[Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

Russia is doing right. Taking into account the experience in Syria, where the oldest material proved to be capable enough to form part of the mix in a modern war, Taking into account that even now exhausted material proved to be capable enough, Russia will not let to lose the previously built combat and auxiliary material. This is a basic rule for a good management.

Russia has still large stocks of proved capable material. Russia has still all the best part of the arsenals of the Soviet Union, and this is material to modernize and to keep in good condition for future use. Only material on exhaustion mode loses the condition of modernizable (Be-6/12, D-30, (M)T-12, BMD-1, BMP-1, BRDM-2, Nona-k).

Modern designs will have their turn, and their production will be adapted to future needs. Limited productions of modern material are not a problem at this point. Productions of modern material can be strongly increased in case of war.

Hole wrote:"Large quantities" is the magic word.

Russia got one of the highest birthrates in Europe.

The reserve fund is not for Investment. It´s a security net. There are other russian state funds for that with better returns than any other in the world, except for this fabulous western funds who exist in otherworld.

Really? Cite the "other state funds" with better returns than any other in the world. As for "security" as opposed to investment, that is a intellectual artifice. There is no security when you are incurring tens of billions of dollars in opportunity costs. Finance is about the time value of money. Smart people make money work for them.

calripson wrote:Russia currently has a debt/GDP ratio of 13.2%. The lowest of any major economy. The US is at 107%, 235% in Japan, and 82% across the EU. At current oil prices, the Russian budget is running a surplus of approximately $5 billion per month. The National Wealth Fund (counting money being held at the Central Bank) is already at $90 billion. So, how is Russia economic policy handled? What was the investment return on the reserve funds which at one point reached around $150 billion over decades? 0.2% Horrific. Any investment advisor in the world would be fired with that performance. This ultra-conservative incompetence literally cost Russia tens of billions of dollars. What about the Central Bank's interest rate policy? With inflation at 2.9%, they maintain the highest real interest rates of any major economy with interest rates pegged at 7.25%. A major drag to GDP. High real interests also have a negative correlation with birthrates.

It is not a question of money. It is a question of priorities and frankly incompetence.

You have hit every target dead center! The CBR prime rate is a crime and not sound economic policy. All by itself it is
shaving over 2% off the GDP growth rate and suppressing small and medium size business development. It smells of
a corporate racket designed to stifle the competition at the grass roots. Those reserve fund growth rates are further
evidence of rot. They are not funds, they are some sort of slush accounts with no effort put into properly managing
them. Even if they were invested exclusively into Russian companies they would have had nice ROI. But such investment
would go against the "let's put the breaks on Russia's economy" agenda that is the common element here.

Nibiru wrote:Vice Prime Minister Borisov complained about the high cost of the tanks "Armata"

Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov believes that now there is no need to equip the Armed Forces of Russia with a large number of such equipment as Armata or Bumerang BTR, since the latest versions of the T-72 tanks have high efficiency

The Russian Armed Forces do not aspire to purchase the tanks of "Armata" in large quantities because of their high cost, preferring to increase the combat potential of existing military equipment due to its modernization, Deputy Prime Minister Yury Borisov told reporters.

"Well, why should the Armed Forces flood all the armed forces, our T-72s are in great demand on the market, everything is taken from it, compared to the Abrams, Leclercs and Leopards, for their price, efficiency and quality, It's the same situation with "Boomerangs," Borisov explained.

"We have no special need for this (mass purchases of new equipment - Ed.), These models are quite expensive in relation to existing ones," the Deputy Prime Minister said.
Instead, smaller funds are used to modernize old equipment, allowing to save budget funds, RIA Novosti reported.

"We succeed, having a budget ten times less than NATO countries, due to such effective solutions, when we look at the modernization potential of old models, to solve the tasks set," Borisov said.

I am not against updating older equipments to make them more capable, but still there is no alternative to producing newer, more advanced equipment. like you can continue upgrading the T-34 to make it a modern Tank..,
The T-95 was cancelled because of its high costs, the Armata is supposed to be its cheaper/ affordable version and now they are complaining its expensive too, all i can say is i do not like the direction they are going in here

Russian corporations (even if "state owned" they are more like Crown corporations) want to live the NATO good life. They want
taxpayer a** rape profits the country be dammed. So you see this public theater of haggling between the government and
the corporations. The government does not have the tax revenues to pay US style prices for military hardware, but the corporations
are crying like it's the end of the world and they will have to close shop since they allegedly can't live on current prices. These
clowns would have some credibility if they actually paid their workers like in the USA and had to pay for their production inputs
at NATO prices. Neither is true by a massive factor.

It is time for the government to either fire the directors of these Crown corporations or find a way to expose their accounting fraud
and have them packed off to jail. These directors are f*cking crooks that are acting as de facto if not de jure agents of the enemy.

Iraqi wars showed how soviet tanks and tanks in general are vulnerable to air threats. And they are on the front during wars, air defences are behind and low flying helicopters use terrain to hide so they are hard targets for them thats why I think t-14 should have manpad controled from inside the tank to protect themselves.

First of all all tanks are vulnerable to air threats... Soviet tanks are no more vulnerable that any other.

Second you want a tank with three crew to carry MANPADS... which crew member are you suggesting stop doing his job and use the MANPAD in combat?

Driver?

Gunner?

Commander?

Armata has a guided missile controlled from inside the tank... it is called Sokol-1 and can be used against enemy aircraft and enemy armour.

Exactly what you'vejust said Smile That regardless of US propaganda any tank is vulnerable to airborne means of assault.

Ironically the US solution to the vulnerability to air power is its its own air power. The Soviet and now Russian solution is air defence ground forces... they expect their air power to be busy dealing with enemy air power... something the US does not factor in... doesn't matter against third world countries with no air power but when they come up against real threats they might find they have problems...

Only the presence of manpads on tanks will oblige the fighters to fly higher and be a more easy target for long range systems. Their use will help down many flying vehicules.

Only an idiot would demand the driver, gunner or commander of a tank also keep an eye out for helicopters and attack aircraft...

Tanks operate with IFV... Soviet and Russian ground forces equip their IFV units with MANPADS to support the ground forces against air threats... along with properly equipped air defence units with Shilka and tunguska and TOR and OSA...

Agree. But like I said I see it like a self defence for the tank when its spot an helicopter or a bomber more than an air defence system.

Most tanks wont even know they are under attack until the munition explodes and they either die or not.

The very idea that a tank will detect a helicopter 6km away is stupid...

They are atgm with some capacity against slow moving helicopters. They need a constant pointing of the target. With an igla you shot and don't care about the missile.

They have auto trackers that will follow the target until impact fully automatically and their laser beam sensor looks back at the tank, so DIRCMS don't work against them. DIRCMS work against IR guided missiles... that is what they were designed to counter.

T 80 and t 90 even MS version were never equiped with arena. They could be but they were not. So merkava is the first one. At least first modern one.

Drozd was tested in Afghanistan and upgraded Drozd-2 was introduced by the naval infantry armour so Merkava was hardly first one.

Experience with Drozd resulted in ARENA. (The munitions are launched upwards and fire down into the ground in front of the vehicle minimising the danger to troops nearby...)

With ERA and modern composite armour the T-80 and T-90 would have only benefited with APS for hits to the sides or rear... and it was considered to not be worth the cost.

Israeli is considered as a western country when it comes to weapons.

But as a third world country in terms of human rights...

I know afghanit has nothing to do with trophy. What I try to say is that the good results of trophy may have been taken in consideration when they designed the armata.

That does not make sense... WTF difference does the performance of Trophy have to do with the design of Armata?

Armata was intended from the start to be equipped with Afghanistan... trophy has nothing at all to do with it and is a totally inferior system.

If they wanted a trophy like system they could have introduced Arena, but was not good enough to warrant the cost.

Afghanistan is good enough to do the job they want so its cost is justified.

Russian like you said had arena and drozd but didn't use them apart gor the gew t-55 you mentioned.

The Russian naval infantry introduced it into service.

Then markeva 4 came in and its concept of introducing ads in serial production was good enough that russian did the same with armata. It has nothing to fo with copying.

Bullshit. The T-95 and later Armata were always intended to have Afghanistan fitted as standard... it was always about getting a system that was comprehensive enough to be worth the cost... afghanistan can deal with most incoming threats including sabot rounds.

First I never heard about this missile. I can't argue on this.

Sokol-1?

S-350 on Armata
Pantsir on Armata
BMPT on Armata: Terminator 3 with double 57mm weapon
Sosna on Armata

S-350 is an air force/aerospace defence force weapon and is not likely to be used anywhere near an armada division.

Pantsir, yes, and terminator... well it doesn't really make sense as all the IFV versions of armata will have anti personel weapons and anti light vehicle weapons and tank level armour, which is the definition of a BMPT. Just fill the troop compartment with extra ammo and it is already a BMPT.

SOSNA is light and cheap and shorter ranged and less capable than Pantsir... armata is a lot of things but cheap is not one of them.

Two 57mm guns does not make sense.

The T-95 was cancelled because of its high costs, the Armata is supposed to be its cheaper/ affordable version and now they are complaining its expensive too, all i can say is i do not like the direction they are going in here

I suspect it is a negotiating tactic to get the price down a little... can't let them think they have the Army over a barrel when it comes to costs.

Of course having said all that the new vehicle families are pretty much state of the art so they are not going to be cheap.

It is not a question of money. It is a question of priorities and frankly incompetence.

Not incompetence... the Army is not used to buying all state of the art vehicles and is used to much cheaper simpler vehicles...

Armata will use guided missiles fired trough its cannon. No need for extra MANPAD.

Man, you could believe Borissov declared the end to all tank production in Russia after reading some of this posts. He said they will buy "no large quantities". The Army will propably reveive 50 to 100 T-14´s a year, which is enough. Also i doubt the company will be ready to build more in the first years.

GarryB wrote:

S-350 on Armata
Pantsir on Armata
BMPT on Armata: Terminator 3 with double 57mm weapon
Sosna on Armata

S-350 is an air force/aerospace defence force weapon and is not likely to be used anywhere near an armada division.

Pantsir, yes, and terminator... well it doesn't really make sense as all the IFV versions of armata will have anti personel weapons and anti light vehicle weapons and tank level armour, which is the definition of a BMPT. Just fill the troop compartment with extra ammo and it is already a BMPT.

SOSNA is light and cheap and shorter ranged and less capable than Pantsir... armata is a lot of things but cheap is not one of them.

Two 57mm guns does not make sense.

In the last two sentences there are contradicting arguments. Both Sosna and the 57mm guns are cheap and of lower range than the Pantsir missiles. Armata platforms are not cheap, but at same time allow bigger density of weapons than the habitual configurations used for the Sosna missiles and the 57mm guns and as consequence bigger fire power.

An armata platform armed with Sosna missiles obviously would not work with 12 tubes, like designed for the MT-LB platform. Instead can be armed with 36-40-48 tubes, becoming a serious air defense weapon against massive UAV attacks.

And the same with the 57-2 configuration for the BMPT on the Armata platform. Double weapons increase the rate of fire, like proved successful in the ZSU-57-2, the ZSU-23-4, the SA-19 2S6 Tunguska and even in the new Pantsir.

In the refered to the S-350, it matters not who is developping the weapon. The S-350 system will serve to the whole Russian Armed Forces. The reality today is that the Russian Army is using the SA-11/17 Buk air defense system as main Medium-range Air Defense system, and the S-350 is the new modern Russian Medium-Range Air Defense system. As consequence, unless you want to see the new land based platforms without Medium-Range Air Defense Systems, Russia has two options for the Medium-Range Air Defense systems based in the new modern platforms:

- To adapt the new S-350 to the Armata, Kurganets, Bumerang and BMD-4(M) platforms.
- To adapt the older Buk to the Armata, Kurganets, Bumerang and BMD-4(M) platforms.

The first option is fairly more likely, because of two reasons:

- The S-350 system is more capable than the Buk system.
- The cycle of life of the S-350 system is more in agreement with the cycle of life of the Armata, Kurganets, Bumerang and BMD-4(M) platforms than the cycle of life of the Buk system.

You have hit every target dead center! The CBR prime rate is a crime and not sound economic policy. All by itself it is
shaving over 2% off the GDP growth rate and suppressing small and medium size business development. It smells of
a corporate racket designed to stifle the competition at the grass roots. Those reserve fund growth rates are further
evidence of rot. They are not funds, they are some sort of slush accounts with no effort put into properly managing
them. Even if they were invested exclusively into Russian companies they would have had nice ROI. But such investment
would go against the "let's put the breaks on Russia's economy" agenda that is the common element here.

The fundamental problem is the people formulating economic policy in Russia and running the Central Bank have no vision of a "greater Russia" and to the contrary are western leaning monetarists who above all want to keep their jobs and perks like attending multiple conferences in London or D.C. where they can receive pats on the back. They have no real idea how to grow an economy. These are people of the same mentality I worked with in finance twenty years ago in Moscow who used to tell me it was great that Russia's population was falling because it meant a higher per capita GDP!

I really struggle to understand all this fuss every time a Russian official states the obvious: defence of the country does not require currently for a war-time economy in order to buy massive amounts of the most modern conventional equipment, be it Su-57, T-14 or anything else. With strategic weapons we see another priorities and deployment times, because they DO matter.

Why is it so hard to understand that Russia will move forwards with progressively bigger orders of new hardware, instead of buying them like there is no tomorrow?

NATO has no ways of really harming Russia through conventional war, simply because their only army capable and willing enough to be dangerous is separated by thousands of km of sea and any build-up effort could be forcefully countered before developing into an existential threat.
Regional rivals are generally in terrible conditions and attacking Russia would be an outright suicide for them.
Power projection for Russia is still a secondary issue, so they do not need to overwhelm any 3rd world country as of now.
Euro-Asiatic integration is going full steam forward with institutions like SCO and CSTO that greatly reduce the risks of NATO destabilization in Central Asia.

I guess Armata will be ordered in small batches at first (some 100 units had been mentioned time ago) to get military used to it. Then it will be transferred to top units along many years.

There is no war being fought (other than on the internet) that demands another policy.

LMFS wrote:I really struggle to understand all this fuss every time a Russian official states the obvious: defence of the country does not require currently for a war-time economy in order to buy massive amounts of the most modern conventional equipment, be it Su-57, T-14 or anything else. With strategic weapons we see another priorities and deployment times, because they DO matter.

NATO has no ways of really harming Russia through conventional war, simply because their only army capable and willing enough to be dangerous is separated by thousands of km of sea and any build-up effort could be forcefully countered before developing into an existential threat.
Regional rivals are generally in terrible conditions and attacking Russia would be an outright suicide for them.
Power projection for Russia is still a secondary issue, so they do not need to overwhelm any 3rd world country as of now.

There is no war being fought (other than on the internet) that demands another policy.

I 100% agree with this.

There was a lot of moaning on other forums also. What exactly is new about the latest information?

They said it only costs $3.8 million per unit which is very cheap for a modern MBT. I don't understand why they won't buy more unless we truly are running out of money.

Vladimir79 wrote:They said it only costs $3.8 million per unit which is very cheap for a modern MBT.  I don't understand why they won't buy more unless we truly are running out of money.  

They are probably arguing over the support costs which are likely to be several times the initial unit cost.

kvs wrote:

Vladimir79 wrote:They said it only costs $3.8 million per unit which is very cheap for a modern MBT.  I don't understand why they won't buy more unless we truly are running out of money.  

They are probably arguing over the support costs which are likely to be several times the initial unit cost.

Because upgrading a stock T-72 to T-72B3M standard would cost a few hundred thousand USD whereas a new Armata would cost 10 times more. Unfortunately though T-72 B3M is a major improvement over T-72 but not on par with the latest MBTs in protection, sights and others.

william.boutros wrote:

kvs wrote:

Vladimir79 wrote:They said it only costs $3.8 million per unit which is very cheap for a modern MBT.  I don't understand why they won't buy more unless we truly are running out of money.  

They are probably arguing over the support costs which are likely to be several times the initial unit cost.

Because upgrading a stock T-72 to T-72B3M standard would cost a few hundred thousand USD whereas a new Armata would cost 10 times more. Unfortunately though T-72 B3M is a major improvement over T-72 but not on par with the latest MBTs in protection, sights and others.

The claim that the upgraded T-72  "is enough" for Russia to face the challenges in the future from enemy nations, and that leave "far behind" western tanks is pure BULLSHIT and even more shameful that comes from a major important figure in Russia military...  This is a serious mistake of Russia ,to think the T-72 is enough.. You saw how the T-90 was destroyed in Syria by TOW missiles from the vietnam war.. Armata T-14 will have increased significantly the lives of Russian soldiers.  

What Russia military needs to do is get Rid of Putin , and his Sports sick addiction ,that nobody now talks after 2 weeks is over..  This lacks of vision of Putin , lack of ambitions , and mediocre leadership and always underestimation of Russia enemies , is what get Russian soldiers killed and Russia being disrespected in the world and not being taken seriously.. IF Putin, wasn't so focused in meaningless SPorts and olympics , and its worship of the soviet past. Russia will have had the money to have a fully modernized army with Armata tanks , and a fully modernized airforce and navy.. and or a far more abitious space program....

Very sad news.. but with Putin nothing surprise me ,in how mediocre and short sight he can be ,many times .
Those generals who claim T-72 are enough should be sent to a frontline in Syria ,with ISIS armed with Tow missiles fired at them... This is basically Putin betraying the Russian military ,with his mediocre decisions..

Vann7 wrote:You saw how the T-90 was destroyed in Syria by TOW missiles from the vietnam war

An irrisory number ,IF ANY AT ALL.........

T-90 in Syria has achieved an absolutely astounding performance ,above anyhting in the survivability factor; even more in the "duel" against TOWs, of any iteration, this latter has been completely flattened to the almost complete irrelevance ,i don't even know how is possible to say anything different observing data and results coming from the operational employment in the theatre (except for some western spin-doctor).

Vann7 wrote:Those generals who claim T-72 are enough should be sent to a frontline in Syria ,with ISIS armed with Tow missiles fired at them

About the efficiency of the 72 series there were and are not any doubt; to the contrary of the conceptually plagued western "heavy" design (at its own time sub-product of deep technical shortcomings in the mastering and implementation of several critical components for armoured vehicles conceived for large scale wars) those kind of MBTs ,characterized by, very high strategic and tactical mobility, high repairability, high combat range, very low logistical requirements, capability to enagage enemy from stand off range and capability to engage the entire spectrum of battlefield menaces, if employed following domestic operational concepts has still not equals on the planet by far.

In your example those generals in an armoured formation with the ground monitoring, artillery support and above all armoured density and arc of enemy fire coverage foreseen in domestic armoured doctrine would be only very busy ,after each battle, to split among them the little smpking remains of the poor TOWs operators to take the merits of the killing.
In Syria conflict with corollary assets and number of armoured vehicles involved in each operation immeasurably lower than what prescribed in the operational manuals, was sufficient the patronage and oversight of few Russian armoured division officials to reduce suddenly the number of lossed of several times.
Anyhow ,even before that, the life expectancy of the average TOW operators was several times lower than that of the average Syrian Army tank operator, the unique difference being that the much more frequent demise of the former end unceremoniously in the reality instead of some blurred internet video with improbable music in the background.

The main problem with the T-14 and the Su-57 is that we are close to the point when unmanned versions are not only feasible, but in many respects better than manned versions. Now is the question, should you spend your money on buying mostly manned versions or buy just a few (50 - 60 Su-57´s, 250 - 300 T-14´s) and finish the development of the unmanned versions.

Hole wrote:The main problem with the T-14 and the Su-57 is that we are close to the point when unmanned versions are not only feasible, but in many respects better than manned versions. Now is the question, should you spend your money on buying mostly manned versions or buy just a few (50 - 60 Su-57´s, 250 - 300 T-14´s) and finish the development of the unmanned versions.

It might take more years before they perfect unmanned systems to be useful in any combat situations, look at the results of Uran-9 during trials in Syria.

Thats none of the point. No one in their smart minds will make their major portion of airforce or ground force "unmanned". Look what happened with US and their advance $1B drone RQ-170? Imagine that in large quantities.

Point of the matter is, it is expensive. T-90A is roughly $3.5M per tank. Armata, using state of the art technology barely if not at all in mass production yet, wont be even close. It would be much closer to Leopard 2 tank export prices.

As well, as said, not "en mass" production. Meaning they wont produce them in the hundreds per year. Instead, it will be in maybe 100 at most per year. Possibly around 20 - 30 tanks per year. To fill the gap inbetween, is having the T-72B3M or B4 in some cases. B3M has major improvements over it excluding its armor. Yes, Relict is fine. But its half assed spacing on the turret is lacking, and that is obvious compared to their work on T-90MS and T-80BVM. But it has the latest canon, good engine, optics, etc. But it still wont have the survivability of the Armata and that in itself makes it no necessary to keep. Russian military should be getting best of the best for their troops. But of course, certain higher ups think it is better to buy best of the best in smaller numbers over long period of time, and make do with "best for the price".

Same goes for the Su-57. But there is 1 big difference between that and Armata - Su-57 isn't finished yet. Its engines aren't ready yet. And, to add to it, new technology that would make current Su-57 very outdated, is just right around the corner. That is things like ROFAR. So its understandable to build that in small numbers for a while. Armata on other hand? No real good reason other than stupidity in trying to "save money" at the expense of the lives of Russian soldiers.

Only real theory I have behind this is - They realized that NATO forces buildup on their borders, with their heavy weaponry, proves that Russia is needing to have large forces themselves to be able to counter them. Lean and Mean doesn't mean squat when the enemy can throw numbers at you. So that is why Russia ended up reducing the decommissioning of older military equipment. That is why they decided to keep around 5,000 to 8,000 tanks and what not instead of removing them. Then they see to upgrade them en mass at much cheaper cost, to modernize them to compete against US and such. Which is much needed and a good alternative till they get decent amount of Armata's in service.

People have a weird fantasy as to unmanned technology. It isn't new tech. As well, it isn't really all that protected either. Yeah, some drones can operate with no coms at all. But guess what? Spoof a comm system and you can then communicate back with that drone anyway. No one will give full autonomy to a drone due to possible malfunctions or in this case, full complete takeover by EW.

Mindstorm wrote:
Anyhow ,even before that, the life expectancy of the average TOW operators was several times lower than that of the average Syrian Army tank operator, the unique difference being that the much more frequent demise of the former end unceremoniously in the reality instead of some blurred internet video with improbable music in the background.  

The issue here is the Russian Government is saying T-72 "is enough" and this is not true.. it will not handle a candle to the M1A2 or latest Tanks from Any European nation. It can't penetrate any modern tank and neither can properly survive either a direct hit from any NATO modern tank..  By refusing in building enough armatas , they are basically saying  will prefer to risk Russian soldiers lives for saving money.. This is why those Military leaders who say T-72 is enough ,should be send to a major conflict inside them.. even in Ukraine T-72s were blow away their turret ,when hit at times by anti tank missiles...  



So the military should protest and demand firing the officer who claimed T-72s are "enough" for Russian
army.. they are not.. they are very weak tanks and will not hold a candle against any modern tank in NATO.
Those T-72 are only useful to fight light armed terrorist with obsolete weapons.. as it is most cases in Syria.a
But good luck to them ,facing Javelin and Spike missiles attack.. or a direct hit of an US , German or British modern tank. Even a tow ,will blow away the tank turret..and kill is crew instantly..

Vann7 wrote:

Mindstorm wrote:
Anyhow ,even before that, the life expectancy of the average TOW operators was several times lower than that of the average Syrian Army tank operator, the unique difference being that the much more frequent demise of the former end unceremoniously in the reality instead of some blurred internet video with improbable music in the background.  

The issue here is the Russian Government is saying T-72 "is enough" and this is not true.. it will not handle a candle to the M1A2 or latest Tanks from Any European nation. It can't penetrate any modern tank and neither can properly survive either a direct hit from any NATO modern tank..  

Do you have any evidence/sources to back up these statements? Links to up to date tests performed?  
Furthermore, do you have any evidence that the gun of the T-14 can penetrate?

If the T-72 is such a horrible tank, then why are armies such as Poland and Czech Republic, who have access to "superior Western MBT's", continue to use and upgrade it for frontline service?
Is everyone wrong but you?

Regardless of all that :
In combined arms warfare, main battle tanks are just a small part of the puzzle.
500 T-14's will not change the outcome of any large scale conflict.
T-72 performs good enough for the current situation. If the situation changes, then we will see what happens. The capability and infrastructure to produce new tanks is there, but this is not war time economy as said.

"Uralvagonzavod": statements about the high cost of "Armata" did not affect production plans

More on TASS:
http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5428026