[Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

alexZam wrote:Met some good remark regarding frontal armor "wings" on T-15: it is mounted on hinges and can be pointed up during transportation or on some of those tight narrow streets during urban battles. I can see it might be used as impromptu shield for extra protection for those guys who like to ride on BMP instead of inside of it. That's pretty much 99% of them 

Meh already tested during Burlak turret program, the panels mounted in such a way. It wasn't retained. But who knows. ANd the area protected is likely the engine.

So if the 45mm has been chosen then there will be no 57mm in the Army anyway.

-traditional ERA has become outdated in terms of potential

rendered obsolete with NERA...

-instead they will use 'electro, plasma polymers, graphene" <--------anyone with a background should comment here.

Don't confuse as one thing... electric armour uses very very high voltage differentials between inner and outer armour so when a penetrator comes in through the outer plate and touches the inner plate an enormous voltage would obliterate the penetrator... more effective against a HEAT warhead as in its plasma state would act like a metal no matter what its composition.

Plasma polymers would be super plastic armour... which would be rather strong and light and easy to fix.

Graphene is immensely strong and would make a good armour material in conjunction with other materials.

-APS will be very advanced, multi-shot, with automatic reloading.

Interesting that it is autoloading...

-Electrical transmission

Interesting... using a step motor instead of gearing you effectively have infinite gear options... makes a diferential redundant too.

-Claims crew in the next 5-6 years will be cut down to 2- FOR SURE.

they have been talking about this for a while, though it might have a crew of 3 but the third person is resting, so 8 hour shifts staggered so one is resting and two are operational to allow 24/7 operation. With auto tracking the role of the gunner could be largely automated...

Previously the commander directed the driver and the gunner with his position in the top of the tank with the best view. In these new vehicles all three crew will get the advantage of the virtual view of the battlefield so the driver can make more decisions and find his own best route from place to place.

from otvaga:

GarryB wrote:

-traditional  ERA has become outdated in terms of potential

rendered obsolete with NERA...

Not true, the general principle of NERA is as old as that of ERA (~early to late 60s for both of them). Sandwiching rubber between armoured steel plates has been in use since the T-64 first rolled out. Also, I am pretty sure that T-80 had a similar NERA arrangement from the very start. Sandwiching rubber b/w steel creates an outward motion of rubber when a cumulative jet first penetrates a steel plate into the rubber underneath. This counter "jet" effectively disrupts the cumulative one, decreasing its potential penetrating power.

Anyway, ERA is never going to be obsolete until someone successfully demonstrates a pure NERA that is capable of stopping 125 mm tungsten/du APFSDS rounds travelling at 1.5 km/s. Until that day, I am afraid Kontakt-5/Relikt/Nozh ERAs are the only proven ERA designs to achieve such. The general problem with NERA is that although it has better multi-hit capability, is cheaper, less dangerous due to lack of highly explosive elements, and less bulky, it always has lesser effective stopping power versus chemical warheads than ERA of the same weight. Also, the potential of pure NERA against kinetic penetrators is, politely speaking, underwhelming. Counter moving armour plates that induce yaw and/or shear the kinetic penetrator (Kontakt-5), or shearing the kinetic penetrator via cumulative "knives" (Nozh) is much more effective than whatever NERA can offer.

However, I am pretty sure that an effective combination of ERA/NERA which is more effective than either on its own does exist.

Acheron wrote:

GarryB wrote:

-traditional  ERA has become outdated in terms of potential

rendered obsolete with NERA...

Not true, the general principle of NERA is as old as that of ERA (~early to late 60s for both of them). Sandwiching rubber between armoured steel plates has been in use since the T-64 first rolled out. Also, I am pretty sure that T-80 had a similar NERA arrangement from the very start. Sandwiching rubber b/w steel creates an outward motion of rubber when a cumulative jet first penetrates a steel plate into the rubber underneath. This counter "jet" effectively disrupts the cumulative one, decreasing its potential penetrating power.

Anyway, ERA is never going to be obsolete until someone successfully demonstrates a pure NERA that is capable of stopping 125 mm tungsten/du APFSDS rounds travelling at 1.5 km/s. Until that day, I am afraid Kontakt-5/Relikt/Nozh ERAs are the only proven ERA designs to achieve such. The general problem with NERA is that although it has better multi-hit capability, is cheaper, less dangerous due to lack of highly explosive elements, and less bulky, it always has lesser effective stopping power versus chemical warheads than ERA of the same weight. Also, the potential of pure NERA against kinetic penetrators is, politely speaking, underwhelming. Counter moving armour plates that induce yaw and/or shear the kinetic penetrator (Kontakt-5), or shearing the kinetic penetrator via cumulative "knives" (Nozh) is much more effective than whatever NERA can offer.

However, I am pretty sure that an effective combination of ERA/NERA which is more effective than either on its own does exist.

Exactly, untill someone renders ERA ineffective with Rail guns so the explosion from ERA can not be faster than the projectile untill then ERA is the only type of armor that is the most effecient, yes even more effecient than the main armor (Side and top). What we will see is NERA used as standoff detonator armor before the main armor and ERA tiles mounted on NERA, since there is a big problem for main armor, it may be thick enough to withstand most capable AT weapons but the weapons will still perforate the main armor and it will be expensive to repair that, so it is much more effecient to just mount a new ERA tile on it instead of shipping entire tank back for repairs.

ERA right now is the king against any AT weapons, low weight, slim and the highest effeciency against CE and KE.

Seems like they finally equipped the turret with ERA/NERA tiles. I already hoped that the turret shape would be similiar to the Obyekt 640 Black Eagle and advertized turret shape of Armata. Looks good.

I just really hope it gets Red Eyes Shtora like T-90A, not that it is that great for todays weapons but still has its use and certainly terryfing looks.

Nice

"Armata" received equipment for network-centric warfare

MOSCOW, April 27. / TASS /. Specialists Joint instrument-making corporation (DIC, is a "Rostec") equipped with the latest Russian armored vehicles, including tanks on the platform "Armata" software and hardware complex for conducting network-centric warfare.

He said that the new equipment were also infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers on the basis of "Kurganets-25" armored personnel carrier "Boomerang" and the armored car "Typhoon".

Software and hardware complex development concern "Constellation" makes fighting machine part of a network structure, which integrate drones, electronic warfare equipment, reconnaissance, targeting, fire damage. "Modern methods of data visualization, and a high level of automation greatly simplifies the process of decision making in combat conditions. The transfer target coordinates of the means of destruction takes less than a minute after the detection of the enemy," - said the representative of the defense industry

Interesting - Janes claims 57mm guns on Kurganets where taken off until parade day.

The latter would fit with IHS Jane's understanding that there will be two principal Kurganets IFV configurations: one with a 30 mm cannon and one with a 57 mm cannon. Although covered, the apparent profile of the second Kurganets turret appears similar to that of the UralVagonZavod AU-220M turret displayed recently at IDEX in Abu Dhabi - minus its 57 mm cannon.

The Russian Ground Forces' new Kurganets-25 infantry fighting vehicle seen during rehearsals for the 9 May Victory Day Parade in Moscow. The vehicle pictured appears to be in a command configuration, or in a 57 mm turreted version - without its main gun attached. (Russian Ministry of Defence)

New Russian heavy armour breaks cover

Viktor wrote:Interesting - Janes claims 57mm guns on Kurganets where taken off until parade day.

The latter would fit with IHS Jane's understanding that there will be two principal Kurganets IFV configurations: one with a 30 mm cannon and one with a 57 mm cannon. Although covered, the apparent profile of the second Kurganets turret appears similar to that of the UralVagonZavod AU-220M turret displayed recently at IDEX in Abu Dhabi - minus its 57 mm cannon.

The Russian Ground Forces' new Kurganets-25 infantry fighting vehicle seen during rehearsals for the 9 May Victory Day Parade in Moscow. The vehicle pictured appears to be in a command configuration, or in a 57 mm turreted version - without its main gun attached. (Russian Ministry of Defence)

What? Not likely. APC version with 12,7 mg turret and IFV with "Epoha light". 57 turret in Abu Dhabi was just a model.

T-14 and T-15 in the back


T-15

After looking at a lot of the T-14 photos it looks like turret will resemble the M1 Abram but smaller. Especially form the front.

^^^ Possibly. But there are a lot humorous speculation that Russians are just teasing us, performing such a slow erotic softcore-p**n/striptease. A glimpse here, a hint there. Besides, a lot of guys still sure there is a wooden "masquerading" frame around the turret that gives it such "edgy stealthy" look similar to Abrams. Some guys even insisting that there is a APS or additional armor panels mounted on hinges (like 'wings' on T-15) around T-14's turret and currently it's just pointed up for a sake of a joke. It's kinda make sense a bit, because turret is unmanned and there is no need for all that extra volume space, so all volume of it most is likely thick protection plates. There are rumors that tarp will only be removed a day or two before mayday parade. If Russian MoD was fooling us and enjoying reading our silly comments - this we will find out soon enough.

Meanwhile there are some more night time pix (available in bigger resolution on visualrian.ru)

Nice

The representative of the military-industrial complex: Tank "Armata" to 2020 will not be exported

MOSCOW, April 27 - RIA Novosti. The latest Russian armored vehicles on the platforms "Armata", "Kurganets" and "Boomerang" in the next five years, the export will not work, said deputy chairman of the board of the Military-Industrial Commission (MIC) Oleg Bochkarev.

BMP "Kurganets-25" will go into production in the years 2019-2020

"Defense Ministry have signed state contracts with our vendors. The first part of the pilot batch" Kurgan "will be presented at this year's May 9 Victory Day parade in Moscow, and then contracted these machines the next three years. That is, from 2016 to 100 units" Kurgan "go to different regions for testing, testing, and then after processing mass production will begin in 2019-2020 years", - he said on the radio station "Echo of Moscow".

Weight of the machine design project "Kurganets-25" does not exceed 25 tons

The maximum number of paratroopers - eight people in full gear.

Armor "Armata" experience in the Arctic, heat and swamps

The first batch of equipment "Armata" appears in the parade, and will continue to be "a fairly good number of vehicles close to a hundred."

Our all-time favorite Vitaly Kuzmin posted additional pix of T-15 backside, he explained that those shots are not that "artistic" to post, but due to massive amount of requests and questions he decided to posted them. An hour or less ago. Seems like MoD is running a smart and successful PR campaign...

size is huge. Sorry it does not allow me to resize with (800px, 600 px), I'm too new I guess - no links allowed for me yet.. well, open in the new window. sorry. Can mods add (640px,480px) bb-code tag to my post plz?

Nice ... when the production starts - "they" will be ready

Defense Ministry has ordered the development of new guns for armored vehicles

"Today, it is the military a new task, and the industry started manufacturing some other martial offices, there will be a different caliber from the main armament, but the crew compartment we begin to experience approximately four years - this upgrade, various options, and single base" - Bochkarev said Monday on the radio station "Echo of Moscow".

Deputy chairman of the military-industrial complex: with the transportation of tanks "Armata" no problems

He explained that the task allow easy transport was one of the main engineers. Bochkarev noted that even the side protecting units allow to carry new tanks without inconvenience.

Viktor wrote:Nice  

"Armata" received equipment for network-centric warfare

Same report (more or less) in English from RT

Network-centric: Russia’s new Armata tank ‘to absorb all battlefield intel’
http://rt.com/news/253445-armata-tank-network-warfare/

Russian soldiers historically like ridding outside (since Aghan's 80's). From that I heard of, there are more chances of surviving in case of those sideroad TNT or similar 'big boom' under tracks. Plus, troops will be able to imidiatelly to return fire to those "freedom fighters" in ambush. Being inside squally cause more contiguous and wasting time for troops to get out. So ridding on top is risking a bullet for a few, but the rest the soldiers are able to engage enemy right away. More chances of surviving and protect yourself, although a bigger risk. That's how I see it.

Sitting on top of vehicles is common practise when the perceived threat of combat is low, but the main risk comes from land mines... sitting on top gives better chance of spotting an ambush and also your ability to jump off and return fire immediately is much better.

So the crew capsule and likely over-all vehicle dimensions (and armor area/weight) would become over-sized even before it enters full-rate production?
Alternatively, perhaps they have in mind another role for a 3rd crew member to cover, e.g. organic UAV controller?

UAV controller is a possiblity, but having two crew operating the vehicle while one crewman rests and an 8 hour rotation would keep the vehicle fully operational 24/7.

A further crewman back at base would give you the four crewmen you would need to service the tank properly... like replace a track, but in combat you would just abandon a vehicle that loses a track and let the engineers drag it back to base... no way would you replace a track under fire.

Three types (or 3 channel ??) detection/vision system

Thermal, Digital optics, and likely MMW radar. the digital optics would be best for identification, but would be effected by dust, smoke, rain, and snow... and of course night.

Previously expected the tank to be equipped with a radar, but has since been rejected- according to Sergey Maiev

which begs the question what would be used instead of MMW? Perhaps remote optical from UAV is counted as a channel? Or perhaps Lidar? the latter would make sense as it could also detect enemy optics of Javelin or sniper scopes etc etc.

Of course another "channel" would be audio to listen for shots and detect their direction...

Smoothbore gun caliber 125 mm can be used as a launcher for guided missiles, in addition, twin 12 mm gun and 57 mm automatic grenade launcher.

A belt fed 57mm weapon would be very useful... it is like the 100mm gun of the BMP-3 in that it has a very small shell case because it is a low velocity weapon that relies on shell power for performance which makes it much more compact but still very powerful...

the original box feed with 3-5 rounds would be of little use in an unmanned turret...

In the "Armata" you can change the location of the engine from the front to the back, add and remove the necessary arms and equipment. There are about 30 variants of transformation.

Makes sense as each brigade will have at least 30 different vehicles from APC and MBT though engineer and air defence and artillery vehicles etc ambulance, mine clearance, ATGM carrier, TOS and other vehicles.

Which suggests there will also be about thirty different variants of Kurganets and Boomerang too.

So if the 45mm has been chosen then there will be no 57mm in the Army anyway.

Hahaha... to correct myself... if the IFVs are going to be fitted with high velocity anti armour 45mm guns then they wont adopt also the high velocity 57mm gun. It appears however that they are adopting the very different 57mm grenade launcher... its shells will likely be considerably more powerful than the 30mm or 40mm grenade alternatives.

A bit like a lighter Vasilek.

Not true, the general principle of NERA is as old as that of ERA (~early to late 60s for both of them). Sandwiching rubber between armoured steel plates has been in use since the T-64 first rolled out. Also, I am pretty sure that T-80 had a similar NERA arrangement from the very start. Sandwiching rubber b/w steel creates an outward motion of rubber when a cumulative jet first penetrates a steel plate into the rubber underneath. This counter "jet" effectively disrupts the cumulative one, decreasing its potential penetrating power.

perhaps I should clarify... ERA is not an option on light vehicles, and rubber between sheets of steel has never been as effective as ERA except against 1st gen ERA against APFSDS rounds... which it wasn't.

to clarify that.... what I mean is that two sheets of metal with rubber between them (NERA) was more effective against APFSDS rounds when early model ERA did not stop APFSDS rounds. now that new ERA does, it is more effective than NERA... but they have improved NERA.

Of course new ERA plates dont explode so if you have standoff plates on the side of the vehicle you could include ERA on the outer surface so they can be replaced easily and in the middle use NERA, and then on the inside have ERA again... then a gap of up to half a metre to the tracks and hull of the vehicle. If the outer ERA is set off but not the NERA and inner ERA then just replace the outer ERA tiles. If a deeper penetration occurs swap the entire armour skirt with a fresh one and have the damaged components on the skirt replaced... fully modular. Also as ERA and NERA further develop you can insert new versions.

The new NERA is as effective as new ERA with the bonus that there is zero chance of sympathetic detonation of adjacent tiles and it can be used on light vehicles too... in that sense it supersedes ERA by offering the same performance without the disadvantages... and I can assure you it does not consist of two sheets of steel with rubber in the middle.

Anyway, ERA is never going to be obsolete until someone successfully demonstrates a pure NERA that is capable of stopping 125 mm tungsten/du APFSDS rounds travelling at 1.5 km/s. Until that day, I am afraid Kontakt-5/Relikt/Nozh ERAs are the only proven ERA designs to achieve such.

Why? none of those ERAs can do the job of stopping such a projectile without tank level armour behind it...

The general problem with NERA is that although it has better multi-hit capability, is cheaper, less dangerous due to lack of highly explosive elements, and less bulky, it always has lesser effective stopping power versus chemical warheads than ERA of the same weight.

I have seen plates that have been hit and only have a small hole in the outer plate with newer heavier ERA... the risk of ERA exploding all over the place are highly exaggerated.

Modern ERA just puts a metal plate in the way of the incoming threat and moves it so as the beam continues it continues to have to cut its way through... a bit like sliding a piece of sheet metal in front of a bullet so instead of having to penetrate the thickness it has to penetrate the length of metal.

With most NERAs I have seen they appear to have two converging metal sheets so the penetrator has to continue to penetrate both sheets but there is a risk of guillotining the incoming penetrator resulting in the need to reform the point through penetration which wastes an enormous amount of energy... further reducing penetration.

you wont get it to the point where a light vehicle can shrug off full calibre tank gun ammo, but together with APS and indeed smoke and shtora like systems and nakidka the chance of a hit is greatly reduced.

Counter moving armour plates that induce yaw and/or shear the kinetic penetrator (Kontakt-5), or shearing the kinetic penetrator via cumulative "knives" (Nozh) is much more effective than whatever NERA can offer.

ERA uses explosive for that effect... NERA does the same thing, but using the energy of the projectile to get the same effect.  

However, I am pretty sure that an effective combination of ERA/NERA which is more effective than either on its own does exist.

Russians have a history of trying all sorts of things to make their tanks safer... not many western equivalents of APS, let alone Shtora, Nakidka, ERA, etc etc...

Interesting - Janes claims 57mm guns on Kurganets where taken off until parade day.

Probably just making assumptions to explain the 30mm cannon on an IFV... it doesn't make sense so perhaps they have jumped to the conclusion they wont fit the 57mm gun till the actual parade.

Of course we have seen a lot about the 57mm gun and very little about the 45mm gun... if we look back in history in the 1980s we saw the Mi-28A first and the Ka-50 much later but the Ka-50 was the chosen aircraft and the information about the Mi-28 was released early for export potential.... based on that can we assume the 45mm has won as TR-1s source suggests?

I think it makes sense.

Sounds like sensetionalistic bullshit.

true... it does... but I suspect that in the 1960s if you heard rumours about the new plane to replace the U-2 that was called the RS-71 that could fly at mach 3 for thousands of kms at high altitude and was made from titanium you would probably think that was BS too.

GarryB wrote:

Sounds like sensetionalistic bullshit.

true... it does... but I suspect that in the 1960s if you heard rumours about the new plane to replace the U-2 that was called the RS-71 that could fly at mach 3 for thousands of kms at high altitude and was made from titanium you would probably think that was BS too.

Like most people i will believe it when i see it, no russia Stronkk here just plain and simple unlikely.

alexZam wrote:^^^ Possibly. But there are a lot humorous speculation that Russians are just teasing us, performing such a slow erotic softcore-p**n/striptease. A glimpse here, a hint there. Besides, a lot of guys still sure there is a wooden "masquerading" frame around the turret that gives it such "edgy stealthy" look similar to Abrams. Some guys even insisting that there is a APS or additional armor panels mounted on hinges (like 'wings' on T-15) around T-14's turret and currently it's just pointed up for a sake of a joke. It's kinda make sense a bit, because turret is unmanned and there is no need for all that extra volume space, so all volume of it most is likely thick protection plates. There are rumors that tarp will only be removed a day or two before mayday parade. If Russian MoD was fooling us and enjoying reading our silly comments - this we will find out soon enough.

Meanwhile there are some more night time pix (available in bigger resolution on visualrian.ru)

Good post.

Anyway now reliable measurement can be performed. The tank is carried onboard KAMAZ truck.. It's 2.5 m in width and around 7.5 m in length.

Eyeballing the Armata..it's width is around 3 m.

If they were going for sensational BS I am sure they could have slipped the term Nano in there somewhere... but sure... lets see.

152mm WILL be on the tank, but not right away. And it will be electrochemical, and has already been financed by the MOD.

I think any modern reference to 152 mm smooth-bore guns is to be replaced with 155 mm, be it as it may the nominal caliber or the actual caliber. I think smooth-bore gun calibers ending in "5 mm" became a standard starting with the 115 mm.

Protection ...: instead they will use 'electro, plasma polymers, graphene

I think in this context the author has mixed up the relationship between technologies and their applications.

The terms "electro" and "plasma" refer probably to electrochemical guns in this context.

The terms "polymer" and "graphene" refer to armor and other structural members using high-mass-density polymers and graphene.

While high-density polymer armor are very revolutionary, I think they would probably be part of Armata's armor suite. I think even RIAN had announced this.

I am sure the rest of these technologies have been in service in Russia, but for now wouldn't be part of systems that are for public showing. After all, all of these are just decoys, a la BT-5 and BT-7, as I have written about previously.

Claims crew in the next 5-6 years will be cut down to 2- FOR SURE.

Technologically this is easy for Russia to do, but I think tactically it is unlikely. One of the tank's main roles is to provide battlefield stability, and for this role a crew size of 3 is probably optimal. Two human crew members and one android is also acceptable.  

I am certain that tanks and tank destroyers with a crew size of even zero have been in Russian service for a long time, but they are really robotic combat vehicles.

45mm has been chosen as firm replacement for 30mm- already has started testing with new rounds

In 1994 Russians even announced 45 mm guns that were drop-in compatible with 2A42.

alexZam wrote:Our all-time favorite Vitaly Kuzmin posted additional pix of T-15 backside, he explained that those shots are not that "artistic" to post, but due to massive amount of requests and questions he decided to posted them. An hour or less ago. Seems like MoD is running a smart and successful PR campaign...

Is it me, or is there slat armour on top of the dismounting ramp at the back?
Does anyone else see a problem with that?

Acheron wrote:

alexZam wrote:Our all-time favorite Vitaly Kuzmin posted additional pix of T-15 backside, he explained that those shots are not that "artistic" to post, but due to massive amount of requests and questions he decided to posted them. An hour or less ago. Seems like MoD is running a smart and successful PR campaign...

Is it me, or is there slat armour on top of the dismounting ramp at the back?
Does anyone else see a problem with that?

Not really, that points out that it is used as a ramp.