Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+27
lancelot
Swgman_BK
galicije83
AlfaT8
Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E
limb
Mir
franco
JohninMK
ludovicense
flamming_python
Werewolf
Arrow
Arkanghelsk
Kiko
TMA1
ALAMO
DerWolf
caveat emptor
GarryB
lyle6
sepheronx
Big_Gazza
Isos
sputnik
PhSt
Hole
31 posters

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 4467
    Points : 4469
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  ALAMO Wed Mar 15, 2023 5:49 pm

    And the gap is only going to become bigger as the Russian MIC consolidates even further while Europe deindustrializes.

    Bullseye.
    People who are crying a river about the matter lack any serious perspective, and that is a sad observation.
    Sorry folks, you really, really don't.

    Some of you are just infused in the western propaganda, even not realizing that - I suppose the language or time/effort barrier is the issue here.

    kvs objectively is disgusted by the fact that Russkie produce ONLY 2 tanks a day Laughing

    Bro, it is still more PRODUCED tanks than the whole NATO made in the last fukin' DECADE lol1 Laughing Twisted Evil

    In a DAY.

    There is not a single PRODUCTION line for tanks running in the whole of Europe, the US, Canada etc.
    Not sure if Turks are not doing something around Altai, but hardly believe in that.
    Not a single piece of Leclerce, L2, Ch2, M1, Ariete, PT-91, T-72 is being PRODUCED.

    Can they?
    Well ... sure. But how to switch from a 1 pcs a month refurbish to 2 pcs a day production?
    Who will do that?
    Physically.
    Where are the skilled&trained personnel to carry heavy industry jobs, in Europe that considered this work not fancy for the last two bloody decades at least?
    Who will supply tens of subcomponents, having the very same issue?
    How much will that cost, in Europe lacking any serious resources and forced to import 80% of the industry needs?

    Well .. sue they can.
    It will take time. Years.
    It will take money. Billions.

    And guess who lacks the time, and who lacks the money? dunno

    GarryB, par far, galicije83, Hole, lyle6, Mir, Broski and Belisarius like this post

    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 2020
    Points : 2014
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  Arrow Wed Mar 15, 2023 5:51 pm

    The most amazing thing is that Russia has only 150 million people and world's fifth economy. NATO is over 900 million population.


    Last edited by Arrow on Wed Mar 15, 2023 6:12 pm; edited 1 time in total

    GarryB, galicije83, Hole, lyle6, Broski, jon_deluxe and Belisarius like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 1642
    Points : 1638
    Join date : 2020-09-13
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  lyle6 Wed Mar 15, 2023 6:07 pm

    For me the most disgusting flex has to be rebuilding Mariupol and the Donbass and just the greater rejoined Russian Novorossiya - with a shooting war not a few hundred miles away. Armies of laborers moving thousands of tons of construction material every single day while the real Russian Army is fighting its own battles at the same time. Most of NATO couldn't even fix their shit in peace time, the US included. They don't need to do this, they could proceed with reconstruction after the war is won like its normally done. But no, the Russian state simply has so much strength it can decide it can do both at the same time. And NATO thinks it has a snowball's chance in hell without nukes....

    GarryB, JPJ, Big_Gazza, kvs, ALAMO, thegopnik, Hole and like this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 4467
    Points : 4469
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  ALAMO Wed Mar 15, 2023 6:15 pm

    Look at the thing from a positive perspective.
    This land was heavily exploited for the last 30 years. Decapitalization rates are sky high.
    In most of the cases it will be really much more cost effective to build that brand new, with new concepts and whole development system.

    GarryB, flamming_python, kvs, lyle6 and Belisarius like this post

    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8


    Posts : 2312
    Points : 2307
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  AlfaT8 Sat Mar 25, 2023 1:52 am

    F it, i am bored.



    BTW, honest question, because this keeps getting brought up all the damn time.
    Who the F, told the media that Russia would have 2000 Armatas in a few years?
    Who, Who the F was it??
    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 1642
    Points : 1638
    Join date : 2020-09-13
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  lyle6 Sat Mar 25, 2023 5:54 am

    I can smell the AIDS from that video...  

    sepheronx, Werewolf, AlfaT8, Big_Gazza, lancelot, Broski, jon_deluxe and Belisarius like this post

    sepheronx
    sepheronx


    Posts : 8036
    Points : 8302
    Join date : 2009-08-05
    Age : 33
    Location : Canada

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  sepheronx Sat Mar 25, 2023 6:21 am

    I think he posted shit like this previously. Either him or someone else.

    Broski, jon_deluxe and Belisarius like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 35764
    Points : 36290
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  GarryB Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:56 am

    The west was super butt hurt when the Soviets led the way by introducing smoothbore main tank guns... would be too inaccurate... they are doing it because it is cheaper so they can build ten times more tanks than we have and try to compete with our sniper tanks by trying to machine gun or submachine gun them and overwhelm them with less accurate fire... storm them... get in close... within 1-2km where even inaccurate guns get hits anyway.

    Of course all that was bullshit butt hurt... the irony is that it was obvious... most HEAT rounds were fin stabilised and all APFSDS rounds were fin stabilised so were getting no accuracy benefit from their guns rifling anyway..... absurd...

    Sorry dude, I am not even going to bother to watch that video... it looks like the usual shit.

    My guess is that the west will claim the T-14 is a step backwards and real future tanks will be fully remote controlled and completely unmanned.

    flamming_python, Big_Gazza, lyle6, jon_deluxe and Belisarius like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 1642
    Points : 1638
    Join date : 2020-09-13
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  lyle6 Sat Mar 25, 2023 1:00 pm

    The T-14 is actually just a software update away from autonomous operation. According to RUMINT a couple test vehicles that received this upgrade can drive, conduct patrols and even hunt and engage targets without human input.

    But the proving ground is one thing and I doubt this unmanned mode is anywhere near combat ready.

    I suspect the Russians will be looking to operationalise
    teleoperation instead. The T-14 might be the most survivable vehicle of its kind but why stop there? Throw out the crew and remove the risk to human life altogether.

    GarryB, flamming_python, Big_Gazza, Hole and Broski like this post

    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door


    Posts : 1131
    Points : 1185
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  The-thing-next-door Sat Mar 25, 2023 5:15 pm

    F it, i am bored.



    BTW, honest question, because this keeps getting brought up all the damn time.
    Who the F, told the media that Russia would have 2000 Armatas in a few years?
    Who, Who the F was it??

    The author of that video is the same moron who criticized the T34/85 for having a "low velocity" main gun, He completely redefines the term retarded.

    If these kind of videos are any indication of the state of the anglo saxon race then they would probably all die off due to failure to perform the basic tasks needed to keep a society running. That is to say if the Russians do not put them down first.

    sepheronx, GarryB, Big_Gazza, Hole, lyle6, Scorpius, Broski and Belisarius like this post

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza


    Posts : 4151
    Points : 4149
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  Big_Gazza Yesterday at 9:19 am

    lyle6 wrote:The T-14 is actually just a software update away from autonomous operation. According to RUMINT a couple test vehicles that received this upgrade can drive, conduct patrols and even hunt and engage targets without human input.

    But the proving ground is one thing and I doubt this unmanned mode is anywhere near combat ready.

    I suspect the Russians will be looking to operationalise
    teleoperation instead. The T-14 might be the most survivable vehicle of its kind but why stop there? Throw out the crew and remove the risk to human life altogether.

    More importantly, I can see the Armata concept morphing into the development of a tank command vehicle that doesn't engage in combat itself, but controls a pod of UGVs such as modernised T-72B3Ms or similar.  The UGV MGTs would have net-centric local-area comms links that maintain simultaneous data connections to a number of command tanks. The command tanks share control of the available drones according to a handshake system where control can be passed between command nodes according to operational needs, and where each can issue movement orders and assign targets which the MBTs then either engage according to onboard AI, or where the engagement complexity is too high for automatics, operate under direct control of a human operator.

    Command tanks would have especially heavy active defenses and ERA, and I expect would be equipped with IR suppression camo kits along with top-attack protection and anti-personnel self-defense weapons like HMG pods and probably a 30mm autocannon. They would also have a number of integral UAVs for survelliance and communications relay.  Removal of the main guin allows a carousel to be added for feeding UAVs into a vertical launcher.

    Surviveability is key for these units.  Drone losses can be countered by sending in more UGVs, and as long as the supply of drones matches or exceeds the combat losses then the operation can be  maintained as long as the command nodes can be protected.

    Droid army of the Trade Federation?  Learn from the Nemoidian failure in Naboo by having multiple command "ships" and concealing them from enemy attention.  Razz

    GarryB, zardof, Hole, lyle6 and Broski like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 35764
    Points : 36290
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  GarryB Yesterday at 10:31 am

    Well with all the crew in the hull the main issue for making the T-14 is situational awareness... which needs to be sorted... most tank commanders prefer to risk getting shot by having their heads sticking out of the turret hatch because the alternative is driving around blind.

    Down in the hull the drivers of tanks generally have a rather poor view of the battlefield and rely on the commander giving them driving instructions to move from cover to cover... but in the T-14 the same optics that gives the commander a good turret top view of the battlefield can also be viewed by the driver and gunner which should make its situational awareness very very good... better than a standard tank even because they all get an optimal view.

    The point is that this amazing view is also used by the APS system to detect threats but it could be sent to a van 100km away as easily as it could be to the crew inside the vehicle so remote operation starts to make sense.

    With no crew to kill the areas of the tank that need heavy protection decrease dramatically... ammo, fuel, and engine and gun loading mechanism... which means the vehicle can be much smaller and lighter and therefore cheaper.

    One of the ironies of a combat robot is that people are stupid... they see a robot coming at them and their immediate thought is to shoot it in the head... because in a human that is where the brain is... destroying that and the human is useless... but a robot is not a human even if it might have human form... there might be nothing at all inside the robot head so you could riddle it with bullets and the robot will keep coming... the brain and batteries might be in the groin, or duplicated in each shoulder or the chest cavity with heavy armour.

    The point is that a robot tank might not be vulnerable to the normal kill shots on a conventional tank.

    The T-14 has an armoured capsule at the front hull with all the crew... on a robot version the armoured capsule might be around the engine and ammo storage areas and fuel. The turret might be huge but also largely empty and you could shoot away to your hearts content and not hit anything important because nothing important is located there.

    The huge turret might be rings and rings of upwardly firing ARENA munitions with Drozd munitions around the base of the turret, and other launchers located all over the place for instance....

    A robot vehicle with optical and radar and acoustic sensors to detect enemy fire and locate its source and transmit that info back to HQ to mark on a live map showing where the next artillery barrage should be directed to...

    Its ammo stores could be tripled but wired to be all detonated if the vehicle is immobilised or disabled and no longer able to make it back to base...

    ERA panels could have claymore blocks attached to the outside and manually detonated as it approaches enemy troops... under the nakidka fabric camouflage who could tell there are MON 300s fixed there... and underneath have ERA bricks too...

    Big_Gazza, zardof and lyle6 like this post

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza


    Posts : 4151
    Points : 4149
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  Big_Gazza Yesterday at 11:16 am

    You make a good point.  If a tank crew can fight effectively using vid feeds from their vehicle pano cameras (such that they operate entirely from screen displays) then they don't actually need to be located in the vehicle. They could be anywhere, as long as they have a broadband datalink with high bandwidth and low latency.  Operating a MBT evolves from having 3 crew in harms way to 1-2 drone operators (driver and commander/weapons officer) in a remote location.  

    Purpose-built UGVs would have armoured "crew" capsules reduced in size to accomodate the controls hardware, which could be arranged as seperate capsules connected in a 1oo3 redundant arrangement to counter the disablng of the vehicle with a single lucky hit.  Converted "old-style" MBTs would lack this surviveability but would be plentiful and compartively cheap.

    I long to see Russia leading the global pack in developing effective and practical future ground combat miltech.  It would be a nice kick in the teeth to the arrogant corrupt Western privately-owned MIC profit machine and its legion of fluffers, fanbois, flag-wavers and brainless chest beaters Twisted Evil

    GarryB, Hole, lyle6 and Broski like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 35764
    Points : 36290
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  GarryB Today at 4:45 am

    They  already had three man tanks in service and this was going to be a two man tank, but they realised that a two man crew could not operate 24/7 on a battlefield in any capacity at all so with the Armata they went for a three man crew where on a 24 hour battlefield one crewman can take a rest for 6 hours while the other two are "driver and commander" with the commander able to look and fire the weapons and the driver able to move the vehicle.

    No matter what the time of day all three crew have had 6 hours sleep in the last 24 hours, which is probably about as good as you could hope for.

    Obviously during busy times all three crew can be "on duty".

    This two man 24 hour tank has not been implemented, and I think a no man tank makes more sense but of course routine maintenance requires about four men per tank, with the fourth man at the moment being at a higher level so in the field they can't do all the maintenance and operational stuff.

    Of course in the real world you don't hold down a keyboard key and keep the vehicle stationary for 35 seconds to fix a damaged gun breach or a destroyed track...

    If the tank wont move you abandon it... if it wont fire or you can't see you drive back to a rear area and get it fixed.

    When you abandon it you rely on follow up forces to recover your tank and then fix it.

    lyle6 and Broski like this post


    Sponsored content


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6 - Page 7 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Mar 27, 2023 10:48 am