Armata soon to be in service.

[Kinophile]

Funnily, I remember reading a Rogue Trooper  issue about 20  years ago that had Rogue sitting (alone)  in a tank with  EXACTLY the sensor system Steve suggests.

He's eating/sleeping and the tank wakes him to announce it has detected and is targeting a Nort armor attack.

The turret is lined with flat panel displays giving 360 external view. 

Blew  my mind then. Preview of the current F22/35 helmet x ray view. 

Edited November 16, 2015 by kinophile

[Battlefront.com]

Ooo... and now we are going wildly off track   I'm not even sure how we got to this point since US defense spending strategy doesn't have anything to contribute to this discussion.  Directly relevant to the APS discussion, even if the US system is $1m per tank that could be afforded over a period of 5 years out of pocket change.  There's no reason to kill off 1/2 the strategic bomber capacity to make that viable  

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

Sorry for going from APS to spending priorities but it isn't so much about what you can afford as what you choose to spend on or as Economists put it "Opportunity Cost".

The issue for upgrading the M1 or building the new LRS-B is which is the better spend not which is the bigger.

Right now it seems that the thinking is that with the B-52 still the workhorse and most over fifty year old the need for a replacement out weighs the need to make the best tank in the world the even bester tank in the world even though at £500m each cutting one bomber from a proposed 80-100 would upgrade about half your tank fleet!

You are free to disagree with that choice, but the logic that each system stands on it's own merits based on need rather than doing lots of cheap things is better than a few big ones is sound.

My point was more that what compounds defence spending is not prioritising at every level and making tough choices so you over stretch yourself because of lack of focus.

Peter.

[BTR]

In other news, 20 T-14's are about to hit Army trials. From UVZ's quote, I can deduce those are a new batch of 20 tanks, and that number does not include the vehicles we saw in May.

Source. 

In terms of validity for CM, 20 is already 10 more than current BM Oplots in service .

Edited November 18, 2015 by BTR

[Kinophile]

Does anyone know of a current breakdown of just how many tanks &  types UKR has? Anyone know of OSCE or NATO estimates? 

[Thewood1]

But haven't the Oplots seen combat?

[Thewood1]

This is from Military Balance 2014.  not very detailed, but all I have access to until i get home.

 

[Kinophile]

This is from Military Balance 2014.  not very detailed, but all I have access to until i get home.

 

Great,  thank you! 

[akd]

But haven't the Oplots seen combat?

No combat.  Nor are any units equipped with them.

Edited November 18, 2015 by akd

[Peter Cairns]

From the point of view of the game the difference between the Armata and the Oplot is that the Oplot is an upgrade package to something we know a great deal about and so is probably a lot easier to produce a good estimation of it's capability given it is in essence an upgraded T-80! For the Armata everything is still pretty much guess work!

Even if Russia can field more Armatas that the Ukraine can Oplot M, it won't be in the game till we have more reliable information on it's performance. If you put it in based on what the Russians are claiming it would probably be able to fly!

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

From the point of view of the game the difference between the Armata and the Oplot is that the Oplot is an upgrade package to something we know a great deal about and so is probably a lot easier to produce a good estimation of it's capability given it is in essence an upgraded T-80! For the Armata everything is still pretty much guess work!

Even if Russia can field more Armatas that the Ukraine can Oplot M, it won't be in the game till we have more reliable information on it's performance. If you put it in based on what the Russians are claiming it would probably be able to fly!

Peter.

Correct.

The major point here is that Opolot could be in the field in significant numbers if the will to have them was there.  Our storyline gives Ukraine some time to get them into production and combat.  This might be pushing reality a bit to have a more interesting game, however it would REALLY be pushing it to have a vehicle that was still on the drawing board be in production for our timeframe.  Meaning, putting Oplot in the game was a reasonable stretch, Armata pure fantasy.  Therefore, not comparable.

Steve

[GAZ NZ]

Armata tank video

quite interesting

 

 

[Kieme(ITA)]

Thanks for sharing, russian videos are somewhat harder to find for those who don't speak russian and can't input the right words in search engines. I saw part of this video before but without the subtitles which really tell a lot.

What I find surprising is that the video praises a lot some details that we are all aknowledged with western tank design, and by several decades now... some examples:

-crew confort - while I recognize this is something new for russian tank design, the very much praised (in this video) driver's seat position is something already seen on western tanks.

-driver steering handles - the russians in the video are positively shocked by the absence of the old style 2-lever controls for the driver... the steering handles were new 30 years ago within western tank design...

-360° turning radious on place - again, this is shown as a great achievement, but I was a child when I looked at videos of Leopard 2 doing the same.

-commander controls replicating gunner's - this has been a common standard on western tank design for decades...

-fin-stabilized shells - maybe in this case it was just the journalist surprise

[BTR]

Journalists be journalists. Most of the stuff you wrote, bar the first two points has been available to serial soviet tanks at least since the 70's and are commonly desired tank traits since the end of WW2. To be fair, a comfortable crew compartment for all three individuals is something to praise that is not available on western tanks. There are similar videos on the Koalistiya and Kurganets produced by Zvezda TV. Bumerang remains a dark horse. 

Edited January 4, 2016 by BTR

[GAZ NZ]

My take on this video ( correct me if you think I'm wrong )  

This appears to be for mass manufacturing of tanks and ( general armor ) base modular designs with interchangeable setups.

This would be cost effective and would mean having a huge stock pile of interchangeable parts freely available.     

As to whether these tanks are better than the T90AM?  I don't know. 

The weapons systems were not discussed in depth, they seemed to talk more about the defensive systems.
They looked high tech but I was unsure as to there actual effectiveness.
Its common for Russia to be trashed re there military tech but everything I've seen is generally legit, and works reliability well. 
I think people often under estimate them.

Given there best weapons have not gone up against US Armour it is hard to say.

 

With one less crew member that means more 1 extra guy to go in another tank so you have savings and crew going into other tanks.

I also noted the turret elevation which I thought was very high?
I wonder if SAM attachment could be added or anti drone weapon versions?

Perhaps an AA variant will come out - new Tunguska perhaps?

Id expect them all to be amphibious.  

I agree with your points Kieme.

They talked about the crew comfort, but comfort is also based about going over things at high speed etc / suspension and id like to see how much a crew member moves around when going over terrain. But it still looked nice.    Russians are not used to it and they are discussing and showing there modernization of Armour to current standards.

 I felt the whole comfort thing was recruitment thing - to draw people into wanting to be tankers.  They did talk about it somewhat.  Good chance to get some PR in. 
Drive in comfort and destroy your enemies with a push of the button!

 

And for Battlefront modeling for a future conflict , if these were added how do you know what they are capable of?

If you over power or under power to the US Armour in game you will draw criticism from all sides.

Makes it hard for a games developer  

Interesting all the same. But until they actually fight some US tanks etc in real life its hard to know the specs.

[Kieme(ITA)]

I have no idea of BFC plans, but they did explain what's their position in this matter. If I can summrize it:
BFC is willing to add the new families of russian vehicles (Armata, Kurganets, Boomerang) if some conditions are met:

1) the vehicles must enter service in a decent number, this means that new vehicles must be produced and, toghether with the actual ones, get over the ongoing phase (first production batch undergoing field tests) and become fully operative within an existing or new russian army unit, fully integrated and in service with the russian army (at least one).

2) there must be enough information on the vehicles in order to a) make a decent 3d model out of them (I belive this one is not a problem anymore) and b ) make a decent approximation of what they are capable of (movement, speed, armor, APS, weapons).

Now, if points 1 and 2 are met then BFC would most probably model the new vehicles.
My personal estimation is that this kind of content would be suited for a battle/vehicle pack more than a module.

When? We can rule out 2016 for sure, because nothing is likely to come for CMBS this year. There are high possibilities that an (officially confirmed) module will come for CMBS, that will cover VDV and Marine units; this module might come out in 2017. After that there is plenty of room for 2 more modules, and after those (or in between those) these new vehicles might be added to the game. Given everything I'd say that the "game development" of such new vehicles should start in 2017 for a release in 2018 or 2019. 

Therefore we might say the russians have a couple of full years to convince Steve the new vehicles are CM material. 

Edited January 5, 2016 by Kieme(ITA)

[Thewood1]

Related because buried somewhere in this thread was the discussion about how sustainable Russia's defense budget increases were:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/34acde08-c905-11e5-be0b-b7ece4e953a0.html#axzz3z23z346y

If oil can climb above $50/bbl, The MoD might be able to stay even.  If it hovers around $35-40...some tough decisions are ahead.

[L0ckAndL0ad]

[BTR]

In case you haven't yet watched the vid, it's 5% Armata, 95% Discovery channel (the worst type) but in Russian :D. 

[AttorneyAtWar]

Come on Russia stop shooting up old US M60's...

 Oh...

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Interesting where RT poaches footage from.  Nice to see a T-72 working as intended however 

[VladimirTarasov]

Yep, T-72s were made to get destroyed by a Javelin. Great logic.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Yep, T-72s were made to get destroyed by a Javelin. Great logic.

No, that would be silly.  They do exist as sacrifices to the tank god though so that he might be appeased to pour his majesty on more deserving platforms.  

TANKS FOR THE TANK GOD TURRETS FOR THE TURRET THRONE.

[Battlefront.com]

Related because buried somewhere in this thread was the discussion about how sustainable Russia's defense budget increases were:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/34acde08-c905-11e5-be0b-b7ece4e953a0.html#axzz3z23z346y

If oil can climb above $50/bbl, The MoD might be able to stay even.  If it hovers around $35-40...some tough decisions are ahead.

That day is nearing.  Widespread reporting that a 5% military budget cut is on the way.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-crisis-military-spending-idUSKCN0VS0RR

Come on Russia stop shooting up old US M60's...

 Oh...

I had some beers with the guy manning this Javelin launcher in this video when we went down to witness a live fire.  He told me he loved his job.  Go figure The test we witnessed had simulated munitions so no huge boom-boom when it was hit.  Still, they made us sit in a bunker about 10,000m away for our safety!

Steve

Edited February 22, 2016 by Battlefront.com

[sburke]

That's funny cause I just had a Jav team fire at 100 meters.  An oncoming tank I guess made for a more pressing concern.  Interestingly this is the second time I have had a Jav gunner take a horizontal shot and in both cases the tank shrugged it off.  They are deadly but not at close range.    Ended up with a flank AT 4 killing it.