http://sputniknews.com/military/20150504/1021701169.html
http://rt.com/news/255445-armata-russian-tank-unveiled/
http://www.businessinsider.com/plans-for-russias-t-14-armata-tank-2015-3
http://thesentinel.ca/russias-new-main-battle-tank-t-14-armata/
Tank manufacturer Uralvagonzavod
That’s nice now mass produce them and don’t short the QC.
US unveiles: nothing. :sarcastic:
Well, we already have a rail gun.
Really, the next step is going to be making some sort of singularity projector or something that uses quantum entanglement to remotely atomize a target.
The turret looks really far back on the IFV. How much room is in that thing?
pew pew
I have a vex and jolders 
hahahahhahaha
.5 hours to change an engine? They must have spent a ton of time on research to do that. Should have put that time in design for reliability.
The old, old rule from auto racing was that if a part comes with a quick-release mount, there’s a reason for it.
It hasn’t even been released officially yet. How could you possibly know ? You been in or driven one ? Have you done repairs or T&E’d it ?
If so, then show me an offer of proof ?
Your talking disrespectfully & without real authority about something you know absolutely nothing about.
I have been in a T-72S & they have their issues & the Abrams easily outperformed it in Iraq. You’ll get no argument there as did the T-34, T-55, T-62, T-64, T-80.
But, to make a comment about something you know nothing about is boggles the mind.
The spirit is to share information & learn. If you don’t like it “drive on” as many do on other topics & I do often myself.
Thanks for reminding me & reaffirming why I post little.
It’s no wonder this country is in such trouble.
Congrats your added to my ignore list.
:eek:
All that for his short comment? That’s why this country is in such trouble? I don’t disagree that we are in trouble, or that his comment was possibly made without merit but not sure it’s worth getting upset over right? Like most things on the interwebs it’s best to not let it get you to riled up, just not worth it man.
With that said, is Russian manufacturing known for it’s quality?
From the bottom of one of the links.
http://rt.com/news/254313-russia-blackjack-bomber-tu160/
Interesting.
That was taken a little rough. The .5 hour to replace engine spec is right here in the link you provided.
http://www.businessinsider.com/plans-for-russias-t-14-armata-tank-2015-3 That would be no easy feat and feel that design time could be better used elsewhere. Never once did I say it was unreliable, just felt that design time could be placed on better reliability planning. Why else would one make a tank have a .5hr engine replacement time if they weren’t planning on swapping engine regularly? But I guess since I have been added to your block list I am talking to myself. Wasn’t trying to get you worked up, just an observation of strange benefit of this machine.
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2015/05/05/armata-soviet-parade-t14/26915519/
They say it is a 48 ton tank. At 48 tons and a turret that small the NATO 120mm DU sabot will not have a problem.
Not much. I believe all the weapons turrets are automated, including the MBT and IFV. Basically just enough room for the mechanicals…
Maybe…maybe not. Reports are that a lot of the weight savings come from automating the turret PLUS the addition of an active protection system ie they detect and shoot down tank rounds and missiles before they hit. You don’t need nearly as much armor if whats been shot at you never hits, or even if it’s deflected for a suboptimal impact. It remains to be seen how good their system is but if it’s even close to some other systems out there, it might be a tough nut to crack.
Active protection for armored vehicles is one area where the US is really behind the 8 ball…
Does 48 tons help with air mobility or anything? It looks tall, but that might be just because it isn’t that big. Engine swap, meh. That turret looks like it will get smacked hard. Interesting facets on the face of the turret? Some armor to be added later?
If I had to guess I’d say they had some maintainability requirements to meet and the ability to rapidly swap major mechanical assemblies can drive down both mean time to recovery and mean time to repair significantly…
People shouldn’t fall into the trap of assuming that because the Russians have historically fielded equipment that was less capable than the US and other western nations that their engineers don’t know what they’re doing. Those engineers have met the requirements they’re given basically every single time, it’s just that until recently, Russian military strategy was based around fielding a huge conscript army, so the main requirements for their systems were to be able turn out large numbers of cheap systems that were “good enough” and able to be maintained by some kid they just scooped off the farm. If they baked in a half hour engine swap time, there was a reason for it…
Detecting and then intercepting a tank rnd at say line of site distances (for a tank) coming from a modern main battle tank from The US, or Brits, Or Germans say? I sure wouldn’t want to be the guy in that tank depending on that technology. I’m no tank expert, but how would you like to be the first crew to test that out in battle? “Don’t worry Comrade, your lack of armor is no problem” :help:
The M1 is a knife to butter, but while ‘American’ it is British armor and a German gun.
Didn’t the Isreali’s have some pretty advanced active missile defense technology for tanks. Water jets or something?
2300 tanks? Don’t we have 10K M1s and that doesn’t count German or British armor?
If the Russians are de-emphasizing tanks, you know the weapon has jumped the shark.