The Russian Military Automotive Fleet

collegeboy16 wrote:i believe the platform-o series of trucks make use of electric transmission and electric motor run wheels.

Apparently so...

GarryB wrote:The purpose is not to save costs, though I suggest that only needing one type of engine and transmission for all the vehicles in a unit would make things rather easier for those parts of the unit tasked with supporting the operations of the unit.

the purpose is to keep to a minimum the logistics train of the unit.

A standard tank division today has a wide variety of vehicles with a wide variety of engines and transmissions and track types and wheels and systems... the BMP engine and transmission and wheel and track are nothing like the engine, transmission and wheels and tracks of a T-72 based MBT, and the MTLB and ACRV and BTR and other vehicle types all have their own engines, transmissions, wheels, etc etc how many spare parts do you carry of each?  How much training is needed for the mechanics supporting all these different vehicle types?

Obviously they wont be completely rebuilding vehicles in the field, but the concept of vehicle families is all about not having totally different unrelated vehicles operating together...

In terms of cost an armata unit will be expensive... even just in terms of fuel consumption, but it will be a very tough unit to take on with a conventional force... or even an unconventional force..

The purpose of keeping to a minimum the logistics train of the unit would be to save costs (even the time is measurable in economic terms). No? There is not other purpose for it.

GarryB wrote:Unloaded they will have nothing like the weight of an Armata, but their size and power should allow them to carry 3-4 times what a standard truck can carry... even with their engines derated to say 800hp or something.

There is little point in standardising vehicle families for armata, kurganets, boomerang, and typhoon, if you are not going to do the same with the wheeled support vehicles that operate with them.

I was talking about loaded trucks, of course. An Armata engine can move loaded trucks of the weight of the tank approximately. Also to optimize the work of the trucks, they must be moved full loaded most of the times.

I agree about the need of standardization but not always all can be standardized. As example it would save costs to build and to give maintenance to vehicles with the same bodywork, not only the engine, but all us assume that it would be worse in some cases until be not useful to do some works.

My doubt was about all the vehicles of the divission being of about 50 tons full loaded. I tend to think that the divission need also lighter vehicles for some purposes that can not have (by operational costs reasons) the engines of the armata. But I would agree about being not in a divission more than 3-4 different engines.

GarryB wrote:Cost savings is not the primary focus of the exercise... the focus was protection for crew and troops and mobility by having support vehicles that could keep up and were fewer in number because the was less diversity in vehicle types within the unit.

In a defense system the goal is to attend to the defense needs optimizing the resources (economic resources included). Then to save costs is always behind movements like to find less diversity in vehicle types within the unit. There is not other sense for it.

GarryB wrote:If the only reason for these changes was to save money then there would be no armata vehicles... they could just have kurganets and boomerang and typhoon vehicles and just gone for mobility and technology like Afghanistan APS and new NERA and ERA and other new technologies.

Armata units will be expensive, but also very capable and very potent for the jobs they are intended for.

they will likely represent less than 25 % of Russian armoured forces... the majority being wheeled Typhoon and Boomerang units with high mobility in western europe and where roads are good...

The reason that justifies the design, production and presence of the Armatas in the Russian Army is to attend to the defense needs, but it is not right to compare this with to have trucks of 50 tons moving charges of 20 tons or to have trucks of 20 tons with engines for 50 tons. The last add nothing to defense purposes and only would add unnecessary operationa costs that would be higher than the savings in maintenance costs. In my view, and applying civil engineering rules, to use armata engines only would be right for around 50 tons trucks that must move the 50 tons in the habitual work. If in the divissions there is a need of lower size trucks also will be different engines than the armata. Not all can be standardized.

The purpose of keeping to a minimum the logistics train of the unit would be to sabe costs (even the time is measurable in economic terms). No? There is not other purpose for it.

Mobility. A unit and its support components needed to be transported around Russia via train or aircraft... if you have 20 different vehicles in a unit then you need 20 different sets of engine spare parts and transmission parts and spare wheels for 20 different vehicles including tires.

By standardising the vehicles you unify the support, which makes it much more mobile. Strategic and theatre mobility...

I agree about the need of standardization but not always all can be standardized. As example it would save costs to build and to give maintenance to vehicles with the same bodywork, not only the engine, but all us assume that it would be worse in some cases until be not useful to do some works.

It would save money to make Armata smaller and lighter with less armour... this is not about saving money.

My doubt was about all the vehicles of the divission being of about 50 tons full loaded. I tend to think that the divission need also lighter vehicles for some purposes that can not have (by operational costs reasons) the engines of the armata. But I would agree about being not in a divission more than 3-4 different engines.

The Experience in Grozny was that lighter vehicles were picked off and then heavy armour (which had limited main gun elevation) was approached from angles that could not be covered (ie basements and upper floors of buildings) where they only could use 12.7mm HMGs till that ammo ran out and then they were killed one by one.

With an Armata unit even the IFVs (BMPs) will have tank level armour and will not be so easy to pick off. Even scout cars (ie BRDM-2) and command vehicles (ACRV-2... based on the MT-LB) will be Armata based and heavily armoured.

When you don't need that level of armour you use a Kurganets or Boomerang unit.

Typhoon is for light high speed recon type roles or COIN operations.

Then to sabe costs is always behind movements like to find less diversity in vehicle types within the unit. There is not other sense for it.

No. The vehicle standardisation was not to save costs, it was to make sure all the vehicles in a unit have similar levels of protection and fire power, so that an enemy wont separate the soft light vehicles and destroy them and then take on the heavier vehicles with infantry while they have no infantry support of their own.

The reason that justifies the design, production and presence of the Armatas in the Russian Army is to attend to the defense needs, but it is not right to compare this with to have trucks of 50 tons moving charges of 20 tons or to have trucks of 20 tons with engines for 50 tons.

There is no reason why they can't derate the engines to 800 or 700hp for a 20-25 ton payload truck.

The last add nothing to defense purposes and only would add unnecessary operationa costs that would be higher than the savings in maintenance costs.

Why would operations costs be higher? A 1,400hp engine derated to 700hp uses a fraction of the fuel the 1,400hp engine uses... remember the fuel burn rate is calculated including the power rating... so half the power then reduce the fuel consumption per hour by almost half.

In my view, and applying civil engineering rules, to use armata engines only would be right for around 50 tons trucks that must move the 50 tons in the habitual work. If in the divissions there is a need of lower size trucks also will be different engines than the armata. Not all can be standardized.

So you deploy an armata unit and a truck breaks down... so you have to leave it because there is no support equipment for that truck engine? Pretty dumb.

If your trucks all have the same engines as used by every other vehicle in the unit, but de-rated then there is not problem. You have plenty of spares.

These trucks will be back in a rear area, they wont go into combat.

I think you are wrong on this. In fact this is not a trouble of movility. It is a trouble of costs, because you can keep the movility of a bigger maintenance team spending more. You can need 2 trucks instead of one, you can need 2 transport aircrafts instead of one or two trains instead of one. This is the real logic of a maintenance service. The trucks, the aircrafts or the trains can be the same and can run at same time or with a few minuts of difference by the same way.

Also I'm not defending to have 20 different engines. I do not think that are necessary in a divission. but at same time, I do not think all can be reduced to a single type of engine, because of the requirements of a divission. Standardization is good but have limits. Likely it would be posible to work in a divission with 3, maybe 4 different engines for vehicles of different weight. It is possible to have all the combat vehicles of a divission of the same weight, but a divission has also other vehicles, basically unarmored trucks, here is where it is more difficult to keep the armata engines for all philosophy.

GarryB wrote:No. The vehicle standardisation was not to save costs, it was to make sure all the vehicles in a unit have similar levels of protection and fire power, so that an enemy wont separate the soft light vehicles and destroy them and then take on the heavier vehicles with infantry while they have no infantry support of their own.

It is posible to do it without standardization. It would be possible to do a T-14 and a T-15 with the same armor requirements from different basis and designs. The most important difference of doing both standardized is the cost.

GarryB wrote:There is no reason why they can't derate the engines to 800 or 700hp for a 20-25 ton payload truck.

The reason is in the operational costs. In order to keep them in the necessary level it is also necessary to optimize the size and the use of the trucks. Oversized engines adds operational costs every day, also to do more km than the necessary, and also to move the trucks empty or with low loads (oversized trucks) adds operational costs. Taking into account that an engine can have 6 to 10 engine failures as maximum in its entire life, it is something to take into account.

GarryB wrote:Why would operations costs be higher? A 1,400hp engine derated to 700hp uses a fraction of the fuel the 1,400hp engine uses... remember the fuel burn rate is calculated including the power rating... so half the power then reduce the fuel consumption per hour by almost half.

Because bigger engines add unnecessary and significant weight that must be moved every time that the vehicle is used. The same applies to oversized transmissions, oversized trucks... More weight means more fuel.

Also every truck engine is designed to have an optimized work in a range that includes to move the weight at full load what is designed for. To keep the engine in the optimal point is important in order to keep the engine in good condition for more years. It reduces the maintenance. And also the optimal point of use of every engine affects to the fuel consumption that is not linear with the power used. It would be linear with the number of cycles per minute, but even to drive at lower number of cycles with an oversized engine has a cost in terms of maintenace and durability of the engine, and also bigger engines have bigger cyclinders that consume more fuel per cycle.

An example to see it clearly. Inside the Armata divission you need to move a single person from A to B. It is obvious that it would have lower cost the movement with a little car or armored vehcicle than with an armata or a truck of 50 tons. It applies the same for different weights.

GarryB wrote:So you deploy an armata unit and a truck breaks down... so you have to leave it because there is no support equipment for that truck engine?  Pretty dumb.

Obviously you need to give maintenance to every type of vehicle that you deploy in the divission. And not only for engines (that would not cause more than a 30% of the failures of a vehicle) or transmissions, also for other parts that are key, being or not standardised.And always there are cases where it is not possible to repare the vehicle.

http://nortwolf-sam.livejournal.com/999073.html

Cyberspec wrote:Kamaz modular platform (3 versions) - part of "Platform-O" project

And Serbian armed forces bought 3 MAN trucks and 3 trailers built by Italians to refresh towing capabilities (road going only towing tho)... Long story short M84A tank already squished one of the trailers coz it barely fits in it so it slided abit on one side and squished it like pancake. Tip of a day is: "Dont buy anything from Italians except shoes".

GAZ -3308 upgrade;
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftopwar.ru%2F&sandbox=1

Militarov wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:Kamaz modular platform (3 versions) - part of "Platform-O" project

And Serbian armed forces bought 3 MAN trucks and 3 trailers built by Italians to refresh towing capabilities (road going only towing tho)... Long story short M84A tank already squished one of the trailers coz it barely fits in it so it slided abit on one side and squished it like pancake. Tip of a day is: "Dont buy anything from Italians except shoes".

With the rouble where it is there is basically no excuse not to buy from Russia.

Especially for Serbia; with its mostly Soviet-Yugoslavian derived equipment.

Yet it insists on buying horribly expensive helicopters and trucks from Germany, etc...

Why?

And Serbian armed forces bought 3 MAN trucks and 3 trailers built by Italians to refresh towing capabilities (road going only towing tho)... Long story short M84A tank already squished one of the trailers coz it barely fits in it so it slided abit on one side and squished it like pancake. Tip of a day is: "Dont buy anything from Italians except shoes".

With the rouble where it is there is basically no excuse not to buy from Russia.

Especially for Serbia; with its mostly Soviet-Yugoslavian derived equipment.

Yet it insists on buying horribly expensive helicopters and trucks from Germany, etc...

Why?

Coz Serbian politicians in power have joining NATO as long term goal, military however is splitted between two "blocks". As my abit crazy commanding officer during service (actually he is extremly edcuated and smart person, just has very explosive temper) said once: "Id rather eat Russian s*hit than American steak". And politicians very often "push" on tenders equipment that is often quite overpriced but due to fact its of Western origin they belive its "smarter" to buy it. Clear examples are G36 for Special Brigade, Sagem battalion radios, Land Rover Defenders, Zettelmeyer dozers, JCB digger and bunch of other smaller equipment but with significant price.

Now they are talking about 2 Mi17xx helicopters this year and 2 more for next 2 years that will be of Western origin (Puma most likely) which basically means they are trying to be like Yugoslavia, to satisfy both worlds, however Yugoslavia was 23mil country with huge military budget, keeping two helicopters of same range shall be maintenance Hell on Earth. So basically, blame the politicians, thats all their job.

flamming_python wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:Kamaz modular platform (3 versions) - part of "Platform-O" project

And Serbian armed forces bought 3 MAN trucks and 3 trailers built by Italians to refresh towing capabilities (road going only towing tho)... Long story short M84A tank already squished one of the trailers coz it barely fits in it so it slided abit on one side and squished it like pancake. Tip of a day is: "Dont buy anything from Italians except shoes".

With the rouble where it is there is basically no excuse not to buy from Russia.

Especially for Serbia; with its mostly Soviet-Yugoslavian derived equipment.

Yet it insists on buying horribly expensive helicopters and trucks from Germany, etc...

Why?

Did Russia figure out how to deliver us spare parts in case military superpower nations like Bulgaria or Romania decide to close their airspace again for Russian flights like back in '99?

Also, current situation with helicopters in VS is as follows:

Heavy helos- Russian
Light helos- French

It's been that way since helicopters arrived in the Balkans and it is unlikely to change. Also, how long ago did Russia start manufacturing light helicopters, last year or year before that?

Are Ukrainians still ''kingmakers'' when it comes to getting engines for helicopters? 'Cause they may not like us that much anymore on account of being only European country that DID NOT impose sanctions on a certain much talked about country...

Ungrateful, arrogant... ....

Did Russia figure out how to deliver us spare parts in case military superpower nations like Bulgaria or Romania decide to close their airspace again for Russian flights like back in '99?

Also, current situation with helicopters in VS is as follows:

Heavy helos- Russian
Light helos- French

It's been that way since helicopters arrived in the Balkans and it is unlikely to change. Also, how long ago did Russia start manufacturing light helicopters, last year or year before that?

Are Ukrainians still ''kingmakers'' when it comes to getting engines for helicopters? 'Cause they may not like us that much anymore on account of being only European country that DID NOT impose sanctions on a certain much talked about country...

Ungrateful, arrogant... ....

Well generally speaking Gazella was domestic product of Yugoslavia, it whole was produced by domestic industry without need of import of parts and that is actually kinda making it not French, fact that most of that industry does not exist now is another story. Before Mi8 came into service in Yugoslavia there were WS 51 Westland, Sikorsky Whirlwind S55 and Agusta Bell 47J, only French helicopter before Gazelle i can remember being used by Yugoslavs is Alouette III and no more than couple. Yugoslavian Police used Bell 47J, Bell 206, Sikorsky S-76, Bell 222, Bell 412 and similar, never French birds. Also if its true what they are saying that two "Western" helicopters will be Super Puma or AS532 Cougar...they are not light helicopters, they are medium lifters/transport same as Mi17xx, so no point in such procurement whatsoever.

Also Russians for AnsatU/M offer PW207K engines built by Canadians, Ka 226 can be equiped with Turbomeca Arrius 2G or Allison 250C20R, KA62 will be coming with Turbomeca Ardiden 3G, General Electric T700 or Saturn RD600V etc, there is no need to use Ukrainian engines at all, also Russians started testing first production batch of VK2500 that are using completely Russian built turbine. Ukraine just lost their biggest engine and engine parts market.

Ural 63704-0010 "Tornado-U"

"Maximum rate - at least 100 km / h. Cruising range up to 1000 km"

PapaDragon wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:Kamaz modular platform (3 versions) - part of "Platform-O" project

And Serbian armed forces bought 3 MAN trucks and 3 trailers built by Italians to refresh towing capabilities (road going only towing tho)... Long story short M84A tank already squished one of the trailers coz it barely fits in it so it slided abit on one side and squished it like pancake. Tip of a day is: "Dont buy anything from Italians except shoes".

With the rouble where it is there is basically no excuse not to buy from Russia.

Especially for Serbia; with its mostly Soviet-Yugoslavian derived equipment.

Yet it insists on buying horribly expensive helicopters and trucks from Germany, etc...

Why?

Did Russia figure out how to deliver us spare parts in case military superpower nations like Bulgaria or Romania decide to close their airspace again for Russian flights like back in '99?

Also, current situation with helicopters in VS is as follows:

Heavy helos- Russian
Light helos- French

It's been that way since helicopters arrived in the Balkans and it is unlikely to change. Also, how long ago did Russia start manufacturing light helicopters, last year or year before that?

Are Ukrainians still ''kingmakers'' when it comes to getting engines for helicopters? 'Cause they may not like us that much anymore on account of being only European country that DID NOT impose sanctions on a certain much talked about country...

Ungrateful, arrogant... ....

lol, buy what you want - it's none of Russia's business.

I was asking not because I think Serbia owes Russia any favours - but because first and foremost it would be the most cost-effective and IMO best option for Serbia itself.
Europe does make some good choppers but Serbia's defence budget is real tight so it should aim to optimize where it can.

Spare parts? Well you can build them yourself, I'm sure Russia will be open to the idea of helping set up production in Serbia for what you might need - albeit your own domestic market is very small so simply put it might not be cost-effective; unless Russia gives permission to export such production to other nations.

Russian spare parts might not get through, you're right - but the flip side of that is that if Serbia pisses off the West (and any sitaution where Bulgaria or Romania close their airspace to Russian transports to Serbia is likely to be such a case); European spare parts definately won't get through; or rather - won't even be sent in the first place.

So my advice is to consider your options.

Please don't insert gratitude and ingratitude here, it doesn't have much to do with the nature of Russo-Serbian relations - which are based first and foremost on mutual benefit and propagating mutual interests; of which between Serbia and Russia there is a great amount indeed.
What Russia does benefits Serbia, what Serbia does benefits Russia; the stronger and richer one country becomes the better for the other nation too.

This isn't about favours. Russia is not in debt to Serbia and Serbia is not in debt to Russia - this is the wrong way to go about building close ties between 2 states. Friendship and partnership is not built on favours and debts to each other.
For example - giving the finger to the West, which was attempting to tell Serbia - a country not even in the EU - how to run its foreign policy and with/against what nations was a flagrant example of disrespect to Serbia's sovereignty - not even Russia tries to pull those kinds of stunts with its satellite states such as Abkhazia, S. Ossetia, Transdniestr, etc... nevermind its military allies and economic integration partners Belarus & Kazakhstan.

Serbia rejecting such demands wasn't about doing a favour to Russia - it was about doing a favour for itself, and finding in itself a spine to forge an independent foreign policy and stand up for its own interests. Russia will of course, and is AFAIK, helping Serbia as much as possible - facilitating imports of Serbian agricultural goods, funding training and military exercises with Serbia, setting up an EMERCOM rescue centre in Serbia, and a whole host of other projects, donating trucks, helping Serbia deal with the refugee crisis, etc... and I'm not even talking about the investment projects and so on - that Russia is getting money from too. None of this stuff is subject to 'gratitude'; Russia is simply helping Serbia up on its feet and become independent of the EU - but this ultimately very much benefits Russia too.

MAN trucks aren't that bad either. I wonder why Serbia can't come up with a domestic trucks? By the way it seems Russian automotive industry is having a renaissance. So many products popped out in few years, from engines to whole trucks.

Regular wrote:MAN trucks aren't that bad either. I wonder why Serbia can't come up with a domestic trucks? By the way it seems Russian automotive industry is having a renaissance. So many products popped out in few years, from engines to whole trucks.

MAN trucks are fine, however TGS 33.480 model they obtained are only roadgoing platform and they are there to "replace" MAZ 537 which can climb on the tree with tank on its back. Trailers paired with MANs are De Angelis 4S79.







Serbia HAD and HAS domestic trucks, actually Serbia had basically 3 factories capable to assemble trucks FAP, Zastava Trucks and Ikarbus (they mostly produced buses but there is no real reason to stop them from assembling trucks from kits). However all 3 companies are in financial troubles.



Serbian FAP tractor.

http://www.offroadvehicle.ru/AZBUCAR/FAP/FAP%20txt.html you can see some of their products though time here.

Arctic_Fox wrote:

Platform-O.

Remembering Lukashenko speech at MZKT "If Russians want their own truck for ICBMs let them. they have nor brain nor money" 15/08/15

http://www.regnum.ru/news/polit/1952292.html

Osobist wrote:Remembering Lukashenko speech at MZKT "If Russians want their own truck for ICBMs let them. they have nor brain nor money" 15/08/15

http://www.regnum.ru/news/polit/1952292.html

that's not how you talk to your biggest customer.

sepheronx wrote:Fu** Luka. Always begging for loans from Russia then states they have no money or brains to make such equipment? Sorry Luka, seems Russia is already doing it.  So you can now let MZKT go down the drain.  That man is consistently shooting himself in the foot. He thinks that turning west will save his hide, but it wont, and Belarus will mirror Ukraine if Russia cuts trade with them and demands all the loans to be paid back.

It's already offtopic, but Belarus is very close to become Ukraine soon. I have family living there. Living standards dropped to shit when ruble fell.

Regular wrote:

sepheronx wrote:Fu** Luka. Always begging for loans from Russia then states they have no money or brains to make such equipment? Sorry Luka, seems Russia is already doing it.  So you can now let MZKT go down the drain.  That man is consistently shooting himself in the foot. He thinks that turning west will save his hide, but it wont, and Belarus will mirror Ukraine if Russia cuts trade with them and demands all the loans to be paid back.

It's already offtopic, but Belarus is very close to become Ukraine soon. I have family living there. Living standards dropped to shit when ruble fell.

Well if they see Ukraine as their role model of prosperity they can knock themselves out, it will probably do wonders for lowering corruption to booth.

And if EU still looks appealing they haven't been watching the news lately...

Here in Serbia support for joining EU is 40℅...

Osobist wrote:Remembering Lukashenko speech at MZKT "If Russians want their own truck for ICBMs let them. they have nor brain nor money" 15/08/15

http://www.regnum.ru/news/polit/1952292.html

I knew Russia should have been working to develop their own domestically produced heavy trucks for ICBMs etc. Is there an import substitution for this right now?

Project Canada wrote:

Osobist wrote:Remembering Lukashenko speech at MZKT "If Russians want their own truck for ICBMs let them. they have nor brain nor money" 15/08/15

http://www.regnum.ru/news/polit/1952292.html

I knew Russia should have been working to develop their own domestically produced heavy trucks for ICBMs etc. Is there an import substitution for this right now?

You are looking at it. Kamaz is the developer.



Not still ready for mass production but i suppose it shall be around fairly soon. MZKT kinda started to...blackmail too much.