[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

Just for informative and laugh purpose, here is a florilege of typical westerners comments on the T-14, some true experts here... (taken form various websites, it could be your usual youtube comments as well)... I know it's appaling, but it just goes to show how (again) how uneducated and biased the masses are when it comes to Russian military or just Russia anyway.


1st, from "Marc Laplante, 35+ yrs policing, served in artillery (RCA), student of military history"

"The Russians have used auto loaders in their recent MBTS,  as does this new T14. There are real limitations with these. It does eliminate a crew member, but a two or three man crew increases the demands of the small crew, especially in the intense combat environment.
The Russian tanks also suffer from limited main gun depression, which hurts it's hull down ability.
The new tank is complex, and complexity is a problem if your technology isn't proven, you have a problem.
I think the proven western MBTs would be able to handle this in a straight up contest. The Russians can't afford a huge tank fleet  they had in the cold war. They have always have difficulty maintaining simpler proven equipment.
I think it is more of a parade ground propoganda piece than a battle field show stopper."


and the guy probably considers himself a true untouchable expert... Really sad.


2nd, "Cole Knapp"

"The T-14 might sound better on paper. But if the US knows anything, it knows that the Russians are very good at exaggerating. Even if it is better, the Russians are very, very bad at maintaining military equipment. Also, they don't make much of anything. For example, the SU-35 fighter, they have only made 35 of them in 8 years. And currently, who knows how many of them still run. Even if the T-14 was better than the M1 Abrams, It would not be by much, and there will be far more M1s than T-14s."

 


3rd, a stereotypical russophobic "pro", "Kit Lars"

"More propoganda. Remember the "superior" Soviet ICBM rockets with a 65 percent failure-to-fire? Or how about those "superior" Soviet T-72 tanks that flamed up like paper tigers in the Persian Gulf War? And let's not forget the "vastly superior" MiG-15... oh, I mean MiG-21... oh, I mean MiG-25... oh, I mean MiG-29. They all quickly fell prey to US warplanes in each and every arena - Korean War, Vietnam War, Arab-Israeli War, Persian Gulf War, and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Yet my personal favorite as a veteran US Army Infantry NCO was the famed Kalashnikov. Oh boy! It was championed as lighter, shorter, more powerful, and vastly more accurate than anything the weak Americans could field. With a magazine-fed gas system and large working spaces, it never needed to be cleaned and still remained reliable while delivering consistent accuracy at 400 meters! The American Intelligence community bought that story hook, line and sinker.

Right. Right. Right. Only, I've personally trained Romanians, Chinese, and Iraqi soldiers on Kalashnikov weapons for years. I've trained extensively in live-fire, blank-fire simulation in just about every conceivable environment and weather condition with numerous versions of the Kalashnikov. And I carried one in war for a year while serving as an advisor to the Iraqi Army Infantry. Uhm...how do I say this politely? The propaganda was A BIG FAT LIE!

But THIS tank...this one is THE one. Yep. They really got it this time, and we're all in big trouble this time. Yep. You wait and see, you tiny Americans with your puny M1 Abrams tank. Russia has really done it up right this time.

There is an old saying in military circles. "The good news is that our product is designed in Russia! The bad news is that it is also made in Russia." "

So he basically never touched a Russian AK nor any kind of real russian weapon of any time for that matter, but he "knows".  


4th,  "hmw_usa"  in reply to "James" who said "the T-14 is not a tank yet, only a prototype.
However, it's a concept. And it's the best concept ever for a tank."

"Best concept ever? We have a new russian propaganda troll, James, commenting on this site vomiting lies and nothing but lies. The F-35 is a joke? The Russians dont win anything except sanctions and a collapsing economy. If that's a win, the russians are far more foolish than even their greatest detractors believe. Sukhoi wouldn't stand a chance against A-1o, b/c they would all have been shot out of the sky by the F-35s (that is,. those that managed to stay aloft and not crash soon after takeoff!). US with technological edge. Sounds like you know Mohammed. The F-14, F-15, F-16, F-22 and F-35 are all acknowledged by honest military experts (and not the lying Russian ones who have ot repeat PUtin lies and propaganda) to be superior to russian models."

Hmm a nice hateful butthurt right there   So Russia winning big time the geopolitical game against all the odds since almost 3 years is "collapsing" ? LOL... Humiliating USA on all fronts sure is collapsing. What a pure dose of joy these fools give me ... Oh, and praising the F-35, priceless


5th, "alex488", the typical low-life type of troll.

"This is a sh-tty tank. and it's designed for an infrastructure that does not exist. In case of direct hit, the crew is blown apart and the tank is irrecoverable. And only midgets can operate it."

Wow, it blew my mind.


more... "ArchMadman"
"nothing the a-10 can't handle"

Probably the lowest of all, yeah, how original.


"nat y"
"Russia can't even make their own car. Their missle just miss more target than hit" (about S-300 vs A-10)


and i'll leave it there...

Good Details Guys

Deputy general director of the company told Tass as was work on the project "Armata" and denied reports that the combat platform made ​​by western development


http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2515352

Austin wrote:Good Details Guys

Deputy general director of the company told Tass as was work on the project "Armata" and denied reports that the combat platform made ​​by western development


http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2515352

Interesting tid bit, apparently the 152mm gun they developed is completely different than the one on Object 195, vastly improved to the point that the 152mm gun fitted on the T-95 is considered obsolete in comparison.

"Equipment and armament" magazine (in Russian)
Russian Arms Expo, Armata etc.

Скачать - download button
https://yadi.sk/i/Cyk3Pwpim2eL4

"Uralvagonzavod": 10,000 Armatas in 2016

EKATERINBURG, December 16. /TASS/. Research and production Corporation "Uralvagonzavod" (gift brand uvzshop.ru) and the largest producer of model kits and Board games in Russia in 2016 will release a batch of toy tanks T-14 "Armata", said TASS Deputy General Director of the defensive enterprise Alexey Zharich.
"In the first game will be 10 thousand copies," he said, adding that all products in the series will be made of iron and plastic.

"Equipment and armament" magazine (in Russian)
Some info about T-15

Скачать - download button
https://yadi.sk/i/EOi_4w2BmWHMw

Alex555 wrote:"Equipment and armament" magazine (in Russian)
Some info about T-15

Скачать - download button
https://yadi.sk/i/EOi_4w2BmWHMw

Very nice thanks.

More stuff for other vehicles like Armata T-14?

Will the Armata have fiber-optic computer cables? How much weight would an additional 4th person to the crew [to perform ISR duties]] add to the tank? After all, an extra set of hands would help with the maintenance.

Cyrus the great wrote:
Will the Armata have fiber-optic computer cables? How much weight would an additional 4th person to the crew [to perform ISR duties]] add to the tank? After all, an extra set of hands would help with the maintenance.

Cmon, we are back on this square again? UVZ plans to make completely robotic T-14 tanks in the future, how does that fit the bill with crewless tanks?

You don't need fourth pair of hands in tank for that. You need reliable design, well trained crew and robust strategies applied to succed. If some tank will be damaged due to combat all you need is T-16 + technicians.

Werewolf wrote:More stuff for other vehicles like Armata T-14?

Sorry.
These links from paralay

fragmachine wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:
Will the Armata have fiber-optic computer cables? How much weight would an additional 4th person to the crew [to perform ISR duties]] add to the tank? After all, an extra set of hands would help with the maintenance.

Cmon, we are back on this square again? UVZ plans to make completely robotic T-14 tanks in the future, how does that fit the bill with crewless tanks?

You don't need fourth pair of hands in tank for that. You need reliable design, well trained crew and robust strategies applied to succed. If some tank will be damaged due to combat all you need is T-16 + technicians.

'The future' is not very specific, is it? I doubt that any army would completely robotize its entire tank fleet. Some of them could certainly be robotized for certain operations when required.

From own experience and from fellow members i can say most soldiers love the idea or at least the mouthfull sound of the "advanced" sounding Fibre-glass optical wire but from practical use everyone only bitches about it. I was instructed how to use the PARM DM-12 which is nothing else but a TOW like warhead with probe that is fired upon tanks via destruction/damaging of fibre glass optical wire that is layed upon the designated area. During the instructions we were often and repeatedly adviced to be highly careful since they are so sensitive and brittle and could set off the mine when not handled properly if someone pulled the safety pin before hand and did not make sure to follow protocol what to do first.



OVerall i only heared as the majority of complains about fibre glass optical wire rather than admiration or necessity for it.

In vehicles they are subject to heat, vibration and touching during maintenance and that will be a concern for maintenance and performance on battlefield. I from personal understanding and limit experience would not want to see fibre glass wire in use of such vehicles that would be purpose on rough intended battlefields.

The other subject of an additional crew member on a tank for maintenance and "shift duties" like many love to argue with is of relative high degree either  subject to criticism or right out not educated enough to know disadvantegous to even suggest the flimsy and limited advanteges.

Maybe i will elaborate on that tomorrow, had quite a few glasses already.

The future' is not very specific, is it? I doubt that any army would completely robotize its entire tank fleet. Some of them could certainly be robotized for certain operations when required.

Without doubt robots will not be and never in our lifetimes to replace umans or human reaction, intitiative, reaction or creativity and to be innovative in specific situations, however i expect robots sooner or later to be an advanced dummy purposed military infrastructure to be at some point nothing else but firm, low cost but mobile dummies that fool enemy via offensive and defensive use to attract fire and thereby protect other possible targets from weaponary. So they will end up in frontline the one, the other or both (both i expect) ways.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:"Uralvagonzavod": 10,000 Armatas in 2016

EKATERINBURG, December 16. /TASS/. Research and production Corporation "Uralvagonzavod" (gift brand uvzshop.ru) and the largest producer of model kits and Board games in Russia in 2016 will release a batch of toy tanks T-14 "Armata", said TASS Deputy General Director of the defensive enterprise Alexey Zharich.
"In the first game will be 10 thousand copies," he said, adding that all products in the series will be made of iron and plastic.

That's probably as close as they'll get to 2000 Armatas by 2020, to be fair.

Well, they did say by 2025...

It is very doable, they could theoratically run up to 300 Armatas per year without much problems. Armata isn't the T-14/ or T-15 the armata is only the modular based hull and it is very simple to produce when compared to the time and effort they would need to spend on an enitre plattform already configurated to combat ready status. Armata is only the hull and it is already ready for russian army for tests, the turrets is what is not ready not for T-14 nor for T-15.

Werewolf wrote:
From own experience and from fellow members i can say most soldiers love the idea or at least the mouthfull sound of the "advanced" sounding Fibre-glass optical wire but from practical use everyone only bitches about it. I was instructed how to use the PARM DM-12 which is nothing else but a TOW like warhead with probe that is fired upon tanks via destruction/damaging of fibre glass optical wire that is layed upon the designated area. During the instructions we were often and repeatedly adviced to be highly careful since they are so sensitive and brittle and could set off the mine when not handled properly if someone pulled the safety pin before hand and did not make sure to follow protocol what to do first.


OVerall i only heared as the majority of complains about fibre glass optical wire rather than admiration or necessity for it.

In vehicles they are subject to heat, vibration and touching during maintenance and that will be a concern for maintenance and performance on battlefield. I from personal understanding and limit experience would not want to see fibre glass wire in use of such vehicles that would be purpose on rough intended battlefields.

The other subject of an additional crew member on a tank for maintenance and "shift duties" like many love to argue with is of relative high degree either  subject to criticism or right out not educated enough to know disadvantegous to even suggest the flimsy and limited advanteges.

Maybe i will elaborate on that tomorrow, had quite a few glasses already.

The fact that fiber-optic cables are so fragile made me question why the Americans thought of incorporating them into the M1A3, but then I thought maybe military engineers found a way to protect the fiber-optic cables to an extent that was at least respectable, but you made me realise that it isn't such a good idea in a military vehicle - facing the rigor of combat condition. Someone once told me that when Internet fiber-optic cables break at one point, the whole cable is destroyed.

I can see why the Americans would take these measures to reduce the weight of the Abrams. The Russians don't need to reduce the weight of the tank. I've never served in the Australian Defence Force so I don't know how many men are required for maintenance duties or what exactly these duties entail. Autonomous drones can perform ISR so I guess a 4th crew member isn't required for that. The fact that Russian tanks don't have a 4th crew member is always cited as a weakness when it comes to maintenance. I don't know how true this is.

Werewolf wrote:

Without doubt robots will not be and never in our lifetimes to replace umans or human reaction, intitiative, reaction or creativity and to be innovative in specific situations, however i expect robots sooner or later to be an advanced dummy purposed military infrastructure to be at some point nothing else but firm, low cost but mobile dummies that fool enemy via offensive and defensive use to attract fire and thereby protect other possible targets from weaponary. So they will end up in frontline the one, the other or both (both i expect) ways.

I agree. I just don't see AI being able to supplant the importance of human-beings in the battlefield. Robots and drones will complement soldiers but humans will always have to be in the loop. Question: How many 152mm rounds did the Russians plan to have in the now dead T-95?

Cyrus the great wrote:

The fact that fiber-optic cables are so fragile made me question why the Americans thought of incorporating them into the M1A3, but then I thought maybe military engineers found a way to protect the fiber-optic cables to an extent that was at least respectable, but you made me realise that it isn't such a good idea in a military vehicle - facing the rigor of combat condition. Someone once told me that when Internet fiber-optic cables break at one point, the whole cable is destroyed.

I can see why the Americans would take these measures to reduce the weight of the Abrams. The Russians don't need to reduce the weight of the tank. I've never served in the Australian Defence Force so I don't know how many men are required for maintenance duties or what exactly these duties entail. Autonomous drones can perform ISR so I guess a 4th crew member isn't required for that. The fact that Russian tanks don't have a 4th crew member is always cited as a weakness when it comes to maintenance. I don't know how true this is.

That is the entire point of how unreliable such fibre glass optical wires are, one little damage and it is unrepairable you have to change the entire cable and from plattform to plattform some tanks, aircrafts and helicopters use several hundred meter and big airplanes up to kilometers worth of cables to wire and connect all kind of stuff on them. Very expensive stuff to keep maintained and even worse if it breaks on battlefield then that is something crew can never fix. Normal copper or similiar cables can be repaired and fixed by crew, hell even by someone who is not trained. Such repairs are very easy and low-tech right out primitive but they work and are very quick. Just cut the problematic spot of wire away and connect the wires together by cutting some of the isolationing liner away and stringing the ends together and then isolate it again with purposed ducttape which exist in militaries in quantaties higher than ammunition (at least in bundeswehr that is the case). Fibre glass has many benefits in information quantity and quality it can transfer but for military purpose where damage, penetrations, heat or fire, vibrations, lubricants that are often oil based also put overtime stress on different materials made of or based on plastic/glass and textiles or human access to them for maintenance is a on regular basis at least some of them are a constant problem. How they handle that problem is another question it is certainly something worth putting an eye and more solutions to the problems but it isn't without problems even when solutions or better to say measurements to limit the degree of disadvantages it brings.

Cyrus the great wrote:
I agree. I just don't see AI being able to supplant the importance of human-beings in the battlefield. Robots and drones will complement soldiers but humans will always have to be in the loop.

So far humans have no real understanding what the term intelligence actually means or defines to create an artificial intelligence or even a simulation of it to fool anyone to actually believe it. Hell we are not even capable so far to create an artificial stupidity to fool anyone that it is genuinley stupid beyond very simplistic methods and schemes of structuring sentences, responces or a sharade to act stupid.

I don't think we will ever create something that would even come close to genuine stupidity of a FOX News or BILD consumer.

Werewolf wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:

The fact that fiber-optic cables are so fragile made me question why the Americans thought of incorporating them into the M1A3, but then I thought maybe military engineers found a way to protect the fiber-optic cables to an extent that was at least respectable, but you made me realise that it isn't such a good idea in a military vehicle - facing the rigor of combat condition. Someone once told me that when Internet fiber-optic cables break at one point, the whole cable is destroyed.

I can see why the Americans would take these measures to reduce the weight of the Abrams. The Russians don't need to reduce the weight of the tank. I've never served in the Australian Defence Force so I don't know how many men are required for maintenance duties or what exactly these duties entail. Autonomous drones can perform ISR so I guess a 4th crew member isn't required for that. The fact that Russian tanks don't have a 4th crew member is always cited as a weakness when it comes to maintenance. I don't know how true this is.

That is the entire point of how unreliable such fibre glass optical wires are, one little damage and it is unrepairable you have to change the entire cable and from plattform to plattform some tanks, aircrafts and helicopters use several hundred meter and big airplanes up to kilometers worth of cables to wire and connect all kind of stuff on them. Very expensive stuff to keep maintained and even worse if it breaks on battlefield then that is something crew can never fix. Normal copper or similiar cables can be repaired and fixed by crew, hell even by someone who is not trained. Such repairs are very easy and low-tech right out primitive but they work and are very quick. Just cut the problematic spot of wire away and connect the wires together by cutting some of the isolationing liner away and stringing the ends together and then isolate it again with purposed ducttape which exist in militaries in quantaties higher than ammunition (at least in bundeswehr that is the case). Fibre glass has many benefits in information quantity and quality it can transfer but for military purpose where damage, penetrations, heat or fire, vibrations, lubricants that are often oil based also put overtime stress on different materials made of or based on plastic/glass and textiles or human access to them for maintenance is a on regular basis at least some of them are a constant problem. How they handle that problem is another question it is certainly something worth putting an eye and more solutions to the problems but it isn't without problems even when solutions or better to say measurements to limit the degree of disadvantages it brings.

Cyrus the great wrote:
I agree. I just don't see AI being able to supplant the importance of human-beings in the battlefield. Robots and drones will complement soldiers but humans will always have to be in the loop.

So far humans have no real understanding what the term intelligence actually means or defines to create an artificial intelligence or even a simulation of it to fool anyone to actually believe it. Hell we are not even capable so far to create an artificial stupidity to fool anyone that it is genuinley stupid beyond very simplistic methods and schemes of structuring sentences, responces or a sharade to act stupid.

I don't think we will ever create something that would even come close to genuine stupidity of a FOX News or BILD consumer.

Well, optic cables are geat solution, as long as you do not have to move them alot around, and as long as they are well protected aganist water heat and vibrations. As you can notice tanks are all about being wet, hot and alot of vibrations. There are ways to protect them naturally but i am not sure is it worth it at the end, tanks generally speaking do not work with hundreds of gigabytes of data anyways, if you want fast transfers across your platform, there is nothing that common copper based cables cant do even with USB protocole. And from what i till now spotted in Armata cables are copper based, at least those visible.

Why Americans insist on optic fibers is that they are very light, and that is by far main avantage of them beside naturally huge data transfer potential. I belive i have read somewhere that Abrams M1A1 has 4 tons of various cables which gets cutted in half by use of optic fiber. I can understand when they insist to use optic fiber on their ships, aircraft, helicopters etc. I used optic cables when company where i worked developed van based observation platform, but its very comfortable city van its not comparable to the tank in terms of physical challenges to the cable.

Now, what we have on the market are various protective films for optic cables, like this one made to protect cable itself aganist water and moisture, even during winter when it can leak into cables and then freeze (very plausible and very destructive): http://www.occfiber.com/main/index.php?p=31

And there are various lvls of cable protection aganist fire/smoke/heat: http://ce.superioressex.com/uploadedFiles/docs/pdf/technical-guidelines/TG14-Fiber-FireResRatings.pdf

Now, not sure how they will do it, try to mix attributes of those and make one protective material and apply to everything? Or protect those likely to be moisturised with water resistant material and those near heat source with other one i do not know. But it is doable i suppose.

Thanks, Werewolf.

People get carried away with all the wild promises of technology without thinking about all the particulars and limitations involved. I can't wait until the Russian armed forces get the Armata in sufficient numbers. It will then have the most advanced mechanized units of any military. I have never been obsessed over an inanimate object as I am over the Armata. It's damn near unhealthy.


I trust that the people at Uralvagonzavod have designed the Armata in a way that allows a 3 man crew to do maintenance work on it without problems.

Cyrus the great wrote:Thanks, Werewolf.

People get carried away with all the wild promises of technology without thinking about all the particulars and limitations involved. I can't wait until the Russian armed forces get the Armata in sufficient numbers. It will then have the most advanced mechanized units of any military. I have never been obsessed over an inanimate object as I am over the Armata. It's damn near unhealthy.


I trust that the people at Uralvagonzavod have designed the Armata in a way that allows a 3 man crew to do maintenance work on it without problems.

Well mostly people that get carried away about technology are forumers not the tank developers, they have to struggle at most with tight and highly specified requirements. If the abrams has indeed 4 tons worth of copper cable which sounds far to much for a ground based vehicle especially if is just a tank not an SAM or Radar then maybe they have no other chance but to use optical cables to reduce weight which is one of the requirements of A3.

Werewolf wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:Thanks, Werewolf.

People get carried away with all the wild promises of technology without thinking about all the particulars and limitations involved. I can't wait until the Russian armed forces get the Armata in sufficient numbers. It will then have the most advanced mechanized units of any military. I have never been obsessed over an inanimate object as I am over the Armata. It's damn near unhealthy.


I trust that the people at Uralvagonzavod have designed the Armata in a way that allows a 3 man crew to do maintenance work on it without problems.

Well mostly people that get carried away about technology are forumers not the tank developers, they have to struggle at most with tight and highly specified requirements. If the abrams has indeed 4 tons worth of copper cable which sounds far to much for a ground based vehicle especially if is just a tank not an SAM or Radar then maybe they have no other chance but to use optical cables to reduce weight which is one of the requirements of A3.

Obviously completely robotized AI centered tank is not feasible in this timeframe. People at UVZ has been talking about prospective of limiting tank crew even to two crew members. Completely crew free tank means controlled from HQ centre by specialised personnel, not AI controlled tank I presume.

That is, obviously well ahead of us.

Maintainence does not occur in combat.

In a rear area where it is safe you do maintainence... there should be a few other troops around that could assist in maintainence... no need to haul them around all the time.

Of course a command vehicle or ATGM vehicle with Krisantema would be in bigger trouble as some of them only have two crew...

Werewolf wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:Thanks, Werewolf.

People get carried away with all the wild promises of technology without thinking about all the particulars and limitations involved. I can't wait until the Russian armed forces get the Armata in sufficient numbers. It will then have the most advanced mechanized units of any military. I have never been obsessed over an inanimate object as I am over the Armata. It's damn near unhealthy.


I trust that the people at Uralvagonzavod have designed the Armata in a way that allows a 3 man crew to do maintenance work on it without problems.

Well mostly people that get carried away about technology are forumers not the tank developers, they have to struggle at most with tight and highly specified requirements. If the abrams has indeed 4 tons worth of copper cable which sounds far to much for a ground based vehicle especially if is just a tank not an SAM or Radar then maybe they have no other chance but to use optical cables to reduce weight which is one of the requirements of A3.

Well it's certainly a good thing that the incredibly intelligent engineers that design and build these advanced platforms are nothing like the general public or certain people on the internet. I marvel at technology and get entranced and immediately start thinking maybe it should be incorporated into a platform and then some knowledgeable people [like you] temper such excitement.

Garry B wrote:

Maintainence does not occur in combat.

In a rear area where it is safe you do maintainence... there should be a few other troops around that could assist in maintainence... no need to haul them around all the time.

Of course a command vehicle or ATGM vehicle with Krisantema would be in bigger trouble as some of them only have two crew...

That makes sense and I think that the Armata will be significantly easier to maintain than tanks that were designed in the 70s, even with a 3 man crew so the Armata is superior to every tank in every regard. Question: If the Armata does eventually get a 152mm gun, how many rounds do you think it should be able to hold?

Werewolf wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:Thanks, Werewolf.

People get carried away with all the wild promises of technology without thinking about all the particulars and limitations involved. I can't wait until the Russian armed forces get the Armata in sufficient numbers. It will then have the most advanced mechanized units of any military. I have never been obsessed over an inanimate object as I am over the Armata. It's damn near unhealthy.


I trust that the people at Uralvagonzavod have designed the Armata in a way that allows a 3 man crew to do maintenance work on it without problems.

Well mostly people that get carried away about technology are forumers not the tank developers, they have to struggle at most with tight and highly specified requirements. If the abrams has indeed 4 tons worth of copper cable which sounds far to much for a ground based vehicle especially if is just a tank not an SAM or Radar then maybe they have no other chance but to use optical cables to reduce weight which is one of the requirements of A3.

4t from what i at least belive includes cables + their protection aganist heat, moisture and even more importantly fuel and hydraulic liquid. Vehicles i served were always leaking Hydraulic fluids somewhere, either somewhere on lanes or on the pump. But it truly did say that M1A1 has 4t of cables and that A3 will use optic fiber based cabling wich will cut its weight by 2t. So i assume it includes cables + their protection.