[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

GarryB wrote:So not much new in the contracts... UVZ will build Armata and Kurganets will build Kurganets...

No real shocks there....

You mean Kurganmash will build kurganets...

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:Not very accurate.

What do you expect from a render like that... I'd say that most of them so far have been way off, but I cannot really say that until we see it in person. - So make it look like a T-90-relative with a pushed-back turret, other look like a simple squarish turret on the middle of the hull, and the rest make it look like either this thing or a Black Eagle. - All I care about is its size and height, the lower the better as showed so wonderfully by Russian tanks for decades now.

You mean Kurganmash will build kurganets...

yes, that is what I meant...

Will the entire russian army tank doctrine have to be tailored to the armata MBTs characteristics, i.e. degraded is not required, which would entail immediate retreat if a loading or weapon malfunction is experienced, and prohibition of deep assault operations due to the chance the tank would be beyond the range of repair depots.

degraded is not required, which would entail immediate retreat if a loading or weapon malfunction is experienced, and prohibition of deep assault operations due to the chance the tank would be beyond the range of repair depots.

Hahahaha... do you think a manual gear box is a huge step backwards because it is more complicated and "mechanical" and requires more maintainence?

The Armata will be able to clear dud rounds and solve simple loading problems itself.. any tank can be disabled by shooting off a track... it is not as if tanks are super things that can withstand anything and keep moving forward.

An enemy shell through the turret could damage the loading mechanism... the same thing in a western tank could kill all the crew in the turret and still stop the loading mechanism.

Hahahaha... do you think a manual gear box is a huge step backwards because it is more complicated and "mechanical" and requires more maintainence?

Yes. Manual transmission is completely superior for military use. Better fuel efficiency on rough terrain, more reliability, more simplicity. Automatic is for for expensive cars driven by lazy brats.

The Armata will be able to clear dud rounds and solve simple loading problems itself.. any tank can be disabled by shooting off a track... it is not as if tanks are super things that can withstand anything and keep moving forward.

An enemy shell through the turret could damage the loading mechanism... the same thing in a western tank could kill all the crew in the turret and still stop the loading mechanism.

What if turret motor stops during battle? What if the autoloader  engine breaks? What if the automatic fire suppression system breaks in a zone that is inaccessible by the crew? What if all cameras are broken by HE blasts?

These are a few of the things that could happen to an unmanned turret tank that would make it useless to the crew without further accessibility and degraded mode.[/quote]

What if turret motor stops during battle? What if the autoloader  engine breaks? What if the automatic fire suppression system breaks in a zone that is inaccessible by the crew? What if all cameras are broken by HE blasts?

we should go back to the spear phalanx

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

Hahahaha... do you think a manual gear box is a huge step backwards because it is more complicated and "mechanical" and requires more maintainence?

Yes. Manual transmission is completely superior for military use. Better fuel efficiency on rough terrain, more reliability, more simplicity. Automatic is for for expensive cars driven by lazy brats.

The Armata will be able to clear dud rounds and solve simple loading problems itself.. any tank can be disabled by shooting off a track... it is not as if tanks are super things that can withstand anything and keep moving forward.

An enemy shell through the turret could damage the loading mechanism... the same thing in a western tank could kill all the crew in the turret and still stop the loading mechanism.

What if turret motor stops during battle? What if the autoloader  engine breaks? What if the automatic fire suppression system breaks in a zone that is inaccessible by the crew? What if all cameras are broken by HE blasts?

These are a few of the things that could happen to an unmanned turret tank that would make it useless to the crew without further accessibility and degraded mode.

You could say the same crap about any modern tank... That being said, manual's in tanks are still a good option and are (as you said) more reliable, which is always a priority. 

The "auto-loader engine" won't break, it is a simple electric motor (they basically can't break unless they are a cheap servo).

What if turret motor stops during battle?

The same thing that happens to a tank with a manned turret when something goes wrong... they try to fix it themselves, and if they can't they withdraw and get the problem fixed and then return to battle.

What if the autoloader engine breaks?

What if an M1 Abrams hits a bump while the loader is loading a round and he breaks his wrist?

What if all cameras are broken by HE blasts?

What if the enemy insurgents throw wet paint at all the optics and viewing ports on an Abrams?

For the armata they might have a direct datalink with an overhead UAV and still see better the terrain around and any enemy positions than an Abrams.

hese are a few of the things that could happen to an unmanned turret tank that would make it useless to the crew without further accessibility and degraded mode.

But with a manned turret the three men in an Abrams can fix everything that goes wrong and will continue fighting?

Bullshit.

If a tank is no longer able to fight the crew will bail and a recovery unit will take it back for repairs if possible or burn it to prevent it falling in the hands of the enemy.

If it can move it will return on its own power.

That being said, manual's in tanks are still a good option and are (as you said) more reliable, which is always a priority.

Really? I had a manual gear car from the 1970s and it was rubbish... endless problems with the gearbox and several had to be replaced. In the Late 1980s I bought an automatic and have had the car since then... never had any problems with the car.

Manual means bad driver can ride the clutch and do all sorts of bad things.

It is pretty clear you have never driven a heavy vehicle... double declutching in a heavy vehicle is actually hard work... automatic transmission is not a luxury and protects the mechanism from idiot conscripts.

Thanks to GurKhan

Great read about Armata

TANK REVOLUTION

Viktor wrote:Great read about Armata  

TANK REVOLUTION

It's popular to make renderings of the tank with a turret that is not much smaller than current manned ones. I think
this is wrong and the model shown to Rogozin with the very low profile turret is the most accurate. One of the key
advantages of an unmanned turret is that you can eliminate all of the empty space needed for a crew and reduce the
height of the tank, which makes it harder to hit. The autoloader assembly is below the turret level anyway just like in
all of Russia's current tanks, so just the cannon and the optics have to stick out.

That is an old article...

I think the low turret model (ie 1968 model) is the best representative of the likely MBT Armata... as seen in this image:



The MBT turret on the tracked model just before the truck... 5 models from the left of the picture.

GarryB wrote:That is an old article...

I think the low turret model (ie 1968 model) is the best representative of the likely MBT Armata... as seen in this image:



The MBT turret on the tracked model just before the truck... 5 models from the left of the picture.

You mean on the Kurganets model? So is it safe to say that Armata and Kurganets platform MBT's will share the same 125 mm turret module or will they go about the same method as the Sprut-B? BTW I hope one of the requirements for the new vehicle platforms is built in hydraulics systems that allows them to increase and decrease elevation (like some of the current vehicles being produced) to allow more flexibly when  loading said vehicles in to tactical and strategic airlift planes.

Also on the Kurganets and Armata tracked vehicle platforms I hope they both have the ability to lower elevation to decrease their size as a target as well as to lower the armored side skirts for superior protection of their tracks wheels (specifically in high density high threat area urban environments), as well as the ability to widen the tracked platforms vehicle chassis base to maintain high cross-country mobility when heavier weapon and armor modules are applied.

The capability to widen the base chassis at a push of button will allow more flexibility when it comes to potential vehicle weight increases by decreasing ground pressure and increasing surface tension to ground surfaces similar to how some insects (such as water striders) are capable of walking on water because of their wide leg stances that helps maintain surface tension on water surfaces by distributing weight over a wider surface area.

They have said they are developing electronic sensor suites and weapon suites for the vehicle families and that they will be pretty standardised.... suggesting that where possible the guns and other weapons and systems will be standardised through the vehicle families.

The crew positions.... controls and displays will be the same for all vehicles and all vehicle positions. You will be able to drive, shoot, and command the vehicle from any crew position in the vehicle.

When operating the tank model the systems and equipment and sensors will be standardised as far as possible... it doesn't matter whether you are in a 55 ton tracked heavy tank or in a 15 ton 6 wheeled light tank you want to see the target at max range so optics will be the same and other sensors will be the same... the gun might need to be different and the expected targets will likely be different... the Typhoon gun might be a high velocity 57mm gun and it might just be used as light gun support for very mobile light forces where the only tanks likely to be met on the battlefield would be T-55 generation vehicles... of course other vehicles in the unit might have Kornet-EM and top attack gun launched missiles might be included in the 120mm gun mortar equipped support vehicles used instead of 152mm artillery vehicles.

The turret we have seen showing external Kornets in twin launchers and a 30mm cannon could be standard for both APC and IFV, though in heavier vehicle families the IFV might have the 30mm cannon replaced by a 57mm gun to destroy enemy IFVs.

BTW I hope one of the requirements for the new vehicle platforms is built in hydraulics systems that allows them to increase and decrease elevation (like some of the current vehicles being produced) to allow more flexibly when loading said vehicles in to tactical and strategic airlift planes.

I agree, but think the gun mounting itself should allow a wide range of gun elevation too and being able to raise and lower the vehicles suspension seems useful anyway.

So is it safe to say that Armata and Kurganets platform MBT's will share the same 125 mm turret module or will they go about the same method as the Sprut-B?

Designing the MBT turret that way would minimise its frontal area making it hard to spot... especially in a hull down position... which would be as relevant to the Typhoon and Boomerang as much as to the Armata and Kurganets...

I think the turrets will be fully standardised where possible.

Also on the Kurganets and Armata tracked vehicle platforms I hope they both have the ability to lower elevation to decrease their size as a target as well as to lower the armored side skirts...

Agree here too.

I suspect with the description of the engine for Armata... it is supposed to start as a 1,400hp engine but be upgradable to 2,500hp in the future suggests future growth capacity to allow for weight increases and future energy demands.

The capability to widen the base chassis at a push of button will allow more flexibility when it comes to potential vehicle weight increases by decreasing ground pressure and increasing surface tension to ground surfaces similar to how some insects (such as water striders) are capable of walking on water because of their wide leg stances that helps maintain surface tension on water surfaces by distributing weight over a wider surface area.

Interesting idea... but I think just making the chassis wider wont change the ground pressure.

Fitting wider tracks would do that... but I don't know how you could make that a push button process.

Personally I think having extra wide tracks available that can be fitted when the snow or the mud get deep could be an option, though side applique armour would need to be designed to allow for that...

GarryB wrote:The MBT turret on the tracked model just before the truck... 5 models from the left of the picture.

Yep, I agree.

I think it's almost certain on how the Armata turret looks.

There's some info on the Armata on the http://topwar.ru/ site, suggesting that there will be 5 examples in the 2015 parade (4 + 1 spare vehicle). Reportedly 16 prototypes have been built so far and firing tests have been conducted, resulting in some modifications to the Fire-Control system. The tank weighs 51 tons.

The first Armata battalion is expected to enter service in early 2016

The presumed turret still looks like some uselss gizmo crap general dynamics land systems pulled from the depths of its rectum to dupe buyers with.

Looks like (well, rumored) the MBT variant will be weighing initially @ around 53 tons, with around 1500 hp engine. That is pretty good, leaves lots of weight for growth, and that HP figure should bring a good engine resource life.

The turret wont have the appearance like the Kurganets model. I guarantee there will be conformal storage bins, to both store equipment and act as mounts for Armata's numerous sensors and APS. These bins will give the production model turret a conventional appearance.

However, the armor layout will likely be similar to what is shown on the Kurganets model.

It is hard to say... certainly the low tiny turret in the models would be ideal from a Russian design perspectives, but also the turret of the T-95 was also unmanned and was huge.

As a hunter killer the small turret would be ideal so perhaps only the lighter smaller tanks (MBTs/gun platforms) will have the low angled turret.

The model with the 120mm rifled main gun/mortar and the 40mm grenade launcher and 23mm gatling gun that we assumed was a BMPT model also had a very small profile from the front due to the angles and shape of the turret.

Of course if they don't go for the 40mm Balkan automatic grenade launcher they could go for the larger 57mm grenade launcher, which would be interesting.

The 40mm Balkan seems to be a very very compact design that could take up as little space in a turret mount as a 30 cal PKM MG... though he ammo would be larger and bulkier it would also be rather more effective and have a much greater effective range (2.5km).

The new Russian tank "Armata" will see the battlefield at 360 degrees




The Deputy General Director Vyacheslav UVZ Halitov.

"There is an integral index - ratio of military-technical level. For this indicator, the unit we take the T-72B. According to him outside the military-technical level of "Almaty was" grows almost four times, "- said in a radio interview V.Halitov" Russian news service ", which cites Interfax-AVN 

He said that based on the platform created by the "Armata" tank - tank is the fifth generation. 

"According to its characteristics it will exceed 25-30% all existing analogues tanks in the world," - said the deputy director UVZ.


He said that the development work on the development of "Almaty was" at the stage of preliminary tests. 

"Confirms all the characteristics that we have laid," - said V.Halitov.


According to him, the new tank will be used unconventional layout scheme, provided vserakursny protection provided high survival of the crew and the vitality of the entire machine.


"We separated ammunition, fuel and people," - said the deputy director.
He noted that in modern tank ammunition, fuel and crew "are practically next." "In this project, the question is removed" - added V.Halitov.


V.Halitov also said that the tank on the platform "Armata" will refer to the medium tanks, and not heavy class. The crew of the new tank will be a panoramic view of the area.


"We want to see nearly 360 degree field of battle," - said V.Halitov. 

In addition, he said, raises "performance information" in relation to the search target, destruction, fire damage inspection results.


Answering the question, what is the caliber of the new tank gun, V.Halitov said: "We are considering various calibers." 

He explained that in the layout of the new tank based on the principle of modular construction, it touches firepower, the protective properties of the tank, its powerplant. In particular, developers provide propulsion, as the bow of the tank, and at the stern.


On the basis of universal armored bay will also create a heavy infantry fighting vehicle repair and car radar, as well as other martial providing bronesredstva.
"Uralvagonzavod" is preparing a pilot batch of tanks advanced on the basis of universal armored bay "Armata" to participate in the parade in honor of the Victory Day May 9, 2015 on Red Square.


"Decision of the Ministry of Defense are two ceremonial" box ". While the numbers are not fully defined. Rather, it will be six to eight units in the "box". Approximately the number of cars we will release in experimental batch "- said V.Halitov.

.Halitov also said that the tank on the platform "Armata" will refer to the medium tanks, and not heavy class

I dosen't understand that. T-72 and T-80 are actually 'medium' tanks in MoD's classification. Does it mean Armata will be less than 50 tonns? Nobody seems to knw that a mass classification really mean now. May be it's more about tank's main tactical role other than namely it's weight

Asf wrote:

.Halitov also said that the tank on the platform "Armata" will refer to the medium tanks, and not heavy class

I dosen't understand that. T-72 and T-80 are actually 'medium' tanks in MoD's classification. Does it mean Armata will be less than 50 tonns? Nobody seems to knw that a mass classification really mean now. May be it's more about tank's main tactical role other than namely it's weight

maybe he wanted to say that there will be also a medium tank edition of Armata

Russian army to get first consignment of Armata tanks in 2015 — official