Armata soon to be in service.

[L0ckAndL0ad]

All that is very true, but I come back to the argument I continually make... for what Russia is likely to go up against, having an improved BMP-3 replacing all BMP-2s would have far more practical benefits for Russian military operations than a handful of much more capable vehicles. At least there is a very strong argument to be made for that case.

 

It all depends on what they actually want, and their "political will". Given enough will, they can easily buy 1000 new IFVs and about the same number of new APCs, that's not that big of a price for their overall yearly budgets. They can do it if they really want to. The question is, what they really want. Neither of us can really answer that.

 

If I was MoD's head, I would've sold all those BMP-3s, 2s and 1s and made a fleet of new ones. Buy less submarines, stop painting grass. In the long term, new gen vehicles are much better investment, cuz they're created with upgradeability in mind.

 

Moreover, think about these upgrades in detail. Look at Dragoon. From BMP-3, all is left is a hull. Everything else is practically new. Engine, weapon systems, optics, electronics. It's practically a new vehicle, except the hull and gun barrels. So why put all these new engines, new electronics, new optics, in an old hull, when you can make new hulls, with newer, better alloys? Metal doesn't cost as much as equipment.

 

Yes, but we don't know if the touch aspect is completely redundant or not. I'm guessing it is, however that's not known yet. The point is that reliance on touch is dubious.

 

From what I'm seeing, touching is just an optional extension to the usual hardware buttons. It's a Russian military vehicle, they take redundancy very seriously, even with high-tech stuff.

[c3k]

Armata firing video: The case came out backwards (meaning it had been rotated 90^) when it was ejected.

 

Amazingly unstable firing platform.

[Battlefront.com]

It all depends on what they actually want, and their "political will". Given enough will, they can easily buy 1000 new IFVs and about the same number of new APCs, that's not that big of a price for their overall yearly budgets. They can do it if they really want to. The question is, what they really want. Neither of us can really answer that.

 

If I was MoD's head, I would've sold all those BMP-3s, 2s and 1s and made a fleet of new ones. Buy less submarines, stop painting grass. In the long term, new gen vehicles are much better investment, cuz they're created with upgradeability in mind.

Yes, there's a lot of room for efficiency and economizing improvements. Two things that are notoriously difficult to do even in the West. Someone always has a reason for keeping what they have, and often times they have friends enough to make sure they do. The Russian navy has a lot of friends.

As for budgets and what not, you are correct that I do not know for sure what is going to happen with it. But I have a pretty good educated guess. And 1000 IFVs coming into service within a short period of time is not what I am guessing will happen.

 

Moreover, think about these upgrades in detail. Look at Dragoon. From BMP-3, all is left is a hull. Everything else is practically new. Engine, weapon systems, optics, electronics. It's practically a new vehicle, except the hull and gun barrels. So why put all these new engines, new electronics, new optics, in an old hull, when you can make new hulls, with newer, better alloys? Metal doesn't cost as much as equipment.

Depends on what the bottomline price is. If the price different isn't very big (less than 20% IMHO), then it probably makes sense to pay a premium and get the better vehicle. But I don't know what the relative costs are so it's hard to say.

 

 

From what I'm seeing, touching is just an optional extension to the usual hardware buttons. It's a Russian military vehicle, they take redundancy very seriously, even with high-tech stuff.

Agreed. That is, in fact, why I suspected touch is optional. As you say, Russian designs typically emphasize redundant control systems.

Related, as far as targeting systems go the US military doesn't have any and, from what I've been told, has no plans for any. FBCB2 and BFT have had touch based interfaces for a very long time, but more simplistic touch/select rather than the sorts of complex things iPads do these days.

 

 

Armata firing video: The case came out backwards (meaning it had been rotated 90^) when it was ejected.

I also noticed the delay for the case to eject. I suppose there's no rush.

 

Amazingly unstable firing platform.

Yup. Not sure how that will affect practical follow up shot accuracy, but compared with an Abrams it is like firing a pistol one handed vs. two.

Steve

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Yes, there's a lot of room for efficiency and economizing improvements. Two things that are notoriously difficult to do even in the West. Someone always has a reason for keeping what they have, and often times they have friends enough to make sure they do. The Russian navy has a lot of friends.

As for budgets and what not, you are correct that I do not know for sure what is going to happen with it. But I have a pretty good educated guess. And 1000 IFVs coming into service within a short period of time is not what I am guessing will happen.

 

I can remind you what the current plan is. They are building 200+ BMP-3s in the following two years. Also, the next batch of Kurganets series vehicles will arrive in early 2016. Full size of pre-mass production batch is ~100. It appears that they've already started field trials of the new gen vehicles, and the trials will take a year, unlikely much more (high command insisted on shortening original plan of two years of field trials, and rightfully so, in my opinion, cuz two years is way too much).

 

The rest is my thinking. Having current 600 + 200-300 new BMP-3s, and a hundred new IFVs (or, actually more, if we count T-15 batch) they can start mass producing new gen and get rid of BMP-1/2s, starting from mid 2017. Which leads to BMP-3s being either eventually upgraded or stored in their original form, as it happened with currently stored BMP-1/2s. Depends on how fast they'd mass produce the new stuff.

 

This is as far as I would speculate.

 

Depends on what the bottomline price is. If the price different isn't very big (less than 20% IMHO), then it probably makes sense to pay a premium and get the better vehicle. But I don't know what the relative costs are so it's hard to say.

 

Looking how they went with upgrading T-72 to B3, you can clearly see they don't want to spend money on upgrades almost at all. Planned B3 upgrade and actual B3 tanks produced are two different things. They didn't do CITVs, as planned, didn't do new engine, as planned. They also didn't do Relikt instead of Kontakt-5, and even then, failed to cover vehicle with large numbers of blocks (frontal area is pretty open).

 

Now, you think they'll go for new engines, new RCSW, new optics and electronics for a bunch of bad old thin aluminum infantry carriers? Don't see it happening.

[Bydax]

  "У" (Training, maybe? I dunno. Nothing else comes to mind really)

  "У" - Управляемый/Guided (GLATGM). 

Edited September 9, 2015 by Bydax

[Battlefront.com]

I can remind you what the current plan is. They are building 200+ BMP-3s in the following two years. Also, the next batch of Kurganets series vehicles will arrive in early 2016. Full size of pre-mass production batch is ~100. It appears that they've already started field trials of the new gen vehicles, and the trials will take a year, unlikely much more (high command insisted on shortening original plan of two years of field trials, and rightfully so, in my opinion, cuz two years is way too much).

 

The rest is my thinking. Having current 600 + 200-300 new BMP-3s, and a hundred new IFVs (or, actually more, if we count T-15 batch) they can start mass producing new gen and get rid of BMP-1/2s, starting from mid 2017. Which leads to BMP-3s being either eventually upgraded or stored in their original form, as it happened with currently stored BMP-1/2s. Depends on how fast they'd mass produce the new stuff.

And that depends heavily on the amount of money available. We don't know what the level of funding will be, but for sure whatever the plan was last year is out of touch with reality. Of course they could theoretically still purchase them, but this gets back to our previous discussion about "affordability". Until oil prices rise, or Putin does something real to reign in corruption, it's hard to see how the defense budget will not be cut back in some way that impacts the earlier plan. After all...

 

Looking how they went with upgrading T-72 to B3, you can clearly see they don't want to spend money on upgrades almost at all. Planned B3 upgrade and actual B3 tanks produced are two different things. They didn't do CITVs, as planned, didn't do new engine, as planned. They also didn't do Relikt instead of Kontakt-5, and even then, failed to cover vehicle with large numbers of blocks (frontal area is pretty open).

And why do you think these compromises to the plan happened? Funding. Even under better economic conditions the Russian government decided it didn't have the money to fully fund the upgrade program, which meant things had to get cut. If you look at the US Abrams TUSK plan you'll see the same thing happened to it, so this is not something unique to Russia. In fact, it's probably rarer that a project gets funded as much as the original plan calls for. Or the numbers called for get built. Or both.

 

Now, you think they'll go for new engines, new RCSW, new optics and electronics for a bunch of bad old thin aluminum infantry carriers? Don't see it happening.

It comes down to money. But you are correct, they are more likely to just crank out slightly better BMP-3s if money is tight rather than retrofit older ones with all kinds of new features.

Steve

[akd]

Some odd criticism getting bandied about here:

-seating in BMP-3 "Dragoon" appears better than in Bradley, including more room for personnel seated forward of turret to exit.

-recoil on Armata does not induce a stability problem. You can see that gunner's sight stays right on target when firing. The system does not care if barrel moves relative to sight because the barrel has to move after firing for auto-loader regardless. Also, comparing to recoil on M1A2 is somewhat silly. Bigger gun on lighter tank = more chassis movement. Recoil on the chassis appears in line with, or less than, previous T-series tanks.

-MFDs with touch functionality are pretty much standard in modern AFVs

-decision to stick with cheap, gap-bridging upgrades on BMP-2, BMP-3 and T-72Bs was I believe intentional to free-up funding for the next-generation vehicles, not a cut-back of a more ambitious upgrade program.

The question I have is whether existing BMP-3s can even be upgraded to "Dragoon" level, or if that requires new-build hulls?

Edited September 9, 2015 by akd

[HUSKER2142]

Some odd criticism getting bandied about here:

-seating in BMP-3 "Dragoon" appears better than in Bradley, including more room for personnel seated forward of turret to exit.

-recoil on Armata does not induce a stability problem. You can see that gunner's sight stays right on target when firing. The system does not care if barrel moves relative to sight because the barrel has to move after firing for auto-loader regardless. Also, comparing to recoil on M1A2 is somewhat silly. Bigger gun on lighter tank = more chassis movement. Recoil on the chassis appears in line with, or less than, previous T-series tanks.

-MFDs with touch functionality are pretty much standard in modern AFVs

-decision to stick with cheap, gap-bridging upgrades on BMP-2, BMP-3 and T-72Bs was I believe intentional to free-up funding for the next-generation vehicles, not a cut-back of a more ambitious upgrade program.

The question I have is whether existing BMP-3s can even be upgraded to "Dragoon" level, or if that requires new-build hulls?

 

 

 

Probably easier to make a new case for the upgraded BMP-3 , than to take the old building and remodel in BMP-3 "Dragun" . Released BMP-2/3 can be equipped with more modern sights and ammunition .

 

Думаю проще сделать новый корпус для модернизированной БМП-3 , чем брать и переделывать старый корпус в БМП-3 "Драгун" . Выпущенные уже БМП-2/3 можно оснастить более современными прицелами и боеприпасами .

[Battlefront.com]

Some odd criticism getting bandied about here:

-seating in BMP-3 "Dragoon" appears better than in Bradley, including more room for personnel seated forward of turret to exit.

Who said anything about the Bradley? The seating in the Bradley is definitely not optimal. Anybody who has ridden in one, from what I can tell, will say the same thing. Especially infantry that have also worked in Strykers. I was comparing the standard BMP-3 with the Dragoon. In it the rear seems to be much better in the Dragoon, quite good in fact, but the new turret arrangement appears to make it worse for dismounting the two guys on the forward side of the turret. The Bradley doesn't appear to be any better, however there is only one dismount forward of the turret.

 

-recoil on Armata does not induce a stability problem. You can see that gunner's sight stays right on target when firing. The system does not care if barrel moves relative to sight because the barrel has to move after firing for auto-loader regardless. Also, comparing to recoil on M1A2 is somewhat silly. Bigger gun on lighter tank = more chassis movement. Recoil on the chassis appears in line with, or less than, previous T-series tanks.

Yup. As I said, it really comes down to how well the gun comes back on target, not how much the platform moves between shots. If the gun is bang on target by the time it's reloaded, then it could bounce 20 feet in the air for all it matters. This is just one of the loooooong list of things that need to be answered at some point before we could ever hope to simulate the vehicle realistically in CM.

 

-MFDs with touch functionality are pretty much standard in modern AFVs

As far as I know, not for targeting systems. That is what I was highlighting. But if there are redundant physical controls then that might not be a problem.

 

-decision to stick with cheap, gap-bridging upgrades on BMP-2, BMP-3 and T-72Bs was I believe intentional to free-up funding for the next-generation vehicles, not a cut-back of a more ambitious upgrade program.

That is my understanding as well. But it is also a plan that was thought up and put into motion when oil was just below and just over $100 a barrel. With it seemingly being stuck in the sub $50 range for the next few years, and Russia having inadequate resources to make up the difference, the original plan is going to be reviewed. Notice I am not speculating here... I am SURE of it. Already is happening. The question is what will come from the review.

If I were in charge of things I'd look at all my options. If economics dictated that large scale replacement of 40-50 year old IFVs with Kurganets isn't feasible within 5-10 years, I'd certainly give the BMP-3s another look. Replacing a 50 year old IFV design with a 30 year old one today is better than replacing a 60 year old IFV design with a 20 year old replacement 10 years from now. All else being equal and considering the practical use of such vehicles (a topic I've covered many times already).

 

The question I have is whether existing BMP-3s can even be upgraded to "Dragoon" level, or if that requires new-build hulls?

My guess is it would be new build hulls. At least if the powerplant, drivetrain, and other significant sub components are to be upgraded. The cost of yanking all that stuff and chucking it into the dumpster is not likely to be a good idea. Especially when one considers the hand-me-down strategy.

Build brand new BMP-3s with significant improvements and hand them over to the units that currently have older BMP-3s. The older BMP-3s get some upgrades and then are handed over to units that currently have newer manufactured BMP-2s. The newer ones get handed over, perhaps with nothing more than a tune up, to units using very old BMP-2s that are probably marginally serviceable. Whatever Kurganets are produced can go to the tip of the spear guys and eventually, if the money situation improves, production can be ramped up.

This strategy is extremely cost efficient and produces force wide improvements very quickly. In a perfect world every unit would get a Kurganets, but that's not even in the pre oil price collapse plan.

Steve

[L0ckAndL0ad]

  "У" - Управляемый/Guided (GLATGM). 

 

Right! Silly me, how could I forget GLATGM?

 

And that depends heavily on the amount of money available. We don't know what the level of funding will be, but for sure whatever the plan was last year is out of touch with reality. Of course they could theoretically still purchase them, but this gets back to our previous discussion about "affordability". Until oil prices rise, or Putin does something real to reign in corruption, it's hard to see how the defense budget will not be cut back in some way that impacts the earlier plan. After all...

 

And why do you think these compromises to the plan happened? Funding. Even under better economic conditions the Russian government decided it didn't have the money to fully fund the upgrade program, which meant things had to get cut. If you look at the US Abrams TUSK plan you'll see the same thing happened to it, so this is not something unique to Russia. In fact, it's probably rarer that a project gets funded as much as the original plan calls for. Or the numbers called for get built. Or both.

 

It comes down to money. But you are correct, they are more likely to just crank out slightly better BMP-3s if money is tight rather than retrofit older ones with all kinds of new features.

Steve

 

Like I've already said, In today's Russia, "political will" is what drives such decisions, IMO. Funds are secondary.

 

Probably easier to make a new case for the upgraded BMP-3 , than to take the old building and remodel in BMP-3 "Dragun" . Released BMP-2/3 can be equipped with more modern sights and ammunition .

 

Думаю проще сделать новый корпус для модернизированной БМП-3 , чем брать и переделывать старый корпус в БМП-3 "Драгун" . Выпущенные уже БМП-2/3 можно оснастить более современными прицелами и боеприпасами .

 

It won't take that much time to know, actually. They've switched to receiving smaller batches of new stuff, but with higher frequency, over the year, so the first batch will answer that question right away.

 

As far as I know, not for targeting systems. That is what I was highlighting. But if there are redundant physical controls then that might not be a problem.

 

Targeting? O_o Gunner uses hardware input, similar to one on BTR-82A. White thing below, he holds it with two hands.

 

----------

 

Edited September 10, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[Battlefront.com]

Like I've already said, In today's Russia, "political will" is what drives such decisions, IMO. Funds are secondary.

That might be the desire, but in the end money trumps political will. The Soviet Union did not collapse due to a lack of political will. The Russian military didn't languish for a decade because nobody in the Kremlin wanted to look tough to the rest of the world. For sure political will can ignore financial reality for a time, but as we say in English... eventually the piper will get paid. Several thousand years of Human history is behind what I say. I don't think the current regime in Moscow is somehow an exception.

 

Targeting? O_o Gunner uses hardware input, similar to one on BTR-82A. [url=http://s3.uploads.ru/08j9i.png]White thing below, he holds it with two hands

Thanks! I must have misunderstood something you said. Now things make much more sense.

In theory a touch based targeting system could be a major plus, but the problems I mentioned make it impractical for anything other than remote controlled systems. Though I'd not be surprised to find someone trying it anyway.

Steve

[L0ckAndL0ad]

That might be the desire, but in the end money trumps political will. The Soviet Union did not collapse due to a lack of political will. The Russian military didn't languish for a decade because nobody in the Kremlin wanted to look tough to the rest of the world. For sure political will can ignore financial reality for a time, but as we say in English... eventually the piper will get paid. Several thousand years of Human history is behind what I say. I don't think the current regime in Moscow is somehow an exception.

 

Kremlin sits on people's heads and doesn't give a damn. As long as it stays that way, Putin walks into a bar can say, "We've built enough nukes, lets focus on vehicles, build me 1000 Kurganets IFVs", and they'll get on with it. And we've been over the numbers already. Their yearly budget is 70bn USD or so. To build coupla thousand new vehicles they don't have to sell Kremlin's stars or Lenin's teeth, they just have to make less nukes and subs, and here you go, you've got your spare billion for new vehicles. How many times should I point out that the price won't be that big compared to their overall military budget? Billion. Two, tops. And that's if they'd want to do it over just one year, which is unlikely to happen. Spread it over two to three years, and it's 2bn vs 210bn. Lenin's teeth are safe.

Edited September 10, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[Battlefront.com]

You could have said the same thing in the 1980s about the Soviet system and its abilities. And how did that turn out? I can point to hundreds of other examples similar to it which wound up with similar (or worse) results. I do not know on what historical basis you feel that Putin is an exception to the rules. Especially when Putin is overtly stating that he wished to build more nukes, more naval vessels, and more aircraft.

I do grant the possibility that it is possible that Putin can push things so that the vehicles do get made more-or-less according to plan. But that requires a large number of other things to not go wrong within the same time period. I do not see that as likely.

Regardless, it is largely irrelevant anyway because the current plan, even if not altered one bit, still means that many years from now the Russian military will be majority equipped with outdated military hardware. The tip of its spear might be a little bit sharper, but effectively it doesn't change Russia's strategic situation one iota.

Steve

[sburke]

Economically speaking turning big military projects on and off on a whim is hugely expensive. For example, the infrastructure it takes to build an aircraft carrier is not something you shut down for a few years and then simply say, okay we are gonna build carriers again. The work force, the skill sets, the shipyards, the supply chain, all those have to be geared back up. That is something the Kremlin is wrestling with now having shot themselves in the foot with the Mistral deal.

That kind of knee jerk changing of military projects is incredibly inefficient. The last thing the Russian economy can afford is more inefficiency. Add to that the corruption which already ravages those budgets and you are guaranteed failure in meeting your goals.

[L0ckAndL0ad]

I do grant the possibility that it is possible that Putin can push things so that the vehicles do get made more-or-less according to plan. But that requires a large number of other things to not go wrong within the same time period. I do not see that as likely.

 

Likely, unlikely - that's speculative. The basic fact that they can get couple billions for this task is undeniable. They simply can. And it depends on their will if they're gonna do it or not.

 

Regardless, it is largely irrelevant anyway because the current plan, even if not altered one bit, still means that many years from now the Russian military will be majority equipped with outdated military hardware. The tip of its spear might be a little bit sharper, but effectively it doesn't change Russia's strategic situation one iota.

 

"Many years"? That's a false statement. Current plan does not cover "many years". It covers the next two. And mass production might start even before that. That's a positive trend, the way I see it.

 

Economically speaking turning big military projects on and off on a whim is hugely expensive. For example, the infrastructure it takes to build an aircraft carrier is not something you shut down for a few years and then simply say, okay we are gonna build carriers again. The work force, the skill sets, the shipyards, the supply chain, all those have to be geared back up. That is something the Kremlin is wrestling with now having shot themselves in the foot with the Mistral deal.

That kind of knee jerk changing of military projects is incredibly inefficient. The last thing the Russian economy can afford is more inefficiency. Add to that the corruption which already ravages those budgets and you are guaranteed failure in meeting your goals.

 

Your example with aircraft carriers doesn't fit. Technologically and workforce wise, they're already doing advanced IFVs, both for internal and export markets. They're producing modern BMD-4Ms and pimped BMP-2M's and -3M's. Infrastructure-wise, govt has already invested in preparations for new gen vehicles mass production.

 

As a matter of fact, the question is how fast they're planning to build new vehicles. To have "strategic impact", as Steve says, they have to make them fast in large numbers. But economically, it is better to produce them in smaller numbers, but over longer period of time, so that manufacturer's always busy, and workers always have jobs and money, don't loose proficiency before the next big project arrives on the horizon. So that's another way to look at it.

 

Last thing you need to do is to think that Russians are just so stupid they don't know what efficiency is. You keep forgetting that manufacturers are private companies that operate on an open market. Wake up.

 

ADDED:

 

Looking at wiki now, regarding Bradley production.

 

 

As of May 2000, a total of 6,724 Bradleys (4,641 M2s and 2,083 M3s) had been produced for the U.S. Army. The total cost of the program as of that date was $5.7 billion, and the average unit cost $3.2 million.^[17]

 

Even considering inflation as of 2015 in comparison to that 2000 data, that's a really small price. Anyone's got data on how fast they were built?

Edited September 10, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[A Canadian Cat]

Last thing you need to do is to think that Russians are just so stupid they don't know what efficiency is. You keep forgetting that manufacturers are private companies that operate on an open market. Wake up.

 

Huh, what is it morning - rubs eyes.  Sigh.  No one is saying that Russians in general are stupid.  I think one Russian in particular should consider what people are actually saying.  With budgetary pressure somethings gotta give.  You are quite right if project A is the most important thing then it has a high likely hood of getting funding.  But if the budget is shrinking then some other project needs to be scaled back.  And if the milliary budget is not going to be reduced then those projects that are scaled back or cancelled don't have to be military.  All people are saying is somethings gotta give.  It sounds like you are saying "no it doesn't we can do everything cause we want to".  I'm sure you don't mean it like that - well I hope.

 

Even considering inflation as of 2015 in comparison to that 2000 data, that's a really small price. Anyone's got data on how fast they were built?

 

What I could find from here (https://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/Bradley-Fighting-Vehicle.html - warning I've never heard of these guys I have no idea who they are) was:

 

The Bradley entered service with the U.S. Army in 1981 and since then, the vehicle has undergone significant improvements. In fiscal year 1991, the last year of purchases of new-builds, the Army purchased 600 Bradley vehicles. In total, 6,720 M2s and M3s have been produced. The latest configuration (A3) arrived in 2000.

So if it is true the production run of new vehicles was slightly over 10 years so something like 600 vehicles per year but that is an average.  There has been spending on upgrades since 1991 that was just the last year new vehicles were ordered.

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Huh, what is it morning - rubs eyes.  Sigh.  No one is saying that Russians in general are stupid.  I think one Russian in particular should consider what people are actually saying.  With budgetary pressure somethings gotta give.  You are quite right if project A is the most important thing then it has a high likely hood of getting funding.  But if the budget is shrinking then some other project needs to be scaled back.  And if the milliary budget is not going to be reduced then those projects that are scaled back or cancelled don't have to be military.  All people are saying is somethings gotta give.  It sounds like you are saying "no it doesn't we can do everything cause we want to".  I'm sure you don't mean it like that - well I hope.

I think I've outlined my point pretty clear. Couple of billions to build a new fleet of vehicles over a couple of years is not a problem, regardless. They can do it if they want to. What do they actually want to do? That remains to be seen.

 

What I could find from here (https://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/Bradley-Fighting-Vehicle.html - warning I've never heard of these guys I have no idea who they are) was:

 

So if it is true the production run of new vehicles was slightly over 10 years so something like 600 vehicles per year but that is an average.  There has been spending on upgrades since 1991 that was just the last year new vehicles were ordered.

 

I was expecting a year by year data, like you can find for Russian vehicles here:

 

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-174.html

 

But thanks anyway.

[Battlefront.com]

Likely, unlikely - that's speculative. The basic fact that they can get couple billions for this task is undeniable. They simply can. And it depends on their will if they're gonna do it or not.

And will depends on other factors. Will does not exist in a vacuum. If will was all that was important, Saddam Hussein would still be alive and plundering Iraq.

 

 

"Many years"? That's a false statement. Current plan does not cover "many years". It covers the next two. And mass production might start even before that. That's a positive trend, the way I see it.

I made a true statement. To test this, what year will the Russian military be based totally rid of BMP-2s?

 

Your example with aircraft carriers doesn't fit. Technologically and workforce wise, they're already doing advanced IFVs, both for internal and export markets. They're producing modern BMD-4Ms and pimped BMP-2M's and -3M's. Infrastructure-wise, govt has already invested in preparations for new gen vehicles mass production.

 

As a matter of fact, the question is how fast they're planning to build new vehicles. To have "strategic impact", as Steve says, they have to make them fast in large numbers. But economically, it is better to produce them in smaller numbers, but over longer period of time, so that manufacturer's always busy, and workers always have jobs and money, don't loose proficiency before the next big project arrives on the horizon. So that's another way to look at it.

This is very true. Peacetime production should be scaled to be sustainable. Undergoing massive costs to increase production for 5 years only to find that there's no more work to do on year 6 isn't a sustainable plan. So for many reasons it makes sense to determine what the sustainable level of industrial capacity is and scale production for that level. However, this necessitates elongating the period of time the country has to wait to get to the end goal. That can be a problem for a country that is trying to "play catchup" with other nations.

 

Last thing you need to do is to think that Russians are just so stupid they don't know what efficiency is. You keep forgetting that manufacturers are private companies that operate on an open market. Wake up.

Since nobody in this thread was saying, or even implying, what you just said, I'd suggest that maybe you need to wake up a bit.

 

Even considering inflation as of 2015 in comparison to that 2000 data, that's a really small price. Anyone's got data on how fast they were built?

No idea how quickly they were introduced. I think it was about 10 years, maybe less.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I think I've outlined my point pretty clear. Couple of billions to build a new fleet of vehicles over a couple of years is not a problem, regardless.

Here's the problem with budgets of any sort. Usually the majority of a budget is devoted to existing commitments. Unless changes are made, these commitments have to be funded first before there can be any allocation of funds to new purposes. In a perfect world the amount of money that is allocated for a budget is adequate to cover both, but when circumstances are not optimal then there's a problem. Cuts need to be made somewhere. Future spending is often times easier to cut back on than existing spending. There's many reasons for this, and for something like defense spending a large part of it is politics.

This complicates the rational part of resource allocation. Something that makes sense to cut perhaps can't be because the lobby for it is strong. Things that don't make sense to cut, but don't have sufficient support, often get hammered instead. But since they don't have as much support they are likely to be smaller programs to begin with, which means killing off lots of smaller things and still potentially not fixing the problem.

Major problems arise when a budget is significantly underfunded, but it is made worse when that budget is mostly legacy obligations. Pressure to reduce/limit new spending is usually very strong.

Putin is not the total master of all things budgetary. He needs the support of many influential people to stay in power. To some degree he needs the support of the public. In the current financial climate I don't see how he can make everybody happy. Something, a lot of somethings in fact, are going to have to be sacrificed. I agree that the military budget will be the last to take the hit and will suffer less than other areas, but it will.

Steve

[Rinaldi]

Back on the topic of the T series, to tie in with the .gif of the firing Armata:

[Battlefront.com]

Cool! Thanks!

OK, Russian speakers... is he describing what he's doing as he's touching things on the right of the targeting monitor? This is the sort of stuff I've been curious about. To me it looks like it's fire control functions (i.e. targeting) of some sort.

Steve

[sburke]

 

Your example with aircraft carriers doesn't fit. Technologically and workforce wise, they're already doing advanced IFVs, both for internal and export markets. They're producing modern BMD-4Ms and pimped BMP-2M's and -3M's. Infrastructure-wise, govt has already invested in preparations for new gen vehicles mass production.

 

Last thing you need to do is to think that Russians are just so stupid they don't know what efficiency is. You keep forgetting that manufacturers are private companies that operate on an open market. Wake up.

 

The example of the carriers was in reference your statement about turning on and off other big projects to get the funds.  You don't just shut down or scale back development of nuke missiles and subs to create tanks.  It is far from that simple and the affects are longer term. So in fact it is directly applicable.

 

You take things personally when folks talk about efficiency issues in the  economy.  Not sure why that is, but no one accused Russia of being stupid.  On the other hand your idea of private companies in an open market apparently does not meet the same criteria as the international business community definition.  Russia's private companies function in an environment that does not support private industry as Putin has proved time and time again.  It only survives at his discretion and when someone in the Kremlin decides otherwise, the corruption scandals, accusations, trials and seizures begin.  That deters investment and one has only to look at the amount of GDP created in Russia by mid size businesses to see the negative impact.

 

Fact is the Russian economy is notoriously corrupt and inefficient and Putin is very much a part of that.  One need only look at his history in St Petersburg and the amount of corruption he personally was a part of to see what that would do to a national economy already under strain.  The sanctions are not the only reason companies are bailing from doing business in Russia.  Another huge aspect is the lack of transparency and that very corruption.  The Russian economy is not some elegantly functioning machine that will pirouette through these changes in direction that you seem to think Putin can just snap his fingers and cause to occur.  The bribes and slush fund that Oligarch A was expecting that suddenly doesn't turn up and is instead going to oligarch b has impact.  When your economy is run like a Mafia franchise, you just don't tell Tony Soprano's crew they aren't getting the kickbacks on that waterfront job without consequences.

[John Kettler]

This Armata thread keep getting harder and harder for my mind to grasp, and were I pinching myself in disbelief every time I saw something I never expected to see in my lifetime, I'd be black and blue all over by now. Deft fingers dancing over the touch screen display while the tank's static are one thing, but I'd be interested in seeing the same thing done with the tank charging over bumpy ground. The gun may be stabilized to a fare thee well,  but the gunner likely isn't. I say likely, because there are things which can be done to greatly reduce the effects of seat vibration, such as specialized elastomers, as well as a variety of other means, as detailed in the NIOSH seat testing study at the second link. Our Russian contingent has produced amazing ordnance patents in the past, and I would like to see what its members can unearth on Russian vehicle, especially combat vehicle, seat technology. The Russians have clearly gotten the word on ergonomics, and I find it very hard to believe they'd go to all the expense of touch screen MFDs in their new AFVs without first figuring out how to make them usable in a pitching, swaying vehicle. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited September 10, 2015 by John Kettler

[akd]

Kurganets-based BREM:

 

 

BTR-MDM next in row, I believe.

Edited September 10, 2015 by akd

[MikeyD]

Steve was curious about what looked like the vehicle's armament control panel. I just pulled a couple screenies from the Youtube video to give us a better look. 

See attached

 

Edited September 11, 2015 by MikeyD