SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From the Serious Gun Porn department!
The Russian Ground Forces are set to take delivery of the first production models of the T-14 Armata main battle tank starting in 2017. The Russian army has taken delivery of twenty pre-production version of the tank for operational testing—which is currently under way just outside Moscow at Kubinka. The first operational T-14 unit is likely to be stood up in Siberia with a unit that performed particularly well during the invasion of Crimea according to a source.
"Test of the Armata are going according to schedule without any problems," Alexei Zharich, deputy director of Uralvagonzavod told the Russian language daily Izvestia. "Serial deliveries could begin at any moment—as soon as the customer wants it."
However, Zharich seems to be addressing only the T-14 main battle tank variant. He didn't address the other combat vehicles that are part of the Armata family—it's not clear if those vehicles are also in production. The Armata Universal Combat Platform consists of the T-14 main battle tank, the T-15 heavy infantry fighting vehicle and the T-16 armored recovery vehicle, among a host of other vehicles. Another member of the Armata family includes an upgunned heavy assault armored vehicle, which has been dubbed "the Tank Killer" by Russian media. The "Tank Killer" variant seems to incorporate a derivative of the 2S35 Koalitsiya-SV's 152mm artillery piece into the Armata chassis in a direct fire mounting.
There are a number of articles about the T-14 Armata on the web - I chose to use this one for this submission. Also at sputniknews.com.
takyon: Here's video of the T-14 in action. Russia is also building six new Project 636.3 Kilo-class attack submarines and is working on railguns, exoskeletons, "robot avatars", and smart bullets.
The U.S. Army will begin testing a truck-mounted 50 kW laser in 2017, and scale it to 100 kW in later tests. The Army will also be testing new 155mm, 50mm, and 35mm guns and artillery. The U.S. Navy will begin using shipping container sized Pulsed Power Container Systems from General Atomics as it tests its own railgun technology.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @06:19PM
Russia's Dangerous T-14 Armata Tank
Dangerous? Of course it's dangerous, it's a tank..
Ready for War Next Year?
What? Are you suggesting that getting a new piece of hardware for your army means you're intending to start a war? And I'm pretty sure Russia's ready for war right now.
Why doesn't that bit of news about a new laser for the USA get a similar provocative title?
USA's Dangerous 50 kW laser: Ready for War Next Year?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday September 19 2016, @06:24PM
Because it's not ready for war next year:
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @07:25PM
Ah. I read the title as Russia being ready for war next year, not the tank. Much less provocative yours (and everyone else's) way. My mistake.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday September 19 2016, @08:03PM
Ok. I'm sorry for calling you a nitpicker.
Onward to war.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday September 19 2016, @06:30PM
According to this list [wikipedia.org], Russia has been at war almost every year since 1991.
Of course, "Ready for War Next Year" just means completed, manufactured, and ready to be used next year and your nitpick has fallen flatter than wonkey_monkey.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @07:03PM
Russia has always been at war with Eastasia.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Monday September 19 2016, @08:10PM
I'll see your "Russia since '91" and raise you a "U.S. since '80."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#1980.E2.80.931989 [wikipedia.org]
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AnonTechie on Monday September 19 2016, @08:45PM
I raise you a "Britain since 1918"
Britain’s secret wars:
In fact, between 1918 and 1939, British forces were fighting in Iraq, Sudan, Ireland, Palestine and Aden. In the years after the second world war, British servicemen were fighting in Eritrea, Palestine, French Indochina, Dutch East Indies, Malaya, Egypt, China and Oman. Between 1949 and 1970, the British initiated 34 foreign military interventions. Later came the Falklands, Iraq – four times – Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Libya and, of course, Operation Banner, the British army’s 38-year deployment to Northern Ireland.
For more than a hundred years, not a single year has passed when Britain’s armed forces have not been engaged in military operations somewhere in the world. The British are unique in this respect: the same could not be said of the Americans, the Russians, the French or any other nation.
Only the British are perpetually at war.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/08/britains-secret-wars-oman [theguardian.com]
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday September 20 2016, @01:38AM
The British have had lots of practice. Wars with people in what is now France and Germany took place, off and on, for about 2000 years.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday September 20 2016, @09:28AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Monday September 19 2016, @09:53PM
Looks more like US since 1775...
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday September 19 2016, @10:08PM
Well, takyon said "almost every year since" but I was counting literally every sequential year listed.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday September 20 2016, @03:06AM
> According to this list, Russia has been at war almost every year since 1991.
...the exception being 1998, when economic reforms came to fruition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yegor_Gaidar#Reforms_controversy [wikipedia.org]
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitextlo/tr_show02.html#11 [pbs.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Russian_financial_crisis [wikipedia.org]
Did Russia's free market miracle bring peace? If the rest of us switched to free markets, would we too enjoy peace?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 19 2016, @07:07PM
Takyon gave you a good answer. I think my answer is better. Have you looked at our recent amrs acquisitions? The F-35 was supposed to be read for war years ago - and it's just now being accepted into the air fleets. Our laser weapons aren't going anywhere fast, either.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 19 2016, @09:42PM
...but what good is that if they keep getting grounded? [google.com]
Wiring problems
Fuel tank problems
Coolant line problems
...and that's just the recent stuff.
It truly is a complete boondoggle; a gold-plated turkey. [soylentnews.org]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Funny) by DECbot on Tuesday September 20 2016, @12:10AM
Good thing the air force is desperate to retire the A-10. You know, the one airframe specifically designed to destroy Russian tanks.
The F-35 looks to have that one killer feature essential for pilot survivability... Never making it to the combat zone.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @02:24AM
Isn't the chair force moving to a drone majority anyway?
I guess you would have to make them semi-autonomous so the Ruskies can't just hack em.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2016, @11:43AM
That's why Chair Force enlisted people have higher survival rates. Most of the casualties are officers.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday September 20 2016, @02:02PM
I'll bet more enlisted die in workplace accidents than officers die in combat.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Francis on Tuesday September 20 2016, @02:30AM
The point of most of those programs isn't to actually produce the weapons, it's to keep the contractors in business until our next war. If they happen to produce something useful, then great, but really that's beside the point.
Same goes for that air tanker deal that they wrote for Boeing. There was absolutely no need for the deal other than as an excuse to give Boeing money.