Jump to content
Lee_Vincent

Armata soon to be in service.

Recommended Posts

I was going to mention, myself, that the turret shell looks like mostly sheet metal. probably weather protection for the active protection gizmos. Imagine a Stryker MGS where the crew is moved out of the turret completely and operates the gun and sensors remotely. Its probably doable. Whether its advisable is another matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not getting your point. They made 500 vehicles that cost too much and are being discontinued only 10+ years after they really started being fielded in significant numbers. I don't see how that helps your argument.

 

They are what?! In what reality?

 

It helps my argument because they were able to do that under much much less capable economy. And because there's no way they're gonna stop doing what they're doing. They will continue working on those vehicles, regardless of "sum of all parts" (again, your previous argument).

 

See panzersaurkrautwerfer's post above. You are presuming you know more than you do. At least I admit that I don't know for sure one way or the other.

 

I don't value his posts much at all, no, thanks. You've said that you're not an engineer, but still made an argument that turret might "cost too much". When confronted with the reason behind such statement, you tell me to read what somebody else is saying. I wanted to hear it from you, because it is your argument and your understanding of the problem.

 

It's not a good choice if the operational capabilities are neutered by concern for crew safety. It also doesn't mean that it's cheaper.

 

That's their choice. And you still haven't said why it should "cost too much".

 

No, Russia currently has the equivalent of thousands of "Crusaders".

 

I'm not that good into WW2 stuff. Whatever. They do have thousands of T-72s and T-80s, if they need them. Enough for a zerg rush. Won't work without crews tho. Therefore they're going for better crew protection.

 

They need to do a lot more of it and faster. Money is part of the solution.

 

And they're spending it on new training centers, simulation equipment, frequent large scale maneuvers, etc.

 

http://dyn.function.mil.ru/news_page/country.htm?objInBlock=25&fid=1&blk=10322350

http://мультимедиа.минобороны.рф/multimedia/photo.htm

 

You said there was no alternative. There are. Why do you think Russia has invested so heavily in its Hybrid Warfare capabilities? Because it's something that has a chance of getting it what it wants. Look at Ukraine now. Is Russia using T-90s and BMP-3s in that war? No. If it had A/K/B available to it today, would it be using them in Ukraine now? No. So what's the value of them in a realistic conflict scenario?

 

That's also a whole different topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think we know enough at this point to make guesses on the armor protection. The Russians claim a weight of 57 tons for the MBT configuration.

 

a M1A2 is supposed to weigh 68 tons and the turret alone weighs 24 tons? I presume the Armata will save weight just by having a smaller turret even with an equivalent armor protection.

Edited by Sgt Joch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

re: petasusavor

 

It was my being silly.  Stagler has been very insistent that Armata skeptics have had to eat their hats on a few occasions, when in reality he's been tilting at strawmen.  I've started implying that he has a "thing" for hat consumption.

 

Which leads to the made up word.  Petasus is hat in latin (or at least a kind of hat), avor perverted from vora which in turn is from vorare which is to devour.

 

Anyway.  I'm too busy lawling at a certain poster to make much more comments than that.  Oddly enough Russia remains the source of its own insecurity.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, yes, I did say there would be a similarity to the rosinform concept a long time ago, and about the "shell" surrounding the super structure. The plate shell is there to house the optics to mount on armour plates or mount composite on, like the turn table on the Black Eagle which was only a small portion of the actual turret mass.

 

The rounds will either detonate against it or zip through or whatever, it doesn't matter, but what does matter is that the entire thing wont detonate from a hit to the turret and kill the crew and there is a far smaller chance to cause catastrophic vehicle loss - that's the point I made previously, its a survivability increase measure.

 

Ha, you must really be pulling the dictionary out with the insults matey, just call a spade and spade and crack on yeah?  Skeptics are gonner skeptic but you my friend are truly priceless.

Edited by Stagler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG, guys, really? IFV version has infantry in the back. Of course engine is in the front. Gee...

Before you get too sarcastic the Merkava put the engine in front. It isn't like that can't be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why I raised the question of objectives at the start of this discussion. If A/K/B is designed to challenge NATO/Western existing military forces, not to mention those of 2020+, then I think it's a waste of money. If it's designed to beat up on horribly incompetent and underfunded neighbors who use Soviet era weapons, then it's a waste of money. If it's designed to make China sit up and take notice, it's a waste of money. Because this program has no chance of doing two of the three and is overkill for the third.

Since the WW3-type scenario that ultimately leads to total obliteration of at least one participating side is now a rather remote prospect, Russian Armed Forces no longer have to be capable of winning a drawn-out total war against NATO, but to present credible threat of doing enough damage to make the option of initiating any kind of military action against Russia politically impossible for Western leaders, or highly impractical for the Chinese ones. Which is why, among other things, the conventional forces have to increase their capabilities to the maximum achievable technological level as long as the potential enemies to be deterred are doing the same. This is one side of the issue. On the other hand, actual possibility of participating in local and regional conflicts calls for steps to reduce political, psychological and socioeconomic costs of such involvement, which is answered, among many other things, by increased protection and survivability levels of the new generation of vehicles.

Combined, these considerations make introduction of the new platforms a worthwhile effort, however long and arduous it will prove to be.

Edited by Krasnoarmeyets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Russian Armed Forces no longer have to be capable of winning a drawn-out total war against NATO, but to present credible threat of doing enough damage to make the option of initiating any kind of military action against Russia politically impossible for Western leaders, or highly impractical for the Chinese ones

 

Uh.  It was already politically impossible to initiate military operations against Russia (minus something like Russia invading Latvia), and highly impractical for China.  So I guess good job?

 

 

 

The rounds will either detonate against it or zip through or whatever, it doesn't matter, but what does matter is that the entire thing wont detonate from a hit to the turret and kill the crew and there is a far smaller chance to cause catastrophic vehicle loss - that's the point I made previously, its a survivability increase measure.

 

They call it firepower kill for a reason man.  It doesn't need to detonate the tank, it just needs to be unable to shoot back, which as discussed seems pretty likely to occur with the Armata's current setup.  And replacing cannons/optics is only something you can do so much before it's impractical.  While the crew's survival is neat and important, if there's a line of "decapitated" Armatas parked outside the repair depot, they're just as out of the fight as their turret ejection charged T-90 comrades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh.  It was already politically impossible to initiate military operations against Russia (minus something like Russia invading Latvia), and highly impractical for China.  So I guess good job?

But capabilities degrade and become obsolete, and you have to start introducing new ones today to have them available and ready tomorrow. You have to run to stay in your place. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But capabilities degrade and become obsolete, and you have to start introducing new ones today to have them available and ready tomorrow. You have to run to stay in your place.  :) 

 

You really could kit out the Russian army with only sharp sticks, and not recruit anyone over an IQ of 85 or so and get to the same end so long as there's a credible nuclear deterrent, and that's assuming an interest in military action against Russia.  There's simply not the will or motive.  In terms of not going to war with Russia, Russia conventional forces have, and will likely play a role in that decision somewhere around disruption of caviar exports.  The various countries that are claimed to be the target of these new capabilities hardly could go toe to toe with Russia anyway.  

 

Which all rather doubles back into it being more than a little wasted effort, for a program that there's a lot of reason to have doubts about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are what?! In what reality?

Russian? Or are you saying that Russia is going to continue production of the BMP-3 (for itself) now that it is developing a replacement. After all, where does one get simplification of production and logistics if one is not doing anything to simplify production and logistics?

 

It helps my argument because they were able to do that under much much less capable economy. And because there's no way they're gonna stop doing what they're doing. They will continue working on those vehicles, regardless of "sum of all parts" (again, your previous argument).

The results of nearly 20+ years of struggle to get an outdated and overpriced design into very limited service is not what I would call a good model for future development.

As for Russia "stop doing what they're doing", I have never said they would. In fact, I made a very straight forward prediction a few posts ago that said as much.

I don't value his posts much at all, no, thanks. You've said that you're not an engineer, but still made an argument that turret might "cost too much". When confronted with the reason behind such statement, you tell me to read what somebody else is saying. I wanted to hear it from you, because it is your argument and your understanding of the problem.

You are still calling me black, Mr. Kettle. You stated, unequivocally, that the turret would be cheaper. In fact, that a great many things would be cheaper. Are you an engineer? No. So we are both speculating. I have no problem admitting that I might be wrong even though I am basing my opinion on cumulative knowledge.

As for the reasons for my speculation that it might be more expensive, I did reference someone who made a factual statement about how a Stryker costs more than a Bradley, despite the Bradley being apparently a more expensive vehicle. The primary reason being all the expensive high tech stuff in the Stryker that the Bradley doesn't have. I'm sorry if you don't understand why that is relevant.

 

That's their choice. And you still haven't said why it should "cost too much".

Sure I have. Many times.

 

I'm not that good into WW2 stuff. Whatever. They do have thousands of T-72s and T-80s, if they need them. Enough for a zerg rush. Won't work without crews tho. Therefore they're going for better crew protection.

A tank rush without tanks works even less well. I've laid out the argument that only a modest, if not small, portion of the Russian military (of its current size) will be upgraded to Armata even if, and it is an if, the tank is proven to be a successful candidate for production. If it is, then there is still the question of if it can afford to manufacture them in quantity. If all goes right for Russia, it is doubtful that Russia will have more than a modest portion of its force upgraded to Armata by 2025. This means in 10 years time Russia's armored force will be roughly the same as it is today, operationally speaking.

My view is that it would get more "bang for its buck" by putting the money elsewhere.

 

And they're spending it on new training centers, simulation equipment, frequent large scale maneuvers, etc.

Yup, and I've been on the record many times saying that Russia is greatly improving its war fighting capabilities since the 2008 reforms kicked into high gear. I just think it is still relatively slow. I am sure money could make it go faster.

That's also a whole different topic.

No it isn't. When a nation makes long term strategic decisions about spending priorities it needs to think beyond something as specific as an armored vehicle program. I have similar complaints about most other national spending priorities as well, so it's not something Russia should be singled out for. On the scale of nation states, Russia is no North Korea or Iran, so it has that going for it.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the WW3-type scenario that ultimately leads to total obliteration of at least one participating side is now a rather remote prospect, Russian Armed Forces no longer have to be capable of winning a drawn-out total war against NATO, but to present credible threat of doing enough damage to make the option of initiating any kind of military action against Russia politically impossible for Western leaders, or highly impractical for the Chinese ones.

As has been pointed out already, Russia has never been under ground assault threat by any Western power even during the Cold War. It is even more so. In fact, if Russia hadn't invaded Ukraine and flying nuke bombers around with transponders off the NATO budgets would have continued to get smaller, NATO forces would not have moved defensively into Poland, Romania, and the Baltics, etc. Russia has absolutely NOTHING to fear from NATO even now. NATO would never think of moving ground forces into Russia even without Russia's doctrine to nuke everybody if that should happen.

 

 

Which is why, among other things, the conventional forces have to increase their capabilities to the maximum achievable technological level as long as the potential enemies to be deterred are doing the same. This is one side of the issue.

Since this is nonsense thinking, the real thinking for Russia is that it needs to have an external enemy to keep people distracted and afraid of change. To make that threat credible, it has to show the people that it is taking the "threat" seriously.

 

On the other hand, actual possibility of participating in local and regional conflicts calls for steps to reduce political, psychological and socioeconomic costs of such involvement, which is answered, among many other things, by increased protection and survivability levels of the new generation of vehicles.

This is true and it is definitely a part of Western design philosophy. Of course it only works if the forces involved in such future conflicts are actually using more survivable vehicles. Also, I put forth two alternative strategies:

1. develop a less expensive vehicle that can more assuredly be produced in large enough numbers to outfit the majority, if not the totality, of the Russian armed forces.

2. work on a new social contract with the people who are potential adversaries in regional conflicts in order to avoid/mitigate them in the first place. Russia bought off enough Chechens to win the 2nd Chechen War, so obviously Russia understands there are other ways to win wars than through body counts.

Combined, these considerations make introduction of the new platforms a worthwhile effort, however long and arduous it will prove to be.

 

Maybe it will, but maybe it won't.

But capabilities degrade and become obsolete, and you have to start introducing new ones today to have them available and ready tomorrow. You have to run to stay in your place. :)

This is very true. However, if you have high blood pressure, have smoked a pack a day for 20 years, and have too much fat around the middle... you might be better off walking even if it means losing ground. Having a heart attack does tend to interfere with a positive outcome ;) So perhaps it's better to try shedding some of the bad habits and get into better shape before resuming a marathon.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really could kit out the Russian army with only sharp sticks, and not recruit anyone over an IQ of 85 or so and get to the same end so long as there's a credible nuclear deterrent, and that's assuming an interest in military action against Russia. There's simply not the will or motive. In terms of not going to war with Russia, Russia conventional forces have, and will likely play a role in that decision somewhere around disruption of caviar exports. The various countries that are claimed to be the target of these new capabilities hardly could go toe to toe with Russia anyway.

Which all rather doubles back into it being more than a little wasted effort, for a program that there's a lot of reason to have doubts about.

To be fair, you could replace "Russia" with "United States" in that statement and it would be just as true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of homeland defense, yes. In terms of international interest, no. Russia doesnt have the international defense/security burden the US has, nor the sort of commitments we carry.

The US military has not seriously planned for conventional thtreats against the US soil for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, you could replace "Russia" with "United States" in that statement and it would be just as true.

Which is why the US hasn't based any military decisions, at all, on deterring/defending the CONUS from a land attack since the early part of the 19th Century :D In fact, there's a lesson for Russia. The US had only one significant land based threat and that was Britain. Instead of continuing to waste resources fighting each other the two nations determined it was in their best mutual interests to at least agree to disagree, which later turned into more positive trading relationship, then eventually into steadfast friends/allies. Problem solved. Well, until Canada came into existence ;)

 

In terms of homeland defense, yes. In terms of international interest, no. Russia doesnt have the international defense/security burden the US has, nor the sort of commitments we carry.

Which is why I too love your idea of taxing all NATO allies who fail to meet their defense requirements :D

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the problem with arguing that Russia doesn't have the commitments the US has and that the US doesn't plan for defense of it´s soil as separate problems is that the lesson that everybody extracts is: if you don´t want to plan for homeland defense go and build a global empire/presence...as the US...and as the UK did before...all the way back to the Romans

 

And for the insurance for NATO partners I recommend to call it the "Pre Paid Event Triggered Strategic Commitment"  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I am a part of the military-industrial complex:

 

 

 

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

 

I've always liked Eisenhower.  And I feel his speech on the dangers of the military-industrial complex to be both meaningful, and very important to preservation of our way of life.  We cannot trade our future to the iron mongers.  There's a time and place for defense, and a powerful military is important to that future, but it must support the culture, rather than consume it.

 

And looking at Russian priorities, it's clear which route they've chosen, and certainly not to the betterment of their children's future.  Russian cultural contribution to the world needs to be more than AKs, T-72s, Russia Today, etc.  Its future needs to be more than isolation for marginal goals.  It could very well claim a spot in the sun if only it was a member of the global community, rather than expecting the world to revolve around it.

 

 

 

Which is why I too love your idea of taxing all NATO allies who fail to meet their defense requirements  :D

 

As much as I joke about it, it's actually something that makes me more than a little mad.  There's plenty of NATO countries that underwrite their own social welfare and discretionary spending using money that has been promised to collective defense, who will then turn around and expect 24-7 on call military support at all echelons because they're scared/need to go beat up former colonies.  

 

If the defense burden was better shared, perhaps the US could get away with a smaller military, and more schools, public works, etc.  But as the case is, most of NATO will sit around looking down their noses at American militarism while fully expecting American dollars to replace withheld Euros, American boots to replace military forces downsized to appease short sighted populaces, and American blood to be shed for their freedom and liberty all over again.

 

The point of NATO was to keep Europe collectively safe.  Not have America ensure the security of Western Europe, and shoulder the defense burden for the free world.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of homeland defense, yes. In terms of international interest, no. Russia doesnt have the international defense/security burden the US has, nor the sort of commitments we carry.

The US military has not seriously planned for conventional thtreats against the US soil for a long time.

Which is why the US hasn't based any military decisions, at all, on deterring/defending the CONUS from a land attack since the early part of the 19th Century :D

In other words, the US defines its national interest more broadly than "DEFEND THE BORDER" so it's not such a crazy concept. And frankly, in every conflict the US has fought since the introduction of the M1 Abrams the result would have been nearly identical had we rolled in M60A5s. For whatever reason there is perceived value in overkill.

 

Heck, even Germany is building a new fleet of expensive IFVs (Puma) even though they are a nation of pacifists completely surrounded by allies that are almost pacifists.

 

I can think of several good reasons for Armata and family that don't require 10,000 of them to be built.

 

1) Those nations bordering Russia that Russia likes to intimidate and beat up occasionally will not always be equipped with old Soviet junk. Ukraine domestically produces a tank roughly on par with the T-90 and Germany will hold another fire sale on slightly used Leopard 2s at some point.

2) When attracting volunteer recruits is a central goal of your modernization program having a vehicle fleet that does not have a reputation for exploding may not be a minor consideration.

3) Export market. The T-series sales pitch of "The best tank you can buy from a country that doesn't care what you use them for!" is wearing thin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and get to the same end so long as there's a credible nuclear deterrent

But in order to avoid a sudden incapacitating strike against nuclear forces you need to cover them with an air and missile defense shield. And that shield itself has to be protected from being taken out by ground threats with ground forces. Not to mention that it is a very dangerous and unreliable arrangement when your only two options of dealing with rising crises on your borders is either ignore them or immediately start a nuclear war.

As has been pointed out already, Russia has never been under ground assault threat by any Western power even during the Cold War. It is even more so. In fact, if Russia hadn't invaded Ukraine and flying nuke bombers around with transponders off the NATO budgets would have continued to get smaller, NATO forces would not have moved defensively into Poland, Romania, and the Baltics, etc. Russia has absolutely NOTHING to fear from NATO even now. NATO would never think of moving ground forces into Russia even without Russia's doctrine to nuke everybody if that should happen.

Perhaps not. But currently the western countries are at the nadir of their military adventurism due to exhaustion from involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. The situation may well be different ten or twenty years from now. The temptation to use the quick option of military force in order to achieve your political goals is always present, and grows stronger the weaker your opponent becomes. And the stakes (and therefore political goals and considerations) may get higher, since geopolitical turbulence might force Russia to involve itself ever closer to NATO sphere of influence, possibly having to use force (or threat of it) in Ukraine (if the Kiev government attacks Donbass again, or threatens Crimea), Moldova (if it puts Transnistria under blockade) or even NATOs fringe in Baltics (if radical nationalist forces come to power in Estonia or Latvia and start to harass the Russian population). Especially in the last case, it would take a lot of threat potential to convince NATO leaders that it is better not to engage the collective security protocols, but to put enough pressure on the nationalists to pacify them.

Besides, NATO is not the only major potential threat. China is in a "friendly" phase now, but friendship is best when both sides are on relatively the same level. And Japan has been slowly but surely upgrading its military capabilities, and has standing claims on Russian territory.

1. develop a less expensive vehicle that can more assuredly be produced in large enough numbers to outfit the majority, if not the totality, of the Russian armed forces.

And the new platforms have many different complectation options with varying degrees of sophistication.

2. work on a new social contract with the people who are potential adversaries in regional conflicts in order to avoid/mitigate them in the first place.

That may not always be an option, and even if it is, you can probably get a much better deal when you have a credible threat of force as an alternative. "Talk softly and carry a big stick."

This is very true. However, if you have high blood pressure, have smoked a pack a day for 20 years, and have too much fat around the middle... you might be better off walking even if it means losing ground. Having a heart attack does tend to interfere with a positive outcome So perhaps it's better to try shedding some of the bad habits and get into better shape before resuming a marathon.

Unfortunately, there is no resting in the marathon of geopolitics. Any ground lost can only be recovered by great effort and expense. You have to take care of your economy and military simultaneously. If you focus on just the economy, you will probably find out that you have fallen hopelessly behind in military capabilities and technologies twenty years from now. And Russian capabilities had suffered a decade of rapid contraction, followed by a decade of painfully slow restoration, so that now it has to run twice as fast.

P.S.:

It could very well claim a spot in the sun if only it was a member of the global community, rather than expecting the world to revolve around it.

Russia would very much like to be a part of the global community - as long as this community is not dominated by objectives and priorities of capitalist elites (the current Russian government is quite happy with these elites though). :)

Edited by Krasnoarmeyets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russian? Or are you saying that Russia is going to continue production of the BMP-3 (for itself) now that it is developing a replacement. After all, where does one get simplification of production and logistics if one is not doing anything to simplify production and logistics?

 

They kinda are, now. Not sure if that's a counterintelligence at work, or a mean to help the manufacturer, or an interest with some kinda of agenda in mind (like future upgrades). Exports are still there too.

 

The results of nearly 20+ years of struggle to get an outdated and overpriced design into very limited service is not what I would call a good model for future development.

 

Hey, from what I understand, the whole idea of making such vehicle was a result of some general's lobbying. The guy had bad ideas in mind, but had power to lobby them. From there on, they had to either keep buying it, or make a new vehicle. US did Stryker MGS which it later didn't like, did it?

 

As for Russia "stop doing what they're doing", I have never said they would. In fact, I made a very straight forward prediction a few posts ago that said as much.

 

Then don't bring the "sum of all parts" argument again, because the precedence with BMP-3 nullifies it.

 

You are still calling me black, Mr. Kettle. You stated, unequivocally, that the turret would be cheaper. In fact, that a great many things would be cheaper. Are you an engineer? No. So we are both speculating. I have no problem admitting that I might be wrong even though I am basing my opinion on cumulative knowledge.

 

I don't have to be engineer to know that the easiest way to keep the crew safe is to put them together in the most secure place. The bigger the area they are spread over, the more it's going to cost. Pure logic.

 

As for the reasons for my speculation that it might be more expensive, I did reference someone who made a factual statement about how a Stryker costs more than a Bradley, despite the Bradley being apparently a more expensive vehicle. The primary reason being all the expensive high tech stuff in the Stryker that the Bradley doesn't have. I'm sorry if you don't understand why that is relevant.

Sure I have. Many times.

 

I see what the problem is. Here is my answer. Just because the turret "might" cost "too much", doesn't mean it has to. As the guy said, CITV on Bradley is connected to the older, cheaper system. And it still works. Russians don't want golden vehicles. They are obviously won't go for "cost too much" solutions. Also, the price of a single vehicle is VERY dependent on the size of the batch. VERY VERY. Might actually be one of the reasons why we're seeing 52 newgen test vehicles, and not 10.

 

A tank rush without tanks works even less well. I've laid out the argument that only a modest, if not small, portion of the Russian military (of its current size) will be upgraded to Armata even if, and it is an if, the tank is proven to be a successful candidate for production. If it is, then there is still the question of if it can afford to manufacture them in quantity. If all goes right for Russia, it is doubtful that Russia will have more than a modest portion of its force upgraded to Armata by 2025. This means in 10 years time Russia's armored force will be roughly the same as it is today, operationally speaking.

 

Uhm, no. It can't be roughly the same by definition, because they produce new vehicles and upgrades each year. T-72B -> T-72B3 upgrade, as bad as it is, is still significant, because it adds thermals and new comms. You know the value of such devices on battlefield. And these are just cheap tank upgrades.

 

My view is that it would get more "bang for its buck" by putting the money elsewhere.

Yup, and I've been on the record many times saying that Russia is greatly improving its war fighting capabilities since the 2008 reforms kicked into high gear. I just think it is still relatively slow. I am sure money could make it go faster.

 

They have to do a lot of things. Allocating enough money to do both (newgen vehs and training) is important. The problem is, you cannot say what kind of new gen vehicles they should do instead (that are cheaper). My understanding, they are going for as cheap as possible already.

 

No it isn't. When a nation makes long term strategic decisions about spending priorities it needs to think beyond something as specific as an armored vehicle program. I have similar complaints about most other national spending priorities as well, so it's not something Russia should be singled out for. On the scale of nation states, Russia is no North Korea or Iran, so it has that going for it.

 

In a way your two previous posts were discussing it, yeah, it is.

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears, regardless of T14's expense or relative merits on the battlefield, it does appear to satisfactorily fulfill what might be its primary function - as a representation of the 'national machismo'. The 'machismo effect' is a genuine requirement quite apart from mere military needs. Think of the famous imagery of those 1950s Stalin tanks rumbling through Red Square. Those images had considerable more value to the Soviet state than any mere tactical military value.

 

The US is hardly immune to this, itself. I recall R. Reagan spent a fortune recommissioning  a brace of old WWII battleships that had little utility beside the 'machismo effect'. There was a humorous anecdote about the design of the F117 stealth fighter. A top Pentagon general had showed up to inspect the top-secret plane and was presented with a plane newly painted in subtle pastel camouflage colors. The general was livid. That was hardly a sufficiently 'macho' paint job! He wanted something frightening like Darth Vader's helmet! So that's why the F117 stealth fighter was painted black.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

0_131b5f_1faaa2f7_orig.jpg

0_131b5e_b5b08f29_orig.jpg

0_131b69_cf4e53a3_orig.jpg

0_131b6f_d7d36cd5_orig.jpg

It appears, regardless of T14's expense or relative merits on the battlefield, it does appear to satisfactorily fulfill what might be its primary function - as a representation of the 'national machismo'. The 'machismo effect' is a genuine requirement quite apart from mere military needs. Think of the famous imagery of those 1950s Stalin tanks rumbling through Red Square. Those images had considerable more value to the Soviet state than any mere tactical military value.

The US is hardly immune to this, itself. I recall R. Reagan spent a fortune recommissioning a brace of old WWII battleships that had little utility beside the 'machismo effect'. There was a humorous anecdote about the design of the F117 stealth fighter. A top Pentagon general had showed up to inspect the top-secret plane and was presented with a plane newly painted in subtle pastel camouflage colors. The general was livid. That was hardly a sufficiently 'macho' paint job! He wanted something frightening like Darth Vader's helmet! So that's why the F117 stealth fighter was painted black. :)

T-14? Definitely. IFVs/APCs are good tho.

 

Before you get too sarcastic the Merkava put the engine in front. It isn't like that can't be done.

There's a reason why Merkava MBT has an engine in the front. It's a hybrid of an MBT and IFV: can haul up to 6 passengers:

http://i1368.photobucket.com/albums/ag182/antro1167/merkava%20infantry%20leaving_zpszjirp4la.jpg~original

Russians? They've just reversed the chassis 180 degrees :)

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I've got a much better way of explaining the situation with BMP-3 vs newgen vehicles.

BMP-3 has/had two major separate problems.

First one is overall design. It's a very good vehicle in terms of firepower and mobility, and plays a role of a Fighting Vehicle very well. However, it sucks as an infantry carrier. You can successfully use it if you don't put it under AT danger. At the same time, it's better protected than the previous BMP-2. So it's not a complete failure. However, it still sucks as an IFV. And some dumb ass general lobbied it into the service.

 

Second, it had problems with individual, faulty parts. Major problems. But that was a teething problem, that was inevitable, and they were able to overcome it.

 

Both these problems influenced production numbers in some ways. So did Russia's economic state at that time. The thing is, newgen IFVs/APCs are obviously good designs for their role. Even classical, by modern world standard. So the first problem is fixed by a better designed vehicles, and the second one is fixed by a better thought-out experimental process (= making ~100 vehicles per model, and test them over few years before mass production).

 

So, all in all, newgen IFVs/APCs have much better chances of being mass produced in great numbers than previous models. T-14 is kind of another story that should be discussed separately of IFVs.

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad

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...