Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:37 am

    The medium brigade is split into two families of wheeled and tracked and likely the various equivalent vehicles will be split between the two vehicle types depending on the chassis requirements... of course it is perfectly possible that there might be two versions of the same vehicle so there is a tracked and wheeled version to make the unit more flexible.
    Wheeled gun armed vehicle and of course a light tracked tank with a heavy gun is perhaps a good example.

    The light brigade will likely have a mix of 2, 4, and perhaps 6 wheeled vehicles too, yet for the family concept to work it would make sense to make sure they are all part of the same family. I have seen a heavy 6 wheel vehicle based on either the Volk or the Tigr-M I think.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Austin on Thu Aug 18, 2011 1:56 pm

    some info on Armata and T-90

    http://vpk.name/news/56616_rossiiskaya_armiya_k_2020_godu_vzglyad_optimista.html

    Will be purchased and equipment for ground forces. Thus, according to the director of the Federal Service Rosoboronzakaz Sergey Maev, 2020 Russian fleet of armored forces will consist of half-T-90 tanks from the tanks and half the new sample. At the same official let slip about the combat characteristics of new cars. The new tank will get a higher fire power, more powerful ammunition and shooting range. Work is underway to build missiles with a range of 7 km. (Now the Russian Army is a tank missiles with a range of 5 km). . Manageability tank will be increased by the use of various automatic control systems. Average speed of vehicles on rough terrain should reach 50-60 km / h, against the current of 30-50 km / h. In addition, one of the main requirements for the tank crew will be the ability to conduct combat operations within 24 hours without leaving the car.


    T-90 justifiably criticized, but this machine is well suited to be the "workhorse" and can remain in service for many years. This tank is capable of withstanding an explosion 30 kiloton nuclear bomb at a distance of 700 meters and can travel underwater. But its main advantages - it's maintainability, simplicity, possibility of use in harsh climatic conditions and, of course, low price (about $ 1.8 million for export versions).

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  ahmedfire on Fri Aug 19, 2011 5:54 am


    Cyberspec
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1946
    Points : 2117
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Cyberspec on Wed Aug 24, 2011 3:57 am

    Some fresh news...

    "Аrmata" rules!

    For more than two years, lasted battles about the need to create a new platform for promising heavy Russian armor. Development work in this direction began last spring after UKBTM concept won the competition . However, only now the General Staff was pleased to approve the program. Of course, this decision will be a good gift for Taghilsky tank builders, coinciding with a bunch of anniversaries: the 75th anniversary of the actual "Uralvagonzavod", the 70th anniversary of UKBTM, 70 years of the 1st UVZ tank, the 65th anniversary Day of tankers.

    General Staff approved a program to create a whole family of new armored vehicles based on a single tracked platform for the Russian Ground Forces, reported on Tuesday "Interfax" referring to a source in the military-industrial complex.

    "This program provides for the development of modern heavy tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, obstacle clearing vehicles which are to equip the tank and Moto-Rifle brigades of the Army "- a spokesman said. He noted that the new tank on a modular basis and a unified chasis "Armata" is scheduled to be adopted in the Army in 2015

    (includes drawings of the new chasis)
    http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2011/08/blog-post_23.html


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 24, 2011 7:04 am

    "This program provides for the development of modern heavy tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, obstacle clearing vehicles which are to equip the tank and Moto-Rifle brigades of the Army "- a spokesman said.

    That is interesting, they are going to retain the Tank and the Motor-Rifle brigades, so they will have heavy, medium, and light tank brigades and heavy, medium, and light motor-rifle brigades.

    Note: motor-rifle brigades are just motorised infantry brigades, so these are tank brigades and infantry brigades. The tank brigades have BMPs and BTRs, and the infantry brigades have tanks... the difference is in the proportion. Tank brigades have mostly tanks with infantry support, while Motor Rifle brigades have mostly troop carriers but with tank support.

    Cyberspec
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1946
    Points : 2117
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Cyberspec on Wed Aug 24, 2011 8:18 am

    I think by Moto-Rifle they refer to Mechanised Infantry brigades. Basically, equipped with BMP's and BTR's (3 battalions) + a battalion of tanks.

    A tank brigade has 2 tank battalions + 2 x M-R battalions according to the new set up....I don't know much about the planned light brigades.

    Someone correct me if I'm wrong...I'm writing from memory.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Austin on Wed Aug 24, 2011 8:22 am

    Does the design looks promising ?

    So the common thing among all is the 6 wheeled chasis ?

    Cyberspec
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1946
    Points : 2117
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Cyberspec on Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:15 am

    I haven't looked into it in detail and details are scetchy to begin with. From what I've seen so far, it suppose to incorporate features from the 'Object 195' (T-95). For example, the crew compartment is suppose to be separate from the main gun and ammo, have sensors with a 360 deg coverage, while being less complex and cheaper to produce.

    This IFV seems to be equipped with AU-220M turret with a 57mm gun and is promoted in different versions for various roles....or maybe I'm interpreting the picture wrong?




    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 24, 2011 11:59 am

    This IFV seems to be equipped with AU-220M turret with a 57mm gun and is promoted in different versions for various roles....or maybe I'm interpreting the picture wrong?

    I knew that turret looked familiar.

    The problem I have is the lack of a BMPT vehicle.

    As is currently in operation they have tanks but they also have BMPs with considerable direct and indirect fire power capability. The problem as I see it is that after taking all that tank ammo and separating it from the crew for safety, it really doesn't make sense to fill the crew compartment of their troop carriers with 100mm HE shells that could explode if the vehicle is penetrated and kill the whole squad inside.
    Because of this I would expect the BTR-T to have maybe a 12.7mm or 14.5mm HMG or 30mm cannon at most in a very small turret.
    This leaves the new units seriously under armed compared with the armament now despite an enormous increase in protection levels.
    To fill this gap the BMPT was the ideal concept but with IMHO poor implementation.
    The role is direct and indirect heavy fire support.
    4 ATGMs and two 30mm cannons, a 30cal MG and two 30mm grenade launchers in limited bow positions just isn't good enough.
    They need the sustained HE firepower of the 100mm gun of the BMP-3, but with the ammo separated from the crew compartment in a turret bustle autoloader... perhaps even a belt feed system with an external gun and a dual feed to allow either standard HE or Missile loading.
    Coaxial with that they can have an external 30mm cannon and at the back of the turret they could put a grenade launcher. In fact a service date of 2015 lets make the back of the turret mounted grenade launcher the 40mm Balkan as its heavier grenades and longer range and caseless ammo look good to me. Fit it the same way the BMP-2 upgrade has it with the ability to elevate independently but turns with the main turret and with built in 300-400 round ammo capacity.
    The simple bow positions for the grenade launchers can be replaced by mini turrets with externally mounted guns and they can each have twinned PKTs and Balkan 40mm grenade launchers each giving a much wider field of fire and better elevation and depression.

    This firepower vehicle doesn't carry a squad in the back... there will be a firewall and roof blowout panels and a full ammo reload for 100mm, 30mm(30x165mm), and 40mm grenades plus 10,000 rounds of 30 cal ammo.

    As a compliment vehicle they could have another BMPT with the 57mm gun turret with a much larger properly armoured turret and the 20 round auto feed system can be doubled so that it becomes a dual feed mechanism with two 20 round auto feed systems, so each ready to fire magazine can contain a different type of ammo... say 10 guided shells and 10 HVAPDS in one, and 20 HE Frag shells in the other, so that with the press of a button it could load a particular shell and with the press of another button the next shell is of a different type.
    This vehicle could have a quad launcher for Kornet so it will have a mix of laser beam riding and SALH weapons.

    The 57mm gun wont have the HE power of the 100mm gun but it will be flatter shooting and more accurate, plus the guided shells can replace laser homing missiles, plus the HVAPDS rounds should make the Bradley and Warrior obsolete in terms of the extra addon armour is not really viable so they will need to go to new designs.

    A turret mounted 40mm grenade launcher would compliment the main gun as its more curved trajectory will be more useful against targets on dead ground or behind cover like buildings or walls.

    ATM the 57mm seems to be based on the round used by the S-60 anti aircraft gun, but I would like to see them develop a new 57mm round based on a telescoped case new design with more power, but in a more compact and efficient shape to maximise ammo storage and ease ammo handling and loading and unloading mechanisms.

    I have read that there has been a competition for the armament of the BMP-4 and it is reportedly between a 45mm cannon and a 57mm cannon. I rather suspect the new 45mm round has significant ammo handling advantages over the old 57mm calibre round so a new 57mm round along with improving its performance (on target... ie ammo efficiency) would also improve storage and handling as well.

    I think by Moto-Rifle they refer to Mechanised Infantry brigades. Basically, equipped with BMP's and BTR's (3 battalions) + a battalion of tanks.

    A tank brigade has 2 tank battalions + 2 x M-R battalions according to the new set up....I don't know much about the planned light brigades.

    Yep, that sounds about right...

    So the new Motorrifle heavy brigade will have 3 battalions of BTRTs based on the Armata chassis with the engine at the front and ramp door at the back with no wheeled armoured personel carriers and one battalion of Armata based tanks with engine at the rear of the chassis.
    The new Motorrifle medium brigade will have 3 battalions of wheeled Kangaroo 25 ton APCs and tracked Kurganets-25 25 ton IFVs, and a battalion of medium tanks on Kangaroo and/or Kurganets-25 chassis.
    The new Motorrifle light brigade will have 3 battalions of Boomerang and Tigr-M type vehicles and a battalion of vehicles a bit like Sprut used in the direct fire support role.

    The tank brigades should be equipped with all the same vehicles but in the different proportion of 2 battalions of APCs and IFVs, and 2 of tanks based on the respective weight class family of vehicles... Armata for heavy, Kurganets-25 and Kangaroo for medium and Boomerang and Tigr-M for light brigades.

    The tank or direct fire support vehicle for the light brigade needs to share the mobility of the rest of the unit otherwise they will end up with the same problems as they had when they used KV-1 and T-34 and T-26 tanks in one formation... the T-34s got there first and the KV-1s arrived much later. The T-26s didn't really matter because they didn't last very long anyway.
    Perhaps if the wheeled vehicles of the light brigades are too light for 125mm guns (should be fine for the 25 ton wheeled vehicles and 25 ton tracked vehicles of the medium brigades) then perhaps the turret of BMPT fitted to a wheeled vehicle might offer a solution. Whether fitted with a 57mm gun with 40mm grenade launcher or the 100mm/30mm/40mm combo either should offer significant direct and indirect firepower, and with external gun mounts they don't need heavy armour protection to operate with tanks. This lack of extra weight would be important for a light vehicle. The turrets could be fitted to the 6 wheeled version of the Volks (modified Tigr-Ms) in a heavier vehicle for the turret and ammo weight.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Austin on Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:51 pm

    Gur Khan blog on Armata does not show how the new tank will look like.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Austin on Wed Aug 24, 2011 2:54 pm

    Are both these IFV ? why one has 57 mm gun and others doesnt , Will this replace BMP-3 ?




    Cyberspec
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1946
    Points : 2117
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Cyberspec on Wed Aug 24, 2011 2:57 pm

    Austin wrote:Gur Khan blog on Armata does not show how the new tank will look like.

    Probably something like the T-95 but smaller

    P.S.

    I think the top one is the Tank, now that I had a better look at it.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Austin on Wed Aug 24, 2011 3:02 pm

    Most certainly Armata has weight of 55 plus more Tons as per older report on it.

    Why does the tank have 6 wheel on tracks , wouldnt giving it 7 wheel and bigger track for bigger tank will give it lower ground pressure ?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Some update on Armata

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 25, 2011 4:11 am

    T-95 art from 'Popular Mechanics' (posted by 'cromeshnic' at the Otvaga site)...what a MONSTER

    Nice... thanks for posting.

    The firepower and protection level seams deadly , although it has a higher turret but its also well protected , This was a single shot kill weapon for any NATO tank from any angle.

    Keep in mind this is art... not photos. From what we have heard of the T-95 its 150+mm calibre gun would have been specifically designed to deal with current and near future tanks so I suspect its performance will be formidible.

    I rather doubt Armata will have that gun however though it might get it as a mid life upgrade in the 2020s... or more likely something based on it, or perhaps even new technology EM powered gun.

    Gur Khan blog on Armata does not show how the new tank will look like.

    Very important to remember that currently the new tank and its family are a Russian state secret and so these drawings are just drawings. No official design sketches have been released so these drawings can be considered fan art just like the drawings of PAK FA before it was revealed. They could be close or could be miles off. Anyone actually releasing pictures that suddenly gets arrested and put in jail... well let me look at those pictures because they will be worth a close look... Smile

    Are both these IFV ? why one has 57 mm gun and others doesnt , Will this replace BMP-3 ?

    It is likely that they will have a BMP-4Heavy , BMP-4Medium (tracked along with a BTR-Medium wheeled), and a BTR-Light Wheeled.
    The vehicles used for troop transport will not have particularly heavy armament otherwise the risk to the squad of a penetration would be too great... no point in removing the tank ammo from the crew compartment to make tank crew safer if all their supporting infantry are killed in ammo explosions because the BMPs have 40 rounds of 100mm HE ammo in them.

    I would suspect there will be troop transports with 50 cal external remote controlled guns and perhaps MG turrets with external MGs and grenade launchers, plus much more heavily armed fire support vehicles with 45/57mm guns or 100mm/30mm gun combinations plus MGs and grenade launchers.

    Remember they rejected the BMPT design, not the BMPT concept. One of the critisims of the BMPT was that a BMP-3 with its 100mm gun and 30mm cannon and bow MGs or grenade launchers and 100mm gun fired missiles (Cool had better firepower than the BMPT with two 30mm cannon and mgs and grenade launchers and four ATGMs.

    The problem is that the BMP-3 can't go into areas where tanks can go safely because of lack of armour.

    An Armata tank with the 125mm gun removed and replaced with the armament of the BMP-3 in external mounts so the 100mm ammo and 30mm ammo is stored in an external turret bustle would be ideal... add a rear mounted 40mm Balkan grenade launcher and replace the two bow mgs with mini turrets with externally mounted PKT MGs and 40mm Balkan grenade launchers with a wide field of view and elevation.
    Raise the main turret level so the front turrets clear the main gun and so the main gun depression can be 20 degrees and elevation is up to 80 degrees with a dual feed autoloader for the 100mm gun to allow 100mm HE and guided missile at the push of a button with a coaxial 30mm cannon.

    In fact because it is externally mounted you could make the 30mm cannon based on the GSh-301 used in Russian fighters with a much heavier and much longer barrel with a longer barrel life that retains the 1,800 rpm rate of fire. On the Mig-29 the gun is computer controlled so the pilot pulls the trigger and with a lock on the target he manoeuvres into a shooting position. The computer continuously calculates the angles and position and distance to the target using radar or laser and IRST and when the computer calculates a guaranteed hit it releases a burst of gunfire. The computer during tests used to fire bursts of 5-7 rounds only but the targets were being destroyed because most shells hit the target. A Mig designer said if they had known it was going to be so effective they would have planned for a 75 round ammo capacity instead of the 150 shells carried normally.
    Using such a control system should allow the commander to fire very short bursts or single shot where needed for ground targets where rate of fire is not so important. For aerial targets it would allow longer bursts and the 1,800 rpm rate of fire of the GSh-301 would be much more useful than the two 2A42 cannon used on the BMPT... and lighter too.

    The only problem is that the GSh-301 uses electrically primed ammo instead of percussion fired ammo used by the ground forces as it offers more control in terms of rate of fire and burst length.

    I think the top one is the Tank, now that I had a better look at it.

    I think you might be right now that you mention it.

    Most certainly Armata has weight of 55 plus more Tons as per older report on it.

    Different vehicles in the family will have different weights.

    I think they said it would weigh from 50 to 65 tons, so the HMG armed APC will be the 50 ton vehicle, while I suspect the artillery model that looks a bit like coalition will be the 65 ton model... it will be interesting to see if the artillery model has one gun or two.

    The twin gun coalition was supposed to be a joint program with the navy so I am looking forward to see twin 152mm guns on their larger ships... Smile

    Why does the tank have 6 wheel on tracks , wouldnt giving it 7 wheel and bigger track for bigger tank will give it lower ground pressure ?

    Normally you don't lengthen a vehicle to reduce its ground pressure... it is much cheaper and simpler to just use wider tracks. When you have long relatively narrow tracks adding a metre or so of length will also add weight to the vehicle whereas adding width to the track is a more efficient way of reducing ground pressure without increasing the vehicle weight or design much.

    Remember if the track has a ground contact length of 7 metres that is 40cm wide increasing the length to 8 metres adds an area 1m long and 40cm wide times two (one for each track). If you add 20cm to the with of the track however you are adding another half a track (7m x 20cm) times two which is like adding a whole third new track which has a much greater impact on the ground pressure without adding any weight to the vehicle (except the extra track area).

    The main reason for adding length is to increase internal hull volume... perhaps for a bigger engine or larger internal crew area, or to increase protection by making the front hull armour more steeply angled... say from 60 degrees to 80 degrees.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Austin on Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:40 am

    The rearmament of the Russian Armed Forces to a new generation of tanks will begin in 2014

    MOSCOW, September 10 - RIA Novosti. Large-scale rearmament of the Russian army tanks on the new generation will take place during the period from 2014 to 2020, as a result the share of new tanks will be up to 70%, told RIA Novosti on Saturday, the eve of the Day tanker, a spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry Ground Forces Colonel Sergey Vlasov.

    According to leading military experts from Russia, currently being developed fourth-generation two tanks - the T-95 and T-99. Which of them will eventually be adopted for the Russian Defense Ministry is unknown.


    "At present, Russian scientists are developing a new generation of tanks, for the period from 2014 to 2020, planned a massive rearmament of the existing fleet to a new generation of tanks of up to 70%," - said.


    He said that at present Army tanks equipped with a T-72 T-80 T-90 and their modifications, and the state arms program envisages that by 2014 will be renovated and modernized T-72 tanks.


    "Thorough repaired, T-72 on its performance characteristics are not inferior to modern designs," - said Vlasov.


    According to him, the main direction of modernization of the tanks - increasing the firepower of weapons and command handling, which will increase the range of target identification at night to 6 times. In addition, the upgraded T-72 will have increased range of active fire, will conduct automatic target tracking, and drop by one-third the time of preparation of the first shot and will be able to interface with software and hardware systems.

    Cyberspec
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1946
    Points : 2117
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Cyberspec on Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:20 am

    Austin wrote:....currently being developed fourth-generation two tanks - the T-95 and T-99. Which of them will eventually be adopted for the Russian Defense Ministry is unknown...

    So I'm guessing the mentioned T-99 is the Armata ?

    ______________


    What's this box like container at the rear of the T-90MS? ...the APU Question




    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    The rearmament of the Russian Armed Forces to a new generation of tanks will begin in 2014

    Post  GarryB on Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:21 pm

    Yeah, I agree... T-99 is Armata and T-95 is cancelled.

    The question is how many upgraded T-72s do they want vs how many T-90s and how many Armatas.

    T-72s are cheap and give you about 60-70% the performance of T-90s... well perhaps 40-50% of T-90AMs.

    One assumes that Armata will have all new stuff that is "next generation" considering it wont even start initial production for 3 years, which gives them 3 years to make all the new stuff work and iron out all the bugs etc etc.

    A production order for 500 T-90AM and a few thousand T-72 upgrades is probably the best we can hope for in regard to the T-90AM in Russian service, but it all depends on how much the Armata will cost.

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Russian Patriot on Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:44 pm

    Russia to make own 'future soldier' gear in 3 years

    Russia may develop a domestic version of 'future soldier' gear in the next three years, a high-ranking defense industry official said on Thursday.

    “I think that an [Russian-made] infantry soldier system will appear in the next three years,” said Yury Borisov, first deputy chair of the Russian Military-Industrial Commission. “I believe that Russian arms makers are quite capable of creating ‘future soldier gear’ which can compete with any similar equipment in service with other armed forces around the world.”

    Borisov said the Russian version would have a “reasonable” weight and consist of at least 10 modules to make it adaptable to different combat situations.

    A typical infantry soldier system weighs less than 25 kilograms (55 lbs) and includes weapons, ammunition, combat clothing with body armor, a ballistic helmet, a portable computer and various communications equipment.

    The Russian Defense Ministry said in February it was holding talks with France on the purchase of Felin advanced 'future soldier' equipment for “testing purposes.”

    Some of the early 'future soldier' equipment was tested by the United States in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Various versions are being introduced as standard infantry soldier gear in NATO member states and some other countries.

    http://www.en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20111201/169214860.html


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future equipment of Russian Army

    Post  GarryB on Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:31 am

    There is already a direct Russian FELIN equivalent available, but it weighs about 36kgs, which makes it about 10kgs heavier than FELIN.

    I am guessing the next 3 years will involve the updating and changes needed to get the weight down and of course to flesh out the different module paths for different roles.

    I rather suspect the FELIN kit they get if their order is accepted will of course be tested and then likely issued to a special forces team for operational use, with the feedback for changes being made to the Russian model.

    The thing is that these future soldier kits are not strictly for special forces, though they will likely find them very useful... the ultimate purpose is that these kits are issued to all troops.

    If you think of it in terms of computers at the moment the Russian Army is like a school with a few computers in the office, one in the Library and 1 or 2 in each classroom, but they are not networked together very well and there is one computer in the office with a printer.

    FELIN in a net centric network means each teacher and each child has a networked computer with a Glonass device so the Principal can at a glance see where everyone is on a map and can communicate directly with all students and teachers and staff.

    Sure there is a risk of commanders sitting in officers thinking they are playing Dark Reign or Age of Empires, but it means that a commander can see what it is like on the front line from a direct video feed, or see/communicate higher up the command chain to get an idea of the situation as it evolves.

    Obviously flicking through 10-20 video feeds would take time and may not give them any useful information, so they can go up one level to the commander of the troops or to his commander to get a pre-processed view of who attacked who and from where and what air assets are nearby, and what artillery units are close to help deal with the problem. The commander could lase the room of the building causing the problems and a nearby tank could put a HE round into that particular room and sort it all out in one shot, or the threat might be more substantial and need something else... after demolishing the room several other windows might start launching Javelins so the supporting tank backs up behind cover and a local 2S4 vehicle might take a Glonass guidance fuse and attach it to a standard 130kg HE round with a half second delay. The commander lases the building again, but this time to get the range. Based on his own coordinates and the range and angle to the target plus 5 metres to make it the centre of the building, he electronically passes the target data to the 2S4 vehicle which fires a single round... half a minute later the entire building erupts and collapses and the enemy fire stops.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  TR1 on Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:18 am

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OWjiqdrKg20/TtiJm_uXdGI/AAAAAAAAOTo/vdpKv1RpKhY/s1600/h-1-751306.jpg

    Indian T-90 looks phenom with the attachment and the sand blowing...

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5664
    Points : 6070
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Austin on Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:23 am

    Cant agree with you more , the best T-90 picture i have seen so far from any T-90 operator , Simply Awesome attack

    T-90 is a looker , the other tank that i like as far as look goes is the Israel Merkava 4 and US M1A2 , all three are great looking tanks.

    The Arjun unfortunately has a very boxy looks atleast for Mk1 hopefully we get a Leo 2 A6 type turret with Mk2 that would be a looker Smile

    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 372
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  runaway on Mon Dec 26, 2011 10:25 pm

    Austin wrote:The Arjun unfortunately has a very boxy looks atleast for Mk1 hopefully we get a Leo 2 A6 type turret with Mk2 that would be a looker Smile

    Yeah, if you like looking at a piece of crap.
    "According to Jane's, the Indian Army had confirmed that the Arjun's production will be capped at 124 units"

    The Arjun is clearly the biggest failure and money waster in modern tank history.
    Clearly indicated that they buy and manufactur more than 1200 T-90S.
    If you dont agree, read about it, then argue. But i dont think anyone will.

    I for one is eager for news of the T-95`s replacement. That is, news with any ground and reality to it.
    And iam not sure the Armata will be it, maybe. But there will certainly be a need to replace the T-62 and early T-72`s still in formations. Heck, i`m not sure the
    T-55 is taken out of service completely. Maybe there still are some in naval or infantry briagdes? But i saw for sure some T-62`s in video clips from 2008 war with Georgia.



    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:26 am

    First of all there is little real difference between most modern tanks in service around the world.

    Each different tank has different capabilities and different features, based on different technologies and different design choices.

    The Abrams is a powerful tank with excellent armour and a very good gun, but you need to be a super power to keep it running, and not every country has the infrastructure to operate a 70 ton tank.

    The Arjun is supposed to be an indigenous Indian tank, which I think is technically a failure in the sense that it is an amalgamation of too many foreign parts.

    If its purpose is to be Indian designed and produced then, by all means licence produce foreign components to make it a capable vehicle, but you also need to invest a lot of money developing those components in new ways... make them Indian components.

    The Arjun wont be an Indian success story till about Arjun III or IV, but that is OK... the Russians and the west have also spent a lot of time and money to get where they are today.

    As is shown with UAVs... it takes time and experience and money to get it right.

    In the real world the best tank is not necessarily the tank with the thickest armour, or the best gun, or the biggest engine.

    Look at the tanks that made up the bulk of the German army in 1940 for the invasion of Europe. Western history books like to go on about how easily the Soviets were pushed back to Moscow in 6 months, and how many soldiers and how much equipment was captured yet largely ignore the fact that the German Army had already done that to most of western europe with pretty much the same forces that had less combat experience at the time.

    Early model panzers were actually pretty pathetic in terms of armour and fire power compared with Russian and French tanks of the day, but it wasn't their armour or guns that made them so effective in the field.

    Communication and tactics were critical, as well as correctly using support like air power as a powerful mobile artillery were features that made the Germans so successful. Also the operation of the tanks where each crewman had a specific role, so the commander was directing the driver from cover to cover, and looking for targets and threats. When targets were found a loader loaded the gun and a gunner fired on the target till it was taken out, while the commander continued looking for targets and threats and directing the driver from cover to cover.

    It was called hunter killer mode and was fully implemented by the Germans in WWII before ballistics computers and night sights and gun stabilisation were fitted as standard on tanks.

    To this end I would like to make clear that just because you like one tank or another is no excuse or reason to call another tank rubbish or crap.
    The Russians showed in Afghanistan and in South Ossetia that even a T-62 with certain upgrades is adequate as a tank in certain situations as at its heart a tank is a direct fire large calibre gun platform with the mobility and protection to operate with troops to support them. In situations where the enemy lacks effective anti armour weapons you could even substitute the BMP-3 for a tank where its amphibious capability might actually make it more useful than a MBT.

    So my message... with my moderators hat on, is to think about the words you use. A rubbish or crap tank is a tank that cannot do the job at all. Experience has shown that even a T-34 right now is better than no tank at all, so really there is no such thing as a crap or rubbish tank... just a fanboy thinking he is making his tank sound cooler by putting down someone elses tank. Dick measuring contests are pointless as the winner ends up with a dick so big he would only be able to service cattle.

    Also keep in mind this thread is about the T-95 and the T-90AM. Discussions about different tanks can be started in new threads.


    Yeah, if you like looking at a piece of crap.

    When talking about aesthetic looks there is no such thing as right or wrong, but if your stool looks like Arjun I tanks I think you need to urgently contact your doctor.

    The Arjun is clearly the biggest failure and money waster in modern tank history.
    Clearly indicated that they buy and manufactur more than 1200 T-90S.
    If you dont agree, read about it, then argue. But i dont think anyone will.

    You are obviously not familiar with tank history... the French, Germans, and Americans started a joint program to build a new tank and they spent a lot of money that didn't result in a single tank entering service. The result was the Abrams, Leopard II, and Leclerc. The British were lucky in that the Shah of Iran spent a small fortune getting the British to design and build them a state of the art tank, but after the revolution they kept them and called them the Challenger... which I am sure you will agree is a potent tank... and one of the cheapest in the sense that Iran footed the bill for its development.

    The T-95 has had a very long development period and has had quite a bit of money spent on it and it will never see service.

    In comparison the Arjun might not be perfect, but it is not totally useless and did at least enter service.
    It seems the T-90 makes more economic sense, but then the Russians have been making tanks for quite some time and know what they are doing.

    I for one is eager for news of the T-95`s replacement. That is, news with any ground and reality to it.
    And iam not sure the Armata will be it, maybe.

    The Armata is the project name, its operational codename will likely be T-99, and based on criticisms of the Burlak upgrade of the T-90 (which had the Black Eagle autoloader in the turret bustle and the under floor autoloader with 22 rounds underfloor and another 31 rounds ready to use in the turret bustle autoloader that is 53 rounds ready to use in combat) and the new design of the T-90AM where the ammo in the turret bustle is only 10 rounds with very well protected storage separate from the crew compartment, that the Russians don't like ammo in the turret bustle.

    The Armata will likely have three crewmen in the hull front and an unmanned turret in the centre of the vehicle with an external gun and ammo in the turret below the level of the turret ring for protection, and the engine to the rear.

    The Armata chassis will also be used for other vehicles in the heavy units and will include rear and front mounted engine options... ie rear for the tank and MSTA replacement, and front for a heavy BTR-T type vehicle.

    But there will certainly be a need to replace the T-62 and early T-72`s still in formations. Heck, i`m not sure the
    T-55 is taken out of service completely. Maybe there still are some in naval or infantry briagdes? But i saw for sure some T-62`s in video clips from 2008 war with Georgia.

    The plan is to have about 8,000 tanks in total in the inventory, with about 2,000 in operational units and 6,000 in storage.
    They have about 2,000 T-80 tanks which they will gradually retire,and the rest will be a mix of 6-800 T-90s and the rest will be upgraded late model T-72s. After 2015 when the Armata chassis will be in production the numbers of other tanks will decline over time and be replaced by Armatas. Of course to accelerate the upgrade they might start making T-90AM2s... which will basically be T-90AMs with any upgrades they decide on between now and 2015... they might have new systems like ARENA 3 or Drodz 5 or SHTORA 3 or whatever.

    The point will be to get their tanks upgraded with the new communications and data sharing equipment and the battle management systems (BMS) that will connect the tanks to the battle net... initially that will be upgrades of the T-90s and T-80s already in service, and the T-72 upgrade, but the Armata and the T-90AMs will already have such electronics installed so in 2015 hopefully the tank units will already have some experience in using BMS to improve communication and coordination.

    The problem with this is that when low tech threats appear they wont have any cheap T-62s to send in and use up some old 115mm HE shells.
    The Advantages of course is that they will remove the 100mm rifled tank calibre and the 115mm smoothbore tank calibre from their inventories, and they can use basically T-72 engines and components for the majority of their tank fleet with a 125mm gun as standard.
    They will safe enormous amounts of money not having to store all those extra tanks and ammo and the extra money spent on new tanks and ammo can be reinvested in making it even better.

    Training and maintainence and operation will be simplified and support structures and logistics will be standardised and simplified and the tail shortened.

    ali.a.r
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 105
    Points : 110
    Join date : 2011-11-04

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  ali.a.r on Tue Dec 27, 2011 4:31 am

    Actually I have been to India for joint exercises and I've seen how the Indians consider both the Arjun and the T-90A. They are very proud of the Arjun, and like to show off everything good about it, but are very touchy when any of it's deficiencies are brought up. Of course, thats understandable.
    On the other hand, the only complains they had about the T-90A, was the fact that they did not show adequate performance in hot and humid conditions. India is a largely tropical country. Plus the areas where they are most likely to be used (on the border zone with Pakistan), are mostly desert. In those conditions, the Arjun outperformed the T-90A, and so all the talk in the media about Arjun being better than the T-90. But in reality, even the Indian tanks crews consider the T-90A to be the better of the two tanks.

    Just thought I'd put in a little contribution about something I know of, sorry if thats a little off-topic.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Tue Dec 27, 2011 10:48 am

    Thanks for your input.

    Of course you can have an opinion on tanks performance, and it really wouldn't surprise me if a T-90 tank failed in a 50 degree C desert... it would surprise me if it failed in the cold.

    I have even read a report about the Indian military not actually buying air conditioner systems for the T-90 tanks because they were considered a luxury. The problem is that every side is happy to trot out statements and facts that are pretty hard to verify either way.

    AFAIK however they are buying T-90s and upgrading their T-72s and they have Arjuns in service and are putting an updated model into service... and that is what it is all about. All tanks have strong points and faults and over time with use you can decide which faults are real problems and which are just side effects of necessary features. You fix faults that are problems and learn to live with necessary features.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:10 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:10 am