[Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

ult wrote:The contract is for the 132 T-14 and T-15 vehicles. To be completed by the end of 2021. First 9 serial vehicles to be received this year.

"На сегодня подписан контракт на 132 машины Т-14 и Т-15. Первые девять машин мы получим уже в этом году, серийные машины. До конца 2021 года контракт будет выполнен", — сказал Криворучко журналистам на форуме "Армия-2018".

https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20180822/1527030365.html

That is enough to equip a brigade with 3 tank battalions and 1 motor rifle battalion. Pretty much as expected.

Priorities change with time. Russia needs more equipment out and needs to move funding to other projects first and foremost. Armata and Su-57 will be introduced in coming time but after Syria experience and use of their newer tech like Radar and AD systems, Russia realized that stealth/LO is not necessary.

So priorities are changed. It isn't like Su-35 is cheap, because it isn't. Even though it's $27M per aircraft in USD terms, it's still the same cost or a bit higher in Rubles like it was back before FOREX change. Su-30 being even more expensive for whatever reason.

Another factor is that it is need driven and not profit driven...

The Su-57 case is relevant to an Armata thread because there are a few parallels here... The Su-57 is a brand new design but was never intended to be the new standard Russian fighter to replace all others. It was always going to operate with MiG-35s and Su-35s and MiG-31s... the question they have to deal with is what sort of balance in numbers of types do they actually need... Su-57s to counter NATO and perhaps some on the Chinese front near South Korea and Japan, but most of the fleet can be much cheaper non stealthy aircraft that can perform most roles, while retaining a decent weapon load, but being numbers planes... even more so if the L band radar arrays and IRSTs and main AESA type nose mounted radar can detect enemy stealth aircraft like the F-35 etc then they wont need enormous numbers of stealth aircraft... they are not NATO and don't need to take down tiny air forces in third world countries.

It is the same with the armata... only the heavy forces will have armata platforms and therefore also armata tanks. Lighter highly mobile medium forces will have Kurganets and Boomerang vehicles and gun platforms and wont have armata tanks operating with them.

With modern systems like active camouflage skins, and modern ERA and NERA, plus APS systems that can stop both HEAT and APDS threats, as well as a huge boost in optics and communications and fire power the new medium tracked and medium wheeled vehicle forces will be very effective... without needing to be 40+ tons per vehicle.

In a Kurganets division... compared with a current division, pretty much every vehicle will be much better protected with the exception of the tanks... a T-90 fitted with APS like ARENA-2 probably has better protection than a Kurganets tank version simply because it has more traditional passive armour, but in a currrent division... tank or motor rifle division the vast majority of vehicles actually have fairly poor armour, whereas the Kurganets will no doubt have armour better than the BMP-3 has now, so the average protection and mobility and fire power performance will actually improve even for Kurganets and Boomerang forces.

For armata forces every vehicle including APCS and IFVs and command vehicles and air defence vehicles and artillery vehicles will have tank level protection and mobility...

The SU-57 was never going to be produced in large numbers...at best you would have seen maybe 80.

Agree with the first part but think 150-200 is a more likely number in the long term... I suspect they will sell on the international market too... a downgraded model with western parts will likely be cobbled together for India... probably with Israeli and French components added... would be interesting if Israel or France somewhere down the line decided that the Su-57MKI was worthy of introducing themselves into their own military forces... unlikely though.

Stealth aircraft are a lot more expensive and harder to maintain they are also more limited in usage when it comes to the environment.

Generally, unless you are picking on a country weaker and with tech 40 years behind yours. Stealth becomes a lot less useful stealth fighters, in general, are meant to hide long enough to get that first salvo in maybe second against a hostile aircraft.

Very true but from an American/western colonial point of view.

From a Russian view stealth aircraft are expensive too, but as part of a home defence team that are not easy to detect or track at long range... with low drag and high flight speed at medium altitudes, and with excellent sensors... they would be rather useful additions to the air defence... including for spotting low flying threats without being an obvious and easy target like an A-100 might be.

You cannot really hide them against ground-based radar unless again you're facing someone much less tech wise than you.

You could mask them with noisy unstealthy aircraft, and the odd very fast MiG-31K lofting Mach 10 missiles 2,000km into NATO territory to take out major radar sites and other things of interest.

The problem is with stealth aircraft is to get that shape you need to sacrifice the planes ability to maneuver like a normal aircraft can. So that means if the stealth fighters fail to kill its target in the surprise salvo, its pretty much dead, the other better-optimized aircraft for maneuvering will simply outpace it.

Agree but if we look at the Su-57 it seems to be very manouerable. The comments about manouver performance would best apply to the F-35, which is no dancer... all the new Russian fighters seem to be optimised for manouver combat...

So if you built tons of expensive has hell stealth fighters, well you're asking for a big drain on the wallet with honestly little benefit to it.

Plus you are gambling a lot on a technology that may be effectively countered soon... I agree they wont and don't need to make 500 Su-57s... but I think 150-200 would be a good number (including naval models for new carriers and an upgraded Kuznetsov eventually too).

It would eventually replace older T-10 models so over 100 makes sense. It will eventually replace all T-10 models to become the next T-10 in itself. Maybe in not current configuration but other configurations that are not known presently. But that is the purpose of it.

On topic... I don't think the Armata tank will replace the T-72/90 one for one... because there will also be Kurganets tanks and Boomerang tanks and likely even Typhoon gun platforms to perform the role... as well as Sprut of course and a navalised variant of either Kurganets or Boomerang too.

The wont need to replace all the Flanker variants because the Su-30 and Su-35 and indeed the MiG-35 are viable options that are overkill themselves in some situations... together with the MiG-31 and whatever replaces it.

We can`t still say whether this attempt will be succesful, but Russians are the first and only to try, as it could have been expected from Russians as the world champions in tank building.

The Armata family is a full range family of vehicles... the time it will take to develop all the family members we might not see a proper armata division until 2030... they might start off with a motor rifle or tank division with T14s and T-15s and the engineer model whatever it is called, and of course Coalition as the T-18 or whatever, but the rest of the vehicles standard current models until the armata models are perfected. So modified MTLB command vehicle in the form of the ACRV-3 or something.

Will be the same with Kurganets and Boomerang and Typhoon.

Su-27 fleet is not huge anymore. Most of it is being replaced by su-35/30 and many are being upgraded to sm3 standards.

And you could say the same about armour... T-90s and upgraded T-72s will continue for some time... I suspect the lighter vehicles will be developed and produced faster because they are cheaper... the Boomerang will also be cheaper and simpler to operate, so they will probably replace normal divisions with Boomerang divisions much quicker than with other types...

He talks about the long run. All this Su-27SM and Su-27SM3 will be replaced after 2025/2030 by Su-57.

Unless something really drastic happens I really don't think they would need to retire Su-27SM3s for some time... I suspect a mix of 100-200 Su-57s, plus Su-35 and Su-30 and Su-27SM3 and MiG-29SMT and MiG-29M2 and Mig-35s, plus a dwindling number of MiG-31s and a growing number of MiG-41s by 2030.

@all - perhaps lets move discussion on Su-57 to Su-57 thread?

I think this discussion is relevant to both new items... as they are both new technology and no one can really say if they will be brilliant or the last of their kind in the sense that their replacements will all be unmanned and the way that war is conducted in the future might be totally different.

I would rather say that in SU30SM and SU-35 original SU-27 design has reached its peak of development and further substantial improvements are not possible. Anyway, they are one of the best multiroles in the world, if not the best. and much of the aircraft are new or with great lifemargins! SU-57 is coming just on time and can be put in full production when new engine is finished, in 3-4 years.

Another issue for both threads... (Su-57 and Armata)... just because they are new, they are also rather more expensive. Now that might change with time, but further upgrades will likely keep them state of the art but also keep them pricey. The platforms they are replacing are by no means obsolete or useless.

Real conflict in Syria shows that the latest super tank is not needed all the time... even a T-55 with modest upgrades and the properly trained crew with the right tactics can be effective too.

Neither the Armata tank nor the Su-57 will be critical in WWIII.

What matters is how many su-57 they will order for next 10 years. After that they will have an improved version like su-35 with su-27 and no one knows how their economy will be.

Even with a booming economy they might decide that technology has moved on and armatas and Su-57s are not needed in huge numbers... a small force of each for specific situations, and the rest cheaper simpler models that can be produced in larger numbers.

Imagine a neighbour acting up... the reaction when Armata divisions are moved to the nearest border and Su-57s are deployed to a nearby air base...

According to the statement made in February 2018 by the then Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Yuri Borisov, this contract for experimental military operation provides the supply of two battalion sets of T-14 tanks on the Armata platform and one battalion of heavy T-15 BMPs.

So they are going to test them as MBTs and BMPs first...

"In 2020, we have a finish on all new models, and after that we will decide on serial large contracts," Yury Borisov said.

but the comment about having all new models ready by 2020... does that mean an all armata division is possible so fast?

If it was to do with money, they would have gone with more MiGs rather than Sukhois

A lot of people keep saying about token purchases of MiG-35s, but I suspect they will actually buy a lot of them... some of the technology on them is quite impressive.

But if you have to chose only one you choose sukhoi.

The numbers look good on paper... very similar aircraft but flanker has bigger radar and rather more weapons and much longer range, but similar speed.

The problem is that while one Flanker might be able to operate from fewer air bases spaced further apart, the actual performance is not better than two Fulcrums... because two fulcrums can cover each other or spread out and cover more airspace.

If it was the case, then they would use MiG-29UB for Syria campaign, and SMT. But they only used it briefly. Stuck with much more expensive Sukhois.

When you can only take 36 planes then it makes sense to take the longer ranged models... but if you have 6 billion to spend and need to defend a given airspace the smaller cheaper plane offers better coverage despite shorter radar range, less weapons and shorter flight range.

Of course with inflight refuelling over your own territory the range advantage is not that great.

They tried it there but the presence of NATO fighters recquires su-35 and s-400. If it was only bombing ground target, SMT are a better price-quality choice than sukhoi specially in syria where they need to fly only few minutes to be on the combat zone.

In fact Su-24s were used because they were cheaper than Su-34s and for most targets there was little difference in effectiveness...

T-15 with all its parts and T-14

Nice... so we have seen MBT = T-14, the definitive BMP = T-15 with the 57mm gun, which means perhaps the one with the 30mm cannon was the interrum T-15 or could be the APC model with an unknown designation. Then we have the model with the tiny HMG armed turret, which could just be another troop transport APC, or it might be a BMO engineer vehicle. Then we had an engineer vehicle model shown a while back too, and then there is the 152mm artillery equipped Coalition but we don't know if it will get a T designation or a 2S36 type designation.

"Uralvagonzavod" is ready to create a new heavy tank with a 152-mm gun on the platform of "Armata"

Pushy... they don't even know how many Armatas they want let along whether to up gun them...

Fact that baboon like him is in the government is proof enough that Russia still has decades to go before becoming respectable nation.

Respectable nation like the US or Saudi Arabia?

A few Boris Johnsons only matter if you actually take politicians seriously... and I would say the only politicians with any real credibility are Putin and Lavrov...

So there is indeed a new T-90 order.

...But its only 30 & most are upgrades to T-90M from T-90A, only 10 new build

They are aiming to create three complete families of armoured vehicles to replace all existing armoured vehicles in a division... it is not going to happen overnight and while it is happening existing forces need upgrades and decent vehicles to practise with.

There will be a lot of commonality between the vehicles... the turrets will be standardised... the armata tank turret on a kurganets and a boomerang will be the standard tank vehicle in each family... and same for the 57mm gun armed IFV turret. There will likely be another 57mm gun armed model for the air defence forces in each family too... let alone the 30mm cannon and missile armed IFV turret for all three families etc etc.

miketheterrible wrote:He doesn't decide procurement. He helps decide a budget. The rest is done by MoD and president.

His job is to deliver what is ordered by the MoD... however he would have input on budgets especially in regards to costs and production.