Brand new Russian Tank, things about it still classified

You might think Russia is being foolish for investing in cutting edge tanks even though they already have many tanks

That's because they found a radar back in the late 1990s invented by Czech scientists, any kind of stealth aircraft can be tracked, they have this radar fully integrated in the S-500 system which is the backbone of Russian defense

This tank has bunch of classified countermeasures making it invisible for guided missiles

The thing about all these impressive new Russian military developments, is that they are all CGI and “artists impressions”.

No, wait, here's something concrete, although more down-to-earth.

Univaersal Combat Platform

originally posted by: paraphi
The thing about all these impressive new Russian military developments, is that they are all CGI and “artists impressions”.

Of course they are. The manufacturer has to attract the investor. Reality never appealed to anyone. So, cool CGI presentations are the main dish of the party.

a reply to: paraphi

Hey if Pentagon analysts believe as you do

So much the better

a reply to: swanne

Just start a war with Russia and find out

You can go and bring freedom to Eastern Ukraine

See how it goes

originally posted by: iLikeCIAnot
a reply to: swanne

Just start a war with Russia and find out

You can go and bring freedom to Eastern Ukraine

See how it goes

Huh??



Edit:

Oh, I get it. You are saying that going to war with russia would push her to use her tanks, enabling us to see if they really exist.

Well, I like it better when their tanks (wether sophisticated or not) are silent. War is such a noisy mess. Earth needs way less fighting noises and much more thinking.
Earth is the only planet we got - time to get smart.

a reply to: iLikeCIAnot

So, they have a missile system that can detect any stealth aircraft and this tank that has total stealth capabilities?
Not that I believe either boast or care....

As for this tank, obviously a model or CG product. I don't see any crew access hatches, none at the top of the turret and only two small direct observation hatches in front for driver and commander that don't look big enough for a body to fit through. Given the requirement for thick armor these days, it would appear that there is little room in that very low turret for a gunner or for that matter, that gun. I await with with bated breath for more details!

a reply to: Aliensun

Lol

This tank is fly by wire to the point of not having crew

Anyway I am off this thread, enjoy the next war

a reply to: Aliensun

Here you can see it drive at 2:48 minutes...

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: Aliensun

Here you can see it drive at 2:48 minutes...

Just watched the video and all I can say is Wow,
depressing. It looks just like an old Nazi parade
goose steps and all. And really aside from it being modern
not much has changed in 70 years except some of the aircraft.

They don't look happy, and the money spent by all sides is disgusting,
but especially gross when considering the lifestyle of an average Russian worker.

The whole shin dig appears sad dated and decidely not scary.
Why are so many of their aircraft and tank designs are flat out rip offs
of B-1 bombers and Abrams M1's ?
I expect that from China but didn't realize
Russia and especially the highly praised
Russian Airforce was the Hyundai of war machinery.
Feel free to show me how their B-1 came first if true.

Ok I guess that's why I don't work at the UN.
We'd be at war, but I'm just calling it like I see it.

For all those claiming Russian technology is inferior, I assume you will be the first to go up against it, should be a piece of cake right?

a reply to: swanne

War is such a noisy mess. Earth needs way less fighting noises and much more thinking. Earth is the only planet we got - time to get smart.

Star.

originally posted by: bullcat
For all those claiming Russian technology is inferior, I assume you will be the first to go up against it, should be a piece of cake right?

NATO has on many occasions from when they sell it abroad.

since 1975 Russia made crap seems to be turned into burning wrecks pretty quickly.
Russian MIGs certainly didn't fair to well in Iraq or Libya.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: bullcat
For all those claiming Russian technology is inferior, I assume you will be the first to go up against it, should be a piece of cake right?

NATO has on many occasions from when they sell it abroad.

since 1975 Russia made crap seems to be turned into burning wrecks pretty quickly.
Russian MIGs certainly didn't fair to well in Iraq or Libya.

So take on Russia already, instead of a bullhorn.

Seems the equipment they have issued is not big enough.

www.foxnews.com...

Guess they made a mistake

originally posted by: bullcat

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: bullcat
For all those claiming Russian technology is inferior, I assume you will be the first to go up against it, should be a piece of cake right?

NATO has on many occasions from when they sell it abroad.

since 1975 Russia made crap seems to be turned into burning wrecks pretty quickly.
Russian MIGs certainly didn't fair to well in Iraq or Libya.

So take on Russia already, instead of a bullhorn.

Why?
Mots of us in the west would not support such a war.

And all though Russia itself may have sub standard equipment attacking Russia has NEVER gone well for any invader.

Lastly they have 7000 nukes

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: bullcat

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: bullcat
For all those claiming Russian technology is inferior, I assume you will be the first to go up against it, should be a piece of cake right?

NATO has on many occasions from when they sell it abroad.

since 1975 Russia made crap seems to be turned into burning wrecks pretty quickly.
Russian MIGs certainly didn't fair to well in Iraq or Libya.

So take on Russia already, instead of a bullhorn.

Why?
Mots of us in the west would not support such a war.

And all though Russia itself may have sub standard equipment attacking Russia has NEVER gone well for any invader.

Lastly they have 7000 nukes

The government of the US, by the people for the people IS.

Passive support is support none the less.

American people ARE to be held accountable.

Don't like it, do something about it, ALL Americans ARE ACCOUNTABLE. Don't like it, too bad.

originally posted by: bullcat

Don't like it, do something about it, ALL Americans ARE ACCOUNTABLE. Don't like it, too bad.

Im not American thank the lord

originally posted by: bullcat

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: bullcat
For all those claiming Russian technology is inferior, I assume you will be the first to go up against it, should be a piece of cake right?

NATO has on many occasions from when they sell it abroad.

since 1975 Russia made crap seems to be turned into burning wrecks pretty quickly.
Russian MIGs certainly didn't fair to well in Iraq or Libya.

So take on Russia already, instead of a bullhorn.

Seems the equipment they have issued is not big enough.

www.foxnews.com...

Guess they made a mistake

From your link, the point i would take is, they HAVE the bigger guns available to request... The "mistake" was bringing the gun to the gun fight, instead of doing the typical American thing and bringing the nuclear weapon to the knife fight.

Anyway, i get it, this is a "yay Russia can do so much better we have a brand new tank, we are better than the USA, you just wait till the next war *smug face*" ... lol... Silly Russians

originally posted by: PsychoEmperor

originally posted by: bullcat

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: bullcat
For all those claiming Russian technology is inferior, I assume you will be the first to go up against it, should be a piece of cake right?

NATO has on many occasions from when they sell it abroad.

since 1975 Russia made crap seems to be turned into burning wrecks pretty quickly.
Russian MIGs certainly didn't fair to well in Iraq or Libya.

So take on Russia already, instead of a bullhorn.

Seems the equipment they have issued is not big enough.

www.foxnews.com...

Guess they made a mistake

From your link, the point i would take is, they HAVE the bigger guns available to request... The "mistake" was bringing the gun to the gun fight, instead of doing the typical American thing and bringing the nuclear weapon to the knife fight.

Anyway, i get it, this is a "yay Russia can do so much better we have a brand new tank, we are better than the USA, you just wait till the next war *smug face*" ... lol... Silly Russians

What America really is afraid of is the EU and Russia pairing up, EU is already a much bigger superpower and economic powerhouse than America ever will be. Coupled with Russia, it is unstoppable. Higher GDP, more population, higher standards, aiming to be more independent and in fact is at many levels.

That is what America really is afraid off.

That is why America does everything they can to cripple the EU.

originally posted by: bullcat
American people ARE to be held accountable.

Well, that argument cuts both ways. Russia isn't squeaky clean with a whole basket full of woes over the last few years.

Anyhow, let's keep to topic here, shall we.

Going all the way back up to the implausible CGI tank in the OP and the subsequent links to the Universal Combat Platform - essentially a chassis that can be used for many roles. If I am not mistaken the UK has done this, as the Challenger 2 MBT's chassis is used for a variety of additional vehicles.

Russian equipment is not as inferior as people suggest, although it is true to say that in recent years it has not fared well against Western kit. I also think there's a tendency to over exaggerate - on both sides. The ultimate test of equipment is on the battle field. Let's hope we don't get there!