Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Basically what this whole thing means is that Emperor Palputin will conquer Galaxy with Space Marines and T-72s. T-72B3s to be precise.   I posted this on other Capitalist internet site 3 mo

For future use

T-72B3, T-80BVM, T-90M, T-14, T-15 top view.  

Posted Images

1 hour ago, alanch90 said:

Just now i´m noticing that in this picture the tank has its forward right suspension arm lifted while taking a curve to the right. 

   Possibly because of track tension during turn.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   Possibly because of track tension during turn.

I remember when the T-14 first appeared in Moscow some people filmed the tanks lifting the forward roller wheels when taking sharp curves. But that was never captured in photos until now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

I remember when the T-14 first appeared in Moscow some people filmed the tanks lifting the forward roller wheels when taking sharp curves. But that was never captured in photos until now. 

That was captured long time ago and discussed here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

   Boomerang IFV is cleared for export

Quote

   BMP on the Boomerang platform received the right to export - manufacturer

 

   Moscow. 12th of August. INTERFAX - An infantry fighting vehicle based on the newest unified combat platform Boomerang has received an export passport, which gives the right to sell to foreign customers, says the manufacturer - Military Industrial Company (VPK). "Boomerang BMP received: an advertising passport and an export passport, which will position the new AFV in the export market," - said "VPK" on its Instagram page on Wednesday. They recalled that the vehicle will be presented at the Army-2020 forum, which starts on August 23 in the Moscow region.
       
   In April, JSC Rosoboronexport announced that it was bringing the Boomerang combat platform to the world market. JSC Rosoboronexport (part of the state corporation Rostec) has begun to promote the newest unified combat platform Boomerang, developed and manufactured by Military Industrial Company LLC (VPK), to foreign markets, the company said on April 23. Rosoboronexport's head Alexander Mikheev said that the platform allows to create on its basis vehicles of the widest range of applications with various weapons and equipment. "The countries of Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia and the CIS have already shown interest in Boomerang. We estimate the export volume of this platform in the foreseeable future at about $ 1 billion," the head of Rosoboronexport said at the time.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

   Viktor Murakhovskiy:

Quote

   I spoke at the Army-2020 forum about Kurganets-25 with GABTU specialists. It looks like the platform is "moving hard to the right" [postponed] for unknown amount of time. Company do not cope both in terms of performance characteristics or in organizing production. For the foreseeable future, there will be purchases of the BMP-3 both for the infantry and as platforms for weapons.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

For the foreseeable future, there will be purchases of the BMP-3 both for the infantry and as platforms for weapons.

Upgrades to the base model, or something new, like the earlier Dragun?

 

I think whole K25 should be ditched. It has zero real advantages compared to BMP-3 Dragun, but far more expensive. Total waste of money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, heretic88 said:

I think whole K25 should be ditched. It has zero real advantages compared to BMP-3 Dragun, but far more expensive. Total waste of money.


It comes down to the following:

 

Kurganets was a VERY good IFV for today's standards, for tomorrow´s not so much. Unlike the T-14, K-25 increase in capabilities relative to what it was meant to replace were much more incremental than a leap ahead. Its protection characteristics are comparable to most other modern IFVs. Unmanned turret has been done before. Perhaps it was a little bit faster but not by a lot. What was indeed interesting was that K-25 could achieve that and still be capable of swimming. Another interesting aspect was the weapon selection, although the ATGMs badly need modern replacements and the turret itself can be installed in other older and cheaper vehicles. Not only the turret but also the armor and most of its systems may be mounted in a modernized BMP-3. If the russians choose to radically modernize BMP-3  or make a "BMP-4" on the basis of BMP-3 (like BMP-1 was to BMP-2) instead of pursuing the Kurganets program, the Dragun project or more specifically, the recently unveiled "Manul" is an excellent starting point; perhaps with an improved engine capable of supporting most or all of the electronics to be mounted on the K-25, together with improved armor (for example, the ceramic panels mounted on K-25 UFP) it could achieve comparable capabilities with a much lower price and less production problems.
Another aspect that could point to K-25 not being "ambitious enough" could be what we know about OMFV. Indeed the american program is much more forward looking, considering they may accept a 2 man crew in order to fit a full sized squad with the same vehicle internal volume. That requires a much more advanced FCS than what K-25 was aiming to have.  On the other hand, OMFV may be required to be protected vs the russian 57mm (at least the shorter one to be mounted on Kurganets) while K-25 armor most certainly can't defeat the american 50mm rounds.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion about this whole russian future AFV program is that it is a disaster. And this disaster started in the end of 90s and early 2000s with a series of cancellations of promising new platforms.

 

Bumerang: Russia needed a modern wheeled AFV to replace the old BTR-80. They had that replacement, the BTR-90. Ready for mass production. Yes, yes, it wasnt such an ambitious project as the Bumerang, but I think it was fine in the '90s. It was a huge improvement in firepower compared to BTR-80. Protection was also improved, also the mobility. Today it would be quite obsolete, but I think the base vehicle had great potential for upgrades. One prototype was already fitted with the quite nice Berezhok turret. Another with a BMD-4 turret.

 

Kurganets: I do not even know why they started this program. BMP-3 was, and still is a good base platform. Yes, it has problems. Worst is the not so ideal infantry compartment. But as Dragun proved it, it can be fixed. Second problem is protection. While it was quite good in the 90s, it is lacking today, but I think it wouldnt be hard to improve.

 

Armata: I think this is the worst crime against the state. Russia had the Objekt-195, passed tests, almost ready for mass production! And it was a far more powerful tank. Yes, expensive. So what. Armata is also expensive, actually even worse, because the added costs of starting from zero. And still very far from being ready.

 

Koalitsiya: Well, this is an exception, I see bright future for this. When I just look at the 2S35, my first impression is that its a finished weapon system, ready for mass production. (and I think the only one that will reach it)

 

+1, the BTR-T. Another missed opportunity I think. Yes, today it would be quite obsolete, thanks to the Kontakt-5, but that would be easy to replace with Relikt. It would also need a new, unmanned turret. But then, it would be a quite nice heavy APC, with better protection than anything except the Namer.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not dare to say that Objekt-195 was ready. How do we know? I seriously doubt that an early 90' project with unmanned turret would not have serious situation awarness issues. The development of optics, thermals and software made a huge jump since that time and even today we can see that the actual performace of systems depending solely on machine vision is still somewhat doubtful. Also at that time the monstrous 152 mm gun was a an overkill bringing only logistical and practical use issues. IMHO even today it's still not needed.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

   Object 195 is indeed a black horse when we speek about if it was ready for use in the Army. It is hard to judge them (how "good"/"bad") they are) only by photos and some snippets of info/rumors.

   I suspect that both T-14 and "T-95" have unsolved problems with vision from inside of tank and general situational awareness being on level of T-90/80/72 or worse in some cases (and better in others because of panoramic sight). I do have feeling that some sort of AI assisted spotting using vision with 360 coverage (like on tech demonstators for Karmel) will allow to extract most of techvision system. But one point also can be made that for generic Russian tank crew those problems are going to be as critical as positive qualities of T-14, like separated crew compartment from ammunition and fuel.

   "T-95" would be harder to get to effective combat-ready condition in early/mid 2008 compared to T-14 in 2020.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt BTR-90 might be called satisfactory at any year of its development, 

one could just look at its potential adversaries (and wonder how exactly it was pitched to back than Soviet Army) -

starting all the way back in mid80s when Wehrtechnik (1985-02, 1988-08) and International Defense Review (1988-10) were publishing articles on Western next generation wheeled AFV development - namely West German EXF and Daimler Benz proposal of family of vehicles based on it, including such things as 32t APC. (while research phase which started in mid80s have led Soviets to next generation 21t vehicle, with preliminary project ready in 1989)

 

 

...and all that without paying much attention to BTR-90's layout, with no exit at rear, even narrow one - an abomination repeated yet again -

while at exactly the same time, in 1989, other developers in WarPac - presumably Czech, given striking resemblance to PSP Zubr - have presented this:

0001.jpg

https://btvtinfo.blogspot.com/2019/11/blog-post_10.html?m=1

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Beer said:

I would not dare to say that Objekt-195 was ready. How do we know? I seriously doubt that an early 90' project with unmanned turret would not have serious situation awarness issues. The development of optics, thermals and software made a huge jump since that time and even today we can see that the actual performace of systems depending solely on machine vision is still somewhat doubtful. Also at that time the monstrous 152 mm gun was a an overkill bringing only logistical and practical use issues. IMHO even today it's still not needed.  

It was stated many times before that the 195 was almost ready. But here is the latest from UVZ itself.

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2020/08/95.html

Also it is noteworthy that one of the two prototypes passed 15.000km, and fired 287 shots. I doubt that all of Armata prototypes together reached this level.

And I do not think the 152mm is overkill. 125mm is at its limits, I think even the 2A82.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, heretic88 said:

It was stated many times before that the 195 was almost ready. But here is the latest from UVZ itself.

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2020/08/95.html

Also it is noteworthy that one of the two prototypes passed 15.000km, and fired 287 shots. I doubt that all of Armata prototypes together reached this level.

And I do not think the 152mm is overkill. 125mm is at its limits, I think even the 2A82.

 

 

 

 UVZ is a manufacturer. Whatever they claim doesn't mean it was to be accepted by the army.

 

That text clearly states that the state trials, which were supposed to end in 2005, were stopped in 2008 without being finished. For me that clearly means that it was not a finished product. 

Quote

"29 декабря 2008 года - Постановлением Правительства РФ государственные испытания опытного боевого танка "объект 195" были приостановлены и больше не возобновлялись.

 

As I said it's very hard to believe it would not suffer from situation awarness issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Beer said:

That text clearly states that the state trials, which were supposed to end in 2005, were stopped in 2008 without being finished. For me that clearly means that it was not a finished product. 

The text also says that all remaining problems were fixed. 

According to another article, the tank passed first stage of tests in 2006. 

https://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/1028975.html

22 hours ago, Beer said:

As I said it's very hard to believe it would not suffer from situation awarness issues.

I do not disagree. But probably its the same with the Armata.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO it's would be very reassuring to know for a fact that in 2000s Russian Army and military-industrial complex have departed from that thing happening with Soviet Army and Soviet MIC  every once in a while - with T-64, T-80, BMP-3, and presumably other things too, which all had quite a bit of problems with reliability for couple of years before and after adoption, but still were accepted by what looks like lowering standards and believing promises, and/or been very accurate about how to make a report which "smells like a rose".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gurkhan shared this, from Army Forum 2020. Official data of T-14 by UVZ:

 

2020-09-07-0001.jpg

 

Hull width, including side armor modules, is 3820mm which led me to update my estimation of the thickness of the hull armor itself:

 

5FBBWkL.png

 

Now the most likely hull base armor LOS thickness in my opinion is 938mm.

 

Another interesting info from UVZ is that T-14 does have a coaxial 7.62mm machine gun finally ending years of debate. Also the maximum on road speed is no less than 75 km/h and we know that the tanks speedometer goes up to 85 km/h. Cruising range is also not less than other standard Russian service MBTs (T-72s, T-90s).

Link to post
Share on other sites

   Kinzhal turret (with 57 mm gun and ATGMs) on T-15 use sights from Peleng (Belarus)

919452.jpg

   Gunner sight is PPK and commander use OES OP (called in this brochure pic), but picture here is same as "Sakura" sight from their PR material (could be name for export). Stats, from Soviet tanks thread:

 

   PPK. Supposed to be panormaic, on Kinzhal it is limited by turret body.

yshUkU0.jpg

 

Quote

Panoramic observation - 360o

Ranges of depression and elevation of sight: -15o to +60o 

Determination of sighting angles

 

Channels:

Optical/TV main

Optical/TV observation

Thermal imager (uncooled)

Laser rangefinder - 1.54 μm

 

Stabilization - independent 2 axis

 

   Range of (optical/TV, main): 

Detection  - 6500 m

Recognition - 3500 m

 

Field of views:
- wide 6.2x4.6o

- 2x zoom 3.1o x 2.3o

- digital 2x zoom 1.55o x 1.15o

 

   Range of (optical/TV, observation): 

Detection  - 3000 m

Recognition - 1500 m

 

Field of view - 18x13o

 

   Range of (thermal): 

Detection  - 4000 m

Recognition - 2000 m

 

Field of views:
- wide 6.2x4.6o

- narrow 3.1o x 2.3o

 

Laser rangefinder:

Ranges - 100 - 7000 m

Discreteness - 5 m

 

Stabilization:

Independent 2 axis

Ranges of depression and elevation - -15o to +60in vertical, 360o in horizontal

Speed of aiming 0.02-10o/s

Speed of traverse - 60o/s

 

   OES OP stats and pic suggest that OES OP and Sakura are the same sight.

RNH8jvU.jpg

 

Quote

Panoramic observation - 360o

Ranges of depression and elevation: -15o to +60o 

Can receive external targeting information

9M119 guidance channel

 

Channels:

Optical main

Optical observation

Thermal imager (3-5μm)

Laser rangefinder - 1.54 μm, monopulse or multipulse/frequency mode

Missile guidance with conitnues laser raster modulation for 9M119

 

Stabilization - independent 2 axis

 

   Range of (TV channels) detection in observation/narrow FOV: 

- UAV 700 / 4 900 meters

- helicopter 5 600 / 12 000 meters

- plane 6 400 / 12 300 meters

 

   Range of detection in observation/narrow FOV [i suspect this is for observation TV channel]: 

- UAV 200 / 2 200 meters

- helicopter 2 500 / 9 300 meters

- plane 3 000 / 9 900 meters

 

Field of views (diagonally):
- observation 30o

- wide 9o

- narrow 1o

 

   Range of (thermal imager): 

Detection  - 10000 m

Recognition - 4000 m

 

Field of views:
- wide 25x 20o

- narrow 10o x 8.3o

- narrow with electronic zoom (2x) 10o x 1.6o

 

Laser rangefinder:

Ranges - 100 - 15000 m

Discreteness - 5 m

 

Laser guidance system:

Wavelength - 0.875μm - 0.92μm 

Range - 6000m

 

Stabilization:

Independent 2 axis

Ranges of depression and elevation - -15o to +75in vertical, 360o in horizontal

Speed of aiming up to 40o/s

Speed of traverse - 60o/s

 

PtJYNR7.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

   A bit of timelines regarding Boomer and Armata.

https://ria.ru/20200507/1571037470.html (article from May of 2020)

 

   Boomer. Preliminary tests completed, state trials planned for 2021. Vehicle (at least IFV version, AFAIK) received export passport

Quote

- In accordance with the schedule for development work "Boomerang", "The Military Industrial Company" (VPK) together with the Main Armored Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and research organizations of the military department completed preliminary tests of prototypes based on this unified interspecific wheeled platform in Last year.
   The K-16 wheeled armored personnel carrier and the K-17 wheeled infantry fighting vehicle were created on this chassis. During the preliminary tests carried out, the prototypes confirmed the characteristics stated in the technical specifications.
   Based on their results, we decided to slightly change the armored hulls, as a result of which the conditions for placing soldiers in the troop compartment will be improved, as well as the vehicle's buoyancy will increase.

   Now at the production facilities of the "VPK" assembly of new prototypes of "Boomerang" is underway for state tests, which are planned to be completed next year. In addition, at the enterprises that are part of our management perimeter, the production base is being updated and prepared for the serial production of equipment based on this platform. So, for example, the Corps Plant JSC has completely manufactured the necessary equipment for the production of new armored hulls.

 

   Armata. Preliminary tests completed, state trials planned to be completed before end of 2020. Armata also received an export passport

Quote

   "The state tests of the Armata tank are planned to be completed in 2020. Based on the test results, the Russian Ministry of Defense will determine the delivery time for serially produced equipment to military units," Manturov said.

 

   Kurganets-25 is behind both vehicles, Preliminary test in 2021 and state trials from end of 2021, up to end of 2022.

Quote

   The Defense Ministry and the military-industrial complex have agreed on a test schedule for BMPs and armored personnel carriers from the Kurganets-25 family, sources in the military-industrial complex said. Judging by the work schedule, which Izvestia got acquainted with, from May to October 2021, preliminary tests of combat vehicles will be held. And state tests will begin in November and, according to plans, should be completed in 12 months. It is noteworthy that testing of individual components and assemblies of armored vehicles is already underway.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By LoooSeR
      Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners!
       
       
         Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd? 
       
       
         Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet".
       
       
       
      Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see.
       
      T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work 
       
         We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them.
       
       
       

       
       
         
       
       
      T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners
       
         Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines!
       

       
       
       
      The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army
       
         And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80!

      The T-80 shooting down jets by hitting them behind the horizont 
          
    • By LoooSeR
      I want to show you several late Soviet MBT designs, which were created in 1980s in order to gain superiority over NATO focres. I do think that some of them are interesting, some of them look like a vehicle for Red Alert/Endwar games. 
           
           Today, Russia is still use Soviet MBTs, like T-80 and T-72s, but in late 1970s and 1980s Soviet military and engineers were trying to look for other tank concepts and designs. T-64 and other MBTs, based on concept behind T-64, were starting to reaching their limits, mostly because of their small size and internal layout. 
       
      PART 1
       
       
      Object 292
       
         We open our Box of Communism Spreading Godless Beasts with not so much crazy attempt to mate T-80 hull with 152 mm LP-83 gun (LP-83 does not mean Lenin Pride-83). It was called Object 292.
       
       
       
          First (and only, sadly) prototype was build in 1990, tested at Rzhevskiy proving ground (i live near it) in 1991, which it passed pretty well. Vehicle (well, turret) was developed by Leningrad Kirov factory design bureau (currently JSC "Spetstrans") Because of collapse of Soviet Union this project was abandoned. One of reasons was that main gun was "Burevestnik" design bureau creation, which collapsed shortly after USSR case to exist. It means that Gorbachyov killed this vehicle. Thanks, Gorbach!
       
          Currently this tank is localted in Kubinka, in running condition BTW. Main designer was Nikolay Popov.
       
          Object 292, as you see at photos, had a new turret. This turret could have been mounted on existing T-80 hulls without modifications to hull (Object 292 is just usual serial production T-80U with new turret, literally). New Mechanical autoloading mechanism was to be build for it. Turret had special Abrams-like bustle for ammunition, similar feature you can see on Ukrainian T-84-120 Yatagan MBT and, AFAIK, Oplot-BM.
          Engine was 1250 HP GTD-1250 T-80U engine. 152 mm main smoothbore gun was only a little bit bigger than 2A46 125 mm smoothbore gun, but it had much better overall perfomance.
          This prototype was clearly a transitory solution between so called "3" and "4th" generation tanks.
       
          Some nerd made a model of it:
      _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
       
       
      ........Continue in Part 2
    • By seppo
      Hello,
      this is my first post. Please no bully. :3
       
      Panzerkampfwagen 2000
      In 1988 Germany developed a concept for a tank with two crew men. In order to test whether it's possible for only two crew men to operate a tank effectively, a Leopard 1 and a Leopard 2 were modified. 


      Field trials were held in 1990 and subsequently it was concluded to be a viable concept in 1992. The project was however canceled, because the downfall of the Soviet Union meant, that a new battle tank was no longer needed. Furthermore Israel stealing submarines and reunification meant that the budget was not sufficient either.
       
      Neue Gepanzerte Plattform
      In 1995 a concept for a whole family of armored vehicles(SPAAG, MBT, IFV) was developed, where the MBT would be manned by two man, just like the Panzerkampfwagen 2000. A prototype was build and tested in 1997. However a further budget cut lead to the cancellation in 1998. Wegmann desgin: Turret + autoloader:
      http://www.patent-de.com/pdf/DE19644524A1.pdf
      Diehl developed an APS for this tank: AWiSS


      EGS:
      Hull length = 8,67m
      Full width = 3,98m
      Width between the tracks = 3,5m
      Height = 2,71m
      The intended combat weight for the complete tank was between 55t and 77t.
      Can anyone calculate the the cross section areas and the protection levels for the front and the side, assuming mid-90s filler materials were used?
       
      Thanks for your attention!
    • By Tied
      Yes
       
      i personally support it, by finding the KGB Felix Dzerzhinsky greatly improved state scurrility both inside the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and abroad (their jurisdiction was only domestic, but they kept the internationally influential people safe at night)   a dedicated defender of both the Revolution and all the Soviet peoples     what do you think of this news?

×
×
  • Create New...