Armata soon to be in service.

[Battlefront.com]

When you talk about tank upgrades, I'm hard pressed to think of one that's less challenging than the weapons system. 

I'd say that's the #1 problem mostly because it's historically been the one most likely to have someone wanting to make a major change to existing fleets or current production.  However, there is one other that comes up from time to time... and that's the motor (powerplant).

When someone decides to add another couple of tons of armor or bling to an AFV the basic performance starts to suffer.  Although it is true that engineers attempt to build excessive power into their designs, the truth is that if it's in service long enough someone will come up with a bright idea that will exceed engineering specs and have a negative impact in some way.  Maybe it's acceleration, maybe it's more difficult to get into 4th gear on anything but flat roads, perhaps it is more prone to getting stuck, etc.  Lots and lots and lots of examples of this from WW2, especially because by the time some of the vehicles went into production the nimrods in uniform had already insisted on adding enough stuff to have the vehicle on its edge before the first model came off the assembly line. 

If you wind up under powered you're pretty much stuck with it because upgrading the power plant of an existing vehicle is extremely difficult because the hull generally isn't too keen on being modified to fit something larger.  Plus, usually upgrading the motor means placing more strain on transmissions, drives, and other connective tissue. So like the main weapon, if there's a major fault found with the motor's output it's most likely going to be lived with until a brand new vehicle can take over for it.

Steve

 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: Engines

I think it's sort of a mix, some vehicles the engine upgrade is no big deal, again the M48 required some hull modifications but it was fairly low muss and was the kind of thing we even did for National Guard tanks, and modifying the Sherman hull to accept everything but the A4 setup was fairly modest.  

On the other hand some tanks it's frankly, totally, and utterly impossible and you'd be an idiot to try.  

I suppose the takeaway is rarely is upgrading a major end system easy unless the thing you're replacing it with is pretty much around the same size (see M48A5, the various captured Soviet designed vehicles in Israeli use).  I'd still contend a 152 MM is well beyond that tolerance.

Re: Armata as a real tank

Two points of discussion:

a. It really makes zero sense in the Russian current doctrine of Hybrid threat.  Heavy units have a part, but not one that cannot be filled by a T-90.  And defensively against any threats Russia's main defense is nuclear deterrence.  It might not help if Russia chokes or chooses not to end the world as we know it over a minor invasion (In 2078 Japanese Battle Mecha, driven by surprisingly busty schoolgirls retake the Kuril Islands), but nor would the Armata for that matter.

b. Putin is Donald Trump in a lot of ways.  And they both are fixating on a "make <insert country> great again" platform.  And with Putin you can see the attempts with this, the Olympics were all the bluster and pomp of a western one, Russia is roundhouse kicking countries that it believes are within it's sphere of influence but not falling its lead, decayed military capabilities are getting a shot in the arm, strategic bombers are harassing the HATO dogs again, and boy oh boy it's like 1983 again!

Of course it's all smoke and mirrors, or a layer of paint over things that are mostly comprised of rust instead of steel.  But a major defense project like the Armata doesn't have to reach fruition for a long time.  And you even look at the way Russian nationalists tend to present their military, if Russia has 100 doomships, but of that, five are modern and capable, 20 are obsolete but functional, and the remaining 75 are decayed to the point of uselessness, they'll tout it as if all 100 doomships are the modern and capable ones.  It doesn't matter nearly so much about the rest of the force so long as the Fightingest Fighting 101 tanks Guards Heros Battalion is fully outfitted with Armatas and shows up on TV all the time, while the majority of Russian units might as well be riding on T-34/85s.

Limited accomplishments (or even fake accomplishments) effectively portrayed to the population mean more than modest, but more functional accomplishments.  This is true with all people, everywhere. However the more we get down this rabbit hole of thirty one flavors of Armata, all the more potent than the last, the more it seems like it's cost effective to make a few (or even just one) prestige formations, and call it good.  It's not like fully fielding the Armata will be a milestone for everyone to feel accomplished about, it'll be the first one to enter service with a big party and a dance off or something, every Russian documentary will fixate on that one Armata unit (or two, so you can have different camo schemes and the one show that focuses on how strong Russia is, and the other than plays up the romance between brave Armata tankists and the local peasant's daughters), while everyone else is still cursing their luck to be stuck in the small portion (90%) of Russian forces that still have T-90As and T-72B3s (or just straight up Bs).  

[Battlefront.com]

I think we've once again come to the point where this thread has come several times already.  A new announcement produces a flurry of posts with some pouring cold water on official Russian announcements/plans as being impractical/impossible/unnecessary and there's no logical counter arguments coming forth from Armata supporters.

Armata will not develop into a program that is meaningful to the military capabilities of the Russian Federation, though it will contribute to Putin keeping a core constituency distracted from the massive shortcomings of his leadership of the nation.  Which means we'll continue to talk about Armata just like we talked about Black Eagle before it.  All the while the older AFVs will continue to be used and modestly improved, ensuring that Russia's military capabilities remain fairly steady.

I'm actually fine with this because if Russia could cause the West a lot more problems if it pursued a more practical, but less sexy, course of action.  Laser designating quad copters backed up by GAZ trucks armed with top attack missiles definitely doesn't have the same propaganda impact at parade time.

Steve

[sburke]

well there is that aspect.  Regardless of it's actual contribution or not to Russia's defense - it keeps money flowing for some...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/world/europe/stirrings-of-labor-unrest-awaken-as-russias-economic-chill-sets-in.html?ref=world&_r=0

 

Nizhny Tagil has two pivotal industrial plants: one making steel and the other, Uralvagonzavod, turning out train cars and tanks. Both have announced layoffs, though Uralvagonzavod has since said any “optimization” of its work force of roughly 30,000 will be voluntary.

The fate of the plants reflects another broad economic trend, as Mr. Putin’s reluctance to cut military spending despite the recession and budget crunch has left that side of the Uralvagonzavod humming. While workers on the train-car side of the factory have been put on two-thirds pay — about $260 a month — the tank assembly lines are still rolling full speed, and workers are paid in full.

[Battlefront.com]

While at the same time the big defense contractor, Kurganmashzavod, has filed for bankruptcy protection:

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2016/02/10/Russias-Kurganmashzavod-filing-for-bankruptcy/5411455111370/

They make BMP-3 so with production stopped there are no more BMP-3s coming online.  I suspect this is oligarch infighting and/or Kremlin looking for an excuse to nationalize the company, so I don't expect production will be offline for long.  However, it does show that the stress on the Ruble and general decline in economic conditions is shaking things up even for the defense industry.

Steve

[AttorneyAtWar]

While at the same time the big defense contractor, Kurganmashzavod, has filed for bankruptcy protection:

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2016/02/10/Russias-Kurganmashzavod-filing-for-bankruptcy/5411455111370/

They make BMP-3 so with production stopped there are no more BMP-3s coming online.  I suspect this is oligarch infighting and/or Kremlin looking for an excuse to nationalize the company, so I don't expect production will be offline for long.  However, it does show that the stress on the Ruble and general decline in economic conditions is shaking things up even for the defense industry.

Steve

No more BMP-3's...

*cries*

Theres something about those boxy death traps that I just love...

Edited February 26, 2016 by Raptorx7

[sburke]

No more BMP-3's...

*cries*

Theres something about those boxy death traps that I just love...

The way they go "BOOM!"?

[Jotte]

Have there been any news about something new for the VDV? Both the Kurganets-25 and Armata T-15 are twice or more the weight of the BMD series and seem unsuited for air deployment.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Have there been any news about something new for the VDV? Both the Kurganets-25 and Armata T-15 are twice or more the weight of the BMD series and seem unsuited for air deployment.

BMD-4 procurement is going...forward?  It's sub-triple digits last time I looked, but there's a plan at least to have a few hundred soon, and a claimed 1,000 or so by 2020.  

Take it with the usual grain of salt though.  There's also the Bumerang which is the BTR replacement which entered large scale fielding in 2015 if you follow Russian press releases.  

Which again, kinda hits up the credibility of these claims on a whole.  Has any other nation accomplished the sort of modernization being proposed on such a scale during peacetime?  The closest analogy I can come up with was the M1 and Bradley fieldings (which came around the same time as the MRLS, major M109 upgrades, and the AH-64+all the airforce and Navy stuff) and that still took a lot longer from "prototypes" to "fieldings" with a lot less friction.

I'm genuinely interested to see what folds first.  We might not know it for a few years, like for all we know now the Bumerang has been entirely scrapped, and there will be no Kurgenets 25, just the APC until 2025 or something given Russian secrecy, but unless there's some pretty dramatic economic-world events changes  I think all bets are off.

Re: History Repeating

If Battlefront would just hurry up and release CMFB we could all take a break from Armatatalk until something more real came along.  Just sayn'.  

[Battlefront.com]

Out of curiosity, anybody know how long the Black Eagle was "nearing production"?  Total development span was 25-30 years, but I'm unsure when various things were stated about it going into production.  T-95 was about 10 years between being announced and officially killed off.

Steve

[BTR]

Out of curiosity, anybody know how long the Black Eagle was "nearing production"? 

Never. It was not an MoD funded project and was never even evaluated for production or service. 

[Jotte]

BMD-4 procurement is going...forward?  It's sub-triple digits last time I looked, but there's a plan at least to have a few hundred soon, and a claimed 1,000 or so by 2020.  

Take it with the usual grain of salt though.  There's also the Bumerang which is the BTR replacement which entered large scale fielding in 2015 if you follow Russian press releases.  
 

Yeah I poked around a bit since wikipedia (i know, i know, dont Gibbs slap me!) put mentioned new vehicles as replacments for the BMD-series too, which made me go " Yeah REALLY?!?" right away. But since VDV kind of is the crème de la crème of the Russian forces I was curious if they had some other new vehicle inbound.
I guess the BMD-4M is a more realistic modernazation path then most other things in the "plans".

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Never. It was not an MoD funded project and was never even evaluated for production or service. 

In defense circles, there was still a lot of trumpeting how much it was real and soon to be in production from my recollection.  It may have been purely company fluff, but the tight link between government and defense industry in Russia makes it hard to judge sometimes just how unofficial statements may or may not be.  

Yeah I poked around a bit since wikipedia (i know, i know, dont Gibbs slap me!) put mentioned new vehicles as replacments for the BMD-series too, which made me go " Yeah REALLY?!?" right away. But since VDV kind of is the crème de la crème of the Russian forces I was curious if they had some other new vehicle inbound.I guess the BMD-4M is a more realistic modernazation path then most other things in the "plans".

I would content that from a technical standpoint, the BMD-4 is more realistic.  I will also contend the idea of a BMD is obsolete and there's better ways to use money than on that platform. 

[BTR]

In defense circles, there was still a lot of trumpeting how much it was real and soon to be in production from my recollection.  It may have been purely company fluff, but the tight link between government and defense industry in Russia makes it hard to judge sometimes just how unofficial statements may or may not be.  

I think it is hard to distinguish things like that in all countries. A factory makes a self funded project and everyone inclined jumps on wishful thinking wagon. Interest generated by Black Eagle led to MoD funded Burlak project on T-90 base which was also successfully canned. Perhaps that is where the confusion comes from. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I think it is hard to distinguish things like that in all countries. A factory makes a self funded project and everyone inclined jumps on wishful thinking wagon. Interest generated by Black Eagle led to MoD funded Burlak project on T-90 base which was also successfully canned. Perhaps that is where the confusion comes from. 

Possibly.  I'm not entirely sure how much noise per unit produced your arms industry generates, but it isn't a favorable amount.  It's one of the things that doubtlessly leads to a lot of skepticism on the part of western observers, very much like the boy who cried wolf, we've heard super tank/IFV/fighter/missile deployed in five years before, and it hasn't resulted in much.  

[BTR]

I know right? We need to change our Industrial complex's marketing start to naming everything Future, Networked and Intelligent, that'd improve its chances of success 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I'd contend the yankee imperialist bombast is a little less far reaching, and the division between "official" and "This is Lockheed Martin's madness!" is a bit wider.  The claims are also more modest and the CGI a little less silly.  

 

Which is not to say it is not just a problem shared worldwide, but there's almost a messianic element to the various Russian programs that THIS plane or THIS tank will restore Russia's fortunes and drive HATO back to the dark corners, while the American way is just to cram as many cooperate buzzwords in involving synergizing assets to maximize throughput of information to ensure a virtual monopoly over the battlespace of asset utilization thus justifying this trillion dollar antenna that doesn't work when it's raining.  

[BTR]

Perhaps a little more used to western type of marketing so it doesn't strike you as much? "Restoring bla bla" is just as much of a "corporate" vocab, just local one here. In any case, if you want to discuss an MBT program that crashed hard, ob. 640 isn't really it Ob. 195 is a much better pick. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

It's more the linking of the nation with the piece of hardware.  When you get the blatant appeal to patriotism from Boeing, it's a picture of one of their products, an American flag, and usually has some link to whatever patriotic holiday it is.  It's pretty modest.  The Russian style might be effective, but it does lend itself to very boastful, often rapidly disproved statements, or very optimistic claims that do not come to fruition.  While this is not divorced from the western way, it usually has less of a finality to it, or the claims are more ethereal to begin with.  It also helps that the west still claims a very strong technical edge in many areas, so even the claim of maximum awesome might not be true...it usually means its still better than your non-BAE/Northrup Grumman/EADs choices.  

As far as tank analogies, I really am more inclined to directly compare the Armata to the Sheridan/M60A2/MBT-70 generation of AFVs, in that they're very technically innovative vehicles that largely rely on that technical innovation for success, being trialed and built during a time of austerity.  I'm of the mind the Abrams model of innovation was the most sensible (not because "AMERICA IS AWESOME" reasons, but more it's a good model I know well) in which there's a few revolutionary concepts (gas turbine engine, armor array), some advanced evolutionary concepts (more modern FCS, thermal optics), and then a lot of proven stuff (weapon, ammo, suspension, a lot of the auxiliary systems).  Giant leaps with lots of revolutionary stuff tends to get very MBT-70 quickly simply because there's more room for immature concepts let alone technology to fall apart.  If all you have is a few areas you're leaping ahead in, it gets less friction.

So in that regard I'd have gone with a more modest jump, a new bustle mounted autoloader with the new gun and rounds, finally mounting the existing mature and effective ERA the Russian military has had for a while, and existing APS.  With that you'd have a tank that'd scare the hell out of anyone who's not literally a major western member of NATO, but that would still be open to generational improvements in optics, ERA and APS as they matured.  The only real gamble is the autoloader, but there's a lot of technical experience with autoloaders, both Russian, and foreign (I mean you could just shamelessly rip off the French or something, or license their design, but I think there's enough smart Russian engineers to make a bustle one work).  

Then I'd just go with a modernization plan for BMP-2s, scrap the BMDs en masse because mechanized airborne is dumb, buy a mess of Bumerangs because that's a good idea/good match for Russian security problems and then retire to my dacha.  

[Battlefront.com]

Never. It was not an MoD funded project and was never even evaluated for production or service. 

Which is my point   I typed into Google "Russian Black Eagle" and it returned with 12,800,000 hits.  I don't think you'd find even a tiny fraction of that dedicated to discussing a non-Pentagon project.  So why is that?

BTW, several sources state that the Russian MoD did have money invested in Black Eagle and that the MoD made an official announcement that it was no longer going to fund it.  Which might have to do with the fact that the defense industry is controlled by the government.  In the US it is the other way around!

So again, the point of this is there is more than a little "cry wolf" problem when Russians speak of what Russia's forces will look like in the future.  Yes, this does happen for other countries sometime, but as Panzerkraut pointed out it's not something that is used for national propaganda.  Either by a government, by its people, or by people hired by the government.

Now, if the official announcements from the Russian MoD didn't seem so out of line with reality, you'd see a different reaction from me and others.  Instead the claims of what will happen and when do not inspire confidence that it will happen as planned.

Steve

 

[John Kettler]

And while we wait for Armata I simply must show the low cost innovation coming from the Russian private sector. The toughness of the core vehicle is legendary, but nothing could've prepared us for this. Western analysts never saw this one coming, and its military applications are obvious. This rated international coverage by RT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpdWuOK2rII

On a more serious note, take a look at what Barracuda Camouflage Systems has come up with. I have no idea whether this was an independent development or based in part or whole on reverse engineering, but it seems to have the same functions and general capabilities as Russia's Nakidka. Unfortunately, there are no performance metrics in the video. What a pity!

Regards,

John Kettler

 

 

Edited February 29, 2016 by John Kettler

[Excroat3]

Don't really know where else to put this, so...

US Army to Get Stryker Upgrade

Future module maybe?

 

(my mistake if posted already.  I know of other articles about this, but this is the first article I have seen where the change is actually confirmed)

Edited March 2, 2016 by Excroat3

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: Camouflage.

It might just be the old property book holder side of my brain, but every time I see one of those camo arrays I always see statements of charges and 15-6 investigations.  Wouldn't want to take it many places, although if it's cheap enough I suppose you could just accept burning through a few of them every year or so.

Re: Stryker

What's interesting to consider is the Iraq war basically interrupted Stryker Doctrine and R&D.  So while as a COIN platform it has continued to evolve, as a rapid deployment "bigger than airborne, faster deploying than tanks" force it's been pretty neglected since 2004 or so.  With some new exercises and training however areas of growth for the platform as a conventional warfare tool have been identified.  This is one of the reasons the Company MGS platoon has faded away, while things like an autocannon armed model or platoon level ATGM carrier capability has started to make itself known (or in so many words, most FSV roles can be better filled by a 30-40 MM gun, the 105 MM isn't so great for anti-tank work, but it still is handy for the occasional too tough for autocannons type target).  
 

[Douglas Ruddd]

Looks like the Germans are working on a 130mm gun... http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/02/rheinmetall-to-develop-130-mm-gun-and.html

[Vanir Ausf B]

Yeah, I mentioned that a few pages back