Jump to content
lordhedgwich

Russian army under equipped?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Indonesians know what they are doing. They have been using BMP3F for a while now and as I have said BT3F is better as an amphib vehicle than it's daddy - BMP3F.

And BMP3 itself was born out of the amphib tank project:
Object_685_in_Patriot_park.jpg
The rear exit doors that everyone hates are there due to the rear engine placement, that improves the vehicle balance (balances out heavier front armour etc) and thus it's amphib and paradrop capabilities.

Edited by ikalugin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Erwin said:

Must be brilliant then :)

It's no more no less than a floating Rakushka (APC on BMP-3 platform). All the pros (not many in my opinion), all the cons. E.g. I wonder what sea state it's capable of navigating in. But it's a proven platform and converting it into a floating one does not look like a huge technological risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, DerKommissar said:

A rear ramp? I can get behind that.

It's an Armata turned hinder part before. This awkward lump in the front is because they turned the engine as well. Typical UVZ approach - they sell to the Russian MoD not what it really needs but what's more convenient for UVZ. UVZ has limited (insufficient, inadequate) design capabilities so each new project is an unsurmountable task for them.

Edited by IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ikalugin said:

The rear exit doors that everyone hates are there due to the rear engine placement, that improves the vehicle balance (balances out heavier front armour etc) and thus it's amphib and paradrop capabilities.

I'd rephrase it, the inconvenient rear doors are because they took the amphibious tank project - an unsuitable platform for a troop transport - and made an APC out of it with minimal redesign. So now we have an APC that leaves much to be desired except for its "tank heritage" - fire capabilities. Military-industrial complex politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I don't think CM can run Red systems that are better than Blue ones, its internal logic would explode.  :P

Oh man. Feeling a bit annoyed today are we? That is just silly. BFC works hard to have CM model the equipment as it is. Making those determinations are not always easy. Doubly so for gear that is just rolling out or still being tested.

I would not expect to see any of this new gear in CMBS because of its planned roll out after the CMBS timelines. Unless BFC changes the game back story significantly or makes a newer game set in 202x I don't think we are going to get to play with any of this new gear. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Just teasing.  ;)

As you said, were not likely to see any of these systems.....What I would like to see are some older Soviet/Russian systems so that we can better depict the actual forces of the respective sides and also use the game to model some of the other conflicts on the former Soviet periphery.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Just teasing.  ;)

Glad to hear it. I honestly am not always sure ;)

10 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

As you said, were not likely to see any of these systems.....What I would like to see are some older Soviet/Russian systems so that we can better depict the actual forces of the respective sides and also use the game to model some of the other conflicts on the former Soviet periphery.

While the information to model them will not be an obstacle that still doesn't fit with in the game's back story or time frame. I personally would love more then one CM game based on earlier cold war periods or a game reflective of the actual Ukrainian invasion those would have to be new games. At least based on BFC's current business model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, IanL said:

While the information to model them will not be an obstacle that still doesn't fit with in the game's back story or time frame. I personally would love more then one CM game based on earlier cold war periods or a game reflective of the actual Ukrainian invasion those would have to be new games. At least based on BFC's current business model.

These systems were in the inventory of both sides at the appropriate date for BFC's official storyline.....I believe that, after the T-64, the T-72 is the most numerous tank in the Ukrainian inventory (but not B3s as bellingcat loves to remind us).

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

These systems were in the inventory of both sides at the appropriate date for BFC's official storyline.....I believe that, after the T-64, the T-72 is the most numerous tank in the Ukrainian inventory (but not B3s as bellingcat loves to remind us).

Ah I see what you mean. Might be nice to see more of that in a module, we can ask. Actually you just did :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I can probably find reasonably accurate numbers for around 2014, but these don't take any account of condition or storage as I recall.....TBH they are readily available with a bit of Google-Fu.  ;)

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, IMHO said:

It's no more no less than a floating Rakushka (APC on BMP-3 platform). All the pros (not many in my opinion), all the cons. E.g. I wonder what sea state it's capable of navigating in. But it's a proven platform and converting it into a floating one does not look like a huge technological risk.

You mean on the BMD platform?

5 hours ago, IMHO said:

It's an Armata turned hinder part before. This awkward lump in the front is because they turned the engine as well. Typical UVZ approach - they sell to the Russian MoD not what it really needs but what's more convenient for UVZ. UVZ has limited (insufficient, inadequate) design capabilities so each new project is an unsurmountable task for them.

Huh, I guess I should tell the MoD TTT/TTZ writers who canned the obj-195 amongst a bunch of other UVZ toys, instead of following the UVZ lobbey (or Omsk lobbey with say Burlack). Calling T15 unoriginal would have been a good idea, if you have looked into the history of development of compatible vehicles in the USSR, but hey, claiming that they have just rotated the chassis is easier.
The issue is not that they are inadequate to that task (or that they are not funded enough) - it is that complex arms programs can take a long time to get completed.

 

54 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I can probably find reasonably accurate numbers for around 2014, but these don't take any account of condition or storage as I recall.....TBH they are readily available with a bit of Google-Fu.  ;)

Have you tried: https://lostarmour.info/ by any chance?

Not that it would be accepted I guess, after all:
30iyyvs.png
289y1w9.png
Does make the loyalists look bad.

Edited by ikalugin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ikalugin said:

You mean on the BMD platform?

I was plain wrong - you are right. Rakushka is BMD and I meant they made a (properly) floating BMP-3.

3 hours ago, ikalugin said:

I should tell the MoD TTT/TTZ writers who canned the obj-195 amongst a bunch of other UVZ toys, instead of following the UVZ lobbey (or Omsk lobbey with say Burlack)

Where's the new battleworthy and economically feasible tank platform? Where's the new engine designed by UVZ meeting MTBF goals? May be a new transmission all designed by UVZ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ikalugin said:

The issue is not that they are inadequate to that task (or that they are not funded enough

They are funded more than enough they are just uncapable of meeting the goals. It's like trying to extinguish a fire with a gasoline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ikalugin said:

The issue is not that they are inadequate to that task (or that they are not funded enough) - it is that complex arms programs can take a long time to get completed. 

Yes, they are simply inadequate to the task. You know, sometimes the reason is plain and simple. They are capable of a limited upgrade to existing platforms but they cannot design a decent new one. Just comes down to the management, design know-how etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, IMHO said:

I was plain wrong - you are right. Rakushka is BMD and I meant they made a (properly) floating BMP-3.

Where's the new battleworthy and economically feasible tank platform? Where's the new engine designed by UVZ meeting MTBF goals? May be a new transmission all designed by UVZ? 

BMP3 was amphib (and paradropable for that matter - this is where the heritage of amphib paradropable tank shows and where the rear engine placement helps) before, same as our other APCs and IFVs, and was already sold to marines in Indonesia. Though I guess there are always differences in capability between various vehicles.

It would be there when the program is complete. Compare and contrast with how the previous leader of the generation was born - the T64. First they built an IOC set, then took their time working the kinks out, then got to mass deployment (of T64As). They are currently in the process of building the IOC brigade sized set.
So the new X engine by Chelyabinsk, new transmission do not exist? Huh. I guess they are using a variant of T34 engine and transmission then (sarcasm).

 

7 hours ago, IMHO said:

Yes, they are simply inadequate to the task. You know, sometimes the reason is plain and simple. They are capable of a limited upgrade to existing platforms but they cannot design a decent new one. Just comes down to the management, design know-how etc. 

And there we disagree, it is like accusing LM that they cant develop a new fighter in principle because their program went through delays.

Edited by ikalugin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, ikalugin said:

So the new X engine by Chelyabinsk, new transmission do not exist?

The initial requirement and UVZ promise was to install a 1'500-'1600hp class engine as in modern MTU pieces. In the end they produced an engine that's theoretically capable of reaching 1'500 but at this power output it becomes dead metal in no time. So they limited the engine to 1'200hp - same level as in upgraded T90.

4 hours ago, ikalugin said:

They are currently in the process of building the IOC brigade sized set.

Correct me if I'm wrong but there was not a single Armata delivered to MoD in 2018. And remind me how much an Armata costs? 🤣 It's actually cheaper to buy top notch modifications of Leo2 than to produce Armatas.

There are three systemic problem of the Russian military industrial complex. Firstly it lacks scientific base to produce truly next generation weapons except for a very few areas (air defense). Russia is a hopeless **** hole for any sensible scientist willing to develop a world class career. In most technological areas that require mass production Russia is 15-25 years behind the West. Secondly Russian military industrial complex was and is financed too lavishly. They are not used to living on budget, they don't know how to optimize production costs and they see no reason to learn how. And thirdly Russian military industrial complex produce only toys for Russian MoD and it does not have the base of a vastly bigger civilian market to develop and test new technologies unlike MTU, GE, Pratt and Whitney etc.

Initial plan of Russian MoD was to quickly move the backbone of the army to the new platforms - Su-57, Armata etc. But now they drastically reduced the purchases of "next generation" platforms and the reason is they are both too expensive and they do not offer drastically improved capabilities when compared to upgraded platforms of previous generation - T-90, Su-30/Su-35 etc.

Edited by IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, IMHO said:

The initial requirement and UVZ promise was to install a 1'500-'1600hp class engine as in modern MTU pieces. In the end they produced an engine that's theoretically capable of reaching 1'500 but at this power output it becomes dead metal in no time. So they limited the engine to 1'200hp - same level as in upgraded T90. 

Correct me if I'm wrong but there was not a single Armata delivered to MoD in 2018. And remind me how much an Armata costs? 🤣 It's actually cheaper to buy top notch modifications of Leo2 than to produce Armatas.

There are three systemic problem of the Russian military industrial complex. Firstly it lacks scientific base to produce truly next generation weapons except for a very few areas (air defense). Russia is a hopeless **** hole for any sensible scientist willing to develop a world class career. In most technological areas that require mass production Russia is 15-25 years behind the West. Secondly Russian military industrial complex was and is financed too lavishly. They are not used to living on budget, they don't know how to optimize production costs and they see no reason to learn how. And thirdly Russian military industrial complex produce only toys for Russian MoD and it does not have the base of a vastly bigger civilian market to develop and test new technologies unlike MTU, GE, Pratt and Whitney etc.

Initial plan of Russian MoD was to quickly move the backbone of the army to the new platforms - Su-57, Armata etc. But now they drastically reduced the purchases of "next generation" platforms and the reason is they are both too expensive and they do not offer drastically improved capabilities when compared to upgraded platforms of previous generation - T-90, Su-30/Su-35 etc.

You seem misinformed, 1200hp is the peacetime mode of operation to significantly increase engine lifetime (beyond requirements), 1500hp is the standard mode with the required lifetime, 2200hp is the boosted mode. After the initial LRIP ("parade") batch (of 10 each) for testing there was a period of re-design based on the recomendations from that testing. Now there is an outstanding order for the IOC BDE set, which would be building vehicles with the design accounting for the recomendations. Then we expect another phase of re-design based on that unit level testing before final variant for mass adoption. So why were you expecting follow up Armatas in 2018 if this wasn't standard procurement practice?

The price would change with economies of scale and design maturity, same as with all other programs for new equipment.

Well that is an amusing extension of the Soviet era bias and is does not actually represent reality properly. Especially the lavishly funded MiC (in 1990s-2000s when it was living at best from Export sales?), made me chuckle.

The issue is not the cost or inability to make them in general, the issue is that those new generation programs were delayed the same way such programs were delayed elsewhere, ie the JSF/F35 program in the US. Due to those delays the procurement money allocated was spent on other purchases, the money was there but it would have been stupid to sit on it.
Now that those programs are more mature there are outstanding hard signed contracts for IOC batches and those are now being produced.

Edited by ikalugin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, ikalugin said:

You seem misinformed, 1200hp is the peacetime mode of operation to significantly increase engine lifetime (beyond requirements)

Well seems we have dissenting opinion on this :) AFAIK it's still a 1'200hp engine and "peacetime mode" is actually normal mode of engine operations at which it passes lifetime requirements. Nizhny Tagil has been struggling with overcoming 1'200 limit for decades. They don't have technological know-how of modern engine building when one tunes engine operation by playing with ECU. So to formally meet 1'500hp criterion they bolted on a powerful turbocharger. But it reduces MTBF beyond comprehension.

2 hours ago, ikalugin said:

So why were you expecting follow up Armatas in 2018?

It's not me who was expecting - it's Russian MoD. The plan was for 2'300 Armatas by 2020 :)

2 hours ago, ikalugin said:

The price would change with economies of scale and design maturity, same as with all other programs for new equipment.

The initial price was 17M USD apiece :) And that's excluding R&D costs that were under separate contracts. By the beginning of 2019 there were about 80 Armatas produced. Now the plan is to have 132 by 2022. Where do you see the source of massive economies of scale? I'd say even more Armata in its current state is not even designed for mass production - e.g. Russian industry cannot produce 2A82 en masse. Have a look at the production plants participating in Armata programs - they are still in 60s in terms of technology. Armata/Su-57 is not about producing a plane or a tank - they are about building whole new industries. And that's impossible without established positions on the international civilian market. To build 2A82 you need to have high quality steel production plus steel processing plants. These plants cannot subsist producing just a handful of 2A82 tubes per year. So no, the idea of Russia producing next generation weapons en mass was a mere delusion with a 650Bn USD price tag.

PS Another example, Japan (not without US involvement :)) stopped supplying Toray fibers to Russia. Here comes the end to the current design of Su-57 and Avangard hypersonic. I doubt we will ever be able to catch up with Toray technological level but even establishing production of inferior fibers would take years if not a decade. And this production cannot exist solely for Avangard and Su-57 - it's simply economically unfeasible. Toray supplies its fibers to the whole world, when do you think Russia will start having a significant share on this market? Just as a background Toray generates 9Bn USD in revenue from fibers. 

Edited by IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Odd as I thought the imported Toray composites were exclusively for use for a civilian airliners' wings not for using to tool up on military projects...

Still, can't Elabuga fill the gap - or AliExpress 😉

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Wicky said:

Odd as I thought the imported Toray composites were exclusively for use for a civilian airliners' wings not for using to tool up on military projects...

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/12/russia-having-trouble-building-hypersonic-weapon-putin-hyped.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/01/russia-will-make-few-units-of-hypersonic-weapon-putin-bragged-about.html

15 minutes ago, Wicky said:

Still, can't Elabuga fill the gap

You have a remarkable knowledge of Russian composites industry! :)

Edited by IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, IMHO said:

They are misreporting. Note how they go with "few" and then name 60 HGVs as a figure, which is about all we would deploy in next 10 years. Fibers (for mil uses) are not seen as an issue. The same thing happened with "no more Su57S, PAK-FA cancelled" and "no more follow up Borei of any kind, they are cut" etc.

p.s. 60 Avanguards is:
- 20 Avanguards on 20 (or fewer, the scale of desired deployment on this booster is a topic for discussions) UR-100-N-UTTh boosters taken out of storage, with some of them (3-10) going operational this year, this is for experimental services of HGVs in general.
- 36 Avanguards on 12 Sarmat ICBM (3 per each ICBM), which did not even finish testing yet.
Considering the standard developmental timelines for Sarmat and how it is likely that we would deploy them with a variety of payloads (light monoblocks, MIRVs/MaRVs with parralel deployment etc) I do not see how this alleged production issue is going to impact deployment.

Edited by ikalugin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, IMHO said:

Well seems we have dissenting opinion on this :) AFAIK it's still a 1'200hp engine and "peacetime mode" is actually normal mode of engine operations at which it passes lifetime requirements. Nizhny Tagil has been struggling with overcoming 1'200 limit for decades. They don't have technological know-how of modern engine building when one tunes engine operation by playing with ECU. So to formally meet 1'500hp criterion they bolted on a powerful turbocharger. But it reduces MTBF beyond comprehension.

It's not me who was expecting - it's Russian MoD. The plan was for 2'300 Armatas by 2020 :)

The initial price was 17M USD apiece :) And that's excluding R&D costs that were under separate contracts. By the beginning of 2019 there were about 80 Armatas produced. Now the plan is to have 132 by 2022. Where do you see the source of massive economies of scale? I'd say even more Armata in its current state is not even designed for mass production - e.g. Russian industry cannot produce 2A82 en masse. Have a look at the production plants participating in Armata programs - they are still in 60s in terms of technology. Armata/Su-57 is not about producing a plane or a tank - they are about building whole new industries. And that's impossible without established positions on the international civilian market. To build 2A82 you need to have high quality steel production plus steel processing plants. These plants cannot subsist producing just a handful of 2A82 tubes per year. So no, the idea of Russia producing next generation weapons en mass was a mere delusion with a 650Bn USD price tag.

PS Another example, Japan (not without US involvement :)) stopped supplying Toray fibers to Russia. Here comes the end to the current design of Su-57 and Avangard hypersonic. I doubt we will ever be able to catch up with Toray technological level but even establishing production of inferior fibers would take years if not a decade. And this production cannot exist solely for Avangard and Su-57 - it's simply economically unfeasible. Toray supplies its fibers to the whole world, when do you think Russia will start having a significant share on this market? Just as a background Toray generates 9Bn USD in revenue from fibers. 

Considering engines are neither designed or made in Tagil I doubt they have any problems, but it does make me wonder what non problems they may have, considering how they discuss 2200hp special boost (форсаж) mode. Maybe you are mistaking the normal practice of boosting from mod to mod (форсирование) for the destructive special boost mode? But surely you must have reliable and authoritive sources?

That was in 2010, before those programs hit (expected) delays. The allocated money was spent on procurement elsewhere, the programs were pushed left.

Those costs (citation needed) and early LRIP contracts for test companies do not reflect the bulk production costs. Also, in addition to your misperception of our IC the small contracts should not be both seen as a consequence of Russian inability to produce Armatas and at the same time the cause for it, if they do not come from the lack of funding but rather from programs creeping left. Furthermore those order numbers look bizarre and need sources.

Edited by ikalugin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IMHO said:

Maybe RU will follow Musk with the use of simple stainless steel with his Starship rocket able to handle reentry temps instead of expensive & complicated composites.

I'm more experienced with papermache composites

TOP SECRET - PROJECT DODO :-)   UK Drone research project similar to the Russian Owl

Its stealth is purely psychological based on the fact it doesn't exist therefore it can't be seen...

flying-dodo.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US DoD is infamous, itself, for being overly ambitious then running into a brick wall halfway into development. Lets recall the Marine EFVP1 as an example. I've lost track of how many times the DoD has 'planned' for an Abrams replacement. So Russia is not exactly alone in this regard.

BFC is always struggling with US/Russian equipment that was (A) developed, scheduled for deployment then deployment never happened; (B) purchased for duties beyond the timeframe, operational scope or force structure of the title;  (C) developed then only sold to overseas customers; (D) has insufficient data available to accurately create the item for the game, or insufficient TO&E info to know where to place it. This isn't 'world of tanks', we can't just drop a random BMP-3 onto a game map.

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...