[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

KomissarBojanchev wrote:So its gonna be the same boring old machines in tagil next year if we aren't talking about new fire trucks or jeeps  , just the T-90AMs, BMPTs, BMD-4s and the other usual residents over the last 3 years.

We will certainly see Boomerang and Kurganets. That˙s good enough.

I want to see the T-95 prototype   Finally without blur or form disturbing crates.

We will certainly see Boomerang and Kurganets. That˙s good enough.

Exactly, and the MBT of these vehicles will give us a good idea of what the MBT version of the Armata will look like and the IFV and APC etc etc.

GarryB wrote:

We will certainly see Boomerang and Kurganets. That˙s good enough.

Exactly, and the MBT of these vehicles will give us a good idea of what the MBT version of the Armata will look like and the IFV and APC etc etc.

hehe and once armata is shown others will get jelly, and push back their own next gen AFV programs so they can incorporate as much good ideas as possible   . And the first one to get shelved is GCV too   

On youtube here's the most full of shit post of the year:

"

The Russian Army seems less thrilled with the T-90 than you are.
The Russian Chief of Staff and Commander of Ground Forces stated that they stopped Russian procurement the T-90 because it was lacking both defensively and offensively.
Looking at the T-90, you can see their point. Offensively the T-90 uses the same 2A46 gun as the T-64. Its operates at only a moderate chamber pressure so it's penetration is going to be inferior to Western higher pressure guns and the trajectory of its rounds is going to require more adjustment from the fire control system. Barrel life is about 100 rounds, so that limits crew training through increased training costs.
Defensively, the T-90 has the same internal arrangement as they T-72, so it a crematorium that seats three. The T-90's basic armor is inadequate by Western standards. A lot is made of the next generation ERA, but the ERA, even if it works as advertised, covers only 60% of tanks frontal arc and even then there are the gaps between blocks.
From an automotive perspective, the T-90 is late model T-72 turret on a lengthened T-80 hull modified for a diesel engine. So, nothing new there.
The fundamental problem with the T-90 is, the Russians have painted themselves into a corner. The T-80 didn't turn out to be the MBT it was hoped to be. It was to expensive, to unreliable and Western Tanks out gunned and out armored it.
This left the lower cost and lower risk infantry support tank, the T-72, to fill in the MBT role. However, it started out to small, to light, and with to little development potential to be an MBT. It today's world, is a medium tank.
The Russians had a chance to change things with the T-95, but they couldn't afford it. The T-99 isn't even a design at this point, its a proposal."

The A46 being a medium pressure gun , fabulous      

What do you expect 90% of the information is false and fabricated bullshit to cover someones personal anti-russian agenda.
Trying to make a comment looking like an Analysis of the T-90 while calling it Crematorium is like being a judge and saying something racist about the sued person.

He lost all credibility even among people who have no plan about military matters.

Such people rant just because they have a great joy to rant about military matters they don't know and don't want to understand.

And such propagandistic methods to say something like "Western standards" through the entire Tank history, western standards till this day are behind russian standards. All 3 Main abilities that a tank must have are lower on western tanks, Mobility,Firepower and Protection. Western tanks travel shorter ways, are horrible on specific terrains while T-90 can drive on almost every terrain, Firepower overall which includes more than the western advertised Super Duper ammunition of KE rounds which are useless against 99% of targets on the battlefield. This rounds are useless against everything which is not a Tank, western standardized rounds of HEAT are inferior in Penetration,cost,availability,lifespan etc. Only one single "" Western""" tank, which isn't western btw (Israel) has tube launched ATGM, US has no standardized HE-Frag rounds and are bound by american military aggreements to buy from american companies and they only prefer to sell high cost weapons and HE rounds are not so they relly on HEAT,Canister both have very poor anti-soft targets capabilities. And the protection on western tanks is most times only one dimensional availabel. No APS,no ERA, big silhouette, lower ratio than T-90 of armor per m³ which is around 3 while western tanks are around 2.5-2.7 t/m³.

Who ever that guy with his post is, is most propably already known as bullshiter.

Oh boy.   

Steer clear of the youtube comment section. It is not a proper forum for intellectual discussion regarding military subjects.

People read youtube comments?

hmm, I just noticed, K-2 APS radar looks more like the ARENA radar tower split into two then fitted as it is in K-2.
Also, the gun housing part of K-2 is something to look at, prolly something like it would be used in armata mbt.
Also, since its very expensive to make the tank wider I think very thick applique side armor would be used.

regarding kommissars post,
1 thing to add is that you can afford 3:2-1 T-90 tanks per western tank, and not only that the smaller size and superior tactical mobility makes it even more possible to achiveve local superiority. In a tank battle, T-90s have the advantage in long range engagements(>2km) due to GLATGMs, while in close up sabot exchanges T90s "inferior" rounds would be able to penetrate the other tanks and vice versa, so numbers win.

It seems interesting ...


AFAR radar complement "Armata"

According to the terms of reference Minpromtorga (available on the "News"), "Armata" will receive Ka-band radars (26,5-40 GHz) based on active phased array (AESA) made by low-temperature ceramic technology. The same radar used in the T-50 - To develop Sukhoi fifth-generation multirole fighter (serial production of the aircraft to begin in 2015).

according to "Izvestia", referring to documents Minpromtorga

Viktor wrote:It seems interesting ...


AFAR radar complement "Armata"

According to the terms of reference Minpromtorga (available on the "News"), "Armata" will receive Ka-band radars (26,5-40 GHz) based on active phased array (AESA) made by low-temperature ceramic technology. The same radar used in the T-50 - To develop Sukhoi fifth-generation multirole fighter (serial production of the aircraft to begin in 2015).

according to "Izvestia", referring to documents Minpromtorga

I was about to post this. It is Izvestia so tread carefully.

Anyways, good news. First air-to-air missiles, and now this. Mass producing AESA arrays will decrease the cost.

Armata > M1A2

Armata will have a RCS of 0.00000000000003m² and AESA with LPI mode. One Armata can kill 10 M1's. The rest of the world is 20 years behind. I saw it on the Discovery Channel.

Zivo wrote:

Viktor wrote:It seems interesting ...


AFAR radar complement "Armata"

According to the terms of reference Minpromtorga (available on the "News"), "Armata" will receive Ka-band radars (26,5-40 GHz) based on active phased array (AESA) made by low-temperature ceramic technology. The same radar used in the T-50 - To develop Sukhoi fifth-generation multirole fighter (serial production of the aircraft to begin in 2015).

according to "Izvestia", referring to documents Minpromtorga

I was about to post this. It is Izvestia so tread carefully.

Anyways, good news. First air-to-air missiles, and now this. Mass producing AESA arrays will decrease the cost.

Armata > M1A2

Armata will have a RCS of 0.00000000000003m² and AESA with LPI mode. One Armata can kill 10 M1's. The rest of the world is 20 years behind. I saw it on the Discovery Channel.

We need an emoticon that parodies 'Murica.

Some fatty on wheelchair for physically challanged people.

  

Good if true. If AESA woulld be put in Armata MBT then the vehicles that rely on radar like pantsir and tor would get them too.
AESA radars as part of FCS on next gen MBTs is a a step in the right direction, as everyone and their grandmothers would have
IR imagers as primary optics by the time Armatas start rolling out so having that extra channel that is immune to IR smoke and
stealth would be necessary.

collegeboy16 wrote:Good if true. If AESA woulld be put in Armata MBT then the vehicles that rely on radar like pantsir and tor would get them too.
AESA radars as part of FCS on next gen MBTs is a  a step in the right direction, as everyone and their grandmothers would have
IR imagers as primary optics by the time Armatas start rolling out so having that extra channel that is immune to IR smoke and
stealth would be necessary.

The APSRO-A active protection system has an AESA based radar system. So Armata wont be the first vehicle to feature one, not that that actually means anything.

I'm more interested in seeing what capabilities can be developed. Such as detecting infantry moment and queueing the crew to the possible threat, detecting UAV's and micro UAV's, and sharing this information with friendly forces in the area.

Zivo wrote:

collegeboy16 wrote:Good if true. If AESA woulld be put in Armata MBT then the vehicles that rely on radar like pantsir and tor would get them too.
AESA radars as part of FCS on next gen MBTs is a  a step in the right direction, as everyone and their grandmothers would have
IR imagers as primary optics by the time Armatas start rolling out so having that extra channel that is immune to IR smoke and
stealth would be necessary.

The APSRO-A active protection system has an AESA based radar system. So Armata wont be the first vehicle to feature one, not that that actually means anything.

Very minor issue: isn't it called ASPRO-A?

Not that it actually means anything, but why do you think ASPRO-A is the first APS with AESA? After all, the variants of Arena, that have been shown to the public, most probably have, what can be called, a super-AESA, with sparse-arrays. It's a super-AESA due to the fact that, instead of scanning like a normal-AESA, it stares in every direction, in its field-of-view, at the same time. This is an extremely important capability and design approach when data-rate is very important but range isn't.

I don't have positive evidence about Drozd and Drozd-2 but how about all the huge number of tank/APS designs that have not been publicized yet? To say something is the world's first something is a very wikipedious thing to do.

Very minor issue: isn't it called ASPRO-A?

Typo. I was probably thinking about "APS" and my fingers did the rest.

but why do you think ASPRO-A is the first APS with AESA?

I don't think it was the first ever produced, I just used it as an a example of an AESA based APS in service prior to "Afghanistan" and "Standard". The Soviet Union/Russia have the most practical experience in development of active protection systems, they put them into serial production, and god knows how many were made behind closed doors. Drozd was fielded in the early 80's, and I believe even found use in Afghanistan. Don't think for a second that I'm trying to diminish Russia's achievements in this field.

After all, the variants of Arena, that have been shown to the public, most probably have, what can be called, a super-AESA, with sparse-arrays.

AFAIK ARENA uses a phased array, although not necessarily AESA.

I have a question to ask, if the Armata chassis BMPT has a weapons configuration of a 120mm gun mortar, a 40mm Balkan grenade launcher, and a Gsh-23-6...is the gatling gun going to maneuver in different directions independent of where the the main gun is pointing, or is it going to point in the same direction? If the latter is true, wouldn't the 120mm gun mortar and the Gsh-23-6 compliment each other better if they were attached to each other like the 100mm-30mm combo for the BMP-3, the recoil from the Gsh-23-6 could be off set and be stabilized by the 120mm gun mortar barrel.

maybe its because the gun/mortar has different ballistics than the gatling. Also I have never seen coax gatlings before, prolly maintenance issues.

If they are mmw AESAs then range might not be that great, but they could be used to detect air threats first and foremost, but also small arms fire and artillery and the sources of the same by processing the trajectory of the projectiles detected.

Detecting incoming threats for the APS is another likely use and might be able to trigger ERA as well as interception rockets and munitions to reduce the effectiveness of incoming threats.

Target detection and terrain mapping would be useful features too.

.is the gatling gun going to maneuver in different directions independent of where the the main gun is pointing, or is it going to point in the same direction?

I would assume the same direction, but with independent elevation.

the recoil from the Gsh-23-6 could be off set and be stabilized by the 120mm gun mortar barrel.

They had serious problems with the early BMP-3s because the off centre 100mm guns recoil tended to crack the turret ring.

I would think the gatling will likely be used in very short bursts of maybe 5-30 rounds at most and would be used to deliver a cluster of small HE shells to a target. Of course long bursts would be possible and might make sense against some targets, but I suspect recoil should not be too much of an issue.

A gatling obviously has to spin to fire to attaching it to the gun mortar might not be a good idea... in its mounting under the Mig-27 the muzzle of the GSh-30-6 is 7 metres from the nose tip of the aircraft, but it is fitted with flash suppressing muzzle attachments.

It fires a much more powerful round but the GSh-23-6 has some serious muzzle flash too, which I doubt would be good for the Gun/Mortars barrel.

Maybe an Armata model? (see left model with elevated gun)

It's the BMPT model.

mack8 wrote:Maybe an Armata model? (see left model with elevated gun)

Kind of look like a Self-Propelled Howitzer.

It's the BMPT model.

Or more accurately it is perhaps A BMPT model, rather than THE one.

The high elevation is needed because the purpose of the BMPT is to engage targets the limited elevation main gun of a MBT can't elevate to hit,

The narrow profile is to reduce the chances of a hit from the front as it will be used on the front line like a MBT.

I would expect a MBT to have a low profile turret too.

Guys i meant this. To me the chassis looks like Armata, remember the model shown last year? Imo either it's Armata, or perhaps an Armata based support vehicle.

The gun of the model looks a bit too long and narrow to be gun/mortar for a BMPT