Armata soon to be in service.

[MikeyD]

The turrets are unmanned. Rather like BTR-4 in the game.

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Steve, weren't you the one who said that you're done debating and that we just have to come back here few years down the road? Anyway. I'm sorry to ask, but have you played CMBS?    Salvo fired ATGMs give much better chances defeating modern tanks, or just any vehicle equipped with APS. This particular setup is existing and proven technology (BMP-2M, currently produced for export). Until there's a better ATGM (with qualities similar to RPG-30), they have to stick with 2x2 setup. Compare BMP-2M (2x2) vs Khrizantema (2x1) in CMBS. Sometimes you just have to have more bullets than the other guy.

 

The same way, I don't see them removing other mentioned parts, because they are needed, and they are existing tech already.

 

As for the term "certain", yeah, my knowledge makes me certain. And I back up my certainty with facts and arguments. So far, you were not really good at giving counter arguments. Therefore I understand why you suddenly want to take a stance "I'm done debating, lets just wait and see". Yes, we have to wait and see. Doesn't mean there's nothing to discuss. Even then, it's not like I'm taking a huge loan to make a risky bet at a betting house.

 

 

ADDED:

 

Oh, and lets not forget that Russian platoons have 3 vehicles each. Western have 4 per platoon. 3 Russian IFVs equipped with such ATGM setup have just 6 salvo shots against 4 enemy vehicles. And why keeping spare ATGMs for reloading, if you can just carry them around already prepared for combat? Keeping them inside is a way back to having explosives inside infantry compartment.

 

And if I'm thinking the way their engineers thinking, I'll make it possible for the gunner and commander to be able to operate left and right launchers separately at the same time, from their respective optics packages. Meaning a single vehicle is capable at firing ATGMs at two different targets at the same time (in one sector).

Edited May 7, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[Battlefront.com]

Steve, weren't you the one who said that you're done debating and that we just have to come back here few years down the road?

I'm no longer debating the vehicles, I'm debating your major logic flaw in your continued statements which you apparently won't stop doing because you keep repeating it.

 

Anyway. I'm sorry to ask, but have you played CMBS?    Salvo fired ATGMs give much better chances defeating modern tanks, or just any vehicle equipped with APS. This particular setup is existing and proven technology (BMP-2M, currently produced for export). Until there's a better ATGM (with qualities similar to RPG-30), they have to stick with 2x2 setup. Compare BMP-2M (2x2) vs Khrizantema (2x1) in CMBS. Sometimes you just have to have more bullets than the other guy.

This demonstrates that you missed my point totally and utterly. I was not being literal. I made up something, with almost no thought put into it, in order to demonstrate that your logic of "certainty" is entirely illogical. I did not mean, even for a second, to presume that I know a damned thing about how the Kornet system is or isn't going to be on these vehicles in 2019. That's the whole point I was trying to make! You do NOT KNOW either.

 

The same way, I don't see them removing other mentioned parts, because they are needed, and they are existing tech already.

Then you do not understand how industrial design, production issues, politics, budgets, whims, etc. can affect a program in active development. While I grant you what you said makes removal of the things you listed less likely, they are still not "certain" until the first production vehicle rolls off the line. Hell, the entire project could be cancelled before it goes into full scale production. Unlikely? Perhaps, but unless you have a crystal ball you do not know. You're speculating, just as I am.

 

As for the term "certain", yeah, my knowledge makes me certain. And I back up my certainty with facts and arguments.

No, you are using logical statements to make a conclusion that in the end is still 100% conjecture. Conjecture is fine. Mistaking it for fact is not fine. Which is why we fundamentally are at odds here. You back your arguments with logic + faith, I base mine on logic + skepticism. But until the first production vehicle rolls off the line, neither of us can prove our cases correct or incorrect. Can you and I attempt to prove them more or less likely? Sure, but you keep using the word "certain". Perhaps this word means something different in Russian, but in English it means there is 0% chance of being wrong. There is no argument you can make now that can establish a 0% margin of error.

 

So far, you were not really good at giving counter arguments.

Uhm, unless you can tell the future, I am perfectly content with my counter arguments. Anybody else want to jump in here and voice their opinion, go right ahead.

 

Even then, it's not like I'm taking a huge loan to make a risky bet at a betting house.

Neither am I I'm just not going to risk a penny of our development money until the project is further along.

 

 

Oh, and lets not forget that Russian platoons have 3 vehicles each. Western have 4 per platoon. 3 Russian IFVs equipped with such ATGM setup have just 6 salvo shots against 4 enemy vehicles. And why keeping spare ATGMs for reloading, if you can just carry them around already prepared for combat? Keeping them inside is a way back to having explosives inside infantry compartment.

Putting aside your mistake of taking what I said completely and totally out of context, the reason for having more ATGMs in storage is to retain operational capabilities in the field without having to be rearmed during the course of a battle. Rearming can be a tricky thing to coordinate when forces are on the move and the lines are not established.

Which is why the Bradley, an infantry fighting vehicle, has 2 launchers with 2x TOW in the tubes and 10x TOW stowed inside the vehicle. Meaning that the Bradley has nearly the same practical fighting ability (US doctrine does not salvo fire ATGM) as these new vehicles, but has 3x as much ammo on hand. Plus when you take into consideration platoon size, it means the Bradleys have 8 tubes at the read vs. 12, but 48x TOW vs. 12x Kornet. It also gives the US a 25% advantage in maneuver options because it has 4 vehicles in the mix vs. 3. I'd take the Bradley's configuration in a fight any day of the week.

 

And if I'm thinking the way their engineers thinking, I'll make it possible for the gunner and commander to be able to operate left and right launchers separately at the same time, from their respective optics packages. Meaning a single vehicle is capable at firing ATGMs at two different targets at the same time (in one sector).

If that is how the gunnery controls are set up. It means two sets of controls and I have no idea if that's what they'll do, so I can't comment.

Steve

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Even that feature of separate control of launchers is already done in existing vehicle, Kornet-D. Meaning you can cut corners at least software-wise. Controls? Slew, lock, fire? I don't imagine commander station without such controls. Of course, you can still say that I DO NOT KNOW if commander's station will have such input devices at the end.
 
And the fact that Bradley has 10x TOW missiles inside obviously makes it more infantry friendly
 

I made up something, with almost no thought put into it

 
That's the problem of many of your recent arguments. Like your suggestions as to what Russians should make. First, you said that Russians should do something better than upgraded T-72, but cheaper than T-90. Then changed tune to "better than T-90, but cheaper than Armata". Then, you're "not an engineer" to make any suggestions at all. Then, you're done debating and want to wait till 2019 to see the results.

 

Look, this is how the current experimental vehicles look like. 28 of them are in IFV configuration (tho Boomerangs are clearly underequipped yet, cuz they're running late). I've explained why they do look like this, and why I think they won't change these particular features in the future. I might be wrong, I might be right, yes, nobody knows for 100%, but I am certain of my predictions. APS and other completely new things? There I am not certain at all.

 

And yes, if you wanna counter my arguments, you have to put more thought in yours.

[John Kettler]

LOckAndLOad,

 

In CMBS, the 9P157-2 Krizantema can fire two 9M123 series ATGMs at once. Per the CMBS Manual, page 107, it does this using both the discrete IR and radar targeting systems together, enabling the two missile salvo to occur. But it appears to be the case the game does not model the ability of the Krizantema to simultaneously engage two different targets, something designed into the system from the beginning. This is explicitly stated on the Krizantema-S page of the KBM website. Also unknown to me is whether the game reflects there are thermobaric warhead equipped versions of both the LBR and MMW guided versions of the 9M123. If it does, I see nothing showing this on the vehicle data displayed. 

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20040821030421/http://www.kbm.ru/en/product/atgm/khrizantema-s

 

Advantages:
- capability to engage different types of targets day or night in benign and adverse weather in smoke dust and obscurants;
- automatic guidance of missile to its target in mm-wave channel;
- introduction of an alternative semi-automatic guidance channel;
- simultaneous engagement of two targets;
- short flight time due to supersonic missile flight speed;
- resistance to ECM and IR countermeasures;
- high accuracy and firing rate;
- high warhead lethality.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited May 7, 2015 by John Kettler

[L0ckAndL0ad]

I brought up Khriz into the discussion because it can do salvo and has only 2 missiles ready, then has to reload (and does that the quickest way possible than manual reloading, cuz there's autoloader). Which is worse than having 4 missiles ready to be fired without reloading, as my personal practice shows (if first salvo misses, or even one of the missiles from that salvo misses, you're toast).

 

There are two "guiding" channels on Khriz. Radio and laser. For radio and laser guided missiles respectively. From what I know, salvo shooting of two missiles of one type can be done, by using single channel. You can also do that by firing two different types of missiles, guiding them by different channels. Firing at two different targets, however, on Khriz, is only possible with two different types of missiles (= two different guidance channels used at the same time). In CMBS, there's only one type of missile used, therefore it's only possible to fire salvos, and not at two targets at once.

 

On Kornet-D, there are two identical launchers, with two identical optics packages. My point was that newgen IFVs have very similarly looking optics for gunner and commander, therefore might have similar capabilities, therefore can be used for the same purpose. But that's just my speculation.

 

ADDED:

 

And don't forget that Kornet can be fired on the move, even in salvo mode. Further thinking made me realize that alternatively, you can make gunner fire 30mm, while commander fires ATGM, separately.

Edited May 7, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[agusto]

Sorry for "sniping" at someone in this thread again, but:

 

 
 I might be wrong, I might be right, yes, nobody knows for 100%, but I am certain of my predictions.

 

This sentence contradicts itself. If nobody knows, you cant be certain of what is going to happen either, unless you are nobody of course. But if you were nobody, you couldnt have written that post, which means that you cant be nobody. Thus if only nobody can predict the future with certainity and you are not nobody, you cant be certain of your predictions. There is no certainity outside of closed logical systems like math. What you are saying can be categorized as much as speculative as what Steve is saying.

Edited May 7, 2015 by agusto

[L0ckAndL0ad]

This sentence contradicts itself. If nobody knows, you cant be certain of what is going to happen either, unless you are nobody of course. But if you were nobody, you couldnt have written that post, which means that you cant be nobody. Thus if only nobody can predict the future with certainity and you are not nobody, you cant be certain of your predictions. There is no certainity outside of closed logical systems like math. What you are saying can be categorized as much as speculative as what Steve is saying.

 

True. Even 99% confidence != 100% objective certainty. Therefore you're right, what I'm saying is my personal speculation. And everyone should treat it as such.

 

However, Steve was expressing his own speculations and skepticism, based on his own logic and knowledge. Which turned into a discussion. And in this discussion, so far he wasn't able to counter my arguments. Seeing that he can't do that, he then said "lets just wait and see", and stopped. Nothing wrong about that too, it's just that my arguments still stand.

 

ADDED:

 

I should've used a word "confident". In Russian, "certain" and "confident" can be translated by the same word "уверен".

Edited May 7, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[c3k]

I am curious if ANY weapon system (WWII and on) has lived up to its "hype".

 

German "wonder weapon"? Not a one did what it was said it would do.

M16's debut in Vietnam? 'Nuff said.

F14's Phoenix missile system? Err, not really, and not if you want to land on the carrier. (Don't even mention the F111 as a Navy aircraft.)

M1 Abrams when it rolled out? Yeah, how's that 105 working for you?

T-72? Call me "lefty".

BMP-2/3? 

 

Etc.

 

So, why taking umbrage when this new, still-in-development, yet-to-be-produced, AFV family has skepticism directed at it? Sure, one year it may be THE BEST thing out there. But the odds of that being THIS year (or next, or the one after that) is infinitesimally small. IF it gets produced exactly as it currently is supposed to, it will STILL have issues. By definition, they will be unforeseen, or if foreseen, greater than anticipated.

 

Modern weapons are so expensive that any mistake in their initial production has national consequences. Hence, weapons go through EXTENSIVE development testing BEFORE being produced/issued. (At least, that's how it's done in the West.) Oh, having a 10 year development guarantees that the weapon will need to be modified/modernized during development. That gains more $$$ for the producer. A lot more $$$.

 

I cannot see a factory in Russia having a big switch turned on and A/K/B's start rolling out the door...for years. 

[L0ckAndL0ad]

"hype"

-skip-

Sure, one year it may be THE BEST thing out there. But the odds of that being THIS year (or next, or the one after that) is infinitesimally small

 

Oh, "hype" again. So who exactly is creating a hype here? I said that the new IFVs designs look great, especially for Russia. Especially after BMP-3. So where's the hype? On the pages of crazy media or patriotic sites/forums? There's a lot of it there, for obvious reasons. Why bring it up here, again?

[L0ckAndL0ad]

Conk out during today's rehearsal.

[-Eddie-]

Oops. Seems one broke down.

 

https://twitter.com/MarkUrban01/status/596231779784208384

 

The first reply made me laugh. It's not going to be another Chieftain is it?

Edited May 7, 2015 by -Eddie-

[Kieme(ITA)]

You people just let Steve win the internet...

[Sgt Joch]

 

 

caption: "wonder if we can blame the CIA for this?"

[L0ckAndL0ad]

caption: "wonder if we can blame the CIA for this?"

 

Why not? Directional EMI shot

 

Haven't watched it live. From what I read, it didn't completely broke. The official word is that the driver panicked and called for eng-evac. UVZ IT guy came, turned it off and on again, and drove it on it's own.

 

https://youtu.be/kKWF6lVQk5Y

 

I think it's good that it happened. Will think twice before putting experimental vehicles on parades again.

[Wicky]

Probably knock off copy of Windows 98 simply needed rebooting.... or hooky microchips going wonky

 

http://archive.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2004/03/62806?currentPage=all

Edited May 7, 2015 by Wicky

[exsonic01]

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=39816&p=1165624

 

Someone in tanknet claims that the Afganit is in the same line of Drozd APS. If that is true, the big cylindrical tubes around the neck of the turrets are Afganit APS, while the boxes full of small cylinders are aerosol-type all-IR-blocking smoke launchers. 

 

Is Russian APS back to Drozd type? This is quite surprise to me. So far, I thought small cylinders are Afganit, and big cylinders are smoke launcher, like a part of Shtora-2. So my expectation is in opposite. If that big cylinders are Drozd-like-Afganit, how it can react against top attack and rear attack? Because, those big tubes at the neck of the turret are only watching frontal 180 degree, not the rear side and top side. I can see the APS radar watching all directions, but those APS launchers (only heading front) make me confused.  

Edited May 7, 2015 by exsonic01

[akd]

Cut-out on left-side appears to be for the ejection port.  This shows clearly how deeply recessed the actual turret wall is behind the outer shell.

 

[c3k]

The hi-res photos clearly show how thin that outer turret cover is. A lot of cotter pins holding it in place.

 

Breakdown: oops. Better to describe it as a demo of the recovery vehicle, preplanned, and part of the parade!

[BTR]

I think it's good that it happened. Will think twice before putting experimental vehicles on parades again.

 

Just let's not be french about it. 

[Jotte]

Sorry for "sniping" at someone in this thread again, but:

 

 

This sentence contradicts itself. If nobody knows, you cant be certain of what is going to happen either, unless you are nobody of course. But if you were nobody, you couldnt have written that post, which means that you cant be nobody. Thus if only nobody can predict the future with certainity and you are not nobody, you cant be certain of your predictions. There is no certainity outside of closed logical systems like math. What you are saying can be categorized as much as speculative as what Steve is saying.

 

 

 

 

Jokes aside, it was interesting to see the photos and the movies of these new russian vehicles. Thanks to the folks posting those links (and to the discussion in general)

[L0ckAndL0ad]

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=39816&p=1165624

 

Someone in tanknet claims that the Afganit is in the same line of Drozd APS. If that is true, the big cylindrical tubes around the neck of the turrets are Afganit APS, while the boxes full of small cylinders are aerosol-type all-IR-blocking smoke launchers. 

 

Is Russian APS back to Drozd type? This is quite surprise to me. So far, I thought small cylinders are Afganit, and big cylinders are smoke launcher, like a part of Shtora-2. So my expectation is in opposite. If that big cylinders are Drozd-like-Afganit, how it can react against top attack and rear attack? Because, those big tubes at the neck of the turret are only watching frontal 180 degree, not the rear side and top side. I can see the APS radar watching all directions, but those APS launchers (only heading front) make me confused.  

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118480-armata-soon-to-be-in-service/?p=1605687

[kaburke61]

Lock....He ABSOLUTELY countered your arguments. You are simply too stubborn, or too much of a Russia fanboi to accept any position counter to your own. You "do not know 100%,

but are absolutely certain of your predictions" is utter nonsense. You don't even know 50%, as I doubt you work in the development of said weapons, and all you look at are pictures of "prototypes".

 

Nobody is right or wrong for at least some years ahead, when actual deployments/specifications/etc. are available.

 

The key word here for you is "faith", nothing more.

Edited May 7, 2015 by kaburke61

[Kieme(ITA)]

Cut-out on left-side appears to be for the ejection port.  This shows clearly how deeply recessed the actual turret wall is behind the outer shell.

 

 

Really looks like the outer shell is more a mock up than anything. Look how thin it is on the lower-left part, there's a hole where the first tube ends (the one pointing forward), it's not even 10mm of plate to make up that ugly shaped turret, and behind the metal sheet there's just nothing.. The real turret is much much smaller, and has a different shape.

Why do you think they added all that shell outside?

[Lethaface]

Lock....He ABSOLUTELY countered your arguments. You are simply too stubborn, or too much of a Russia fanboi to accept any position counter to your own. You "do not know 100%,

but are absolutely certain of your predictions" is utter nonsense. You don't even know 50%, as I doubt you work in the development of said weapons, and all you look at are pictures.

 

I know the way things are going in you country (excuse me, your little ANNEXED part of another sovereign country, and yes, I have family that lives in Crimea) that you need all the good news you

can get, but all of this really is nonsense speculation at the moment. Nobody is right or wrong for at least some years ahead, when actual deployments/specifications/etc. are available.

 

The key word here for you is "faith", nothing more.

 

To be fair though, are we dicussing semantics or semi realistic expectations of supposed to be produced vehicles. Hell technically nobody even knows if it will has a radio, or cheezburgers  Your family in Crimea has nothing to do with anything.

I think the points addressed as 'certain' are to be expected on a new IFV fielded by Russia, if only because of L&L reasoning that they all have been realizes on vehicles already in service. 

 

Regarding the whole new AKB range of vehicles I am of a see first, believe second opinion myself. But I wouldn't place a bet on either outcome, so much variables out there. Still it is interesting to see what they have come up with and the discussion here has been interesting to follow though, certainly thought entertaining!

Edited May 7, 2015 by Lethaface