Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Share

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:03 pm

    GarryB wrote:Hahahaha.. good example kotemore... while the US and the west struggle to get air burst grenade launchers into service the Soviets/Russians have had them for three and a half decades... in service.

    So what if ERA tiles get ripped off the sides of tanks.. shit happens.

    And US tanks never lose ERA from their sides because they don't have any... they just have a flimsy sheet of material that keeps the dust down and does fuck all to protect the vehicle from a side hit... but by all means believe that makes the US piece of crap superior.

    I am sure you think German Nazi troops look superior in their leather shorts but it didn't do much to help them win the war. In fact it has been proven that the better fitting uniforms of the Germans could be responsible for as many deaths at times as the Soviet forces because of frostbite and general heat loss.

    Come on Vann... where are your threads on US quality control... didn't you read about their two biggest helos crashing into each other off the coast in the Pacific ocean... I guess US politicians don't care about American soldiers either. I mean how long were Humvees used instead of MRAPs when it was known they weren't protected vehicles...

    But as you suggest they looked well designed so they must be OK... because that is all that matters.

    The sideskirts are designed that way to fall off when getting scratched near building, trees or any other hard obstacle. It is to prevent side skirts damaging or ripping open the fuel canisters. Not the most elegant way but that is what has been chosen.

    Alex555
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 34
    Points : 38
    Join date : 2014-01-20

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Alex555 on Wed Jan 20, 2016 9:23 am

    UVZ calendar 2016 - 225 mb
    https://yadi.sk/i/BpVheXIYnMmQN

    xeno
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 143
    Points : 148
    Join date : 2013-02-04

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  xeno on Wed Jan 20, 2016 4:31 pm

    Alex555 wrote:UVZ calendar 2016 - 225 mb
    https://yadi.sk/i/BpVheXIYnMmQN
    Thanks a lot...

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5665
    Points : 6071
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Austin on Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:09 am

    First & Only Video of T-14 ARMATA Tank Firing


    BKP
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 268
    Points : 277
    Join date : 2015-05-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  BKP on Fri Jan 29, 2016 5:05 am

    Talks about the current state of the Russian economy and its effect on the future prospects of Armata, T-90AM & T-72B3.


    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1558
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Jan 29, 2016 9:48 am

    BKP wrote:Talks about the current state of the Russian economy and its effect on the future prospects of Armata, T-90AM & T-72B3.


    Well Uralvagonzavod with German accent and statements that  T-90 is  worse then ukropskie tanki., I guess no more laugh this morning needed Smile

    BTW authors might maybe can check facts how many "oplots"  were delivered to Thailand for for years? 10! then is real danger for Russia export!

    and yesss till 2025 400 max. Damn next undisputed expertize?Smile

    BKP
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 268
    Points : 277
    Join date : 2015-05-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  BKP on Fri Jan 29, 2016 1:28 pm

    ^ You think that's a German accent? I thought more like an ESL person who learned English in South England. Anyhow, her accent is weird, and difficult for me to understand sometimes.

    Regarding what was said in the video, I'm not no expert, but some of this seemed questionable. She says something like "T-90 is becoming rapidly outdated," and is basically being outclassed by Uke Oplot and Chinese Type 96A. Then it's claimed that this is the reason why Thailand chose Oplot over the T-90. I didn't personally follow the details of that deal, and am not familiar with the details and what factors played into Thailand's decision.

    Anyhow, I've generally thought South Front is a pretty good alternative news source, but I'm quite dubious about some of what is said in this video.

    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1558
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Jan 30, 2016 1:31 am

    BKP wrote: Regarding what was said in the video, I'm not no expert, but some of this seemed questionable. She says something like "T-90 is becoming rapidly outdated," and is basically being outclassed by Uke Oplot and Chinese Type 96A. Then it's claimed that this is the reason why Thailand chose Oplot over the T-90. I didn't personally follow the details of that deal, and am not familiar with the details and what factors played into Thailand's decision.

    Anyhow, I've generally thought South Front is a pretty good alternative news source, but I'm quite dubious about some of what is said in this video.

    Pls do not take this personally I was pointing their way of presenting data.  BTW Thai delegation afte evident failure of Ukraine contract visited Moscow to negotiate possible contract what was not mentioned in this news.


    BTW 400 Armatas in 2015 is base don what exactly - no info/source provided so I cannot treat this kind of news otherwise as anti-Russian info war.

    BKP
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 268
    Points : 277
    Join date : 2015-05-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  BKP on Sat Jan 30, 2016 2:01 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    BKP wrote: Regarding what was said in the video, I'm not no expert, but some of this seemed questionable. She says something like "T-90 is becoming rapidly outdated," and is basically being outclassed by Uke Oplot and Chinese Type 96A. Then it's claimed that this is the reason why Thailand chose Oplot over the T-90. I didn't personally follow the details of that deal, and am not familiar with the details and what factors played into Thailand's decision.

    Anyhow, I've generally thought South Front is a pretty good alternative news source, but I'm quite dubious about some of what is said in this video.

    Pls do not take this personally I was pointing their way of presenting data.  BTW Thai delegation afte evident failure of Ukraine contract visited Moscow to negotiate possible contract what was not mentioned in this news.


    BTW 400 Armatas in 2015 is base don what exactly - no info/source provided so I cannot treat this kind of news otherwise as anti-Russian info war.

    Right, I have read they the Thais are possibly negotiating a deal with Russia now that the original one with Ukraine has soured. Of course, there's the question of why the Thais first picked Oplot over T-90. It's quite possible that other factors played into their decision other than simply which is the better machine. Cost and outside pressure come to mind. As I said though, I don't really know.

    South Front is certainly not typically anti-Russia. I'm not at all sure that this video was intended to be either. Could just be that they didn't have their facts straight on this.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Jan 30, 2016 2:07 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    BKP wrote: Regarding what was said in the video, I'm not no expert, but some of this seemed questionable. She says something like "T-90 is becoming rapidly outdated," and is basically being outclassed by Uke Oplot and Chinese Type 96A. Then it's claimed that this is the reason why Thailand chose Oplot over the T-90. I didn't personally follow the details of that deal, and am not familiar with the details and what factors played into Thailand's decision.

    Anyhow, I've generally thought South Front is a pretty good alternative news source, but I'm quite dubious about some of what is said in this video.

    Pls do not take this personally I was pointing their way of presenting data.  BTW Thai delegation afte evident failure of Ukraine contract visited Moscow to negotiate possible contract what was not mentioned in this news.


    BTW 400 Armatas in 2015 is base don what exactly - no info/source provided so I cannot treat this kind of news otherwise as anti-Russian info war.

    400 T-14 not Armata's. Armata is the modular hull which can be produced in high numbers and before the tank was even unveiled they had produced more than 7 tanks not to mention how many testplattforms they might have. 2300 Armata's does not mean T-14 but all the various plattforms and 400 T-14 is already 400 more tanks which no other nation has of that level.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Mike E on Sat Jan 30, 2016 2:12 am

    Guys, the plan is for 2,000 T-14's.

    Their numbers are off;
    A) There are almost already 1,000 B3's today, in fact they should be all replaced by T-14's at that point.
    B) 400 T-14's is probably made up. Even with economic insecurity that figure is way too low.
    C) More like 300 T-90M's from what we are hearing.

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2513
    Points : 2646
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  kvs on Sat Jan 30, 2016 2:47 am

    400 is what Russia can produce each year currently. Anyone with doubts that 2000 will be built in 10 years needs to
    put the crack pipe down. The Russian budget deficit is 2.6% of GDP in the middle of this global recession. Brazil's
    budget deficit is 10% of GDP. It is rather easy for the Russian government to prioritize military spending. The 5th
    column has no traction with the Russian people in using this to generate discontent. Russians know that their military
    is their only safeguard. They have too many dead in their families from historically recent genocidal foreign invasions
    not to know this.

    It actually makes sense to make more T-14s rather than less. There are economies of scale associated with mass production.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Mike E on Sat Jan 30, 2016 2:52 am

    The Russian deficit is no worse GDP-% wise than the "official" US deficit (which of course is BS - debt shoots up and the deficit falls down).

    400 annually is optimistic. 200-300 shouldn't be an issue given the amount of funding given to the Armata program.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  sepheronx on Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:14 am

    Also since Uralvagonzavod is Russian, supporting them by buying their product will save them the money in the future in supporting them by handing them money so they don't make over 10,000 employees unemployed and have one of the few if not only armored system companies go into dust and have to then get the same goods from abroad. People are retarded when they cannot seem to even put this information together. Once you think about it, then it sounds dumb to make ridiculous cutbacks.

    Anyway, I think that the T-90AM upgrade is needed. If they can provide similar upgrade to T-72B's in service, then it would be even more ideal. Let us face it, things are getting sketchy in the world and as well, Russia would benefit from actually procuring such weapons and it would drastically increase the chances of other countries buying it as well for new purchases or upgrades to current T-90 tanks.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Mike E on Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:34 am

    That as well. The Gov's support for UVZ was proven (again) when they gave additional funding this last December.

    Kind of unrelated, but apparent ChTZ has paid off debts & plans to increase production by 2.5 times in the not too far future.

    T-90M is not need IF T-14 can be put into service at the promised rates. If it can't, then the M would be a good substitute.

    T-72B's won't be getting any upgrades past the new one we just heard about, at least for Russia. There'd be no point.

    OminousSpudd
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 803
    Points : 822
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 21
    Location : Nelson, New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  OminousSpudd on Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:50 am

    T-90AM would be more viable if the T-90A existed in greater stocks, with numbers closer to the T-72... But they don't so it isn't.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Mike E on Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:53 am

    I hate to sound whiny but it is the T-90M not the AM. That's the way it was shown at Army-2015 so it's most likely official.

    The lower numbers are exactly why it is viable. Asking Russia to build 2,000 T-14's and some 1,000 M's (not to mention other vehicles and exports) is simply unrealistic.

    Don't forget the T-72B2, it was thrown out because it was too much.

    OminousSpudd
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 803
    Points : 822
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 21
    Location : Nelson, New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  OminousSpudd on Sat Jan 30, 2016 5:11 am

    Okay, T-90M then. Wink

    I would tend to think that a larger stock of T-90s would represent a heftier return in an investment into an extended Tagil (or whatever name it goes by now, or was that just export?) program. Reduction in costs over time due to T-14 mass production and prolonged (due to theoretical larger stock) T-90 overhauls would mean an overall increase in cost-benefit ratios. A smaller stock means a large initial outlay cost for a reasonably small amount of gain.

    EDIT: As for T-72B2 I think not having the T-14 established at the time was the biggest issue. Componentry is cheaper when your big bro is already creating the demand and improving the prices.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  sepheronx on Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:42 am

    Besides B3, what other model is there for T-72 they mentioned that would be beyond it? or is B3 the last one?

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Mike E on Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:44 am

    Well, there are two.

    The B3M with the independent TC sight + 1130 hp engine.

    And the new one with new ERA, grate armour, plus the same 1130 hp engine.

    Nothing too crazy, but that's not a bad thing really.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  sepheronx on Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:50 am

    Any pictures of this semen demon?

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Mike E on Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:11 am

    If you are referring to the new vehicle; 78.9 million Rubles per.

    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1558
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Jan 30, 2016 12:36 pm

    Mike E wrote:That as well. The Gov's support for UVZ was proven (again) when they gave additional funding this last December.

    Kind of unrelated, but apparent ChTZ has paid off debts & plans to increase production by 2.5 times in the not too far future.

    T-90M is not need IF T-14 can be put into service at the promised rates. If it can't, then the M would be a good substitute.

    T-72B's won't be getting any upgrades past the new one we just heard about, at least for Russia. There'd be no point.

    With T-72B3 can still be gradually transferred to Syria/Iran orsold on intl market.  But low number of T-90M IMHO you´re not correct that with T-14 they are not needed anymore. Still way better then  T-72 and probably way cheaper than T-14.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:15 pm

    T-90AM is still the best option to face out older generation tanks that are either stored or planned to be faced out but are kept in storage due to lack of current plans to replace them. 2300 T-14's or not is still not a high number and russia should increase its number of tanks on T-90A or even T-90AM level which have a higher fidelity of technological level that will make them more effective to accompany T-14's on the battlefield due to higher protection and Kalina FCS that brings it about any foreign counterparts and closer to T-14's. We have to face the simple fact that US will through any NATO slave as human shields towards russia as long US exists and russia has to be prepared for either a long war or a financial decapitation that is focused to its limits and preferably beyond to put that demon out for once and for all.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Mike E on Sat Jan 30, 2016 9:01 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:

    With T-72B3 can still be gradually transferred to Syria/Iran orsold on intl market.  But low number of T-90M IMHO you´re not correct that with T-14 they are not needed anymore. Still way better then  T-72 and probably way cheaper than T-14.

    "T-90M is not need IF T-14 can be put into service at the promised rates. If it can't, then the M would be a good substitute."

    B3's will be sold or given away once T-14 arrives.

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #4

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:25 pm


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:25 pm