Jump to content
Lee_Vincent

Armata soon to be in service.

Recommended Posts

Think those might be smoke launchers.

 

But they could also be a new type of APS.

 

Is Drozd type APS I think.

They are mounted on the rear also.

 

Otvaga concepts are the one most likely to be faithful to the real thing.

Edited by Stagler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Less '80s chic, more 21st century capability?

1. That's not the answer to the questions I've asked.

2. They are doing exactly that, by creating new gen vehicles, weapons and gear.

 

Is Drozd type APS I think.

They are mounted on the rear also.

 

Otvaga concepts are the one most likely to be faithful to the real thing.

Read what I wrote regarding the patent and СПЗ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. That's not the answer to the questions I've asked.

2. They are doing exactly that, by creating new gen vehicles, weapons and gear.

 

Read what I wrote regarding the patent and СПЗ.

 

Well that's a shame. I guess it is linked to the laser warning recievers mounted around the super structure of the turntable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think those might be smoke launchers.

 

But they could also be a new type of APS.

 

L0ckAndL0ad has posted a link which says that theese are Drozrd-like APS mountings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That photo originates from vpk.name news site (not manufacturer) IIRC. It does indeed looks like a new version of Drozd APS. Thus the confusion. But the potent info is more reliable, don't you think?

 

Also, text from the same potent:

 

- постановку дымовой завесы в случае применения противником лазерного облучения;

на задней стенке башни размещены пусковые установки системы постановки завес, в носовой и в кормовой частях башни установлены дополнительно введенные индикаторы лазерного излучения системы постановки завес

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That photo originates from vpk.name news site (not manufacturer) IIRC. It does indeed looks like a new version of Drozd APS. Thus the confusion. But the potent info is more reliable, don't you think?

 

Living in Russia I wouldn't be surprised patent to be full of BS (not Black Sea). Anyway, my gut feeling says it is APS, not smoke grenade launcher. It doesn't look like smoke screen grenade launchers, it's direction angles and attachment locations hints it is in fact an APS. Especially that two pods on turret's back. But is does look strongly similiar to Drozd APS.

Edited by Alexey K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhm, yeah, but why would it lack actual smoke grenade launchers then? It's Illogical. The placements just shows that it's a 360 degrees fast smokescreen deployment solution, linked to LWS. The quotes say the same thing.

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhm, yeah, but why would it lack actual smoke grenade launchers then? It's Illogical. The placements just shows that it's a 360 degrees fast smokescreen deployment solution, linked to LWS. The quotes say the same thing.

 

Well, maybe you're right :)

But we have to wait untill actual vehicle is revealed

 

P.S. Have just done some blitzgoogling on that matter.  APS system is mentioned in many publications.

http://warfiles.ru/show-44354-poyavilis-pervye-izobrazheniya-boevogo-modulya-dlya-noveyshih-btr-bumerang-i-bmp-kurganec-25.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new APS is Afghanit. Here's its patent with the description how it works:

 

http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/226/2263268.html

 

It's said to be working similar to Drozd. However, the description itself sounds like it's more similar to Trophy, actually, since it uses a 2-axis moving/rotating launcher (or, "base", to be more correct/specific, cuz the charge explodes on it, the same way the Trophy works, not launches and explodes afterwards (!!!)):

 

Lemme highlight the important parts:

 

 

После того как система обнаружения начала сопровождать цель и определять ее параметры, сигнал от системы обработки и управления поступает на исполнительное устройство поворотного основания, которое начинает отрабатывать направление на цель в двух плоскостях.

 

установлен на поворачивающемся в двух плоскостях основании по периметру защищаемого объекта или над ним и связан с системой обработки и управления комплексом, при этом боевая часть имеет смещаемую по поверхности кумулятивной воронки точку подрыва.

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a good idea that the turret and on the Armata will be similar to Obr195 proto at kubinka, and on the concept art model. It will mount the drozd type aps around the turn table base. The placement of the dispensers looks similar to that on modular turret seen above, that's why I assumed they were APS dispensers but they could also be autolaunching smoke linked to the LWS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What eastern armies are relying on "massive numbers". China comes to mind, bot inrecent years they have turned from massive "people's army" to more compact professional one.

 

China, Korea, Irán, Soviet armies, etc. most of all the chinese and north korean in WW2 and in korea war, those armies where relying on numbers instead of technology or equipment. Soviet armies would be my example of in-between philosophies because they relied on higher numbers but also on some nice pieces of equipment.

 

China may have a little professional army right now, but I think that in our days all big nations have that kind of army to fight 'cabinet wars'. I think that both Russia and China have in mind that should a true war come they would field huge armies with nice, cheap equipment so they can mass it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the old saying? That governments tend to prepare for the *last* war. When we (or they) plan for a full scale conflict the next war turns out to be an insurgency, when they plan for an insurgency the next war is a full scale conflict - or a foreign intervention - or a domestic police operation - or you're running a foreign guerilla campaign yourself! Armata and Object 699 and robot tanks are nifty if you've guessed correctly which sort of conflict is coming next. The US bought some 27,000 MRAP vehicles over the past decade. Most of them are destined for either landfill or foreign assistance programs or local police SWAT teams. BFC didn't even bother to include them in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the old saying? That governments tend to prepare for the *last* war. When we (or they) plan for a full scale conflict the next war turns out to be an insurgency, when they plan for an insurgency the next war is a full scale conflict - or a foreign intervention - or a domestic police operation - or you're running a foreign guerilla campaign yourself! Armata and Object 699 and robot tanks are nifty if you've guessed correctly which sort of conflict is coming next. The US bought some 27,000 MRAP vehicles over the past decade. Most of them are destined for either landfill or foreign assistance programs or local police SWAT teams. BFC didn't even bother to include them in the game.

I don't see how unmanned turret tank can be a bad thing. Russia needs a new MBT anyway. As for the robots, US does them as well, just saw a video of one of them in a nearby thread. I am personally a mecha fan, so why the hell not.

 

I do have problems with some design decisions, but it's kinda hard to discuss them when they weren't really presented to us. Boomerang-BM turret (aka early Epoch turret module) seems like a good concept for light and medium APCs, and is a logical step forward from Berezhok turret, which can be seen in CMBS on BMP-2M. But the model that was shown to us looks a bit, uhm, unprotected. And, frankly, I don't like the decrease of firepower compared to BMP-3. Thus I don't think it's a good idea to use it on both APCs and IFVs. IFVs should be equipped with 57mm gun:

 

http://bastion-opk.ru/gun-of-57-mm-caliber/

 

And they said on IDEX-2015 that they'd fit it onto a new gen Russian heavy IFV. That I do support. However, it does contradict the initial plan to fit everything with Epoch turret, so we have to actually see how that goes.

 

As for T-14, the only thing I find bad in its supposed design is the multi gun thing. Would it really work? Won't it make it too bulky? We just have to see. It's not like they did it to look cool without any analysis, trials and doctrinal compliance. At the same time, most of the tanks have AA HMG. It was useful in WW2, but how useful is it now? Would changing it to a little bigger gun make it worse or better? Kinda hard to say without actually looking at the model.

 

Now that' scary.

How come?

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Robot tanks' implies the telecom link can't be hacked. Didn't the US donate an intact top-secret stealth drone to the Iranian military recently? Use of radio controlled-tanks/aircraft implies that you're expecting to face an unsophisticated opponent. yes, you can roll one up to an insurgent safehouse with impunity but rolling one across open country towards the front line in a major war? Lets recall WWII "Goliath" was something of a bust, tactically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aerial drones work over longer ranges. Maybe short range comms can be made more secure to jamming? You can even go crazy, and use optical (laser) relay stations, which are directional and can't be jammed easily without having a direct LOS. People can come up with anything, when there's need. It's just another branch of arms race. As it is said, "war is the engine of progress".

 

At the same time, did the ability to jam comms stop world wide production of UAVs? It did not. There's more and more drones each day. They're just very useful. While playing CM, I've noticed that I mostly use infantry to clear the buildings. Everything else I do mostly with vehicles, if mission permits. So why not make even less risk to soldiers and make non-APC vehicles to be unmanned?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How come?

 

In the US you see a metastasizing of government on all levels. Unionized Police forces are acquiring heavy weapons. And the cops are now highly payed and endowed with lavish pensions. Are we seeing a caste in larval form? Presidents- not just the present one- haves arrogated to themselves unusual powers as the middle class shrinks. Elite sectors seek to disarm the rest of us.

 

After the 2nd century Roman citizens gradually lost the right to bear arms. A two tier judicial system (honestiores and humiliores- look them up) emerged that bore down on the middle class and below. Emperors competed to overpay (bribe) the legionaries.

 

So, yes, I see dangers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, you mean that.. I see. Well, IMO, MRAPs are very good for police/police special forces. If you've got loads of them sitting around doing nothing. Especially for a country with so much small arms in the hands of ordinary people. Russian MoD also started getting MRAPs if you didn't know, btw:

 

http://bastion-karpenko.ru/kamaz-63968/

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Elite sectors seek to disarm the rest of us.

 

Sigh. Not that right wing macho fantasy of armed insurrection, again.  I can't recall the NRA coming out and championing their pet cause of citizens taking up arms to fight government oppression following the recent police shootings at Ferguson. I guess that right to insurrection is *selective*. Only applies to ranchers grazing on public lands.

Edited by MikeyD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MikeyD,

 

That donate bit's pretty droll. As for Goliath, it was slow (a whole 6 mph) and could easily be penetrated by ordinary rifle fire in the first version and anything larger in the second. Believe you'd be hard pressed to make that same argument vs Black Knight or a number of other systems, such as that robotic tank shown earlier in this thread out on the proving ground. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Better in what, and than who? 

 

Russia is operating several totally different flavors of MBTs, IFVs, APCs, rifles manchine guns, etc, etc etc.  If it just picked one and said "okay, screw you T-80/T-72/T-62 etc, everything from now on is T-90 based" it'd save a lot of money and result in a force structure that was not nearly so uneven in capabilities.  While some of it is a reflection of the cold war leftovers Russia has been saddled with, it's also a reflection of the sort of dualistic pretending it's still 1989 and that mission set is both valid and realistic, while making robot guards/bearsuit body armor/not being able to figure out which more or less the same rifle it needs to buy to replace a rifle that honestly just needs a better way to mount accessories to prepare for a "future" conflict that's still pretty poorly defined.

 

More focus in equipment (with something more realistic than the Armata given the budget at hand), and a more realistic mission would likely go a long way in allowing Russia to accomplish national security objectives with less overhead and redundant capabilities, or questionable thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia is operating several totally different flavors of MBTs, IFVs, APCs, rifles manchine guns, etc, etc etc.  If it just picked one and said "okay, screw you T-80/T-72/T-62 etc, everything from now on is T-90 based" it'd save a lot of money and result in a force structure that was not nearly so uneven in capabilities.  While some of it is a reflection of the cold war leftovers Russia has been saddled with, it's also a reflection of the sort of dualistic pretending it's still 1989 and that mission set is both valid and realistic, while making robot guards/bearsuit body armor/not being able to figure out which more or less the same rifle it needs to buy to replace a rifle that honestly just needs a better way to mount accessories to prepare for a "future" conflict that's still pretty poorly defined.

 

More focus in equipment (with something more realistic than the Armata given the budget at hand), and a more realistic mission would likely go a long way in allowing Russia to accomplish national security objectives with less overhead and redundant capabilities, or questionable thinking.

 

That's not right at all. Granted it would save money, but as of 2015 the capability of all the systems is not vastly different, and Russian units have been formed into BTGs similar to your BCT formations.

MBT wise, everything is equipped similarly and fires the same type of ammunition.

IFV/APC wise they all carry the same amount of infantry, have the same speeds, take the same fuel, and take the same ammunition. The only marked difference is the BMP-3 which is not widely in service.

As for rifles and small arms well, go figure. They all use the same ammunition and are basically all the same weapon. AK74-AK74M are the rifles in service, PKM-PKP are the machineguns in service, and all have the same capability.

 

If you said this after 2008 I would of given you credit, but not today.

Edited by Stagler

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...