joker said:
A tank engine and a ships turbine are two different ball games.
And you figured that out all by yourself. Well done.
The whole point of mentioning the MBT deals was to provide an insight into the type of relationship Kiev is willing to forge with Islamabad.
Firstly Id be the first to admit that im not a naval expert. What I know on the matter is as a result of my own research of whatever literature is available to me. And there really is not that much out there on the technical aspects. For whatever reasons you and Gf0012 may disagree with the information posted by myself at least have the common decency to back your arguments with credible information. For all I know you may be talking complete rubbish. Anyway time will tell what engine will be selected.
PS all articles were sourced. You may think the BBC and such are a fantasy but dont expect other to follow your rationale.
Joker. I guess all my comments are based on experience on some armoured vehicle, aviation and naval projects. The Russian and Ukrainian engines are notorious for wear and tear issues.
One of the common problems is that they have a tendency to wear out faster due to poor tolerances. Poor tolerances means that the engines will eventually experience balancing issues, and eventually catastrophic and terminal failure. In the case of an aircraft and a naval vessel that can make life somewhat exciting. Their typical maintenance routines for aircraft engines are half the uptime of western equivalents. It doesn't matter that the engine is notionally "half" the price of a western equivalent. Uptime is critical to sortie rates.
In a ship at sea, the last thing you want is to suffer periodic breakdowns at sea. A few thousand k's out in the Atlantic is not something that a ship master wants. Especially in a hostile environment.
Russian surface vessels had distinct engine noises, it makes referring to the combat system databases so much more easy.
As for the armoured vehicles, unfortunately the above are identical. Poor uptimes, noisey, telltale presence markers because of it, high maint rates, its one of the reasons why there is such a strong refurb market in modifying ex soviet/russian equipment. They are an anti-tank teams delight.
Attend any weapons conference, military exhibition and even commercial trade shows and you will get almost identical dismissive comments. (ever driven a Belarus tractor?)
They are an appalling piece of kit, it suited the russian doctrine of en masse platform "rushing". Ther stuff didn't need to last, they didn't care if it didn't as they assumed that sheer volume and mass would crush an oppposition. The impact on faulty drivetrains for a logistics backup is enormous. The "baggage train" just to provide transporters, spare engines, spare drivetrains etc would and was huge. In a lot of areas, the Russian AVF doctrine would be to shove the damaged vehicles forcibly out of the way as repairs would be next to impossible. All they cared about was keeping the column moving by having fuel tankers up front. maintenance was not a high priority.
In todays environment, such assumptions are a bit backward, more units = more targets. NATO always factored in superiority of western equipment as one of the positives in a quick violent war.
A number of my contracts have seen the removal of Russian/Ukrainian plant and replacement with German, Spanish, English or American engines.
As for the BBC, I guess they were rerunning from a different source (much like some newspapers do, they have a media sharing arrangement which means that they will print another papers articles due to an agreement to cross share).
The journo, probably had no idea of the rats nest he was exposing, certainly everyone in a military environment would look at such an article and get a bit of the giggles. They would be thanking their lucky stars that it wasn't their militaries involved in the purchase.
