[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

KomissarBojanchev wrote:IMO the Armata would do a lot better with a fire and forget ATGM rather than the aging SACLOS guidance.

Fire and Forget capability is expensive, also has a lot of counters. SACLOS is relatively cheap, mature tech, hard to detect and enables you to fire another round to achieve 2 simultaneous hits(an APFSDS round before the slower ATGM, since the reticle is constantly trained at the target and the target doesn't know a SACLOS ATGM is coming his way.).
But of course Fire and forget would have its uses though in the near future I dont see it replacing SACLOS. only supplementing it.

IMO it would be great if they replace the 7.62 coax with a higher calibre- 12.7 would do. Replacing the 12.7 on top of the CITV with a 30 mm cannon would be even better and would greatly add to the vehicle's firepower(In Turret down position with camouflage nets and all, the driver can "man" the 30 mm cannon while the TC point the Gunner and Driver to targets).

IMO the Armata would do a lot better with a fire and forget ATGM rather than the aging SACLOS guidance.

I would expect that for the 152mm calibre gun model they probably have looked at fire and forget rounds. The shear size of the rounds will make them expensive anyway, so improved range and capability makes sense... especially as there is room for plenty of computer tech.

The best choice for Fire and Forget is a QWIP CCD sensor or IIR, with a back up MMW radar antenna... both would be reasonable low cost eventually, though the reliability in targeting will still be much lower than with a manually targeted weapon like a laser beam riding missile, which is much much cheaper and able to engage a much wider range of target types.

What is the best autoloader arrangement for ArmataMBT? carousel: vertical orientation or horizontal, other design?

For me, if the tank hull is at least ~1.4 m high, then the vertical carousel would be the best. However it wont be simple carousel design, it will have two independently rotating carousel for charge and projectile. The projectile carousel would be placed outside the charge carousel, and it will have 43 cradles(math max) for projectiles that could have 2 stacked for shorter rounds like he-frag and heat(680 mm long). The inner charge carousel should allow the same and have 26 cradle(math max)s , since a charge is like 548 mm long, apfsds charge shorter than 700 mm would be ok to stack 2

IMO it would be best to have a vertical carousal type autoloader when using an unmanned turret.

I do like the bustle autoloader concept, at least for a small supplementary number of rounds that wouldn't result in a catastrophic burn if it were hit. The bustle would house GLATGMs or maybe some APFSDS for a higher fire rate.

Good news.
Russian began to start production of the third generation Thermal Imager Cathrine XP under the license.
http://vologda-portal.ru/novosti/index.php?ID=218880&SECTION_ID=150
After licensed production of Cathrine FC, Russia developed similar domestic product to equip its own tanks, if my memory isn't wrong.
Now with the production of this new generation Cathrine XP Thermal Imager, I can imagine these products will be installed on T-90AM for export (or on T-90S or even T-72B if customers request). Moreover I believe it also means that Russia will develop its own thirt generation Thermal Imager soon (maybe it has been in development)to equip Armata like the Cathrine FC case.

Will both gunner and commander of T-99 Armata have 3rd gen. imagers or will the gunner have 2nd gen while commander have 3rd gen?

Latest unofficial model of Armata.

>>> http://rosinform.ru/photo/osnovnoy-tank-t-14--na-baze-tyazheloy-unifitsirovannoy-platformy-armata/

Man that's ugly.

TR1 wrote:Man that's ugly.

I didn't want to say that outright, but I can't disagree with you. The turret is as ugly as sin, but so was Object 195.

Oddly, the people who made this didn't put a coaxial MG on it.

Oddly, the people who made this didn't put a coaxial MG on it.

Or any APS system, Nakidka, Shtora-3, etc etc...

The top photo in the shed the turret looks to me to be very much like Sprut-SD...

Will just wait till I see the real thing I think.

I liked the model with the alleged gatling gun better. AFVs with these kinds of narrow trruets tend to fail spectacularly in fperformance(abrams CCTB, stryker MGS, expeditionary tank)

and lack of sloping on the side lessens protection while the small turret area provides little space for additional equipment or AA MG ammo.

I liked the model with the alleged gatling gun better.

Different vehicle very different role.

This tank is a long range killer so a small turret means small bit sticking above cover to look for and engage targets at max range.

The BMPT with the gatling gun is a vehicle to support tanks in areas where enemy troops have the advantage like urban areas and forests etc, or they are to be used as convoy vehicles, or even troop support vehicles where a high velocity gun is not much use but a big HE shell is... COIN for instance where a big gun is useful but targets with 800mm+ thick armour are not likely.

AFVs with these kinds of narrow trruets tend to fail spectacularly in fperformance(abrams CCTB, stryker MGS, expeditionary tank)

The turret is unmanned... why isn't the gun turret on the Apache much bigger and fitted with sloped armour to protect it from the sides?

and lack of sloping on the side lessens protection while the small turret area provides little space for additional equipment or AA MG ammo.

Ammo wont be stored above the turret ring so thick sloping armour is just extra weight.

I personally like KBTM's clam shell turret design more than this UAZ Object 195-esque barebones turret. I don't specifically like KBTM's proposal because it "looks nicer", but because of the auxiliary weapon layout.

If the MoD does go with a barebones turret like on the model, don't worry about the appearance. The production version will have conformal bins for the crew's equipment that will smooth the silhouette of the turret.

I rather suspect their MBTs will be strictly gun platforms and a BMPT type vehicle will be used as a firepower vehicle with direct fire 120mm rifled gun/mortar as primary armament with gatling and grenade launcher backup support weapons allowing direct and indirect firepower with plenty of HE power...

As I have mentioned before the ability to fire high, medium, and low velocity projectiles from the gun/mortar main gun makes it very flexible plus the added capability of firing laser guided high trajectory rounds means it has a diving top attack capability with existing ammo.

The only problem is that 120mm ammo is bulky so lighter weapons need to be carried like a 23mm gatling gun, which if fired in short 10-30 round bursts could deliver clusters of shells on target near simultaneously resulting in a shotgun blast of HE shells rather than a stream of grenades as with a grenade launcher.

A 40mm grenade launcher rounds out the weapon options... though I think fitting both the gatling gun and the main 120mm guns with coaxial PKT MGs would be simple and easy and add to the options for the gunner when engaging a range of target types.

The combined ability to use Gran 120mm guided mortar shells and Kitolov-M 122mm guided artillery shells as well as 120mm mortar rounds and 120mm shells makes the main gun very flexible and potent... there are some very powerful 120mm mortar rounds and direct fire means accuracy as well as power which magnifies the effect of the rounds on target.

The interesting thing will be is the BMPT based on the rear engined Armata or the front engined model... the front engined version would allow extra ammo to be carried in the rear hull for rapid reloads using automated ammo handlers and rear ramp doors.

This could be replicated in the medium wheeled and tracked and light wheeled variants which are already rear engined vehicles so some form of palletised ammo storage and handling unit could be developed to allow rapid reloading of all the vehicles weapons... they could design two pallets that are loaded into the rear of the vehicle automatically... the first with a half load that is used to reload the weapons in the turret and then is withdrawn and replaced with a full standard module that is fully loaded that transfers ammo into the turret as it is used.

Different missions might have different loadouts so for instance in the peacekeeping role the onboard in turret ammo supply for main gun ammo might be sufficient so one pallet ammo option might be mostly secondary ammo like 7.62mm and 23mm ammo and 40mm grenade ammo, plus precision guided main gun ammo (120mm or 125mm for tanks) plus perhaps gun launched UAVs for use when needed...

September 2013 reveal has been postponed. Damn it they did it again, first Object 195 and now Armata. We just can't get a break.

>>> http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2013/06/blog-post_2588.html

Damn:x:no:. Well looking on the bright side  at least it won't be shown because of secrecy , not because of development problems or corruption.

are they going to use the new Agat-MDT , or they something in  development  specifically for it ?

They will show Armata, but only to specialists.

Don't worry, there will be leaks.

I thought showing it off was stupid tbh...

See no reason why they should hide Armata pictures CGI etc considering they are quite liberal with Kuragnts-25 and Boomerang etc.

We are not living in cold war era now and see no reason to hide it considering we know that Armata is just a T-95 with 125 mm Gun.

I guess the Russians are always paranoid as ever.

Can we expect the armatas autoloader to give an ROF of at least 10rpm instead of the T-72Bs and T-90s pathetic 6rpm average?

See no reason why they should hide Armata pictures CGI etc considering they are quite liberal with Kuragnts-25 and Boomerang etc.

It is likely that the Kurganets and Boomerang and Typhoon vehicles get into service much quicker than Armata because they are smaller and lighter vehicles that are easier and cheaper to produce.

We are not living in cold war era now and see no reason to hide it considering we know that Armata is just a T-95 with 125 mm Gun.

I guess the Russians are always paranoid as ever.

I remember during the cold war seeing the first pics of the T-72... about 5 years after it entered service...

And they have every reason to be paranoid... Russias friends in the west will be hard at work developing systems to destroy the Armata... why give them an early preview?

Can we expect the armatas autoloader to give an ROF of at least 10rpm instead of the T-72Bs and T-90s pathetic 6rpm average?

Do you think rate of fire has anything to do with how useful a tank is?

Perhaps you mean you hope it has the sensor fusion to be able to find more than 6 targets per minute and generate accurate firing solutions rapidly enough to allow 6 shots at the target per minute or better.

On this very forum we posted video evidence that T-90 will have a ROF AT LEAST as high as manual loaders.

Seriously Baranchev? Ignorance is pathetic.

I've read western tanks have an average ROF(not burst) of at least 8 rpm. Detractors of Russian tanks say that any autoloaders that aren't of the type the Leclerc or M8 AGS use are pointless because they don't give a any ROF advantage over manually loaded tanks.  If the T-90  has the same burst ROF as, say the Leopard 2A6 or Leclerc then that's a big relief.

What is the average tank vs tank engagement time? After about how many shots the loader has fired does the "sustained fire" figure become valid?

I've read on many western military forums  that say that the T-72Bs autoloader's minimal ROF is 4 rpm while the earlier and export models offer 3 rpm. Is this statistic only valid if the autoloader isn't maintained properly?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvQuV77KzqM

Nuff said.