 7N13 AP, making it roughly lnt to NIJ Level IV.

      • Joshua

        It’s closer to Level III+ plates which can also withstand multiple of those rounds.

        7n13 and M2 AP may be the standard round to test with, but more modern rounds are better at defeating armor than both.

        Like I said M855A1 can defeat some armor M2 AP can’t.

        • Err, so my understanding is that Level III+ armor provides protection against M61 and M855, but not M2 AP. Both of the former rounds use pretty small penetrators.

          7N13 is basically a standard Russian LPS with a hardened core. It penetrates 10mm of RHA at 200m, which is I think more comparable to M2 AP than M61 AP.

          http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f17/hazmat97/pp_2-717x1024_zpsea733c68.jpg

          • Joshua

            Level III+ can stop M2 AP, M193, M855, etc.

            There’s a difference between level III and III+ plates. III+ is as good as it gets with metal plates. Anything more and you need an E-SAPI.

            Level III+ stops M2 AP. The better III+ brands do at least, there’s always cheap ones.

            The only thing I have seen be able to stop M855A1 is our modern E-SAPI plates, and we tested a bunch of different armor employed by militaries.

          • So, Level III+ is, as I understand it, not an official rating, correct?

            It therefore does not surprise me that some Level III+ plates might stop M2 AP with a backing (you’d need a pretty thick and heavy plate to stop it without), but some clearly don’t.

            Regardless, the Russian armor is good for 7N13, which is probably somewhere between M61 and M2 AP in performance, so it’s probably steel armor and not as good as ESAPI, which is amazing stuff.

          • Joshua

            I don’t think it is an official rating. I think it was designed for civilians to get armor at an affordable price, while still defeating more rounds than NIJ III is capable of.

            It’s generally made of AR680 steel at 1/2″ with a lining to combat spelling. It’s really good armor that can be has for usually $300 front+back, while being able to defeat M193 and M2 AP, which is the two main rounds Level III plates die against.

            From everything I have seen this is pretty close to III+ plates, which M855A1 flying at 2,800fps easily defeats.

            III+ is great stuff, however when it comes to an Russia they would have to use tungsten cored bullets to stand a chance of defeating our E-SAPI armor which has the issue of not having any decent terminal ballistics and always ice picking. At the same time our M855A1 will have no trouble with their armor, while still retaining all of its terminal ballistics after penetrating the armor.

          • nobody

            >however when it comes to Russia they would have to use tungsten cored
            bullets to stand a chance of defeating our E-SAPI armor which has the
            issue of not having any decent terminal ballistics and always ice
            picking.

            Unfortunately for the Russians, the US could then bring out their fancy XSAPI plates that can stop 7.62x51mm M993 tungsten carbide core AP ammunition.

          • Uniform223

            The IBA and better designed IOTVs saved plenty of lives. That body armor is WAY (different galaxy better) than the old PASGT.

          • I think the plates, at least from the photo, are likely ceramic.

            Once the tooling is set up for pressing ceramics, they can be made fairly inexpensively. PE/ Ceramic composite plates from Singapore are around $110 wholesale, for example. Basic Level IV ceramic plates are only $50-$60 more than AR500 3+ plates here in the US.

            Meanwhile if the goal is to reduce weight of the soldier, which is the stated objective of the program, it’s unlikely they would field steel plates. When you factor in the risk of Spalling, it seems very unlikely.

          • I might be ceramic, sure.

          • Giolli Joker

            Be careful not to fall, then. 😛

          • Joshua

            Cheap ceramic plates are not worth having.

            A good set will cost you a lot of money, and if you buy armor get good ceramic armor not cheap crap.

            This is why Level III+ is so popular, its affordable and better than the armor issued by most countries. It’s not as good as quality E-SAPI plates, but its better than cheap so called “E-SAPI” plates.

          • Secundius

            @ Nathaniel F.

            The problem I have is, Just exactly WHAT AM I LOOKING AT. All I see is a Steel Plate with Seven Holes in it with a Placard in front with so Information on it. And the Other Picture Show’s Ten Holes. Which is “Staged”, and Which is “Real”. Or are BOTH “Faked”. The Bottom Photo is Marked Range at 100-meters, NOT 200-meters as claimed on the Placard. To me it’s “Window Dressing”, Meaningless…

      • Just say’n

        In Soviet Russia, body armor is private you are standing behind.

  • TheNotoriousIUD

    Have her washed and sent to my tent.

    • William Burke

      Mine first! And skip the bath. I’m in a slight hurry.

  • Lance

    Ak-12 is only for Special Forces one of you just blogged on the AK-74 upgrade happening right now in Russia. As for camo seems they copied German Fletcher camo.

    • roguetechie

      1. Flecktarn…
      2. AK-12 spec ops only: Nope… A DOD publication linked to by weaponsman awhile back explains that as of this summer it started coming out that neither A545 or AK-12 versions seen so far are in their final configuration. Max Popenker has a few pictures of the AK-12 revision tested this summer which is a very different beast than the earlier guns we have the most and best photos of. Between hints from “official unofficial” sources, Russian patents I’ve found and some very interesting geometry in the trials test guns from this summer it appears that they’re trying to make a hybrid AK12 A545 that will have a BARS system on even the super shorty guns. (though it may take a very surprising form)

      • Lance

        Well sorry this web site just said the Russian brass will Keep the AK-74 and updated AK-74s the main infantry weapon while the AK-12 will stay in Special Forces use for the future. Thats this web site who posted that a month ago.

        • roguetechie

          that’s why it pays to do your own research… TFB is a great STARTING POINT for the pursuit of information on super specialist stuff like Russian military arms.

  • Great article.

    Do you happen to have photos of their new multitool / knife?

  • Kev

    Some very interesting things happening in Russia at he moment, hey are currently developing a new sniper rifle called TOCHNOST ( accuracy) and recently one state owned company I think it’s KBP Tula announced they were developing a series of semi automatic and bolt action rifles with one in 11mm as well as a machine gun. Now russia is usually a sketchy place but on the russian web a photo did appear and I will try and find a link to the video.

    • Gjert Klakeg Mulen

      Is that the “Russian MINIMI”?

      • Kev

        I think it is or at least something with a similar role.

      • LCON

        The Russians had a Minimi… be they got rid of it…. kept humping the freaken Lazer.

      • Kivaari

        They had one in the RPD. All it needed was a quick change barrel. Valkyre Arms developed one.

        • Secundius

          @ Kivaari.

          Valkyrie Arms, also developed a “Belt Feeding” system, Slight Drawback Though. System cost’s $3,600.00 USD. and can only be used on the Colt 6920, Four to Five TIMES the Value of the Rifle/Carbine Itself.

          • Kivaari

            I haven’t seen that since I moved to Idaho 8 years ago. Previously I was 10 miles from Val’s shop.The price is high, but 15 years ago a similar set up was $2500. It took modified M249 belts and looked like a sewing machine in operation. Quite fragile. But it ran like a sewing machine. Great fun.

      • LCON

        Oh seriously. For years the Russians Issued the RPD as a Belt fed companion to the AK, then they chose to follow the Infantry Automatic Rifle path and created the RPK which at it’s heart is a AKM on steroids with a drum magazine. When they moved to the AK74 they created the RPK74 but kinda did not really choose to follow it as much using long magazines instead of drums. and partnering with PK machine guns. after the end of the cold war the Russians reorganized and it seems dropped the RPK concept and the light machine gun instead favoring use of a reduced weight version of there medium MG.

      • Tritro29

        ZID Tokar project.

  • Patrick M.

    Why does Russia’s army of the future always look like the US Army of 10 years ago?

    • Because they’re Russians and generally not very good at uh, modern things.

  • Esh325

    For some reason I get the feeling the Russians aren’t really that eager to adopt modernized equipment due to economic reasons or that they don’t anticipate war otherwise they would have adopted this equipment already.

    • BabyWookie

      Economic reasons and not expecting to fight any First World opponents are the reasons. The 90’s were truly horrible, with complete collapse of the economy and morale decimating our armed forces. We barely had enough funds to keep up some of our strategic nuclear forces operational, but our pilots weren’t even getting enough flight hours due to not being able to afford fuel.

  • whskee

    I came up blasting Ivan Targets in training so I can’t help but think of the proned out shooter with the bedroll high up on his pack and nice reflective curved googles and think to myself “This ones gonna be easy…”. Maybe those cheesy targets were on to something after all since that camo just ain’t working well either.

  • nobody

    >A three-year order for Ratnik equipment was placed in October of last year, and is expected to consist of deliveries of 50,000 units per year.

    Why do I have a feeling that there is a high likelyhood of them only getting enough to cover their special forces then stopping purchasing more?

    • M40

      Have you seen all the Russian goods on the shelf at your local Wal-Mart? Me neither. How about at the supermarket, or clothing store? No? Well their cars are huge sellers around the world, right? No?

      Point is, their economy sucks, and their goods suck. The only thing they have that’s truly “marketable” is military hardware (and even that is sub-par when compared to Western counterparts). And so we see a Russian economy that’s largely based on selling mediocre arms to tin-pot dictators and tyrants that the western world won’t sell to.

      This presents another issue… the extinction rate of third world dictators is increasing. Whether through western action, or by the hands of their own people, the dictators are dropping like flies. That doesn’t bode well for Russia’s “economic model”. And now we see their latest line of goods being hocked at trade shows. Are they trying to outfit their own forces or are they modeling all this gear for sales?

      The “catch-22” there, is that Russia can’t afford to equip their own troops with modernized gear unless they can sell it to other countries.

  • Uniform223

    I cant get over just how GREEN their camouflage is. Its so green and the micro patterns blend soo much that it seems they should’ve just stuck with a flat color. I’m sure that pattern would work best in Europe during the spring and places with lots of fresh moss, but come on. At least have some form of coloration and pattern disruption…

    http://img11.shop-pro.jp/PA01290/221/product/77122777.jpg?20140721171656

    http://prepare-and-protect.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/mandrake.jpg

    http://images.esellerpro.com/2296/I/180/67/helikon_CPU_shirt_PENCOTT_GREENZONE_ALL_1.jpg

    Of course if that were the case NATO commanders wouldn’t be calling Russian SF doing deniable disruptive operations in the opening hours of an invasion, “little green men”.

  • It was mostly shitposting because I don’t really like Russians. I’m sure you’re pretty cool though.

  • palehorse58

    Looks like one to me!!!

  • palehorse58

    As far as sniper rifles go lets put em up against the Barrett 416 or the 8281 Just to mention a few. And we do have more.

  • Guido FL

    Russia is using the Middle East mess as a testing grounds for modern weapon systems much like Hitler did when he entered the Spanish Civil war. Trial under fire is a necessary evil and Putin knows this. Meanwhile Obama talks Climate Change and gutting our Bill of Rights !

    • DonDrapersAcidTrip

      I get the feeling you try to make a lot of ridiculous modern comparisons to Things Hitler Did

  • Sivispace

    It looks like US gear in the late 70s. If Bernie Sanders is elected it will look modern!

  • doramin

    Like all the rest of Putin’s wonder weapons. The “Ratnik” system will be delivered in token numbers to elite units. The rest will have to make do with current equipment. Otherwise, you’ll only see it on RT and YouTube.

  • Hyok Kim

    No smart grenades, no exo-skeleton based powered armored suits, no terrain gliding armored cavalry?

    • Max Glazer

      Exo-skeleton armored suits? What for? Defeated by using larger caliber weapons. Not that hard to make a 12.7mm assault rifles with AP ammo. Russians already have those assault rifles. Also what is gonna happen if battery dies in the exoskeleton?

      • Hyok Kim

        “Exo-skeleton armored suits? What for? Defeated by using larger caliber weapons”

        By that reasoning, why do we even bother to invest in body armors and helmets? They can be even more readily defeated.

        “Also what is gonna happen if battery dies in the exoskeleton?”

        Batteries can be built in modular configuration, so that two or more batteries can be carried, and when one is empty, the other(s) takes over and the empty battery can be replaced by a fully charged one.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charging_station#Battery_swapping

        Not only that, batteries can be charged by solar, wind, and generators optimized for burning woods, grass. This could become very critical in rugged terrain where the logistics support would be minimal.

        Furthermore, microwave electric charging can be utilized as well.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_power

        As for the reason for exo-skeleton armored suits? This way, a soldier can carry far more powerful armor and/or ammos, and far more powerful guns or even AT, AA missiles, could have far more comfortable environment with built-in heating, air conditioning, plus on-board oxygen, could even have system for personal waste, #1 and #2 attached, no more wasting time looking for place for #2.

        Also, could have far more effective anti-heat seeking protection, and far smaller target than a tank. Also, can go to places even tanks can’t go.

        • Max Glazer

          Think about this reason. Exoskeleton is FAR from cheap. How much do you recon it’d cost to supply a couple of battalions, never mind divisions.

          Then you just as well use RC armed robots and control them via networking. Even smaller target.

          You need to remember one thing – military equipment must be simple, reliable, easy to build/maintain, affordable and soldier-proof. All this exoskeleton work is well and good but what you are describing is basically walking tank. Things go wrong in the field. What will you do with it if it really dies? What will the poor SOLDIER do with all that weight that exoskeleton carried?

          Exoskeleton might be good for SF, but not for a general army-wide issue.

          • Hyok Kim

            “Think about this reason. Exoskeleton is FAR from cheap.”

            Of course, they are not cheap, but then what military hardware for main front line combat is cheap?

            What matters is the increasing the bang for the buck in the end while still meeting the minimal combat effectiveness criteria.

            While the ideal exo-skeleton armor would not be cheap, still it would be cheaper than the latest MBTs, especially when mass produced, and exos can be configured modular so that repairing a damaged exos can be a lot cheaper than MBTs. Plus exos can be retrieved far easier than MBTs. Exos can go to places where MBTs cannot go, can hide in places MBTs cannot hide. Exos can be very versatile both in offensive and defensive employment. Exos can be easily flown by aircraft, don’t try doing that with MBTs! Exos can be even paradropped if disassembled, and assembled in the field by the operator. Especially when special vehicles built for exos are utilized for flat terrain, and dismount in rugged terrains.

            “How much do you recon it’d cost to supply a couple of battalions, never mind divisions.”

            When mass produced in modular configuration, and considering the cost of logistics (such as easier retrieving damaged exos, repair, upgrade, maintain compared to MBTs, pluse easier hostile terrain crossing, such as river, or stiff mountain pass), it would be a lot cheaper overall than current armored divisions.

            Exos would be far more space efficient than MBTs. It means it can do more than the latest MBTs but while remaining less expensive overall, less vulnerable than MBTs. The operator inside would be in a very well shock cushioned, optimal temperature controlled environment than a tank. Injury from concussion would be far less likely than inside MBTs.

            “Then you just as well use RC armed robots and control them via networking. Even smaller target.”

            At this stage, they are still not as situation aware as a live operator right there. Even the latest advanced drone from U..S still cannot win a dogfight from the 3rd world country jet operated by the 3rd world fighter pilot.

            Besides, remote controlled bot can still be jammed by the enemy. One can try to jam the communication system of resident human operated vehicle, but cannot shut down the control system itself in manual mode.

            “You need to remember one thing – military equipment must be simple, reliable, easy to build/maintain, affordable and soldier-proof.”

            Yes, and it also must meet the minimum combat effectiveness, and idealy provide best bang for the buck overall combat effectiveness. Simple is good, but not at the cost of overall bang for the buck combat effectiveness. Otherwise, we would still be using rocks and clubs, instead of firearms.

            “All this exoskeleton work is well and good but what you are describing is basically walking tank.”

            Nope, I’ll explain below why not.

            Here are advantages of exos

            1. It is far more space efficient than MBTs. This means it needs far less armor and other active and passive protectioin from enemy AT missiles and projectile fire (from both small arms and artillery). This also means it needs far smaller life-support system than MBTs, such as air conditiioning, heating, ventilation, stored oxygen, oxygen generator than MBTs. This also means far more efficiency than MBTs, less moving about or internal communication. One man (with enough automation) can always outfight and outthink the enemy who have to depend on internal communication bottleneck among each other. One reason why the chariots gave away to cavalry.

            2. Its profile is primarily vertical, not horizontal unlike MBTs. This means a very difficult target for the enemy, especially for projectiles (small arms, and artillery). Do you know how difficult it is to shoot a moving, thin, vertical target, as opposed to horizontal, wide, fat target?

            3. it can be designed so that it can crouch and form a fetal/ball position, MBTs cannot do that. This will not only provide even more protection from enemy AT missiles and projectiles, but also makes it more difficult for the enemy AT missiles and projectiles to hit, and even when hit, the force is more likely simply to roll the exos, rather than penetrate, and damage exos, especially the internal cores.

            4. It can climb a steep grade that will not allow MBTs to climb. Typical AT trap simply won’t work on exos, if need be, it can be designe to walk on all fours, especially on muddy, sandy, deep snow environment that will bog down even the tanks with wide tracks.

            5. Being trackless, and free of bogie wheels unlike tank tracks, it is far less vulnerable to mud clinging, and enemy attack on the tracks and bogie wheels, and stranding tanks. Germans lost more tigers due to being bogged down than due to being destroyed by enemy action.

            6. Due to its ‘legs’ and ‘feet’ presenting far smaller targets that is constatly changing its positions unlike tank tracks, it is far less likely to be disabled by enemy action.

            7. Due to far smaller area profile on the ground than tanks, it is far less vulnerable to enemy mines, and even when hit by mines, the force is far more likely to simply wasted away than tanks due to not presenting large, and heavy surface area for the explosion to take effect.

            8. Due to its far lighter weight, and smaller profile, it can be aircraft delivered to far away places far faster than MBTs, and supplied to places where tanks simply cannot go.

            9. Due to its vertical profile, and electric motors, not only it can cross the rivers without heavy logistics preparation like MBTs, it can also climb steep river banks that would stop virtually all tanks. Americans lost quite a bit Shermans that way after D-day while effecting the river crossing. Water got into the engine.

            10. Due to its vertical, thin, profile, it can be readily repaired from all directions, try doing that with MBTs. one needs special heavy duty machineries to be able to get to tanks to be able to reach those areas that needs repairs.

            11. Due to lighter weight and smaller profile, if damaged in the field, it can be easily retrieved, to be repaired later. Germans lost more tigers due to being unable to retrieve them in the field, when stranded due to lack of fuel, or bogged down in mud, or track being damaged either due to enemy action or being off-tracked due to rough handling than actual decisive hostile action.

            “Things go wrong in the field. What will you do with it if it really dies?”

            Yes, I agree, happens all the time. If you meant ‘dying’ in the field, being bogged down, then try to retrieve it using recovery vehicles. It’s a lot easier than MBTs. If it cannot be retrieved for whatever reason, just abandon it. In wars, they happen a lot. It’s far more likely to happen with tanks than exos due to its weight and size.

            “What will the poor SOLDIER do with all that weight that exoskeleton carried?”

            Very easy! Exos can be designed to let the operator escape from exos if stranded, top, bottom, and hinged side. The soldier doesn’ carry the weight, the exos does, just tanks carry the weight, not the operators inside.

            “Exoskeleton might be good for SF, but not for a general army-wide issue.”

            Initially, that would be the idea. However, just like the cavalry, if adopted eventually by all combat soldiers, like Mongols, they would allow the army to move fast and decisive, to maximize the scale of victory, while minimizing the scale of defeat. Mongols under Ghengis Kahn were not only 100% cavalry, but carried as many as 3 to 7 horses per each soldier. Some horses would die either due to exposure, or enemy action. No need to cry over a dead horse, while the war continues.

            Exos if adopted in wide scale, in mass formation, would include the advantage of both infantry, and armored tracked units, but not the disadvantages, so that even bigger scale of economy can be utilized to bring the cost of exos down even further.

          • Max Glazer

            I can only be amazed at your total lack of understanding of how military machine works.

            The reason why flown drones haven’t won anything is because you need presence on the ground. Simple. Ground ones operated by a network are a different story.

            Before you equip the entire military with exoskeletons, write up a concept of its application, list threats it’ll face, solutions it will employ, what its overall look, weight, specifications, materials used etc. And then look whether A) it’ll fit into existing order of battle/doctrine and B) whether there are already more effective solutions available to existing problems.

          • Hyok Kim

            “I can only be amazed at your total lack of understanding of how military machine works.”

            ……yet, you cannot refute my refutation of your criticism of Exos. What does that make you?

            “The reason why flown drones haven’t won anything is because you need presence on the ground.”

            How does the presence in the ground will help drone win the dogfight against the enemy fighter planes?

            “Simple. Ground ones operated by a network are a different story.”

            How is it a different from drones against the fighter jets flown by a pilot inside?

            Besides, how are you going to prevent the remote control being jammed by the enemy electronic warfare?

            “Before you equip the entire military with exoskeletons, write up a concept of its application, list threats it’ll face, solutions it will employ, what its overall look, weight, specifications, materials used etc.”

            Obviously you do not know how the military organization comes up with equipment battle doctrine.. It’s gradual, with trial and error period.

            “And then look whether A) it’ll fit into existing order of battle/doctrine and B) whether there are already more effective solutions available to existing problems.”

            Again, you do not understand a military doctrine gets developed and implemented. One does not deploy a ‘game changer’ weapon for the existing doctrine.

            One develops new doctrine for the game changer weapons.

            Germans did not deploy tanks primarily to support infantry.

            They developed a new doctrine, cast aside the old doctrine.

  • Tritro29

    Yeah Russian economy in the trash? It’s not the Russians who are forced to roll the debt. Guess why?

  • walter12

    China, Russia, the GD Muslims, everyone is in accent, but us. We go down the toilet and fast with demonic creatures like this Obama Monster soiling our White House.

  • brainy37

    The animosity of Europe really doesn’t count for much these days. After the Libya debacle (how do several nations run out of bombs in less than a month on a low pace intervention?) it’s pretty plain that they pose no real threat. The EU is dependent on Russian gas and a shutdown would be devastating both economically and strategically for both sides.

    Their economy is in better shape than many EU nations right now. I wouldn’t dismiss the Russians that quickly. If they start to partner with the Chinese then they could be a serious threat.

  • Secundius

    Great Russian “PR”, Like the 1954 Soviet Moscow Square “May Day” Parade. “Showing You What THEY Want You Too See”. For the Record, even the Russians don’t USE GLONASS. Not a Accurate and Reliable as Western GPS Systems

    • DragnarDaBreaker .

      ISIS dead terrorists don’t agree with ya.

      • Secundius

        @ DragnarDaBreaker.

        Last I heard, Russian’s weren’t Attacking ISIS. The Were Attacking Free Syrian Forces and Many of there Missile Somehow Attacked a Patch of Sand in Iranian Desert, Instead…

        • DragnarDaBreaker .

          FSF project – U.S. Child as the ISIS. The goal is the same – to overthrow current authorities and spread chaos across Asia, while U.S. companies will buy cheap oil (as they do now from ISIS). Hitler, Al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, ISIS – nothing new under the moon. Wall-Street creates another armed monster if they need it.

          • Secundius

            @ DragnarDaBreaker.

            Just what exactly is the FSF Project. If you JSF Project, I Agree. But the Difference is we have (115) to your (5) Sukhoi T50’s. And all the T50’s are Prototypes, NONE OPERATIONAL. Plus we also have (195) F-22A Raptors…

          • DragnarDaBreaker .

            FSF for “Free” Syrian Forces.

          • Secundius

            @ DragharDaBreaker.

            So your agreeing that the Russian Federation, ARE NOT Fighting ISIS and are in FACT fighting the FSF…

          • DragnarDaBreaker .

            They are fighting both, for both are terrorists and U.S. puppets. If you call someone good for their name “Free”, but who at the same time kidnap people, bombs civilian structures, arm childern, then there is something wrong with you.

  • DragnarDaBreaker .

    Oh I love that U.S. vs Russia talks comparing guns and vests. Like if artillery, thermobaric grenades and rockets, tanks and aviation never existed. No Russian soldier will run against your positions with AK-bayonettes. This is 21st century while you’re still in 1940s.

  • SD

    It will never see widespread adoption. They recently replaced their footwraps with socks. An army of uneducated barbarian cowards and deserters.