Armoured Vehicles: News & Discussion

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19839
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 08 Jun 2015 19:05

NRao, agree. The Russian shill(s) can go take a hike.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7007
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Anujan » 09 Jun 2015 06:09

Should we lock this thread till Armata is offered for sale ? How many do you think India should order ?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8308
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 09 Jun 2015 06:35

1 million t 14 should be ordered. Post dilivery India must pay russians 100 times the cost of the tanks to make them work. As india has no right to expect that a Russian weapon will work as advertised.


Oh BTW, kill any future Indian armour development.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 09 Jun 2015 06:49

:P

Can This Chinese Tank Beat Russia’s T-14 Armata?

There goes the commissions.


Last week, China Daily reported that China’s biggest developer and manufacturer of land armaments, China North Industries Group Corporation, is aggressively promoting its products on WeChat, a social networking app with more than 500 million users.

During Norinco’s latest marketing drive on WeChat, the company claims that its VT-4 tank boasts superior automation, mobility, and fire-control systems to Russia’s T-14 Armata (see: “Putin’s New ‘Wunderwaffe’: The World’s Deadliest Tank?” ). Additionally, the article claims that the VT-14s technology is in general more reliable than that of the T-14.

“The T-14′s transmission is not well-developed, as we saw through a malfunction taking place during a rehearsal before the May 9 parade,” a WeChat article, composed by Norinco, stated (The Diplomat reported on this incident. See: “Did the ‘World’s Deadliest Tank’ Just Break Down?”) “By comparison, the VT-4 has never encountered such problems so far. Our tanks also have world-class fire-control systems, which the Russians are still trying to catch up with,” according to Norinco.

Additionally the article emphasizes that the VT-4 is the economically more sensible choice: “Another important issue is the price – the T-14 is reported to have a price as high as that of the United States’ M1A2 Abrams. … Why don’t buyers consider Chinese tanks that have well-developed technologies and equipment as well as much-lower prices?” The lower price of the VT series is specifically designed to target the needs of militaries in developing countries.

Norinco also notes that in comparison to its Russian competition, it also can offer a much wider array of products. “Currently, Russia has only one new tank that is available for export – the T-90S. In contrast, we have the low-end VT-2, middle-end VT-1 as well as the high-end VT-4, covering the requirements of almost every client in the international market,” the company said.

The VT-2’s two major selling points are that it uses proven technology and that it is cheap. The VT-4, however, allegedly features the world’s latest tank warfare technology and can be compared to any modern third generation main battle tank like the U.S. M1A2 Abrams or Germany’s Leopard 2A6, according to Feng Yibai, chief designer of the VT-4.

The VT-4′s “main gun is a 125 m smoothbore that can fire various shells, including kinetic energy penetrators and high-explosive anti-tank warheads. It can fire anti-tank missiles with a maximum range of 5,000 meters,” China Daily notes.

Also, the VT-4 “has an advanced fire-control instrument, a new-type active protection system and a state-of-the-art, fully automatic transmission device,” he said. “In addition, the inter-unit network connects commanders of tanks and armored vehicles under a combat group, enabling them to share battlefield data in a real-time manner,” the WeChat article summarizes.

Any speculative comparison between the leading Chinese and Russian main battle tanks is in many ways premature and nonsensical; it has to be discarded as a mere clever marketing ploy to garner attention at this stage. Neither of the two tank programs have entered the mass-production phase yet and most of the current speculation is based on prototypes and the sparse public data available. Without rigorous testing it is virtually impossible to verify whether the VT-4 does display superior automation, mobility, and fire-control systems.

China has traditionally relied heavily in the development of its indigenous tank force on Russian license-built technology and know-how. Judging from publicly available images, the T-14 appears to have made a clear break with older Soviet legacy tank designs, whereas the VT-4 very much looks like an improved version of the T-90s. This is as far as any sensible unclassified analysis should go at this juncture.

According to the United Nations’ Register of Conventional Arms, China exported a total of 461 tanks from 1992 to 2013, whereas Russia sold 1,297 tanks during the same period. The United States is still the leading tank export of the world with 5,511 sales, followed by Germany with 2,680 exported armored fighting vehicles

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Singha » 09 Jun 2015 07:10

though china has not produced huge nos of tanks lately, their r&d funding is intact and they are able to product tanks comparable to the T-90 now.

here the vt-4 tank in demo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muVTb_dAKgE

IA seems very comfortable having tech parity and 1:1 ratio with the Pakis wrt tanks and IFVs..since china has closed the tank/ifv/atgm gap with russia

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby pragnya » 09 Jun 2015 07:39

Anujan wrote:Should we lock this thread till Armata is offered for sale ? How many do you think India should order ?


that would be harsh. the Arjun lobby here needs to be kept in check though. as for Armata, since it is a 'natural' choice due to the factors already debated and settled, it will come IMO. how many and all should be left to the decision makers who very well understand the complexity.

Pratyush wrote:1 million t 14 should be ordered. Post dilivery India must pay russians 100 times the cost of the tanks to make them work. As india has no right to expect that a Russian weapon will work as advertised.


you are being sarcastic and overly emotional - which have no place in making 'hard' choices but do note this one is an 'easy' choice.

Oh BTW, kill any future Indian armour development.


why sir? can't we leverage the advantages and incorporate them in a future Arjun or FMBT (whatever name you give) 20/30 years down the line?

Hobbes
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 14 Mar 2011 02:59

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Hobbes » 09 Jun 2015 07:46

Singha wrote:.....
IA seems very comfortable having tech parity and 1:1 ratio with the Pakis wrt tanks and IFVs..since china has closed the tank/ifv/atgm gap with russia


Unable to get your meaning, saar. What does India's parity and comfort level in armour against TSP have to do with China's closing the armour tech gap with Russia?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8308
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 09 Jun 2015 09:19

pragnya wrote:
that would be harsh. [b]the Arjun lobby here needs to be kept in check though. as for Armata, since it is a 'natural' choice due to the factors already debated and settled, it will come IMO[/b]. how many and all should be left to the decision makers who very well understand the complexity.

SNIP......................

why sir? can't we leverage the advantages and incorporate them in a future Arjun or FMBT (whatever name you give) 20/30 years down the line?


For 1st point. Arjun lobby??? A call for a domestic product is lobbying. But the decision to buy a product that has not even undergone trials in it home county is debated and settled??

For the 2nd point. Please re-read the last pragraph of your own post. I dont see any one leaveraging any domestic tech for tanks for the next million years. If the policy makers have the same attitude that you do.

Oh I forgot, if one decides to build an FMBT in your time line 20/30 years in the absence of iterative development of domestic product.Our own tech base will be 30 years out of date.

I am sure that some one like you at that time will be asking to buy what ever the latest russian product will be at that time.

So to sum up, east or west imprts are the best. Kill Arjun, kill any future domestic products, and imports forever.

I repeat, Import forever.

Anujan
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7007
Joined: 27 May 2007 03:55

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Anujan » 09 Jun 2015 09:32

I think Arjun should be scrapped in favor of Armata. Russia should be consulted to see what plans they have for Armata follow up, could be the basis for FMBT imports.

Already I see only glowing press coverage for Armata, Arjun was never spoken of this positively. Speaks a lot for the quality and fighting potential of Armata.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Singha » 09 Jun 2015 09:37

Hobbes wrote:
Singha wrote:.....
IA seems very comfortable having tech parity and 1:1 ratio with the Pakis wrt tanks and IFVs..since china has closed the tank/ifv/atgm gap with russia


Unable to get your meaning, saar. What does India's parity and comfort level in armour against TSP have to do with China's closing the armour tech gap with Russia?


TSP can get whatever they want with china..increasingly better kit like yuan subs, F22P ships, LR SAM, 3D radars, Babur........ and getting russian tank kit does not now give the IA even a 1.2:1 qualitative superiority.....

but IA is asleep at the wheel.

we might as well disband the 3 strike corps and use the money for artillery buys. there is no point in a 1:1 attrition rate with TSP pounding us from behind masonry defences with red arrow ATGMs and similar tanks.

qualitative superiority can come in two ways
- wholesale import of western gear (126 rafales, 100 JSF, 10 JSTARS, 100,000 jadrams ) - no money exists for such purchases in the numbers needed.
- domestic projects that pull in whatever missing components from west as needed

going wholesale russian as IA has done for its tank fleet is not going to cut it anymore....by 2020 china will be producing better tanks than russia for sure using better machinery as the west slowly chokes off access to dual use tech to russia over the fight in europe.

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8308
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 09 Jun 2015 09:57

Anujan wrote:I think Arjun should be scrapped in favor of Armata. Russia should be consulted to see what plans they have for Armata follow up, could be the basis for FMBT imports.

Already I see only glowing press coverage for Armata, Arjun was never spoken of this positively. Speaks a lot for the quality and fighting potential of Armata.



Agreed 400%. The awsomeness of the tank is evident from the glowing post on this tread onlee. Along with the news reports on the web.

All the tank has to do is to give the enemy a hard look and the enemy will be vapourised.

srai
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srai » 09 Jun 2015 09:57

pragnya wrote:... as for Armata, since it is a 'natural' choice due to the factors already debated and settled, it will come IMO. how many and all should be left to the decision makers who very well understand the complexity.

...

why sir? can't we leverage the advantages and incorporate them in a future Arjun or FMBT (whatever name you give) 20/30 years down the line?


Can you list out what Armata has that Arjun Mk-2 doesn't?

Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8308
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Pratyush » 09 Jun 2015 09:58

Armata is russian and TFTA. While the Arjun is SDRE.

srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2033
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby srin » 09 Jun 2015 10:02

Not to mention that Armata has a higher calibre gun, which is a significant 5mm bigger than Arjun's.

We should immediately ask for Arjun to have 125mm gun in the Mk3.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21049
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Philip » 09 Jun 2015 13:03

Barring the Arjun and Tank "X" (dumped),what designs of AVs have we come up in all these years since Independence? We could've done far better. Aircraft design has had some better luck.The HF-24,Ajeet-improved version of the Gnat,dumped HF-74,"deadly" HT-32,Kiran trainer-still soldiering on,and the LCA.The less said about the other failed/failing programmes the better. I would add the Bison and MKI development very praiseworthy efforts along with the Jag DARIN upgrades.

Most other programmes have involved licence manufacture of Vijyantas (Vickers Light Tank),MIG-21s,27s,Jaguars,Flankers,Gnats,etc.,etc. The IN however,graduated summa cum laude from Leanders licence built, to their own designs,the envy of many advanced nations. The way to go.

China has definitely made great progress from carbon copies,clones,to improving systems acquired from abroad.But they have used stealth tactics,stealing as much as they could from the US/West and Russia too.That explains their meteoric rise in N-weapons,stealth fighters (after stealing the JSF secrets).I would take with a ton of salt Chinese hard-selling of their MBTs.They are at least a decade behind the majors,and Arjun is a far superior product to anything that the Chinese have developed.

It will be interesting to see the T-14 in combat in the years to come as it undoubtedly will. If the NATO-Russia neo Cold War in Europe escalates,the UKR could yet again see some historic tank battles.

dnivas
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 05:54

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby dnivas » 09 Jun 2015 13:47

Vivek K wrote:I beg the admibs to rename this the Russo Rakshak forum. The posts above are simply disgusting. One individual is praising the "pleasing finish" while another states that the Armata has no deficiencies in brochures wile the Arjun has 63 deficiencies. And then the same poster has the gall to call a tank that broke down on its first unveiling ready while the Arjun that has been tested for hundreds of thousands of miles as not ready.

Indians have been corrupted beyond repair!!

They are being sarcastic :)

member_23891
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 27
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_23891 » 09 Jun 2015 14:17

Anujan wrote:Should we lock this thread till Armata is offered for sale ? How many do you think India should order ?


OMG! is this really a BRF thread? :-? It is sickening to see the people with armoured thick skin which cannot be penetrated by even 1000 rounds sensibile logic. Shameful :(

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 09 Jun 2015 14:33

The arguments are very persuasive and the conclusions are very, very clear.

The dual problems: IAF + IA. Both are very inept at supporting Indian MICs.

The solution: IN (summa cum laude) (sorry to import foreign words, but we are waiting for English to coin equivalent)

Assign the Indian Navy to produce air crafts and tanks (etc) for the Indian Air Force and the Indian Army respectively.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 09 Jun 2015 14:39


sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10097
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby sum » 09 Jun 2015 14:42

Praval wrote:
Anujan wrote:Should we lock this thread till Armata is offered for sale ? How many do you think India should order ?


OMG! is this really a BRF thread? :-? It is sickening to see the people with armoured thick skin which cannot be penetrated by even 1000 rounds sensibile logic. Shameful :(

Sarcasm onlee saar.

Chill maadi! :mrgreen:

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5426
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby niran » 09 Jun 2015 14:43

Praval wrote:
Anujan wrote:Should we lock this thread till Armata is offered for sale ? How many do you think India should order ?


OMG! is this really a BRF thread? :-? It is sickening to see the people with armoured thick skin which cannot be penetrated by even 1000 rounds sensibile logic. Shameful :(

Parval sir, please train yourself and learn something about the word "Sarcasm" it will be all clear.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 09 Jun 2015 14:47

Filed under: :rotfl:

China looks forward to T-14 Armata tanks from Russia

Beijing has expressed its willingness to purchase the T-14 Armata main battle tank, designed by the Ural Design Bureau of Transport Machine-Building, according to Vladimir Kozhin, the presidential aide for Russian military technical cooperation


Then:

Unlike earlier Russian tanks, the T-14 shares many characteristics with Western main battle tanks such as the American M1A2 and German Leopard-2. China may want to introduce T-14 tanks from Russia to boost the fighting capability of its ground forces. China is likely to develop and produce its own domestic tanks based on the T-14. With a single T-72 purchased from Romania, China was able to design its Type 99 tank, currently operated by the PLA.


We are running out of stand up comics.

But, on a very serious note, since Russia is catching up with the West, might as well buy the Leopard and be done with.

member_23891
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 27
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby member_23891 » 09 Jun 2015 14:57

Niran Ji! Thanks for advice. I am well aware about sarcastic comments being made. But I just wanted to put my views to those who has 100 of fathers in russia and want father russia to screw mother India to get some solace for their own identity crisis.

Sorry MODs for OT.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9859
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Yagnasri » 09 Jun 2015 15:17

It is not much difficult to solve any issues as I was advocated earlier also. Simply ban all imports of all systems needed for IA be it tanks, APCs, Arti systems etc. Simply ban with no exceptions what so ever. Allow private industries to manufacture and complete with DPSUs. There may be some problems for few years and initially some critical components like engines may have to be imported but with large order book those systems also can be made or even designed in India. Arms export ban helped China a lot to develop its capabilities. We can to much better if there is a self imposed ban on imports at least for IA immediately.

My mango sense tells me that we got designing, developing and manufacturing capabilities of all the systems needed for IA as on today. The question is there is no need to do it in India as long as we are allowed to import. Once that is stopped, we will be forced to do what we are capable of doing.

My mango sense also tells me that T-14 has multiple fazer banks and regenerative force fields. :rotfl:

P Chitkara
BRFite
Posts: 355
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 08:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby P Chitkara » 09 Jun 2015 16:47

This goes on to show how strong the import lobby is - they keep lobbing one or the other brochures in hope that if at least one is lapped up, they will be in for a killing.

<rant alert- start>
Western ban on all arms on China has been a boon to them. They may be far from the gold standards but are at least making concerted efforts and with due persistence may reach there, eventually. We, on the other hand, happily keep importing and if I may to say so, make a fool of ourselves going after stuff with photon torpedoes and warp drives, moving under cloak.

This is so sad and embarrassing. :oops: Couldn't help myself after reading past couple of pages and will be more than happy to stand corrected.
<rant alert- end>

pragnya
BRFite
Posts: 728
Joined: 20 Feb 2011 18:41

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby pragnya » 09 Jun 2015 17:09

Anujan wrote:I think Arjun should be scrapped in favor of Armata. Russia should be consulted to see what plans they have for Armata follow up, could be the basis for FMBT imports.

Already I see only glowing press coverage for Armata, Arjun was never spoken of this positively. Speaks a lot for the quality and fighting potential of Armata.


a good thought.

Anujan sir, since you are a mod. i request you to allow me a few lines which are completely OT and personal.

few days ago, i was engrossed at the beautiful pictures of Armata and its exploits in the thread and my mind veered off to Arjun and i started making a mental comparison between the two and just then, as if by design, something struck me like a thunderbolt. it was like a 'revelation' and soon i started seeing your posts which were 'same' as those 'revelations'!!! this reinforced my 'new' belief which has made me post the things that i have, which unfortunately have offended some.

@Pratyush sir, i take back the word 'lobby' as i now realise it was a bit harsh on my part.

@Pratyush, srai - please re-read my posts.

nothing more from me. i rest my case.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19839
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 09 Jun 2015 17:20

pragnya wrote:that would be harsh. the Arjun lobby here needs to be kept in check though.


completely agree. the temerity of these indians to lobby for Arjun in a Russian tank thread?!?

as for Armata, since it is a 'natural' choice due to the factors already debated and settled, it will come IMO. how many and all should be left to the decision makers who very well understand the complexity.


very complex decisions indeed. the brochures and pictures make a convincing case. after all, with trials, the T-90 didn't work. so the issue is with trials, we need to stop all that and directly get it from russian plant and paradrop it into IA formation.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19839
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 09 Jun 2015 17:21

srai wrote:
pragnya wrote:... as for Armata, since it is a 'natural' choice due to the factors already debated and settled, it will come IMO. how many and all should be left to the decision makers who very well understand the complexity.

...

why sir? can't we leverage the advantages and incorporate them in a future Arjun or FMBT (whatever name you give) 20/30 years down the line?


Can you list out what Armata has that Arjun Mk-2 doesn't?


The Armata is an integrated design. Not like the Arjun. See the name, Ar-ma-ta all in one name. Indians have Arjun then Mk. then 2. Very inefficient.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19839
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 09 Jun 2015 17:25

Anujan wrote:Should we lock this thread till Armata is offered for sale ? How many do you think India should order ?


We should rename this thread the Armata thread.

I think we should rename the DGMF to some proper modern name? Philiposky perhaps (to enthuse proper appreciation of the tank, and not wrongly get upset if the tank doesn't move, fire etc. His job after all is to be relentlessly pro Russian, irrespective of the facts).

Last, we should also change our national flag and make it somewhat white, red, blue. We are also using the wrong alphabet for this forum. Move to Cyrillic perhaps.

These few items should be a start.

Then we can improve the rest of the forum on similar lines.

Mukesh.Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 06 Dec 2009 14:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Mukesh.Kumar » 09 Jun 2015 17:34

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Родина любимая Родина. Всегда лучше

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19839
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 09 Jun 2015 18:31

Очень хорошее начало!!

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2435
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Manish_P » 09 Jun 2015 19:09

Индийский местности. Без Проблем!
Индийские условия. Без Проблем! .
Индийский деньги, нет проблем!!
Любая индийская проблема. Только Armata!!!

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19839
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 09 Jun 2015 19:49

Manish, :rotfl:, well played sir, well played

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 09 Jun 2015 19:56

Is Russia's 'Deadliest Tank’ Using Western Technology?


Ouch!!!!

This is getting curiouser and curiouser.

I think this fits teh Indian Army requirements perfectly. Now only if Russia can use a German engine, Israeli missiles, ................ Perfect.

As I noted a while back, the T-14 main battle tank (MBT) is the crown jewel of Moscow’s future tank force. Its new design constitutes in many ways a clear break with old Soviet-era military hardware “and represent the biggest change in Russia’s armored fighting vehicle families since the 1960s and 1970s,” according to IHS Jane’s Defense Weekly.

The T-14 Armata’s key feature is its unmanned remotely controlled turret, and the location of the crew in an armored capsule in the forward portion of the hull. It also boasts a new automated ammunition feed system, and “high-resolution video cameras that offer its three-man crew 360-degree awareness around the body of the vehicle,” the Business Insider states.

The T-14 is is the pride of Russian defense industry. However, if the recently published analysis of the U.S. cybersecurity firm Taia Global is correct, a crucial piece of the tank’s equipment – the night vision cameras – might not even be Russian-made!

According to emails obtained by Taia Global (Russian hackers sympathetic to Ukraine hacked the email account of an Russian individual with apparent close ties to the FSB and provided the cybersecurity firm with more than 9,000 emails), the Russian defense industry is having difficulties producing thermal imaging systems like night vision cameras.

The reason? Russia’s inability “to produce a critical component — microbolometer arrays — which can capture images without requiring cooling, reducing the size and complexity of thermal imaging systems,” The Intercept, an online publication that analyzed the Taia Global report, explains.

The report quotes a 2013 letter written by Dmitry Rogozin, deputy prime minister in charge of Russia’s defense industry (see: “Meet the Russian Politician Who Thinks ‘Tanks Don’t Need Visas’”) who stated that “at present, the Russian Army only has a few hundred individual imagers and no sighting systems and machine vision systems with advanced performance. On the other hand, our potential enemy troops — NATO, are equipped with hundreds of thousands of thermal imaging sights, sighting and vision systems.”

Consequently, in April 2014, Viktor Tarasov, the senior manager of a subsidiary of Ruselectronics, a state-owned hodling company, wrote a letter to its CEO in which he asked to press the Russian minister of defense for money to buy 500 microbolometer arrays from a French company.

The French company has denied selling Russia such equipment, although The Intercept notes that such actions are not without precedent: “Last year, Russian national Dmitry Ustinov was charged by the U.S. Department of Justice with using a front company, also based in Cyprus, to buy a variety of night-vision scopes and related equipment from the United States.”

A number of other Russian military vehicles are using foreign technology. For example, the upgraded T-72 M1 is equipped with the French Thales Optronique Catherine thermal imager.

Yet, according to Taia Global, the emails obtained from pro-Ukraine hackers uncovered a similar sophisticated operation aimed at acquiring “foreign technology critical to Russian defense industries by bypassing foreign sanctions.”

So, if the Taia Global report proves to be true, the odds that the T-14s night vision camera, proudly displayed during this year’s May 9 Victory Day Parade, contains Western components are moderately high.

As Jeffrey Carr, CEO of Taia Global, told The Diplomat in an interview: ”We regularly see Russian research institutes conducting reconnaissance against U.S. companies who work on high value technologies such as lasers and other optical systems.”

Of course, this does not mean that the T-14 will be less deadly on the field of battle. It, however, does illustrate that despite reports to the contrary, Western sanctions are slowly beginning to hurt the Russian military and Russia’s defense industry

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Singha » 09 Jun 2015 20:12

this is a known weakness of the russian portfolio..till date they have not produced a LDP or UAV sensor pack to match the leading western models.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16830
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby NRao » 09 Jun 2015 20:26

The problem, as I see it, is that the Russians are attempting to catch up in plenty of areas. Not due to a lack of brain power, but timely funds. They seem to be funded on a very irregular basis and depend on exports too much.

Which seems to keep their PR side of equation very active - "there is no analogue ...................". Only to find out that they are behind teh curve in many respects.




I think that India has actually gone out of their orbit. Russia should focus their sales efforts of the next tier - no shame there. India cannot afford to rely on a supplier who itself is uncertain. Worse is the fact that this supplier pretends to have everything that India needs (not wants). India should ask for component techs - which India should integrate.

From the T-14, I am not too sure what India really needs. What is so unique about this tank I am sure. I can find pretty much everything in other tanks. The T-14 at best is a next step in a good road map. But not good enough to replace what the IA has - perhaps some techs can be borrowed. But, Russia is not the only source is my point.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Singha » 09 Jun 2015 20:39

if we want more productionized modules like 360 camera, 360 mmw radar and iir sensors, active defense systems.....we need to look no further than israel. most of it given right funding we can do ourselves, only the 1500hp engine and tfta gearbox is a pain point we are yet to overcome.

with global MBT programs in terminal decline, if IA orders some 1000 Ng-MBTs, the CEOs of anyone who has such kit will be on the next economy class flight to india.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19839
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Karan M » 09 Jun 2015 20:43

The T-14 TBH is a fairly so so effort from Russia and hardly worth the hype.

1. Its a fairly high silhouette tank with a lightly armoured turret and heavily armored glacis. Don't see how great its versus tanks with heavily armored glacis like the Arjun etc
2. Its sophisticated sensors can all be procured and integrated on current gen tanks
3. Its turret being lightly armoured can be taken out and mission kill the tank. Good going. Despite having no crew supposedly, its as big as a blockhouse. What advantage gained?
4. Its crew protection are supposedly selling point. Guess what, Abrams, Arjun et al, all have ammunition canisterized and separated from crew to varying degrees and also dont suffer from issues such as crew lacking situational awareness (commander can't look out of tank), whole crew have to depend only on optics and sensors to make target calls.
5. The basic subsystems remain the same and are old gen. The 125mm gun for instance is a dawg from the 1960s, seeing some iterative upgrade or the other. No confirmation bar some bragging that a new round is even in series production.

Armata is basically new whine in a new bottle. We'd be dumb to fall for it.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7533
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Prasad » 09 Jun 2015 22:09

Is it that far a distance from a really good IRST to a night-vision system?

Mukesh.Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 1183
Joined: 06 Dec 2009 14:09

Re: Armoured Vehicles Discussion Thread - August 9 , 2014

Postby Mukesh.Kumar » 10 Jun 2015 00:15

Только один вопрос товарищи?



Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests