Russians Underpowered, US Overpowered in CMBS?

[exsonic01]

5 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Then throw out a number. How much longer does it take to upgrade a T-90A to T-90M? Twice as long? That's 100 per year. Four times as long? 50 per year. Keep in mind the Indians have ordered 464 of the things new-built and I doubt they expect to wait a decade for them.

This is the cheap option. If they can't afford this they can't afford much of anything (this 2015 article states the cost of a new-built T-90SM is 4.5 million).

My guess is around 50 per a year, but we will see, how much they can invest to T-90M program. It is not logical to bring Indian army supplies to discuss about Russian army's plan, they are totally separated program, using different budget. And recent Russian defense budget cut was 25.5%, it is huge. Plus they have lot more priorities such as PAK-FA, T-14, new missiles and etc... so I think T-90M program might be able to influenced depend on their decision, that is why I see pessimistic. I agree they will have some T-90M tanks in the field. The problem is how many. 

Edited March 23, 2017 by exsonic01

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Weren't technology transfer and the ability to manufacture locally among the terms of the Indian deal?  Both were on the cards at the early stage of negotiations IIRC.

[Vanir Ausf B]

1 minute ago, exsonic01 said:

It is not logical to bring Indian army supplies to discuss about Russian army's plan, they are totally separated program, using different budget. 

I brought up the Indian numbers to show than manufacturing capacity isn't a limitation. The Russians only have around 400 T-90As to begin with. So we'll go with 50 per year. It's a number pulled out of the air but I'm happy with it. Are we all happy with 50? Glad that's settled.

[exsonic01]

1 minute ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

I brought up the Indian numbers to show than manufacturing capacity isn't a limitation. The Russians only have around 400 T-90As to begin with. So we'll go with 50 per year. It's a number pulled out of the air but I'm happy with it. Are we all happy with 50? Glad that's settled.

I'm not happy or unhappy about that call, and honestly I don't know, and frankly, 50 is optimistic value from my side. This could be more, or this could be less. It depends on their decision about which program is more important for given budget. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

7 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Weren't technology transfer and the ability to manufacture locally among the terms of the Indian deal?  Both were on the cards at the early stage of negotiations IIRC.

Don't know about tech but most T-90s delivered to India arrive as knock-down kits to be assembled locally and IIRC the T-90SM will also.

Edited March 23, 2017 by Vanir Ausf B

[Artemis258]

In a current CM:BS game against @Doug Williams I'm guessing about 2 M1A1's at least mission-killed, probably at least 1 with a turret full of human-flavoured jam (2 pens, 2 spalls, and no return fire), and (last count) 4 dead Brads (plus one II think I tracked)... it's possible gents, it's possible!  

[shift8]

 

 

In my opinion the issue here is the proportionality of the upgrades. The baseline force structure is the jump off point for any discussion of what "should" be in game. I think it makes complete sense to point out that the Russian tank in game, while apparently being exported, is not in service in the Russian army. If we discard entirely that actual force structure should have something to say about what nations "should" get in game, then we really have almost no basis to stand on. Russian export equipment is all over the place. For example, the R-77 missile has been exported, but the Russians themselves did not have the missile in inventory for most of the last 15+ years, and apparent inventories are token based on rare sightings in Syria. Same goes with the aircraft themselves. It would be hardly fair to assert that XXX number of 4gen+++ planes have been made if they have mainly been made for export. 

The same would be said, of the F-16's the united states made for the UAE, which are much more advanced than US F-16s. They don't exist in US inventory, and therefore can not be regarded when it comes to determining American gear for game.

 

 

Now this is all predicated of course, on the idea that Combat Mission is a game whose intent is to be as realistic as possible. Part of making a game authentic goes beyond pure technical specifications and game mechanics. Composition of forces in important to this. If you wantonly add units to balance a game too much, you run the risk of eroding some of the thematic niche of the game.  It stands to reason that if you are looking for a more realistic game, and that game is to be set up with real nations is semi-realistic situations, that there should be a certain degree of observance to real capabilities of the nations involved. Otherwise, proportional to the degree unrealistic units are added, you run the risk of dissolving any contextual realism. If a certain type of tank or plane was historically or currently superior generally speaking, it should be in game. Otherwise the context of the units is obliterated, and it is therefore a complete waste of time to make the units realistic. Unit capability means nothing if its out of context. 

That does not mean we should not consider some alterations to exact national inventories, but even those considerations should really follow lines governed by the real world capacity of the nations involved. In other words, upgrades and other assumptions should have some grounded basis. 

And it would seem to me that a nations that starts with better gear, has an army budget larger than the entire defense budget of the other nation, and an economy 6 times the size should at the very least retain much of its real life advantages. Anything else is pure fantasy, and destroys and purpose to modeling units as specifically as possible. A Panther tank isn't cool anymore if you put it up against an M-60A1. 

 

Given that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the way the in game Abrams performs, the alternative argument is to claim the Russians should get better gear to offset this. But that argument doesn't really fly based on what I said above. At least that is how I see it. 

 

[Bydax]

2 hours ago, exsonic01 said:

And recent Russian defense budget cut was 25.5%

Except it wasn't - The Russian Defense Budget and You.

 

1 hour ago, shift8 said:

For example, the R-77 missile has been exported, but the Russians themselves did not have the missile in inventory for most of the last 15+ years

Izdelie 170/R-77/RVV-AE* (1994) and Izdelie 170-1/R-77-1/RVV-SD (2013) is two different things.

*Not in VVS service.

1 hour ago, shift8 said:

 inventories are token based on rare sightings in Syria.

 Dzemgi Air Base and new contracts disagree with you.

[shift8]

2 minutes ago, Bydax said:

Except it wasn't - The Russian Defense Budget and You.

 

Izdelie 170/R-77/RVV-AE* (1994) and Izdelie 170-1/R-77-1/RVV-SD (2013) is two different things.

*Not in VVS service.

 Dzemgi Air Base and new contracts disagree with you.

I never said there were not more than one version of the missile. When a person says "aim 120," it does not exclude the idea that there are more than one type. Also I never said that the missile didn't have other indicators of extremely recent service. I merely mentioned one of the cases that represents an example of it. The point is that over the last two decades the Russians have not had a active radar missile in any significant inventory, and while this is changing, it is still mostly the case. Your picture is actually indicative of this, as it is like most other images of Russian jets recently spotted with the R-77, in that they are usually still sporting large numbers of SARH missiles. 

Furthermore, the document you linked is NOT and order for the missiles. It is a call for companies to submit proposals for procurement. The degree to which that "order" was completed is not known. It also doesn't list how many missiles are to be procured. 

 

But this is entirely off topic. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

My understanding is that air-to-air missiles have a limited pylon life, i.e. just flying around with them on wears them out quicker, so the Russians occasionally bring out an Amraamski or two just to remind everyone they have them but mostly keep them packed away for a rainy day.

Having said that, they almost certainly do not have many of.them. Even most western nations don't keep large stockpiles of expensive guided munitions around at all times. Ask the British and French:

"Libya “has not been a very big war. If [the Europeans] would run out of these munitions this early in such a small operation, you have to wonder what kind of war they were planning on fighting,” said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense think tank. “Maybe they were just planning on using their air force for air shows."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nato-runs-short-on-some-munitions-in-libya/2011/04/15/AF3O7ElD_story.html?utm_term=.d1042fea6c15

"At this rate we are using up five or ten per cent of our stock per day and soon it could become unsustainable," a defence industry source said. "What if the strikes go beyond a second week? We will simply run out of ammunition."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8400079/Libya-Navy-running-short-of-Tomahawk-missiles.html

 

Edited March 23, 2017 by Vanir Ausf B

[Bydax]

11 minutes ago, shift8 said:

 It also doesn't list how many missiles are to be procured. 

Начальная (максимальная) цена контракта

13 175 178 880,15

13 billion rub worth per this contract.

19 minutes ago, shift8 said:

degree to which that "order" was completed is not known.

Сроки поставки товара или завершения работы либо график оказания услуг

- до 25 ноября 2016 года; - до 25 ноября 2017 года.

Delivery time for this contracts - 25 November 2016 and 25 November 2017. 

 

27 minutes ago, shift8 said:

It is a call for companies to submit proposals for procurement. 

There is only one company producing Izdelie 170-1(КТРВ)  and "call for companies to submit proposals"(ended by 28.09.2015 10:00) just a part of bureaucratic procedure.

[shift8]

3 minutes ago, Bydax said:

Начальная (максимальная) цена контракта

13 175 178 880,15

13 billion rub worth per this contract.

Сроки поставки товара или завершения работы либо график оказания услуг

- до 25 ноября 2016 года; - до 25 ноября 2017 года.

Delivery time for this contracts - 25 November 2016 and 25 November 2017. 

 

There is only one company producing Izdelie 170-1()  and "call for companies to submit proposals"(ended by 28.09.2015 10:00) just a part of bureaucratic procedure.

13bil Rub is not a number of missiles. It is a offer of how much the government is will to pay for a xxxx. How many would depend on which company offered the best price for providing the product. So no, it doesn't give a number. The Tender offer time span is now over yes, but we dont know the RESULTS of said tender, so we dont know how many actually were procured. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

6 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

This is the Jane's article referenced, or a least the teaser they give out for free

http://www.janes.com/article/67082/india-to-deploy-newly-ordered-t-90ms-tanks-along-border-with-pakistan

Janes is a credible source in my book but if you want to remain skeptical that's your prerogative.

Agreed, but that has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. No one is asking for the near-future Abrams to be removed. I'm not sure how the T-90AM even got into the discussion except to satisfy the rule that all discussions on the Black Sea forum must turn into a political tug-of-war between the pro-NATO tribe and the pro-Russia tribe 

Until we have eaten all the young of the Pro-Russian tribe's brains we at the NATO tribe will continue to wage warfare.  

It entered the conversation because I brought up that all parties in the game benefited from high tech stuff that is some combination of hasnot happened, or in some cases, will never happen.  The M1A2's issue in game is there was no "real life" model of it included so you're stuck with scifi or scifi, but the scifi is somewhat modest.  The Russians and Ukrainians both got combat vehicles that do not exist in varying degrees (or Oplots are built at a aircraft carrier volume, T-90AMs/BMP-2Ms are not platforms that ever really were likely to enter Russian Army service), but are aided by the fact their lower tier real life stuff is still present in game to keep it "real."

Re: T-90SM

Again it's a Jane's article built on what an unnamed Indian defense official told them.  Organizations don't always release factual information, and the lack of reporting on it outside of Janes (or rather, lack of articles that are not based on the Jane's article) is something that makes it a point of data vs a verified narrative.

This is not to exclude that possibility that it might yet happen, but instead to posit that this might be first indicators something will happen in the years to come, but it's doubtful that we will see Indian T-90SMs "soon."  

T-90M

The Russian narrative of what they're making and when needs to be mistrusted because they have no souls and are not real people. because it is several mutually exclusive courses of action.  The logic of the T-14 was to have one grand unified modernized AFV fleet that would cut down on cost by standardization.  The presence of other tank programs seems to undercut this.  The T-90M is a upgrade for a tank the Russians are trying to replace, and it's an extensive one if it's got the new gun/autoloader.  The T-72B3 is a really marginal upgrade for a tank that should be being retired in many ways.  There's also several different protection suites for existing Russian tanks floating around, with no real standardization as which is the system of record.

I would contend Russian tank design is intentionally somewhat difficult to verify, and serves a secondary purpose as a military deception program under the Russian concept of information warfare, basically presenting enough low detail programs all of which will "Make HATO fear!" for internal and external audiences as a way of appearing conventionally capable (again, the Russians very prominently display many of their low number, high capability programs, while glossing over they represent only a very small number of existing platforms in their overall fleet) while pursuing an actual defense policy of proxy wars augmented by information-cyber warfare, and protected by nuclear deterrence.  Presenting several programs makes it more difficult to ascertain actual intentions  while giving people visions of legions of T-90M/T-14s/T-22 Badgerfisters rolling around with their super-guns and AI controlled drivers.  

I mean you're free to believe what you want here, as are we all, I'm just not going to put much faith in T-90Ms until there are 50 or so of them and more on the way.  

Edited March 23, 2017 by panzersaurkrautwerfer

[exsonic01]

6 hours ago, Bydax said:

Except it wasn't - The Russian Defense Budget and You.

" I would add that by spending to reduce the defense sector’s debt, the MoD in reality has also reduced its procurement costs for the future so it’s unclear how the 7% reduction in the budget plays out relative to likely lower purchase prices since the budget is no longer forced to absorb financing costs for these debts. In conclusion, the Russian defense budget will remain very much alive, while the state armament program will continue to truck along with reduced expectations. "

First of all, thanks for the good article @Bydax, this gave me a new lesson, so it was not 25% but much more "acceptable" reduction, right? But the article also mentioned that any new armament program will be under effect of sequester. So, we still don't know how this could influence the T-90M program and others. 

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Hold on, if the game is almost entirely sci-fi.....Why are we arguing about it? 

[IMHO]

12 hours ago, exsonic01 said:

I don't have their manufacturing plan, but their defense budget faced serious cuts recently.

Really, any proof of that?  Since you comment on that I guess it wouldn't hurt to learn the details. Just I know were the wind is blowing from  

[IMHO]

13 hours ago, Codename Duchess said:

From my understanding the "S" in SM means export

Nope, very much one of CM words - but another one, strictly speaking 

[IMHO]

13 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

For what it's worth I looked up the T-72B3 numbers a while back and if memory servers it averaged out to around 200 T-72s upgraded per year.

Can you compare it to UK/France numbers in today's capable tanks?

[IMHO]

17 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

The T-90M thing is pretty trash. Or it's on par with the declaration last year that all T-90s would be upgraded to T-90AM standard, unverified.  The T-90MS is from "An Indian Defense Official" talking to Jane's....which is pretty well into unverified and given other Indian defense reporting, about as solid as jello.

@panzersaurkrautwerfer, could you please elaborate on how T-90 had ever had a chance of winning the Indian tender of old times?  There were many cmpetitors and Indian MoD was pretty open. There's enough open-source information. Like if you believe crew experience means a lot in battlefield performance then how an insurance adjuster, beverage truck driver and a college student - all once-a-month or a once-a-quarter reservists - win against so many full-time Army tankers with everyday weapons practice

[Sgt.Squarehead]

15 minutes ago, IMHO said:

Can you compare it to UK/France numbers in today's capable tanks?

Current UK plans are for IIRC around 170 Challengers total:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_British_Army_(Army_2020_Refine

It's bloody embarrassing TBH. 

Edited March 23, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[IMHO]

14 hours ago, TheForwardObserver said:

If some of that new content happens to be F-35s that can't get shot down by Tunguskas, even better.

Would you spare me being a kind of impolite... What's F-35 mission profile? What IS Tunguska? 

[Vanir Ausf B]

The UK has 227 Challenger 2s in service. France has about 400 Leclerc's total, not sure how many in service.

[IMHO]

6 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Current UK plans are for IIRC around 170 Challengers total:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_British_Army_(Army_2020_Refine ,It's bloody embarrassing TBH. 

Yepp, I know. I took the most glaring example but you can have a look at Germany, France, Benilux etc... And count in unit distribution and unit availabilty, equipment availability within the unit etc. Abrams - deployment time for off-site equipment, heavy lift capacity (again don't forget availability rate) Sorry, bad hair day

 

[IMHO]

13 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Don't know about tech but most T-90s delivered to India arrive as knock-down kits to be assembled locally and IIRC the T-90SM will also.

It was part of the offset/technology transfer part of the deal

[exsonic01]

49 minutes ago, IMHO said:

Really, any proof of that?  Since you comment on that I guess it wouldn't hurt to learn the details. Just I know were the wind is blowing from  

Then do you have proof or anything? I raised my pessimistic expectation for T-90M program based on their budget cut reports and news. My words are not any form of prophecy, and I'm not a fortuneteller, but I can have some expectation based on reports. And my expectation can go wrong, so I don't know what will be the real fate of T-90M program. 

Bydax gave me a good correction regarding budget cut, but still, their new armament program will be influenced by it. Search yourself if you want to find the proof. 

Edited March 23, 2017 by exsonic01