Armata soon to be in service.

[HUSKER2142]

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 ttattached

 

Armata fire control panel.jpg

 

Don't really like touchscreen monitor , better good old buttons around the monitor .

 

Не очень то нравится сенсорный монитор , лучше старые добрые кнопки вокруг монитора .

[Rinaldi]

Its almost undoubtedly redundant, and I'm sure they're not showing us manual input for the simple reason that it won't wow civilians towards which such demonstrations are made. I continue to seriously doubt the Armata being in service, limited or otherwise, anytime soon; as Russia has had such a glorious track record for such things (AN-94 anyone, ayy lmao) but don't confuse my doubt about its readiness as doubt about its good design.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Rinaldi

[Battlefront.com]

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.

So very true. And that's only just the practical side of things. Then there's the politics and corruption aspects. All of these things exist in Western countries big time, despite laws against some of it, transparency laws, and functional media.

Another point against switching off certain projects is actually something that LnL said. Specifically, that keeping factories and knowledge available for the future is an important consideration. Not only does this favor slower, steadier development (as LnL rightly pointed out), but it also sometimes means going ahead with projects just to keep people busy. I live in one of the few US states with ship building capacity. This debate happens ALL the time. The Navy knows damned well that if it doesn't feed enough orders to the shipyard it will close. Since there are so few left, they can not afford to do that. It would cost far too much the next time they need a ship. So there are battles over budgets, but in the end there's an order placed for new ships each year.

Another example is the US ammunition supply. Before Afghanistan the US military greatly reduced how much it was willing to pay to keep excess production ready in case of need. Over a long span of time the capacity to produce ammo got smaller and smaller. Then Afghanistan and Iraq came about. Very quickly there were ammo shortages, especially in the 7.62mm and 20mm sizes from what I remember. Factories switched over production and that greatly reduced supply for non-military markets. The prices shot through the roof AND the military still had trouble getting what it needed. The factories were reluctant to expand because they didn't think they'd make their money back before the hot period of the war wound down and demand dropped off.

I mention this because it shows how complicated the whole system is. Barking out an order is not necessarily easy to carry out.

 

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.

Some people think that dictators keep their power because they are dictators. Not true. Dictators keep their power because enough key people benefit from that power. When their power is threatened, they start looking for a new dictator. Putin is more powerful and better protected than many, but he could be gone tomorrow if he ticked off the wrong people enough. If those people own submarine and nuke factories, which they skim millions of dollars off of each year, then guess what the Russian government is going to keep ordering?

 

Don't really like touchscreen monitor , better good old buttons around the monitor .

 

Не очень то нравится сенсорный монитор , лучше старые добрые кнопки вокруг монитора .

 

OK, but what is the gunner saying as he taps on the screen to the right of the targeting screen?

 

Its almost undoubtedly redundant, and I'm sure they're not showing us manual input for the simple reason that it won't wow civilians towards which such demonstrations are made. I continue to seriously doubt the Armata being in service, limited or otherwise, anytime soon; as Russia has had such a glorious track record for such things (AN-94 anyone, ayy lmao) but don't confuse my doubt about its readiness as doubt about its good design.

Yup, we've been over this ground many times I do think the primary variants of the vehicles in question will see the light of day. In what form, how many per year, and how many in total are the variables I think that are in play.

Steve

[L0ckAndL0ad]

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

 

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.

 

False. Statement. Current plan in question does not cover neither "many years" nor "outdated military hardware". What they're gonna do with BMP-2s hasn't been stated yet. So there's nothing that "means" what you've said. That's your personal projection.

 

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.

 

I don't see how that contradicts to what I've said.

 

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.

 

I didn't say anything about shutting on or off any projects. All of them (in question) are "on", including, like I've already said, preparations for mass production of the new vehicles. Scale adjustment is possible though, and I don't see anything bad here, if the numbers are relatively small. And they are.

 

 

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.

 

What are these words for? Do they mean something? I need a translator. Anyone?

 

 

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

 

When he touches the second screen, he says "we're fine tuning the image as necessary".

 

There's much more important thing in that moment. There's identical set of hardware controls can be seen under TC's station. Meaning that gunner's and TC's stations are interchangeable.

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Don't really like touchscreen monitor , better good old buttons around the monitor .

 

Не очень то нравится сенсорный монитор , лучше старые добрые кнопки вокруг монитора .

 

Surprisingly, there are buttons around the monitor.

 

 

Kurganets-based BREM:

 

BTR-MDM next in row, I believe.

 

Yeah. Wonder how stable such platform would be crane-wise.

Edited September 11, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[MikeyD]

Looking at that monitor screenshot again, the first menu on the left, does that indicate the commander is given five different round types to select? All of them at zero except the one 'K' round. It appears after the gun is fired that 'K' item in the menu drops to zero as well.

Edited September 11, 2015 by MikeyD

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Looking at that monitor screenshot again, the first menu on the left, does that indicate the commander is given five different round types to select? All of them at zero except the one 'K' round. It appears after the gun is fired that 'K' item in the menu drops to zero as well.

 

- "Doctor, I am being ignored by everyone!"

- "Next!"

 

Operator is filming from driver's position. Then there are 4 monitors, 2 for the gunner, 2 for the TC. Gunner's monitor UI reads out: smaller font gives many digits, probably coordinates. Bigger font says "K" = cumulative ammo, "80" - distance, "ОСН" - "main" (ie main gun). Later followed by "ГОТ" = ready to fire. Second monitor from the left shows different ammo count in the loader, by types. Initially it has 1 "K" (cumulative round), which turns into 0 after it's loaded. Overall types are "Б" (AP), "O" (HE), K (cumulative = HEAT?), "У" (Training, maybe? I dunno. Nothing else comes to mind really), "C" = coax. Commander's displays show gunner's feed and something I can't understand what it is.

"У" - Управляемый/Guided (GLATGM).

[sburke]

What are these words for? Do they mean something? I need a translator. Anyone?

Cute, but beneath you LockAndLoad. To feign ignorance of the state of corruption in Russia is particularly glaring considering the recent falling out between the local thugs and the federal thugs as to who is responsible for all the transportation funds that were allocated for Crimea.

 

The original proposals on funding for Crimea.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/crimea-sucks-funds-from-infrastructure-mega-projects-in-russias-regions/500075.html

 

And the situation a year later.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/crimea-corruption-fueling-feud-between-local-and-federal-elites/525859.html

 

Let me know if you need a translation of that article... anyone?

 

You can be cute and snippy if you like.  Maybe avoiding the issue that way makes you more comfortable.  It doesn't however alter the reality of the situation and your inability to provide a cogent response reveals more about how little you base your arguments on other than wishful thinking and denial.

 

Regarding the sub program

 

Your words

 

they just have to make less nukes and subs, and here you go, you've got your spare billion for new vehicles.

 

 

The Yasen SSN program

It was speculated that the cost of the first Yasen-class submarine was around US$1 billion, although another source claims that the price was actually US$2 billion. Recent reports from unnamed sources speculate that the first-of-class (Severodvinsk) unit cost was 50 billion rubles (roughly US$1.6 billion) while the second boat (Kazan) will cost an estimated 110 billion rubles (US$3.5 billion). This would make Kazan the most expensive SSN/SSGN in the world together with USS Jimmy Carter but not as expensive as the $4.8 billion French SSBN Triomphant class. A single Yasen-class submarine allegedly costs as much as two Borei-class submarines.

In 2011, (then) Defense Minister Anatoliy Serdyukov criticized the ever increasing cost of the Borei- and Yasen-class submarines. The Minister described the massive increase in cost between the first and the second Yasen-class submarine as "incomprehensible". However, he insisted that the Ministry of Defence and Sevmash (builder) would resolve the issue. Officials from the United Shipbuilding Corporation replied that work done in Sevmash accounts to only 30% of the submarines completion cost, the remaining 70% being linked to suppliers/contractors.

 

Hmm beginning to see where the graft starts impacting?  Tony Soprano would be so proud.

[Codename Duchess]

Must be the caterpillar drive installed on Kazan

[L0ckAndL0ad]

sburke
 
You can't possibly turn this into off-topic, bring up Crimea and then accuse me of not replying and taking it personally. I come here to discuss vehicles with other gamers. If you want to say that Russia can't possibly scrap some money together to produce new IFVs, then that's your opinion, and I'm not gonna rob you of it (is that a correct term? I'm improvising). The basic math says they can. Whether or not all that money is gonna end up stolen, or if Putin's gonna get hanged tomorrow, that remains to be seen. But instead of speculating about how bad everything might turn out, I'd rather have fun and stay on topic. You are not the person I'd rather have such discussions with anyway.
 
There's another modification of BMP-3, much more simple than others. BMP-3 "Vityaz". New digital FCS and optics.
 

 

More pics here: http://vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-12721.htm

Edited September 11, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[sburke]

umm  I didn't bring up Crimea until AFTER you took it personally.  It helps to keep things in order of sequence if you are going to start talking cause and effect.

 

1. You make declaration that Russian economy can easily swing assets
2. A position is put forward that is not the case and that it is actually difficult for Russia to divert assets and to even manage the existing assets to meet stated goals
3. you poo poo that as if there is no corruption
4. it is pointed out to you a major corruption scandal in your own area
5. you get upset and reverse the order of events and totally ignore the content

You want to stick to just a discussion of the equipment itself, fine do that.  But stop the sweeping declarations of how Russia will manage it's armaments program and just post pics.  WTF do I care, I don't particularly enjoy discussing this with someone who constantly dances around stuff he brings up either.

 

Your "basic math" by the way is flawed.  Ignoring financial consequences, access to resources, supply chain issues and just basic murphy's law facts of life means everything is always coming up roses in the land of Rus.  So how is that bridge coming across the Kerch strait?  It is just a matter of moving finances around right... until they disappear.  Perhaps that article is just a little too close to home.

Edited September 11, 2015 by sburke

[VladimirTarasov]

sburke, you need to chill out, you have been getting on some of my nerves with that "poo poo" what ever that means, This is the Armata discussion thread if it gets locked because of you I will have put -1 reputation   But seriously lets not derail this thread, It made it 85 pages long so far.

Edited September 11, 2015 by VladimirTarasov

[sburke]

poo poo -

1. Poo poo is defined as to dismiss an idea or suggestion.

   An example of poo poo is when someone invites coworkers to a bar but another person says the idea is no good.

Buy me a beer, I promise to shut up....until it is empty.

[VladimirTarasov]

poo poo -

1. Poo poo is defined as to dismiss an idea or suggestion.

   An example of poo poo is when someone invites coworkers to a bar but another person says the idea is no good.

Buy me a beer, I promise to shut up....until it is empty.

Ha, Maybe one day but I can't buy you one today, But I can tell you what type of beer to buy if you want my opinion. 

[John Kettler]

I believe I'm posting this to the right thread, in which part of the long discussion has involved presence of Russian troops and Russian weaponry in Ukraine. This is an InformNapalm video posted to Vimeo. The OSINT guys are tailing a huge MAZ tank transporter (complete with tank) smack through Ukrainian territory (special zoom of highway location sign) when the tank suddenly decides it wants a roadside stop. Now.

 

 

Also from InformNapalm is yet more proof that Russia's most modern (and exclusive to the Red Army) EW gear is not only in Ukraine but was at Debaltseve during the protracted combat there. Even the most emphatic of denials can be gainsaid by the right photos, which are in the article below.

 

https://en.informnapalm.org/4723-the-newest-electronic-warfare-systems-borisoglebsk-2-are-noticed-at-the-border-and-in-the-ato-zone/

 

Going back to the primary T-14 discussion, two suggestions have been offered regarding the mysterious "K" icon. One is that it's for practice ammo, the other that it's for the (variously) GLATGM/CLGM/TGM. I think both suggestions are wrong. Here's my reasoning. The Russian acronym for what the west calls an ATGM is PTUR, loosely translated as Protecting Against Tanks Guided Rocket. The acronym like to drove me nuts when trying to decipher a crude (three definitions for a single word, in many cases) machine translation of A.V. Tonkikh's "Overcoming Antitank Defense" during my time at Rockwell. Since "K" clearly doesn't match the expected "P" for an antitank missile, nor does it match the missile name, either, I think its meaning lies in the observation that firing zeroes out that icon. From this, I conclude this probably isn't an ammo type but instead is some sort of weapon status display. I suspect it shows whether or not the gun is loaded or maybe ready to fire. For example, it might be the Russian for "correct," which starts with "K." Equally, it could stand for "complete," which also starts with "K" in Russian. Or it could be something else altogether. But since we know the tank fired KE, not a guided missile, it must follow the "K" can't signify one. My bet? The tank went to the range with exactly one and only one round of ammo aboard. That round was KE, which might well have the Russian moniker "kinetic, " which starts with "K" in Russian. If the display showed one "K" before firing and zero in category and across all ammo types listed after firing, the logic checks. Or appears to.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited September 11, 2015 by John Kettler

[VladimirTarasov]

I believe it is K for Cumulative ammunition , That is how it is marked in Russian tanks. As far as I know practice rounds are not marked separately but marked as their respective roles they are being simulated for.

 

As for the MAZ video, Who ever side they are on, That really is stupid. In the Russian army for messing up that bad you go to a place shortly called "Disbat" And probably will serve in the army longer then you have been drafted or signed up for. Did they not set the tank on? This is completely unacceptable by any army standards. The tank on the MAZ is either a T-72B or a T-64BV, Either which I doubt is a Russian army supply. Due to the fact that it hasn't any escorts, Either rebels, Or Ukrainian, But I am thinking its the rebels. Possibly a trophy or maybe tank got messed up and was heading back for repairs. 

[John Kettler]

Undone by the blasted timer! Please disregard my prior discourse and "K" and look at what I was writing before being blocked from editing.

 

"Going back to the primary T-14 discussion, the suggestion the "Y" or whatever it is means "Guided" seems reasonable. What seems incorrect to me, though, is that the autoloader goes from one "K" in it before the gun is loaded to zero "K" after that happens, yet the logical conclusion hasn't been drawn as a result. Since we know for a fact that the tank fired KE and only KE (evidenced by small neat hole punched in target), I believe the "K" stands for something like the word "kinetic," which starts with "K" in both English and Russian. Further, I would argue the tank came to the range with exactly one round aboard, and it was in the autoloader. "K" in the autoloader before loading. "K" no longer in the autoloader after loading. Clean ammo board after firing ends, with "K" expended and no longer aboard the T-14. In turn, this means that the presumed AP designator must be for some other ammo type or item. Reconciling that with what VladimirTarasov just said about how Russian HEAT ammo is designated "K" and why, I can't say much, other than that the same transliterator program shows a plethora of results for "cumulative," quite a few of which don't start with "K." For the moment, that's as far as I can go with this assessment.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited September 11, 2015 by John Kettler

[VladimirTarasov]

To be safe, We should wait for more information or until the full documentary on it comes out. 

[John Kettler]

Since there has been considerable discussion here about Russia's overall military posture, especially as it applies to force modernization issues, I thought this study would be most apt. While the front end of it focuses on SSNW (Sub Strategic Nuclear Weapons), it argues this emphasis in Russian doctrine is the result of serious deficiencies in Russia's ability to wage modern conventional warfare. 

 

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/Collaboration/international/McDermott/Russia-NuclearPolicy.pdf

 

 

Russia's Conventional Military Weakness and Substrategic Nuclear Weapons

 

Russia’s Conventional Military Weakness and Substrategic Nuclear Policy

By Roger N. McDermott

Senior International Fellow, Foreign Military Studies Office 

 

Roger N. McDermott is a graduate of the University of Oxford specializing in defense and security issues in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). He is a Senior Fellow in Eurasian Military Studies, Jamestown Foundation, Washington DC. McDermott is on the editorial board of Central Asia and the Caucasus and the scientific board of the Journal of Power Institutions in Post- Soviet Societies. His articles appear in scholarly journals including the Journal of Slavic Military Studies, and his weekly assessments of security developments in Central Asia, Eurasia Daily Monitor (Jamestown Foundation), are read by policy planners. He is also the co-editor of the book, Russian Military Reform 1992-2002 (Frank Cass: London/Portland, 2003). McDermott is also conduct- ing extensive policy oriented research into Russian defense reform, and will publish a book on the ‘new look’ Russian armed forces, as well as a chapter in

a forthcoming Routledge book based on an FOI conference in Sweden on Rus- sian military development (October 4-5, 2010), in which he examines Russian perspectives on network-centric warfare (Roger McDermott, Bertil Nygren and Carolina Vendil-Pallin (editors), The Russian Armed Forces in Transition: Economic, Geopolitical and Institutional Uncertainties, (Routledge: London), 2011). 

 

Russia’s Conventional Reform and Modernization to 2020 begins on page 13. A great deal of the material is taken directly from Russian sources. The information presented covers a broad spectrum of topics, across multiple services, too. Force size, manning, officer levels, troop split between conscript NCOs and contract NCOs by military tasks, organization of the air forces, new and improved weapons for ground combat and air defense are discussed, together with the near total absence of a coherent force modernization plan for the Ground Forces. Naturally, there have been developments since the study was done, but even so, there is a wealth of material here through which to place our CMBS-peculiar issues into a better understood general context.

 

(Couldn't do anything about the bolding).

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Armata episode (unfortunately, pseudo-720p)
 

 
Better quality highlights:
 

 

 
To sburke

 

do that
just post pics
WTF do I care

 
I've addded you to my ignore list. Bye!

Edited September 13, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Highlights

 

• Engine and gear box are a single unit, which allows much faster equipment swaps in the field
• 8 forward and 8 backwards gears
• Initial batch comes with 3 versions: MBT (T-14), IFV (T-15), BREM (T-16)
• Not much said about defenses: stealthy paint & materials, ERA, multi spectral smoke, but as with previous episode on Kurg, not a word about APS
• IFV is pretty infantry-friendly: 3 crew, 8 passengers, 1 reserve seat (12 max), ramp+door, tank-infantry telephone outside, ACU, a lot of empty space
• BREM armed with 12.7mm RWS
• Factory lines are dual-purpose & adaptable to allow civilian and military production without much switching effort
• Visual locator/auto tracker (just like you have on aircraft)

[Battlefront.com]

Highlights

• Engine and gear box are a single unit, which allows much faster equipment swaps in the field
• 8 forward and 8 backwards gears
• Initial batch comes with 3 versions: MBT (T-14), IFV (T-15), BREM (T-16)
• Not much said about defenses: stealthy paint & materials, ERA, multi spectral smoke, but as with previous episode on Kurg, not a word about APS
• IFV is pretty infantry-friendly: 3 crew, 8 passengers, 1 reserve seat (12 max), ramp+door, tank-infantry telephone outside, ACU, a lot of empty space
• BREM armed with 12.7mm RWS
• Factory lines are dual-purpose & adaptable to allow civilian and military production without much switching effort
• Visual locator/auto tracker (just like you have on aircraft)

Interesting tidbits! I'm wondering what the tradeoffs are for having the engine and transmission (gearbox) as one unit. There has to be something because there's always a downside for any design philosophy. The benefit is obvious

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

The video of the transporter accident, according to the text with the video, happened in Crimea a few months ago (July 10). It was shown in the InfoNapalm article as jab at the Russian military. Specifically one reason Russia might be using civilian transporters is because the military ones get into accidents:

На трассе Симферополь-Ялта танк съехал с трала и опрокинулся в кювет.

10 июля 2015 в оккупированном Крыму произошло ДТП: на трассе Ялта-Симферополь перевернулся российский танк. В результате ДТП движение автомобильного транспорта и троллейбусов на южный берег Крыма и в направлении Симферополя было полностью заблокировано:

Of course this does show that Russia is moving around obsolete tanks. Something known from late spring 2014 when T-64s were documented to be moving around in the Rostov area, then magically the separatists got their first tanks from a Ukrainian dead tank storage facility which the separatists never managed to take (and all the tanks there are junk anyway).

Steve

[Rinaldi]

Doesn't Russia have a mind numbing amount of obsolete models in storage anyways? That's quick cash for the stuff in working condition; and its not like the Ukrainian tank fleet is really at tip-top at the moment.

Edited September 14, 2015 by Rinaldi

[Battlefront.com]

Doesn't Russia have a mind numbing amount of obsolete models in storage anyways? That's quick cash for the stuff in working condition; and its not like the Ukrainian tank fleet is really at tip-top at the moment.

Yes, but in practical terms most were not stored properly and that means a lot of time and money to bring them up into running condition. Ukraine has the same problem. It appears the reason Russia started shipping T-72s into Ukraine is because they ran out of viable T-64s very quickly. Which was a problem for Russia because at the time they were telling the world that the separatists were using only "captured" Ukrainian equipment, yet Ukraine had exactly ZERO T-72s in the ATO. The subsequent spotting of first line Russian equipment in Ukraine (T-90, T-72B3, BTR-82A, GAZ-39371, BPM-97, etc), including by separatists and Russian journalists, shows that Russia no longer cares about contradicting its "captured" cover story.

Anyway, this is straying off topic. The video John posted is not from within Ukraine and not relevant to Armata even if it was.

Steve