Jump to content

Armata soon to be in service.


Lee_Vincent

Recommended Posts

 

 

Not really, nope.

 

seeing as we've adopted the kindergarten level of rebuttal, I will say yes times infinity.  Thereby I am the winner of this internet debate.

 

 

 

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

It doesn't matter if they're helicopters, pulse rifles, or super sonic ball breakers.  They're good illustrative points in terms of the ability of Russia to support high dollar weapons systems (PAK-FA's inability to not catch fire, and dependence on the Indians buying it being another good example).  

 

The list goes on that generally for the last two decades the Russians have had great difficulty getting even fairly modest equipment upgrades out the chute.  There's a reason there's still legions of BMP-2s and T-72Bs out there dutifully manned.  It is not lack of intelligence or ability but lack of resources that has caused this, and frankly you have done virtually nothing to dispel the doubts I, and the world at large have about Russia's ability to keep motoring along.  

 

 

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?

 

 

Which goes to the Potemkin tanks joke I made earlier.  They've promised you your army would stop looking like 1988.  They've told you your country is mighty and HATO fears it.  They've told you Russian power is returning and the pendulum is now swinging back your way.

 

What better way that showing off a new series of super-high tech AFVs?  And how much of a disaster would it have been had they not shown up?

 

Which is generally why I discard most Russian accounts out of hand.  What's being broadcast is usually a mix of purposefully wrong, hopeful estimates and nationalistic chest beating.  Getting some tarps on parade floats is no accomplishment.  When/if it enters serious production, we'll be able to tell if it's just going to be the land KA-50, or Russia finally can live up to it's boasts.

 

 

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.

 

I've always thought the Russian one to be in poor taste.  We will remember the sacrifices of the last generation by showing how little we've learned about living in a peaceful world.  See?  We can still kill millions.  It's so beautiful.  Please disregard the pensioners freezing to death this following winter.

 

Honestly disgusting.

 

Anyway.  I don't doubt Russian engineers.  I just doubt the ability of the Russian state to support what they've designed, because historically from Czar forward, there has not been a lack of smart Russians, but there has been a lack of resources.  And to that end nothing you've said, nor the need of new vehicles is enough to get over the cold hard reality that Russia will either be hard pressed to produce as many platforms as is claimed, as fast as claimed, or it'll have to find the money elsewhere.

 

And after the PAK-FA, I do think the Indians might count themselves out of this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't understand your point.

 

My point is, we both know what numbers they are perusing in the next few years. Why bringing up NATO confrontation? This is the second time, if I'm not mistaken, when you say:

 

 

can Russia make enough Armatas to make a difference on the battlefield BEFORE the Western countries counter with something better?

 

You know very well the answer to that question. Why asking it? Twice? Especially considering the fact that chances of such confrontation are so tiny. Russia isn't making new gen vehicles to go to war in the next few years with NATO. They are making them because their existing fleet is rubbish and outdated. It has nothing to do with NATO. And you know that. But still bring it up like it matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seeing as we've adopted the kindergarten level of rebuttal, I will say yes times infinity.  Thereby I am the winner of this internet debate.

 

You did not provide any numbers to prove your point. I did (they've already built 52 nextgen vehicles compared to 1 prototype of Obj 640 Black Eagle and 2 prototypes Obj 195). Then disagreed with your statement about the ecomony, said "no", and moved on. If you want to prove that today's Russia economy equals their economy levels 15 years ago, then make sure to provide some proof. Otherwise, "no".

 

Which goes to the Potemkin tanks joke I made earlier.  They've promised you your army would stop looking like 1988.  They've told you your country is mighty and HATO fears it.  They've told you Russian power is returning and the pendulum is now swinging back your way.

 

What better way that showing off a new series of super-high tech AFVs?  And how much of a disaster would it have been had they not shown up?

Which is generally why I discard most Russian accounts out of hand.  What's being broadcast is usually a mix of purposefully wrong, hopeful estimates and nationalistic chest beating.  Getting some tarps on parade floats is no accomplishment.  When/if it enters serious production, we'll be able to tell if it's just going to be the land KA-50, or Russia finally can live up to it's boasts.

 

Russia is not a single entity. While government produces propaganda, which feeds a lot of fanboys, MoD/military/manufacturers are actually quite honest. The thing is, I can distinguish between different entities and sources. You cannot. Therefore you brag about propaganda which somehow affects anything, while I focus on the actual state of things.

 

I've always thought the Russian one to be in poor taste.  We will remember the sacrifices of the last generation by showing how little we've learned about living in a peaceful world.  See?  We can still kill millions.  It's so beautiful.  Please disregard the pensioners freezing to death this following winter.

 

Honestly disgusting.

 

Same can be said about any country that's doing parades and has homeless people on the streets. Is there a contest or something, to prove that Russia's the worst at it? No need in one.

 

Anyway.  I don't doubt Russian engineers.  I just doubt the ability of the Russian state to support what they've designed, because historically from Czar forward, there has not been a lack of smart Russians, but there has been a lack of resources.  And to that end nothing you've said, nor the need of new vehicles is enough to get over the cold hard reality that Russia will either be hard pressed to produce as many platforms as is claimed, as fast as claimed, or it'll have to find the money elsewhere.

 

And after the PAK-FA, I do think the Indians might count themselves out of this one.

 

At this point, I'm not sure if you even noticed that their actual, official claims about procurement numbers are VERY realistic. Even Steve says that. If you wanna insist on sticking with lunatic misinterpreted claims about 2300 tanks, be my guest, I just won't reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dog barking at a caravan analogy is getting stronger. In any case, they've pretty much have shown us everything except the various weapon modules.

 

One thing that I want to see is what MG will be mounted on Armata as com. gun. I bet it will be 12.7. 

Edited by BTR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You did not provide any numbers to prove your point. I did (they've already built 52 nextgen vehicles compared to 1 prototype of Obj 640 Black Eagle and 2 prototypes Obj 195). Then disagreed with your statement about the ecomony, said "no", and moved on. If you want to prove that today's Russia economy equals their economy levels 15 years ago, then make sure to provide some proof. Otherwise, "no".

 

K!

 

http://www.worldstopexports.com/russias-top-10-exports/2350

 

As of last month, 58% of Russia's net import income came from oil.  The next biggest contribution to their imports clocks in at 4.1% with steel and iron.

 

Here's how that 58% is doing:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/31/investing/russia-gazprom-profit/

 

Profits are down 70% for gazprom.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29643612

 

Which is working out swimmingly for the Russian economy!  Which is lovely as even by Putin's sockpuppet admits:

 

 

 

Frankly, we, strictly speaking, have not fully recovered from the crisis of 2008

 

And by and large, the predictions are the Russian economy is chugging along into another recession.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-30/ruble-gains-as-russia-seeks-to-curb-worst-annual-drop-since-1998

 

Which is another rosy picture that the Russian economy is doing worse than it has for a long time, and doing significantly worse than the "good" years of high oil prices.

 

All of these point to a country that is less able to operate at max capacity.  Further it's not just the Russian tank fleet that's best served in the museum, it's the Navy.  It's the Air Force.  It's other AFVs, it's pretty much every piece of equipment is either obsolete in the strictest sense, or qualitatively well behind the west by a measurable degree.  THEN with the reduced ability to import technology and parts (see the MIG-35 article posted) and the need to set up industry to replace said parts...it's getting to be an increasing question of where the money is coming from.  

 

Frankly if Venezuela announced it was going to set up a space program, build its own fighter planes, while oil is tanked and the economy wasn't that great in the first place, and now they're building their own family of AFVs, you'd be just as doubtful about their prospects as I am of the Armata.  The money isn't there, and something has to give.  It might not be the Armata, but something is going to have to be cut to accomplish Russian plans, or the economy is going to have to get a lot better.  

 

Perhaps some economic reinvestment and improved quality of other industrial exports is in order?

 

 

 

MoD/military/manufacturers are actually quite honest. 

 

I trust the US DoD, General Dynamics, Boeing, etc, etc, on par with your average lawyer, sales person, or politician.

 

Which is to say I think your faith in those agencies is entirely misplaced.  They all have their own agenda which is you believing they are performing as well as they claim.  And to that end I wouldn't put it past them to have parade floats vs tanks, or claim milestones that will be handily forgotten as they pass because look!! It's a S-400 on an Armata chassis!  Russia strong!  

 

 

 

Same can be said about any country that's doing parades and has homeless people on the streets. Is there a contest or something, to prove that Russia's the worst at it? No need in one.

 

It's the fetishization and sexual nature of the thing.  They're selling you this beautiful wonderful hardware as if it is a sign things are good, and you're okay.  It's paranoid state that leverages your fear as a means of glossing over how much it has failed the Russian people.  There was no threat to Russia in 1946 until it invented one.  There was no threat to Russia in 1992 until you invented it again.  There's no military threat to Russia in 2015, and here it is being invented again.

 

The parade itself isn't the problem, it's stealing the blood and sacrifice of the soldiers that the USSR left to fight and freeze, to sell this image of a strong Russian state, while pulling those same soldiers out of their old folks homes to serve as props in an advertisement for this amazing future of facing down the great and many enemies manufactured by the Russian state.  

 

It's disgusting, cheap, and bread and circuses at its best.

 

 

 

they've pretty much have shown us everything except the various weapon modules.

 

Try this one on:

 

Just as functional as the Armata is now.  Just as vulnerable to being a lot of cutting edge technology not quite working out, at a time in which the country building it couldn't afford to keep pouring money into it.  Development cycle is similar to Armta in terms of length.  Just as needed to replace increasingly obsolete tanks.

 

Unless there's a fundamental superiority to Russians, there's just as much reason to see the MBT-70 as the Armata of the 70's (or perhaps even the Sheridan, cutting edge, but never quite working right), as to see it as hitting the goals for it set forth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

K!

 -skip-

Which is another rosy picture that the Russian economy is doing worse than it has for a long time, and doing significantly worse than the "good" years of high oil prices.

 

Your own link says that:

 

Therefore, exports accounted for about 13.9% of total Russian economic output.

 

So how does everything you've said equates Russian economy of 1998/2000 with 2015? Still not seeing it. What I do see is this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia#/media/File:GDP_of_Russia_since_1989.svg

 

Description
English: The GDP of Russia since 1989. Figures in international dollars adjusted for both purchasing power and inflation at 2013 prices. Figures of 2014 - 2016 based on IMF growth forecasts.
Date 27 February 2015

 

More recent, from Forbes:

 

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/markadomanis/files/2015/01/RussiaGDP2003-16.png

 

Still no sign of late 90s/early 2000 numbers somehow. Should I turn the graph upside down to see what you're seeing? In case I'm doing something wrong.

 

I trust the US DoD, General Dynamics, Boeing, etc, etc, on par with your average lawyer, sales person, or politician.

 

Which is to say I think your faith in those agencies is entirely misplaced.  They all have their own agenda which is you believing they are performing as well as they claim.  And to that end I wouldn't put it past them to have parade floats vs tanks, or claim milestones that will be handily forgotten as they pass because look!! It's a S-400 on an Armata chassis!  Russia strong!

 

Never said I trust them. I said that they are quite honest. But if you can provide some examples of them lying about their equipment/capabilities, please do. I know about some individual cases, but really interested to see what you can tell us about it.

 

It's the fetishization and sexual nature of the thing.  They're selling you this beautiful wonderful hardware as if it is a sign things are good, and you're okay.  It's paranoid state that leverages your fear as a means of glossing over how much it has failed the Russian people.  There was no threat to Russia in 1946 until it invented one.  There was no threat to Russia in 1992 until you invented it again.  There's no military threat to Russia in 2015, and here it is being invented again.

 

The parade itself isn't the problem, it's stealing the blood and sacrifice of the soldiers that the USSR left to fight and freeze, to sell this image of a strong Russian state, while pulling those same soldiers out of their old folks homes to serve as props in an advertisement for this amazing future of facing down the great and many enemies manufactured by the Russian state.  

 

It's disgusting, cheap, and bread and circuses at its best.

 

LOL, so there's a contest after all. Good luck to all the contenders!

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is, we both know what numbers they are perusing in the next few years. Why bringing up NATO confrontation?

Because if these vehicles aren't being designed to challenge NATO, or at least NATO weapons, then they are a total waste of money. Why do I say that? Well, if Russia isn't going to go up against a NATO type enemy force, then it's existing T-90s with a few more bells and whistles would likely be sufficient. Russia's likely non-NATO adversaries are all smaller and more poorly armed than Russia's current second line forces.

If that's not an acceptable view, then how about a conventional tank design with better crew protection, good thermals, a decent ERA/APS? Why mess around with designs which are on the margins of Russia's capability to field?

 

You know very well the answer to that question. Why asking it? Twice? Especially considering the fact that chances of such confrontation are so tiny. Russia isn't making new gen vehicles to go to war in the next few years with NATO. They are making them because their existing fleet is rubbish and outdated. It has nothing to do with NATO. And you know that. But still bring it up like it matters.

It matters depending on who I am talking with. If you don't believe Armata is an "Abrams killer" then obviously what I've said is not aimed at you.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I overlooked this post from the previous page. I think this illustrates one of panzersaurkrautwerfer's points about "trust":

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.

If you mean "not long" as in 3-4 years, I agree. If you mean the parade, then you're totally wrong. What we see in the parade means nothing because it's not a production vehicle. Even if there is a 100% functional system on the parade vehicles, that doesn't mean it will be on the production vehicles. Or the same type of system we were talking about. Or a system that doesn't have huge flaws. Heck, it doesn't even mean the vehicle will ever go into full production (I suspect it will, but there's no guarantee).

This seems to be the primary point of disconnect. I, and others, are arguing that the ONLY certainty comes after Armata is in full production AND surpasses some reasonable level of numbers fielded. Until then it is all speculation. Optimists believe it will be everything, or close to, what is advertised. This position can only be held by someone with either insufficient understanding of development realities (Russia specifically, but also the world in general) or blind faith.

Skeptics, and I am absolutely one of them, believe that the specs are going to run into problems between now and full scale production. Money will definitely be one of them, but how much I have no idea. Technical deficiencies that can not be corrected will also be another reason, though I have no idea which systems or to what degree. Or a design flaw which can only be corrected by compromising on something else.

The parade is similar to a trailer (preview) of a big budget CGI action movie. The trailer might be sexy and hint at the best movie that might ever be, but it could still turn out to suck. I watched a humorous documentary of Star Wars fans who went to Episode I thinking they were going to blown away in a good way. Instead, they were blown away by how much it blew :D

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you mean "not long" as in 3-4 years, I agree. If you mean the parade, then you're totally wrong. What we see in the parade means nothing because it's not a production vehicle. Even if there is a 100% functional system on the parade vehicles, that doesn't mean it will be on the production vehicles. Or the same type of system we were talking about. Or a system that doesn't have huge flaws. Heck, it doesn't even mean the vehicle will ever go into full production (I suspect it will, but there's no guarantee).

 

Very fair argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because if these vehicles aren't being designed to challenge NATO, or at least NATO weapons, then they are a total waste of money. Why do I say that? Well, if Russia isn't going to go up against a NATO type enemy force, then it's existing T-90s with a few more bells and whistles would likely be sufficient. Russia's likely non-NATO adversaries are all smaller and more poorly armed than Russia's current second line forces.

If that's not an acceptable view, then how about a conventional tank design with better crew protection, good thermals, a decent ERA/APS? Why mess around with designs which are on the margins of Russia's capability to field?

 

There's a counterargument. Whatever the conflict they might get into, new tanks will protect lives of their soldiers better, and allow better combat results. And in the long run, it will make production and logistics easier (due to commonality). Regardless of any details. That's a solid reason to upgrade fleet (to start upgrading :D ).

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a counterargument. Whatever the conflict they might get into, new tanks will protect lives of their soldiers better, and allow better combat results. And in the long run, it will make production and logistics easier (due to commonality). Regardless of any details. That's a solid reason to upgrade fleet (to start upgrading :D ).

Oh, I totally agree with you. That was what I meant by the second part of what I wrote:

"If that's not an acceptable view, then how about a conventional tank design with better crew protection, good thermals, a decent ERA/APS? Why mess around with designs which are on the margins of Russia's capability to field?"

To use an analogy, let's say that current Russian space launch capability is excellent for putting low level satellites into low orbit, but very unreliable/risky for putting them into high orbit. If the intention is to be able to consistently and affordably put satellites into high orbit then the rockets and launch systems should be upgraded for that specific purpose. They should not be upgraded to go halfway to the moon as there's no practical reason for it.

Back to the A/K/B vehicles (I like this abbreviation, so everybody should get used to seeing it in my posts ;)). Russia could greatly increase crew safety and survivability without a very expensive, complex remote turret that requires massive R&D and prolonged testing. It could get far more "bang for the buck", quicker, by adopting more conventional and proven designs of Western vehicles. Likewise, it's questionable whether the shared hull concept is going to play out successfully, so instead of risking the entire future of Russia's armed forces on the premise that it will... go with something safer and less risky, just like all the Western countries do, but try and share as many parts as possible.

Another approach is to not invest as heavily into the armored vehicle side of things but instead invest in a man portable top attack ATGM. That, BTW, *would* be a huge threat to Western armor and could be a major source of arms sales revenue.

Again, I do not disagree (in the least!) with Russia's need to have modern vehicles which are based on entirely different principles than Soviet times. In that sense the A/K/B move is not only logical but long overdue. However, I see Russia's current strategy as being extremely risky and prone to failures in many places for many different reasons. If I were in charge of everything, and I was certain there would be no need to combat NATO, I'd go with a different solution to the basic problem.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^ (Edited due to Steve X-posting. My "^^^" refer two posts up.)

Very true. But parade vehicles may or may not be made with production standard items. E.g., soft steel, not armor. Empty ERA instead of filled. Etc. Not saying that's what they ARE, but that's what MAY be. Regardless, the shape of what's coming over the horizon speaks to a dramatic shift in Russian AFV design.

Edited by c3k
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I totally agree with you. That was what I meant by the second part of what I wrote:

"If that's not an acceptable view, then how about a conventional tank design with better crew protection, good thermals, a decent ERA/APS? Why mess around with designs which are on the margins of Russia's capability to field?"

 

Since you've picked up space theme analogy below in your post, I'll use it too.

 

We choose to go to the Moon! ... We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win ...

 

And look at how it MADE today's USA. The nation that sent men to the Moon. Where would it be now if it didn't? Like I've already said, there's nothing wrong with being ambitious, if you call pull it off, theoretically. And there ARE gains visible if they can pull it off. Mastering advanced technology is good for Russians.

 

To use an analogy, let's say that current Russian space launch capability is excellent for putting low level satellites into low orbit, but very unreliable/risky for putting them into high orbit. If the intention is to be able to consistently and affordably put satellites into high orbit then the rockets and launch systems should be upgraded for that specific purpose. They should not be upgraded to go halfway to the moon as there's no practical reason for it.

 

Being a big space nerd, I'm eager to squish this analogy :) The difference between going to the GEO and to the Moon is about 0.7km/s of delta-v. Going to stable LEO orbit takes 10 km/s. This deserves another legendary quotation:

 

Mr. Heinlein and I were discussing the perils of template stories: interconnected stories that together present a future history. As readers may have suspected, many future histories begin with stories that weren't necessarily intended to fit together when they were written. Robert Heinlein's box came with "The Man Who Sold the Moon." He wanted the first flight to the Moon to use a direct Earth-to-Moon craft, not one assembled in orbit; but the story had to follow "Blowups Happen" in the future history.

 

Unfortunately, in "Blowups Happen" a capability for orbiting large payloads had been developed. "Aha," I said. "I see your problem. If you can get a ship into orbit, you're halfway to the Moon."

 

"No," Bob said. "If you can get your ship into orbit, you're halfway to anywhere."

He was very nearly right.

 

This brings me up to a point where I say that IFV/APC-wise technological leap isn't that big. RWS is a world standard.

 

Tank with an unmanned turret? Yeah, that's way more advanced technology. But then again, Russians have been doing autoloaders for decades. What else in there is so technically difficult to master? I mean the transition from manual, mechanical control, to remote control?

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you've picked up space theme analogy below in your post, I'll use it too.

Plus, it's fun to talk space :D

 

And look at how it MADE today's USA. The nation that sent men to the Moon. Where would it be now if it didn't? Like I've already said, there's nothing wrong with being ambitious, if you call pull it off, theoretically. And there ARE gains visible if they can pull it off. Mastering advanced technology is good for Russians.

All very true with one caveat... if Russia can afford it. The Soviet Union tried to do too much with too little and it collapsed (incidentally during an oil price depression). The same arguments are true for the nuclear programs in Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea. Are these programs challenging their nations? Yes. But at what cost to other things?

 

Being a big space nerd, I'm eager to squish this analogy :) The difference between going to the GEO and to the Moon is about 0.7km/s of delta-v. Going to stable LEO orbit takes 10 km/s. This deserves another legendary quotation:

Heh... all analogies have their weak points because nothing is a perfect fit. I knew this was the weak spot of mine. You definitely picked up on it too ;)

 

 

This brings me up to a point where I say that IFV/APC-wise technological leap isn't that big. RWS is a world standard.

True! And the price is coming down on them as well, so this specific aspect is actually a good example of what I am talking about. It's realistic for Russia to incorporate RWS into their vehicle designs. As opposed to...

 

Tank with an unmanned turret? Yeah, that's way more advanced technology. But then again, Russians have been doing autoloaders for decades. What else in there is so technically difficult to master? I mean the transition from manual, mechanical control, to remote control?

We've already discussed this quite a bit in this thread. It's more than just design, it is also about production (including parts sourcing), maintenance, and cost. For the vehicle to be a success, Russia has to get all four of these things "right". On top of all kinds of other things which are less sexy but also have to be done right. For example, the shared hull concept, the new engines, etc.

The bottom line is that Russia does need to overhaul its design philosophies, production infrastructure, post production support, and do it at a price it can afford. I believe the designs are marginally within Russia's capabilities (in at least one area, probably more), yet exceed Russia's practical need. The best case is they wind up with a vehicle that can dominate any nation that is armed with older Soviet/Russian hardware, but doesn't change the equation against NATO hardware. The worst case is they wind up with very expensive vehicles that fail significantly in one or more of the four mentioned areas (design, production, support, affordability) and fails to be much of advance over what they have now.

Realistically, Russia only has one shot in 20 years of getting this right. If I were in charge, I'd try to make the odds of success more favorable.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When NASA started studying men going into space, one of the problems they foresaw was how to write. After great research, development, millions of dollars, time, and effort, they came up with a ball point pen which could write in zero g, and equipped each astronaut with one.

 

The Russians used a pencil.

 

:)

 

Apocryphal, but still good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All very true with one caveat... if Russia can afford it. The Soviet Union tried to do too much with too little and it collapsed (incidentally during an oil price depression). The same arguments are true for the nuclear programs in Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea. Are these programs challenging their nations? Yes. But at what cost to other things?

 

They can definitely afford their current plan for experimental production. Mass production copies are going to be cheaper. From what I understand, they wanna gain more advantage through decease of numbers of different types of equipment. Which should seriously decrease overall costs and be far cheaper than previous vehicle creation model, and far more easy to maintain in future compared  to the current fleet. I'll expand this thought below.

 

We've already discussed this quite a bit in this thread. It's more than just design, it is also about production (including parts sourcing), maintenance, and cost. For the vehicle to be a success, Russia has to get all four of these things "right". On top of all kinds of other things which are less sexy but also have to be done right. For example, the shared hull concept, the new engines, etc.

 

 

No no no. It looks like we haven't discussed it enough. The question of hardware specifics and technology is actually very important. I'll ask you again, what are the high tech features they need to master that haven't been done in Russia yet? For Armata MBT.

 

And back to overall picture, production efficiency and commonality. If you'll look at existing Russian fleet of vehicles, and I mean ALL of them, including medium and heavy arty, SHORADs, command vehicles, etc, you'll see that they are a giant, giant mess, that uses all kinds of chassis. Even utility MT-LB is not used as a command vehicle. There's a separate MT-LBu chassis. Tunguska? Different chassis. 2S1 Gvozdika/2S34 Chosta? Different chassis. 2S3 Akatsiya? Different chassis. Msta-S? Unified with... T-80.

 

It's a freaking zoo.

 

Now, if you create few chassis that are initially intended to be used for certain roles, make them modular from the beginning. And voila, you're working your way out of this mess. This is the money saving solution for today and the future. All existing vehicles that I've named NEED spare parts and maintenance by people who are trained to use/work with them. And not all of them were made in sufficient numbers during Soviet times so that you can just throw away broken stuff and get mothballed vehicle from the storage.

 

They will, eventually, need to get new parts, engines, etc, for each of those vehicles, from somewhere. Meaning, either to produce them, or to buy them somewhere. Latter is not an option, because military hardware is mostly homemade. So they need to produce something. And what can be better than 3 unified chassis for the whole armored fleet (excluding armored cars like Tigr/Kamaz trucks etc, that's a whole another territory)? Meaning the whole country can eventually refit their factories for supporting  them instead of the old 20 different chassis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to sound fanboy-ish, here's my list of problems with next gen vehicles to date.

 

  1. Boomerang's frontal armor doesn't cover chassis.
  2. Boomerang's driver seems too close to the front. His hatch creates a hole in frontal defense.
  3. Kurganets-25 IFV should be equipped with ERA by default. I do know that all new vehicles have modular armor, but being able to, and being equipped with are two different things.
  4. It doesn't really matter, military capability wise, but T-15 looks ugly. It sounds childish and amateurish, but there it is. It's the Ugly Duckling. Hope the turret looks reveal will change that.
  5. Armata chassis creates a lot of dust due to the way exhausts are pointed downwards. Don't remember if Kurganets does the same, have to rewatch videos from Alabino.
  6. Haven't seen the full set of APS equipment, but directional tubes that were shown don't make good impression. Top coverage and efficiency in big question. However, engineers probably know what they're doing. Maybe it uses some sort of smart homing munitions or something, I dunno. But I am getting skeptical.
  7. Armata's side ERA coverage looks questionable.
  8. This photo of T-14 gives the impression that there's actually no coax gun on commander's sight module. And there's no room for additional weaponry outside. Unless there's a retractable (a-la Kornet-D) weapon module on top.
Edited by L0ckAndL0ad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also forgot to mention one very important thing about commonality and production efficiency. Say, there's a factory that's fitted to produce 4 types of existing arty chassis. You simply cannot order this factory to create new IFVs. Therefore factory workers have less jobs, less money, and can't even go work at another factory that makes IFVs, before they'll learn the new chassis creation process and specs. And there are many many different factories like that all across Russia. Some can do certain things, but only specific things, which often have lower demand. Factories often close because there's no demand in what they can produce. And if they get closed, already existing fleet of produced vehicles won't be able to get new parts to support them.

 

So, if you use 3 chassis across the whole fleet, all the factories across the country can refit their equipment to produce new stuff. Or even just one of those chassis. Then, as more vehicles on these chassis are being created, demand vs production capability gets more level. And the bigger the batch for a certain production item, the cheaper it is to make it.

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad
Link to comment
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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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...