We have already discussed most of this to death on several threads... very simply, the Russian tank producer was busy putting the finishing touches on the T-95 when the Russian military sprang the idea of unified families of vehicles on them.
The unified families are Armata (heavy tracked), Kurganets (Medium tracked), Boomerang (Medium Wheeled), Typhoon (light wheeled). For a brief period Typhoon was called Kangaroo, but was still a light wheeled vehicle family.
Armata, Kurganets, Boomerang, and Typhoon/Kangaroo are vehicle bases and a brigade would consist of one vehicle family type to increase mobility (all vehicles have the same engine and basic mobility) same levels of protection, and same logistics support chain.
When the lead units of a Boomerang brigade get to a river they just find a suitable entry point and swim across. When Armata units come to a river they find a good crossing point and snorkle across.
Yes,but isn`t most of the project focused on the tank itself?Even in the case of T-55s and T-72s,when only the tanks were developed,soon APC versions followed,with some artillery using some T-72 parts as well.What I`m trying to say is that even though this project is called a `platform`,in cases when only tanks were developed on the start,other vehicles like APCs soon followed.
Experience showed in Chechnia that if the APCs and IFVs can't operate with tanks and tanks can't operate without APCS and IFVs then when a real MBT is needed then everyone should have that level of protection.
The reality is that most of the time in most operations a MBT is massive overkill and a lighter cheaper vehicle would be better suited to the job.
An example is that the Armata will have two basic models... one with the engine at the rear for MBTs etc, and one with the engine at the front for APC and IFV type vehicles...
Regarding my first question,I just wanted to say that making a vehicle,like for example Coalition SPG,and then making it on three platforms (Armata,Boomerang and Kurganets) will surely cost more and make some delays.For example,you made a SPG on a truck.Everything is balanced and fine,but you want to get it on a tank hull so that it can follow tanks.Well,you will surely need to do a lot of work to get the hull and the gun itself to work properly.
Coalition was developed with the Russian Navy and will be a standard naval weapon... likely fitted to destroyers and larger vessels. Having a cheaper lighter version that is truck based makes a lot of sense, though with its range it might be attached to medium and light brigades rather than operate as an organic part of them.
I think that the idea of 3 brigades made for each task is pretty good,but it requires a lot of vehicles developed and a lot of money spent,and we know where the money supposed for the troops ended (in someone`s pocket it seems).
I disagree, I think unifying the electronics and sensors and armament of the brigades makes enormous sense and will lead to a much more mobile more responsive force... don't think of Typhoon 10 ton class wheeled vehicles replacing MBTs in a unit... the previous structure would have had obsolete old T-55s for that role with nothing like the APS systems and modern communications and optics fitted to the Typhoon gun fire support vehicle.... and instead of having for 6 months to supply the unit and get its manning up to an operational level it will be ready to go in less than one hours notice.