L0ckAndL0ad

LOL, no need to wait for May 9th. Pictures from official MoD site: http://мультимедиа.минобороны.рф/multimedia/photo/gallery.htm?id=21804@cmsPhotoGallery

On what point? I do not understand what you're saying. What you are trying to say here, as I understand, is that they won't be able to refit their entire fleet with new vehicles in a short term, after mass production starts? (post 2019-2020). Correct? Sure. Russia was able to produce 500+ BMP-3s from 1990, for it's own Armed Forces. I don't have anything better than Wikipedia at hand this early hour of the morning, but according to it, they've also produced ~1180 vehicles for export. This shows government's ability to buy them vs production capacities of factory in question as a whole. Knowing what kind of economical hell it had to went through between 1991 and 2010, it is not surprising that they didn't buy more. What I was trying to say here is that, still, even with all the faults BMP-3 had, they've still mass produced it (in numbers enough for it to appear in CMSF and CMBS), and fine-tuned/corrected it later down the road. And it become a very successful export vehicle for Russia. Even when "the sum of all parts" sucked at the begging (your argument), it did not stop them from producing it (my argument, based on precedent). Do you get what I'm saying here? The numbers produced for it's own ground forces, with economy of the 90s and 2000s, 500+. Despite whatever some people want to believe here, today's Russian economy is far more capable than it was 25-15 years ago, like 2x or 3x times better (if not more, but I'm being conservative here). Do I need to say more? I would. There might be other factors involved. Chechnya. I've already showed you the pic of BMP-3 turret from Chechnya. Would you keep buying BMP-3s after seeing this? I won't. At the same time, sometimes it happens that MoD might buy some stuff from the manufacturer to support it from going bankrupt. And because there's simply nothing better they can produce. And they kept buying them after Chechnya wars. No. You did not read what I said. If they start to produce new vehicles, they can decrease the number of older vehicles in service they have. And use some of decommissioned vehicles for parts, instead of producing new ones on the factory. BMP-1/2 are still in service today, so as T-72s, and they do not require production of new spare parts, they use existing mothballed fleet. Supply/logistics wise, this picture will hold for infinity, if you don't do anything at all. Doing something (like producing new, modular chassis/designs) is a way out. Transition period is inevitable in any case. The option of making 3 modular chassis is the easiest one to get out of this mess, IMO. Even if they'd just replace 2/3 of their inventory with the new vehicles (based on A/K/B modular chassis design) in the next 10-20 years, that still would be a big win, don't you think? You do realize that they'd have to be stuck with those vehicles for the next 20-30 years, right? And this leads us to the meatiest part of this discussion. What would be "the less expensive" alternative? They want their vehicles to have max crew and passenger safety. What designs that are cheap and safe at the same time would you propose? I'd rather have some "bets" that can be solved quicker. Like, we have a parade in 5 days. Does anyone have any bets on what would we see unmasked, from under those tarps?

I dunno, man. I'm having fun so far.

Given the fact of where exactly you sit, compared to where I actually sit, you'd have to do more than citing oil prices and drawing some conclusions to prove your point. At the same time, you were the one who said that their current plan is very realistic, so I don't understand the change of heart really. Okay, so you do not think that there's anything they can't do technology-wise in that regard. Noted! The sum of the parts problem is less concerning in my understanding, and in practice. I will remind you that BMP-3 was faulty as hell when it first came into service. It took many years to correct those things. At the same time, it did not stop them from making them. And it did not stop other countries from buying it. That's your theoretical conclusions crush against real practices here. Just as your same question at the start of your post, yeah, that's a solid concern. Previous plan was to have 70% upgraded fleet by 2020 (NOT by newgen vehicles, just upgraded/repaired), but it was cancelled into another one that should come up in 2018, so I don't know the details. You are, however, missing the point. I was talking about production of new parts, about industry. As they produce new stuff, existing fleet can still be supported, but in decreased numbers, where some of the old vehicles are cannibalized for parts. The main point here is to start producing new stuff, instead of wasting resources on producing old designs. That's a solid concern that only time can solve.

I also forgot to mention one very important thing about commonality and production efficiency. Say, there's a factory that's fitted to produce 4 types of existing arty chassis. You simply cannot order this factory to create new IFVs. Therefore factory workers have less jobs, less money, and can't even go work at another factory that makes IFVs, before they'll learn the new chassis creation process and specs. And there are many many different factories like that all across Russia. Some can do certain things, but only specific things, which often have lower demand. Factories often close because there's no demand in what they can produce. And if they get closed, already existing fleet of produced vehicles won't be able to get new parts to support them. So, if you use 3 chassis across the whole fleet, all the factories across the country can refit their equipment to produce new stuff. Or even just one of those chassis. Then, as more vehicles on these chassis are being created, demand vs production capability gets more level. And the bigger the batch for a certain production item, the cheaper it is to make it.

Not to sound fanboy-ish, here's my list of problems with next gen vehicles to date. Boomerang's frontal armor doesn't cover chassis. Boomerang's driver seems too close to the front. His hatch creates a hole in frontal defense. Kurganets-25 IFV should be equipped with ERA by default. I do know that all new vehicles have modular armor, but being able to, and being equipped with are two different things. It doesn't really matter, military capability wise, but T-15 looks ugly. It sounds childish and amateurish, but there it is. It's the Ugly Duckling. Hope the turret looks reveal will change that. Armata chassis creates a lot of dust due to the way exhausts are pointed downwards. Don't remember if Kurganets does the same, have to rewatch videos from Alabino. Haven't seen the full set of APS equipment, but directional tubes that were shown don't make good impression. Top coverage and efficiency in big question. However, engineers probably know what they're doing. Maybe it uses some sort of smart homing munitions or something, I dunno. But I am getting skeptical. Armata's side ERA coverage looks questionable. This photo of T-14 gives the impression that there's actually no coax gun on commander's sight module. And there's no room for additional weaponry outside. Unless there's a retractable (a-la Kornet-D) weapon module on top.

Fresh set of high res pics (2250x1500) from Vitaly Kuzmin. What a great guy! http://vitalykuzmin.net/?q=node/602

They can definitely afford their current plan for experimental production. Mass production copies are going to be cheaper. From what I understand, they wanna gain more advantage through decease of numbers of different types of equipment. Which should seriously decrease overall costs and be far cheaper than previous vehicle creation model, and far more easy to maintain in future compared to the current fleet. I'll expand this thought below. No no no. It looks like we haven't discussed it enough. The question of hardware specifics and technology is actually very important. I'll ask you again, what are the high tech features they need to master that haven't been done in Russia yet? For Armata MBT. And back to overall picture, production efficiency and commonality. If you'll look at existing Russian fleet of vehicles, and I mean ALL of them, including medium and heavy arty, SHORADs, command vehicles, etc, you'll see that they are a giant, giant mess, that uses all kinds of chassis. Even utility MT-LB is not used as a command vehicle. There's a separate MT-LBu chassis. Tunguska? Different chassis. 2S1 Gvozdika/2S34 Chosta? Different chassis. 2S3 Akatsiya? Different chassis. Msta-S? Unified with... T-80. It's a freaking zoo. Now, if you create few chassis that are initially intended to be used for certain roles, make them modular from the beginning. And voila, you're working your way out of this mess. This is the money saving solution for today and the future. All existing vehicles that I've named NEED spare parts and maintenance by people who are trained to use/work with them. And not all of them were made in sufficient numbers during Soviet times so that you can just throw away broken stuff and get mothballed vehicle from the storage. They will, eventually, need to get new parts, engines, etc, for each of those vehicles, from somewhere. Meaning, either to produce them, or to buy them somewhere. Latter is not an option, because military hardware is mostly homemade. So they need to produce something. And what can be better than 3 unified chassis for the whole armored fleet (excluding armored cars like Tigr/Kamaz trucks etc, that's a whole another territory)? Meaning the whole country can eventually refit their factories for supporting them instead of the old 20 different chassis.

Since you've picked up space theme analogy below in your post, I'll use it too. And look at how it MADE today's USA. The nation that sent men to the Moon. Where would it be now if it didn't? Like I've already said, there's nothing wrong with being ambitious, if you call pull it off, theoretically. And there ARE gains visible if they can pull it off. Mastering advanced technology is good for Russians. Being a big space nerd, I'm eager to squish this analogy The difference between going to the GEO and to the Moon is about 0.7km/s of delta-v. Going to stable LEO orbit takes 10 km/s. This deserves another legendary quotation: This brings me up to a point where I say that IFV/APC-wise technological leap isn't that big. RWS is a world standard. Tank with an unmanned turret? Yeah, that's way more advanced technology. But then again, Russians have been doing autoloaders for decades. What else in there is so technically difficult to master? I mean the transition from manual, mechanical control, to remote control?

There's a counterargument. Whatever the conflict they might get into, new tanks will protect lives of their soldiers better, and allow better combat results. And in the long run, it will make production and logistics easier (due to commonality). Regardless of any details. That's a solid reason to upgrade fleet (to start upgrading ).

Very fair argument.

More detailed rears https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/5401/8955119.8/0_9c3eb_7019a9c9_orig https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6739/8955119.8/0_9c3ed_19e1a609_orig https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/15568/8955119.9/0_9c3f3_d23f732f_orig https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/15592/8955119.8/0_9c3cd_c6d5a673_orig

Your own link says that: So how does everything you've said equates Russian economy of 1998/2000 with 2015? Still not seeing it. What I do see is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia#/media/File:GDP_of_Russia_since_1989.svg Description English: The GDP of Russia since 1989. Figures in international dollars adjusted for both purchasing power and inflation at 2013 prices. Figures of 2014 - 2016 based on IMF growth forecasts. Date 27 February 2015 More recent, from Forbes: http://blogs-images.forbes.com/markadomanis/files/2015/01/RussiaGDP2003-16.png Still no sign of late 90s/early 2000 numbers somehow. Should I turn the graph upside down to see what you're seeing? In case I'm doing something wrong. Never said I trust them. I said that they are quite honest. But if you can provide some examples of them lying about their equipment/capabilities, please do. I know about some individual cases, but really interested to see what you can tell us about it. LOL, so there's a contest after all. Good luck to all the contenders!

You did not provide any numbers to prove your point. I did (they've already built 52 nextgen vehicles compared to 1 prototype of Obj 640 Black Eagle and 2 prototypes Obj 195). Then disagreed with your statement about the ecomony, said "no", and moved on. If you want to prove that today's Russia economy equals their economy levels 15 years ago, then make sure to provide some proof. Otherwise, "no". Russia is not a single entity. While government produces propaganda, which feeds a lot of fanboys, MoD/military/manufacturers are actually quite honest. The thing is, I can distinguish between different entities and sources. You cannot. Therefore you brag about propaganda which somehow affects anything, while I focus on the actual state of things. Same can be said about any country that's doing parades and has homeless people on the streets. Is there a contest or something, to prove that Russia's the worst at it? No need in one. At this point, I'm not sure if you even noticed that their actual, official claims about procurement numbers are VERY realistic. Even Steve says that. If you wanna insist on sticking with lunatic misinterpreted claims about 2300 tanks, be my guest, I just won't reply.

My point is, we both know what numbers they are perusing in the next few years. Why bringing up NATO confrontation? This is the second time, if I'm not mistaken, when you say: You know very well the answer to that question. Why asking it? Twice? Especially considering the fact that chances of such confrontation are so tiny. Russia isn't making new gen vehicles to go to war in the next few years with NATO. They are making them because their existing fleet is rubbish and outdated. It has nothing to do with NATO. And you know that. But still bring it up like it matters.

Your own words on this very same page: Import substitution is a big priority, yes. Correlates with long trials period for new gen vehicles as well. I will speculate here, but from what I understand, Russia makes 90-95% components on it's own, for military vehicles. Creating production for the rest of the stuff is in their own best interest (and makes gains to their own too). Even if they can't, I seriously doubt anyone would be able to block all shipments to Russia completely, ever. Simply not gonna happen.

Not really, nope. Wrong again. About both. I won't suggest to delve too much into helicopters, because you obviously do not know them well, making statements like that. Russia needs new gen vehicles badly. Being developed and tested extensively. Mass production won't happen before 2019/2020. They can easily afford this plan, and they are already doing it. Contracts were signed. It's already happening. Hello? I disagree. Parades exist in many countries. Telling Russian engineers that? Bad idea. There's nothing wrong with what they're doing. One might disagree with some engineering/design solutions, but you can't simply dismiss the importance of such big step. It might be ambitious, but then again, there's nothing wrong with being ambitious, if you can pull it off. So far, they're building stuff. 52 experimental vehicles is not a joke. It's a serious statement about their intentions. Also, there's a Russian saying. Собака лает, караван идет. Meaning "Dog barks, caravan moves." Closest analogue is "barking at a knot".

You can clearly see APS being installed on T-15 heavy IFV and Kurganets-25 IFV. Tank might be using different setup. Or not use it at all, yet. There were rumors about APS being removed from test models of T-14 to reduce it's cost, but with intentions for it to be present on mass-production models. But rumors aside, there's just 8 days left before the parade, so it's not long before we can all tell of sure if there's APS on a tank or not.

Not necessarily. Afghanit APS is said to be capable at defeating those. We have to see the whole system without tarps before making any judgement.

You simply can't put Obj 640 (Black Eagle) in one list with Ka-50 and Mi-28. Ka-50 gave birth to Ka-52. Ka-52 is a very unique and versatile platform. It was a C2/FAC/hunter-killer platform initially (with Ka-50 being pure strike/killers), but after Ka-50 was dropped, it is still very good in all those roles, and even awesome for the Navy (K version). Mi-28 is a pure ground pounder. Russia has ~100 of both, each type. Obj 640 was just a prototype that never came to be anything more than that. Huge difference. There was practically no "strategy" at that time. The country was falling apart since the fall of SU. Then came financial crisis of 2007-2008. I won't say that nowadays Russian procurement is great (it isn't, T-72B3 sucks, who in the world buys those?), but it is not really fair to equate Russia prior to 2008 and after.

It is definitely a ramp + door. There are 3 sets of hinges, two on the right, one on the bottom. Bottom one for the ramp, others for the door and slat bars. Towing cable is situated so that it won't affect the ramp. The door itself is made of two layers, you can see both edges. One layer is the door, the other (outer) layer is the ramp. The image is clickable to see details better. I would assume that engine exhaust is powerful enough to be flooded. BMP-3 has an engine exhaust (on the right side) that is below waterline. Pics: 1, 2

Who said tank porn? There are some uhm.. rears to see. http://nevskii-bastion.ru/parade-moscow-150429/ Turret base sneak peeks:

Modernization doesn't happen at once. T-90s are grouped with BMP-3s, and T-72s with BMP-2s nowadays, IIRC. And, from what I understand (and this is my personal speculation here), this is exactly what's gonna happen starting from post parade 2015-2019/2020. Certain units around the country will get new gen vehicles in place of their old ones. Testing will come in form of usual training, but more extensive.These units will have manufacturer's specialists (factory workers) assigned to them. Which is a part of the feedback/improvement process between Armed Forces and manufacturer. But other that that, this would be more like the usual everyday service. This is why Bochkarev said that the first batch of new gen vehicles will be in service by 2016. He meant the first batch per ongoing contract, including those vehicles that's already been produced. Starting from post parade time, later this year. That's how I see it.

2300 figure is from ГПВ-2020 that we've discussed earlier in this thread. Many misinterpreted those. But there were no official procurement numbers for any new gen vehicles before 27.04.2015. That's rather subjective. Especially considering that you might be confusing Black Eagle with Obj 195. Or not? Either way, I do not care even a tiny bit about fanboys, incompetent media and their speculations. The fact is, the contract for the first few hundred of new gen vehicles have already been signed. And those vehicles (52 vehicles in total) that we've seen so far are part of it. There's absolutely no reason to believe they'll just stop producing them per that particular contract. As Steve said, they actually can't afford to stop working on them. So I really don't understand what are you trying to prove here.

No, I do not see the point. Black Eagle is not even an example. It was a prototype, like many many many many others SU/Russia have been building. There were hundreds of vehicles that never made it past prototype phase. PAK FA? Yes, that's a good example. However, the price difference and complexity are quite different.