Jump to content

ikalugin

Members
  • Content Count

    655
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

ikalugin last won the day on April 18

ikalugin had the most liked content!

About ikalugin

Recent Profile Visitors

873 profile views
  1. Considering engines are neither designed or made in Tagil I doubt they have any problems, but it does make me wonder what non problems they may have, considering how they discuss 2200hp special boost (форсаж) mode. Maybe you are mistaking the normal practice of boosting from mod to mod (форсирование) for the destructive special boost mode? But surely you must have reliable and authoritive sources? That was in 2010, before those programs hit (expected) delays. The allocated money was spent on procurement elsewhere, the programs were pushed left. Those costs (citation needed) and early LRIP contracts for test companies do not reflect the bulk production costs. Also, in addition to your misperception of our IC the small contracts should not be both seen as a consequence of Russian inability to produce Armatas and at the same time the cause for it, if they do not come from the lack of funding but rather from programs creeping left. Furthermore those order numbers look bizarre and need sources.
  2. They are misreporting. Note how they go with "few" and then name 60 HGVs as a figure, which is about all we would deploy in next 10 years. Fibers (for mil uses) are not seen as an issue. The same thing happened with "no more Su57S, PAK-FA cancelled" and "no more follow up Borei of any kind, they are cut" etc. p.s. 60 Avanguards is: - 20 Avanguards on 20 (or fewer, the scale of desired deployment on this booster is a topic for discussions) UR-100-N-UTTh boosters taken out of storage, with some of them (3-10) going operational this year, this is for experimental services of HGVs in general. - 36 Avanguards on 12 Sarmat ICBM (3 per each ICBM), which did not even finish testing yet. Considering the standard developmental timelines for Sarmat and how it is likely that we would deploy them with a variety of payloads (light monoblocks, MIRVs/MaRVs with parralel deployment etc) I do not see how this alleged production issue is going to impact deployment.
  3. You seem misinformed, 1200hp is the peacetime mode of operation to significantly increase engine lifetime (beyond requirements), 1500hp is the standard mode with the required lifetime, 2200hp is the boosted mode. After the initial LRIP ("parade") batch (of 10 each) for testing there was a period of re-design based on the recomendations from that testing. Now there is an outstanding order for the IOC BDE set, which would be building vehicles with the design accounting for the recomendations. Then we expect another phase of re-design based on that unit level testing before final variant for mass adoption. So why were you expecting follow up Armatas in 2018 if this wasn't standard procurement practice? The price would change with economies of scale and design maturity, same as with all other programs for new equipment. Well that is an amusing extension of the Soviet era bias and is does not actually represent reality properly. Especially the lavishly funded MiC (in 1990s-2000s when it was living at best from Export sales?), made me chuckle. The issue is not the cost or inability to make them in general, the issue is that those new generation programs were delayed the same way such programs were delayed elsewhere, ie the JSF/F35 program in the US. Due to those delays the procurement money allocated was spent on other purchases, the money was there but it would have been stupid to sit on it. Now that those programs are more mature there are outstanding hard signed contracts for IOC batches and those are now being produced.
  4. Staying on topic would be nice, but political discussion already bloomed in the other thread.
  5. BMP3 was amphib (and paradropable for that matter - this is where the heritage of amphib paradropable tank shows and where the rear engine placement helps) before, same as our other APCs and IFVs, and was already sold to marines in Indonesia. Though I guess there are always differences in capability between various vehicles. It would be there when the program is complete. Compare and contrast with how the previous leader of the generation was born - the T64. First they built an IOC set, then took their time working the kinks out, then got to mass deployment (of T64As). They are currently in the process of building the IOC brigade sized set. So the new X engine by Chelyabinsk, new transmission do not exist? Huh. I guess they are using a variant of T34 engine and transmission then (sarcasm). And there we disagree, it is like accusing LM that they cant develop a new fighter in principle because their program went through delays.
  6. You mean on the BMD platform? Huh, I guess I should tell the MoD TTT/TTZ writers who canned the obj-195 amongst a bunch of other UVZ toys, instead of following the UVZ lobbey (or Omsk lobbey with say Burlack). Calling T15 unoriginal would have been a good idea, if you have looked into the history of development of compatible vehicles in the USSR, but hey, claiming that they have just rotated the chassis is easier. The issue is not that they are inadequate to that task (or that they are not funded enough) - it is that complex arms programs can take a long time to get completed. Have you tried: https://lostarmour.info/ by any chance? Not that it would be accepted I guess, after all: Does make the loyalists look bad.
  7. Indonesians know what they are doing. They have been using BMP3F for a while now and as I have said BT3F is better as an amphib vehicle than it's daddy - BMP3F. And BMP3 itself was born out of the amphib tank project: The rear exit doors that everyone hates are there due to the rear engine placement, that improves the vehicle balance (balances out heavier front armour etc) and thus it's amphib and paradrop capabilities.
  8. Know your enemy and know yourself...... People mindlessly retweeting SJWs (even though they are meant to be mil-technical ppl) is a bit tiresome though.
  9. I think this is just (re)discovering a cool capability and giving it a marketting spin. Counter-IR aerosols have been around for a long time now (and not only on grenades for vehicles). There is work on giving them anti-radar capabilities too, but I do not recall those rounds being mass fielded.
  10. You mean aerosoles? Counter IR aerosoles existed since, like, Shtora (in the form of on vehicle launchers). That is one of the three major components to it, with sensors and jammers. In fact many customers drop the jammers and just keep sensors and the launchers.
  11. Err, now I am a bit lost as to what to discuss, would you drop a topic? I may go to sleep soon though, 0001 local. I can drop some (low tier methodology wise WIP) pics here: Sadly it got canned by the editor so I never refined the comparison methodology, but, boy is bean counting fun.
  12. I wonder if this thread would get nuked or if we have a chance to return to military-technical matters.
×
×
  • Create New...