What about the t-95? - Page 7

February 21st, 2010  
And if you people donít know how to produce a secure bi-directional non-detectable data flow between a combat robotic and its human interface, donít assume the Russians havenít figured it out
To me this is why its UAVs comparativly cheap & expendable, you are telling me there is no counter the link will stay secure. I am saying I doubt it if it gets high enough up the chain to be important the counter will come if it does not already exist. On new tank models I think they have all gone on the shelf for the next 20 years most countries are talking increased service life of 15 or 20 years due to new advances. Ammo is making giant leaps forward 30% penetration increase seems easily doable, FCS TI keep marching on & armour well. The current crop of APC/IFV is now tested by firing RPGs at it, Warrior took 6 in combat etc retrofitting to MBT whats it going to take to stop them. Then there are inovative things like airbag defence currently being tested though I can see warhead designers getting round it to a degree.
I would rather have been in a Russian tank against ATGMs if go back a handful of years but unless they are keeping up this is no longer the case.
Even defending against top attack is making some progress though Russia think thats CM arty only not ATGMs & of course recent events mean mine defence is improvving. As I said its a spending thing further compounded by the fact most arms industries are now conglomarats & will spend on there own to try & develop the next big thing.
Russian military is penny pinching most likely politicaly driven of course, or totaly inept. They lost the tanks in Georgia because the ERA was not fitted, West use as an add on but Russia its intgral to the tank design what were they thinking.
February 22nd, 2010  
Simple answer to all this, lets just give it some time and see what comes of all this, shall we? Like your answers IMP, pretty well thought out. Panzekracker, I don't think I've ever even mentioned the T-90 MBTs, let alone within the context of countermeasures, my comments were strictly with regards countering the T-95, you know the one, "the ghost who squeaks".
Yep, you can have a totally discreet bi-directinal link, that is indestructable as long as both units survive; does tend to make the deployed remote somewhat more robust and valuable, don't you agree?
Given the biggest arguement for discounting my comments is Russian lack of funding. Anybody want to tell me how they funded the series of three significant war games at the end of last year? Pointedly, two were scenarios to counter NATO force incursions, one through the south west and one through the Finish corridor; the third was anti-submarine procedures in the Black Sea. If America thinks it might put a sub into the Black Sea some time, it might be sorry it gave up conventional subs in favour of Nukes, exclusively. I suppose they could go out and by some of the European subs, America has lost the ability to build high quality non-nuclear powered subs, or haven't you noticed this.
In the case of time scales for refits, yep Admiral Nakimov has been in the works for a long time, but I've seen refits and modenisation programs that took longer. I use to work in Naval Shipyards, including periods in Naval Drawing Offices and was involved in a couple of these protracted events.
Just remember fellas, "when" push comes to shove, I'm not going to be the one looking at the other blokes weapons systems and trying to figure out what to do about it. It'll be way past the time to develop countermeasures.
Regards to all, NERO1234
February 22nd, 2010  
Nero could you please post a link to a picture of a functional T-95?
February 25th, 2010  
Hi there Panzercracker,

Due to size limitations on posts and having had one warning on multiple posts already, this response will be forwarded in two posts


Ready for some fun? Had a little time up my sleeve and did a little wandering about on the web for an hour, to see whatís out there about our favorite subjects: T-95 MBT, funding, rearmament, etc. Found this particular page, donít know how reliable it is, but in one edition, it does cover just about all I need, to give you something to think about. It looks very much like something the CIA would put up on the web, any comments on this would be welcome?

Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Reference Sub-Article Ė ďCommunist Bloc Military Updates: Medvedev stresses ďdefensiveĒ nature of Zapad 2009; Ladoga 2009 simulates NATO invasion of Russia via Finland

All the good Russian language articles on the T-95, got yanked early on, after usually being on the web for no more than a day. What do you think happened to the authors?

Firstly, the referenced article, dated Wednesday, October 07, 2009, reports the troop and equipment numbers of not just the two war games I mentioned, ďZapadĒ and ďLagodaĒ, but goes on to mention an additional third such exercise within the period of interest, that of a unit set up to mirror NATOís RRU, the Collective Rapid Reaction Force. So, in combination with the Black Sea Anti-Submarine Live Fire Exercise, this makes four major exercises in late 2009; after no such major war games for a period of ten years. You seem to be a bit of an expert on Russian expenditure so, Iíll let you figure out what this little lot cost; then see if you still want to try telling me Russia canít afford the new equipment acquisitions Iím talking about. When youíre working out the cost of all this, donít forget logistics and expendables, consumables, etc. Remember, the Russianís like the former Soviet Union, do like realism in their war games and they arenít afraid to use considerable amounts of munitions in these exercises. I did a lovely little table for you Panzercracker, but when I tried posting it in this answer it lost the format, anybody know how to post a table that exists in a word document to this forum?
End of Pt1
February 25th, 2010  
Nero we're adults so stop posting this conspiratory bull, how about i reply for you, i'm a polish soldier in a mechanized unit and its my business to know what Russia has or not since i might one day meet it out there.

There were no articles that even indicated Russians had a T-95 because they never built anything even resembling it, so how about you stop with the murky explanations and at least try not to make stuff up.

There's no Black Eagle, there's no T-95 and you're not going to find any evidence for them since there's none out there and unlike you I speak russian so i browse through much more then You.
February 27th, 2010  
Hi Panzercracker,
Well buddy, like you say, it's your arse thats on the line here, not mine. I live a long way from the former satellite states of the Soviet Union, but do have an ongoing interest in military matters and related technical developments. Found it interesting that you made no atempt at all to respond to the actual content of part 1 of this two part post.
I'll take the time to re-write part 2 and put the contents of the table into simple text, before posting it.
This is not a really a much of personal issue for me, but I think it is going to get very personal for much of Europe in the not to distant future, if I'm right and your not.
March 1st, 2010  
Which part 1? Point me to what you want replied and i'll gladly will.
March 4th, 2010  
Response to Panzercracker Pt2
Continuation discussion based on URL

To find Pt 1, scroll down three panels

Well, every thing Iíve tried regards inserting tables gets distorted when posted so sending information extracted from tables

Russian War Games - Last Quarter 2009

Zapad 2009 - simulated a NATO invasion of Belarus via Poland and the Baltic republics, all former communist states, Sep 18 -29
Troops = Russian 6,000; Belarusian 6.500
Military Equipment = Russian 2,400 (extrap); Belarusian 2,600 (extrap)
Fixed & Rotary Winged Aircraft = Russian 30 (extrap); Belarusian 32 (extrap)
Surface Vessels & Submarines = Russian 12 (extrap); Belarusian 13 (extrap)

Ladoga 2009 - apparently simulated a simultaneous NATO invasion of northwestern Russia via Finland, Aug 10 - Sep 29
Troops = Russian 10,000 (Armed Forces Personnel Generally)
Military Equipment = 4,000
Fixed & Rotary Winged Aircraft = Russian 50
Surface Vessels & Submarines = Russian 20
Number Deployed by Parachute = Russian 1,000

Anti-submarine search-and-destroy missions and live fire drills of the Black Sea Fleet, Oct 6 to 8
ďSmetlivy" Class ASW Destroyer = Russian 1
ASW corvettes = Russian 3
Be-12 "Mail" ASW aircraft = 2

Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) Exercise at Kazakhstanís Matybulak training grounds for two weeks of maneuver
Troops = Russia, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan & Kazakhstan 7,000
Military Equipment =2,800 (extrap)
Fixed & Rotary Winged Aircraft = 35 (extrap)
Surface Vessels & Submarines = 0

Armed Forces Personnel/Troops = 29,500
Military Equipment = 4,000
Fixed & Rotary Winged Aircraft = 50
Surface Vessels & Submarines = 26
Number Deployed by Parachute = 1,000

Armed Forces Personnel/Troops = 29,500
Military Equipment = 11,800
Fixed & Rotary Winged Aircraft = 147
Surface Vessels & Submarines = 71
Number Deployed by Parachute = 1,000

  • Ladoga took place over a simulated front 1,500km long and 300km deep; thatís an area only a little short of half a million square kilometers.
  • Ignoring paratroopers and extrapolating from Ladoga for the missing information in the other Land Warfare Exercises gives the figures in red

You may not like this extrapolation, but it is a reasonable way of resolving the probable figures involved, but is unlikely to address logistics component with any sufficiency.

Another thing to pay attention to in this web page, is the ongoing attempt to confuse the issue over the T-95 versus the Black Eagle; funny thing about all this is, the Black Eagle demonstrated at Omsk had a stabilized gun, so just how incomplete do you think the turret really was? Something Iíve always found curious, has been the ongoing insistence the turret of the Black Eagle demonstrator is a mock-up, basically claiming it to be an empty shell. Unless things have changed, from recollection, the Black Eagle demonstrator was actually a T80UM2 variant and most probably one of the series of three development chassis used in assessing the proposed powering system, including the integrated suspension; sorry Panzercracker, had to sneak that one in.

Interesting though, that here the Russian military is reported as saying the T-95 is the next MBT to be deployed, post 2010, where more often than not, they are reported as saying the Back Eagle is the next production MBT and the T-95 doesnít exist. Funny thing is, all the early reports, before the censors got at Ďem, and after initial acceptance of the T-95, had the first deployments to training units in high security zones, about the end of 2009,. Donít you find all this falls very easily within the context of disinformation? And please note the 30% increase in speed being reported here for T-95 as well. Please remember, with all the junk now inside the T-95ís hull, including that extra tonne of ammunition, its still a diesel tank and the engine and drive-train has to be so much more compact than that in any MBT with an equivalent hull size; oh, and lets not forget, weíve got three crew in the manned version as well, in a separate up-armored enclosure within the hull, as well as the auto-loader. Still want to argue about what the engine is, or are you about ready to start thinking I might just have some idea of what Iím talking about?

Particularly found this comment interesting: ďAs Russia and the ďformerĒ Soviet republics prepare for future confrontations with NATO in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the Kremlin is denying the existence of a new-generation main battle tank (MBT). The Russian media recently reported that a ďsuper-tank,Ē dubbed Black Eagle, was lately developed by the Omsk Transmash design bureau. The Black Eagle is purportedly based on the T-80U MBT and features explosive reactive armor and a box-shaped turret. Alleged pictures of the Black Eagle were shown on the InternetĒ. Doesnít need to be alleged, if you look for it, youíll probably still find actual film footage on the web, of the Black Eagle demonstrator going through itís paces at the Omsk arms show.

So what is this next bit about: ďThere was no such [Black Eagle] project...and those 20-year-old pictures show a mock-up of a futuristic tank which remained just a product of someone's imagination,Ē protested Colonel Vladimir Voitov, director of research at the Main Directorate of the Armored Troops. Voitov added: ďI am aware of a prototype of an experimental tank, but the turret of the vehicle did not have anything inside.Ē Strange isnít it, the T-80UM1 BARS Tank introduced the hydraulic suspension and hydraulic drives which were also incorporated in the Black Eagle demonstrated at Omsk as well as the T-95. So given Voitovís position, do you think he has forgotten all this, or is this just part of a disinformation program, make your own choice.

Personally, being aware of the T-95, and how closely it follows the originally proposed operational scenario, Iíve never been too impressed or interested in the Black Eagle; simply no comparison between the two.

Iíve got to tell you I find this all very frustrating, even if sometimes somewhat amusing. Panzercracker, before you try giving me another serve, just try thinking about all this for a bit and then: just consider, how helpful to the Russians, blokes like you are being, in supporting the disinformation about Russian military projects and Russian rearmament program, in such public forums.
End of Pt2

March 5th, 2010  
Nero could you just ask the question instead of posting a whole book of useless data?
March 7th, 2010  
Wow, nice posts Nero.

I always thought that the Russians never really recovered from their 1990's state, but it seems that its been steadily improving!

Champion posts, mate. Got me thinking real hard about things I have been ignorant about. Maybe I should start reading up a bit more on the Russian military.