Armata soon to be in service.

[BTR]

Welp, now we're talking. Something. Kinda.

 

There's a higher (kinda) res picture:

 

 

Khlopotov says that it appears that the turret is facing backwards, and that the side armor plates are taken off.

 

7 roadwheels! Era-long fight has been solved  . 

[Stagler]

Hah, I claimed the 7 road wheels on here time ago! Ill be picking up the sweep then.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Stagler

[Codename Duchess]

Wow, Kurganets-25 looks cute, even with side armor panels off. Kinda small, like a British Warrior/Scimitar, don't you think?

Looks more like the Chinese IFVs if you ask me, but I see the resemblance.

I'm generally skeptical of any major "game-changing" military acquisition by any nation at this point. The US has "enjoyed" a Military-Industrial Complex with enough practice over the previous decades to really refine their ways, and they still regularly suffer from cost overruns, project delays, unexpected bugs ("how about we just paint the fuel trucks white?"), you name it. Yes we do get some stuff handled well (Virginia Class) but no one will say we're the most efficient. But here we have broad claims from the Russian MoD and press of three all new and comprehensive replacement armored vehicles, mass production of their first stealth aircraft (never mind other programs - I would love Sukhoi and Lockheed Martin stock), and dozens of new ships and submarines for their Navy all within the next 5-7 years. I frankly don't see how it's possible for Russia. Look at the numerous similar US programs that have been cut or scaled back (Ground Combat Vehicle, Future Soldier, CG-X, DDG-1000 LCS, F-35 production number plans, etc.) Obviously Iraq and Afghanistan didn't help funds in those areas, but our economy remained strong enough to keep us going strong. China pulled off their modernization thanks to their Economy (would US forces have modernized as fast as China without OIF/OEF? Who knows) and a helping of luck. Russia does not have the economy of China or the US, but their plans are even grander.

I don't want to smear, appear jingoistic, or any of that. I am just generally interested in the opinions of others here on how Russia plans to actually carry out all these plans successfully.

As for low recruiting numbers and medical disqualifications, those are both faced here in the US as well. Despite the worldview of the fat American, there are enough seemingly fit people here that you wouldn't expect the medical disqualifications that you do see, and yet there they are. So I don't think the numbers given of Russia in that article are anything extraordinary. If I wasn't on my phone I'd look at other professional militaries as well, but I don't believe medical qualification to be an issue narrowed to just a few nations.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Codename Duchess

[Nerdwing]

And let me illustrate my point. A person reads the article about how bad everything is in Russian military. Then he goes and says:

 

 

When the point of the words of the head of MoD was to confirm and address this issue, which they corrected by increasing the ammo used for training. But what gets into focus? 30 rounds. That's the message people carry around. That's how a smear works. People like to focus on how bad their enemies are doing.

 

This is how we end up with forums of people who don't know the real state of things in Russian Army. I mean, how many of people here actually knew about the fact that more than 50% of Russian Army personnel is professional, and not conscripts? As you see, and no disrespect intended, but people like panzersaurkrautwerfer come up with the ideas of how Russian army of 2015 is filled with different incompatible equipment, including loads of T-80s and T-62s.

 

People should be cautious, especially nowadays.

 

Agreed.  You never know, they may be shooting 36 rounds a year instead!

 

I agree with Codename Duchess, but would like to make a persona view as well: What the Russian MoD is claiming as its goals arent feasible given the timeframe used.  None of it would necessarily be some impossible task taken alone, but instead its a whole list of huge new equipment procurements in an economy that isnt doing so hot.  Saying "We'll get a huge number of next-gen everything" just doesnt seem possible, but thats effectively what alot of the plans and claims boil down to.  

Edited March 23, 2015 by Nerdwing

[danzig5]

Wow, Kurganets-25 looks cute, even with side armor panels off. Kinda small, like a British Warrior/Scimitar, don't you think?

I'd say it looks more like Polish Anders IFV.

[L0ckAndL0ad]

I'm generally skeptical of any major "game-changing" military acquisition by any nation at this point.

-skip-

But here we have broad claims from the Russian MoD and press of three all new and comprehensive replacement armored vehicles

Uhm, how exactly any of the new gen Russian vehicles can be considered "game-changing"? They are all quite ordinary, if you ask me. Except for some parts of Armata's claimed abilities. BTW, neither of which were actually claimed by MoD, IIRC. Only by press. And lets leave the planes and the Navy out of the picture to make the discussion more on-topic.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

... And lets leave the planes ... out of the picture to make the discussion more on-topic.

We can't because the Russians will have this:

http://rt.com/news/242097-pak-ta-russian-army/

 

 

[L0ckAndL0ad]

I agree with Codename Duchess, but would like to make a persona view as well: What the Russian MoD is claiming as its goals arent feasible given the timeframe used.  None of it would necessarily be some impossible task taken alone, but instead its a whole list of huge new equipment procurements in an economy that isnt doing so hot.  Saying "We'll get a huge number of next-gen everything" just doesnt seem possible, but thats effectively what alot of the plans and claims boil down to.  

I agree. Almost.Time frame and numbers will most likely be off. But the main thing to do is to re-configure the production lines. I've watched the interview with a guy from Kurganmashzavod. He said that's the most important thing to them - a transition. Thus they're getting ready for mass production before hand, and already doing preparations, while making BMP-3s in smaller quantities to keep workers busy & paid. My point is, even if they'll blew the dead lines, does it really matter? Starting making new stuff is a key. Right now, Kurganmashzavod factories are making, what was it, 400 or 500 different vehicles each year?

 

Also let me reiterate. "Next-gen" stuff is not some magical equipment (tho Armata's radar sounds looney indeed). It won't be even "next-gen" by western standards, I imagine. Should I remind you that BTR-82A and BMP-3 don't even have any thermals? Looking at the picture of Epoch turret and those 10 Kurganets-25 vehicles, would you call them magical?

 

I'd say it looks more like Polish Anders IFV.

Mmm, yeah, kinda. Wonder how much fatter it'll be with armor plates on.

Edited March 23, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[L0ckAndL0ad]

We can't because the Russians will have this:

http://rt.com/news/242097-pak-ta-russian-army/

 

 

 

Oh, come on! They did beat the NATO in Kosovo in 1999, didn't they?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_at_Pristina_airport

[Vanir Ausf B]

 My point is, even if they'll blew the dead lines, does it really matter?

 

If it pushes the time frame past 2017 it could matter a lot

[Codename Duchess]

Uhm, how exactly any of the new gen Russian vehicles can be considered "game-changing"? They are all quite ordinary, if you ask me. Except for some parts of Armata's claimed abilities. BTW, nether of which was actuaply claimed by MoD, IIRC. Only by press. And lets leave the planes and the Navy out of the picture to make the discussion more on-topic.

They're not game changing, however again you are talking of eventually replacing every armored vehicle of every type at once (or I'm misinterpreting this 3 chassis thing). Obviously older models will still remain, but there is enough rhetoric that these will all be "the next big thing" of the Russian Army and not a fluke. Therefore we are talking a lot of capital right there. Now you want to add some cutting edge technology to these vehicles, increasing automation and the like. Again not groundbreaking, but also not cheap. Why do we expect this to be more successful than T-95 or Black Eagle? Not the vehicle itself, but the actual process from paper to mass production.

Planes and Ships absolutely belong in context. We are talking sweeping updates and mass production in the Army, Navy, and Air Force all in the next 5-7 years. I don't doubt Russia could be very successful in any of those programs at all. The problem is that those all are occuring simultaneously. "Ambitious" seems very polite.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Codename Duchess

[L0ckAndL0ad]

If it pushes the time frame past 2017 it could matter a lot

Oh, I know exaaactly what you mean, mate! I'd settle for those 10x Kurganets-25s and 3x T-14s. Enough to form a Motor Rifle Company Tactical Group. With less cloth, and more add-on armor on

Edited March 23, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[L0ckAndL0ad]

They're not game changing, however again you are talking of eventually replacing every armored vehicle of every type at once (or I'm misinterpreting this 3 chassis thing). Obviously older models will still remain, but there is enough rhetoric that these will all be "the next big thing" of the Russian Army and not a fluke. Therefore we are talking a lot of capital right there. Now you want to add some cutting edge technology to these vehicles, increasing automation and the like. Again not groundbreaking, but also not cheap. Why do we expect this to be more successful than T-95 or Black Eagle? Not the vehicle itself, but the actual process from paper to mass production.

Planes and Ships absolutely belong in context. We are talking sweeping updates and mass production in the Army, Navy, and Air Force all in the next 5-7 years. I don't doubt Russia could be very successful in any of those programs at all. The problem is that those all are occuring simultaneously. "Ambitious" seems very polite.

Nobody said they'd be replacing everything at once. Hell no. Even what I said about BMP-2s going away is my own wishful thinking here. As for the numbers, I've answered Nerdwing on that. The key is to re-configure the production lines.

 

But lets talk numbers a bit. Because the devil is in details.

 

ГПВ-2020 (Government Rearmament Program 2020) is aimed to have 70% modern equipment by 2020. The exact numbers are 2300 armored vehicles (both tanks and IFVs/APCs) and 2000 artillery pieces. That includes keep making BTR-82As and BMP-3s, and upgrading T-72s up to B3 version. They are also considered modern! I haven't seen anyone actually say that they'll re-arm Armed Forces with 70% of next-gen stuff. How many of those 70% will actually be the next gen models remains mystery. What is important is the step towards actually producing them. Does that make it more clear to you? There's nothing too ambitious behind it, really.

 

Added: forgot to add BTR-82AM (from BTR-80s) and BMP-2M upgrades to the list of "modern" stuff.

Edited March 23, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[Codename Duchess]

I appreciate that source, thanks. Like I said earlier, not at all unreasonable especially if it includes modernization of older systems as well. The bolded point you make is absolutely key. No one has given a numbers for these next gen systems, unlike for aircraft and ship/sub numbers.**

How much is that modernization expected to cost? Again if you factor in what I mentioned regarding aircraft and seacraft (nevermind Nuclear forces), we are talking A LOT of money all at once. The ground numbers aren't ambitious, but the others are. Put them all together and I see a lot of room for problems to propagate, especially in light of current economic woes.

**50+ PAK FAs by 2020, 20+ new surface combatants and submarines in the same time frame. I'll accept that they are cheaper than US systems due to complexity, technology, etc. What I don't believe is that they will be under budget, given the performance of similar US programs.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Codename Duchess

[L0ckAndL0ad]

There are projected cost numbers, but with economy fluctuations they don't really mean anything anymore I guess. The ones I am looking at right now say 2.6 trillion rubles for Ground Forces alone.

 

Again, disregard ships and aircraft. AFAIK they're already not making it in time. Projected numbers are 600 planes, 1000 helicopters, 24 subs, 51 surface ship (14-15 frigates and up to 25 corvettes). Aircraft can be also upgraded, obviously. But I really didn't look into that stuff, so can't say anything more than that.

 

ADDED:

 

**50+ PAK FAs by 2020, 20+ new surface combatants and submarines in the same time frame. I'll accept that they are cheaper than US systems due to complexity, technology, etc. What I don't believe is that they will be under budget, given the performance of similar US programs.

They are already exceeding the budget. That's why they'll have to cut the numbers. The priority is to get the ball rolling, that's what I'm trying to say. BMP-3 and even T-90 is the 1980s design. It's 2015 already, it's time to move on. We need those vehicles for a future CM module, do we not?

Edited March 23, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[Codename Duchess]

Indeed, a Russian prototype module would be very interesting.

[Nerdwing]

The overall modernization claim makes much more sense.  I think alot of us probably improperly misread it as 2300 Armata-based platforms, due to the manner in which manner the number was reported in some sources.  2300 total upgraded vehicles with an unknown number being the new Armata is much more sensible.

[danzig5]

The overall modernization claim makes much more sense.  I think alot of us probably improperly misread it as 2300 Armata-based platforms, due to the manner in which manner the number was reported in some sources.  2300 total upgraded vehicles with an unknown number being the new Armata is much more sensible.

I have posted this TASS article earlier in the thread, the plans outlined by this Russian general reflect the forces CMBS extremely well and it seems to be a reasonable plan. The short of it is lots of t-72b3, t-90 upgrades, btr-82a, and upgrades for bmp-2 and bmp-3.

Edited March 24, 2015 by danzig5

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Also note that just as 2007-2015 program ГПВ-2015 was modified into ГПВ-2020 in early 2011, ГПВ-2020 is said to be modified in 2018 into ГПВ-2025. They need to realize that good old Soviet 5 year plan time spans were more realistic

 

Still I bet on camouflaging suprestructure to hide actual turret form and details.

You might be right. Some suggest that something like this might be underneath:

 

http://www.ampravda.ru/files/articles-1/40409/9f0kt7jy6vqo-5.jpg

 

7 roadwheels! Era-long fight has been solved  . 

Note how both T-14 and Kurganets-25 have 7 wheels, compared to, say, BMP-3s 6.

 

More T-14 images:

 

[Stagler]

There he goes!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYhyzJ7jdGE&feature=youtu.be

[Alexey K]

Oh, I know exaaactly what you mean, mate! I'd settle for those 10x Kurganets-25s and 3x T-14s. Enough to form a Motor Rifle Company Tactical Group. With less cloth, and more add-on armor on

 

You've forgot that T-34 positioned behind Kurganets AFVs on that photo. 

That is real power!

[Alexey K]

You might be right. Some suggest that something like this might be underneath:

 

http://www.ampravda.ru/files/articles-1/40409/9f0kt7jy6vqo-5.jpg

 

 

 

This article says that explicitly: http://lenta.ru/news/2015/03/23/kurganets/

 

 

 

Ранее в сети появились первые фотографии нового российского танка Т-14 «Армата», боевое отделение которого также укрыто деформирующим его очертания маскировочным каркасом.

 

Translation:

 

Photos appeared in Internet earlier shows new Russian tank T-14 with combat module covered with deforming camouflage carcass

 

[L0ckAndL0ad]

There he goes!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYhyzJ7jdGE&feature=youtu.be

Sheeet.

[Alexey K]

There he goes!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYhyzJ7jdGE&feature=youtu.be

 

Cool, but WANT MOAR!!!!

O_O

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Funny thing to note. That video was downloading slowly on my end, so I saw the gun and front part of the turret, and then it stopped. I thought it's a fake and actually a T-34 or something similar. But then.. yeah..

 

So, no multi-gun setup? There's no way it's hidden somewhere underneath that cloth. And not very high profile overall. Just a bit over that UAZ.

 

Also, news about T-50 jet. Like I've said, they've had to cut the numbers. They'd buy only 12 T-50 fighters for now, and see how that goes. (russian source: http://kommersant.ru/doc/2693130)

Edited March 24, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad