magnumcromagnon wrote:If people are wondering what a glimpse of a 57mm gun system may look like than just take a look at the Thales RAPIDFire air defence system:
The main difference is that instead of 40mm shells were talking about 57mm shells with literally 4 times the performance of the former, 40mm shells having 4km range where the 57mm shell will have a range of 16km, a much heavier warhead and room for much more advanced electronics. Probably the same amount of variety of shells, 57mm shells will probably both have airburst and guided flight programmed within many of the same shells. Pure missile systems have vastly superior air target engagement, but ground target engagement is non-existent, so gun systems still exist in navy's and ground forces because they can both engage air and ground targets due to their greater flexibility (hence the reason why Pantsir has both systems). Shells are significantly cheaper than missiles, and I can see a Typhoon-K truck with a 57mm gun system, with 100-200 shells, and if telescopic ammo is created than the Typhoon truck will probably carry significantly more. It'll literally be the perfect system to counter drone swarming tactics.
Interesting complex. Russia already make something similar with their PT-76 modernization with new turret with modified 57mm gun S-60. They could easily replace FCS with proper one and place it in proper vehicle and they have similar complex.
magnumcromagnon wrote:If people are wondering what a glimpse of a 57mm gun system may look like than just take a look at the Thales RAPIDFire air defence system:
The main difference is that instead of 40mm shells were talking about 57mm shells with literally 4 times the performance of the former, 40mm shells having 4km range where the 57mm shell will have a range of 16km, a much heavier warhead and room for much more advanced electronics. Probably the same amount of variety of shells, 57mm shells will probably both have airburst and guided flight programmed within many of the same shells. Pure missile systems have vastly superior air target engagement, but ground target engagement is non-existent, so gun systems still exist in navy's and ground forces because they can both engage air and ground targets due to their greater flexibility (hence the reason why Pantsir has both systems). Shells are significantly cheaper than missiles, and I can see a Typhoon-K truck with a 57mm gun system, with 100-200 shells, and if telescopic ammo is created than the Typhoon truck will probably carry significantly more. It'll literally be the perfect system to counter drone swarming tactics.
Interesting complex. Russia already make something similar with their PT-76 modernization with new turret with modified 57mm gun S-60. They could easily replace FCS with proper one and place it in proper vehicle and they have similar complex.
Yes I know exactly what you're talking about, apparently the system your referring to holds nearly 100 shells in it's turret ring alone, 92 to be exact, and we're not even talking about telescopic ammo here:
...I can see them upgrading to have 100 shells to fit in a turret ring for a Typhoon-K truck, the pictures from above show a system with restricted ammo space due to troop carrying capacity, which leaves it only capable of carrying 92 shells at the moment. The Typhoon-K system should have rather more space for shells especially if the troop carrying capacity of the compartment space is altered for shell carrying capacity instead:
...Some may wonder why particularly the Typhoon-K truck outside of it's great all-weather, all-terrain maneuverability (typical high standard of all Kamaz trucks) and not some other mobile platform? Well because apparently according to Rostec's very own website that the Typhoon-K truck mobile platform system's are being tested for future SHORAD IAD systems:
http://rostec.ru/news/4191
...What I find most fascinating is that even though the 57mm shell is quite big, despite that they were still capable of carrying nearly 100 shells in the turret ring alone, with the troop carrying compartment converted in to an ammo carrying compartment you could possibly hold an additional 500-1000 shells with a total of 600-1100 shells, with telescopic ammo the number could be quite possibly be as high as 1500-2000+ shells in total. An internal automatic loading mechanism should be required, possibly with two modes of ammo loading system operation: 1) a continuous shell loading mode that connects the turret ring with the rest of the shells in the truck, 2) an occasional turret ring loading mode, where the rest of the ammo compartment is closed off in case of fire, and the turret ring is loaded after depletion, with a 30 second pause in between firing. The 57mm gun system could quite possibly come with it's own radar targeting but it would also make the cheap system unnecessarily more expensive, and it would leave less space for ammo. A much more preferable approach would be to have a simple and cheap jam-resistant EO tracking system with laser guidance and the passenger seat in the front could be converted to be used for tracking targets and firing, and the system could get target tracking information from command posts within SAM batteries (S-400's, S-350's, Buk's, Tor, Pantsir, Morfey included) where the 57mm SHORAD listens quietly. Another version of the 57mm SHORAD system could have a "2nd" additional gun with an additional loading system to allow the complex to fire "2" different kinds of shells at the same time. If all is said and done than you'll have a very cost effective SHORAD system capable of engaging and countering aerial "swarm tactics" as well as light to medium armored ground targets quite efficiently!
Gun itself could have only EO ball and FCS, that they could use it against ground targets and in self defense. But battery could use 1 search radar and 1 battery MMW tracking radar to slave all guns in battery and to be used as C-RAM like Mantis. As C-RAM, they will work stationary, but on the move every gun could work independently through network and with battery CP target delivery. With C-RAM capabilities, they could be very effective against small diameter bombs from stealth planes like F-35, which will fly outside the range of guns.
Remember the Armata MBT will be modular in nature and it'll probably have multiple load outs. The 125mm gun will be for enemy tanks while the 57mm gun would be for everything else, in a low intensity conflict fighting an asymmetrical insurgency the Armata BMPT will pick up most of the slack while Armata MBT will still play a role. Future conflicts may see cheap suicide mini-helicopter drones being employed by insurgents with shaped charges strapped to the bottom of them for the purpose of landing on top of armor and blowing up, and most likely will be employed in swarms, so future MBT's will likely have to evolve to have some kind of limited AA capability. A secondary 57mm gun with telescopic ammo, ANIET proximity fuzes, and guided shells will be an adequate answer for asymmetrical suicide mini-drones.
The 57mm rounds will significantly affect the 125mm round count compared to smaller weapons. This is a major problem.
2 things that should be said:
1.) It would not significantly affect 125mm shell capacity, as I stated before you could easily have 100-200 57mm rounds with room to spare as I showed that the proposed PT-76 modernization had a 57mm turret, and it's turret ring held nearly 100 shells with a lot of room left to spare for troop capacity, new modern compact telescopic ammo will leave even more room.
2.) What about the export market? The reality is not every country can afford or even want the whole tank and tank support package, not every country will buy Armata BMPT's with their Armata T-99's, so having the modularity to add a coaxial 57mm cannon that can be taken for certain missions and at the tank servicing base it can be detached and left behind for other missions which will make the Armata T-99 that much more enticing on the export market. Don't get the wrong idea, I'm not calling for it to be the prerequisite standard, just an option when it's wanted and needed. Modularity in the arms market is leading the wave of the future.
Remember the Armata MBT will be modular in nature and it'll probably have multiple load outs. The 125mm gun will be for enemy tanks while the 57mm gun would be for everything else, in a low intensity conflict fighting an asymmetrical insurgency the Armata BMPT will pick up most of the slack while Armata MBT will still play a role. Future conflicts may see cheap suicide mini-helicopter drones being employed by insurgents with shaped charges strapped to the bottom of them for the purpose of landing on top of armor and blowing up, and most likely will be employed in swarms, so future MBT's will likely have to evolve to have some kind of limited AA capability. A secondary 57mm gun with telescopic ammo, ANIET proximity fuzes, and guided shells will be an adequate answer for asymmetrical suicide mini-drones.
The 57mm rounds will significantly affect the 125mm round count compared to smaller weapons. This is a major problem.
2 things that should be said:
1.) It would not significantly affect 125mm shell capacity, as I stated before you could easily have 100-200 57mm rounds with room to spare as I showed that the proposed PT-76 modernization had a 57mm turret, and it's turret ring held nearly 100 shells with a lot of room left to spare for troop capacity, new modern compact telescopic ammo will leave even more room.
2.) What about the export market? The reality is not every country can afford or even want the whole tank and tank support package, not every country will buy Armata BMPT's with their Armata T-99's, so having the modularity to add a coaxial 57mm cannon that can be taken for certain missions and at the tank servicing base it can be detached and left behind for other missions which will make the Armata T-99 that much more enticing on the export market. Don't get the wrong idea, I'm not calling for it to be the prerequisite standard, just an option when it's wanted and needed. Modularity in the arms market is leading the wave of the future.
You have to keep in mind, on Armata all (40?) rounds need to be sitting in the autoloader's magazine. It's not a T-72, the autoloader's magazine will need to be twice as big, and the turret will likely be lower profile with all ammo stored below the turret ring. We're talking about a really cramped space.
Yes, Armata MBT needs an autoloader for all its ammo because there will likely be no direct crew access... that means instead of an underfloor 22 round magazine it will likely need a double layer system that will therefore likely carry 44 rounds, plus at least 3,000 7.62 x 54mm rounds for the coaxial PKT MG.
On the plus side there is no need for crew places as this tank wont have a manual mode.
There wont likely be any ammo storage above the turret ring.
1.) It would not significantly affect 125mm shell capacity, as I stated before you could easily have 100-200 57mm rounds with room to spare as I showed that the proposed PT-76 modernization had a 57mm turret, and it's turret ring held nearly 100 shells with a lot of room left to spare for troop capacity, new modern compact telescopic ammo will leave even more room.
AFAIK the PT-76 upgrade of the A-220 turret involved the replacement of the 76.2mm gun with a 57mm gun. The 100 round capacity included ammo in the turret ring plus also ammo stored in the hull from what I remember. This would not be possible with the Armata.
besides it does not address the point that fitting a high velocity 57mm gun on a vehicle with a high velocity 125mm gun is redundant. Fitting a 30mm cannon and a 100mm rifled medium pressure gun make sense as you have a flat shooting cannon and a medium pressure gun capable of direct and indirect fire, plus a high rate of fire autocannon and a low rate of fire gun with a heavy HE shell.
the best weapon to compliment a 125mm cannon would probably be an 82mm automatic mortar or 30mm or 23mm cannon.
The simple fact of the matter is that the MBT will never operate alone and the IFVs it operates will have 57mm guns anyway.
Zivo wrote: You have to keep in mind, on Armata all (40?) rounds need to be sitting in the autoloader's magazine. It's not a T-72, the autoloader's magazine will need to be twice as big, and the turret will likely be lower profile with all ammo stored below the turret ring. We're talking about a really cramped space.
I hope the gun mount sits really high on the turret so that only a small part of the gun breach enters the hull when the gun is fully depressed. That way there wont be wasted space in the center when a vertical AL is used. Also a redesigned shorter HE shell would be nice.
I hope the gun mount sits really high on the turret so that only a small part of the gun breach enters the hull when the gun is fully depressed.
The gun will be mounted above the turret ring... when the gun is pointed down (ie depressed) the gun breach goes up, not down.
With the gun mounted forward on its recoil mechanism it should be able to elevate without too much of the breach going below the turret ring during recoil... the biggest issue will be how the autoloader works and what happens to it as the gun recoils back.
So, comrades! I can tell you good news! First full prototype of Armata MBT is ready!!! All systems including active defence system, unmanned combat module, ect, are fully functional. There are still no AESA blocks (they will be on the second prototype only), with that the upper hemisphere of the tank will be defended by the active defence system. Also the decision of modernizing Armata into 2-men combat vehicle is made!! That's because of survival tests showed 3-men crew is quite vulnerable in case of side armour hits. And the decision of increasing the main gun calibre too! They're waiting Putin to come till the end of the month - official presentation or photo "leaks" will be possible after that. If Putin will be satisfied it will be produced up to 16 prorotypes till the end of the year, so 100% guarantee of Armata will be shown on the next parade! It is possible to end all state testings till the end of the year! That's all, I've told enough for 10 years in a custody without the right of sending letters home )))
He also implies the unmanned combat module is very well designed, and situation around Ukraine somehow pushed the work forward really fast (seems like the MoD was made to invest money in domestic military industry without delays). Seems true, as my company is one of the contractors in "Boomerang" theme, and one or two months ago the work on that subject was set to the main priority
heh, if i were putin i would commission them to create an advanced one-man only version as my presidential vehicle. and i think its the "gunner role" that would be fully automated. once the TC finds a target he will put a lock on it, assign rounds and screen the battlefield for further targets. There would be a pop up window in his screen showing the effect on target as the autogunner hammers away. there is a manual point and shoot mode ofc, and i think maybe even remote piloting options.
AESA?2-men combat vehicle?152mm gun? dear lord, too good to be true. Of course I hope all of these will happen, but it really looks like a dream. BTW, thanks you Asf very much for proper translation, I did read this rumour earlier today as well, but those translators(both google and yandex)totally confused me.
xeno wrote:AESA?2-men combat vehicle?152mm gun? dear lord, too good to be true. Of course I hope all of these will happen, but it really looks like a dream. BTW, thanks you Asf very much for proper translation, I did read this rumour earlier today as well, but those translators(both google and yandex)totally confused me.
That is because it is. The initial version will be 3 man, and 125mm gun. They are talking about modernizing the gun and reducing crew @ the end of the decade (2018 according to the poster). Lots of time between then and now- but at the very least it does seem to be the direction the mil is interested in.
As for the specifics of that "rumor"...well, it is a matter of some debate on Russian forums.
Last edited by TR1 on Wed Jul 02, 2014 12:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
The first full completed Armata prototype is now finished. They say, that all 16 Armatas ordered from Russian MoD will be produced till year end and first 5 are already in production.
Russia will sell T-99 tanks like hotcakes. to India and China.. I can't wait to see it in action and full color pictures from all sides.. .. i only hope it doesn't look like the ugly German Leopard.. and is more closer to the T90 in look..
The major feature i think the tank needs aside of improved armor and gun.. is control remote capability.. That the tank could be send to a Urban zone ,with lots of buildings from where terrorist can hide and the tank could continue regardless of receiving 10-15 attacks with Javelins or Kornets-E missiles. Also will be nice if the tank could receive images from an unmanned drone spy too flying above him,so it can have a full top view of the tank and the enemy movements.
Russia will sell T-99 tanks like hotcakes. to India and China.. I can't wait to see it in action and full color pictures from all sides.. .. i only hope it doesn't look like the ugly German Leopard.. and is more closer to the T90 in look..
The major feature i think the tank needs aside of improved armor and gun.. is control remote capability.. That the tank could be send to a Urban zone ,with lots of buildings from where terrorist can hide and the tank could continue regardless of receiving 10-15 attacks with Javelins or Kornets-E missiles. Also will be nice if the tank could receive images from an unmanned drone spy too flying above him,so it can have a full top view of the tank and the enemy movements.
I would really whish, russia would not sell any new technology to anyone.
Russia will sell T-99 tanks like hotcakes. to India and China.. I can't wait to see it in action and full color pictures from all sides.. .. i only hope it doesn't look like the ugly German Leopard.. and is more closer to the T90 in look..
The major feature i think the tank needs aside of improved armor and gun.. is control remote capability.. That the tank could be send to a Urban zone ,with lots of buildings from where terrorist can hide and the tank could continue regardless of receiving 10-15 attacks with Javelins or Kornets-E missiles. Also will be nice if the tank could receive images from an unmanned drone spy too flying above him,so it can have a full top view of the tank and the enemy movements.
I would really whish, russia would not sell any new technology to anyone.
Just like all previous generations of MBT's, Armata will eventually reach the export market, a downgraded version at least. I don't think Armata should be rushed to the market though, the T-90MS in my opinion is significantly more marketable to the usual customers, as is the BMPT-72. The T-90MS can give any MBT out there a run for its money. Given the current status of the MBT in the western hemisphere, I don't see the situation changing anytime soon.
Armata offers more than the T-90MS, there's no way around it. However, it's a Russian tank, built for Russia's needs first and foremost. It's designed to operate as part of a larger system consisting of various Armata's serving multiple missions. The Armata family is the vehicle's strength, and without its family, it's just a really expensive tank. You wont benefit unless you have a few thousand of them, and the countries who can actually afford that, produce their own domestic MBT's.
I really think ,the T-72 ,still have a lot of future ,against anti terrorist groups. You dont need a super gun for killing soft targets or destroying terrorist reinforced buildings. In Syria war for example the T-72M export they use have been very effective according to a tank commanders interviewed. they told that generally the times a soldier was killed inside a T-72m with reactive armor are few times and that vast majority of times the tank can sustain several attacks before being damaged and that is usually they repaired withing hours or half a day. and that only mines give them problems and repairing tracks takes more times ,like days. But the overall ,the T-72 they are very happy with it.. What is important to remember is that the Syrian army have been fighting more than 100,000 armed Jihadist and lots of them armed with rocket grenades ,some others even have more powerful AT weapons ,like Kornets-e ,RPg-29 ,but also american BGM-71 TOW and French Milan missiles.
So in my opinion for training on mud , and for anti terrorism Urban operations , Russia should building the T-72 and only improve its armor and tweak its defenses for Urban operations. The price and performance and easy to use and repair is unmatched. A T-72B with improved armor and Kontakt-1 and improved anti mine defenses and in decent numbers should be more than enough for any anti-terrorist operation and combine them with small number of T-90am and leave the T-99 for special times ,when dealing with a powerful foreign army.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 23 9b3a8c6bcb254f4281628c0fd076dd68](https://2img.net/h/i57.fastpic.ru/big/2013/1029/68/9b3a8c6bcb254f4281628c0fd076dd68.jpg)
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 23 8fcdf6288d27144585ef787a7b67a345](https://2img.net/h/i57.fastpic.ru/big/2013/1029/45/8fcdf6288d27144585ef787a7b67a345.jpg)
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 23 29april14-10-L](https://2img.net/h/77rus.smugmug.com/Military/April-29th-rehearsal-2014/i-RHMcVPw/0/L/29april14-10-L.jpg)
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 23 Big_thumb_3a7dd8188867572d191bedcf8db4d41d](https://2img.net/h/www.wallpaperup.com/uploads/wallpapers/2014/04/18/336801/big_thumb_3a7dd8188867572d191bedcf8db4d41d.jpg)
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 23 Big_thumb_29363327ca442a0eba92740e03329a0b](https://2img.net/h/www.wallpaperup.com/uploads/wallpapers/2014/04/18/336800/big_thumb_29363327ca442a0eba92740e03329a0b.jpg)
.. i only hope it doesn't look like the ugly German Leopard.. and is more closer to the T90 in look..