Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
gunnersman

Armatas anywhere in the world in 7 hours!

Recommended Posts

Flown there by this imaginary bad boy:

 

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

 

In the future, a fleet of heavy transport aircraft will reportedly be capable of moving a strategic unit of 400 Armata tanks, with ammunition, to anywhere in the world. And probably at hypersonic speed, enabling Russia to mount a global military response.

 

 

Well...at least they qualified it with "probably".

 

:D :D :D

 

What will they think of next?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is right up there with the battery drain ultimate defeat murderlasers.  

 

 

 

“It means for the first time we have the objective of creating an operational capability to airlift a full-fledged army to any desired place on the planet,” the source said. This means delivering a task force the size of the former NATO and the US troops in Iraq, in a matter of hours to any continent. “In the context of the current military doctrine that defies comprehension,” the source said.

 

I feel stupider just by knowing out there someone believe this is possible.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gunnersman,

 

I've addressed this aerospace nonsense before in one of the Armata threads.

 

"Turning now to the claimed hypersonic super transport, the author of the piece needs, for starters, to learn to distinguish between supersonic and hypersonic. 2000 km/h is only Mach 1.6. Hypersonic speed is generally reckoned to be begin around Mach 5. Quite a ways to go, I'd say. Nor is the design original. North American Rockwell had major design studies underway for a very high capacity wing body no fuselage aircraft called a Span-loader. Here's a NASA study on why the concept is really the way to go. The aircraft's design speed was Mach 0.8."

 

In thinking about it, I'm sure that in the 1950s Popular Mechanics showed a similar concept as a passenger plane in which the central many abreast passenger section looked out through a big plexiglas window which formed the leading edge, providing an unparalleled view. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the artice, Russia plans to have 80 of those aircraft operational and these 80 aircraft are supposed to airlift 400 Armatas to any place in the world within 7 hours. Every plane will have a payload of 200 tons, they say. One Armata weights 57 tons. This means that under ideal circumstances 80*200/57 = 280.7 Armatas could be airlifted simultaniously with these aircraft, although the real number is probably lower because you cant fit 0,7 tanks into an aircraft without disassembling them. This means however that at least 2 sorties (Russia->Target Country->Russia->Target Country) would be necessary to deliver the 400 Armatas. The direct distance from Moscow to Washington DC is 7865.5 km, so it would take the aircraft at least 3,9 hours to get to its target at maximum speed (2000km/h) and another 3,9 hours to get back to Moscow, totalling 7,8 hours, and in that calculation we havent even accounted for loading/unloading and refuelling etc.

 

Conclusion: even under unrealistically generous premises it would absolutely not be possible for the aircraft to deliver 400 Armatas to any place in the world within 7 hours. But, if the planes specifications really are as good RT claims, It would probably be possible to deliver 400 Armatas within 36-48 hours to a country close to Russia. Just the vehicles i mean, not operational units. 400 Armatas are just 22800 tons of cargo, that is not that much. For example London Heathrow has an average daily cargo throughput of about 4100 tons using conventional aircraft, so it would take about 6 days to deliver cargo worth the weight of 400 Armatas via that airport.

 

I doubt though that the Russians are really capbale of building a plane that meets the specifications mentioned in RT.

 

EDIT:

 

source for Heathrow cargo throughput:

http://www.heathrowairport.com/about-us/company-news-and-information/company-information/facts-and-figures

 

source for distance Moscow-Washington:

http://www.happyzebra.com/distance-calculator/Washington%20DC-to-Moscow.php

Edited by agusto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every plane will have a payload of 200 tons, they say. One Armata weights 57 tons. This means that under ideal circumstances 80*200/57 = 280.7 Armatas could be airlifted simultaniously with these aircraft, although the real number is probably lower because you cant fit 0,7 tanks into an aircraft..

Of course they won't put .7 Armatas in a plane. They need to leave room for the Sharks with Laser Beams.

Your lack of vision is disturbing. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny stuff, that's for sure!

I purchased a report on Stryker Brigade deployment realities way back when the concept was still in the early stages of implementation. The US Air Force, the largest and most capable heavy lift fleet in the world with the widest array of established air bases around the world, couldn't pull off moving a Medium weight brigade anywhere in the world within 90 hours (that was the stated goal). Even if the vehicles were prepositioned and ready to rock n' roll on a moment's notice. For logistics geeks (and I am certainly one of them!) it was a really well researched and written report. RAND wrote it, IIRC.

To think Russia could do even more than that, with a lot less, in a fraction of the time is crazy talk. This is a military that hasn't ever deployed to a non-contiguous region. Even in Soviet times it has always been contiguous combat ops (I include Hungary and Czechoslovakia as contiguous). It's one of the most difficult, resource intensive things a nation can do. So even if the article meant to say "within 70 days" instead of "7 hours" I wouldn't believe it.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seemed to actually a little skepticism in the article.  But it just points out the reason people have been a little cynical about all the Armata claims.  Comments like "7-hour deployment" comment just destroy credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As others have said... it is Russia Today, so not a real big surprise.

One of the tricks they use is the old "here is something dubious or outright false. If it is, not my fault. I'm just repeating it". Media uses this all the time when they want to publish something that fails the most basic reliability test AND they don't want to get anybody on the record saying it's likely dubious.

How this should have gone is RT publishing a story that includes the crazy stuff of the original article BUT also with Russian (or other) military experts saying that the source must be smoking crack.

If RT did that then the worst they could be criticized for is "sensationalizing" something that should never get in print in the first place. Since they had a choice to either not publish or publish responsibly, they deserve scorn for repeating something scribbled on the bathroom wall as if it has merit.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RT is an incredebly bad source indeed. I watched several RT reports of the conflict in Ukraine and it is pretty much Putins personal news outled. I would in general not recommend to anyone to be dependent on just one single news channel or news paper, but if you dont have the time to get your information from multiple sources, RT is certainly one of worse choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, I was under the impression that the Armata could fly...of course, then it wouldnt need transport. Since it requires no spare parts, never breaks down and acquires power by stealing it from other tanks via a laser, the whole manned fleet can be anywhere in a few hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A note. I know that some Russians get upset with criticism and skepticism about stuff like Armata. Unfortunately, much of it is what we call "self inflicted wounds". RT is a state controlled media outlet that is, in no small way, a direct mouthpiece for the Kremlin leadership. When they publish something so obviously "out to lunch", it definitely undermines the credibility of official positions of the Kremlin not to mention unofficial ones.

To be fair, I am well aware that some bad information is deliberately broadcast as part of a disinformation policy. The best way to make an enemy underestimate your capabilities is to make sure they are never sure what is truth and what is fiction. It is quite effective. Which is why we refuse to make any decisions about what goes into CMBS, or how it goes in, until we get solid information. To do otherwise would be extremely irresponsible to you guys.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A note. I know that some Russians get upset with criticism and skepticism about stuff like Armata. Unfortunately, much of it is what we call "self inflicted wounds". RT is a state controlled media outlet that is, in no small way, a direct mouthpiece for the Kremlin leadership. When they publish something so obviously "out to lunch", it definitely undermines the credibility of official positions of the Kremlin not to mention unofficial ones.

To be fair, I am well aware that some bad information is deliberately broadcast as part of a disinformation policy. The best way to make an enemy underestimate your capabilities is to make sure they are never sure what is truth and what is fiction. It is quite effective. Which is why we refuse to make any decisions about what goes into CMBS, or how it goes in, until we get solid information. To do otherwise would be extremely irresponsible to you guys.

Steve

 

A fair shout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just accidentially gave you +1. :wacko:

 

But what i really wanted to say is that i dont understand your comment, could you tell me what you mean by saying that about the T-72 turret?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are some people so trigger happy to post about and ridicule Russia(n media BS)? There are plenty of similar Western media sources that don't receive similar attention here. Yes the Russian state controls much of their media outlets which is different from our media, although ours are also mostly controlled by politics and or economics. BS is BS and doesn't deserve the attention. The average Russian don't like their country being ridiculed, just like the average US/NL/UK/etc citizen. Perhaps the average Russian is more susceptible to false information because of the state controlled propaganda but that doesn't merit ridiculing. At least in my opinion.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...