[Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

TR1 wrote:Logistical savings still apply if the entire military is transferred to three basic platforms. Brigades don't operate in bubbles outside the larger logistical chain.

No they won't - because you have to look at each brigades' individual logistical footprint, spare parts pool, need for variety of trained mechanics and drivers across all its platforms, etc... if a brigade is on a single-vehicle base than all these things will be a lot smaller and more simpler than it is now.
If it's not then ultimately it won't be much different than a motor-rifle or armour brigade as they exist today.

Armata vehicles let's say, may individually be more expensive than Kurganets, Bumerang vehicles, etc... however the extra expense will be compensated in terms of decreased operational expenses (when comparing a pure Kurganets and pure Armata brigade, to two mixed Kurganets/Armata brigades) and simplification of maintance/repair/training.

Mixing Armatas, Kurganets, maybe some Typhoons, etc... would defeat the point. It would be the exact same situation as a BTR-80/BTR-82 based motor-rifle brigade today, with T-72B3 tanks, a kaleidescope of MT-LB vehicles for various roles, GAZ Tigrs and Ivecos here and there, etc...
All you would have accomplished is replacing those vehicles with newer more modern ones; but the logistical complications would still stay much as they did before.

Placing a SHORAD on a heavy, expensive Armata chassis will not gain some magical logistical savings that are worth it- if once again the armed forces as a whole have transferred to the 3 new unified chassis as a whole.

Yes it would. A SHORAD vehicle has a short-range and is as much a part of the combat formation as any tank, NBC vehicle, recon vehicle, APC, mortar-carrier, etc.. it would be right up there in the front-lines, and in fact its cannons or missiles could well be used against ground targets too.

Best for me to reverse the arguement and ask - what would be the advantage of placing a SHORAD on a Kurganets-chassis; in the middle of a formation otherwise full of Armata vehicles?

Armata brigades will have reco vehicles, they will have liaison vehicles....you guys seriously think they will all be on the Armata chassis? Please.

I have read some texts on defense sites that explicitly mention Armata recon vehicles (e.g. http://defencyclopedia.com/2014/06/06/armata-the-ultimate-next-generation-main-battle-tank/); albeit of course it might just be author's assumptions.

To be honest I think they might go with small teletanks and robots for the recon role, and have Armata vehicles as the control vehicles housing operators and their equipment.
Because indeed a big, heavy, armoured tank with no amphibious capabilities, unreliability compared to wheeled vehicles - that everyone will hear coming from a mile away might not neccesserily be the best choice for a recon vehicle.

However I agree that there will be certain vehicles part of an Armata formation that won't be Armata vehicles but instead truck or 4x4 based - but they will be non-combat vehicles not designed to withstand enemy action or be near the front-lines; exactly such things as liason vehicles for quick transport of personnel/commanding officers between parts of the brigade, supply trucks carrying ammo/medical supplies/food/etc..., mobile cranes, mobile gyms & recreational vehicles, electric-cable and signal-cable laying vehicles, mobile field kitchens, mobile repair workshops, Brigade HQ C4 vehicles, etc...

If you make a "certain vehicles" exception in general, why not for other specialist vehicles (if logistics is the driver)?

akd wrote:If you make a "certain vehicles" exception in general, why not for other specialist vehicles (if logistics is the driver)?

In an Armata brigade I'd imagine the only other vehicles you would have are trucks and perhaps some jeeps/4x4 light transports.

So you'd be left with a choice between putting your SHORAD on a truck, or on an Armata chassis.

Given that the SHORAD is very much a front-line combat element that could reasonably be expected to take enemy fire, and would also have to move together with the rest of the formation rather than some way behind like the infastructure/logistics non-combat vehicles - it would make more sense to fit the SHORAD onto an Armata-chassis.

TR1 wrote:No, I am implying the concept of an entire Armata based brigade is bullshit and will never appear.

You can quote me on that.

Logistical savings still apply if the entire military is transferred to three basic platforms. Brigades don't operate in bubbles outside the larger logistical chain.

Placing a SHORAD on a heavy, expensive Armata chassis will not gain some magical logistical savings that are worth it- if once again the armed forces as a whole have transferred to the 3 new unified chassis as a whole.

Armata brigades will have reco vehicles, they will have liaison vehicles....you guys seriously think they will all be on the Armata chassis? Please.

Agree, there is also a benefit in using a few different vehicles as they are good for different tasks, they compliment each other. Using similiar engines, elctronics and weapons is much worth in maintenence, but the whole vehicles is not crucial.

There was speculation earlier about Armata's glacis.

Here's a theory from posters at Otvaga2004...







It could have a modular beak like the T-15.

That is actually the case for some other tanks like Merkawa uses also modular upper chassis armor and from the advertizment pictures of the Armata chassis it looks bulkier and has no falling glacis lower than the side skirt at the front, so it could be likely the case and i hope so.

An absolutely new main battle tank is certainly not something most of the world’s exiting armies can boast about. The German Leopard-2 tank was developed 35 years ago, just like the American M1 Abrams.The existing versions of the western tanks feature many improvements, but the basic characteristics do not differ much from the original,” the magazine said.

Uhhh, what a self defeating argument. Constantly calling T-90 just a T-72 not better than it which they "devestated in iraq" while calling their own tanks like something 21st century gods chariots undefeatable and now finally they say the same about theirs.

The original German article may be this

http://www.stern.de/auto/news/kampfpanzer-armata-t-14-putins-neue-wunderwaffe-2184103.html

@Werewolf, can you translate it for us

higurashihougi wrote:The original German article may be this

http://www.stern.de/auto/news/kampfpanzer-armata-t-14-putins-neue-wunderwaffe-2184103.html

@Werewolf, can you translate it for us

Using Google translate, one of the first things that popped up is the whole bit of "The T-14 is the first real military innovation since the breakup of the USSR", I stopped reading the article after that. Clearly if the author believes that than he/she's and imbecile. There's plenty military systems that are vastly superior to 'Legacy' Soviet systems, but I don't have time do a explanation any justice. Maybe GarryB could flesh that out?

Well, it is one of the first new totally clean-slate designs, that much is true.

PAK-FA is clean slate as well.

higurashihougi wrote:The original German article may be this

http://www.stern.de/auto/news/kampfpanzer-armata-t-14-putins-neue-wunderwaffe-2184103.html

@Werewolf, can you translate it for us

Here is an article about the article that was catched by RT media in spanish....

http://actualidad.rt.com/actualidad/170784-video-nuevo-tanque-ruso-armata-rival

Basically the article.. apparently the Stern report says.. Armata have nothing that could
match it on the world. from its features.. it mention..

- 125mm gun in an unmanned turret and with a crew that is on a armored capsule . (old news this)

-high resolution cameras on the turret and digital operation the whole tank.

- The tank will a radar with 100km range that will be able to track automatically up to 40 projectiles or aerodynamic targets.. (artillery shells ,antitank missiles or low flying planes ?)

-The active defenses of armata can intercept any incoming missile or projectile at up to
1,700 m/s.. that is match 5.0.

So basically if the last one is correct.. and as good as they claim.. it should be able to intercept
any Rocket artillery ,anti-tank missiles like Javeline or Spikek or Kornet. and or perhaps Sabot tank rounds too.. if it can change the alignment ,even by few inches of any projectile it will make to completely enter in the wrong angle ,failing to either penetrate the tank and or even hit the tank after all. that will be indeed interesting to see.. if they pulled such thing.. It seems
as if armata MBT will be a hybrid between a tank and a mini-pantisir air defense.

100km radar range is too much- you need a dedicated vehicle to house and power such system with that kind of capability.

APS capable of intercepting APFSDS is old news, but it would be real interesting how tank gun and ammo designers tackle this new countermeasure.

50 km would be enough. Thinking that a helicopter would fire from max 10 km the armata would have about 10,3 seconds to prepare for incoming missile. That is enough. Thinking that the helo would be observed from 50 (lest say 30 km) is enough to prepare. Mean aquisition of trajectory from is supposed the missile to come, and arming the weapons. I think at something: if a countermeasure deviate far away from course the missile for it it will be hard to correct the path in time. Armata i saw has some stealth caracteristics which makes hard for a helo to see until reach the visible light range.

Any good estimates for weight ?

I think Armata would hit 55-60 ton range.

Stealthflanker wrote:Any good estimates for weight ?

I think Armata would hit 55-60 ton range.

52t, the turret is small and weights a few tons less than T-90 turret but the hull is longer and wider, should not exceed 56t combat loaded.

Werewolf wrote:

Stealthflanker wrote:Any good estimates for weight ?

I think Armata would hit 55-60 ton range.

52t, the turret is small and weights a few tons less than T-90 turret but the hull is longer and wider, should not exceed 56t combat loaded.

Pretty much. With the exception of Coalition, all the variants will fall into the 50-55 ton range.

I still get a laugh when people who first heard about Armata a few weeks back are saying it's as big as an M1A2 and that Russia's "copying western design". The only vehicle whose weight I'm worried about is Kurganets.

Zivo wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

Stealthflanker wrote:Any good estimates for weight ?

I think Armata would hit 55-60 ton range.

52t, the turret is small and weights a few tons less than T-90 turret but the hull is longer and wider, should not exceed 56t combat loaded.

Pretty much. With the exception of Coalition, all the variants will fall into the 50-55 ton range.

I still get a laugh when people who first heard about Armata a few weeks back are saying it's as big as an M1A2 and that Russia's "copying western design". The only vehicle whose weight I'm worried about is Kurganets.

Oh yes the imbecile named 'UnionJackass' on MP.net, you got to love how he thinks the T-14 Armata is a 'Westernized' Russian tank, but of course he doesn't think Western tanks adopting autoloaders, GLATGM's, APS, PPS, composite armors, ERA as being 'Easternized' or 'Russofied' lol!

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Zivo wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

Stealthflanker wrote:Any good estimates for weight ?

I think Armata would hit 55-60 ton range.

52t, the turret is small and weights a few tons less than T-90 turret but the hull is longer and wider, should not exceed 56t combat loaded.

Pretty much. With the exception of Coalition, all the variants will fall into the 50-55 ton range.

I still get a laugh when people who first heard about Armata a few weeks back are saying it's as big as an M1A2 and that Russia's "copying western design". The only vehicle whose weight I'm worried about is Kurganets.

Oh yes the imbecile named 'UnionJackass' on MP.net, you got to love how he thinks the T-14 Armata is a 'Westernized' Russian tank, but of course he doesn't think Western tanks adopting autoloaders, GLATGM's, APS, PPS, composite armors, ERA as being 'Easternized' or 'Russofied' lol!

Trust me, he's not the only one. Just be sure to rub it in peoples face when the west inevitably copies Armata.  

Perhaps someone can answer this. Like Obj. 195, Armata's engine has twin turbos, each fed through separate exhaust. As such, there's going to be a dual exhaust system on the right and left side of the hull like China's Type-99 MBT. How will this effect the thermal signature?

collegeboy16 wrote:100km radar range is too much- you need a dedicated vehicle to house and power such system with that kind of capability.

APS capable of intercepting APFSDS is old news, but it would be real interesting how tank gun and ammo designers tackle this new countermeasure.

What we know for certain is that the radar will likely be at least 10 km range (like Obj. 195), however with the proper amount of power it could certainly be higher. The 100 km range is likely speculation, they probably heard it's a off-shoot of the  PAK-FA X-band AESA, and took a wild guess of it's capabilities...if it did have a 100 km range than MOD would certainly 'NOT' advertise it.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

collegeboy16 wrote:100km radar range is too much- you need a dedicated vehicle to house and power such system with that kind of capability.

APS capable of intercepting APFSDS is old news, but it would be real interesting how tank gun and ammo designers tackle this new countermeasure.

What we know for certain is that the radar will likely be at least 10 km range (like Obj. 195), however with the proper amount of power it could certainly be higher. The 100 km range is likely speculation, they probably heard it's a off-shoot of the  PAK-FA X-band AESA, and took a wild guess of it's capabilities...if it did have a 100 km range than MOD would certainly 'NOT' advertise it.

It of course has not 100km range, that would be not possible to achieve for such small devices but also would be like a beacon for any HARM missile, yelling "shoot me".

Werewolf wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

collegeboy16 wrote:100km radar range is too much- you need a dedicated vehicle to house and power such system with that kind of capability.

APS capable of intercepting APFSDS is old news, but it would be real interesting how tank gun and ammo designers tackle this new countermeasure.

What we know for certain is that the radar will likely be at least 10 km range (like Obj. 195), however with the proper amount of power it could certainly be higher. The 100 km range is likely speculation, they probably heard it's a off-shoot of the  PAK-FA X-band AESA, and took a wild guess of it's capabilities...if it did have a 100 km range than MOD would certainly 'NOT' advertise it.

It of course has not 100km range, that would be not possible to achieve for such small devices but also would be like a beacon for any HARM missile, yelling "shoot me".

Armata could achieve a 100km range vision easily.. if for example every armata is equipped with a small helicopter drone that carry radars and becomes the eyes of the arma on the battle field.. and its only mission is to stay a little behind of the tank and track down ,what is around the tank and in front of it..

If the drone is controlled by an optical antenna that only is guided by lazer from below and from an specific lazer signal..(or even simpler physically connected by a wire connection) it cannot be hacked. And the counter electronics hardware that Russia have can protect the drone from anti radiation missiles or remote guided ones.

So a combination of Armata + integrated drone designed for armata + counter electronics jamming vehicle following behind.. can essentially create a shield to the armata tank from projectiles and missiles ,and also made difficult for any missile to hit the tank or the drone..
Radio operated missiles like Javelines some versions and spike will be vulnerable to counter electronics and be blinded its communication and tv camera. and missiles guided by lazer could still be intercepted by Armata active defenses. So it can't get better than that.

The tank will be even protected against saturation attacks ,against radio controlled missiles or anti tank weapons. Ironically the most simple weapons ,like rocket grenades Rp-7  those cannt be jammed ,it doesn't depends on technology for guidance.. still they are useless to counter a modern tank like arma to bypass its active defenses and or its reactive armor in most parts.

For me it will be no less interesting the control remote capabilities of armata.. that could be priceless in an urban warfare.. you for example could station an armata tank in a check point ,
and control it , from a short distance its turret ,its guns and its chain guns.. so you can be all day defending check point from a safe location underground ..near the tank.. and the tank will
be without crew ,and terrorist not aware of whether there are people inside or if their rocket attack was successful until the tank fire with precision at them back.

You could for example could send the tank without a crew ,(with small modifications to the tank)towards a zone with many terrorist hidden in elevated buildings and the tank clean the entire place without exposing anyone life. So i really see a lot of potential in armata control remote capabilities. it will be like a Tank drone.. but on a full scale.. i think that is the future.

lol @ you guys talking about these Armata radars.

You are all going to be very disappointed indeed when you see what he actual radar sight looks like, if it is even adopted.

TR1 wrote:lol @ you guys talking about these Armata radars.

You are all going to be very disappointed indeed when you see what he actual radar sight looks like, if it is even adopted.

Obviously you didn't read ,what i posted..

Armata could receive information from radars outside the tank and fire it guns using that info..
The Radars do not need to be physically in the tank for armata take advantage Radar data. It
only needs a powerful network receiver antenna. that obtain information from outside.

Yeah and when will this capability be tested?

20 years from now? Stick to reality not fanciful capabilities please.

The kind of capability you described makes sense for artillery.