Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, heretic88 said:

I hope this wasnt posted before.

 

There is an article that claims Kurganets was tested in syria. Interesting. May it be true, or fake news?

http://anna-news.info/boevaya-mashina-pehoty-kurganets-25-protestirovana-v-sirii/

Maybe this is a joke on 1st April. But the news on Twitter from 31st March.
 

Share this post


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

Maybe this is a joke on 1st April. But the news on Twitter from 31st March.
 

31st of March doesn't exist. It's an April 1st prank to fool people into believing other April 1st pranks just because of a date-related technicality. 

 

Anyway, this piece of news is obviously fake. The Kurganets-25 is nowhere near the T-14 and T-15 in terms of testing in the state trials. Heck, I don't even know if it's undergoing such trials or still pending approval.

Since neither the T-14 nor T-15 were tested anywhere outside of Russia, it's safe to assume the Kurganets was spared that fate as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

31st of March doesn't exist. It's an April 1st prank to fool people into believing other April 1st pranks just because of a date-related technicality. 

 

Anyway, this piece of news is obviously fake. The Kurganets-25 is nowhere near the T-14 and T-15 in terms of testing in the state trials. Heck, I don't even know if it's undergoing such trials or still pending approval.

Since neither the T-14 nor T-15 were tested anywhere outside of Russia, it's safe to assume the Kurganets was spared that fate as well.

I agree. In Russia, in tank communities, someone gave information "from an insider" that the Kurganets are being reworked.

It did not suit the military. I do not know what is true of this, but since then there has been little heard about Kurganets.
There were similar rumors about the T-14's onboard protection. And about the T-15, about its dimensions.

 

Share this post


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

I hope this wasnt posted before.

 

There is an article that claims Kurganets was tested in syria. Interesting. May it be true, or fake news?

http://anna-news.info/boevaya-mashina-pehoty-kurganets-25-protestirovana-v-sirii/

We have special thread for Armata and rest of new familities of AFVs.

http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/131-glorious-t-14-armata-pictures/page/64/

 

I wouldn't be surprised if it really did appeared in Syria, as PAK-FA and BMPT prototypes were there.

Share this post


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

31st of March doesn't exist. It's an April 1st prank to fool people into believing other April 1st pranks just because of a date-related technicality. 

 

IDK, 31st was yeasterday.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At SOFINS-2019

6725299_original.jpg

Quote

   The Thales Hawkei light armored vehicle equipped with a FN Herstal remote-controlled combat module with a 12.7 mm M2 machine gun and a 68-mm unguided or guided SNEB (c) Frederic Lert / Jane's four-rocket launcher

/.../

   Vehicle can fire both unguided and corrected (with a semi-active laser guidance system - apparently, of the SYROCOT type) 68-mm SNEB missiles. Accuracy of guided missiles declared as less than 1 meter. At the rear of the vehicle is an armored container with four spare missiles. Reloading the launcher from this container can be carried out by one of the crew members in less than a minute, including on the move. Firing rockets, however, is made only from the stop.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is true then:

- Arjun(k) is extremely expensive for how bad it is.

- Merkava IV has ridiculously good price/value ratio

- Challenger-2 is also very expensive, for how outdated it is currently.

- T.99 seems to be quite cheap, although it would be good to know which variant... If 99A, then it also has good price/value ratio

 

I would be interesed in the price of the VT-4, seems to be a good tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

If this is true then:

- Arjun(k) is extremely expensive for how bad it is.

- Merkava IV has ridiculously good price/value ratio

- Challenger-2 is also very expensive, for how outdated it is currently.

- T.99 seems to be quite cheap, although it would be good to know which variant... If 99A, then it also has good price/value ratio

 

I would be interesed in the price of the VT-4, seems to be a good tank.

It also doesn't mention that it's not current day prices, but prices taken out of any random phase of production. I remember about a decade ago people would actually say the Leclerc is so fancy because it's so expensive, and then the K2 is so fancy because it's so expensive, citing figures of $8 million to $14 million, not knowing those are figures for early tranches, with a lot of the development costs built in.

 

Type 99 also seems somewhat misplaced - not too long ago we've heard China prefers now to rely more on Type 96 tanks because the Type 99 are too expensive to produce in such quantities. For an economy like China, making thousands of tanks worth $2.6 million each sounds dirt cheap.

 

The figure for the Merkava 4 is definitely wrong. In 2010 in Eurosatory, SIBAT officials (defense export agency for the IDF) said the price of a single tank is $4.5 million, for export. The unit price for export will always be greater than what the IDF pays to procure it.

The topic has been only raised few times since then, but it always concluded in a "we don't know". The IDF buys parts for the tanks in bulk. And by 'bulk' I mean they always stock up on enough parts to keep production going for several years even if there's a complete supply chain shutdown. A lot of the procurement is completely independent of the desired amount of tanks, because the production goes on indefinitely. It's almost impossible to assess the true cost of a single unit. 

Of course, the IDF does not buy the tank as a complete system from a private company, but the tank is for the most part privatized, and the IDF even pays premium, and prioritizes contracts, for companies in suburban areas. 

 

There are also typos in the headline, and it appears the K2 image is this nice but ultimately failed attempt at a computerized model (main issue is the hull front shape):

Spoiler

k2_2.jpg0C1B40BC-96AD-484F-8C96-F93866C8

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Type 99's 2.6 million USD quote was from 2005. Factor in the inflation from 2005 to 2019, that would be 3.4 millions. Consider that the VT-4 export mode to Thailand is 4.8 millions with downgraded armor and no laser soft-kill system, although the VT-4 does have RWS, automatic transmission, newer FCS and LWS. The ZTZ-99's price is mostly an internal price with no profit margin, so if you use the VT-4's price as the factor (assuming it has the 2nd gen TI, not 3rd gen as in the 99A), the actual price for the ZTZ-99 (the late model with 2nd gen TI and digital battlefield management) should be around 4.6 millions in today's price.  

 

Now factor in the cost of living and purchasing power index, which China is 1/4 of that of the USA, so x4 of 4.6 millions, the true cost of ZTZ-99 is about equivalent 18.4 million to their economy. What I mean by internal price is that it's the material cost to build the tank, but the salary and pension of the workers, the energy bill, the facility cost, the R&D costs are all subsidized by the government in one form or another. Also consider that some material like ballistic steel and germanium lens are priced about the same doesn't matter where you at. So that $1500 germanium lens for your gunner's sight is now costing a equivalent to $6000 for the Chinese to acquire, although they may have a small discount by locally produce it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2019 at 12:33 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

The figure for the Merkava 4 is definitely wrong. In 2010 in Eurosatory, SIBAT officials (defense export agency for the IDF) said the price of a single tank is $4.5 million, for export.

Then it is even better. For more or less same amount of the money that a single Leclerc costs, you get two massively superior tanks...

Anyway, I think there is another error on that picture. Type 90 for 9.4 million??? I do not believe that. Its a relatively old tank compared to the Type 10, no way that it is so expensive. Probably the 9.4M is for the Type 10, although Im quite skeptical about this. Wikipedia (yes, yes I know do not trust it) says unit cost is "only" 8.4M.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very easy to inflate or deflate the cost of an MBT, if you choose to include or exclude certain even small aspects of the project's costs, because there's a lot of money revolving such projects indirectly.

Share this post


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

Then it is even better. For more or less same amount of the money that a single Leclerc costs, you get two massively superior tanks...

I know this theory. 

4 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Type 90 for 9.4 million??? I do not believe that. Its a relatively old tank compared to the Type 10, no way that it is so expensive. Probably the 9.4M is for the Type 10, although Im quite skeptical about this. Wikipedia (yes, yes I know do not trust it) says unit cost is "only" 8.4M.

The hight cost of the Type-90 comes from its very low rate of production. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1881.jpg?1511811237

 

I’m ~80% sure this is photoshopped, as I cannot find anything else about this vehicle, and the 100mm loading system would need a major overhaul to fit in the Rooikat hull. But, I could always be wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that it's photoshopped using that picture of Rooikat:
40ZDRyC.jpg
and this picture of BMP-3 w/ Arena APS,
Iu2eQY5.jpg
which was made narrower, and also it's roof and entire Arena APS radar was cut in order to keep Rooikat sights, because this particular version of BMP-3 turret lacks panoramic sight.

btw, it still has built-in Arena APS projectiles along frontal 270-degree arc:
OwCXgs9.jpg
sYrNOQi.jpg
which happend because apparently all that photoshopper needed was a photo of BMP-3 turret in desert sand color, made from the right angle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   Not sure where to post.

Quote

   On May 2, 2019, 19 kilometers from Prague (Czech Republic), an auto trailer with two museum tanks M36 Jackson and M3 Stuart crashed into a prison bus. From a collision the bus caught fire. Inside the bus were 19 people. Unfortunately, one person died and another 14 received injuries of varying severity. Tanks hardly suffered

   Interesting what those 15 people were in that prison bus that were injured.

 

DDy6O6F.jpg

   Truck is totally trashed, drivers is probably who died from this crash.

Share this post


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 LostCosmonaut
      Originally posted by Rossmum on SA;
       

       
      Looks pretty good for the time.
    • By Collimatrix
      Shortly after Jeeps_Guns_Tanks started his substantial foray into documenting the development and variants of the M4, I joked on teamspeak with Wargaming's The_Warhawk that the next thing he ought to do was a similar post on the T-72.
       
      Haha.  I joke.  I am funny man.
       
      The production history of the T-72 is enormously complicated.  Tens of thousands were produced; it is probably the fourth most produced tank ever after the T-54/55, T-34 and M4 sherman.
       
      For being such an ubiquitous vehicle, it's frustrating to find information in English-language sources on the T-72.  Part of this is residual bad information from the Cold War era when all NATO had to go on were blurry photos from May Day parades:
       

       
      As with Soviet aircraft, NATO could only assign designations to obviously externally different versions of the vehicle.  However, they were not necessarily aware of internal changes, nor were they aware which changes were post-production modifications and which ones were new factory variants of the vehicle.  The NATO designations do not, therefore, necessarily line up with the Soviet designations.  Between different models of T-72 there are large differences in armor protection and fire control systems.  This is why anyone arguing T-72 vs. X has completely missed the point; you need to specify which variant of T-72.  There are large differences between them!
       
      Another issue, and one which remains contentious to this day, is the relation between the T-64, T-72 and T-80 in the Soviet Army lineup.  This article helps explain the political wrangling which led to the logistically bizarre situation of three very similar tanks being in frontline service simultaneously, but the article is extremely biased as it comes from a high-ranking member of the Ural plant that designed and built the T-72.  Soviet tank experts still disagree on this; read this if you have some popcorn handy.  Talking points from the Kharkov side seem to be that T-64 was a more refined, advanced design and that T-72 was cheap filler, while Ural fans tend to hold that T-64 was an unreliable mechanical prima donna and T-72 a mechanically sound, mass-producible design.
       
      So, if anyone would like to help make sense of this vehicle, feel free to post away.  I am particularly interested in:
       
      -What armor arrays the different T-72 variants use.  Diagrams, dates of introduction, and whether the array is factory-produced or a field upgrade of existing armor are pertinent questions.
       
      -Details of the fire control system.  One of the Kharkov talking points is that for most of the time in service, T-64 had a more advanced fire control system than contemporary T-72 variants.  Is this true?  What were the various fire control systems in the T-64 and T-72, and what were there dates of introduction?  I am particularly curious when Soviet tanks got gun-follows-sight FCS.
       
      -Export variants and variants produced outside the Soviet Union.  How do they stack up?  Exactly what variant(s) of T-72 were the Iraqis using in 1991?

      -WTF is up with the T-72's transmission?  How does it steer and why is its reverse speed so pathetically low?
       
       
    • 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 
          
×
×
  • Create New...