We’ve covered some of this before, but here’s a nice roundup of why Russia’s major weapons systems suck. It’s a handy tour through the world of over-promised, under-performing vaporwear.
It’s always safest to assume that the latest Russian wunderwaffen is vaporware unless proven otherwise.
Once again, Russia has announced its latest Wunderwaffe is coming to Ukraine, which ZeroHedge treats seriously, because ZeroHedge.
Western media outlets flooded the airways with hope for Ukraine this week as the US prepares to send 31 main battle tanks to the wartorn country in Eastern Europe to counter Russian aggression ahead of spring. What wasn’t highly publicized is that these M1 Abrams are a modified version and will be stripped of “secret” uranium armor.
Following the news of NATO-made tanks set to flood Ukraine, the former head of Russia’s space agency Dmitry Rogozin told the Russian newspaper Pravda that “Marker,” a new robo-tank, will be able to ‘destroy Western tanks, including American Abrams and German Leopards.’
Rogozin explained the robot tank automatically recognizes and attacks Ukrainian equipment, including NATO tanks, all because of its artificial intelligence system and machine learning technology.
“The combat version of the Marker robot has an electronic catalog in the control system that contains images of targets both in the visible and in the infrared range,” he said.
The director of the Air Defense Museum, retired colonel Yuri Knutov, told Lenta.Ru, a Russian newspaper, “the robot can thus identify NATO-made tanks” and will be “armed with a machine gun and an anti-tank missile with a range of up to about six kilometers.”
Honestly, all of this is pretty hilarious stuff.
Machine learning and artificial intelligence are real disciplines, and Russia doesn’t entirely lack technological and programming talent. It’s entirely possible that you could develop and effective autonomous battle-tank driven by AI that can adequately detect between friend and foe given lots of money, lots of time, honest, hands-off project management, and sophisticated, iterative, trial-and-error proving over a decade or more of time.
All things Russia isn’t going to have or do. If they could adequately identify friend from foe on the battlefield (especially given how much kit Ukraine shares with Russia), then they’d already be using such technology to prevent the numerous, documented friendly fire instances Russia has suffered from. And training AI to do that is something like six orders of magnitude harder than training troops to do it.
And we all know Russia sucks at training its own troops as well.
Russia’s military is so demonstrably backwards that they can’t even have their army and air force communicate with each other in real time for combined arms operations. And yet we’re supposed to believe that they’ve developed cutting edge autonomous battlefield AI?
Pull the other one.
Russia has a long history of vaporware, and Russia’s previous attempt at field trials for a semi-autonomous AFV in Syria was a hilarious disaster. And it was plagued by bog-standard mechanical failures. Autonomous driving is a whole lot harder.
There’s a small possibility that they’ll get this thing into the field and immediately start blowing away its own troops, but a far more likely outcome is that it never sees the field at all, just the latest case of Russian Wunderwaffe vaporware.
Yesterday’s post on autloaders made me wonder how Russia’s T-14 Armata main battle tank project is coming along. The answer seems to be: not so hot.
Despite a reduction in Russian defense spending caused by lower oil prices, which came after the Kremlin opted not to cut production, the Russian military is charging ahead with its Armata combat vehicle program. It is being overseen by Rostec Corporation – the Moscow conglomerate that specializes in consolidating strategically important companies in Russia’s defense sector.
This includes the Armata T-14 main battle tanks (MBT) first demonstrated during the May 2015 Victory Parade in Moscow. Sergi Chemezov, Rostec Corporation’s chief executive officer, told reporters last week that while any new projects would be discontinued the Armata projects – which include the T-14 as well as the T-15 heavy infantry fighting vehicle and T-16 armored repair and recovery vehicle – were still on track.
However, when these tanks might be delivered is still very much in question.
As of January, the Russian Ground Forces (RGF) had not taken delivery of its first batch of the third-generation T-14s, and delivery has been delayed multiple times around. Delivery was expected on the first nine tanks by Russian tank manufacturer Uralvagonzavod (UVZ) in 2018, before the target date was pushed back to 2019.
Work on the Armata project began in 2010, when the Russian Ministry of Defence terminated work on “Object-195” – the T-95 program. The entire project was seen to be a huge technological leap from Soviet-era military hardware designs and from the ground up the T-14 is very much distinct from past Soviet/Russian tank platforms.
The outline of the tank, from its hull to its long and boxy turret, which resembles Western tank turret designs, is a notable departure from past Soviet designs.
Interestingly, the conventional long, boxy turret wasn’t part of the early Armata sketches released, which showed a radical, low-profile design theoretically made possible by the autoloader. That was completely gone by the time the first prototypes appeared (and stalled) at the 2015 Moscow Victory Day Parade.
It isn’t just the profile of the Armata T-14 that sets this tank apart from its predecessors.
Among its innovative characteristics is its unmanned turret, which includes a remotely controlled 125mm 2A82-1M smoothbore main gun with fully automated loading. The turret’s magazine contains a total of 45 rounds of ammunition, but the main gun can also fire laser-guide missiles. In addition, the 2A82 125mm gun can even be upgraded to the 2A83 152mm gun, while the T-14 can also be fitted with secondary weapons such as the Kord 12.7mm machine gun or a PKTM 7.62mm machine gun.
I don’t believe the the T-14 can ever be uparmed with the 152mm cannon. There simply doesn’t seem to be enough room to fit it in. That was what was supposed to go in the cancelled T-95/Object 195 program, which was a larger platform, and which Russia killed in 2010 after Uralvagonzavod produced a prototype which it never showed to the press and for which no field maneuver footage seems to exist. Which means it was even more good old-fashioned Russian vaporware than Black Eagle, of which they seemed to have produced one running prototype. Oh, and they also said Black Eagle could have been uparmed to the 152mm cannon as well. So a 152mm cannon-armed T-14 isn’t just vaporware, it’s third generation vaporware (if not even older).
As important to its offensive capabilities is the MBT’s ability to keep its crew protected. Here too is where the T-14 excels. This tank features a low-silhouette that reduces exposure to enemy fire, and that enhances the safety and survivability of the three-man crew.
The “low-silhouette” point is simply wrong. The T-14 is 3.3 meters high, compared to 2.2 meters for the T-90 and 2.44 meters for the M1A2. That’s higher even than the World War II M3 Lee tank the Soviets (who got them via Lend-Lease) called “a coffin for seven brothers.”
The driver, gunner and tank commander are housed in a crew compartment that is located in an armored capsule at the front portion of the hull, isolated from the automatic loader as well as the ammunition storage in the center of the tank.
The crew compartment is made from composite materials and protected by multilayer armor, which according to analyst reports can withstand a direct hit of nearly any type of round that currently exists including sub-caliber and cumulative rounds.
This smells like more hype. The crew compartment does seem to be very well-protected, but it remains to be seen whether it can stand up to a strike from a Javelin or Hellfire 2. RPG-29s (hardly state-of-the-art anti-tank tech) have taken out Challaneger 2s and Merkavas when it hit them just right, and they had proven Chobham composite armor rather than whatever composite armor Russia has managed to develop.
Supposedly the T-14 was tested in Syria, according to TASS, and if you can’t trust Russia’s own propaganda organ, who can you trust?
Speaking of untrustworthy sources, one Russian media outlet claims that a T-14 was reportedly destroyed by a TOW-2B anti-tank missile in Syria. But there’s no footage or pictures of that as well, so I’d take that report with a whole shaker of salt.
Here’s a video that discusses various T-14 problems from a YouTuber who tends to be a lot more positive about the T-14 (and Russian tanks in general) than I am.
The main problem plaguing the T-14 is the same one plaguing the rest of the Russian military: Russia is broke and they can’t maintain their current military infrastructure, much less adequately fund future weapons development. They were broke before oil prices hit the toilet, and the strain of Vald’s Excellent Adventures in Syria and Ukraine haven’t helped. That’s why dry docks sink and nuclear subs explode.
And even if all those problems are overcome, Russia has only ordered 100 of them, and production seems to be so slow they may not even hit that. Its fate may be like the Type 3 Chi-Nu tanks Japan produced late in World War II: A formidable peer to American tanks on paper, but produced in such small numbers they never saw combat.
