The results of this year’s training of the Coast Guard Region 1 Command are more advanced than in previous years. This is the basis for the Regional Command to continue to improve its combat readiness, the level of command organization at all levels; bravery in manipulating and using weapons, technical equipment and handling situations in training of officers and soldiers of the whole unit. Here are some pictures of the training session. Practice shooting AK submachine guns at sea. Chemical training content at sea. Test swim in the sea. Training in first aid for wounded soldiers at sea. Master the task before going on a mission. The formation of training ships at sea. The squadron of the 102nd Squadron entered the firing line. Giving flowers with good shot to comrades with excellent achievements.

According to information posted by the US side, the ship CSB 8021 has been renovated and tested by the US side, handed over to the Vietnamese side, and set off to return home. Before handing over to the Vietnam Coast Guard, the ship CSB 8021 was completely repainted by the US side with Vietnam’s national emblem and flag; and especially, the US side removed some weapons from the ship. One of the weapons that was removed from the ship by the US, was the high-speed Phalanx artillery batteries used for close-range defense. The Phalanx short-range defensive high-speed artillery system, considered the standard weapon, appears on nearly every American warship. Born in the 80s of the last century, Phalanx high-speed cannon is designed to be able to fire automatically, its target is objects flying at close range, including aircraft, cruise missiles, … of the opponent. The strength of this weapon is that it has an automatic control mechanism, can use pre-installed radar, to follow the target and fire itself, the firing rate of the Phalanx high-speed cannon is up to 4500 rounds. /min – equivalent to about 75 tablets/second. Also one of the very powerful weapons, however, the US side did not remove the OTO Melara 76mm cannon from the CSB 8021 ship before handing it over to Vietnam. Designed by Italy in the 60s of the last century, the 76mm OTO gunboat is still commonly used on many small American and Western warships. One of the most “expensive” features of this gunboat is that it has an extremely fast rate of fire, up to a maximum of 85 rounds per minute – that is, firing twice every 3 seconds. In addition to the fast rate of fire, the OTO 76mm gunboat also has an extremely advanced cannon stabilization mechanism, which allows to accurately fire the target at a distance of over 10 km. The range of this cannon, depending on the type of ammunition, will be able to shoot up to 16 km to a maximum of 40 km with the most modern Vulcano version. For a fast rate of fire of up to 85 rounds per minute, all incoming OTO 76mm ammunition is housed in a rotating magazine with an electrically automatic reloading mechanism. Theoretically, this automatic magazine can hold up to 80 rounds – that is, with the maximum rate of fire, the 76mm Melara cannon can fire all the ammunition in the magazine in less than time. 1 minute. To ensure the ability to operate at high intensity, the OTO 76mm naval gun has a liquid-cooled mechanism, avoiding the temperature of the barrel and the firing mechanism being pushed up too high. This cooling system can use seawater or fresh water depending on different settings. Close-up of automatic ammunition of the OTO Melara 76mm cannon. Image source: USnavy. The “horrifying” rate of fire of the 76mm OTO Melara cannon on the American battleship Source: USnavy.

American Stryker armored vehicle. (Source: Worldnewsplatform) These wheeled armored vehicles were developed in the early 2000s, but when used in combat for the first time in Iraq, it revealed the design imperfections of the whole series. Limitations The Pentagon has been using the Stryker armored vehicle since 2002, developed on the basis of the Canadian LAV III armored vehicle, a modernized version of the Swiss-made Piranha, designed in the 1970s. The American armored personnel carrier did not differ much from the prototype – the body and general layout remained unchanged. Slightly increased height, reinforced armor protection and adjusted bottom shape. The crew consists of two people, the troop compartment can accommodate 9 soldiers. The 350hp diesel engine allows the front-wheel-drive Stryker to accelerate to 100 km/h on the highway. Fuel enough to operate nearly 500 km. The front armor can withstand the impact of 14mm armor-piercing bullets or 155mm shrapnel. The side shells and rear end well protect against 7.62 mm bullets. Standard armament is a 12.7 or 7.62 mm Browning machine gun. A 40mm automatic grenade launcher can be mounted. Several versions were developed: self-propelled 120 mm mortar, reconnaissance vehicle, command staff vehicle, engineer vehicle and ambulance. There was also a heavily armed version – a 105 mm anti-tank gun, aimed at attacking fortified positions, bunkers, and armored vehicles, but the Pentagon soon decided to remove it. this release, as they identified problems with the gun and the automatic loader. The US military calculated the costs and came to the conclusion that there is no benefit in upgrading self-propelled guns. Replacing the heavy Stryker with the portable Javelin anti-tank system proved much easier. In the early 2000s, the Pentagon ordered more than 2,000 armored vehicles – immediately addressing the shortage of mobile infantry transport. At the same time, build specialized motorized brigades (Stryker brigade combat team, SBCT). Each such unit has about 4.5 thousand soldiers and officers, using 300 wheeled armored vehicles of various versions. From a tactical point of view, the SBCT is located between the highly mobile Humvee mechanized infantry and heavy tank groups. These brigades are thought to be capable of rapidly deploying and effectively dealing with various combat missions anywhere in the world. The transportation of personnel and equipment is carried out by C-130 Hercules transport aircraft. In 2004, the first unit was sent to Iraq. During that year, the Americans studied the tactics of using Stryker brigades in wars. The command then noted the high efficiency of armored vehicle units, especially in urban combat. However, soldiers complained of design flaws, insufficient firepower, and weak armor. Subsequent reporting by a Pentagon special committee almost led to the program’s closure. It turns out that armored vehicles only work well on flat roads and highways – on rough terrain, the car is covered with mud or sand. Motors are often used at high speeds, causing them to fail quickly. The Stryker is significantly heavier than the Canadian and Swiss vehicles. Another serious miscalculation by the designers was armor, which only provided good protection against small arms. In real combat, the enemy prefers to use anti-tank guns. RPG anti-tank bullets easily penetrated the body of the vehicle, so the vehicles had to urgently equip the additional wire mesh. In addition, due to the large center of gravity, vehicles often overturn when hitting obstacles or mines. Furthermore, seat belts did not secure people properly, causing several soldiers to die. Chain of problems Defects are corrected. For example, anti-tank bulletproof nets and suspended steel housings were installed originally from the factory. As a result, mass increases and complications arise during air transport – some modifications that are beyond the carrying capacity of the transport aircraft. The new electronics and night vision goggles don’t make much of a difference either. The Stryker is still a car with a host of unresolved problems. In addition, the modernization required additional funding for the entire program. However, in the US military, there has long been a problem of equipping the army with armored vehicles to meet the requirements of modern warfare. The Pentagon tried several projects, but to no avail. In 2004, American generals carried out a major reorganization of the military. As part of the Future Combat System (FCS) project, they decided to create a line of manned and unmanned versions of armored vehicles. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent, the US planned to deploy the first brigade using new vehicles in 2015 and form 15 units by 2030. However, the program was unexpectedly closed. – according to official information, regarding the change in US defense strategy. After that, the Americans launched a promising infantry fighting vehicle project – Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV), which was supposed to surpass the outdated M2 Bradly vehicle in terms of protection, and lighter, more compact and more maneuverable. The resulting GCV turned out to be too expensive for mass production – in 2014 all work was suspended. The US is currently working on another program – the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV), which involves the creation of a crawler infantry fighting vehicle with artificial intelligence and remote control. . The Pentagon now has to transport infantry using the old M113 and M2 Bradly, as well as modernize the Stryker vehicle. Updated version A1 introduced a few years ago: 30mm cannon, reinforced armor, more powerful engine, transmission. A low-altitude anti-aircraft vehicle variant is also offered. But whether this Stryker vehicle will become more suitable for combat than previous versions is still unclear. Actually, the design is still the same. (according to Sputnik)

The information indicates that the enterprise has carried out major repairs and modernization for the Akatsiya complexes, improvements focused on suppressing and destroying enemy armored vehicles, including tanks and artillery. Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper military observer, retired Colonel Viktor Baranets talked about the improvements Akatsiya received after the modernization process in an interview with PolitExpert reporter. Mr. Baranets noted that, first of all, all imported components were replaced, some of which came from NATO countries. After a few years, the Russian manufacturer has successfully installed domestic replacement parts of higher quality. Specifically, some details in the control system, aiming equipment, and communications. .. It is noteworthy that a new communication system has been installed, allowing the commander of the self-propelled artillery complex to communicate immediately with the officer of the battery. This can reduce the time it takes to prepare to shoot, which is extremely important, Mr. Baranets stressed. “After firing, quickly run away from your position, or you will get an answer in just 1 minute. Without upgrading the communication system, changing the deployment status will take time, this which generals, designers and scientists naturally understand. “We need an advanced fire control system that allows ‘fire and flight’, ensuring survival on the battlefield,” military expert Baranets explained to reporters. In the opinion of Mr. Baranets, the new Akatsiya chassis is characterized by high durability and reliability. In addition, adjustments have been made to the quality of the irradiation process. Although the caliber of the cannon remains the same as 152 mm, thanks to the improved ballistics, the range has increased to 25 km. In other words, the 2S3M self-propelled gun acquires new qualities, becoming much more powerful. Self-propelled gun 2S3 Akatsiya has been upgraded by Russia with outstanding power Colonel Baranets noted, although Akatsiya served in the Soviet Army nearly 50 years ago, it continues to be the backbone of the Russian Army. Thanks to its reliably ingenious design, it has undergone more than one modernization. It is no coincidence that today more than 30 countries use Russian self-propelled artillery. “A curious detail – after the fall of the Soviet Union, Americans walked through Russia like vacuum cleaners and bought all the interesting weapons, including the Akatsiya self-propelled howitzer, but its characteristics were low. half of our weapons,” Baranets said. According to the analyst, the Americans obtained these self-propelled guns even from the former Soviet republics and the countries of the Warsaw Pact. The United States expected to study the design features of Russian artillery, because they recognized their superior performance. Baranets believes that every Russian weapon, such as the Kalashnikov assault rifle, has endless modernization possibilities. Akatsiya will also have a similar story, as it has huge reserves for further improvement. The military observer concluded: “I think that in five years we will have a further improved self-propelled artillery, the shells of which will be more powerful and will run faster by itself.”

From the observations of analyst Andrey Kots, it can be seen that the Russians displayed a new variant of the Kurganets-25 infantry fighting vehicle with the 57 mm BM “Epoch” turret – different from the 30 mm cannon in the reviews. former soldiers. According to analyst Ryabov Kirill, the LShO-57 differs from the well-known 57 mm 2A91 cannon in a number of features including a shorter barrel (barrel length 40 times the size) and no recoil compensation. This design makes the ballistics more stretchable, but at the same time, it also requires the development of new ammunition such as fragmentation explosive ammunition (suitable for the requirements of anti-UAV combat as mentioned above) and armor-piercing ammunition. Kurganets-25 infantry fighting vehicle parade The Kurganets-25 is a new generation of armored fighting vehicles designed to replace the BMP-2 and MT-LB vehicles in motorized units of the Russian army. This will promise to be a line of weapons that will glorify the Russian armored forces. The Kurganets-25 is heavily armed with a 30mm 2A42 automatic cannon with 500 rounds, or a 57mm caliber 2A91 cannon with 200 rounds, in addition to a 7.62mm PKT coaxial machine gun, anti-tank missiles with Kornet-EM remote control, thermobaric grenade launcher. Infantry fighting vehicle Kurganets-25 In addition, the vehicle is equipped with a meteorological reconnaissance system, 2 photoelectric target reconnaissance systems and missile guidance that significantly improve the combat capability of this armored vehicle. On the other hand, the electronic systems will be part of the sensor system, serving the active defense system “soft suppression”. The body of the vehicle is also fitted with 16 grenade launchers and 4 sensors of the Afghanit “hard pressure” system to help the vehicle have excellent defense against infantry and laser-guided weapons. A light on the turret could also be part of an active defense system against second-generation guided anti-tank missiles.

Modernization plan The production of the Challenger 2 main tank began in 1994 and lasted until 2002. The tank was officially commissioned in 1998. Immediately after that, the search for a way to modernize the equipment. of Challenger 2 began to be implemented, but until recently, all the ideas were not developed, for various reasons. However, the basic reason for refusing to modernize the Challenger 2 tank was lack of finance. RBLS introduces the tank model of the Challenger 2 Life Extension Project project in 2019. At the end of 2015, the British Ministry of Defense launched the Challenger Life Extension Project 2 (LEP), to upgrade its existing tank fleet. The project was originally planned to follow a “small” modernization, focusing only on instrumentation. The project was then completed in 2019. However, in 2019, the LEP program was relaunched, with new requirements. Proposals are currently being made for a larger modernization, focusing on weapons systems, power plant complexes, turrets and other structures. In addition, the project also considers modifying the volume and cost of the modernization process. In 2019, the German-British joint venture Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) proposed the Challenger-2 modernization project. In September of the same year, the new experimental tank of the project appeared at an exhibition. Then the necessary tests are carried out, in order to determine the actual characteristics and compare with other competing development projects. As a result, RBSL’s project was recognized as the most successful and recommended for full-scale implementation. On May 7, 2021, the British Ministry of Defense announced the signing of a contract for the project. Some contents of the proposed modernization program have been reported in detail. Accordingly, the project will upgrade the Challenger-2 main tank into the Challenger 3 version. Main tank for the future Between 1994 and 2002, the British Army purchased 386 Challenger-2 tanks and 22 training vehicles. By 2010, the number of equipment in the lineup was reduced to 225 and has remained at that level to this day. According to previous plans, such a main tank force would be maintained until 2035. However, now the plan has been revised, regarding the Challenger 3 project. He started implementing the Challenger 2 Tank Life Extension Project since 2015. In March 2021, a new assessment of defense and security was published, which included a request to reduce the tank fleet. Accordingly, only 148 tanks will be used in the future and will be repaired and modernized. This allows them to remain in service until the 2040s. The remaining 77 vehicles will be retired from service. The new contract between the British Ministry of Defense and RBSL accepts this option and begins implementation. The main work of the Challenger 3 project will be carried out at the RBSL plant in Telford (UK). This project will provide 200 jobs, including 130 vacancies for engineers. Individual units will be provided by other companies, where another 450 jobs will be created. In the coming years, contractors will have to complete the project development and prepare the production line. The first tanks to be upgraded are scheduled to arrive in 2027. The last of 148 main battle tanks will return to service in 2030. The total cost of this modernization project, according to the contract. , would be £800 million (about £5.4 million/tank). The British Ministry of Defense highly appreciates the prospects of the new project. The country’s military expects the Challenger 3 to become a “world-class tank” and “NATO’s deadliest machine”. In addition, new weapons and other modern systems will allow the British Challenger-3 to surpass modern Russian main battle tanks. Comprehensive upgrade RBLS’s Challenger 3 project involves extensive modernization of the existing tank line, with the replacement of most major systems and equipment. As a result, the new tank will enhance mobility, increase protection, firepower and other important stats. In addition, the upgraded tank can function as part of a command combat system, along with a modern control system and easy data exchange. The main changes of the Challenger 3 project. During the upgrade process, the tank shell will receive new modular front armor. Its composition and properties are not specified, but the degree of protection is reported to be significantly increased. To replace the old tower, a new hood was developed with reinforced armor and the volume required to install new equipment. In the future, tanks will also receive active defense complexes. Challenger-3’s weapon system is equipped with a 120mm smoothbore gun Rheinmetall Rh 120 L55A1 manually loaded. Cannons can use a full range of existing and new ammunition for different purposes. In particular, the tank’s ammunition base will include new high-explosive fragmentation ammunition, with a DM11 programmable fuse. Additional weapons will include a remotely controlled machine gun combat module. RBSL intends to carry out a radical overhaul of the fire control system and other equipment on the tank. The lens system, control computer and other components of the tank will be selected new, without using the standard equipment of the Challenger 2. The fire control system will be combined with the associated vehicles. modern communication, providing the exchange of data on the tactical situation. Project outlook The Challenger 2 Life Extension Project (LEP) program has passed its first phase and is entering a new phase. In the coming years, the joint venture Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land and related companies will have to organize new content and kick-start work on a series of equipment modernization. According to the general plan, by 2030, the British army will completely renew its main tank force. Challenger 3 will be the main tank of the British army in the future. Due to a lack of funding, the British army could not afford to maintain a large tank fleet, and currently has only 225 main tanks. The modernization of all these equipment also becomes impossible and about a third of the tanks will have to be decommissioned due to lack of funds to restore. Besides, the increase in the capabilities of the upgraded tank is not only due to the benefit of new equipment and weapons. It is also based on the objective limitations and shortcomings of existing tanks. Accordingly, the Challenger-2 has not undergone a major upgrade and its characteristics are still at the level of the late 1990s. This fact led to the urgent need to develop a completely new combat unit. However, from a technical point of view, experts say that Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land’s Challenger 3 project seems quite successful. The proposed solutions are indeed capable of improving the technical characteristics and increasing the combat capabilities of existing tanks. In addition, all the necessary capabilities of a modern main tank are provided.

Improvements to the Challenger 2 will cost £800 million ($1 billion) for the 148 tanks currently in service, or £5.4 million ($6.6 million) per tank, including tank capacity. incorporating a new smoothbore cannon to replace the older one, a digitized turret, improved visibility and upgraded armor protection, engines, etc. According to many experts, although the German Leopard 2 has the advantage of being still in production and being invested more in research and development to continuously upgrade its design, the continued investment in The Challenger has many notable advantages over purchasing a “pre-existing” German design. The British Ministry of Defense has decided to upgrade the Challenger 2 tank to the Challenger 3 standard; Source: armytimes.com The Challenger 2 has had limited export success, and around 40 are currently operated by the Royal Oman Army. The Challenger 3 upgrade package is likely to be sold to Oman, which has long been a top customer for British weapons. The large number of British Challenger 2 tanks in storage can be refurbished and upgraded to Challenger 3 standard for export to any interested partner. The cost and burden of abandoning the Challenger and adopting a foreign tank would also be enormous, forcing the British Army to retrain not only the crew, but also the maintenance crews. It would also force the military to scrap all existing maintenance infrastructure and source spare parts from abroad, and thus end the domestic parts industry. The cost of buying a new Leopard 2 will also be significantly higher than the £5.4 million ($6.6 million) that the Challenger 3 upgrade package costs per vehicle. One of the most obvious drawbacks of switching to Leopard 2 was the loss of credibility as a major tank manufacturer, with Britain having invented and being the first country to use tanks in combat, This means that the country has lost its strong industry. It is also important to note that the Leopard 2 is much older in design than the Challenger 2, and first entered service 20 years ago – in 1979, older than the retired Challenger 1 that entered service. active in 1983. While the Leopard 2 was a faster and more maneuverable tank, the Challenger 2 was considered to have much better armor protection – although this diminished over time as German tanks were continuously upgraded. customary. The decision to upgrade Challenger 2 instead of buying Leopard 2 is justified for various reasons; Source: wikipedia.org The Challenger 2 is the most modern Western tank class and has been in service since 1998, although the problem of a lack of smoothbore guns reduces its export potential, combined with the relatively small size of the units. The British tank status means it will be discontinued much sooner than the Leopard 2. With the Leopard 2 more than 40 years old, Germany is currently investing in developing a successor, with the UK investing in the acquisition. The old German design is arguably not going to be a sensible choice. Furthermore, it is important to consider that if the UK really needs to replace the Challenger 2 with a foreign design, the Leopard 2 will not necessarily be the best choice – not only in terms of capabilities but also for political reasons. . As Britain seeks to forge ties with advanced economies outside of Europe after leaving the European Union, the better option may be South Korea’s K2 Black Panther, developed a few decades after Leopard 2. century and is generally considered to be much more powerful. The next-generation tank program in cooperation with Japan, or even buying an American M1 Abrams tank with some domestic improvements, may ultimately prove to be more affordable than buying the Leopard 2. The Challenger 2 upgrade provides a low-cost solution to modernizing armored units while avoiding the difficulties of transitioning to an entirely new vehicle type and, at the same time, preserving the weapons industry in the future. water for more potential programs in the future.