Armata soon to be in service.

[DreDay]

GPV=ГПВ=Российская государственная программа развития вооружений=state rearmament program (not exact translation).

 

There are 2 existing programs (GPV2015 and GPV2020) and 1 future one (GPV2025). Year (after GPV) is the year in which the program ends.

 

I see. Good to know. Thank you for sharing that with me.

[DreDay]

Can be, but I wouldnt if I was a gunner on the platform.

 

Nona-SVK is only in service with VDV and Morpeh anyway. So its likely that only a small number are in service, but they are nothing to do with anti-tank. BTR formations have the integral AT formation for that. Or the tanks that would likely be attached in any combat situation as the formation operates as either a BTG based around the BTR unit or as part of the MRR.

 

Nona-SVK (as opposed to Nona-S (aka 2S9)) is not in service with VDV. Some have been supplied to the Naval Infantry (as you correctly point out), but most are intended to supplement the BTR-based brigades (ie. 15th Peacekeeping brigade). However I do agree with your general premise that its AT capacity is purely for self-defense and should not be relied on for any offensive (or even defensive) missions.

[ikalugin]

To be honest I am very skeptical about the utility of self propelled ATGs, especially if they do not use top notch cannon.

 

Hence why I would prefer to have one more 120mm SP mortar than one more 105mm SP ATG.

[Stagler]

Nona-SVK (as opposed to Nona-S (aka 2S9)) is not in service with VDV. Some have been supplied to the Naval Infantry (as you correctly point out), but most are intended to supplement the BTR-based brigades (ie. 15th Peacekeeping brigade). However I do agree with your general premise that its AT capacity is purely for self-defense and should not be relied on for any offensive (or even defensive) missions.

 

Meh depends where you ask.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/2s23.htm

 

[DreDay]

Meh depends where you ask.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/2s23.htm

 

I am not sure that I follow your point here, bud. The article that you reference draws a distinct difference between Nona-S (2S9) that has been used by VDV and Naval Infantry for several decades now and Nona-SVK (2S23) that has only been deployed to Naval Infantry and Motor-Rifle units.

 

It's really not a big deal either way, but I have seen zero evidence of 2S23 being fielded by VDV. I might very well be wrong, so if you do have some better sources - I would love to check them out.

[hobo]

Here is the scariest line in the article:

 

Within its blueprint, the Armata armored vehicle has the potential to evolve into a fully robotic battle vehicle.

 

This gets us 1 step closer to judgement day.  Anybody know a John Connor?

[Djiaux]

OMG I want James Cameron directing the film, a next gen Russian MBT goes to 1980 to kill Sarah Connor while pretending to be human.

 

- Gimme your clothes

+ Fuch, that tank just spo*KABOOOM*

 

- I can't destroy it with these weapons Sarah, we have to hide until 1996 and wait for the Javelin to be developed.

 

Ok, ok, I'm leaving.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Djiaux

[Nerdwing]

Here is the scariest line in the article:

 

Within its blueprint, the Armata armored vehicle has the potential to evolve into a fully robotic battle vehicle.

 

This gets us 1 step closer to judgement day.  Anybody know a John Connor?

 

Gonna have to settle for John Kettler, Im afraid!

[hobo]

LOL, that was funny.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

We don't take kindly to this kind of tirades in here.

 

Simply sarcasm at the dubious nature of the western threat.

 

 

 

Should every country that does have nuclear weapons disband it's military now?

 

No, but they don't need a military force to ensure their domestic territorial integrity.  Samples:

 

1. American military: Entirely built around expeditionary operations to support foreign policy objectives

2. British military: Entirely built around supporting other people's foreign policy objectives.

3. French military: Operates chiefly in former colonial areas of influence

4. Chinese military: largely internal security actually with growing force projection capabilities.

 

In fact of all the major nuclear powers, the Russians are the only ones that have large conventional military ground forces oriented on repelling a major land invasion.  

 

 

What tanks would you use to make it "armor heavy", Commander? And by "keeping it all under the same BDE/REG", do you mean like having BTR-based BDEs have tanks in them?  

 

"Good stuff", and forces overall, are dispersed along the most threatening axis. These are the exact words from Ru MoD.

 

 

No.  I meant smaller teams with a greater focus on supporting arms.  What was distinctive about the American ACR was how much firepower it brought in smaller parcels, including things like howitzers at company level organizations, BDE organic rotary wing aviation etc.  "heavy" generally refers to in the US use to the armor-infantry mix, a "heavy" organization generally has more tanks than IFVs, or failing that a strong emphasis on AFVs over dismounted forces (the sample Company level organization had 9 MBTs, 13 IFVs with scouts for instance, with organic mortars, forward observer, recovery assets and habitually attached artillery and aviation).  

 

It's a force largely designed to use space and time as its primary tools, given the mobility to properly exploit both.

 

Re: Good stuff

 

And the Maginot line was quite well oriented to deal with the last war too!

 

 

 

Nona is a versatile mortar/light arty system, it is not intended to be used against tanks.

 

I'm aware.  The 30 MM equipped BTRs are neat, but that's not the same building dropping sort of capability that comes with larger weapons.  Nona is a good choice to give that direct fire support/low echelon fires piece.  There should be a better AT tool, but honestly against armor anything wheeled is going to be at best a "defense" tool, but all the same there should be something organic to the BTR organization to deal with tanks on the move.

 

Re: Wheeled ATG

 

Concur.  Not a fan of the MGS.  A more modern missile equipped Stryker ATGM, and a turreted 120 mortar seems like a better choice, as does a larger RWS type weapon system on some of the ICV versions.

 

 

 No, as those armed forces have following missions:

- defending the nukes.

- defending the borders from insurgents, including near-abroad power projection capability.

- defeating limited conventional attacks without going to strategic nukes.

 

How do a few thousand T-72s and BMP-2s achieve this?  They're not optimal for nuke defense, they're not that great for COIN operations (or there's a practical roof to what AFVs can do), and they're forces that would be pretty easily brushed aside in the face of someone conducting a conventional attack.

 

Russian army can get a lot smaller before it's unable to accomplish any of those missions, and the utility of what it continues to retain is questionable.

 

Re: Robot tanks

 

Hah.

[Do Right]

John Kettler,

About the robotics test they faced. They used just the tank no hands, to string Christmas lights on the front of many buildings all the way down the street. SAME TIME THE TANK DID THIS, tank front collected ping pong balls located in the street in front of tank. After winning, they go to World. I felt the Christmas lights were a simulation of multiple rounds being fired. One after another,etc.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Do Right

[ikalugin]

Panzer, tanks are required for the 3rd task I have described. And that is where a lot of them are required (for example 2300 tanks transfer into 46 -long- tnk battalions, which would give you for example 2 tnk 10 heavy, 20 normal motorised rifle BDEs).

Providing examples of France and UK is incorrect, as they are allied with all of their neighbours and do not face any potential external threats (Poland plays and excellent meatshield).

Edited March 31, 2015 by ikalugin

[Tank Hunter]

It's not that hard to understand the reasoning of Russian doctorine. It's purely historical. Russia is like an assault victim that almost died. It will do whatever necessary to prevent that from happening again. If you look at the numbers below you'll understand (these are only millitary, the real numbers are twice that high). Nukes are fine but what if that option is not possible or avaliable, using nukes against a nuclear armed opponent is suicidal hence the nukes will in that case keep it convential. You need to have a backup plan. Everyone in the neighborhood knows that Russia is living in a safe area but tell that to the victim.. Their strategy is to fight a war as far away as possible from Russian border that's why having a buffer to potential enemy is crucial for Russia. Why let Russian people suffer when you can let Polish or Ukranian do that for you.

[ikalugin]

This info graphic is not entirely accurate as it mixes up irrecoverable losses and military deaths (to say the least).

 

Russian military doctrine is actually quite straight forward and focuses on the three points I have described (+military prestige which leads to stuff like operating a carrier).

[L0ckAndL0ad]

No.  I meant smaller teams with a greater focus on supporting arms.  What was distinctive about the American ACR was how much firepower it brought in smaller parcels, including things like howitzers at company level organizations, BDE organic rotary wing aviation etc.  "heavy" generally refers to in the US use to the armor-infantry mix, a "heavy" organization generally has more tanks than IFVs, or failing that a strong emphasis on AFVs over dismounted forces (the sample Company level organization had 9 MBTs, 13 IFVs with scouts for instance, with organic mortars, forward observer, recovery assets and habitually attached artillery and aviation).  

 

It's a force largely designed to use space and time as its primary tools, given the mobility to properly exploit both.

You still haven't said what would you do with 800K strong Armed Forces (that's including all branches, with Ground Forces being at, what is it, 400K now?). And how much tanks would you allocate, and which vehicles you'd use.

 

If using 9 MBT/13 IFV per Company, 600 T-90s and 600 BMP-3s would suffice for 46 Companies (15 Battalions/5 Brigades?), with around 200 T-90 tanks left free. That's while not touching thousands of T-72/BMP-2s, and not getting into BTRs/VDV vehicles. If you want BTRs, there is like 400-600  BTR-82As, and you can expect the same amount of 82AMs (80s upgraded to 82A level). Pure 80s are available in thousands as well.

 

Re: Good stuff

 

And the Maginot line was quite well oriented to deal with the last war too!

 

You've said you want them to cover possible enemy axis of advance, and defend key facilities. That's what they do already. What does it have to do with Maginot line?

 

I'm aware.  The 30 MM equipped BTRs are neat, but that's not the same building dropping sort of capability that comes with larger weapons.  Nona is a good choice to give that direct fire support/low echelon fires piece.  There should be a better AT tool, but honestly against armor anything wheeled is going to be at best a "defense" tool, but all the same there should be something organic to the BTR organization to deal with tanks on the move.

 

Notice how awfully soft-skinned BTRs are. I'm pretty sure that the reason why they did not get bigger weapons was the same as why Stryker ICVs didn't get big weapons - to discourage their use as IFVs, and not APCs. BTR-90 did not get more armor at the time, while it had a firepower of IFV, so it makes sense why they haven't adopted it.

Edited March 31, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[ikalugin]

About the current state of the tank inventory and future changes. The tank inventory is currently centered around T72 and T90 series (which are quite common between each other), with two notable exceptions (Moscow and Kurils). By the logic of the rearmament program Eastern MD was next in line to receive new vehicles (ie Armata/Kurganets/Bumerang). A break down using open sources appears to be:

 

T72B(A)

- 7th Tnk BDE

- 28 MR BDE

Total of ~ 150 vehicles.

 

T72B3

- 6th Tnk BDE

- 21st MR BDE

- 9th MR BDE

- 138th MR BDE

- 200th MR BDE

- 17th MR BDE

- 18th MR BDE

- 205th MR BDE

- 74th MR BDE

- 38th MR BDE

- 39th MR BDE

- 64th MR BDE

Total of ~680 vehicles upgraded 2012-2014.

 

T90A

- 2nd MRD (one of the battalions)

- 19th MR BDE

- 20th MR BDE

- 136th MR BDE

- 27th MR BDE

Total of ~330 tanks produced 2004-2011.

 

You would notice that after Armata decision was made (around 2010?) the orders for the all new but older generation (T90A/BMP3) AFVs stoped (and only existing orders were completed) and the factories were fed with upgrade orders (T72B3 and others) to keep the work force ready/employed untill Armata (and Kurganets/Bumerang) goes into full production.

Edited March 31, 2015 by ikalugin

[ikalugin]

Hence the current idea is to replace the older vehicles by the MD with new generation ones (Armata-Kurganets-Bumerang) while having placeholder upgrades on the older vehicles in the MDs which would receive new generation AFVs last (ie South and West). That said this could (and probably would) change due to changing political climate (Russia allighning with PRC) with increased emphasis on the western approaches.

[L0ckAndL0ad]

 

T90A

- 2nd MRD (one of the battalions)

- 19th MR BDE

- 20th MR BDE

- 136th MR BDE

- 27th MR BDE

Total of ~330 tanks produced 2004-2011.

 

You would notice that after Armata decision was made (around 2010?) the orders for the all new but older generation (T90A/BMP3) AFVs stoped (and only existing orders were completed) and the factories were fed with upgrade orders (T72B3 and others) to keep the work force ready/employed untill Armata (and Kurganets/Bumerang) goes into full production.

 

There are also 200+ T-90s mothballed, which makes a total number of around 600. Also, BMP-3s are currently in production. To support production lines/workers, I suppose.

Edited March 31, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[ikalugin]

This is a training unit, not a major combat unit being re armed.

 

There is a significant difference between T90, T90A obr 2004, T90A obr 2006. Hence I would go deeper into those counts.

Plus there are less known T80U mods.

Edited March 31, 2015 by ikalugin

[L0ckAndL0ad]

This is a training unit, not a major combat unit being re armed.

 

There is a significant difference between T90, T90A obr 2004, T90A obr 2006. Hence I would go deeper into those counts.

Plus there are less known T80U mods.

 

You're right. I'm wrong with the timings. However, there's been this, along with infamous BTR-90 statement:

 

http://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12004849@egNews

 

As for T-90s, I'm simply being generous

Edited March 31, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[ikalugin]

It mentiones BTR90 as being procured with the BMP3.

 

That said the numbers are great, especially if they appear by magic and cost nothing to Russia. I mean how could I be against 5k all new and 6k upgraded AFVs by 2020?

Edited March 31, 2015 by ikalugin

[L0ckAndL0ad]

 Those numbers are part of the old GPV that's already being planned to change in 2018, so don't bother with them. The emphasis is on BMP-3, which is consistent with prior claims. BTR-90 claim is puzzling for everyone, like I've said.

Edited March 31, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[ikalugin]

We will see.

[Vanir Ausf B]

There are also 200+ T-90s mothballed, which makes a total number of around 600.

 

  Why mothball T-90s while T-72s are still in service?

[L0ckAndL0ad]

According to wiki, there's 120x T-90, 32x early T-90A and 337x late T-90A. Mothballed ones are older, early models. They've stopped buying/upgrading them in 2010-2011 (production for export keeps going) because they wanted newer and better MBT of their own (T-14), while not spending too much on old stuff. This is why they went for cheap T-72B3 upgrades instead, before T-14 is ready for mass production.

 

Another reason for keeping some amount of T-90s in storage might be - spare parts/replacements.