IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Russia and the project of future tank (5th Generation)
Knjaz.
post 15 Mar 2013, 13:26
Post #26



Group Icon

Group: Tester
Posts: 1833
Joined: 29 May 2012
Member No.: 9155



QUOTE (__CrUsHeR @ 15 Mar 2013, 13:27) *
Russia is building the tank at the base of the fifth generation of the platform Armata heavy terminating several completely new technical solutions. This combat vehicle will be remotely operated and fitted with a digital cannon.

Source (in Portuguese): http://portuguese.ruvr.ru/2012_03_27/69761981/

Note: Apparently the Armata may conduct non-manned missions being controlled from a distance, however will be able to be manned if the commander desired.


Well, the folks in that newspaper should use a better translating software then, unless they got personal spies in UVZ and know something that nobody else does, even MAATD (ГАБТУ). biggrin.gif

Tank based on Armata platform will have unmanned tower with, obviously, remotely controlled gun/machinegun. Remotely, as by tank crew that sits in isolated capsule, not by some folks in some control center few km's away.

QUOTE
P.S.: The advantages of having a non-manned vehicle for high-risk missions in hostile environments or is something meaningful for the one who holds such an advantage, however remotely controlled systems are an open door for electronic warfare.
--------------------------

Russia probably will not dismantle all its tanks T-80, T-90, not without first testing in a real war Armata performance, however some reserve battalions will probably be replaced, as well as special units should receive some Armatas, and gradually the new tanks should be used as the front line of RuArmy in the future.


No need to go through such stuff. MoD's testing programs provide sufficient amount of hard data on tank's performance - after them your average tank looks like it's ready for being scrapped (and that's before testing it's protection level by hammering it with various munitions). Basically, any normal army does those. Ofcourse, there will also be military operational employment testing and evaluation.

basically, there're 3 "tiers" of testing military hardware - development tests (during R&D process), state tests (the one I described above) and military operational test. (when army receives a first set of those vehicles and starts to operate them normally)

Also, about "real war" term - we didn't have "real wars" for about 60+ years, now. And, I hope, won't have in foreseeable future. But nevertheless, even if higher protection requirements (from mines/IEDs especially) were taken into account during the development of new combat vehicles, RuArmy still views large scale conflict between regular armies of first tier military powers as the most dangerous one, and prepares accordingly.

That's where one of Armata's requirements to be able to keep crew inside for 2+ days without leaving the vehicle comes from.

QUOTE (__CrUsHeR @ 15 Mar 2013, 14:12) *
This news released today by the Vice-Premier Dmitri Rogozin confirms the intentions of Russia to sudden changes in its military doctrine, adapting to the 'methods of conducting combat actions without contact'.

The news:

Compliance with the state program of retrofitting the Russian Army must resolve, by the year 2020, the task of transition to the so-called methods of conducting combat actions without contact, in order to minimize loss of life, today said the Vice Premier, Dmitri Rogozin.

"We need to make our Armed Forces begin using the methods of conducting war without contact, to be faster than the opponent, and we can destroy it before it comes into his head the idea of ​​the possible destruction of our troops," emphasized Rogozin.

Source (in Portuguese): http://portuguese.ruvr.ru/2013_03_15/Novas-armas-do-Exercito-russo-possibilitarao-acoes-de-combate-sem-contato/


Rogozin in his repertoire. Last time he was insisting on hypersonic version of PAK-DA. Failed, though.

The guy does not determine the doctrine under which RuArmy will be operating, his job is to kick some sense into MiC. He's pretty loud, though, since the transformation from "politician" into "functionary" does not happen over night.

Does not deny the fact that there will be increase in PGMs in Russian arsenal, but in no way it means they're going to turn their ground vehicles into unmanned ones.

This post has been edited by Knjaz.: 15 Mar 2013, 13:45
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
__CrUsHeR
post 15 Mar 2013, 14:07
Post #27



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2642
Joined: 18 April 2012
From: Southern Brazil.
Member No.: 9084
"No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."



QUOTE (Knjaz. @ 15 Mar 2013, 9:26) *
Well, the folks in that newspaper should use a better translating software then, unless they got personal spies in UVZ and know something that nobody else does, even MAATD (ГАБТУ). biggrin.gif

Tank based on Armata platform will have unmanned tower with, obviously, remotely controlled gun/machinegun. Remotely, as by tank crew that sits in isolated capsule, not by some folks in some control center few km's away.


The tower will not be manned in fact, this is an idea of Uralvagonzavod that had already been designed for the project 775 (T-95).

I understand that a remotely controlled vehicle is operated at a certain distance and has a cannon digital because someone operates it through a panel as already happens today with the drones, however is a speculation in fact.

QUOTE (Knjaz. @ 15 Mar 2013, 9:26) *
No need to go through such stuff. MoD's testing programs provide sufficient amount of hard data on tank's performance - after them your average tank looks like it's ready for being scrapped (and that's before testing it's protection level by hammering it with various munitions). Basically, any normal army does those. Ofcourse, there will also be military operational employment testing and evaluation.

basically, there're 3 "tiers" of testing military hardware - development tests (during R&D process), state tests (the one I described above) and military operational test. (when army receives a first set of those vehicles and starts to operate them normally)

Also, about "real war" term - we didn't have "real wars" for about 60+ years, now. And, I hope, won't have in foreseeable future. But nevertheless, even if higher protection requirements (from mines/IEDs especially) were taken into account during the development of new combat vehicles, RuArmy still views large scale conflict between regular armies of first tier military powers as the most dangerous one, and prepares accordingly.

That's where one of Armata's requirements to be able to keep crew inside for 2+ days without leaving the vehicle comes from.


When I refer to a "real war" I am referring to regional conflicts that eventually Russia'll be involved. When you test a vehicle you are indeed 'testing' him, you confirm their operational capacity you need to submit it to a real employment situation, only in these circumstances you 'confirms' what is there in theory, the war in Georgia eg demonstrated that certain Russians vehicles are not efficient in some terrains which compromises operational capability besides not being able to face an 'asymmetric war', And I ask you, do not they tested this before?

QUOTE (Knjaz. @ 15 Mar 2013, 9:26) *
Rogozin in his repertoire. Last time he was insisting on hypersonic version of PAK-DA. Failed, though.

The guy does not determine the doctrine under which RuArmy will be operating, his job is to kick some sense into MiC. He's pretty loud, though, since the transformation from "politician" into "functionary" does not happen over night.

Does not deny the fact that there will be increase in PGMs in Russian arsenal, but in no way it means they're going to turn their ground vehicles into unmanned ones.


I do not believe that the Kremlin authorize Rogozin talking nonsense after all he is a representative of the state and military interests of Russia, sure he is not who produces vehicles however he is the spokesman of the inner workings of Russia.

I'll wait for the prototype Armata and the arrival of the year 2015 to take larger conclusions about the autonomy of the tank, however I have no doubt that the 'methods of conducting combat actions without contact' are a reality of the future.

This post has been edited by __CrUsHeR: 15 Mar 2013, 14:11


--------------------

You already imagined how would be SAP in the ROTR's universe? Check out this fan-fiction: South American Pact Introduction
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Knjaz.
post 15 Mar 2013, 14:54
Post #28



Group Icon

Group: Tester
Posts: 1833
Joined: 29 May 2012
Member No.: 9155



QUOTE (__CrUsHeR @ 15 Mar 2013, 15:07) *
I do not believe that the Kremlin authorize Rogozin talking nonsense after all he is a representative of the state and military interests of Russia, sure he is not who produces vehicles however he is the spokesman of the inner workings of Russia.

I'll wait for the prototype Armata and the arrival of the year 2015 to take larger conclusions about the autonomy of the tank, however I have no doubt that the 'methods of conducting combat actions without contact' are a reality of the future.


biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif
I'm glad you didn't hear our generals, yet. These belong to the certain type of people that should not be allowed to the microphone no matter what happens. Because what they say and how they say something in their internal struggles already brought Russia some problems. Makes some colonel-ranked military personnel perform epic facepalms once in a while.

So yes, Rogozin is often expressing his personal opinion regarding various questions.

QUOTE (__CrUsHeR @ 15 Mar 2013, 15:07) *
When I refer to a "real war" I am referring to regional conflicts that eventually Russia'll be involved. When you test a vehicle you are indeed 'testing' him, you confirm their operational capacity you need to submit it to a real employment situation, only in these circumstances you 'confirms' what is there in theory, the war in Georgia eg demonstrated that certain Russians vehicles are not efficient in some terrains which compromises operational capability besides not being able to face an 'asymmetric war', And I ask you, do not they tested this before?


As far as I know, Georgian conflict did not uncover any unknown problems of Russian military (as a whole of it). It only, finally, forced higher-ups to pay additional attention to those. (first of all, communication capabilities)


P.S. Also, I can't find the original of that Rogozin's statement. Although, I found something... more hillarious, from his today statement.
*facedesks*

Ah, nvm, found it. From the same conference. He also made a parallel between Smartphone/automobile and military weapons/combat vehicles renewal cycle, said that weapons should be renewed constantly, like smartphones, and not "in leaps and bounds" that often last 20-30 years. While the idea is generally correct from MIC point of view and Center approves it, the way he said that was hillarious. Also totally didn't take into account current situation and what has been happening last 20 years.

I bet military folks (and not only them) will be mocking him for this on teh forums (and not just there) once again, today biggrin.gif

This post has been edited by Knjaz.: 15 Mar 2013, 15:21
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
__CrUsHeR
post 15 Mar 2013, 16:08
Post #29



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2642
Joined: 18 April 2012
From: Southern Brazil.
Member No.: 9084
"No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."



QUOTE (Knjaz. @ 15 Mar 2013, 10:54) *
biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif
I'm glad you didn't hear our generals, yet. These belong to the certain type of people that should not be allowed to the microphone no matter what happens. Because what they say and how they say something in their internal struggles already brought Russia some problems. Makes some colonel-ranked military personnel perform epic facepalms once in a while.

So yes, Rogozin is often expressing his personal opinion regarding various questions.


In fact politicians in most cases do not have the technical knowledge necessary to talk about military issues, I see it every day in practice, however the generals do not convey much information for internal political issues making it very difficult to understand the real dimension of things, but in parts must be correct because it should be assisted by military analysts and experts without telling businessmen in the Russian military complex that does not like to spread misinformation that discredit the respected armaments industry of Russia, if they say a prototype should be submitted this year and it possess them autonomous capabilities because they do not believe it, after all megacorporations are investing private capital in it and competing to produce a fifth generation tank for the government, I believe that if the Armata was chosen for this platform because it is theoretically is an awesome tank that could revolutionize the concepts of modern warfare.

QUOTE (Knjaz. @ 15 Mar 2013, 10:54) *
As far as I know, Georgian conflict did not uncover any unknown problems of Russian military (as a whole of it). It only, finally, forced higher-ups to pay additional attention to those. (first of all, communication capabilities)


In fact they actually knew of some problems, however not know the more serious as the mobility of troops which forced the government to discontinue BTRs eg replacing them with the URALs APC which have greater mobility for rough terrain besides providing better conditions for survival for the troops, now they face the same problem with the logistics of navy transport and urgently need to remedy these problems by a matter of operability.

This post has been edited by __CrUsHeR: 15 Mar 2013, 16:13


--------------------

You already imagined how would be SAP in the ROTR's universe? Check out this fan-fiction: South American Pact Introduction
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Knjaz.
post 15 Mar 2013, 17:54
Post #30



Group Icon

Group: Tester
Posts: 1833
Joined: 29 May 2012
Member No.: 9155



QUOTE (__CrUsHeR @ 15 Mar 2013, 17:08) *
In fact they actually knew of some problems, however not know the more serious as the mobility of troops which forced the government to discontinue BTRs eg replacing them with the URALs APC which have greater mobility for rough terrain besides providing better conditions for survival for the troops, now they face the same problem with the logistics of navy transport and urgently need to remedy these problems by a matter of operability.


Wut? Replacing BTRs with Urals? wth? and what Ural APC you're talking about?!

That Typhoon project? it's not a replacement for BTRs. Replacement for BTR is currently being developed within Kurganets or another similiar (I forgot the name) project. As for now, Russia continues requisition of BTR-82 and modernization of current park. In hundreds, at least.
QUOTE (__CrUsHeR @ 15 Mar 2013, 17:08) *
In fact politicians in most cases do not have the technical knowledge necessary to talk about military issues, I see it every day in practice, however the generals do not convey much information for internal political issues making it very difficult to understand the real dimension of things, but in parts must be correct because it should be assisted by military analysts and experts without telling businessmen in the Russian military complex that does not like to spread misinformation that discredit the respected armaments industry of Russia, if they say a prototype should be submitted this year and it possess them autonomous capabilities because they do not believe it, after all megacorporations are investing private capital in it and competing to produce a fifth generation tank for the government, I believe that if the Armata was chosen for this platform because it is theoretically is an awesome tank that could revolutionize the concepts of modern warfare.



Ok, now here you're getting Russian MIC absolutely wrong.
First of all - Russian MIC is not a private business, like the one in USA. They're not investing private money into Armata R&D and most importantly, they answer to government/Kremlin. Making profit on internal contracts is secondary, if not tertiary, objective, and the amount of profit they're allowed to make is regulated by government. (at least, this is what recent "wars" between MOD and MIC were about, and this is what Rogozin is currently dealing with).

Second of all, not a single time in Russian press, forums, including by actual people who saw that tank and have some indirect relation to it's development (by working in GABTU) it was stated that Armata will be a remotely controlled vehicle. (obviously, they are giving out only non-classified information ) I can imagine them toying with such option in some future, because, theoretically, due to requirement to install observation cameras for the driver and remotely controlled the vehicle might have minimum amount of required gadgets for it to operate in such manner - but it wasn't stated that it will. And they definitely do not consider it as a viable option for modern combat.

Thirdly, we already had instances where Russian generals during their "battle" with MIC dealt some damage to external contracts, by expressing their opinions in such words that 1) were taken out of context 2) made it look like certain combat vehicles have horrible performance, when in fact they're pretty damn good at their role. I don't know what happened afterwards, but there were some talks about prohibiting these folks talking with press directly. Because in those instances, they weren't assisted by analysts and experts.

The damage it dealt on actual contracts was not that high, because well, customers can test combat vehicles on their own and confirm their parameters, but the amount of sh1tstorms that his "message" raised in the ru-net was... something special.

And yes, it terms of relations with press and public relations, our MOD is pretty much... horrible. They simply dont give a damn when being mocked. The situation became so bad that at some point around 70-80% of "analytic articles" about current condition of RuArmy, it's doctrine etc. by "independent experts", that you could find in Russian press, consisted mostly out of disinformation, and disinformation as in trying to make it look like it's almost dead. Such names as Hramchihin, Ivashov, Felgengauer, Rastopshin, Shurygyn, Ciganok some of which even had general's rank (Ivashov), became pretty infamous.
Guess what? MOD didn't give a single damn. You can be in any rank and can write anything you want in any large press edition about the current state of the army, no matter how far from reality it is or if it falls under "slander" or not - it's guaranteed that MOD won't care.

At least it was before Shoygu came in. Can't say atm if there was any work done in that direction, but it seems they pulled some strings behind the curtain.

This post has been edited by Knjaz.: 15 Mar 2013, 18:26
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
__CrUsHeR
post 16 Mar 2013, 1:07
Post #31



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2642
Joined: 18 April 2012
From: Southern Brazil.
Member No.: 9084
"No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."



QUOTE (Knjaz. @ 15 Mar 2013, 13:54) *
Wut? Replacing BTRs with Urals? wth? and what Ural APC you're talking about?!

That Typhoon project? it's not a replacement for BTRs. Replacement for BTR is currently being developed within Kurganets or another similiar (I forgot the name) project. As for now, Russia continues requisition of BTR-82 and modernization of current park. In hundreds, at least.


Exactly, I was talking about the Typhoon project, although Russia has recently built BTR-82 the army does not want to use this kind of vehicle (BMP-2 and BTR-8 0) in a near future due to unsatisfactory results in the war against Georgia, I believe they should keep this kind of vehicle in operation as a reserve for specific missions, put the new APC URAL will perform a similar function to the U.S.Hummvess, being a high mobility armored vehicle front line. The URAL is in testing phase and has made the Kremlin to cancel the delivery of the second batch of italians Iveco LMV (in Russian, "Lynx"), which was an immediate response to the urgent needs of Russia.

The URAL carrying 10 soldiers, have better armor level 6, better against rockets, resists IDEs and landmines until 8kg and has superior mobility (smaller and lighter).

Link (in Portuguese): http://www.defesanet.com.br/geopolitica/noticia/9730/Russia-suspende-a-compra-do-segundo-lote-de-blindados-da-Italia


QUOTE (Knjaz. @ 15 Mar 2013, 13:54) *
Ok, now here you're getting Russian MIC absolutely wrong.
First of all - Russian MIC is not a private business, like the one in USA. They're not investing private money into Armata R&D and most importantly, they answer to government/Kremlin. Making profit on internal contracts is secondary, if not tertiary, objective, and the amount of profit they're allowed to make is regulated by government. (at least, this is what recent "wars" between MOD and MIC were about, and this is what Rogozin is currently dealing with).

Second of all, not a single time in Russian press, forums, including by actual people who saw that tank and have some indirect relation to it's development (by working in GABTU) it was stated that Armata will be a remotely controlled vehicle. (obviously, they are giving out only non-classified information ) I can imagine them toying with such option in some future, because, theoretically, due to requirement to install observation cameras for the driver and remotely controlled the vehicle might have minimum amount of required gadgets for it to operate in such manner - but it wasn't stated that it will. And they definitely do not consider it as a viable option for modern combat.


To confirm my assertion and possibly solve their doubts about the T-99 Armata (Hey MARS you were right! tongue.gif ) I'll copy some parts of the Russian General-Lieutenant Yuri Kovalenko (he has credit for you?) said about Armata platform:

"Armata combat platform will use many features of the T-95 tank, only a few of Which Have Been prototypes built. Battle tank In the main variant, the ammunition compartment will be separate from the crew, Increasing operational safety while the engine will be more powerful and the armor, main gun and autoloader will be improved. prototype is scheduled to The enter field trials in 2013, about 10 months ahead of schedule. First Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Sukhorukov said. The new tank is under development at Uralvagonzavod in Omsk. The first deliveries of the tank to the Russian Armed Forces are scheduled for 2015. A total of 2.300 MBTS are expected to be supplied by 2020. [2] The tank will have an unmanned, remotely controlled turret. It will be digitally controlled by a crewmember located in a separate compartment. Believed It is this would lead to the development Eventually of a fully robotic tank". (Understood, a FULLY robotic tank wink.gif )

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Combat_Platform_T-99


From where you took that private capital is not involved in the project? The Uralvagonzavod that developing the Armata is a private company which is developing the platform for the needs of the government along with smaller companies of Russia as KBTM who also developed its own fifth-generation prototype the 'Black Eagle' "Object-640" in year 2001.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Eagle_%28tank%29

This post has been edited by __CrUsHeR: 16 Mar 2013, 1:18


--------------------

You already imagined how would be SAP in the ROTR's universe? Check out this fan-fiction: South American Pact Introduction
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Knjaz.
post 16 Mar 2013, 11:45
Post #32



Group Icon

Group: Tester
Posts: 1833
Joined: 29 May 2012
Member No.: 9155



Don't have much time, so I'll answer briefly.

UVZ is a state owned company.

http://uralvagonzavod.com/investor_relations/47/
QUOTE
OJSC "RPC "URALVAGONZAVOD" is Russia's largest designer and producer of various types of freight cars, gondola cars, flat cars and tank cars. It is also one of the largest producers of tanks in the world. The plant takes part in production of equipment and machinery for artificial Earth satellite launches performed at space centres. 100% of the enterprise is owned by the state.


The % could change over last 2 years, but it's still recalled as state owned by everyone.
==========================

Typhoon is in no way capable of substituting BTRs on mass scale. Can describe later, why, if needed.
It can (and will) substitute Urals for Internal Troops/Army in conflict zones, and that's what it was created for. It's a MRAP, basically.

P.S. these images are the only open information about the possible look of Kurganets-25 (replacement for BMP) and Bumerang (replacement for BTRs) platforms.
http://topwar.ru/16514-platformy-kurganec-...olozheniya.html
http://www.ljplus.ru/img4/3/0/300m_300m/ku..._i_bumerang.jpg

and this is what Armata is speculated to be. It was shown accidentally, in summer 2012.
http://media.desura.com/images/groups/1/3/...f845be524e0.jpg
http://www.ljplus.ru/img4/3/0/300m_300m/armata02.jpg

And while the guys that saw it "confirm" that it's the one, some people doubt their words, since they can be misinforming on purpose.

As for that article from wiki regarding armata, it seems they've put together citations of different people and added someone's imagination from a separate article. Well, thats how these things are often written, anyway.

I'll return to this when I'll get back home.

This post has been edited by Knjaz.: 16 Mar 2013, 12:11
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
__CrUsHeR
post 16 Mar 2013, 12:23
Post #33



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2642
Joined: 18 April 2012
From: Southern Brazil.
Member No.: 9084
"No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."



QUOTE (Knjaz. @ 16 Mar 2013, 7:45) *
Don't have much time, so I'll answer briefly.

UVZ is a state owned company.

http://uralvagonzavod.com/investor_relations/47/


The % could change over last 2 years, but it's still recalled as state owned by everyone.
==========================


The Uralvagonzavod was privatized by President Putin in late 2012 and now has 75% of its actions for the private sector, so now the company receives private investment, the measure was necessary to increase the dynamism of the company.

QUOTE (Knjaz. @ 16 Mar 2013, 7:45) *
Typhoon is in no way capable of substituting BTRs on mass scale. Can describe later, why, if needed.
It can (and will) substitute Urals for Internal Troops/Army in conflict zones, and that's what it was created for. It's a MRAP, basically.


All indications are that will replace most of the current APCs, but like I said, there will be BTMS and BTRs for the Russian army however on a reduced scale, the BTR-82 and its variants certainly continue to be sold to peripherals countries since it is a robust vehicle well equipped, however to Russia this model of vehicle no longer serves their needs, the URAL will meet the domesticss needs of Russia and is already being produced on a large scale.

QUOTE (Knjaz. @ 16 Mar 2013, 7:45) *
As for that article from wiki regarding armata, it seems they've put together citations of different people and added someone's imagination from a separate article. Well, thats how these things are often written, anyway.

I'll return to this when I'll get back home.


Since nothing has credit and data are provided by people who do not have any knowledge about the project Armata, I'll start to base myself in the opinion of the Internet users, maybe they have more knowledge than the project developers, the politicians who linked with the Ministry Of Defense and the military. sleep.gif


--------------------

You already imagined how would be SAP in the ROTR's universe? Check out this fan-fiction: South American Pact Introduction
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
__CrUsHeR
post 16 Mar 2013, 13:32
Post #34



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2642
Joined: 18 April 2012
From: Southern Brazil.
Member No.: 9084
"No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."



I read a bit more about the project Bumerang and Kurganets-25, Russia should produce these types of vehicle in a very near future replacing the corresponding vehicles of the Soviet era, they will probably form a cavalry similar to the USA, with URALs being a vehicle light and fast for infiltration operations and support, and taking other APCs as heavy vehicles for transportation in areas with higher hostile enemy resistance.


--------------------

You already imagined how would be SAP in the ROTR's universe? Check out this fan-fiction: South American Pact Introduction
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MARS
post 16 Mar 2013, 16:54
Post #35



Group Icon

Group: Project Leader
Posts: 5870
Joined: 2 June 2009
Member No.: 10



Looking at many of these designs makes me miss the 80s and 90s. Nowadays, everyone just turns their military into 'generic streamlined fighting force with generic lightweight wheeled vehicles'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Knjaz.
post 16 Mar 2013, 16:54
Post #36



Group Icon

Group: Tester
Posts: 1833
Joined: 29 May 2012
Member No.: 9155



QUOTE (__CrUsHeR @ 16 Mar 2013, 13:23) *
The Uralvagonzavod was privatized by President Putin in late 2012 and now has 75% of its actions for the private sector, so now the company receives private investment, the measure was necessary to increase the dynamism of the company.


Information incorrect. It's still owned by the state. After diggin' deep, there're plans for partial privatization in 2013-2014. It means that government's share won't go lower than 50%+1
Otherwise, if enterprise becomes private, they can decide by themselves "if they want to take that MOD contract or not". This is not the way Russia works.

QUOTE
All indications are that will replace most of the current APCs, but like I said, there will be BTMS and BTRs for the Russian army however on a reduced scale, the BTR-82 and its variants certainly continue to be sold to peripherals countries since it is a robust vehicle well equipped, however to Russia this model of vehicle no longer serves their needs, the URAL will meet the domesticss needs of Russia and is already being produced on a large scale.


Typhoons already produced on a large scale? Another piece of information from parallel universe.
In our reality, they will be undergoing state and army trials that are scheduled to last till 2014.

Also, I believe the cost of that vehicle will prevent it from being produced on the large scale. Set of vehicles for testing purpsoses costed almost as much as BMP's-3 in 2010 (1mil vs 1.3 mil).

QUOTE
Since nothing has credit and data are provided by people who do not have any knowledge about the project Armata, I'll start to base myself in the opinion of the Internet users, maybe they have more knowledge than the project developers, the politicians who linked with the Ministry Of Defense and the military. sleep.gif


Well, I'm basing my opinions solely on the last factor, and I'm observing that source of information since 2008. Conclusion - it's astonishingly correct in information it provides and overall knowledge on the matters. Leads me to conclusion that person in question indeed has relations to GABTU. Now, I'll get back to that "citation" from Wiki.

And yes, as I mentioned before, overall share of outright lies, incorrect and partially incorrect information is somewhere at 70-80% in Russian press, at least it was a year ago (partially incorrect would take biggest %). Granted, thats a personal observation based on the sources I've been encountered. And this is where your western media gets info from, which after addition of "broken phone" factor results in what we witnessed here.

This post has been edited by Knjaz.: 16 Mar 2013, 16:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
__CrUsHeR
post 16 Mar 2013, 17:26
Post #37



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2642
Joined: 18 April 2012
From: Southern Brazil.
Member No.: 9084
"No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."



QUOTE (Knjaz. @ 16 Mar 2013, 12:54) *
Information incorrect. It's still owned by the state. After diggin' deep, there're plans for partial privatization in 2013-2014. It means that government's share won't go lower than 50%+1
Otherwise, if enterprise becomes private, they can decide by themselves "if they want to take that MOD contract or not". This is not the way Russia works.


In fact the company will be privatized only in 2013-2014 and this will be the new way of Russia and the same policy will be applied to railways and airports. However the consortium of Armata involves several other private sector companies in Russia therefore involves private capital.

QUOTE (Knjaz. @ 16 Mar 2013, 12:54) *
Typhoons already produced on a large scale? Another piece of information from parallel universe.
In our reality, they will be undergoing state and army trials that are scheduled to last till 2014.

Also, I believe the cost of that vehicle will prevent it from being produced on the large scale. Set of vehicles for testing purpsoses costed almost as much as BMP's-3 in 2010 (1mil vs 1.3 mil).


Well, the government has the intention to buy this vehicle in large scale for this reason canceled prior agreements. Probably he will have a high cost however is not possible to renew the army without a big investment, and certainly other APCs that are being planned has a cost even higher. (I'm speculating, missing information).

QUOTE (Knjaz. @ 16 Mar 2013, 12:54) *
Well, I'm basing my opinions solely on the last factor, and I'm observing that source of information since 2008. Conclusion - it's astonishingly correct in information it provides and overall knowledge on the matters. Leads me to conclusion that person in question indeed has relations to GABTU. Now, I'll get back to that "citation" from Wiki.


Well, I will not argue further in this direction because there is not a consensus and I disagree with their assertions. Through the articles I've read is likely that most information is correct.

QUOTE (Knjaz. @ 16 Mar 2013, 12:54) *
And yes, as I mentioned before, overall share of outright lies, incorrect and partially incorrect information is somewhere at 70-80% in Russian press, at least it was a year ago (partially incorrect would take biggest %). Granted, thats a personal observation based on the sources I've been encountered. And this is where your western media gets info from, which after addition of "broken phone" factor results in what we witnessed here.


I agree with you in parts, I disagree on this percentage, I'd say it's a much smaller percentage.

This post has been edited by __CrUsHeR: 16 Mar 2013, 17:27


--------------------

You already imagined how would be SAP in the ROTR's universe? Check out this fan-fiction: South American Pact Introduction
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Knjaz.
post 16 Mar 2013, 17:41
Post #38



Group Icon

Group: Tester
Posts: 1833
Joined: 29 May 2012
Member No.: 9155



QUOTE (__CrUsHeR @ 16 Mar 2013, 2:07) *
"Armata" combat platform will use many features of the T-95 tank, only a few of Which Have Been prototypes built. Battle tank In the main variant, the ammunition compartment will be separate from the crew, Increasing operational safety while the engine will be more powerful and the armor, main gun and autoloader will be improved. prototype is scheduled to The enter field trials in 2013, about 10 months ahead of schedule. First Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Sukhorukov said. The new tank is under development at Uralvagonzavod in Omsk. The first deliveries of the tank to the Russian Armed Forces are scheduled for 2015. A total of 2.300 MBTS are expected to be supplied by 2020. [2] The tank will have an unmanned, remotely controlled turret. It will be digitally controlled by a crewmember located in a separate compartment. Believed It is this would lead to the development Eventually of a fully robotic tank". (Understood, a FULLY robotic tank )


QUOTE
Armata combat platform will use many features of the T-95 tank, only a few of Which Have Been prototypes built


Object.195 is not T-95. And yes, Armata is based off 195th.


QUOTE
Battle tank In the main variant, the ammunition compartment will be separate from the crew, Increasing operational safety while the engine will be more powerful and the armor, main gun and autoloader will be improved.


Correct.

QUOTE
prototype is scheduled to The enter field trials in 2013, about 10 months ahead of schedule.


Yep, he said that. Proves the point of it being a "scaled down" 195th. Nobody would be able to create Armata-like tank in 4 years.

QUOTE
The new tank is under development at Uralvagonzavod in Omsk. The first deliveries of the tank to the Russian Armed Forces are scheduled for 2015. A total of 2.300 MBTS are expected to be supplied by 2020.


Yes, it's developed by UVZ, and, if I'm not mistaken, scheduled for 2015, but about 460 Armatas per year from 2015 to 2020 - it doesn't make any sense, unless they're planning to also substitute tanks in reserves with brand new ones and completely phase T-90 out of active duty.

Basically, from experience of previous years, his words could be translated as:
1) 2300 Armatas till 2020.
2) 2300 Armatas and new T-90's till 2020.
3) 2300 Armatas, new and repaired/modernized T-90's till 2020.

And judging by the experience, it's 3rd, 2nd at best. Because if it's 1st, they will need to keep production going, and they will be putting new Armata's into reserve storage bases. That would definitely take it's toll on the budget, since the total amount of tanks in RuArmy arsenal, by 2020, is believed to be at 6000-9000. (over 2k in active combat-ready units, everything else in reserves). Ofcourse, they won't be filling all of them, but I'm fairly certain that T-90 will stay in active service in 2020.

I'd be pretty happy if they'll manage to pull 1st, though biggrin.gif

QUOTE
The tank will have an unmanned, remotely controlled turret. It will be digitally controlled by a crewmember located in a separate compartment.


Correct, same stuff as on Obj.195

QUOTE
Believed It is this would lead to the development Eventually of a fully robotic tank". (Understood, a FULLY robotic tank )


As in, next generation? The one that will come after Armata? Well, some people can have such wishes. Like Rogozin had a wish of picking Hypersonic variant for PAK-DA development. (although, you can never be sure, maybe they will indeed end up with such thing biggrin.gif )
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
__CrUsHeR
post 16 Mar 2013, 18:08
Post #39



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2642
Joined: 18 April 2012
From: Southern Brazil.
Member No.: 9084
"No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."



QUOTE (Knjaz. @ 16 Mar 2013, 13:41) *
Yep, he said that. Proves the point of it being a "scaled down" 195th. Nobody would be able to create Armata-like tank in 4 years.


It seems to me an error saying that it is being produced just 4 years, this type of vehicle has already been designed by Russian engineers since 1990 under the molds of "Black Eagle" which had a prototype in 2001 but ended up having the same fate as American Commanche by a matter of spending cuts, ie Russia holds the technology and "desing" the vehicle practically ready in a few years, the T-95 also not prospered for the same reason - lack of investment - only now with a consortium in progress the project is finally taking shape.

QUOTE (Knjaz. @ 16 Mar 2013, 13:41) *
Yes, it's developed by UVZ, and, if I'm not mistaken, scheduled for 2015, but about 460 Armatas per year from 2015 to 2020 - it doesn't make any sense, unless they're planning to also substitute tanks in reserves with brand new ones and completely phase T-90 out of active duty.

Basically, from experience of previous years, his words could be translated as:
1) 2300 Armatas till 2020.
2) 2300 Armatas and new T-90's till 2020.
3) 2300 Armatas, new and repaired/modernized T-90's till 2020.

And judging by the experience, it's 3rd, 2nd at best. Because if it's 1st, they will need to keep production going, and they will be putting new Armata's into reserve storage bases. That would definitely take it's toll on the budget, since the total amount of tanks in RuArmy arsenal, by 2020, is believed to be at 6000-9000. (over 2k in active combat-ready units, everything else in reserves). Ofcourse, they won't be filling all of them, but I'm fairly certain that T-90 will stay in active service in 2020.

I'd be pretty happy if they'll manage to pull 1st, though biggrin.gif


Remember that the Armata is a universal platform for several different vehicles, I do not think there will be 2300 tanks, the source says 2300 will be "Armatas", ie 2300 "platforms", not necessarily tanks.

QUOTE (Knjaz. @ 16 Mar 2013, 13:41) *
As in, next generation? The one that will come after Armata? Well, some people can have such wishes. Like Rogozin had a wish of picking Hypersonic variant for PAK-DA development. (although, you can never be sure, maybe they will indeed end up with such thing biggrin.gif )


Maybe, maybe not ... Only time will tell, however I do not doubt the capabilities of Russian engineering. wink.gif


--------------------

You already imagined how would be SAP in the ROTR's universe? Check out this fan-fiction: South American Pact Introduction
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Knjaz.
post 16 Mar 2013, 19:53
Post #40



Group Icon

Group: Tester
Posts: 1833
Joined: 29 May 2012
Member No.: 9155



QUOTE (__CrUsHeR @ 16 Mar 2013, 19:08) *
Remember that the Armata is a universal platform for several different vehicles, I do not think there will be 2300 tanks, the source says 2300 will be "Armatas", ie 2300 "platforms", not necessarily tanks.


No, in original Russian source he clearly stated - 2300 tanks. And that kinda brings questions.

This post has been edited by Knjaz.: 16 Mar 2013, 19:54
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
__CrUsHeR
post 16 Mar 2013, 20:03
Post #41



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2642
Joined: 18 April 2012
From: Southern Brazil.
Member No.: 9084
"No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."



In fact it refers to MBTs, I believe that until 2020 is possible to produce this demand, probably UVZ will expand its production line.


--------------------

You already imagined how would be SAP in the ROTR's universe? Check out this fan-fiction: South American Pact Introduction
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Knjaz.
post 16 Mar 2013, 20:11
Post #42



Group Icon

Group: Tester
Posts: 1833
Joined: 29 May 2012
Member No.: 9155



Erm, it's not about if it's possible to meet that demand. UVZ can meet that demand right now. (if we talk about T-90's). It'll also be able to produce much more than that.

Question is about keeping a steady production rate, in post 2020 environment. Because you can't just cover Army's needs in 5 years and then just close the production line. Doesn't work that way. And I bet export version of Armata won't see light for quite some time (same story as with S-400)

So my bet goes on 3rd option - T-90's, both new and renewed (repaired/modernized), and "Armatas"

This post has been edited by Knjaz.: 16 Mar 2013, 20:12
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
__CrUsHeR
post 16 Mar 2013, 20:17
Post #43



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2642
Joined: 18 April 2012
From: Southern Brazil.
Member No.: 9084
"No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."



Surely UVZ not want to stop producing the reliable and relatively recent T-90, the Kremlin has contracts with India for production of the tank shall continue producing both MBTS parallel.


--------------------

You already imagined how would be SAP in the ROTR's universe? Check out this fan-fiction: South American Pact Introduction
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Col._Sandfurz
post 17 Mar 2013, 15:21
Post #44



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 64
Joined: 6 November 2012
Member No.: 9428



Very interesting discussion.

I did not know that T-99 Armata is a "downgrade" of the Project 195. Now it is sounding realistic that the Armata will be "ready" in 2015.
Imho this development of the Russian army is very interesting, all of it.

First: I like the idea of unified combat platform, as this simplyfies logistics.
Same with Kurgantes Platform. Is this platform for replacing BMP's?
Do you know what weapons are planned for? I guess a IFV version with 30mm auto canon and ATGM, a tank destroyer with missiles and one with a gun? Will this also provide a platform for AA vehicles?

Second: I like the concept of this new MBT with an unmanned turret, 3 man crew inside a capsule. Only problem could be if the autoloader/gun has a malfunction, then the crew can not solve this problem quickly..
Nontheless I think that this is the direction MBT developnement will go. With this design you can make lighter MBT as there is less space to be covert with armor (or armored better but without letting them be too heavy).
I read somwhere that the US had considered going in the same direction if the cold war had not ended in 1990. But they only made one prototype or so..
What variations ar planned for Armata? MBT version with tank gun and ROWS, heavy IFV like the Namer IFV of the israelis and also a support vehicle like the BMPT afaik..

This post has been edited by Col._Sandfurz: 17 Mar 2013, 15:22
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MARS
post 17 Mar 2013, 19:27
Post #45



Group Icon

Group: Project Leader
Posts: 5870
Joined: 2 June 2009
Member No.: 10



QUOTE
I read somwhere that the US had considered going in the same direction if the cold war had not ended in 1990. But they only made one prototype or so..


The US/West German MBT-70/KPz-70) would have been vaguely similar in spirit, however, it placed all crew members, including the driver, in the turret cupola whilst the chassis itself was built to be very flat. Would have been a very interesting space age design for its era, but the project was marred by overflowng costs and disagreements among the design teams, so it got cancelled. The US and West Germany used the remains as a starting point for their own designs which eventually resulted in the M1 Abrams and Leopard 2.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mcbob
post 17 Mar 2013, 20:42
Post #46



Group Icon

Group: Dev. Team
Posts: 416
Joined: 7 June 2009
Member No.: 52



QUOTE (MARS @ 16 Mar 2013, 16:54) *
Looking at many of these designs makes me miss the 80s and 90s. Nowadays, everyone just turns their military into 'generic streamlined fighting force with generic lightweight wheeled vehicles'.


Can you imagine how disastrous the Future Combat Systems program would have been if it actually came to fruition and wasn't cancelled?

The basic platform was going to be a tank (not sure if it was going to replace the Abrams or not) that had protection only up to 45mm in cannon fire. Not to mention it had to be light enough to carry one of them in a C130. Imagine how under-armored it would be in combat. I wouldn't just bet all my money on active protection systems to reduce the amount of basic armor needed to protect against a modern anti-tank round. Even trophy, shtora, arena, and quick-kill have got to have their limits and you can't just rely on getting the first shot out in a combat situation.

This post has been edited by Mcbob: 17 Mar 2013, 20:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dangerman
post 18 Mar 2013, 9:53
Post #47


I fits I sits
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 532
Joined: 18 August 2010
From: Wirral, United Kingdom
Member No.: 1107



QUOTE (Mcbob @ 17 Mar 2013, 20:42) *
Can you imagine how disastrous the Future Combat Systems program would have been if it actually came to fruition and wasn't cancelled?

The basic platform was going to be a tank (not sure if it was going to replace the Abrams or not) that had protection only up to 45mm in cannon fire. Not to mention it had to be light enough to carry one of them in a C130. Imagine how under-armored it would be in combat. I wouldn't just bet all my money on active protection systems to reduce the amount of basic armor needed to protect against a modern anti-tank round. Even trophy, shtora, arena, and quick-kill have got to have their limits and you can't just rely on getting the first shot out in a combat situation.

The ironic thing is that even the US Army which wanted a decade ago wanted to transform into a mobile-quick force that can deploy 72-96 hours around the world because Rumsfeld didn't want to get the political support for things like Iraq and the "light Fighter" movement that wanted to scrap anything that could not get into a C-130 is now considering to go heavier with things like the GCV which will be at least 60 tons and recent insurgencies have shown that heavier vehicles are alot more useful due to the fact that insurgents and similar use IEDs, RPGs, Sniper Rifles and Machine guns more than rifles (rifles are used to cover the guys with the RPGs, Snipers and Machine Guns when drawing back).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MARS
post 18 Mar 2013, 10:07
Post #48



Group Icon

Group: Project Leader
Posts: 5870
Joined: 2 June 2009
Member No.: 10



This entire notion of rapid deployability in regards to counter insurgency is ridiculous anyway. Rapid response is a useful doctrine when you want to provide an immediate reaction for a threat but once that threat has been dealt with, all the advantages you had due to lighter weight and faster mobility turn into disadvantages because counter insurgency operations turn into years long, protracted affairs by their very nature. Once you enter that stage, you'll want something that survives getting hit by RPGs and IEDs, not something that can be deployed to the field in less than a week. To put it simple: Light-weight rapid deployment is useful when you want to invade and raid another country. Protection and durability are necessary if you intend on keeping that country afterwards.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
__CrUsHeR
post 18 Mar 2013, 11:29
Post #49



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2642
Joined: 18 April 2012
From: Southern Brazil.
Member No.: 9084
"No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."



QUOTE (Col._Sandfurz @ 17 Mar 2013, 11:21) *
First: I like the idea of unified combat platform, as this simplyfies logistics.
Same with Kurgantes Platform. Is this platform for replacing BMP's?
Do you know what weapons are planned for? I guess a IFV version with 30mm auto canon and ATGM, a tank destroyer with missiles and one with a gun? Will this also provide a platform for AA vehicles?


Yes, Kurgantes are planned to replace the MRAP, MBT, BMP, BTR, etc.

I do not find much information about the Kurgante, but some people say the new vehicle may be equipped with a 100mm cannon or 45mm - the 100mm cannon is available for current BMDs-BMPs - and probably Kurgantes will receive ATMGs that already the IFVs from Russia currently have this equipment, as the car will replace various categories of IFVs should be equipped with all kinds of weapons, however I do not know about their capabilities AA.

QUOTE (Col._Sandfurz @ 17 Mar 2013, 11:21) *
Second: I like the concept of this new MBT with an unmanned turret, 3 man crew inside a capsule. Only problem could be if the autoloader/gun has a malfunction, then the crew can not solve this problem quickly..
Nontheless I think that this is the direction MBT developnement will go. With this design you can make lighter MBT as there is less space to be covert with armor (or armored better but without letting them be too heavy).
I read somwhere that the US had considered going in the same direction if the cold war had not ended in 1990. But they only made one prototype or so..
What variations ar planned for Armata? MBT version with tank gun and ROWS, heavy IFV like the Namer IFV of the israelis and also a support vehicle like the BMPT afaik..


About Armata I read that it could be a heavy IFV, may receive equipment Anti-Air and can even be converted to a piece of artillery.


--------------------

You already imagined how would be SAP in the ROTR's universe? Check out this fan-fiction: South American Pact Introduction
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
__CrUsHeR
post 18 Mar 2013, 11:45
Post #50



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2642
Joined: 18 April 2012
From: Southern Brazil.
Member No.: 9084
"No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."



QUOTE (MARS @ 18 Mar 2013, 6:07) *
This entire notion of rapid deployability in regards to counter insurgency is ridiculous anyway. Rapid response is a useful doctrine when you want to provide an immediate reaction for a threat but once that threat has been dealt with, all the advantages you had due to lighter weight and faster mobility turn into disadvantages because counter insurgency operations turn into years long, protracted affairs by their very nature. Once you enter that stage, you'll want something that survives getting hit by RPGs and IEDs, not something that can be deployed to the field in less than a week. To put it simple: Light-weight rapid deployment is useful when you want to invade and raid another country. Protection and durability are necessary if you intend on keeping that country afterwards.


Exactly for this reason that many countries are developing lighter vehicles to transport infantry, this new generation of vehicles moving quickly across the battlefield and must preserve the integrity of the occupants when hit by an IED or RPG - this last the most dangerous for the crew - so new armors are being developed, the difficulty is in not raising the weight of the vehicle so to the point of impair its transport.


--------------------

You already imagined how would be SAP in the ROTR's universe? Check out this fan-fiction: South American Pact Introduction
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28 March 2024 - 19:46