Jump to content

Armata soon to be in service.


Lee_Vincent

Recommended Posts

Logical? Only if you isolate this aspect from other aspects. If you ask if it is logical to fall 30cm to the ground safely, I agree if the person is in control of his actions, doesn't have any major health problems and that the ground itself isn't dangerous. If you then ask me if it is logical to fall 30cm safely if pushed hard and that there is broken glass on the ground then I say it is illogical that the end outcome will be safe.

Let's look at my favorite Sgt. York example. The entire purpose of the vehicle was to shoot down low flying aircraft. It had no other purpose. The obvious key piece of equipment was the tracking/guidance system. The US had, even at the time, a very long and successful track record for producing what later became known as "smart technology". Billions of Dollars were allocated to the project and plenty of time was allowed for.

Logically the US had everything it needed to build a successful weapons system. Logically they should not have built even one vehicle armed with a system that wasn't proven to work. Certainly, logically speaking, they would not have built 50 with a system that wasn't proven to work.

Yet it turned out that none of this happened logically.

Which is why I keep insisting that you are making a "leap of faith" that logic = fact. It does not. It very well could turn out that the APS is 100% ready for production right now, today. But it could also be like the Sgt. York in that it works as intended 95% of the time, but the 5% of the time it fails is fatal to the system's usefulness.

So how could the starting logic fail so miserably in this instance? Easily explained...

 

I was talking about what can be assumed to be happening, what is most likely happening. I've never called it a "fact". Silly statements become irritating.

 

Always assuming the worst and not what's most logical is not really a good way to predict results. I have no idea how Americans managed to ef up Sgt. York, but the reliance on certain APS qualities in the new projects is too big (especially on T-14) to think they didn't test it before going forward. It's pretty much make or break for T-14. A decisive factor in calling it either a tank or a tank-destroyer.

 

Logically this is true, but only in a very limited sense because it is isolated from other logic. Specifically, that logically politics and corruption are two major factors at play in any large government project, Russia or otherwise. Logically the more politics are a factor and the more inherently corrupt the system is, the more impact politics and corruption have on outcome. Remember the BMP-3 disaster? From a R&D/production standpoint it should never have happened the way it did because it was illogical on an engineering basis. Yet it did have major issues because politics and corruption were more powerful forces. If you include that in the equation, then logically the BMP-3 R&D led to a poor outcome.

A/K/B are politically charged already and Russian corruption is some of the worst in the world. Therefore, it is logical to assume that politics and corruption will have an impact on their development and production. It is also logical to assume that the impact will be decidedly negative in terms of outcome.

I absolutely can see vehicles being rushed into "testing" because to delay it until it is ready would mean losing face. Corruption kicks in to keep it quiet. This is logical.

BTW, I knew one of the lead programmers on the Sgt. York project. I even stayed at his house for two nights back in the early 1990s. I've got a little more insight into what went wrong than most people because I heard it first hand from one of the guys who was tasked with fixing the specific part that wasn't working right. And he said they just couldn't do it with the technology available to them at the time.

 

BMP-3 can be used as a good example here only in terms of lobbying bad designs or rushing stuff with unreliable components to mass production. But BMP-3 was operational when they've started producing them.

 

As for corruption, rushing, and losing face, yeah. Sure. This is the most dangerous thing to watch out for. But it'd depend on how people in control of actual development would be able to fight it. They certainly want their projects to succeed. It's not Soviet Union and not even the 90's anymore. More over, UVZ is not govt owned, it's a corporation. It is in their best interest to make products that buyers will be happy with. And btw, T-14 will be shown on RAE-2015, in September.

 

Good, and thanks. Next question. Knowing that I don't have direct access to the "Mariana Trench" of Ukrainian and Russian language sources or first hand experience with either culture, how was I able to make those predictions? Your logic suggests this is not possible because direct access to the information is a prerequisite for understanding, which is what non-guess predictions are based on. Your logic also suggests that a person with full access to the information should make predictions that are proven incorrect, especially when someone without the information is proven correct.

Which leads to the follow up question... how is it possible that someone with less information can make better predictions than someone with more information if, as you say, the missing information is so critical to understanding? I know it's not a yes/no question, so I'll simplify:

If the "Mariana Trench" information is so critically important to understanding, should someone with full access to it be proven wrong by someone with limited access to it?

 

You were able to do it because you've studied it extensively. No, I've never said that it's impossible to make accurate predictions. I said you'd be more prone to failure while filling blanks. So, while some of your statements and predictions are true, some of them not.

 

As for the next question. No, generally. But you obviously want to say that I was wrong about stuff that you were right about, and therefore you are as good at knowing stuff about my part of the world as I am. That's what you imply. I disagree with such statement. In some cases that you're implying, I was being cautious before making final judgement. Especially where I was able to participate myself - I was trying to get rid of any prejudice and look at stuff from a completely neutral perspective. I don't feel even a tiny bit sorry about giving someone a benefit of a doubt. And I don't remember a single case of you "proving me wrong". You can't "prove wrong" someone who isn't sure yet about it.

 

Keeping things generic, so as not to derail this thread, the answer is that although I do not see the full picture, more-or-less what I do see is sufficient for understanding what is going on. This is in large part due to me spending the last 25 years of studying this sort of thing. Autocratic regimes tend to follow similar patterns, therefore I can predict some basic trends of Putin's regime without reading a single thing in any language. It is like someone who studies the flight of birds knowing, inherently, that if you drop a bunch of turkeys out of a helicopter the results are not going to be pretty (that is an obscure US cultural reference that does date me!).

At the same time, I am not bombarded daily by a "Mariana Trench" of deliberate and coordinated disinformation coming from the same people who are directing the events in Ukraine. Which means I am not distracted nor confused by this information because, for the most part, I am not exposed to it. When I am exposed to it I find it pretty easy to identify as crap information. Much like the things I've said about Russia Today's self declared "experts" that are, in fact, totally unqualified people selected to peddle nonsense.

Would I prefer to speak Russian and Ukrainian to decide for myself? Yes, absolutely. But is it necessary for understanding the larger forces at work and roughly how they interact with each other? No, it absolutely is not.

 

Even if you read high end stuff like BBC, you are. That's the last thing I'm going to say on this (off) topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was talking about what can be assumed to be happening, what is most likely happening. I've never called it a "fact". Silly statements become irritating.

I am reacting to how you phrase things in English after repeated counter points. You are definitely putting too much faith in one line of logic as if that's the only thing that counts. It doesn't.

 

Always assuming the worst and not what's most logical is not really a good way to predict results.

If the worst is the usual historical end result, then it is a good way to predict results :D Seriously, all I'm trying to do is show that there are different trains of logic involved in determining outcome. You have chosen to focus exclusively on the technical side of things and made some fundamental assumptions, although logical, about how things are going up to this point. There are other things you need to consider. Politics and corruption are two major ones, but there's a large number of more routine things that plague large government/industry projects no matter what country we are talking about.

I have no idea how Americans managed to ef up Sgt. York, but the reliance on certain APS qualities in the new projects is too big (especially on T-14) to think they didn't test it before going forward. It's pretty much make or break for T-14. A decisive factor in calling it either a tank or a tank-destroyer.

The guidance system for the Sgt. York was even more important to its success than the APS is for T-14. By far. And yet they built 50 vehicles with a broken system.

Why? Because they were under pressure to keep the project moving along or at the very least they would lose their jobs. The system basically worked so they thought they could fake some results to keep the project alive while they figured out how to fix the remaining problems. This is a fairly normal thing to experience in a large project, including the development of Combat Mission as a matter of fact. It only becomes a problem when the problem can't be fixed at all or at least within acceptable parameters.

For all any of us knows the APS mounted on the T-14s for the parade is a non-functional or semi-functional mockup. Or it is 100% ready for production yesterday, or somewhere close to it. We simply do not know, and "logic" is not a good guide for figuring out the answer because there's competing "logic" at work.

 

BMP-3 can be used as a good example here only in terms of lobbying bad designs or rushing stuff with unreliable components to mass production. But BMP-3 was operational when they've started producing them.

 

As for corruption, rushing, and losing face, yeah. Sure. This is the most dangerous thing to watch out for. But it'd depend on how people in control of actual development would be able to fight it. They certainly want their projects to succeed. It's not Soviet Union and not even the 90's anymore. More over, UVZ is not govt owned, it's a corporation. It is in their best interest to make products that buyers will be happy with. And btw, T-14 will be shown on RAE-2015, in September.

Good indications that things will go better than BMP-3, but Sgt. York was made under similar circumstances with a government that is far less corrupt and has vastly more oversight of projects. Again, I am not saying this means A/K/B will be the same as BMP-3, but it absolutely can not be ruled out.

 

You were able to do it because you've studied it extensively. No, I've never said that it's impossible to make accurate predictions. I said you'd be more prone to failure while filling blanks. So, while some of your statements and predictions are true, some of them not.

For sure I am fallible. Nobody can predict the future with complete accuracy. Nobody can predict the behavior of a specific person. I am also certainly more prone to failure than I would be if I was studying this 10 hours a day with access to direct sources of information (i.e. if I worked for an intelligence agency or company). But my track record is pretty good and therefore I do not feel the lack of direct access to the Mariana Trench is a significant impediment.

 

As for the next question. No, generally. But you obviously want to say that I was wrong about stuff that you were right about, and therefore you are as good at knowing stuff about my part of the world as I am. That's what you imply. I disagree with such statement. In some cases that you're implying, I was being cautious before making final judgement. Especially where I was able to participate myself - I was trying to get rid of any prejudice and look at stuff from a completely neutral perspective. I don't feel even a tiny bit sorry about giving someone a benefit of a doubt. And I don't remember a single case of you "proving me wrong". You can't "prove wrong" someone who isn't sure yet about it.

There is a difference between keeping an open mind (neutral) and denying basic facts. I will not go into the specific examples from our previous discussion (though they easily come to mind), rather I'll use an analogy.

One weatherman says it is going to rain around noontime. Another weatherman says it will be sunny the whole day. You decide to keep an open mind and you go outside about your business, even though the second weatherman is known to make bad statements. Fair enough.

Around 11am the skies darken. This is already contrary to what the second weatherman stated and is consistent with what the first one predicted. At this point you should no longer have an open mind because the facts directly support one position and not the other. It still might not rain at noon, but you should be thinking that it is more likely to be raining than sunny.

Then at noon it rains as the first weatherman predicted. The second weatherman, on the other hand, is still saying it is sunny out, even though you are now soaking wet.

The next time the two weathermen say something different, are you still going to keep an open mind as if both have equal chance of being correct or incorrect?

Even if you read high end stuff like BBC, you are. That's the last thing I'm going to say on this (off) topic.

I can't even remember the last BBC thing I read. I've read more "Novorussian" and Russian media than I have BBC.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ooo... this is something I wrote and now I think it might not sound so good to a non-native English speaker. I shall rephrase this:

 

There is a difference between keeping an open mind (neutral) and denying basic facts. I will not go into the specific examples from our previous discussion (though they easily come to mind), rather I'll use an analogy.

Rewritten:

Keeping an open mind (neutral opinion) is sometimes a good thing, sometimes not. If you have never tried a particular meal, for example, generally it is a good idea to keep an open mind when trying it. However, if the specific meal is a seafood based meal, and you know from prior experience that you are allergic to seafood, then keeping an open mind is (at best) not wise and (at worse) potentially harmful. Likewise, does anybody think it is a good idea to keep an open mind about the results of driving into a brick wall at high speeds? No. Why not? Because the known facts indicate that you SHOULD have an opinion and it SHOULD NOT be that all things are equally plausible until proven otherwise.

As I have said, I have no idea how A/K/B will look at any particular point in time. Admitting that, despite having strong opinions about the chances that it will happen, is a sign of a healthy and informed open mind. Thinking that there was any reason to believe Russia was going to allow for a fair referendum of the entire Crimean people was a questionable position to have in the first place (authoritarian regimes aren't known for honest elections), but after the ballot questions were announced and and credible outside verification was denied... well... driving into brick wall territory.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All,

 

There is an investment site called Fool.com which has a useful piece on the T-14 Armata, planned buy, haggling with MoD, avoidance of any mention by either UVZ or the MoD of the price and much more. The writer seems to feel that the tank could trigger a big backlash from the US, to include a new US MBT, restart of FCS and more. If so, it'll be good to be General Dynamics! The article does have the notion the T-14 buy will be 2300, which I now understand was a total new type AFV buy, not the planned T-14 buy.

 

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/02/14/russias-t-14-armata-tank-may-feature-a-fatal-flaw.aspx

 

LOckAndLOad,

 

The new catalog entries are interesting (please get them to add a translate button), but you left out the Terminators! No, I'm not kidding.

 

Terminator

http://uvz.ru/product/70/39

 

Terminator 2

 

http://uvz.ru/product/70/67

 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am reacting to how you phrase things in English after repeated counter points. You are definitely putting too much faith in one line of logic as if that's the only thing that counts. It doesn't.

 

The word "faith" looks like a dead horse by now. But as it turns out....

 

If the worst is the usual historical end result, then it is a good way to predict results :D Seriously, all I'm trying to do is show that there are different trains of logic involved in determining outcome. You have chosen to focus exclusively on the technical side of things and made some fundamental assumptions, although logical, about how things are going up to this point. There are other things you need to consider. Politics and corruption are two major ones, but there's a large number of more routine things that plague large government/industry projects no matter what country we are talking about.

 

Lets look at what you've said way back. 5 days ago.

 

Third, I did not think the APS is meant to hard kill top attack missiles. If they do intend it to do that, then I do not think they have the ability to produce it any time soon.

"Russia absolutely needs a powerful APS, therefore it must build one. I believe it is capable of doing it."

Mine is:

"Russia absolutely needs a powerful APS, therefore it would like to build one. I do not believe it is capable of doing it."

 

So if I "put too much faith in one line of logic", then so do you, because our statements look identical, with your being one "not" word longer.

 

One should not be so cruel to dead animals or be intentionally irritating with other people.

 

The guidance system for the Sgt. York was even more important to its success than the APS is for T-14. By far. And yet they built 50 vehicles with a broken system.

Why? Because they were under pressure to keep the project moving along or at the very least they would lose their jobs. The system basically worked so they thought they could fake some results to keep the project alive while they figured out how to fix the remaining problems. This is a fairly normal thing to experience in a large project, including the development of Combat Mission as a matter of fact. It only becomes a problem when the problem can't be fixed at all or at least within acceptable parameters.

For all any of us knows the APS mounted on the T-14s for the parade is a non-functional or semi-functional mockup. Or it is 100% ready for production yesterday, or somewhere close to it. We simply do not know, and "logic" is not a good guide for figuring out the answer because there's competing "logic" at work.

 

Should I tell you that every single time when you're trying to predict events?

 

Good indications that things will go better than BMP-3, but Sgt. York was made under similar circumstances with a government that is far less corrupt and has vastly more oversight of projects. Again, I am not saying this means A/K/B will be the same as BMP-3, but it absolutely can not be ruled out.

 

Yep, it cannot.

 

For sure I am fallible. Nobody can predict the future with complete accuracy. Nobody can predict the behavior of a specific person. I am also certainly more prone to failure than I would be if I was studying this 10 hours a day with access to direct sources of information (i.e. if I worked for an intelligence agency or company). But my track record is pretty good and therefore I do not feel the lack of direct access to the Mariana Trench is a significant impediment.

 

Just because you feel like it, doesn't mean it's true. I told you that it isn't. It is your choice not to listen.

 

There is a difference between keeping an open mind (neutral) and denying basic facts. I will not go into the specific examples from our previous discussion (though they easily come to mind), rather I'll use an analogy.

One weatherman says it is going to rain around noontime. Another weatherman says it will be sunny the whole day. You decide to keep an open mind and you go outside about your business, even though the second weatherman is known to make bad statements. Fair enough.

Around 11am the skies darken. This is already contrary to what the second weatherman stated and is consistent with what the first one predicted. At this point you should no longer have an open mind because the facts directly support one position and not the other. It still might not rain at noon, but you should be thinking that it is more likely to be raining than sunny.

Then at noon it rains as the first weatherman predicted. The second weatherman, on the other hand, is still saying it is sunny out, even though you are now soaking wet.

The next time the two weathermen say something different, are you still going to keep an open mind as if both have equal chance of being correct or incorrect?

 

If by "facts" you mean stuff that happened before the fact of denial, then I do not remember anything like that on my part. If you mean that when facts happened after the fact of denial, like, when you were trying to predict the future, then we come back to your phrase: "we simply don't know" (didn't know). Oops.

 

And that analogy with weathermen is too far from the situation that it tries to portray to be valuable.

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All,

 

There is an investment site called Fool.com which has a useful piece on the T-14 Armata, planned buy, haggling with MoD, avoidance of any mention by either UVZ or the MoD of the price and much more. The writer seems to feel that the tank could trigger a big backlash from the US, to include a new US MBT, restart of FCS and more. If so, it'll be good to be General Dynamics! The article does have the notion the T-14 buy will be 2300, which I now understand was a total new type AFV buy, not the planned T-14 buy.

 

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/02/14/russias-t-14-armata-tank-may-feature-a-fatal-flaw.aspx

 

 The article they are referring to has no credibility, because it has no source. And those anonymous numbers directly contradict latest and actually official statements. And, yeah, of course, 2300 tanks, blah blah blah.

 

LOckAndLOad,

 

The new catalog entries are interesting (please get them to add a translate button), but you left out the Terminators! No, I'm not kidding.

 

The entries with data never actually appeared on that page, as I excepted them to. Some peeps say that they were there and later taken off, and still can be found in stuff like google cache, but I haven't actually tried to look it up. Either way, one should be cautious about those numbers.

 

As for Terminators, I thought they've already had them there.

 

What people are really missing out tho is what I've said previously about APS patent. The first actual evidence to suggest that Afghanit (at least heavy version) is aimed to defeat tank rounds and has steerable munitions.

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Latest official statement from UVZ's CEO Sienko (in Russian):

 

https://youtu.be/MOt-_cSjSBY

 

  • They consider export of Armata (and will show it on RAE-2015 in September), but domestic contracts are still a priority.
  • As stated before, they're aiming to start field trials this year. Field trials will take at least one year (which is likely a reduction of previous 2016-2019 gap after latest meeting in Sochi with Putin).
  • Main engineer workforce involved is between 25 and 40 years old (a very good thing, IMO).
  • Armata's development was component-based, and all baseline components are formed by now (as I've expected them to be).
  • Overall (unit + support) cost for Armata vehicles is still lower than of (Western?) competitors.
Edited by L0ckAndL0ad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOckAndLOad,

 

I never said the article was correct in every particular. I presented it because I thought it covered some previously untrod by us ground. And I did note the apparent mistake on the Armata buy, so I have no idea why you're on about it. In the larger scheme of things in the article, that's fairly insignificant. What is significant to me is that neither the manufacturer nor the buyer will so much as mention a cost number. Yet with cost is at the heart of defense procurement, the conclusion here is obvious: the T-14 must be ridiculously expensive for both parties to hide the tank's cost.

 

Having read the unfortunately weirdly worded English translation of the Afghanit patent (if that's what it was), I absolutely concur that this is a weapon designed to defeat, in ascending order of severity, RPGs, ATGMs and HVAPFSDS--all by hard kill. The technical description was quite confusing, and I'm not at all sure your interpretation of the front end is right, but there is no doubt this weapon is designed to provide a very high probability of survival of the defended AFV vs even the most demanding of battlefield horizontal plane threats. I looked for, but didn't see, any specific discussion of use vs high diver ATGMs. I bookmarked the link not just because of the primary item, but also because of the armor protection stuff, too, including the tear out the glacis armor and replace it with integral ERA protection, and the radical electric armor scheme. This has been discussed for many years in the West, but this is the first detailed description of an actual system I've ever seen. Also, I very much appreciate the helo APS material. Was unaware of it, but the US has been losing helos to RPG fire clear back to the Vietnam War. An open source study I saw, and may still have somewhere, done on the Viet Cong air defense threat directly listed the RPG as an antihelicopter threat and described such use.

 

V-22

 

Turning now to other matters, I wanted to provide some material on the (allegedly successful) V-22 Osprey program, whose test result falsification scandal, which is but a tiny part of what the first link addresses, I previously mentioned.

 

The V-22 Scandal

 

http://www.g2mil.com/scandal.htm
 

How to lie with V-22 statistics? Start by constantly changing the rules of what is and isn't a Class A flying accident--using your own service's people as the deciders! Count the successes of the Air Force's CV-22 Osprey's when it suits, but ignore the failures, especially as it applies to crash numbers. If a V-22 takes off spontaneously, then crashes, invoke "no intent to fly," and the Class A flying accident goes away.  Too many crashes based on a million dollar damage threshold or a fatality? Change the number to two million and apply it retroactively, a forbidden practice. Those deceptions and blatant falsifications alone are but the small portion of a raft of shenanigans, many of which should be actionable, to get the V-22 into service, keep it there and get more of them built, for both domestic use and FMS. See for yourselves. 

 

Osprey Down (from 2011)

 

http://www.wired.com/2011/10/osprey-down/

 

And just look! On May 17, 2015  another V-22 crashed in a hard landing and burst into flames, with at least one dead and another 21 hospitalized. The bird is utterly destroyed. The Marines will have to count this one as a Class A flying mishap.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3085795/One-Marine-killed-21-hospitalized-V-22-Osprey-suffers-hard-landing-training-exercise-Hawaii.html 

 

From the above, it should be eminently clear the US defense procurement system is perfectly capable of all sorts of initiating and continuing all sorts of outrageous behavior which continues to pile up a horrific toll of killed and injured, together with enormous unreported costs. The T-14 may or may not work, and if sent to war, may somehow, which I doubt, be a deathtrap for its crews, but it can't begin to match what the Osprey has cost the US so far--over and above all the tragic, and largely avoidable, human costs--in excess of $30 billion in procurement costs to date. Compared to that, the T-14 isn't even pocket change.

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOckAndLOad,

 

 

I got distracted and forgot to mention that I went back and checked the two Terminator pages. Both are still up. Both have spec sheets, too. They look legit to me.

 

Also, I see I have a redundant "all sorts" in my prior post. Which I can't fix.

 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Latest official statement from UVZ's CEO Sienko (in Russian):

 

https://youtu.be/MOt-_cSjSBY

 

  • They consider export of Armata (and will show it on RAE-2015 in September), but domestic contracts are still a priority.
  • As stated before, they're aiming to start field trials this year. Field trials will take at least one year (which is likely a reduction of previous 2016-2019 gap after latest meeting in Sochi with Putin).
  • Main engineer workforce involved is between 25 and 40 years old (a very good thing, IMO).
  • Armata's development was component-based, and all baseline components are formed by now (as I've expected them to be).
  • Overall (unit + support) cost for Armata vehicles is still lower than of (Western?) competitors.

 

 

So am I understanding your information correctly that Putin has now decreased the trials time for the whole project? 

 

Younger engineers is perhaps a good thing.  Or at least it is likely a good thing in an environment where there needs to be a break with the practices of the past.

 

Export... I've been wondering about this.  Even if we assume T-14 is $8m to a foreign customer, that's a LOT of money.  I don't see many on Russia's usual customer list that can afford vehicles in that price range.  Or at least very many of them.  So I wonder how much of an export market they expect to have.

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets look at what you've said way back. 5 days ago.

Yeah, I did say something more definite than I should have.  Must have been my mood that day ;)  Other than that, I've been saying that technically Russia could produce an APS system successful against top attack given various favorable circumstances.  I just think the odds are against them that they will do so in a meaningful way (i.e. large enough numbers to have a practical effect).

 

 

 

So if I "put too much faith in one line of logic", then so do you, because our statements look identical, with your being one "not" word longer.

 

One should not be so cruel to dead animals or be intentionally irritating with other people.

Oh yes, the only reason why I am spending my time typing this stuff is to be intentionally irritating to you.  It's all I live for, actually. (sigh)

Look, it's pretty simple.  You started out with a very non-compromising position that everything would happen pretty much as Russia plans and nothing has any real chance of derailing it.  You've been hammering at me with a very isolated train of logic that boils down to "Russia needs this, therefore it will get it".  The other trains of logic, such as corruption, financing, unsurmountable technical issues, and the "laws of military development" must also be considered.  You are finally conceeding these points after 70+ pages of arguing they don't exist or are the result of my bias, ignorance, or pessimistic attitude.   Now that you have finally come around to agreeing with almost the same points I was making 70+ pages ago, you still seem tempted to make the same logic errors that got us 70+ pages of arguments.  I'm just trying to save us from another 70+ :D

 

 

Should I tell you that every single time when you're trying to predict events?

Since I'm aware of it and admit it, what's the point?  BTW, you do know that your arguments here are also predictions of the future and that it's been like pulling teeth to get you to admit that you might be wrong with your predictions?

 

 

Just because you feel like it, doesn't mean it's true. I told you that it isn't. It is your choice not to listen.

I've listened, but you've been unable to support your argument that I'm not lucky yet I don't know what I'm talking about because I lack direct access to various pieces of information.  The simple fact is that I'm doing fine understanding and predicting what happens in Ukraine without direct access to the "Mariana Trench" of information.

 

 

If by "facts" you mean stuff that happened before the fact of denial, then I do not remember anything like that on my part.

You remember incorrectly, then.  If you want me to remind you of the evidence that there was no chance of a free/fair referrendum before it took place, yet you brushed aside, I can do that.  But I'd prefer not to.  Instead, I think it better to just remind yourself that by definition a person who rejects the relevance and meaning of obvious facts is not keeping an "open mind" because filtering out such evidence is by nature showing bias.

 

 

If you mean that when facts happened after the fact of denial, like, when you were trying to predict the future, then we come back to your phrase:]"we simply don't know" (didn't know). Oops.

I'm not sure what you are saying, but I think I've pretty consistently stated that my predictions about A/K/B might be wrong in some way or even in total.  I've been doing this since the start.  You, on the other hand, have only started doing that in the last few pages.  Until then you've be pretty much going with the concept that since Russia has made a plan, and the plan is of vital importance, that it won't flub it up.

 

 

And that analogy with weathermen is too far from the situation that it tries to portray to be valuable.

The analogy is sound and relevant, but I'm not going to push it as there seems little point.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I did say something more definite than I should have.  Must have been my mood that day ;)  Other than that, I've been saying that technically Russia could produce an APS system successful against top attack given various favorable circumstances.  I just think the odds are against them that they will do so in a meaningful way (i.e. large enough numbers to have a practical effect).

 

Yeah, not the first time I force you to change your statement. Doing something right, I suppose.

 

I dunno, going for 52 vehicles in the first batch, and 100 of each type for field trials, which is very unusual for Russian R&D cycle, I think they're aiming for large numbers. I do understand your concerns about the future numbers of them. But I still think they are able to do it, if they really want it.

 

Oh yes, the only reason why I am spending my time typing this stuff is to be intentionally irritating to you.  It's all I live for, actually. (sigh)

Look, it's pretty simple.  You started out with a very non-compromising position that everything would happen pretty much as Russia plans and nothing has any real chance of derailing it.  You've been hammering at me with a very isolated train of logic that boils down to "Russia needs this, therefore it will get it".  The other trains of logic, such as corruption, financing, unsurmountable technical issues, and the "laws of military development" must also be considered.  You are finally conceeding these points after 70+ pages of arguing they don't exist or are the result of my bias, ignorance, or pessimistic attitude.   Now that you have finally come around to agreeing with almost the same points I was making 70+ pages ago, you still seem tempted to make the same logic errors that got us 70+ pages of arguments.  I'm just trying to save us from another 70+ :D

 

You've gotta be kidding me. I'm done with your silly statements on my behalf. Any paragraph or argument containing them will be ignored by me from now on.

 

Since I'm aware of it and admit it, what's the point?  BTW, you do know that your arguments here are also predictions of the future and that it's been like pulling teeth to get you to admit that you might be wrong with your predictions?

 

Nope, there's no need in pulling the teeth. Everything I say is my personal speculation, that's pretty obvious, and I keep repeating that from time to time. There hasn't been a single instance of me claiming the opposite. And I can back it up with my own quotes, that you've obviously missed. There were these:

 

Therefore you're right, what I'm saying is my personal speculation. And everyone should treat it as such.

But that's just my speculation.

Therefore I'd speculate

I'd speculate

I will speculate here

 

That's gotta be enough.

 

You remember incorrectly, then.  If you want me to remind you of the evidence that there was no chance of a free/fair referrendum before it took place, yet you brushed aside, I can do that.  But I'd prefer not to.  Instead, I think it better to just remind yourself that by definition a person who rejects the relevance and meaning of obvious facts is not keeping an "open mind" because filtering out such evidence is by nature showing bias.

I'm not sure what you are saying, but I think I've pretty consistently stated that my predictions about A/K/B might be wrong in some way or even in total.  I've been doing this since the start.  You, on the other hand, have only started doing that in the last few pages.  Until then you've be pretty much going with the concept that since Russia has made a plan, and the plan is of vital importance, that it won't flub it up.

 

Yeah, that seems to be the case. This is what happens when you intentionally create so many silly statements on my behalf, instead of reading what I'm actually saying. I think we've gone over discussing semantics and debate practices for too long. Just ignoring your silly statements looks like a much better way to go.

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOckAndLOad,

 

I never said the article was correct in every particular. I presented it because I thought it covered some previously untrod by us ground. And I did note the apparent mistake on the Armata buy, so I have no idea why you're on about it.

 

Yeah, I saw that, and was aiming "2300 blah blah" sentence at the article, not at you.

 

the T-14 must be ridiculously expensive for both parties to hide the tank's cost.

 

UVZ's CEO said that their tank is very price competitive and costs less than Western tanks. Take it for what it's worth.

 

Having read the unfortunately weirdly worded English translation of the Afghanit patent (if that's what it was), I absolutely concur that this is a weapon designed to defeat, in ascending order of severity, RPGs, ATGMs and HVAPFSDS--all by hard kill. The technical description was quite confusing, and I'm not at all sure your interpretation of the front end is right, but there is no doubt this weapon is designed to provide a very high probability of survival of the defended AFV vs even the most demanding of battlefield horizontal plane threats. I looked for, but didn't see, any specific discussion of use vs high diver ATGMs.

 

There isn't anything about top attack ATGMs. But they are describing a controllable, steerable munition, so, why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried to make a visual aid of the main APS on the Kurganets.

I counted a total of 19 launchers (single tubes) pointing outwards and located on the top hull. The red boxes underline the (probable) sensor housings. The red lines are an (estimated) direct line of fire departing from each tube.

 

b3viuo.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You meant 18, not 19. 4 front, 4 aft, 5 on either left and right side. What is most interesting is that there are 5 sensor boxes, not 4. Can you draw another one showing sensor coverage?

 

I gave more thought to APS kill munitions. I now start thinking that it should be more or less akin to complexity of a preprogrammable airburst round, or even maybe simpler (but faster latency-wise). There's also a parallel can be drawn with "offset" launch method of certain ATGMs.

 

How a preprogrammable airburst round works? It gets programmed before firing, getting the number of seconds it needs to wait before exploding. Counting mechanism may be different, and it often becomes a large source of error due to its accuracy (plus distance estimation error before firing). But, basically, when timer stops, munition is triggered to explode. Accuracy depends on range estimation error + timer's accuracy.

 

How an "offset" ATGM launch method (the one that doesn't point the laser at target before the last seconds, so not to spook it) works is more of a problem to describe, because there's little open data on it. But from what I know, it can be done manually by a human eyeballing the thing (like with old Soviet ATGMs), or also preprogrammed/done by the launcher itself, automatically. Back in a day, I figured out a way how I would've done a preprogrammed logic for such a mode. It would work only at longer ranges, and it is exactly what official documents describe for certain ATGMs that have this feature, like newest Ukr-Belarusian ATGMs), something specific, like past 1000 meters.

 

So how I thought it would work? Movement speed of ATGM is predetermined beforehand. Therefore, you can calculate how much time does it need before reaching said 1000 meters (minimal range to use such firing method). So, the ATGM is launched offset off target, given N seconds to travel 1000 meters, then crosshairs (laserbeam riding ones, with laser dot at the center) can be slewed onto the target itself, just a few seconds before the impact. Meaning that if you know that your target is definitely past 1000 meters, you need to laser-spook it only few seconds before the impact, which gives you more chances to kill it.

 

And now onto the controllable APS munition. Munition has to have some sort of propellant inside, most likely solid fuel or explosives. Say, it's segmented, at least by 2 parts, so that burn time of each segment is known. But the trick here is that the munition has multiple exhaust ports. Selecting specific ports to open is a key to steer munition in a right way. So, while propellant burn time is predetermined, you only need to preprogram the munition to use specific exhaust port. Which may make the munition technically less complex than a preprogrammed airburst round, that has a built in countdown timer of some sort (and has its own accuracy error). Obviously, APS munition and on-board computer must be immensely much faster in determining which port should be opened. But as long as these calculations are made on board, and not on a munition itself, it should be solvable.

 

So if I was to make such a system, I would've done it like this. On board computer detects incoming target, calculates intercept solution, figures out what ports need to open on a munition that would be used. Sends port number to munition and launches it. First segment of munition fuel burns for N seconds (or fractions, really), munition flies initial predetermined ejection course. Then second segment of fuel ignites, and a specific needed exhaust port opens (or multiple ports, if needed), and munition moves to intercept, exploding in the direction of its movement (onto the incoming projectile).

 

The schematic of such APS munition will look like this. Two (at least) solid fuel segments, controllable (one time open command) exhaust ports, logic circuit that can receive port number data and open them, and, finally, counter-projectile explosives. The whole program runs in sequence, one part's end starts the next one: first fuel segment burns -> specific ports open -> second fuel segment burns -> warhead explodes.

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First more or less official data is out, printed in UVZ's corporate journal "Technowars". PDF preview (in Russian):

 

http://technowars.ru/assets/content/article/174/tw-3-2015-cut.pdf

 

3+8 seating setups for infantry carriers. Kurganets weight 25 tons (duh). T-14 and T-15's APS is said to be top-attack capable (while smokescreen launcher system is mentioned separately). No such comment on Kurg. The weirest part is that it says that there are two 7.62 MGs on T-14. So, a coax either in that small gap on the right, or next to gunner's sight behind the closed doors (less likely)?

 

wpAkx.png

eHsZx.png

FjLpM.png

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried to make a visual aid of the main APS on the Kurganets.

I counted a total of 19 launchers (single tubes) pointing outwards and located on the top hull. The red boxes underline the (probable) sensor housings. The red lines are an (estimated) direct line of fire departing from each tube.

 

b3viuo.png

 

This picture shows the potential coverage of the sensors. I don't know how they work and what's their effective radius of operation, so the light grey represents a 180° arc while the dark grey is a 90° area in front of each sensor. The real value could be anything between these numbers, althougn, 180° seems unlikely since the boxes show a plain straight facade; possibly, the coverage should be at least a few degree lower than 180, maybe a 120° arc each...

 

2zg6ae0.jpg

 

I also don't understand why there's a fifth box on one side (or a missing Sixth one on the other side).

Actually this set up covers the entire vehicle, they decided to use 5 sensors instead of 4 maybe because the coverage of each was not sufficient for a full 360* cover using only 4 sensors (one per corner). This means that we could evaluate with more precision what the radious of each sensor is, since 4 was not eough, and the 6th was not needed....

Edited by Kieme(ITA)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is how the coverage works supposing a 120° radious for each sensor...

 

2v2xzzc.jpg

 

It's Worth to note that the extreme sides of each sensor are covered by the nearby one, this means that if the capacity/sensibility of the sensor decreases from the most central (let's say 90° arc) area towards the sides, these are covered by two sensors instead of one, thus augmenting the chances of detection. If the power of the sensors is perfect for the entire 120° arc the coverage is then perfect at the precise position the sensors radiouses meet.

 

The above picture seems a bit of an overkill, so I'll try drawing cover arcs at other degrees, maybe something between 90 and 120, but should be nice to see what's the 90° option coverage.

Edited by Kieme(ITA)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went and compared APS radars of Drozd, two Arena setups, light Afghanit version on Kurganets-25 IFV and similar on T-14/T-15. Not to scale, especially latest Arena variant:

 

aps_radars_01.png:

 

All of  them are separated into two segments. While Trophy and other radar plates on T-14/T-15 are singular plates.

 

ADDED:

 

Angles! Right! Look at the bottom part of the collage. It is from T-14. Angles for that sensor will be limited by the outer shell of the turret. You can look at T-14 pictures and get the idea of what are the max possible angles for such sensor are.

Edited by L0ckAndL0ad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, not the first time I force you to change your statement. Doing something right, I suppose.

Can't force me to do something I am perfectly willing to do ;)

 

I dunno, going for 52 vehicles in the first batch, and 100 of each type for field trials, which is very unusual for Russian R&D cycle, I think they're aiming for large numbers. I do understand your concerns about the future numbers of them. But I still think they are able to do it, if they really want it.

They certainly WANT to do it, for sure. No question about that. And they clearly don't want the small dribble of new vehicles which has been the problem with Russia's new equipment before recently. It's not good enough to have a better vehicle... it's gotta be available for use.

The question still is, of course, if they can swing the numbers without causing a major problem for the economy. This is where math doesn't seem to work out at current oil prices and general economic circumstances. Especially since many financial experts think that things are going to get MUCH worse within the next few years. Today Moody's downgraded Russia again and took a "negative" position for the short term.

 

You've gotta be kidding me. I'm done with your silly statements on my behalf. Any paragraph or argument containing them will be ignored by me from now on.

That's the way you're posts have read to me and to others, so I stand behind my impression of your position based on what you have written.

 

 

Nope, there's no need in pulling the teeth. Everything I say is my personal speculation, that's pretty obvious, and I keep repeating that from time to time. There hasn't been a single instance of me claiming the opposite. And I can back it up with my own quotes, that you've obviously missed. There were these:

 

 

That's gotta be enough.

Er, no. Of course I know you've been speculating, and of course you stated that because the opposite of that would require you to be able to see the future. Not once, even once, have you said you can see the future and not ever once have I accused you of trying to. So yeah, of you're speculating.

What you are missing (again) is that you've been speculating using faulty, incomplete, and overly optimistic "logic". You said things were "certain" that were not, you said things that could be taken for granted should not be, etc. That is what I've been arguing against since the last 70 pages. I've continually pointed out that your speculation has faults in it and you've argued that mine has. Now we're pretty much in agreement.

 

Yeah, that seems to be the case. This is what happens when you intentionally create so many silly statements on my behalf, instead of reading what I'm actually saying. I think we've gone over discussing semantics and debate practices for too long. Just ignoring your silly statements looks like a much better way to go.

I can only read what you write and respond to it as written. Though on more than one occasion I've even given you the benefit of the doubt and asked if maybe the English choices you made were in error instead of playing semantics. That's the unfair and silly guy that I am, I suppose.

The truth of the matter is I've been challenging your statements based one what you've said. If I was misinterpreting what you said you had ample opportunities to explain why my perception was incorrect, not why your position was sound. I respond very well to clarifications and restatements. However, when I see bad logic being tenaciously defended I do not back off easily.

You can characterize my insistence of holding your views accountable as "silly", but I think that's a gross mischaracterization. I also find it intellectually dishonest and lazy to suggest that I've been doing nothing "serious" for the last 70 pages. But if that's the way you think of me, fine. It won't stop me from challenging bad logic from you or anybody else on this Forum.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UVZ's CEO said that their tank is very price competitive and costs less than Western tanks. Take it for what it's worth.

I've seen an estimated cost of $8m, though obviously that's an unreliable figure at this point even if it was coming from the Russian government (i.e. the final cost is almost always higher than projected). If it is in the $8m range then it is in fact competitive with Western tanks on price if the vehicles are viewed equally. If they are not, then the T-14 might not be viewed as competitive (does less for the price) or a bargain (does more for the price).

Either way, this is new territory for Russia. Up until now it's arms exports have been largely fueled by some combo of ideology, opportunity, familiarity, and/or lower price than Western competitors (including Poland). When you have an old, cheap T-72 going with an inexpensive upgraded T-72 is pretty much a no-brainer. So now that price has been pushed upwards, the vehicles are no longer familiar to the clients, and ideologies are shifting away from Russia's sphere.. it really does make me wonder how many of these vehicles Russia really thinks it can export and to whom.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It ain't that I have all this drive to get into discussing economical topics - yet I would practice some caution in listening to "financial experts".

Looking around the web, in fact there are many who have diametrically opposing views, and I suspect that "Russian economy state" is one of those subjects of which you can find people basically saying anything. Since I don't consider myself versed enough on the subject, I can only say whatever I feel about it, already knowing that folks who are in this kind of things could prove me wrong. Yet, afaik, Russia is a country that economically shouldn't be considered by the same parameters western countries are judged on - basically it's a country that produces energetic resources and gets much of its revenues from them. With the actual situation, in which western countries economies are much in need of those resources to make their industries going, I find hard to believe that Russia 's economy would get much worse than it is now. Besides, oil prices have been lowered by the arab producing countries, with a move that was probably conceived to hurt Russia (although I'd say that it could hurt the US quest to become energy self-sufficient), but they are in fact rising again and I doubt that those same countries could keep those prices that low for much longer.

 

Also don't forget that Russia secured a massive 30 year contract with China, to furnish huge amounts of energy products (both oil and natural gas) to that country, which has recently become the biggest importer of such products.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They certainly WANT to do it, for sure. No question about that. And they clearly don't want the small dribble of new vehicles which has been the problem with Russia's new equipment before recently. It's not good enough to have a better vehicle... it's gotta be available for use.

The question still is, of course, if they can swing the numbers without causing a major problem for the economy. This is where math doesn't seem to work out at current oil prices and general economic circumstances. Especially since many financial experts think that things are going to get MUCH worse within the next few years. Today Moody's downgraded Russia again and took a "negative" position for the short term.

 

I don't see any problems with the numbers. If you can point out specific ones, then try. Generic statements won't work in this area. Out of all military budget, more than 14% (14 is an old number, it should be higher right now, I just don't know how high) is for Ground Forces alone. If you can run the numbers, you'll see how much that is, even for "buying 2300 T-14s" (with pricetag of, say, 400m Rubles per unit = 7.58m USD today).

 

If you want to, again, point out that it'll make Russian people angry (due to cuts in other areas), then we've already discussed this - it won't change a thing. Corrupt regime will just shake it off, better than Taylor Swift.

 

Er, no. Of course I know you've been speculating, and of course you stated that because the opposite of that would require you to be able to see the future. Not once, even once, have you said you can see the future and not ever once have I accused you of trying to. So yeah, of you're speculating.

 

Then what is this right here, if not accusing me of trying to predict the only possible outcome and denying any other?

 

you do know that your arguments here are also predictions of the future and that it's been like pulling teeth to get you to admit that you might be wrong with your predictions?

 

This is you blaming me for practically denying any other possibility other than the ones I'm predicting.

 

What you are missing (again) is that you've been speculating using faulty, incomplete, and overly optimistic "logic". You said things were "certain" that were not, you said things that could be taken for granted should not be, etc. That is what I've been arguing against since the last 70 pages. I've continually pointed out that your speculation has faults in it and you've argued that mine has. Now we're pretty much in agreement.

 

I corrected myself when I used "certain". As for taking stuff "for granted", I remember two things. About APS being Quick Kill like, and stuff being more or less ready for field trials now. APS part backed up by the patent, and readiness part you've agreed with me yourself, and it was also backed up by the interview with UVZ guy. So I don't see anything wrong here. Economic and political part of the question is where you probably say my logic is faulty, incomplete and overly optimistic. This is something you still have to validate to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is how the coverage works supposing a 120° radious for each sensor...

 

2v2xzzc.jpg

 

It's Worth to note that the extreme sides of each sensor are covered by the nearby one, this means that if the capacity/sensibility of the sensor decreases from the most central (let's say 90° arc) area towards the sides, these are covered by two sensors instead of one, thus augmenting the chances of detection. If the power of the sensors is perfect for the entire 120° arc the coverage is then perfect at the precise position the sensors radiouses meet.

 

The above picture seems a bit of an overkill, so I'll try drawing cover arcs at other degrees, maybe something between 90 and 120, but should be nice to see what's the 90° option coverage.

 

This is how a 90° field of operation for each sensor would (more or less) look like.:

 

ff95yv.jpg

 

The frontal coverage (even with a slight movement of the squares I tried to add), wouldn't fit the front arc very well... there would be a dead area in front of the vehicle of more than 2x the lenght of the vehicle itself.

Now, the APS will surely have an X range for its sensors and weapons, it could be that this range goes as far as 2, 3 or even 4 times the length of the vehicle, although it would be safer to assume the range is quite short:

-for the weapons, because the size of them is directly dependant on their potential range (and we have to keep in mind that a lot of explosive/size is needed for the detonation against the projectile)

-for the sensors, because in a natural complex environment there will be obstacles and other elements that would limit the efficiency of the sensors the closer such elements are to the sensors, not to mention the fact that the longer the range is the more complex is the scene for such sensor.

So, if these sensors work on a 90° radious each (on the horizontal plane) a full coverage could be achieved, but it would create larger dead areas and require a good extension of the sensors' range.

120° functionality seems to be an overkill, and judging from the front panel of the sensor itself, maybe it's quite a large number for that.

 

Maybe the real deal is something between 90 and 120.

Edited by Kieme(ITA)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...