Jump to content
Lee_Vincent

Armata soon to be in service.

Recommended Posts

According to wiki, there's 120x T-90, 32x early T-90A and 337x late T-90A. Mothballed ones are older, early models. They've stopped buying/upgrading them in 2010-2011 (production for export keeps going) because they wanted newer and better MBT of their own (T-14), while not spending too much on old stuff. This is why they went for cheap T-72B3 upgrades instead, before T-14 is ready for mass production.

 

Another reason for keeping some amount of T-90s in storage might be - spare parts/replacements.

 

Ok, this broke my mind...so, newer tanks (T-90s) are less capable than upgraded older ones (T-72B3s) and are put on warehouses because are too expensive to upgrade...this leads me to an obvious question...

 

Why build them in the first place???? If they were better than a T-72 in any of it infinite forms they would be in service, if they are not is because they are worst (or too expensive to operate, which makes them worst in another way)

 

Shouldn´t they go to one of those Brigades with really old T-72s?? I mean, justo for moral factor...90 is higher than 72!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T-90A and T-72B3 are similar in capabilities, but I'd say that T-90A is better, especially defense-wise. Т-72B3 upgrades are cheaper than buying a new T-90A. They've cancelled T-90 procurement due to price of a new T-90. Is the same is true about T-90->T-90A upgrades for older models - I don't know, that's just my speculations here. They've just stopped procuring them and said "we want to go cheaper before Armata MBT". At the same time, there was a word in 2014 regarding possibility of returning to T-90 procurement if Armata MBT project will fail.

 

Also note that T-90 is actually a deep modernization of T-72 design. And T-72B3 did not exist at the time of it's creation. B3 is seriously criticized by Russian public and experts for being too much bare bones cheap.

 

Who loves T-90A more than T-72B3 in CMBS? I do, personally. LWS makes a world of difference, and T-90 armor is somewhat better.

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" a Russian schematic of the new T-14 tank translated into English by a U.S. Army analyst. Illustration via the U.S. Army’s Foreign Military Studies Office."  Spoiler'd due to image size.

1*dmePIB7J5i_bwt652fPtSg.jpeg

  (Source)

Is Post-War referring to the Cold War, or the Great Patriotic War?  Because there's plenty of third generation tanks, including ones not at all designed or developed in the Cold War.

Source listed above claims 2300 T-14s by 2020.  I don't know if that was a misinterpretation of general modernization plans like we discussed earlier in the thread, or an actual claim by the Russian Government and/or defense industry.  If it's what is claimed by the Russian government I stand by my claim that that is almost criminally optimistic in light of the economy + other modernization plans and acquisition/development programs across the full spectrum.

Maintenance of the turret space looks like it's going to be a massive pain in the ass.  I'm going to presume that since it's unmanned, they aren't leaving a lot of free space in there.  Any and all sort of work in there is thus either going to be very uncomfortable or require quite the effort to open up/expose the juicy innards.  Thoughts?

Also, what about all the backup systems usually afforded to a manned turret?  Between emergency optics, manual rotation, etc, I don't see how a remotely operated turret will still allow those systems to be implemented, at least in as robust of a system as in other tanks.  It seemed like pretty much everytime I took a solid hit in Steel Beasts (that didn't kill me) I would have to rely on some sort of secondary/emergency system that required increased "human" interaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Source listed above claims 2300 T-14s by 2020.  I don't know if that was a misinterpretation of general modernization plans like we discussed earlier in the thread, or an actual claim by the Russian Government and/or defense industry.  If it's what is claimed by the Russian government I stand by my claim that that is almost criminally optimistic in light of the economy + other modernization plans and acquisition/development programs across the full spectrum.

See my post here:

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118480-armata-soon-to-be-in-service/?p=1597361

Also, a reminder: ГВП-2020 is planned to be changed in 2018 into ГВП-2025.

 

Maintenance of the turret space looks like it's going to be a massive pain in the ass.  I'm going to presume that since it's unmanned, they aren't leaving a lot of free space in there.  Any and all sort of work in there is thus either going to be very uncomfortable or require quite the effort to open up/expose the juicy innards.  Thoughts?

 

Depends on how monolith the turret is. Russian designs are usually known to be maintenance friendly. There's also higher emphasis on modularity these days.

 

Also, what about all the backup systems usually afforded to a manned turret?  Between emergency optics, manual rotation, etc, I don't see how a remotely operated turret will still allow those systems to be implemented, at least in as robust of a system as in other tanks.  It seemed like pretty much everytime I took a solid hit in Steel Beasts (that didn't kill me) I would have to rely on some sort of secondary/emergency system that required increased "human" interaction.

 

Combat aircraft backup systems tackle these kind of problems very good. A-10C Warthog is a good example, if you're familiar with DCS A-10C. You can control it even with all electronics out.

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Codename Duchess,

 

The clearly labeled 7.62 mm remote MG in the graphic is obviously much larger caliber. There is no indication at all in the table or the drawing proper of the 30 mm cannon directly talked about in the article. Detection range for the T-14 is listed as >5000 meters, but engagement is at 7000-8000 meters! The article says 1500 hp gas turbine, but the info on the graphic goes one better with a 1500 hp X-configuration, 12-cylinder gas turbine with supercharger. A noteworthy powerplant to be sure! Given these sorts of errors, I suppose we should be grateful at least the roadwheel count is correct. What presumably is a fully integrated FCS is described as a "thermal sensor," and let us all tremble that the T-14 can fire on the move. If the graphic and associated table and annotations are translations from Russian, likely some sort of military periodical, then I smell disinformation.

 

Paul Huard, the author of the article, says "the tank bristles with exterior guns," then lists a gun (30 mm) and completes the non list with the 12.7 mm MG. Did he read his own article? I have serious doubts. I thought Charles Bartles made some great points about the huge headaches associated with trying to keep a whole age range of AFVs in service, then contrasting it with the grand plan behind Armata. If nothing else, we're seeing what Russia is saying about the T-14 to internal consumers, almost certainly military.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler 

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any graphics/charts/specs predictions you see are fan-made, based on scaled down mock up models that were shown here and there at expos, and pure rumors. As far as I understand, there's been zero official information given neither by MoD or by manufacturer regarding T-14 exact specs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that the doubts of our eastern comrades capabilities are still strong on battlefront forums

Nobody's doubting their ability to do what they're doing.  There's just misreading and misconception furthered by some whom misinterpret what they say as something they've no intention nor goal of doing.  Following the Armata's story post-announcement in the West sort of illustrates that.

Edited by Nerdwing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, worded it ****tily, my fault.

 

Alot of the supposed "claims" regarding plans and capabilities of most things Russian come from sources that are inadvertently given too much credit, and their over-the-top boasts are often mistakenly claimed as what Russia is itself trying to do.  Like the Armata having a ton of 30mm's etc. But in truth, the source given are just themselves utter trash.

 

Some of its intentional by Russia strongk trolls, some is mistranslated but well-intended, but a not-insignificant bit of us are guilty of just intentionally reading into the over-the-top claims and ignoring the actual ones, and using the former as a basis for an opinion.  

 

It boils down to information sources and their credibility, and their nature and quality being inherently very very very different in regards to the intention of information presented.  And then the fact that they're in a totally different language that Google translate loves to butcher into nearly-unreadable format that'd make ME jealous :P

Edited by Nerdwing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Again, I'll point out that the recent track record of hype around Russian AFV development that has completely fizzled lends to the skepticism.  

 

Pretty much.  Going all the way back to the Soviet era equipment, it was always going to literally destroy everything, this is the apocalypse for anything without a big red star painted on it, and then it:

 

1. Doesn't happen, mysteriously fades into the land of bad photographs and tarps

 

2. Appears.  Is broadly on par with western equipment (superior in some ways, inferior in others).

 

It's pretty easy to retain some sense of skepticism with a record like that.

 

 

 

There's just misreading and misconception furthered by some whom misinterpret what they say as something they've no intention nor goal of doing.

 

This is something that seems to come up pretty often with countries that hold their capabilities very close to their chest.  Chinese tank fans are just as bad for claiming capabilities not even possible with current generation of technology, or using what limited information to inflate something that's actually on it's own merit, not a bad piece of technology, however with all the inflated capabilities, becomes a bit of a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This is something that seems to come up pretty often with countries that hold their capabilities very close to their chest.  Chinese tank fans are just as bad for claiming capabilities not even possible with current generation of technology, or using what limited information to inflate something that's actually on it's own merit, not a bad piece of technology, however with all the inflated capabilities, becomes a bit of a joke.

 

lights a solemn candle in memory of Ericdude, the true Chinese hero.  It sits atop a model Type 99.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that the doubts of our eastern comrades capabilities are still strong on battlefront forums

 

I think it comes more from analysis of cost and result.

 

If Lada said they could build a car that has equal if not superior performance, comfort, and utility to a Mercedes-Benz E-Class coupé for only half the cost, one would rightly be skeptical. Right now, Uralvagonzavod has potentially made a design that can be "very good," but all that performance very likely has come at great cost in development, so the idea that anyone other than a country for whom money is no object (i.e. India) could afford it in operationally significant quantities is a bit suspect. Might even be that to rein in the cost the version that eventually enters service will be somewhat less impressive than initially advertised.

Edited by Agiel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if this is an inopportune place, but my Russian buddy is visiting family atm so I cant ask him to verify the authenticity of an article:

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2015/0327/Grounded-Russia-s-answer-to-US-next-gen-fighter-hits-the-skids

 

Is there any truth to this?  12 airframes?

 

The only other references I found to it were on Indian forums and sites, and given their involvement in the project it seemed very suspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOckAndLOad and Thewood1,

 

If a US Army Intelligence analyst is so dim as to use unverified fan boy stuff as the basis for serious intel assessment, then I fear for my country. To me, that cutaway looks like the sort of thing Russian military periodical Znamenosets (Standard Bearer) published during the Cold War. This is a particularly detailed example, but it still shows the concept. The T-14 drawing looks very much like the notional drawings of the widely reported (even Time magazine) FST (Future Soviet Tank), that great bugaboo of the Cold War. The FST, despite its appearance in Soviet Military Power as a declassified DIA artist's rendering, was never seen in public. Nor is there any evidence that whatever was seen, presumably by satellite, back then, ever got built. 

 

Nerdwing,

 

Even when you know that the Russian tanks you see moving and firing with great precision and effect during exercises are crewed with nothing but officers and the same for warships performing with shockingly high levels of naval proficiency and verve, it's very difficult to decouple the visceral fear response from what the rational mind knows. And the Russians know that most people exposed to such imagery won't know at all, but will simply react with fear and be intimidated. In a sense, it almost doesn't matter that whatever the weapon is be mass produced, for its leverage occurs well before that. I don't know what it's called these days, but I'd say the modern counterpart of the Cold War Strategic Deception Directorate is still very much on the job, effectively tying up a great deal of western time, money and scarce resources trying to learn the secrets of the tantalizingly exposed T-14, as well as devising ways to counter it. Already, the Germans (and the French) are talking about building a new tank called Leopard 3. And you can bet there's a lot of ear bending going on in the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearings in the US, too. For a relatively modest outlay, Putin is forcing the US and NATO to spend billions and billions of dollars to combat a tank which might not ever see mass production.  His ground force commanders probably won't be so thrilled. T-90 orders from the Russian Army stopped in 2011, in anticipation of the Armata's arrival in the force in 2015, but now it'll be three years late and probably with a smaller buy than planned, too. The track record of what happens when you galvanize the West into responding to a perceived military threat historically hasn't gone well for Russia, as seen in the "Missile Gap" onward. 

 

As for the T-50, the cut is identifiably sourced by Business Insider to Deputy Minister of Defense for Armaments, Yuri Borisov. He is very much real, as officially reflected on the Russian MOD's own site. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think of Russian claims about what their military equipment is capable of doing is similar to an old friend back in school. Every year he said "this year the Patriots are going to the Super Bowl!" (Patriots = American football team, Superbowl = final game of the season). Every year they got crushed well ahead of time, then one year they actually did get to the Superbowl. Problem was they set an all time record for worst loss at a Superbowl in football history (I think they still hold the record). It took more than a dozen more years for the Patriots to both get to the Superbowl again and win.

It would be wrong for me to have said in the early 1980s "they'll never make it to the Superbowl". It would have been wrong for me to have said in 1986 "if they ever make it again, they'll get crushed". But it would not have been wrong for me to have said "the team has perpetual problems delivering on what it promises, so I'll believe it when I see it".

I feel the same way about Soviet and Russian military developments. National pride and fanciful specifications are the norm, hard evidence is not. At times it got pretty silly when things like Black Eagle and T-95 were each touted as "the best tank in the world" before the first prototype was even built. And then, amazingly, "the best tank in the world" never got made and the existing ones have not measured up to expectations.

As with the Patriots, I will not say that Russia will NEVER have a better tank than it's Western opponents... just that one should be skeptical about exactly when that might happen and exactly how much better it might be or how long it will last before the West comes up with something better.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOckAndLOad and Thewood1,

 

If a US Army Intelligence analyst is so dim as to use unverified fan boy stuff as the basis for serious intel assessment, then I fear for my country. To me, that cutaway looks like the sort of thing Russian military periodical Znamenosets (Standard Bearer) published during the Cold War. This is a particularly detailed example, but it still shows the concept. The T-14 drawing looks very much like the notional drawings of the widely reported (even Time magazine) FST (Future Soviet Tank), that great bugaboo of the Cold War. The FST, despite its appearance in Soviet Military Power as a declassified DIA artist's rendering, was never seen in public. Nor is there any evidence that whatever was seen, presumably by satellite, back then, ever got built.

 

Hardly the first time I see incompetent western analysis. How many of them know Russian as good as I know English and Ukrainian? And even if they did know it on the same level as I do know their language, doesn't mean they suddenly can figure out stuff as accurately. And even I can't always be accurate with my own analysis. The guy in the article says that that video was made in Moscow. But it is from Nizhniy Tagil, in fact. He published it with a certainty anyways. The overall level of journalism is kinda meh nowadays. I even had to stop reading BBC as often as I did a year ago.

 

With Photoshop/CorelDraw etc, even I can make that sort of cutaway picture. More talented people go for 3D models with Maya/3DsMax. Next day you know it, half the internet is gonna be discussing it as if Putin himself published it. Hell, even drew it himself.

 

At the same time, it doesn't mean that some of the rumors are not true. But as long as T-14 is classified, it's classified, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. And then there's Counterintelligence.

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, an (bad photographic) immage of FST was released.

 

46565a4dc273.jpgAbout the -fakes-, I have seen a 3d render of S350 go public and be viewed as an official photograph of the system.

Edited by ikalugin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is that the US military and defense industry produce as many AFV prototypes and demonstrators as Russia, but you typically don't see the hype like you do with Russian equivalents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOckAndLOad,

 

I didn't see the allegation it was shot in Moscow, but I knew full well it had to be taken a Nizhniy Tagil, a place whose tanks ready to be picked up apron made for gut churning viewing from satellite photos during my Soviet Threat Analyst days. I know we're in a very much different reality now, but despite all the manufacturer's vids out there of all manner of weapons, it's very hard for my brain to process the notion of someone sitting in a car in a parking lot at Nizhniy Tagil and videoing the latest tank driving across the parking lot at practically spitting distance, never mind come pelting up onto a road in apparent full war array, throwing snow everywhere. I am by no means alone in this reaction. Other Cold War types are having the exact same reaction. We come from a time when a single ground level pic would've been practically priceless. And gathering that kind of stuff could and did cost lives. Frankly, I marvel people aren't arrested on the spot by Russian security for taking such videos, Yet not a guard anywhere in sight. Ditto for the heavy IFV. 

 

ikalugin,

 

When did that come out, please? I guarantee you I never saw it. FTR, I left military aerospace in late June of 1989. Have tried and tried, so far in vain, to locate the correct issue of SMP (Soviet Military Power) in which the Pentagon presented a large (two pages) artist's rendering of the FST. The Pentagon promptly got jumped on because it looked a lot like an Abrams, especially the turret, leading to denunciations that it was a ploy to get more Abrams tanks bought. Now we know that the apparent shape of the FST turret and many tanks since is the result of the ERA and whatnot, consequently has little to do with the actual shape. I distinctly recall the FST depicted in SMP was shielded right down to atop the small road wheels. From what I can see in this lamentably poor pic, it looks like the DIA artist did a pretty good job. Do you know the bore diameter for the tank pictured? We worried about a high velocity140 mm gun which also fired missiles. There was also concerned talk about an antisensor/blinding laser. Laser hazards are precisely why you see US binos and vision blocks with distinctive orange colored optics. It's a protective coating.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...