Armata soon to be in service.

[BTR]

The question was about why some Russians make wild statements about the balance of tank power. Before Black Eagle was officially tossed out it was a pretty sure bet that anytime anybody said how good an Abrams is someone (perhaps a teenager) would come out and say how the Black Eagle would soon make the Abrams look like junk. You can probably still find the YouTube videos and URLs to such blatant day dreaming.

Those of us who were bombarded by such claims, fantasy websites, fantasy videos, etc. can't help but keep them in mind this time around. Credibility is established over time, but so is a lack of credibility.

Steve

 

That was then, now is now. Bringing Black Eagle up in a procurement discussion is as good as doing so for G11.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

That was then, now is now. Bringing Black Eagle up in a procurement discussion is as good as doing so for G11.

 

The SGT York and MBT-70 are still well illustrative of the US procurement system because both are problems that might have change a bit, but have not really gone away.  The Black Eagle, KA-50, MI-28 etc, etc are all still really good examples of high end Soviet/Russian stuff that either does not come to fruition at all, or is accepted as the "standard" platform but still in practice amounts to a fraction of the fleet.

 

If something had dramatically changed about Russian procurement, or the Russian economy then you'd have a point, but time and time alone does not render a point moot, and the same factors that made the Black Eagle fantasy strongly influence Russian procurement today.  

[Nerdwing]

I think the procurement goal for "Armata tanks" may be confused with new tracked AFVs in general.  I can find stated goals for "Armata tanks" and goals for Boomerang wheeled vehicles, but no numbers for other Armata-based vehicles or Kurganets-based vehicles. 

This is exactly the mistake I made personally  

[c3k]

Who said tank porn? There are some uhm.. rears to see.

 

http://nevskii-bastion.ru/parade-moscow-150429/

 

Turret base sneak peeks:

 

Sorry to repost ALL the pix... (But they look GOOD!)

 

Top vehicle: No way does that have a rear ramp. The tow cable alone would preclude it's operation.

 

The next vehicle does seem to have a drop down ramp.

 

Third vehicle, despite having two small rear swing doors which I thought could be water propulsion, doesn't seem (to my eye) to be amphibious. The exhaust louvers would almost beg to flood the engine. It does have a door and lower hinges to allow a drop down ramp. No visible linkage to raise it, so maybe internal electric winch?

 

Picture 5 shows how friggin' tall that thing is!

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Top vehicle: No way does that have a rear ramp. The tow cable alone would preclude it's operation.

 

It is definitely a ramp + door. There are 3 sets of hinges, two on the right, one on the bottom. Bottom one for the ramp, others for the door and slat bars. Towing cable is situated so that it won't affect the ramp. The door itself is made of two layers, you can see both edges. One layer is the door, the other (outer) layer is the ramp. The image is clickable to see details better.

 

Third vehicle, despite having two small rear swing doors which I thought could be water propulsion, doesn't seem (to my eye) to be amphibious. The exhaust louvers would almost beg to flood the engine. It does have a door and lower hinges to allow a drop down ramp. No visible linkage to raise it, so maybe internal electric winch?

I would assume that engine exhaust is powerful enough to be flooded. BMP-3 has an engine exhaust (on the right side) that is below waterline. Pics: 1, 2

Edited April 30, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[akd]

First vehicle (Armata IFV) has a ramp.  You can see hinges, and tow cable is further up under hull.

Second vehicle (Kurganets) is amphibious.

 

edit: what LnL said.

Edited April 30, 2015 by akd

[Battlefront.com]

Modernization doesn't happen at once. T-90s are grouped with BMP-3s, and T-72s with BMP-2s nowadays, IIRC. And, from what I understand (and this is my personal speculation here), this is exactly what's gonna happen starting from post parade 2015-2019/2020.

For sure it will happen that way. No nation on Earth has the industrial capacity and money available to switch out a major vehicle all at once. It will definitely be over time. Most likely the units that currently have T-72/BMP-2 will get the T-90/BMP-3 vehicles "second hand" from the units receiving Armata/Kurganets. The units with BMP-82 will get Boomerang and then pass their vehicles onto units that have older BMPs.

Production efficiency and money will determine how quickly and how completely this transition takes place. In the end, many units will still have older vehicles. At least that has always been the case with Soviet and Russian upgrades.

This is why Bochkarev said that the first batch of new gen vehicles will be in service by 2016. He meant the first batch per ongoing contract, including those vehicles that's already been produced. Starting from post parade time, later this year. That's how I see it.

I don't see any way to interpret what he said differently. It was a pretty clear statement with logical intentions that seem to me, as I said, quite smart/realistic.

Steve

[Stagler]

The SGT York and MBT-70 are still well illustrative of the US procurement system because both are problems that might have change a bit, but have not really gone away.  The Black Eagle, KA-50, MI-28 etc, etc are all still really good examples of high end Soviet/Russian stuff that either does not come to fruition at all, or is accepted as the "standard" platform but still in practice amounts to a fraction of the fleet.

 

If something had dramatically changed about Russian procurement, or the Russian economy then you'd have a point, but time and time alone does not render a point moot, and the same factors that made the Black Eagle fantasy strongly influence Russian procurement today.  

 

I wouldn't compare Black Eagle and Ka-50 or Mi-28. The latter have numbers in service, there are 59 Mi-28N in service with VVS, Ka-50K has just been taken into service in the last 6 months with the VMF. The reason more haven't been built is because Mi-24PN/Mi-35M have the same if not better capability as Mi-28N for less than half the price of a buying new helicopter. It can carry the same AT-9, has parts of the same avionics and rotor engine upgrades, has OPS-24N FLIR, and arguably has better utility and survivability.

 

Russian procurement has been the same since the start of the Cold War, old kit gets passed onto second echelon units, then third, then mothballed, sold or scrapped. As I have stated a few times before, one brigade will receive the new kit first, and its stuff will be passed on or mothballed. They will not equip the entire land forces all at once.

[Battlefront.com]

Interesting, and I guess not surprising, to note that none of these vehicles has any visible means of defending itself against a top attack ATGM (Javelin or otherwise). I guess it's one of the things that Russian engineers haven't figured out yet. And to be fair, nobody really has. The unfortunate thing for Russian vehicle operators is that they have to be very worried about a top attack missile hitting them while Western counterparts do not.

Steve

[L0ckAndL0ad]

The SGT York and MBT-70 are still well illustrative of the US procurement system because both are problems that might have change a bit, but have not really gone away.  The Black Eagle, KA-50, MI-28 etc, etc are all still really good examples of high end Soviet/Russian stuff that either does not come to fruition at all, or is accepted as the "standard" platform but still in practice amounts to a fraction of the fleet.

 

If something had dramatically changed about Russian procurement, or the Russian economy then you'd have a point, but time and time alone does not render a point moot, and the same factors that made the Black Eagle fantasy strongly influence Russian procurement today.  

 

You simply can't put Obj 640 (Black Eagle) in one list with Ka-50 and Mi-28. Ka-50 gave birth to Ka-52. Ka-52 is a very unique and versatile platform. It was a C2/FAC/hunter-killer platform initially (with Ka-50 being pure strike/killers), but after Ka-50 was dropped, it is still very good in all those roles, and even awesome for the Navy (K version). Mi-28 is a pure ground pounder. Russia has ~100 of both, each type. Obj 640 was just a prototype that never came to be anything more than that. Huge difference.

 

There was practically no "strategy" at that time. The country was falling apart since the fall of SU. Then came financial crisis of 2007-2008. I won't say that nowadays Russian procurement is great (it isn't, T-72B3 sucks, who in the world buys those?), but it is not really fair to equate Russia prior to 2008 and after.

Edited April 30, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Interesting, and I guess not surprising, to note that none of these vehicles has any visible means of defending itself against a top attack ATGM (Javelin or otherwise). I guess it's one of the things that Russian engineers haven't figured out yet. And to be fair, nobody really has. The unfortunate thing for Russian vehicle operators is that they have to be very worried about a top attack missile hitting them while Western counterparts do not.

Steve

 

Not necessarily. Afghanit APS is said to be capable at defeating those. We have to see the whole system without tarps before making any judgement.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

there are 59 Mi-28N in service with VVS

 

Despite the fact it was selected to be the standard attack helicopter in 2008 or so?  Sure seems like there's a lot of Hinds still chugging around.

 

 

 

Russian procurement has been the same since the start of the Cold War, old kit gets passed onto second echelon units, then third, then mothballed, sold or scrapped. As I have stated a few times before, one brigade will receive the new kit first, and its stuff will be passed on or mothballed. They will not equip the entire land forces all at once.

 

Again, I've never argued for sure 100% Aramta will fail and none will ever enter service, but we've seen a model of the first tier units getting a few units, then few to none arriving for a while.  For many vehicles and platforms that are "Standard" quite a few of them simply never are, and remain limited purchases because surprise, Russia's economy is still about where it was when the Black Eagle was too expensive.

 

 

 

You simply can't put Obj 640 (Black Eagle) in one list with Ka-50 and Mi-28. 

 

One is an attempt to make the next Russian tank that failed because it did not match the Russian ability to field the platform.  The KA-50 is a Russian platform that was selected for service, had early models made for testing, then languished in development hell for lack of funding before becoming more or less obsolete in its original formation, and becoming the basis of a very limited procurement platform, MI-28 is, as I said "the" attack helicopter despite all them Hinds.

 

They're all good models of where the Aramata could go  The lack of strategy is about the only real difference, but there's still a very weak Russian economy, and there's still a very high tech platform with a whole host of new issues to overcome.

[c3k]

Crap...now I see the hinges. Just like the other ones.

 

Exhaust pressure...sure, and others exhaust underwater too. Hell, boats do. But I'll believe it floats when I see one come up next to me on the beach.

 

Unless...those aren't ERA blocks, but styrofoam? 

 

Thanks.

[Krasnoarmeyets]

there are 59 Mi-28N in service with VVS, Ka-50K has just been taken into service in the last 6 months with the VMF.

90+ Mi-28N as of Dec. 2014, 75+ Ka-52 as of Jan. 2015, including about 3 Ka-52K (which future is now uncertain in light of Mistral situation).

Edited May 1, 2015 by Krasnoarmeyets

[akd]

Unless...those aren't ERA blocks, but styrofoam? 

 

Well, yes.  Probably passive armor with air space or buoyant material making up most of the volume.

[Battlefront.com]

Not necessarily. Afghanit APS is said to be capable at defeating those. We have to see the whole system without tarps before making any judgement.

I thought they were only rumored to be on the Armata? In any case, we don't yet know if the system can defeat a Javelin at all or to what degree.

Here's some interesting reading which someone might have already linked to. In specific respect to the development strategy:

 

[Kurennoy] And will they enter active service right away?

[Khalitov] No, this is an experimental commercial consignment intended for test exploitation in the forces. In other words, this is a period in which the equipment is used directly by the forces while a control exploitation is carried out at the same time, then conclusions are drawn and decisions are made on modifications. That is the normal process followed in creating technological developments.

Source: Aleksandr Kurennoy and Aleksey Naryshkin: “Vyacheslav Khalitov, Deputy Director of the Uralvagonzavod Science and Production Corporation Open Joint-Stock Company for Specialized Technology,” transcript of Arsenal radio program posted on Ekho Moskvy Online, 26 January 2015, http://m.echo.msk.ru/interview/detail. php?ID=1480668, accessed 8 January 2015

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/OEWatch/201503/201503.pdf

Another article in the above linked publication hints at the sorts of problems a complex vehicle like Armata faces in terms of production capabilities. I've bolded a few items:

 

...A source on the Military Industrial Commission under the Russian Government told a Gazeta.Ru correspondent that the Su-35S will enter the troops with imported components.

“Individual components and assemblies are manufactured abroad, including in Ukraine. There all of the airborne electronics are built on a foreign computer hardware base. And this is a serious problem, while taking into account that this is a totally electronic aircraft.

“We don’t have those components and we won’t them anytime soon. It has not yet been decided what to do with this and the first aircraft will arrive on that, in other words, on foreign elements, and hereafter we will think about it,” Gazeta.Ru’s interlocutor said.

In the process, he refused to name the specific components, having cited commercial and state secrets. The Military Industrial Commission spokesman stressed that, if the supplies of imported components will run out and deliveries will be halted, the production of the Su-35S will be frozen and problems with repairs will begin with the aircraft that have been transferred to the Air Force. In the process, he called Shoygu’s task to begin deliveries of the Su-35S to the troops “totally realistic”.

...

A United Aircraft Manufacturing Corporation spokesman refused to comment on the situation, having stated: “We don’t have problems with the production of the Su-35S.” At the same time, a source, who is close to Sukhoi Corporation, explained that they will never manage to replace a number of this aircraft’s components.

“All kinds of ‘cheap parts’ using foreign components are going on there: for example, the fittings, the regulating pumps, and so forth. They are dirt-cheap but time is needed in order to being to make them here. But the problem is not them but the electronic computer hardware, which no one even intends to make in our country. We will not be able to replace a number of integrated circuits with anything, therefore, we will have to purchase them in finished form. This is dangerous because they are manufactured in the countries of Asia but they have been developed in the Western countries, first of all, in the United States. And no one can guarantee that there aren’t some sort of bugging devices or similar nonsense there,” Gazeta.Ru’s interlocutor pointed out.

...

...In the process, he is confident that the organization of an aircraft production line will take “not a month and not a year”. “This is a long- term process and it is impossible to immediately change everything just like that, based upon the minister’s command. Once again, you need to understand at whose expense all of this will be done,” Panteleyev explained.

The point here is the same one raised many pages ago and repeated fairly often by skeptics, such as myself, about the viability of Armata under present economic conditions and present leadership. Can Russia make a pretty good high tech tank with only Russian made parts? No. Not even the US can do that as far as I know. Can Russia make a pretty good high tech tank with significant imported parts? Probably, but it has yet to be demonstrated it can. Even with cheap imported parts, can Russia make enough Armatas to make a difference on the battlefield BEFORE the Western countries counter with something better? Based on historical track records, there is much reason to doubt. Especially given the current and near future economic projections for Russia.

Russia also needs to be worried about really ticking off the NATO countries. If the US and Europe went to a Korean, Indonesian, or perhaps even Chinese supplier of a critical part and pressured or bribed them to stop shipping parts to Russia, what would that do to Russia's capacity to produce and support the Armata (or other) programs? In theory the US and NATO are also vulnerable to such pressures from Russia and China, but in reality they are not since Russia lacks the clout and China (for the time being) is not in a position to tick off its #1 and #2 source of economic strength.

Steve

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

90+ Mi-28N as of Dec. 2014, 75+ Ka-52 as of Jan. 2015, including about 3 Ka-52K (which future is now uncertain in light of Mistral situation). 

 

Missing the point.  The MI-28 was announced to replace all MI-24s in 2003.  It entered service in 2006.

 

And now, nearly a decade later you've still got three times as many MI-24 based platforms as MI-28s.

 

Simply announcing the system is in service is a long way from reaching reasonable numbers of platforms.  And again, Russia is not in a great economic place right now.  

 

I think in part the Armata exists mostly to wave something in front of the Russian people though.  See?  We are still relevant!  Fear us please don't look at the state of everything outside of these few modern vehicles.

[Battlefront.com]

Missing the point.  The MI-28 was announced to replace all MI-24s in 2003.  It entered service in 2006.

 

And now, nearly a decade later you've still got three times as many MI-24 based platforms as MI-28s.

 

Simply announcing the system is in service is a long way from reaching reasonable numbers of platforms.  And again, Russia is not in a great economic place right now.

Quite.

 

I think in part the Armata exists mostly to wave something in front of the Russian people though.  See?  We are still relevant!  Fear us please don't look at the state of everything outside of these few modern vehicles.

A parallel:

Was the King Tiger a superior tank? In many ways yes, in other ways no. Did it make a tactical impact? In some instances yes, in others no. Did it have a positive impact on the larger struggle? No. In fact many have made the case it actually had a negative impact because the tank's production and maintenance requirements were outside of Germany's ability to handle given the circumstances, yet it devoted the resources to the King Tiger program instead of things which may have had a better impact on the war effort.

In the end, the King Tiger was a flawed and unaffordable design. We do not know if that is the case with Armata or not. Skeptics, like me, feel we'll know better in 5-10 years, not after a parade.

Steve

P.S. once again, note that I am not anti-Russian in my thinking any more than I am anti-German for mentioning the King Tiger or anti-American for mentioning Sgt. York.

[L0ckAndL0ad]

I thought they were only rumored to be on the Armata? In any case, we don't yet know if the system can defeat a Javelin at all or to what degree.

 

You can clearly see APS being installed on T-15 heavy IFV and Kurganets-25 IFV. Tank might be using different setup. Or not use it at all, yet. There were rumors about APS being removed from test models of T-14 to reduce it's cost, but with intentions for it to be present on mass-production models. But rumors aside, there's just 8 days left before the parade, so it's not long before we can all tell of sure if there's APS on a tank or not.

Edited May 1, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Again, I've never argued for sure 100% Aramta will fail and none will ever enter service, but we've seen a model of the first tier units getting a few units, then few to none arriving for a while.  For many vehicles and platforms that are "Standard" quite a few of them simply never are, and remain limited purchases because surprise, Russia's economy is still about where it was when the Black Eagle was too expensive.

 

Not really, nope.

 

 

One is an attempt to make the next Russian tank that failed because it did not match the Russian ability to field the platform.  The KA-50 is a Russian platform that was selected for service, had early models made for testing, then languished in development hell for lack of funding before becoming more or less obsolete in its original formation, and becoming the basis of a very limited procurement platform, MI-28 is, as I said "the" attack helicopter despite all them Hinds.

 

Wrong again. About both. I won't suggest to delve too much into helicopters, because you obviously do not know them well, making statements like that.

 

They're all good models of where the Aramata could go  The lack of strategy is about the only real difference, but there's still a very weak Russian economy, and there's still a very high tech platform with a whole host of new issues to overcome.

 

Russia needs new gen vehicles badly. Being developed and tested extensively. Mass production won't happen before 2019/2020. They can easily afford this plan, and they are already doing it. Contracts were signed. It's already happening. Hello?

 

 

I think in part the Armata exists mostly to wave something in front of the Russian people though.  See?  We are still relevant!  Fear us please don't look at the state of everything outside of these few modern vehicles.

 

I disagree. Parades exist in many countries. Telling Russian engineers that? Bad idea. There's nothing wrong with what they're doing. One might disagree with some engineering/design solutions, but you can't simply dismiss the importance of such big step. It might be ambitious, but then again, there's nothing wrong with being ambitious, if you can pull it off. So far, they're building stuff. 52 experimental vehicles is not a joke. It's a serious statement about their intentions.

 

Also, there's a Russian saying. Собака лает, караван идет. Meaning "Dog barks, caravan moves." Closest analogue is "barking at a knot".

Edited May 1, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[John Kettler]

Guys,

 

I was going to say all three had side hinged hatches, but the enlarged pics show that's not the case. After further scrutiny, I'm now of the firm opinion that every one of them has both a ramp and a hinged hatch within the ramp itself, with one distinct possibility for why it's that way is to minimize exposure to outside environment under contamination conditions. It also makes for far better security in the field and protects what've never been there before, save in command vehicles and such: electronics which aren't just radios. Weirdly, the T-15 seems to have the smallest and weakest looking hinges in the bunch. The two small covers to either side of the ramp bottom are for the water jet exhausts which propel the Kurganets through the water. By contrast, the Bumerang is using two steerable (?--maybe turning the wheels provides the rudder action) shrouded propellers for the same task. The drive shafts to the motors are visible, but I so far haven't figured out the logic for the big metal thing from which they extend. To me, it looks like the last thing you'd want when swimming, since it'd be a huge drag problem. As for the question about the engine's exhausting into the water in the case of certain vehicles, I can assure you all it's eminently doable. I used to have a well used 1967 Chris Craft 26" cabin cruiser whose motor did exactly that. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[L0ckAndL0ad]

The point here is the same one raised many pages ago and repeated fairly often by skeptics, such as myself, about the viability of Armata under present economic conditions and present leadership. Can Russia make a pretty good high tech tank with only Russian made parts? No. Not even the US can do that as far as I know. Can Russia make a pretty good high tech tank with significant imported parts? Probably, but it has yet to be demonstrated it can. Even with cheap imported parts, can Russia make enough Armatas to make a difference on the battlefield BEFORE the Western countries counter with something better? Based on historical track records, there is much reason to doubt. Especially given the current and near future economic projections for Russia.

 

Your own words on this very same page:

 

 

Production efficiency and money will determine how quickly and how completely this transition takes place. In the end, many units will still have older vehicles. At least that has always been the case with Soviet and Russian upgrades.

 

Russia also needs to be worried about really ticking off the NATO countries. If the US and Europe went to a Korean, Indonesian, or perhaps even Chinese supplier of a critical part and pressured or bribed them to stop shipping parts to Russia, what would that do to Russia's capacity to produce and support the Armata (or other) programs? In theory the US and NATO are also vulnerable to such pressures from Russia and China, but in reality they are not since Russia lacks the clout and China (for the time being) is not in a position to tick off its #1 and #2 source of economic strength.

 

Import substitution is a big priority, yes. Correlates with long trials period for new gen vehicles as well. I will speculate here, but from what I understand, Russia makes 90-95% components on it's own, for military vehicles. Creating production for the rest of the stuff is in their own best interest (and makes gains to their own too). Even if they can't, I seriously doubt anyone would be able to block all shipments to Russia completely, ever. Simply not gonna happen.

Edited May 1, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[Nerdwing]

Really, is it a huge technological feat to adjust an APS system to engage targets at a higher angle than usual?  It seems like the logical evolution for nations concerned about their employment versus their vehicles (or seeking sales to those who fear their employment )

 

I'd not be surprised if it was capable of doing so.  

[Kieme(ITA)]

Couple of videos from the parade trials, these are quite good as no rock music playing and crap like that:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOzrf4iyE8o

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukxiz7HGmaA

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4wTNW2PMnA

 

 

In the last video, at 5:31 you can see the heavy IFV version, not sure of the name... anyway, I notice quite a stress on the front suspensions. Maybe it's an impression, the road also seems a bit going upwards, nonetheless seems pretty heavy on the front, also in the first video the stress appears evident.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[Battlefront.com]

Your own words on this very same page:

 

 

 

Import substitution is a big priority, yes. Correlates with long trials period for new gen vehicles as well. I will speculate here, but from what I understand, Russia makes 90-95% components on it's own, for military vehicles. Creating production for the rest of the stuff is in their own best interest (and makes gains to their own too). Even if they can't, I seriously doubt anyone would be able to block all shipments to Russia completely, ever. Simply not gonna happen.

 

I don't understand your point. I'm saying that I'm skeptical that Russia can pull off all that it is claiming these programs will produce AND have them in the field in sufficient quantities to matter either ever or before the West fields something that is "better". The extended development track is a very good and very practical way to improve the odds of this happening, but it absolutely doesn't guarantee success.

BTW, "contracts signed" means nothing in any nation. Contracts always have exit clauses. Government contracts usually have very liberal ones. And Russia has a really unfortunate history of not honoring its legally binding agreements and also using the courts as a political weapon. i.e. if you do something that the Russian government really doesn't like, it seizes your company's assets and prosecutes you personally for "tax fraud" or some other trumped up charge. Therefore I would not put any emphasis on "contracts signed" in support of this program because it is, really, irrelevant.

That aside, the point that Russia is obviously "all in" with this program is very clear. As you say, for Russia and its export industries to remain even remotely competitive it *MUST* come up with something better than legacy Soviet products that were behind the times before they even were fielded. I am not skeptical that it needs to, wants to, or is trying its best to succeed, rather I am skeptical that it can pull it off.

 

Really, is it a huge technological feat to adjust an APS system to engage targets at a higher angle than usual?

My understanding is "yes it is". It's far easier to sense and defend a 360 deg (or less) 1-2m wide band around a vehicle than it is to project and defend a hemisphere that protects the vehicle at all angles around the vehicle that are "above ground".

We also have to keep in mind that some APS designs have a limited number of counter shots for a particular arc. That has a lot to do with the difficulty (design, engineering, production, expense, etc.) of having a universal mount that can defend in all arcs all the time from one location with sufficient reloading capabilities during a hot engagement. Defending a hemisphere makes this problem infinitely more complicated.

Steve