Warnings over Russia's new tank Armata

[Skybird]

I got used to see news snippets dripping down the internet wires, how advance dit is and how good and technologically superior. Especially when such news is coming from Russian sources it seems almost natural to label it all as propaganda.

However, some weeks ago I got some input form a German source indicating that the German intel services are deeply concerned about the advanced capabilities of this tank, and now the British Telegraph joins the chorus and quotes from a British secret internal paper that paints this tanks a squite superior to anything NATO currently could field, labelling it as the most decisive technological improvement in tank design since 50 years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...an-super-tank/

I do not know whether it really is that superior and NATO is lost, but the derogatory mocking about it as just another of those "Russian toy tanks" I have never shared. I think this tank is dangerous, and very much so, and I am not certain that Leopard 2 or Abrams or Challenger 2 or K2 or Type- 90 or Merkava could stop or keep up with it. It looks a bit like when the T-72 was shocking NATO with its capability to take the Leopard-1 - often claimed to be the best tank of its era - out of the equation.

The internal document, written by a senior Army intelligence officer, states: “Without hyperbole, Armata represents the most revolutionary step change in tank design in the last half century.”
(...)
The paper also raises concern over the Scout, a light armoured fighting vehicle due to be introduced for British forces from next year. “In a familiar story of measure and countermeasure, the intelligence assumptions that informed the procurement of Scout as a superior battle-winning platform may now be open to question.”
The document says that on top of the Armata tank, Russia is adding “six additional armoured vehicles to the stable”, including a heavy infantry fighting vehicle and a self-propelled artillery system.
The intelligence report, which it stresses should “not be interpreted as an official MoD statement”, also raises the spectre of far superior Russian tank numbers, with plans to build 120 Armata tanks a year from 2018.
It points out Russia already has a fleet of 2,500 tanks with a reserve of 12,500, which is “35 times the size of the fleet in the British Army”.
“With such numbers, decisive effect is credibly achievable and losses are less important,” says the document.

However, also this:

Lord West of Spithead, a former First Sea Lord, said he was “very concerned” about Russian rearmament. “At the moment, their economy is a war economy,” he said. “They have got the GDP of Italy and they are trying to spend the same on defence as America. What they are doing is unsupportable and when something is unsupportable, then anything could happen.”

But when Europe can live on tick, and America could just print money as it needs it - why should the Russians feel stopped from doing something similiar? Currently, btw, they are buying physical Gold like crazy, since several years already.

I have seen videos of its internal cockpit. That thing is modern. Ultra-modern, and it has something that one needs to get used to to find in Russian tanks: space. It has an advanced level of automatization and sensors. Active defences that greatly reduce NATO's efficiency against tanks. Especially in the defensive area it looks superior to western tanks, including German, Israeli and American designs.

I say: watch out for this thing. It looks ugly, but it could be a game changer.

[Oberon]

NATO is overdue for a new MBT, but we're still lagged in Bush-fire mode, designing and building stuff for Middle Eastern conflicts rather than to go toe to toe with Moscow. By the time we've caught up, it'll probably be China that we'll be squaring off against.

I know the Leopard is getting a new version at some point, and honestly IMHO it would make sense for Britain, France and Germany, and even the US if they want to, to get together and pool resources to make a standardized tank for NATO, something that is high-tech but doesn't break the bank...if western weapons designers know how to make such a thing.
I mean between the UK, Germany and the US, we built three damn fine MBTs, and the Leclerc isn't really to be sniffed at even though it's always billed as the butt-monkey of MBTs.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Oberon

[...] and honestly IMHO it would make sense for Britain, France and Germany, and even the US if they want to, to get together and pool resources to make a standardized tank for NATO, something that is high-tech but doesn't break the bank...if western weapons designers know how to make such a thing.
I mean between the UK, Germany and the US, we built three damn fine MBTs, and the Leclerc isn't really to be sniffed at even though it's always billed as the butt-monkey of MBTs.

But Brexit.

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by Oberon

IMHO it would make sense for Britain, France and Germany, and even the US if they want to, to get together and pool resources to make a standardized tank for NATO

Let's call it the F-35, maybe it can have tracks, but with VTOL capability?

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Catfish

But Brexit.

So be it. We'll look after our tiny island and mainland Europe can look after itself. We all know how that has panned out over the last century.

@Oberon

Good insightful post Jamie. Tis a pity we only got to visit the Yorkshire Air Museum together and not the likes of Bovington.

[Catfish]

^ I just wonder how cooperation or teamwork will look like, after the Brexit.
After all it was England (i prefer not to say the UK) who voted for leaving.
But I guess where's a will there's a way.

[Skybird]

In Finland, in a region where they have temps of -30°C, for months the central heating of several towns and villages was targetted by massive hacker attacks that prevented the central core installations from starting to work. For months. Quite a problem with -30° around you. They had to fall back to the dratsic solution of almost cutting all internet and computer wires into the network controlling these heatings.

As long as Britain does not cut the comourer and communicaiton wires leading from and to its island, all the talkign of the likes of "the continent looks for itself, Britain stays for itself" is pointless. Even more when considering that without said wires the British finance industry is toast. During the 60s, 70s, 80s, any Sovjet invasion of NATO Europe would have been opened by a massive volley of nuclear atacks on NATO'S airfield and CCCI.network. Any Russian attack today would be opened with a massive Russian cyber-attack that already would have started months before the conventional military actions begin.

And the Geneva convention and Hague Convention never have had something like cyberwar on mind at all.

Its impossible for Britain to not care for the continent. Whatever happens on the continent, will find britain too. Geographic isolation does not have the same meaning anymore like it used to have.

Have a volley of EMP bombs shattering the fundament of modern civilization and taking electricity out of the equation - then we talk again.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Skybird

In Finland, in a region where they have temps of -30°C, for months the central heating of several towns and villages was targetted by massive hacker attacks that prevented the central core installations from starting to work. For months. Quite a problem with -30° around you. They had to fall back to the dratsic solution of almost cutting all internet and computer wires into the network controlling these heatings.

I'm aware of only three publicly confirmed attacks on temperature control systems: two in Lappeenranta against general heating on two residential flats and one in Rauma against cooling system of indoor ice rink. If there are any others I would like to read about them, not saying they didn't happen or could not happen.

Threat is certainly there and consequences especially during colder months maybe quite severe. Ofcourse you can disconnect your systems from internet after attack is deteected, but how much physical damage can be done before it?

Originally Posted by Skybird

Have a volley of EMP bombs shattering the fundament of modern civilization and taking electricity out of the equation - then we talk again.

You don't need EMP bombs to disable or distroy critical distribution systems. This can be done either remotely with cyber attacks or locally with certain tools (no, I'm not telling which ones) most likely available from local hardware store.

Critical components such as high voltage transformers are not readily replaceable which often means repair times in excess of twelve months. Another major issue in grid design is that over years it has been driven by economics rather than security and redundancy. Therefore electrical grids in many western countries including Finland and the United States are dependent on small number of critical electrical substations (in practice transformers) and loss of too many of them (three in case of Finland) will cripple the grid.

[Rockstar]

Anyone know the number of warbirds in Russia's arsenal? IMO without flyable/operational aircraft to support the Russian wonder tank that tank isnt much more than a target from above. Observing the last several conflicts in the Middle East it seemed to me that air superiority conqueured all just like it did in the Battle of Raseiniai.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

I'm aware of only three publicly confirmed attacks on temperature control systems: two in Lappeenranta against general heating on two residential flats and one in Rauma against cooling system of indoor ice rink. If there are any others I would like to read about them, not saying they didn't happen or could not happen.

I read it in German news today, which referred to this article:
http://metropolitan.fi/entry/ddos-at...-amidst-winter
There also was an original Finish article linked, but I do not find the german one anymore. It dropped down the headline lists.

The problem is that all this is another little piece of a picture that shows that the so-called internet-of-things is beign systemtically used and tested for its usability to commence cyber attacks. There have been several such Ddos attacks been reported in past weeks and months, the attack on the Dyn-server being the most prominent one. all these attacks were staged by botnets basing on small computers linked to the so-called internet-of-things: "smart" refrigerators, "smart" TVs, "smart" technological gadgets of the modern near-future household.

The individual vulnerability of apps and app-depending technological gadgets in houses and households, has been demonstrated meanwhile - on every occassion such tests were run. Why people think it is a "smart" idea to have their living sphere, their living place, their household, their house door, their car, being exposed in such critical ways against which so far nobody has outlined trustworthy defences, is beyond me. To me it is like all of a sudden ripping out housedoors, and windows, throwing away locks and keys, and inviting raging punks and drunk junkies into my home to demolish the installation and furniture, and publicly announcing my banking account data so that everybody can have me paying his bills.

You don't need EMP bombs to disable or distroy critical distribution systems. This can be done either remotely with cyber attacks or locally with certain tools (no, I'm not telling which ones) most likely available from local hardware store.

Critical components such as high voltage transformers are not readily replaceable which often means repair times in excess of twelve months. Another major issue in grid design is that over years it has been driven by economics rather than security and redundancy. Therefore electrical grids in many western countries including Finland and the United States are dependent on small number of critical electrical substations (in practice transformers) and loss of too many of them (three in case of Finland) will cripple the grid.

EMP is the weapon of choice to destroy the whole electronic basis of a society, state or nation in no time. Denying electricity in the developed world is a weapon of mass destruction. It can kill millions and dozens of millions in very short time. The production and logistic chains that have been established due to computers and globalization, are insane and make us highly vulnerable and dependable - with multiplied risk levels, compared to the old fashioned ways of the past. For many inhabitants of the first world, elemental, most basic and profound competences for survival and food production have been lost. Most of us are not psychologically fit for this kind of elemental survival. Nor are we prepared to face and defend ourselves against physiala violence, and use physicla force against others ourselves. Really. Loss of electricity is a weapon of mass destruction, like nuclear bombs and biological weapons.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

So be it. We'll look after our tiny island and mainland Europe can look after itself. We all know how that has panned out over the last century.

@Oberon

Good insightful post Jamie. Tis a pity we only got to visit the Yorkshire Air Museum together and not the likes of Bovington.

Thanks Jim, I'd love to visit Bovington sometime, see that Tiger in action. Honestly though, our military as it stands at the moment is only strengthened by European co-operation, and if not through the EU then through NATO which...depending on todays events, will hopefully continue to survive even after we leave the EU. Thus, as NATO nations use STANAG, so should they consider other standardized equipment, which if planned right could also help to reduce costs and increase inter-nation co-operation in military matters.

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Anyone know the number of warbirds in Russia's arsenal? IMO without flyable/operational aircraft to support the Russian wonder tank that tank isnt much more than a target from above. Observing the last several conflicts in the Middle East it seemed to me that air superiority conqueured all just like it did in the Battle of Raseiniai.

Current estimates are around 3,000 airframes, although how many of them are actually serviceable at the moment is debatable.
Russian doctrine has always factored in heavy acceptable losses, as well as a liberal scattering of Surface to Air units. NATO attrition would be heavy, but aerial dominance is definitely achievable as it stands.

[Rockstar]

Current estimates of Russian airframes are from what I've read are no more than 3000. Sounds scary but with no budget I suspect the operational number is quite low.

The U.S. alone has a little over 5,000 airframes with an incredibly larger budget to support them.

[Skybird]

Maybe the Russian air force in numbers is not that impressive anymore as it once was. It surely is impressive however in its top notch fighters' principal quality and capability, and arsenal of latest generation missiles. Missiles, air combat as well as anti tank missiles, always have been a field where Russia/USSR excelled in. While I would give the edge to the West in airframes's quality, last time I checked on AAMs and ATGMs, I had several examples where I would prefer the Russian designs to their Western counterparts (torpedoes as well, btw.)

And Russian ground units are really heavy in both SAMs and ATGM.

The huge and diverse array of highly potent SAMS - now that is something entirely different. Russia has the technological ability to turn whole geographic regions into access-denial zones. If they would want it, they could interfere in most of Eastern European airspace already right now, and deep into Germany. The equipment for that they already have in place, they just need to push the button.

And they already said years ago they also have the technological means to de-cloak stealthed airplanes. Whether these means are mobile and thus can be seen outside Russia, or are stationary unmovable installations, is something different, also the range of these claimed sensors seems to be unknown. Would we want to base on the assumption that they were just boasting? I would not. Not when consideirng the costs of a even just a single B2 bomber or a F-22.

The ME wars of the past 20 years - have not been against Russia and Russian forces, running regular Russian equipment by Russian doctrine and commanded by Russian commanders and trained Russian troops. The Iraq wars say little about how it would go against the Russians, if war would come.

Also, the American cyber war especially in 2003 found practically no potent opponent for that at all.

Blocking comms and radio networks also is something that Russian forces prioritize and are damn good at - Iraqi forces could have just dreamed of that.

[XabbaRus]

Hmmm, smacks to me of scaremongering. I seem to remember after it was revealed on May 9th there was some ridicule given one apparently broke down during rehersals and now it is being touted as the best tank since sliced bread. We demonise Russia as the bogeyman and the threat to humanity and just as defense budgets come under pressure we have this "leaked" report again sowing the seed that Russia has something we don't and are "dangerous".

For sure it is an advanced tank and I have never underestimated Russian kit. They have some unique solutions to overcome some technical limitations, thought this tank does seem quite neat.

[Mike Abberton]

Re: the Russian air force. It's not just a disparity in airframes, there is also a huge disparity is support forces - AWACs, ELINT, Air Refueling, etc.

If NATO can control the airspace, it could probably deal with being outnumbered, although being outnumbered would seriously hamper their ability to influence a concurrent ground war. If they control the airspace and have numerical superiority, it would be bad news for the OPFOR.

Mike