[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

Are they here yet? bounce Are they here yet? bounce Are they here yet? bounce ...
September seems to be slow in coming, or is it just me? pale I hope they show everything esp. the MBT. I really hate c**kteasers like the T-95 pics.

Have some patience, we'll probably get some leaked photos of Armata before fall, and Kurganets-25 should be revealed in a few months.

Is it 100% certain that the armata's designers made it to have more than 1000mm protection against APFDS ? I wonder if the new M829A4 shell might be able to theoreticaly pierce the armatas frontal armor.

Well the m829A4 doesn't exist yet, and I doubt they will even be able to get much more performance vs the A3, the rounds can only be so long, and the poor loader can only lift so much . I have a strong feeling the A3 will continue to be used for a long time. Not everything has to be a silver bullet, sometimes it just has to be "good enough". The M1A3 will get a new gun, so that will keep the current rounds relevant. There also has been talk of a barrel launched-steep diving ATGM for the 120mm gun.

Regarding Armata, the front will be thick and sloped, I wish we had more details. Since the turret is only armored to withstand autocannon fire, heavier armor can be applied to the hull. The newest APS "Afganistan" and "standard" are said to be able to destabilize or outright defeat APFSDS rounds. This will add another layer of protection. A DIRCM turret could be applied to the roof of Armata to counter steep diving projectiles, this technology is already in service.

Armata is going to be a massive hurdle for NATO to overcome.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Is it 100% certain that the armata's designers made it to have more than 1000mm protection against APFDS ? I wonder if the new M829A4 shell might be able to theoreticaly pierce the armatas frontal armor.

It will protect against all contemporary and near future rounds.
If it did not, it would not be accepted.

Dumbing it down to 1000mm penetration is reaaaaly simplifying things.
The thickness might not be that much more than T-90A main array- but with advances in armor + ERA equivalent thickness can be massive, plus penetration performance can be broken down significantly.

Zivo where did u get idea that turret will only be protected from autocannon?

From frontal arc, even if turret is smallish in size, it will have protection equivilent to hull.
Tanks are expected to keep fighting after receiving multiple hits.

Zivo where did u get idea that turret will only be protected from autocannon?

From frontal arc, even if turret is smallish in size, it will have protection equivilent to hull.
Tanks are expected to keep fighting after receiving multiple hits.

Repeated multiple times in multiple military forums on the topic, it's educated speculation like practically all things related to Armata. I would be happy to hear more details about the armor layout if you have a good source.

From the frontal arc the only party of the turret that would be sticking above the frontal armor that would actually disable Armata would be the mantlet, but that vulnerability is there in all contemporary MBT's. Look at the BMPT model and the Kurganets-25 mobile gun system model, the real armor is just a plate on the turret ring. The Armata MBT will be the same, there's just no reason to do it any other way.

September seems to be slow in coming, or is it just me? pale I hope they show everything esp. the MBT. I really hate c**kteasers like the T-95 pics.

The speed with which they seem to be expecting to go from prototype to operational service is most likely largely because this new tank design is mostly already developed as the T-95. There will be changes of course to fix what we can assume were design flaws of the T-95 which reportedly passed its tests but was cancelled as being a cold war relic. The fundamentals would be the same... ie unmanned turrets with external gun, new sensors etc etc and all that but the new stuff is the vehicle family... which was already worked on with the E200 model of the T-90 which was used for the BMPT and would also likely be used eventually for the BTRT and MSTA etc etc for commonality.

The armata just takes it all a step further to add every other vehicle in the heavy brigade.

Is it 100% certain that the armata's designers made it to have more than 1000mm protection against APFDS ? I wonder if the new M829A4 shell might be able to theoreticaly pierce the armatas frontal armor.

I doubt they will suddenly rely on one protection technology now, so it would be pretty hard to quantify frontal protection as the physical armour itself will just be one aspect... it will likely have a ERA/NERA type outer layer, and will also include an APS that can defeat APFSDS rounds, which might mean that frontal protection against APFSDS is several metres.

Add in soft protection measures that prevent laser range finders from working properly, or special smoke that obscures the tank in visible and IR frequencies and it should be a very well protected tank.

Zivo where did u get idea that turret will only be protected from autocannon?

Probably from me.

The purpose of armour is to protect the crew and prevent fuel and ammo explosions from direct hits. The whole purpose of putting the crew in the hull is to put them under heavy armour. Once you do that there is little reason to then put heavy armour on the turret... just as there is little reason to put heavy armour around the rear mounted engine or the tracks.
If the enemy wants to fire at and try to take out your main gun then that is great... it is not a big target and even if they succeed you can drive to the rear and get it fixed or replaced. If the turret is super armoured then they will have to resort to hitting your tracks or running gear or your engine, which will leave you sitting on the battlefield unable to move... when you run out of ammo someone can simply walk up and place a shaped charge on a roof hatch... or set the engine on fire.

A heavily armoured turret just makes the tank heavier without guaranteeing to protect the gun anyway. The ammo is safe because it is stored below the turret ring... everything above the turret ring should be backed up/duplicated and protected so a penetrating hit will only damage or destroy things it actually passes through.

From frontal arc, even if turret is smallish in size, it will have protection equivilent to hull.
Tanks are expected to keep fighting after receiving multiple hits.

From the front a direct hit by MBT fired HEAT or APFSDS will make a hole about 40-50mm across... and assuming a moving target that 40-50mm hole should be fairly randomly positioned, and with only the main gun in the turret above the turret ring of any real importance (all the electronics and ballistic computing stuff can be in the hull with only sensors and stabilising gear in the turret above the ring) the odds are that nothing of importance will be hit even after several direct hits. The weight of armour needed to stop tank calibre ammo simply can't be justified as there is simply not enough in the turret that would require that weight of protection.

Hense the turret front would be armoured to stop 40mm cannon likely to be fitted to next generation IFVs, but not to stop enemy main battle tank calibre ammo.

The turret of the armata MBT might or might not be small, the point is that everything that is important is protected where possible. If it has a big turret it is probably to fit sensors and APS elements and other bits and pieces that dont need heavy armour protection anyway to do their job.

What he said.

Look at the BMPT model a page back, note the armor thickness on the box the protrudes upwards from the turret "shell" and surrounds the gun, breech, and auto loader. Granted it's not an MBT, but it requires even more 360° protection due to its focus on urban combat and might actually feature better turret armor than the MBT version. The shell itself is probably multi-layered and acts as an armored lid over the magazine. The heaviest armor on the shell would be a horizontal plate that spans the ring, above that is sloped NERA. The NERA would fend off any cannon fire that could damage the gun, electronics, optics, auxiliary weapon ammo, etc, and would act as a precursor shield for high angle RPG's and top-attack munitions.



Terminator also has an armored lid.



195's is rather impressive.

http://gurkhan.blogspot.in/2013/02/blog-post_2.html

In September, the exhibition in Nizhny Tagil ...

According to the results of the development of design documentation, we created a single fighting unit, which is mounted on three platforms: the wheel, srednegusenichnuyu and heavy. The presence of a single unit will greatly facilitate its production, operation and training of the crew - this is a common view and the customer, and the prime contractor. This module is installed a brand new fire control system ensuring automatic combat work with different kind of weapons. Set of weapons in combat potential than all the foreign BMP, including Puma and Bradley. And in Russia, of course, our system will be the best.

What do they mean by the bolded part and Single Unit thing ?

Austin wrote:
What do they mean by the bolded part and Single Unit thing ?

I think its some sort of simulation? The bold part is in line with what GarryB and others have said regarding commonality of electronics and the controls.

It's probably talking about the controls. It has been hinted at before that the controls will be similar across the three platforms.

Armata, Kurganets, and Boomerang will likely use full drive-by-wire systems. So the drivers positions would have the same screen, wheels, and petals, etc, same with gunner, and commander. I would even go as far as saying the whole vehicle could be remotely operated if it needed to.

There's this image from GurKhan that was posted sometime back that I think depicts this.
Any one want to translate the text on the bottom?

So pretty much what he is saying is that in almost all the vehicles there are three crew which will all be stationed in the hull rather than the turrets of all the vehicles... armata, kurganets-25, boomerang-25 and boomerang-10... in the heavy, medium, medium, and light weight classes respectively.

Rather than develop three different families of controls and sensors and weapons (one for heavy, one for medium, and one for light) they have developed one set of controls and displays for all three crew and they have developed weapon and sensor suites... for aircraft the electronic suite of sensors and weapons and electronics is called avionics, but there is currently no similar word for ground vehicles, but that is what they have done... they have created a standard work station with standard displays and controls and systems for each crewman and each vehicle.

This means that a crewman from a light brigade who is trained on a Boomerang-10 MBT will be trained to use his 10 ton vehicle with its thermal sights and other more sophisticated sensors and aim his main gun and hit armoured targets at long range. There are three crew positions in his vehicle, just like there are three crew positions in the Kurganets-25 and Boomerang-25 and the Armata MBTs and he can be driver, gunner, or commander from any of the three positions in each vehicle. In the Boomerang-10 he might have a 57mm main gun with Kornet-EM missiles as a main armament, while the Kurganets-25 and Boomerang-25 and the Armata might all start out with 125mm smoothbores and the Armata MBT might later get a 152mm smoothbore as its primary armament.

Equally the main artillery vehicle will have electronics and sensors and weapons that suit the gun tube artillery role, but the Boomerang-10 might have a 120mm gun/mortar as a primary weapon, and the Boomerang-25 and Kurganets-25 might have the same weapon while the Armata will have a single barrel Koalition 152mm gun firing shells to 70km with GLONASS guidance. The electronics and sensors and equipment will be standard and similar though the weapons might be different in the different weight classes.

The point is that the three different types of vehicles in three different weight classes will have standardised crew positions that are the same across the different platforms.

The main difference will be role... artillery, air defence missile, air defence gun/missile, recon, engineer, MBT, IFV, APC, BMPT, Command/communication transport, NBC, TOS replacement, Rocket artillery, Ambulance, etc etc.

This means one factory can make the crew stations for all the vehicle families because they will all be the same.
Once a crewman is trained to use the crew station they just have to learn the role of the position to move to another vehicle or do another job within his own vehicle... the driver can be trained to command and operate the gun so the crew can operate in shifts during quiet periods.

Note the sensors to give situational awareness means that down in the hull any of the three crew need a 360 degree view of the vehicle from up high like they had their heads sticking out the turret... which of course none of them can do. They can't use actual glass periscopes because the turret is unmanned which means multiple cameras and optics and other sensors all combining a "view" around the vehicle that is transmitted to the work stations of the crew.

Now if you think for a moment that means that the crew in the vehicle don't really need to be in the vehicle so a transmitter with digital controls could be in a van controlling such a vehicle... this has the potential to have teenagers controlling the Russian Army vehicles using an upgraded Tank simulation program like Steel Beasts but using direct video feed and sensor information from an actual vehicle in the field with the operator on a computer perhaps thousands of kms away operating it in near real time.

For mine clearance or IED disposal it means an engineer vehicle with all sorts of robot arms attached to it can be driven up to even the biggest IED... perhaps a wired up 1,500kg aircraft bomb, with the crew 1km away in a van or another armoured vehicle.

Indeed you could have an IFV modified so the rear has extra crew stations to drive mini vehicles armed with RWS and filled with ammo to attack particularly hard enemy positions that are unmanned, while a recon command vehicle could have a variety of land and air unmanned vehicles that can be controlled in extra crew stations inside the recon command vehicle... which could simply be an IFV design with rear troop compartments replaced by workstations and comms equipment.

The BMPT could be an IFV with the rear troop compartment filled with an auto ammo handler to allow more ammo to be carried and used for the medium and light vehicles.

Or it could be a mortar carrier modified to allow a direct fire mode and more direct fire weapons...

There are a range of potential options... it is very exciting...

Very interesting , Armata and the new vehical are indeed platforms that go beyond looking Tank , APC as mere fighting vehical but focses on issues like standardisation ,modularity and the entire philosphy that goes into fighting future wars.

I feel Armata ,boomerang-25 kurganets-25 would usher in revolution in armoured warfare for the Russian Army and present a new concept in fighting vehical for the entire world

Indeed the roles have changed... the tank used to be to deal with enemy tanks and other targets it big gun was effective against.

The IFV was supposed to defend itself from tanks but primarily to offer fire support to the troops it carried and engage the enemy equivalent of itself.

When all the enemies vehicles have tank level armour then all the vehicles that engage such vehicles will need tank level fire power... which pretty much means every vehicle needs a tank main gun or a heavy missile.

But simply changing your IFVs to deal with tank level protected vehicles means they will be massively overarmed if the other guy is operating a medium or light brigade against you... and of course if the Standard or Afghanistan APS's are effective against APFSDS rounds then perhaps even medium weight vehicles might actually be a problem for tank guns...

Definitely a revolution... but how will the cash strapped west deal with it?

When they invented the IFV and the smoothbore main gun they were happy to follow... I suspect they will ridicule it for a while, and then quietly adopt it themselves after they determine it works.

Just some information, regarding the progress or state of "Boomerang", Kurgnets" and "Armata"

"Boomerang", "Kurganets" and "Armata" <--- Intresting picture as well i must say, i MAY note a released artist drawed sketch portraying the "the possible" PAK FA did prove to be resemble the ACTUAL plane extremly well so /it/ may be it, but we dont know.

Fall in Nizhny Tagil show "Boomerang", "Kurganets" and "Armata"

One possible picture new generation tank in a single combat platform "Armata". Source: ammokor.ucoz.ru

In September, the exhibition in Nizhny Tagil JSC "PCU" the Holding "NPO" Highly complex "must submit samples of new weapons systems of armored vehicles.

New development projects to develop advanced weapons systems for armored vehicles were discovered in 2011, which was a continuation of the proposed concept for the CPP re-Russian army. At the end of 2012 PCU with subcontractors completed phase of development of design documentation and is currently working out the next stage - preparation of samples for preliminary testing. These works is given attention by the Department of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation for defense procurement and management of military missions Defense Ministry. This was reported on the website kbptula.ru.

January 23 at the PCU, a meeting on "Current status and future performance of development work on" Boomerang "," Kurganets "and" Armata. "At a meeting attended by representatives of the various organizations that are subcontractors in this area of ​​work, including permanent collaborators PCU. importance of the meeting emphasized the presence of representatives from the Ministry of Defense.

Chief designer of the direction - chief of 12 LM Shvets told about the work: "Russian President Vladimir Putin, said that the exhibition in Nizhny Tagil he would like to see these new machines. We have to work intensively, to produce three new modules. terms of availability demanded strict deadlines subcontractors supply of components. During March and April, they have to put in the appropriate PCU materiel. Combat units must be manufactured, assembled, configured and put fire in the dash in the middle of summer.

According to the results of the development of design documentation, we created a single fighting unit, which is mounted on three platforms: the wheel, srednegusenichnuyu and heavy. The presence of a single unit will greatly facilitate its production, operation and training of the crew - this is a common view and the customer, and the prime contractor. This module is installed a brand new fire control system ensuring automatic combat work with different kind of weapons. Set of weapons in combat potential than all the foreign infantry fighting vehicles, including the "Puma" and "Bradley". And in Russia, of course, our system will be the best.

All subcontractors, present at the meeting were satisfied with the operational and rich work. They thanked KBP that are able to participate in the great and important work, stressing that they consider it an honor to work with a team of CBI."

02/01/2013

To be honest I prefer the pictures of the models shown of the BMPT:



As you can see in this photo the turret is not exactly small, but it is steeply angled providing excellent protection from the front with the crew all in the hull under the front of the turret overhang which would offer them protection from top attack weapons as well as offer storage space for remote weapons like MGs and grenade launchers.

The turret also needs the necessary optics and sensors to offer good all round visibility in a range of wavelengths including radar and EO as well as DIRCM and ECM systems as well as APS and RWS.

Unlike the above drawing I would expect the ERA/NERA to be integrated into the design and likely something like Nakidka used to break up the shape and colour of the vehicle to make it more difficult to see.

Tank on a platform of "Armata" will receive a brand new layout with an uninhabited combat module - CEO "Uralvagonzavod"

MOSCOW, March 12. (ARMS-TASS). Tank based on currently being developed combat platform "Armata" will receive a brand new layout, which has no analogues in the world, in particular, an uninhabited "tower." This was the general director of the Scientific and Production Corporation (NGOs) "Uralvagonzavod" Oleg Sienko.

"It is a new machine, which has a new layout, which no one," - he said on the radio station "Echo of Moscow", adding that the new tank on the basis of "Almaty was" will, in particular, uninhabited combat compartment.

Sienko said that this universal platform can be created about 30 machines for different purposes, it involves a different placement of the engine - both front and back, depending on what type of combat vehicle will be "installed" on this platform - BMP or such as SAM. For the main battle tank (MBT), which will be produced at its base, developing new ammunition and a set of dynamic protection of the new generation. In the "Armata" will be used "a totally different technology on the armor, all cars will increase survivability in the real battle," said Sienko.

CEO NGOs stressed that the importance of the new MBT is also the engine. "It needs only a new engine: a fundamentally different, easy to me, - he said. - Engine, which can be changed in a matter of minutes, which is extremely important in certain conditions." "Of course power also plays a role," - said the head of the corporation, adding that now the tanks came to those performance results that correspond to wheeled vehicles. In "Almaty was" in particular, will be "very different performance results, making this car the pride of Russian tank production, although it can not be called a pure tank," added the CEO.

Sienko said he hoped that by the end of this year, the corporation will be able to complete the main work on the "Armata" will continue to be refined only individual nodes. He informed that "Armata" will not be on display at an international exhibition in Nizhny Tagil in September, not least because it is still secret development.

The platform is developed rapidly, the parameters that you specify "Uralvagonzavod" in the Defense Ministry, he seeks to accomplish, Sienko said. CEO emphasized that "nothing in the world is not done on a universal platform, all platforms are different," and Russia is the only country which today is going to release a new series armored vehicles, and other countries are on the path of modernization.

In the case of MBT based on the platform, "Armata", "Uralvagonzavod" hopes to produce a certain time "tank-dream," joked Sienko.

^^ That is amazing. Russians will be first to create universal platform when Americans and other countries were talking about this concept way before but it didn't see the light. I hope that unmanned turret will be more sophisticated than Falcon turret. I bet it will be.

Regular wrote:^^ That is amazing. Russians will be first to create universal platform when Americans and other countries were talking about this concept way before but it didn't see the light. I hope that unmanned turret will be more sophisticated than Falcon turret. I bet it will be.

It is, with all its fancy sensors, a more powerful 2a82 gun, NERA/ERA, lighter armor, APS that can deal even against APFSDS, and stealthy shaping and materials. Also, ammo vertically stored under the turret ring that is not exposed to enemy fire.

Here is the Fully Interview with Oleg Sienko

Arsenal: Russian Heavy Tank. Existing patterns and perspectives platform "Armata"

Sienko said he hoped that by the end of this year, the corporation will be able to complete the main work on the "Armata" will continue to be refined only individual nodes. He informed that "Armata" WILL NOT be on display at an international exhibition in Nizhny Tagil in September, not least because it is still secret development.

MF

I'm getting tired of waiting.

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2013/03/blog-post_16.html

"Deadlines heavy tank platform "Armata", on the basis of which is planned to create a family of armored vehicles of the future are extended to six months because of problems with the aiming system."


Coincides with this. http://www.armstass.su/?page=article&aid=115983&cid=25

No September showing,

Izvestia.
Unnamed sources.

. . . . . .

TR1 wrote:Izvestia.
Unnamed sources.

. . . . . .

True, however

"Sienko said he hoped that by the end of this year, the corporation will be able to complete the main work on the "Armata" will continue to be refined only individual nodes. He informed that "Armata" will not be on display at an international exhibition in Nizhny Tagil in September, not least because it is still secret development."

From the second link.

Regardless of the reasoning, whether its the FCS or whatever else, Armata has been slightly delayed.

Delays are sometimes expected, but always disappointing. I hope we have an opportunity to see the tank by years end.

TBH I was surprised by the decision to show it @ the exhibition from the start.


Once it is completed photos might leak though like obj. 195.

I would expect they will be in no hurry to reveal the final vehicle any time soon... this vehicle will not enter service trials till 2015, so any early release gives the other side more information for them to use to try and defeat it...

Interview with Oleg Bochkarev on Army related procurement and modernization plan.

Among the others it seem that unified platforms "Armata" is the project, among the three, in the most advanced stage while "Boomerang" is that still suffering the greater degree of delay.


http://periscope2.ru/2013/03/18/7232/