Jump to content
Lee_Vincent

Armata soon to be in service.

Recommended Posts

Well i hope they really introduce the Armata. I have always been curious about new technology and i find it fascinating to look at some particular class of vehicles or aircraft and look at its devlopment during the past 10, 20, 50 years. I mean just look at the F-22 and then imagine that not more than 100 years ago fighter pilots were flying in open-top biplanes, shooting at each other with handguns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Took time to listen to the actual interview for more clarity. Bochkarev (officially) states the following:

  • Technological studies and prototyping of unmanned turret MBT started in 80-90s with Obj 195, which had 2 actual prototypes built; these studies were used for Armata creation
  • Actual Armata development took 3 years
  • Crew of 3
  • Armata has an option of backing up (20-50 meters) to safety on it's own if the crew is unresponsive (when being hit)
  • Armata can be remotely controlled from another vehicle
  • Armata's AI can't fire on it's own (when crew is unresponsive)
  • Main priority is crew safety
  • Vehicles that are already built will be sent to Armed Forces (to different regions) for field trials later this year
  • Pre-mass production (trials) numbers of Armata will be around 100 vehicles by 2016; did not specify if that's MBTs only or together with IFVs
  • All new gen vehicles will be "in service" by 2016, so that Armed Forces can test them extensively before mass production
  • Actual mass-production 2019-2020+
  • They do agree that "teething problems" are inevitable (hence few years for trials/improvements), but Armata is far from being "raw" at this point
  • It can already fire :)(for those who have doubts)
  • Boomerang and Kurganets-25 IFV will have same turret (with 30mm + ATGMs, as planned, and already shown on photos)
  • Boomerang and Kurganets-25 have same engine (said to be very important for parts commonality and and repairs/maintenance)
  • Same field trials-feedback-improvements cycle for Boomerang and Kurganets vehicles in 2016+
  • Vehicles that have already been built are a part of a larger (ongoing) contract, which should give Armed Forces more vehicles up to 2016 for trials
  • Weapon module upgrade for IFVs in 2020 as planned (larger caliber, I guess 57mm)
  • When they had to swap HMG RWS and 30mm weapon module in the field for one of the new vehicles, it took just 3 hours
  • No export planned yet; possible export of downgraded export models, but not soon, main focus is internal market = Russian Armed Forces
  • Everything is home made, no parts shortage due to import problems

 

 

Thanks for sharing Lock, I would like to reply to Steve using your list and adding a color code to see what's planned and what's actually implemented (at least confirmed by this source).

 

Done = already happened, not under discussion (again, given the source is perfect) GREEN

Planned = might happen, might not happen RED

 

I see more green than red stuff. Unfortunately, I give you the red stuff is what's more important for Steve (and rightly so)

Edited by Kieme(ITA)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see more green than red stuff. Unfortunately, I give you the red stuff is what's more important for Steve (and rightly so)

This one in particular, which funny enough you left black :D

They do agree that "teething problems" are inevitable

Sometimes a design can get to the 95% working stage and still fail in a major way. I have mentioned, repeatedly, the US Sgt York program as an example. Everything that was just said about the status of Armata could be said about Sgt York when the program was still active. But in the end the "teething problems" were not overcome and the program cancelled.

Now, I'm not saying that Russia is going to cancel any part of the program. In fact, I don't think they can afford to no matter what. So the question is more about the specifics.

For example, the remote driving of a crew incapacitated vehicle by another vehicle. Certainly I do not think this is a totally impossible thing for the Russians to pull off, but there's a lot more too it than simply having some GoPro cameras stuck to a tank and some sort of servo control system. The large number of details might prove to be too costly or too tricky to overcome, thus resulting in the feature being dropped from production vehicles. Or not. We simply do not know.

It's sorta like the NOMAD helmets that some Stryker crews went to Iraq with. These were part of the Future Warrior program (renamed quite a few times) and offered a HUD for vehicle commanders. The helmets worked in every technical sense as far as I know. However, the crews hated them for a variety of practical reasons. Because the crews didn't find them an asset to their mission they were discarded. This despite all the statements made before deployment about how many were to be procured after "final testing". A half dozen years later and there's still no sign of these helmets going into service.

I hope everybody is very clear with the fact that I am not applying some unreasonable standard on Russia and only Russia. I am highly skeptical of pre-production claims of any weapon, vehicle, process, etc. by any nation. It's a very sensible mental attitude to live by.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand Steve,

 

but is it possible that the Russian approach will be a bit different? I mean, is it possible that the Russian will simply "impose" some elements of their design even if the crew don't give much of a positive impression during the trials?

I am sure that some Russian rifleman wasn't convinced to see a door full of fuel when he first used the BMP-1, and there surely was a tall guy who couldn't fit in it, but the design wasn't changed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand Steve,

 

but is it possible that the Russian approach will be a bit different? I mean, is it possible that the Russian will simply "impose" some elements of their design even if the crew don't give much of a positive impression during the trials?

I am sure that some Russian rifleman wasn't convinced to see a door full of fuel when he first used the BMP-1, and there surely was a tall guy who couldn't fit in it, but the design wasn't changed...

For sure Russia has a few advantages over its Western counterparts. They have a far greater ability to say "tough, that's the way it is" compared to others. However, that's not what I'm talking about.

We've talked about the unmanned turret concept and some of the things that could go wrong with it in concept, design, production, and maintenance. If there is a serious flaw with the concept, then it doesn't matter if the other three factors come off perfectly. Likewise, if the design has got a problem, it can't be made good on with the other three factors perfect. If concept and design are spot on, but production problems can't be consistently worked around, then it doesn't really matter since the end product suffers even if it's easy to maintain. If concept, design, and production are fine but it's a horror to maintain (expensive, requires high training, clean shops, etc.) then in a wartime situation it's likely to be less than is needed.

Then there's the real possibility that none of the four factors will be adequate, so it's compromised in all areas. Or two are seriously bad, etc.

The point is that Russia is moving into uncharted territory not only in relation to its own history, but also the history of nations which have a consistent track record of doing all these things better than Russia. As has been said over and over again, anybody who isn't moderately skeptical that all of this is going to come together "as advertised" by Russian officials is living in a parallel universe. Anybody that thinks this is all going to come together "as fantasized about" is not even remotely close to being in touch with reality.

Can Russia pull off a relatively good tank design that breaks a bunch of molds? I do think they are capable of it, especially given the prolonged time allowed for testing/redesign ahead of full scale production. But do I think it's going to be some sort of mystical NATO tank killer that rules the battlefields for the next 20 years? Absolutely not. And I'm also somewhat skeptical that financial realities won't have a negative impact on Russia's plans.

After realising how useless all these new vehicles will be without non-crew-LOS spotting in Combat Mission engine. I dont think I want them now haha.

Easily worked around. We just have a fake set of eyeballs in the turret space. Nothing difficult about that. What isn't easy to do is have an adjustable "mast" where the spotting can be done at different levels. That's a very different thing.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easily worked around. We just have a fake set of eyeballs in the turret space. Nothing difficult about that. What isn't easy to do is have an adjustable "mast" where the spotting can be done at different levels. That's a very different thing.

 

Can't eyeballs be prone, kneeling and upright? Three different spotting levels - problem solved! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do Russians seem so sensitive about any criticism of armatas or russian equipment as if people pointing such things out are insulting them personally or saying russia itself sucks? Thoughts anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do Russians seem so sensitive about any criticism of armatas or russian equipment as if people pointing such things out are insulting them personally or saying russia itself sucks? Thoughts anyone?

 

Depends. If criticism is justified, then it's the usual fanboism. If it isn't, and, especially, if based on someone's inability to filter teh internets and check sources, some might take it offensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious. It doesnt matter to me. I never really noticed it until all this discussion around black sea and reading various inane youtube arguments. Not that russia has a monopoly on internet idiots, there are plenty of american idiots and quite a few wannabe jihadists that suffer from diarrhea of the mouth.

Thewood, wen you say past history could you elaborate?

Edited by Sublime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is becoming tank porn...with the vehicles slowly loosing their covers as the parade approaches...

 

While a module with this toys would be great I´m skeptical enough data of actual production units will be available, looking at that "shopping list" of features, it looks too much given the time frame

 

On the other hand, it´s good to see new stuff and it will certainly keep things interesting, deciding what works and what doesn't and at what cost/compromises, it feels like a big gamble given there´s no other program to replace current hardware

 

What I don´t understand is the "no export" comment, why? Russia can't keep dumping T-72/90s on the world forever, eventually some derivative of this things surely will be exported

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don´t understand is the "no export" comment, why? Russia can't keep dumping T-72/90s on the world forever, eventually some derivative of this things surely will be exported

No doubt. The S400 was originally for domestic use only, then they sold a bunch to China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What I don´t understand is the "no export" comment, why? Russia can't keep dumping T-72/90s on the world forever, eventually some derivative of this things surely will be exported

 

Purely in a "Modest Proposal" sense it's because they're not real tanks, it's just going to be hundreds of parade float quality vehicles driven around by folks who are sworn to secrecy to present the illusion of the Armata being successful.  Exporting them would let other folks in on the terrible truth.

 

 

 

Backing up if crew is unresponsive.. Which means that the crew's biometrics will be monitored in real time.. Remote control.. Sounds like future warrior stuff 

 

I think it's sort of a silly thing.  The sort of "crew is unconscious, but okay!" hits are rare, and given that all crewmen at in the same box now, seems like they'll all be okay or all be goo.

 

The remote operation stuff makes more sense in terms of being able to operate the tank as sort of a defacto remote controlled turret, but it does not look extensive enough to support that (although that might just be the limitations of technology).

 

 

 

You just dated yourself, sir  :D

 

I missed the original Battle Cruiser 3000 fracas, but the follow on Smart behavior remains the gift that keeps giving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious. It doesnt matter to me. I never really noticed it until all this discussion around black sea and reading various inane youtube arguments. Not that russia has a monopoly on internet idiots, there are plenty of american idiots and quite a few wannabe jihadists that suffer from diarrhea of the mouth.

Every nation has a group of idiots that equate military might with national greatness. The less the nation has to brag about other than military might, the louder those idiots become. It's not anything specific to Russia at all.

An important part of Putin's rule is the reestablishment of Russian might in the world; political, social, economic, and military. I think most Russians understand that currently their military is outclassed, even if they won't say it in exactly those terms. The new vehicles we're discussing here, therefore, must be everything they are advertised to be or an important part of Russia's regaining importance in the world is put at risk. Logically, those who view Russia's ability to compete militarily do not want to contemplate anything other than the official Kremlin line of pending superiority.

Remember, a person who believes that military might is the most important thing for a country to have is not likely to accept "runner up". Especially when the other avenues for national strength (politics and economics in particular) are in major decline. It causes people to put even more importance on the thing that MIGHT lead to national strength rather than the things which are showing the opposite signs.

 

Thewood, wen you say past history could you elaborate?

He can answer for himself, but from my perspective it is a combination of most military things not living up to expectations in some way (not limited to Russia AT ALL) and past military track record. Russia, and the Soviet Union before it, has an excellent track record of cranking out very good military equipment in quantity. It has a mixed to horrible track record of producing military equipment that can go toe-to-toe with Western equivalents. Therefore, a betting man would be wise to err on the side of skepticism than fanboyism.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the it interesting how the weight of a tank seems to be related to its combat power. We always talk about Western MBTs beeing superior to their Russian counterparts, but has anyone of you ever noticed that contemporary Western MBTs are -on average- about 15 to 20 tones heavier? Were does all that additional weight go? Additional armour, i suppose, given that tanks like the M1A2 or the Leopard 2 seem to be more resistant to enemy fire than their Russian counterparts, the T-72 and the T-90, but honestly i dont really know. If the answear is that all the additional weight is invested in armor, why dont the Russians then juist build tank of equal weight with equal armor? They certainly must be capable of building engines etc capable to move a 70 ton tank around.

Edited by agusto

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...