Russia to receive advanced tanks to replce T-72 and T-90

I should collect data to evaluate in deep the consequences of the BRAC, anyway yes, it had a very negative impact on the functional feature of the Navy, in the perspective of wide conflict on large scale.

In particular, about Mare Island Naval Shipyard I agree, not only because of functional considerations, but also because of historical considerations. US Navy in the Pacific without MISNY became a different thing ...

Substantially today which are the Shipyards available for the Navy? A part Norfolk there is the fuel depot at Boston, Charleston has been processed by the BRAC ... which else? Oh yes, Portsmouth is still active as for I know.

 

Russia is also replacing their service rifle with the beautiful AK-105. Compare it to the older, jammier, less durable American service rifle, which hasn't been changed since the Vietnam War.




Throughout modern US history, America has always managed to spend more money on her military than her enemies, and still fails miserably at gaining an edge. The US needs to learn that more-advanced does not win against more-reliable. The T-14 and T-16 (whose names were originally going to be T-99), are all purpose vehicles capable of performing any motorized task in a warzone. Anti-Air operations, infantry transport operations, recon operations, ect. That means Russia can focus all their resources on producing two vehicle models instead of 10, like the United States.


Another obvious winner in the battle of more-advanced vs more-reliable

 

The T-14 is still a concept tank...what will appear in the parade is a prototype....pre-production.

Meanwhile, NATO has the following fully operational main battle tanks.

Challenger 2
Abrams M1A2
Leopard 2
AMX Leclerc

The operational Russian tanks are the T-72, T-80 and T-90...no match for NATO.

This thead is just more Russian propaganda, from the paid trolls in the Kremlin basement.

 

Irrelevant. That group did not secure it's territory by fighting the US, and is not doing very well when they are fighting against the US forces in the area now. If you notice, they are pretty much ignoring US held territory and going after other areas.

Talk facts and not propaganda, will you? I have no interest in propaganda and political doctrine.

I live just a couple of miles from MINSY, and volunteer occasionally at the museum.

There are other "shipyards", like at Bremerton, San Diego, and of course Hawaii. But very few shipyards are actually hard corps construction or heavy refit shipyards, most can really only do maintenance and basic repairs.

Mare Island still had all of the facilities and equipment to build everything from nuclear submarines and battleships to destroyers and everything else short of an Aircraft Carrier (only because modern carriers are larger then they were in WWII, but their construction method is very different and requires much more room then MINSY had in it's construction areas). This is the base that built the USS Ward during WWI in less then 18 days (the Ward was a 1,267 ton Wickes class destroyer, and ironically the first US warship to fire a shot in anger during WWII).

Interestingly enough, a small part of the shipyard is still in service, primarily doing maintenance on ships. This is done by a civilian company, and now the US Navy and Coast Guard pay to have such maintenance performed. Every few months I see some USNS or USCG ship tied up at the South end of the wharf for maintenance. I keep seeing what has happened to bases like Mare Island (turned over to a city that has abandoned it and is mostly waiting for it to destroy itself), El Toro (intended to provide a better and safer airport and now nothing but a playground for retired yuppies), Long Beach (the only US Base that was actually turning a profit, it was bulldozed and is now a parking lot for cars imported to the US), and others and it just makes me sick.

Most of the Army and Air Force bases to me are not as big of a deal. The BLM still has lots of land, and most of them can be rebuilt somewhere else inland. But there are very few places along the coast that the Navy can use, and in the past 25 years huge numbers of them were simply closed and given away.

I would love to see a "Reverse BRAC" in the near future. A commission to examine what the communities have done in the last quarter of a century with the bases, and to take back those that have been mismanaged, abused, or where the intent of the turnover was ignored because of local politics.

Oh, and another one, MCAS Tustin. When El Toro was in a battle between the airport people and those that wanted a park, many then looked to the nearby MCAS Tustin as an alternate location to move the airport. But once again the locals decided instead that they wanted a park there. Most of the buildings have been completely ignored, including 2 historic Blimp hangars (both of which are registered as historical landmarks). Many times when these communities get a base, they do not care about the historic buildings, and do not want them or their maintenance. So they simply ignore them, waiting for them to deteriorate to the point that they have to be destroyed for safety reasons.

That has already happened in Tustin, in 2013 one of the hangars partially collapsed, and locals want to see it destroyed.

I say if OC wants a park, then have them move John Wayne Airport to El Toro or Tustin, and then turn that location into a park.

[video=youtube;IzQZZyCfgnU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzQZZyCfgnU[/video]

That is what landing at John Wayne is like. Most airports have large areas at the end of the runway in the event an aircraft lands short or takes off long. Not at JW. The approach is right over housing, a small stretch of industrial, then the 405 Freeway. And the other direction you have to gain altitude fast or crash into commercial buildings.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6718518,-117.8602955,5060m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

This is often considered the worst airport in the country to land, and many are amazed that there has not been a major accident there yet. Because when there eventually is one, it will be catastrophic.

But to the uber-rich geriatric yuppies in Irvine, I guess safety takes a distant second place to them having a park.

 

LOL, who did we go to fight in Afghanistan after 9/11? The same people who now control growing parts of Afghanistan and Iraq (and other parts of the world) today. They will avoid US bases = until the US loses interest and leaves, just like the US has done since Korea.

Those are the facts, uncomfortable as they may be. You can avoid it by putting your head ion the sand, but those are the inconvenient truths..

 

Are you really unable to tell the difference between the Taliban and ISIS?

If this is the case, there is no point in continuing this conversation.

And no, they are not facts or truths, as I just showed that your last claim was coprolite as well.

I guess you think that the NAZI Party and the Italian Fascist Party were the same as well, right?

 

Names change, the people stay the same. True, it takes some intelligence and situational awareness to keep track, but I can't help you there.

 

They are not the same!

Good God Man! The Taliban are predominantly Afghans, ISIS is primarily Iraqis and Syrians (and founded by a Jordanian). They are not even from the same country!

Yea, sorry that I have all the facts and all you have is bigotry and ignorance. I imagine you think Iranians and Afghans and Libyans are all "Arabs", right?

 

Don't forget about the Turks, Azeri, and Uzbeks. To be fair though, most Libyans are Arab-Berber, and the Middle East used to have many ethnic groups like Africa. Being Arab is defined more by a shared culture and language. As a general rule, any country which does not speak Arab is not Arab, with one exception being Turkmenistan.

 

The Challenger II is a beautiful tank, but if suffers from a lot of maneuverability and logistics problems. It can only perform basic tank functions, which is in sharp contrast to the all in one tanks that American, Russian, Israeli, and Chinese weapons manufacturers are designing. A battalion of infantry could navigate through a battlefield three times as fast as a Challenger tank squad, which is why it was primarily used in Iraq for auxiliary operations. The British make no mistake about it, the Challenger is designed for defensive formations and protecting their Warrior class armor.

In what little combat the Challenger has seen, it has lost one tank in Iraq from an AT round that somehow hit the directly under the chassis, destroying the hull. That is impressive, given the Challenger can withstand anywhere up to 6 cannon strikes!

This is partially true. During WW2, a lot of the newer and advanced designs for Soviet armor and weaponry were obliterated in combat with the Germans. The Soviets learned how to fight fast, that was not the problem. The war was a clash of superior equipment vs superior military doctrines, and with all wars in which one sides uses a new tactic, the other inevitably finds a way to defeat it.

Training is important, but war teaches men how to fight fast. Military doctrines have a far greater impact on the battlefield. Russia draws from decades of military masterminds and war strategists, as does NATO. Let's not forget, the US isn't exactly experienced in fighting a modern war that wasn't a cakewalk either.

I have to disagree with you. Russia and China can afford a lot less on their millitaries. Everything about their armor and aircraft is tested to the bone. Every single function is practical and has a purpose.
The thing about Eastern jets and interceptors, is that they are lighter, more maneuverable, and easier to fly than NATO's jets.

I guess it has something to do with differing Air Doctrines. The West produces planes with more armor and technology, while the East produces planes that are sturdier and more practical. Which model would win in a dogfight is a matter of preference. If you prefer a plane that is harder to shoot down and can perform any task in the air, go with a Thunderbolt. If you prefer a plane that is easier to maneuver and can perform less functions, but do them really well, go with a SU-34 or Yak.

 

Here's the new Russian tank, the Armata T-14. It appeared in a rehearsal for the big Victory Day military parade in Moscow.

The plan is to build 2,300 of them for the Russian military. They won't be up for sale to foreign nations for at least 5 years.

The U.S. has the M1A2 SEP program, but even with that, the Russian tank is a set back for NATO in terms of technology; will the U.S. need to counter with a new tank to match it? I wonder how a AGM-114R, Spike, Javelin and TOW matches up with the T-14.

On a positive note the field tests for the Navy's carrier based X-47B UCAS are coming along nicely...as is the BAE Taranis (UK); the U.S. and British are well ahead of the technology curve in this area. (low observable combat drones). Although the government has pulled the plug on additional testing for the X-47B, results have exceeded expectations. Figures...they dump billions into the F-35 and it consistently gets downgraded results, something that works well in field testing they pull the plug have it sit in some hangar for 20 years.

but I digress...back to tanks....

Is it worth getting/developing a new tank to compete with this new T-14, which if it is as good as they say it is, might be the best tank fielded...on planet Earth. The only thing that can stop Russia's tank program at this point, is funds.

 

But Obama has politicized the DOD and like the Clinton administration, if it works it must be obsolete, send it to a museum or to the boneyard.

NAVAIR: Aerial Refueling Will End X-47B Test Program, Salty Dogs Bound for Museums or Boneyard

http://news.usni.org/2015/04/14/nav...gram-salty-dogs-bound-for-museums-or-boneyard

 

Honestly the design pictures were much cooler, this tank might be great but it looks retarded.

 

It looks better from the other angles. Nevertheless, it is different to all previously seen concepts.

 

It's a 125mm cannon, the most powerful of it's kind to be fielded and it only requires a crew of 2. It appears to be highly automated/computerized.

However, until it's actually seen in action, the capabilities will remain speculative.

 

A crew of three.

T-15 is better looking. Is of smiling!

 

Ok, 3, I thought I read a crew of 2...maybe that was the concept.

 

The original concept was crew of three. The developers planned to make a crew of two later, as well as optional 152 mm canon, but unifying commander and gunner jobs requires very high computarisation.

 

Yeah from some angles it looks better, but still looks very Chinese.

I wonder if the Chinese and Russians aren't developing things in conjunction.

 

The reason it looks so Chinese is because the chi-com's are always stealing stuff from the Ruskies.

Do you know the fastest way to distinguish a Soviet/Eastern Block AK-47 from a chi-com Type-56 assault rifle ? The chi-com's version of the AK-47 has a fully enclosed hooded front sight. All other AK-47's including those made in Russia/ Soviet Union have a partially open front sight. Many chi-com's Type-56 also feature a folding bayonet.

 

There seem to be a lot of variations of the T-14. The pictures in this OP don't look impressive. Big flat vertical surfaces and that boxy turret on top don't do much to support the claim of low observability Those depressions all around the turret are questionable, they would seem to deflect enemy hits into the tank body. Based on the pictures of guys directing the tanks the thing looks as big as an M1.

Its got a big gun, but there is more to a battle than a big gun.

There doesn't seem to be much real information about the T-14. Lots of gossip and the usual awe over the unknown. When it actually makes it into the field - if it makes it that far - then we will start to see what its really got.

 

The link below is a very early graphical model of the T-14 showing a bear turret. http://alternathistory.org.ua/files/resize/users/user1884/armataa-640x267.jpg Credit to "Flyboy77" at TheMess.net.

Some of the posters at TheMess think shot traps are not as important due to modern ammo being designed not to be deflected much & more interest in how well the depressions protect what is in them.

Freddy.

 

T-14 and T-90 size comparison


T-14 and M1 size comparison


"Naked" turret

 

The wheels at the front third of the T14 tank are spaced further apart than the wheels supporting the middle & back two thirds. Fully loaded the turret & engine areas must weigh more than the area at the front with the armored crew capsule.

 

T-14 planned to get larger cannon - 152mm shells.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/busin...cannon-for-armata-tanks--izvestia/520760.html