L0ckAndL0ad
-
Posts
1,857 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Posts posted by L0ckAndL0ad
-
-
Don't really like touchscreen monitor , better good old buttons around the monitor .
Не очень то нравится сенсорный монитор , лучше старые добрые кнопки вокруг монитора .
Surprisingly, there are buttons around the monitor.
Kurganets-based BREM:
BTR-MDM next in row, I believe.
Yeah. Wonder how stable such platform would be crane-wise.
-
I made a true statement. To test this, what year will the Russian military be based totally rid of BMP-2s?
Regardless, it is largely irrelevant anyway because the current plan, even if not altered one bit, still means that many years from now the Russian military will be majority equipped with outdated military hardware.
False. Statement. Current plan in question does not cover neither "many years" nor "outdated military hardware". What they're gonna do with BMP-2s hasn't been stated yet. So there's nothing that "means" what you've said. That's your personal projection.
Here's the problem with budgets of any sort. Usually the majority of a budget is devoted to existing commitments. Unless changes are made, these commitments have to be funded first before there can be any allocation of funds to new purposes. In a perfect world the amount of money that is allocated for a budget is adequate to cover both, but when circumstances are not optimal then there's a problem. Cuts need to be made somewhere. Future spending is often times easier to cut back on than existing spending. There's many reasons for this, and for something like defense spending a large part of it is politics.
This complicates the rational part of resource allocation. Something that makes sense to cut perhaps can't be because the lobby for it is strong. Things that don't make sense to cut, but don't have sufficient support, often get hammered instead. But since they don't have as much support they are likely to be smaller programs to begin with, which means killing off lots of smaller things and still potentially not fixing the problem.
Major problems arise when a budget is significantly underfunded, but it is made worse when that budget is mostly legacy obligations. Pressure to reduce/limit new spending is usually very strong.
Putin is not the total master of all things budgetary. He needs the support of many influential people to stay in power. To some degree he needs the support of the public. In the current financial climate I don't see how he can make everybody happy. Something, a lot of somethings in fact, are going to have to be sacrificed. I agree that the military budget will be the last to take the hit and will suffer less than other areas, but it will.
I don't see how that contradicts to what I've said.
The example of the carriers was in reference your statement about turning on and off other big projects to get the funds. You don't just shut down or scale back development of nuke missiles and subs to create tanks. It is far from that simple and the affects are longer term. So in fact it is directly applicable.
I didn't say anything about shutting on or off any projects. All of them (in question) are "on", including, like I've already said, preparations for mass production of the new vehicles. Scale adjustment is possible though, and I don't see anything bad here, if the numbers are relatively small. And they are.
You take things personally when folks talk about efficiency issues in the economy. Not sure why that is, but no one accused Russia of being stupid. On the other hand your idea of private companies in an open market apparently does not meet the same criteria as the international business community definition. Russia's private companies function in an environment that does not support private industry as Putin has proved time and time again. It only survives at his discretion and when someone in the Kremlin decides otherwise, the corruption scandals, accusations, trials and seizures begin. That deters investment and one has only to look at the amount of GDP created in Russia by mid size businesses to see the negative impact.
Fact is the Russian economy is notoriously corrupt and inefficient and Putin is very much a part of that. One need only look at his history in St Petersburg and the amount of corruption he personally was a part of to see what that would do to a national economy already under strain. The sanctions are not the only reason companies are bailing from doing business in Russia. Another huge aspect is the lack of transparency and that very corruption. The Russian economy is not some elegantly functioning machine that will pirouette through these changes in direction that you seem to think Putin can just snap his fingers and cause to occur. The bribes and slush fund that Oligarch A was expecting that suddenly doesn't turn up and is instead going to oligarch b has impact. When your economy is run like a Mafia franchise, you just don't tell Tony Soprano's crew they aren't getting the kickbacks on that waterfront job without consequences.
What are these words for? Do they mean something? I need a translator. Anyone?
Cool! Thanks!
OK, Russian speakers... is he describing what he's doing as he's touching things on the right of the targeting monitor? This is the sort of stuff I've been curious about. To me it looks like it's fire control functions (i.e. targeting) of some sort.
Steve
When he touches the second screen, he says "we're fine tuning the image as necessary".
There's much more important thing in that moment. There's identical set of hardware controls can be seen under TC's station. Meaning that gunner's and TC's stations are interchangeable.
-
Huh, what is it morning - rubs eyes. Sigh. No one is saying that Russians in general are stupid. I think one Russian in particular should consider what people are actually saying. With budgetary pressure somethings gotta give. You are quite right if project A is the most important thing then it has a high likely hood of getting funding. But if the budget is shrinking then some other project needs to be scaled back. And if the milliary budget is not going to be reduced then those projects that are scaled back or cancelled don't have to be military. All people are saying is somethings gotta give. It sounds like you are saying "no it doesn't we can do everything cause we want to". I'm sure you don't mean it like that - well I hope.
I think I've outlined my point pretty clear. Couple of billions to build a new fleet of vehicles over a couple of years is not a problem, regardless. They can do it if they want to. What do they actually want to do? That remains to be seen.
What I could find from here (https://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/Bradley-Fighting-Vehicle.html - warning I've never heard of these guys I have no idea who they are) was:
So if it is true the production run of new vehicles was slightly over 10 years so something like 600 vehicles per year but that is an average. There has been spending on upgrades since 1991 that was just the last year new vehicles were ordered.
I was expecting a year by year data, like you can find for Russian vehicles here:
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-174.html
But thanks anyway.
-
I do grant the possibility that it is possible that Putin can push things so that the vehicles do get made more-or-less according to plan. But that requires a large number of other things to not go wrong within the same time period. I do not see that as likely.
Likely, unlikely - that's speculative. The basic fact that they can get couple billions for this task is undeniable. They simply can. And it depends on their will if they're gonna do it or not.
Regardless, it is largely irrelevant anyway because the current plan, even if not altered one bit, still means that many years from now the Russian military will be majority equipped with outdated military hardware. The tip of its spear might be a little bit sharper, but effectively it doesn't change Russia's strategic situation one iota.
"Many years"? That's a false statement. Current plan does not cover "many years". It covers the next two. And mass production might start even before that. That's a positive trend, the way I see it.
Economically speaking turning big military projects on and off on a whim is hugely expensive. For example, the infrastructure it takes to build an aircraft carrier is not something you shut down for a few years and then simply say, okay we are gonna build carriers again. The work force, the skill sets, the shipyards, the supply chain, all those have to be geared back up. That is something the Kremlin is wrestling with now having shot themselves in the foot with the Mistral deal.
That kind of knee jerk changing of military projects is incredibly inefficient. The last thing the Russian economy can afford is more inefficiency. Add to that the corruption which already ravages those budgets and you are guaranteed failure in meeting your goals.
Your example with aircraft carriers doesn't fit. Technologically and workforce wise, they're already doing advanced IFVs, both for internal and export markets. They're producing modern BMD-4Ms and pimped BMP-2M's and -3M's. Infrastructure-wise, govt has already invested in preparations for new gen vehicles mass production.
As a matter of fact, the question is how fast they're planning to build new vehicles. To have "strategic impact", as Steve says, they have to make them fast in large numbers. But economically, it is better to produce them in smaller numbers, but over longer period of time, so that manufacturer's always busy, and workers always have jobs and money, don't loose proficiency before the next big project arrives on the horizon. So that's another way to look at it.
Last thing you need to do is to think that Russians are just so stupid they don't know what efficiency is. You keep forgetting that manufacturers are private companies that operate on an open market. Wake up.
ADDED:
Looking at wiki now, regarding Bradley production.
Even considering inflation as of 2015 in comparison to that 2000 data, that's a really small price. Anyone's got data on how fast they were built?
-
That might be the desire, but in the end money trumps political will. The Soviet Union did not collapse due to a lack of political will. The Russian military didn't languish for a decade because nobody in the Kremlin wanted to look tough to the rest of the world. For sure political will can ignore financial reality for a time, but as we say in English... eventually the piper will get paid. Several thousand years of Human history is behind what I say. I don't think the current regime in Moscow is somehow an exception.
Kremlin sits on people's heads and doesn't give a damn. As long as it stays that way, Putin
walks into a barcan say, "We've built enough nukes, lets focus on vehicles, build me 1000 Kurganets IFVs", and they'll get on with it. And we've been over the numbers already. Their yearly budget is 70bn USD or so. To build coupla thousand new vehicles they don't have to sell Kremlin's stars or Lenin's teeth, they just have to make less nukes and subs, and here you go, you've got your spare billion for new vehicles. How many times should I point out that the price won't be that big compared to their overall military budget? Billion. Two, tops. And that's if they'd want to do it over just one year, which is unlikely to happen. Spread it over two to three years, and it's 2bn vs 210bn. Lenin's teeth are safe. -
"У" - Управляемый/Guided (GLATGM).
Right! Silly me, how could I forget GLATGM?
And that depends heavily on the amount of money available. We don't know what the level of funding will be, but for sure whatever the plan was last year is out of touch with reality. Of course they could theoretically still purchase them, but this gets back to our previous discussion about "affordability". Until oil prices rise, or Putin does something real to reign in corruption, it's hard to see how the defense budget will not be cut back in some way that impacts the earlier plan. After all...
And why do you think these compromises to the plan happened? Funding. Even under better economic conditions the Russian government decided it didn't have the money to fully fund the upgrade program, which meant things had to get cut. If you look at the US Abrams TUSK plan you'll see the same thing happened to it, so this is not something unique to Russia. In fact, it's probably rarer that a project gets funded as much as the original plan calls for. Or the numbers called for get built. Or both.
It comes down to money. But you are correct, they are more likely to just crank out slightly better BMP-3s if money is tight rather than retrofit older ones with all kinds of new features.
Steve
Like I've already said, In today's Russia, "political will" is what drives such decisions, IMO. Funds are secondary.
Probably easier to make a new case for the upgraded BMP-3 , than to take the old building and remodel in BMP-3 "Dragun" . Released BMP-2/3 can be equipped with more modern sights and ammunition .
Думаю проще сделать новый корпус для модернизированной БМП-3 , чем брать и переделывать старый корпус в БМП-3 "Драгун" . Выпущенные уже БМП-2/3 можно оснастить более современными прицелами и боеприпасами .
It won't take that much time to know, actually. They've switched to receiving smaller batches of new stuff, but with higher frequency, over the year, so the first batch will answer that question right away.
As far as I know, not for targeting systems. That is what I was highlighting. But if there are redundant physical controls then that might not be a problem.
Targeting? O_o Gunner uses hardware input, similar to one on BTR-82A. White thing below, he holds it with two hands.
----------
-
Yes, there's a lot of room for efficiency and economizing improvements. Two things that are notoriously difficult to do even in the West. Someone always has a reason for keeping what they have, and often times they have friends enough to make sure they do. The Russian navy has a lot of friends.
As for budgets and what not, you are correct that I do not know for sure what is going to happen with it. But I have a pretty good educated guess. And 1000 IFVs coming into service within a short period of time is not what I am guessing will happen.
I can remind you what the current plan is. They are building 200+ BMP-3s in the following two years. Also, the next batch of Kurganets series vehicles will arrive in early 2016. Full size of pre-mass production batch is ~100. It appears that they've already started field trials of the new gen vehicles, and the trials will take a year, unlikely much more (high command insisted on shortening original plan of two years of field trials, and rightfully so, in my opinion, cuz two years is way too much).
The rest is my thinking. Having current 600 + 200-300 new BMP-3s, and a hundred new IFVs (or, actually more, if we count T-15 batch) they can start mass producing new gen and get rid of BMP-1/2s, starting from mid 2017. Which leads to BMP-3s being either eventually upgraded or stored in their original form, as it happened with currently stored BMP-1/2s. Depends on how fast they'd mass produce the new stuff.
This is as far as I would speculate.
Depends on what the bottomline price is. If the price different isn't very big (less than 20% IMHO), then it probably makes sense to pay a premium and get the better vehicle. But I don't know what the relative costs are so it's hard to say.
Looking how they went with upgrading T-72 to B3, you can clearly see they don't want to spend money on upgrades almost at all. Planned B3 upgrade and actual B3 tanks produced are two different things. They didn't do CITVs, as planned, didn't do new engine, as planned. They also didn't do Relikt instead of Kontakt-5, and even then, failed to cover vehicle with large numbers of blocks (frontal area is pretty open).
Now, you think they'll go for new engines, new RCSW, new optics and electronics for a bunch of bad old thin aluminum infantry carriers? Don't see it happening.
-
All that is very true, but I come back to the argument I continually make... for what Russia is likely to go up against, having an improved BMP-3 replacing all BMP-2s would have far more practical benefits for Russian military operations than a handful of much more capable vehicles. At least there is a very strong argument to be made for that case.
It all depends on what they actually want, and their "political will". Given enough will, they can easily buy 1000 new IFVs and about the same number of new APCs, that's not that big of a price for their overall yearly budgets. They can do it if they really want to. The question is, what they really want. Neither of us can really answer that.
If I was MoD's head, I would've sold all those BMP-3s, 2s and 1s and made a fleet of new ones. Buy less submarines, stop painting grass. In the long term, new gen vehicles are much better investment, cuz they're created with upgradeability in mind.
Moreover, think about these upgrades in detail. Look at Dragoon. From BMP-3, all is left is a hull. Everything else is practically new. Engine, weapon systems, optics, electronics. It's practically a new vehicle, except the hull and gun barrels. So why put all these new engines, new electronics, new optics, in an old hull, when you can make new hulls, with newer, better alloys? Metal doesn't cost as much as equipment.
Yes, but we don't know if the touch aspect is completely redundant or not. I'm guessing it is, however that's not known yet. The point is that reliance on touch is dubious.
From what I'm seeing, touching is just an optional extension to the usual hardware buttons. It's a Russian military vehicle, they take redundancy very seriously, even with high-tech stuff.
-
I see little point for Russia to modify their BMP-3s to that level. It's still BMP-3 hull protection wise, and I gave specifics of that just few pages back. Kurganets-25 should provide more protection with new alloys used, and is by default intantry-friendly, and, most importantly, upgrade-ready. It allows add-on protection out of the box, turret upgrades have already been planned and actually in-progress (R&D). Manufacturer needs stuff to export, and they can't export Kurg, so that's their current strategy.
RE: Armata's screens. Look closely. These are not just touch screens, these are MFDs with touch capability. There are usual buttons on them like on usual MFDs.
Dragoon can be equipped with that 57mm gun, or even 125mm one O_o
-
You mean the boxes that show up in the thermal view? Looks like zoom preview.
Nah, there are brackets (in the corners) for that. Solid frame seems to be dynamic, hence I get a strong deja vu with face recognition behavior. The reason why I brought it up is because since BMP-2M with Berezhok, I've heard quite a lot about target locator/tracker, but haven't yet seen it in action. So that's the explanation to what I'm seeing.
Operator is filming from driver's position. Then there are 4 monitors, 2 for the gunner, 2 for the TC. Gunner's monitor UI reads out: smaller font gives many digits, probably coordinates. Bigger font says "K" = cumulative ammo, "80" - distance, "ОСН" - "main" (ie main gun). Later followed by "ГОТ" = ready to fire. Second monitor from the left shows different ammo count in the loader, by types. Initially it has 1 "K" (cumulative round), which turns into 0 after it's loaded. Overall types are "Б" (AP), "O" (HE), K (cumulative = HEAT?), "У" (Training, maybe? I dunno. Nothing else comes to mind really), "C" = coax. Commander's displays show gunner's feed and something I can't understand what it is.
More from RAE-2015.
BMP-3 "Dragoon" with unmanned 100+30 turret. Looks surprisingly infantry-friendly:
More here: http://vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-13385.htm
Inside BMP-3 "Derivaciya" (57mm unmanned). I was expecting far less space.
-
Armata episode teasers keep coming. Touch screens.
Is that a target recognition like you have face recognition on phones and cameras? Gotta be target locator.
-
Here's better pic of "Derivative" BMP-3.
Initially, it was said (by manufacturer's CEO) that this module will be installed on Kurganets chassis (or was it Armata IFV? Can't remember now). Either way, apparently, MoD isn't interested, and they went for pushing it for export. I kinda get why MoD isn't interested. They're following the original plan.
It started with "Berezhok" turret (used on BMP-2M/BMD-2M). Lotsa same tech is used on today's version of what I call "early Epoch module", that's currently installed on Kurg-25 IFV and Armata T-15 IFV. The plan for 2020 is to upgrade it further with better stuff, particularly new autocannon. Last I heard they were going for telescopic 40mm. Why? 57mm can't do tanks, you still need ATGMs. 57mm+ ATGM launchers might be too big. So 40 is as big as it gets.
ADDED:
Oh. Some say that BMP-3 "Dragoon" has an unmanned turret (with the same 100mm+30mm weapons). Wonder how it's done.
-
TVZvezda's vids are intentionally low-res, IMO. At the same time, not everyone's got an iPhone around here.
While we're at it, BMP-3 modifications from RAE-2015:
BMP-3 "Derivaciya" with an unmanned 57mm AU-220M module.
BMP-3 "Dragoon", with frontal 800hp engine
Still thin. These are manufacturer's initiatives, not MoD's, just so you know.
-
How good is it compared to Catherine FC or the sensors on an M1A2 ? Any indications they may use it not only for Armata but for the t-90AM upgrade they are doing ? C;ould be interesting as a vehicule upgrade for the T-90AM in the game .
https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/default/files/asset/document/catherinefc_uk_071005.pdf
https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/default/files/asset/document/catherinexp_uk_071005.pdf
-
Ahh, that picture of the T-14 firing sure does make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside
How about now?
-
From what I've seen, Kurg's and Boomerang's thermals are "2nd gen", while Armata's are "3rd gen". At least that's what on the descriptions. 3rd gen one looks almost identical to Catherine-XP
ps: Armata episode should be out this Sunday, actually. They've messed up with schedule date -
I don't really like to mass-post like this, but I know you wanted to see Armata firing for quite a while, so..
Also, Armata-based БРЭМ (armored repair & evac vehicle):
ps: still no idea where this comes from, nothing on Zvezda's site in teaser section
ADDED:
Okay, confirmed that it comes from on-line stream. Here's the short ad video from it:
-
It's funny that they've just posted those teaser clips in actual 720p, and not that bad quality that the full video was posted with. So here they are, for those who wants more quality in the most important parts:
What I've noticed so far. Observation monitor in crew compartment had several UI elements that weren't shown in action, but I can bet they are "4 in 1 mode", and "Turret's/Gun view feed". Should be quite useful for situational awareness. Also 30mm gun is kinda shaky when firing. I expected more stability.
-
Yeah, high flying 40mm HEDP grenades might turn ugly for that 18mm flat front.
Anyways, next stop - September 17th, with the same show, but this time about Armata series. Maybe they'll throw in some info during RAE-2015 (Sep 9-12), but I doubt it.
ADDED:
Oh, well, apparently, they've started teasing Armata episode. No actual teaser vids posted that I can see, but someone took that shot with Zvezda's logo, so it must have come from the stream:
-
Well, the 40mm HEDP ammo is supposed to be able to penetrate 50mm of armour. The listing I have found the for the turret armour of a BMP3 is 30-35mm so no problem for the HEDP. Am I looking at the wrong data for the BMP3? Please point me in the "right" direction.
First, there's a ticket on BFC's bug tracker, submitted by Dima, quite some time ago, with pics and details.
Second, this: http://btvt.narod.ru/raznoe/vbtt_1991_bmp31.htm
There are at least 3 alloys used in BMP-3's armor: BT-70Sh (БТ-70Ш, steel), ABT-102 (АБТ-102, aluminum), AMG-6 (АМГ-6, also aluminum). The best one is ABT-102. 43mm of ABT-102 = 21mm of BT-70Sh, but with 25% weight advantage in favor of ABT-102. Said 43mm and 21mm respectively defeat 30mm AP-T (for 2A42) at 300 meters, at 68 degrees. Aluminum alloy is better than steel at more than 45 degrees deflection.
I'll translate the relevant part:
1 - upper front hull, 18mm ABT-102 (almost flat)
2 - side front hull, 60mm ABT-102
3 - turret front, 16mm BT-70Sh + 70mm air gap + 50mm ABT-102
5, 9 - turret and hull sides - 43mm ABT-102
12 - lower front hull, 10mm BT-70Sh + 70mm air gap + 60mm ABT-102
13 - middle front hull, 10mm BT-70Sh + 70mm air gap + 12mm BT-70Sh + 60mm ABT-102
In most sources it is stated that BMP-3 is protected against 30mm AP-T at 200 meters, on the front. Note that it's 90's Soviet ammo, which isn't as good as modern stuff.
ADDED:
Also, there's a self-sealing fuel tank in the front, which is intended as last ditch stopping measure (# 31):
-
720p. Kinda. Technically. The best you'd get.
-
Oh well. I expected to see more. The whole show was more like a trolling of foreign intel services. They haven't said a single word about APS, but showed those top-attack clips. They showed two armor plating tests, main armor vs 12.7 and 7.62, and the smaller one that comes with floating add-on side panels vs 5.45. Considering that even BMP-3's front can withstand 30mm, these tests are nothing interesting to look at. Anyways, here's the summary.
- 3 crew, 7 passengers;
- Kurg chassis is intended for: IFV, APC, SAM/AA, REPAIR/EVAC, C3 (Command, Control, Comms);
- Automatic transmission gear box, 6 forward 3 backwards, backwards 20kph;
- Water jets like on BMP-3/BMD-4, 10kph in the water;
- Changeable clearance (delta 0.5m);
- Shares engine with Boomerang, but can be installed with Armata's engine if needed;
- 8 observation cameras, 360 degrees coverage;
- Can be fitted with Nakidka camo;
- Two types of side panels: 1) floats+armor plate; 2) ERA (most likely from BMP-3M, ie 2S24, 500mm RHA, 30kg per block);
- Anti-mine system against mines with electromagnetic fuse, like installed on tanks;
- Turret can rotate endlessly (no gimbal limit);
- Datalink, external guidance, target locator and auto tracking.
Not sure if I missed anything. Gotta look at HD footage to see more details (like HUD UI, etc). Here's low-res recording, waiting for them to upload youtube version.
-
I don't see anything wrong with them using such clips. They're describing modern dangers to armored vehicles. I hope they'd tell us about APS. The show starts in 5 minutes (9.55 MSK), you can watch the stream here
http://www.glaz.tv/online-tv/zvezda
or
whichever works. Latter doesn't work for me, so I give you the alternative.
-
Drop down hatch is indeed a toilet seat. Not sure about the RPGs, probably 18s, but most likely all dummies. Translation? Haha, won't happen. I usually highlight the most important stuff when I post Russian material, so if I don't say anything, it's most likely not that interesting. The tubes near the roof from the previous video, for example, were a part of air filtering system (NBC protection). As per usual, Kurg is able to be operational without people getting out of it for several days. Pretty much standard feature for any combat vehicle.
Oh, and let me be that Captain Obvious for you, when you see all those occasional "СЕКРЕТНО" signs (where they redacted some of the Kurg's internals, amphibious tests and driver's controls etc), that means "CLASSIFIED".
ADDED:
The more the better. They've announced the show about Armata vehicle series on 17th.
Armata soon to be in service.
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
- "Doctor, I am being ignored by everyone!"
- "Next!"