Posted on 05/04/2013 2:22:16 PM PDT by robowombat
Russia Plans to Field the T-99, a Radically New Main Battle Tank by 2015 Posted by Tamir Eshel
An artist concept view of the new Russian tank. The Russian Army is planning to begin modernize its armored and mechanized forces beginning in 2015, fielding a new family of vehicles comprising a new main battle tank, armored infantry fighting vehicles, and various support platforms. The MBT will be based on the new Armata, the prototype is scheduled to enter field trials in 2013, about 10 months ahead of schedule. First Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Sukhorukov said. The new tank is under development at Uralvagonzavod in Omsk. The first deliveries of the tank to the Russian Armed Forces are scheduled for 2015. A total of 2,300 MBTs are expected to be supplied by 2020.
It should be remembered that the Russians are building their fighting forces not only against NATO, but more importantly, to protect their long southern borders with radical Islamic countries that may be gathering military power, and the growing dominance of China in the east. Armored and mechanized forces are key to maintaining military superiority or parity against such threats. The level of sophistication in meeting such threats is not as demanding as meeting the advanced technology fielded by US and NATO forces.
The full version of this article is available as part of our Premium Content.
According to preliminary reports, the new tank designated T-99 will be less radical and ambitious than the failed ‘Object 195’ or T-95, it will weigh less, therefore, become more agile and will be more affordable, compared to its more ambitious predecessors.
The Russian industry is also developing the Boomerang family of 8×8 wheeled armored vehicles which will gradually replace the current BTR-90. Additionally, the Kurganets-25 tracked armored vehicle provides high degree of commonality with the new Armata tank. The Kurganets-25 will evolve into various models, gradually replacing BMP and BMD and MT-LB and other types of tracked armored platforms.
Those Ruskies....they better just lookout (and DON’T DROP THE SOAP...)
I doubt there will ever be an unmanned tank, unless perhaps for an urban environment. Anything unmanned would be too hard to drive over terrain.
I’ve seen photos of a prototype of this split track on an M1.
How many ports on that puppy, how many drones aircraft and cruise missles can be deployed and the Skies be filled w/ armament! Sorry Kids the tank loses!
Ever hear of the Warthog> lol!
But, dammit, Scotty-man, we need phasers NOW. . .
(grin)
Not just lasers. The Navy is doing some impressive work on railguns. . . .
Have you ever heard of IADSes? Most countries have some form of one. Honestly, you sound like the misguided folk who thought that land warfare was unthinkable in the immediate post-WWII era. Haven’t the past almost 70 years kind of disproved that kind of thinking? Don’t get me wrong. I love the A-10, and recognize the importance of air power in general, but A-10s work best only after air supremacy has been achieved.
Once you know where all the enemy tanks are located, they can simply be avoided, or used as a map of the enemy troops, or targeted by every available weapons system. With precision munitions, sitting in a tank whose position is known means that your lifetime is the period of time until the opponent decides to destroy your tank.
All that armor doesn't do much good against a direct hit from artillery, a 500 lb bomb, or a Hellfire missile. Or even another tank or a helicopter whose fire control system has your coordinates in its target list.
And how old is the Warthog? Whats new for arial combat?
Dude I’m a veteran and know whats what! If you have ever seen 6 F-15 Eagles fly overhead at close to ground and thats more old school you would know the score! Any clue to laser targeting there big boy!
It paints you dead!
Drone targets. See information about the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) to know more about Russia’s Muslim ally nations. It was founded by leaders of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan are observer states.
Thanks robowombat.
The Russian Army is fixated upon fielding a force than can dominate the vast Eurasian plain that stretches from the borders of Poland to the frontiers of Manchuria. This geographic feature has molded the history and culture of Russia in a way that is unique among the great powers. It may be wrongheaded but the Russian military sees power projection over this huge area as the basis for the military might of the state and the keystone in the force structure that protects Russia from renewed threats from the west and from China in the east.
Thanks for your service. However, I’m not really understanding what you’re saying with your first point(s). Suffice to say, F-15s or any other airplanes only enter the picture if they’re able to attack their targets. Put another way, do you think it’s useless for our army to field armor? If one side is able to establish air supremacy, armor has proven quite useful (see Desert Storm, OIF, and the 2008 Russo-Georgian conflict for case studies). In fact, in Desert Storm, despite an extensive air campaign and an inept enemy who made no attempt at concealment, coalition forces had to contend with substantial Iraqi ground forces (including armor) to eject the Iraqis from Kuwait. Now, one can make an argument that advances in ATGMs have have eroded armor’s usefulness—especially in built up areas—but advances in protection, both active and passive, have balanced this somewhat.
Next billboard please
Neither do BDUs.
“You are going to protect soldiers from laser and arial attack with a Tank! The ground war is obselete!”
Been hearing this for decades and the tank is not only still with us, but a dominant force on the battlefield.
That’s a nice concept...but lots of concepts come and go. I wouldn’t classify that as a tank either, as its main gun could never kill another tank.
I’m an old tanker....its hard enough using a 2d night vision driver site (ie there are accidents). I couldn’t imagine negotiating terrain full time through a screen...or identifying targets (which often occurs with peripheral vision). And what happens when you throw track? Too many complications. But beyond that, remote control tanks contradict our fighting doctrine. The only reason we have tanks is to protect pc’s...and the only reason we have pc’s is to bring infantry to an area. If the area doesnt need infantry, it doesnt need tanks....and the remote control operations should be left to drones in the air.
A
Actually, it has not been survivable for over thirty years. During the Cold War talk between Apache and Warthog pilots was which of the two platforms (AH-64 vs A-10) would survive the longest if the Soviets ever came streaming through the Fulda Gap.
I am not saying the A-10 is useless. It is a very effective weapon ...just that against a credible opponent (i.e. not Somalia, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq, Libya, Panama, Grenada) like China it is useless. Well, I guess I am saying it is useless against a non third-world opponent.
Let me tell you what my prayer is. That the great minds who form US military policy are strategic thinkers, rather than people who crow and fluff themselves over past US victories and think everything is ok. Those past US victories have been due to superior weapons used by the US forces, superior strategies, superior support, superior situational awareness. Superior people. They have also been against countries that are simply not formidable! Take Iraq ...a very poor IADS (the KARI system was a mix of Soviet and French SAM systems aimed at preventing a repeat of the Israeli and Iranian air attacks against the Osirak reaction ...yet even that poor SAM system managed to shoot down dozens of Allied aircraft and required proper planning to take it down), an airforce that was largely limited to short-range missiles and lacking even radar-warning receivers to warn the pilot of a radar lock, and strategies out of 1960s USSR. Or Somalia? Skinny half-starved people high on khat and shooting like their bullets will be guided by Allah. Or Afghanistan? Grenada? Panama?
The US will not always be fortunate to fight against third-world powers. The world is changing, and in the future you will see countries like China and Russia start to exert themselves, and lower powers like Indonesia and Pakistan possess area-denial weapons. Already, looking at China, the entire South China Sea is literally a no-go zone for ANY known US asset apart from the Virginia class, Seawolf and Ohio submarines. No air asset can operate there - not even the vaunted F-22 (a scenario gamed by DARPA showed the fueling tankers getting shot down and the Raptors running out of fuel and crashing into the sea). This is now - in 15 years the Chinese IADS and area-denial will only get better.
Hence my prayer. That the military minds with actual power have the force of will and strategic thought to look at current and future threats rather than wanking at the A-10. The A-10 requires a totally sanitized IADS environment otherwise it is dead! There is a reason it has all those redundancies - because in anything but a sanitized environment it is simply a target.
The only way the US will stay ahead is by taking upcoming threats seriously. This may end up with the US overestimating the threat and thus having weapons that are far better than what the adversary has (e.g. how the MiG-25 was misread as a Soviet superfighter and made the inception of the F-15 much easier; or how the Alfa submarines and their vaunted titanium hulls made the US come up with the Sealwolf supersub), but it is far better to overestimate than to underestimate.
It is better to be working on a 6th generation fighter when the rest of the world is trying to catch up on 5th gen, rather than to bow before the A-10 when it is a useless piece of equipment in any airspace that is not third-world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.