[Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

And how certain are you that this is final product? Let me remind you, trials start next year, if it was ready now, it would be trialed in coming months.

Dont be certain that this is end product. Maybe it isnt ready yet. Look at Pak Fa, its engines are not ready yet either.

And of course they will care, since this is their next gen product to replace current and meet future demands of other countries. We are talking about one of Russias few private defense firms with a huge history of making and designing tracters, heavy machinery, and tanks.

Strizh wrote:
I am sure that they are able to come up with a modern APS, no doubt. It's not like that they didn't know about top attack missiles but that they simply didn't give a fuck about it...

Or they did. But not like what inside your imagination.

Strizh wrote:

auslander wrote:

Strizh wrote:Yes I am an engineer and things must be admitted how they are.
Tank driver/gunner/commanders and military personal at all have almost never any competence and knowledge about more than how to drive/shot/command a vehicle.

Have you ever served and been to war? I find your observations about military personnel quite interesting.

Worked with some and almost all my friends served/went to war and still no idea beside how to drive/shot/command.
That's not their work, why should they know anything better beside how to drive/shot/command?

Same here. I have pilots in the family who flew sorties in Afghanistan and they know less bout planes than me.
I know BMP-1 commander who has very limited knowledge about BMP-1.
Then it comes to my service. I was only one interested in what I shoot and etc. Interest was higher in part time service where people knew the shit

Regular wrote:

Strizh wrote:

auslander wrote:

Strizh wrote:Yes I am an engineer and things must be admitted how they are.
Tank driver/gunner/commanders and military personal at all have almost never any competence and knowledge about more than how to drive/shot/command a vehicle.

Have you ever served and been to war? I find your observations about military personnel quite interesting.

Worked with some and almost all my friends served/went to war and still no idea beside how to drive/shot/command.
That's not their work, why should they know anything better beside how to drive/shot/command?

Same here. I have pilots in the family who flew sorties in Afghanistan and they know less bout planes than me.
I know BMP-1 commander who has very limited knowledge about BMP-1.

Then it comes to my service. I was only one interested in what I shoot and etc. Interest was higher in part time service where people knew the shit

Because military has always two kinds of people, those who go to military for money and have little to no interest in their job and there are a people that feel honor and tradition be it family or out of society like in russia where Military service is a must at least in old days.

I know more about military then lot of my former officers, while there are people haven't served who no shit load more than i do like GarryB and even Fofanov hasn't served and still is an expert in tanks.

The smoke launchers may also carry hardkill grenades.

They're designed to be aimed at incoming threats anyways. While it's never been done before, vehicle mounted smoke launchers do have exotic ammunition like CS gas, traumatic, and fragmentation grenades. Turning them into APS isn't that big of a step, as long as radar is in place.

Zivo wrote:The smoke launchers may also carry hardkill grenades.

They're designed to be aimed at incoming threats anyways. While it's never been done before, vehicle mounted smoke launchers do have exotic ammunition like CS gas, traumatic, and fragmentation grenades. Turning them into APS isn't that big of a step, as long as radar is in place.

Which is what GALIX is doing.

http://librarun.org/book/30265/526

It's sold as APS. Using various kinds of grenades for dealing with various threats.

Top attack weapons do NOT come from the top, their trajectory is never 90°, the majority of so called "top attack weapons" is 40-60° while only high trajectory launch profiles even offer 70-80° angle trajectory. Almost all of such "Top attack weapons" hit the turret armor not the roof armor. There are Bill2 like weapons but they still do not come from a top attack trajectory. Those Smoke grenade launchers are just smoke grenade launchers. The APS casettes to deal with Top attack weapons have been pointed out several times.

Stop ignoring them.

Werewolf wrote:Top attack weapons do NOT come from the top, their trajectory is never 90°, the majority of so called "top attack weapons" is 40-60° while only high trajectory launch profiles even offer 70-80° angle trajectory. Almost all of such "Top attack weapons" hit the turret armor not the roof armor. There are Bill2 like weapons but they still do not come from a top attack trajectory. Those Smoke grenade launchers are just smoke grenade launchers. The APS casettes to deal with Top attack weapons have been pointed out several times.

Stop ignoring them.

I think those "APS cassettes" are actually radars. Both the T-14 and T-15 have four of them covering 90 degree arcs, same as trophy.

If those were something like Arena-E's cassetes, each launcher would have to cover 1/4 the tank, and IMO that's a stretch.  Besides, I don't see anything that could be radars for them, especially on the T-14.

Werewolf wrote:Top attack weapons do NOT come from the top, their trajectory is never 90°, the majority of so called "top attack weapons" is 40-60° while only high trajectory launch profiles even offer 70-80° angle trajectory. Almost all of such "Top attack weapons" hit the turret armor not the roof armor. There are Bill2 like weapons but they still do not come from a top attack trajectory. Those Smoke grenade launchers are just smoke grenade launchers. The APS casettes to deal with Top attack weapons have been pointed out several times.

Stop ignoring them.

Do you imply that the "large cassetes" around the turret actually aimable ? Or does it contain a guided missile similar as quick kill ?

In my view it is not. Those cassetes are not movable nor aimable. Means that it will deal with non top attack threat.

And you too perhaps need to remember that there is "softkill" part in APS. There's nothing can prevent Russia from loading those smoke grenades with something else. or have some IR and TV obscurant material there. Our current "Top attack" Missile are still using IR, Laser or TV Which susceptible to battlefield obscurants or in other word.. It can be jammed.

PapaDragon wrote:
And since when does physical appearance have any effect on how weapon system performs?  

Physics. Elemental basics. Certain angle provides more armour thickness and greater deflection possibility. Practicality. No need to have super heavy armor when the shape is just appropriate enough to withstand and/or deflect physical impact from certain angles. If made properly it will provide double the thickness than you'd have with 90* degree configuration. This is very important and essential to the concept of armour !

and no matter how thick armor is, having proper shape significantly adds to the protection efficiency. That's just basic physics.

medo wrote:
The actual turret is well protected with armor. Actual outside turret is far smaller than the turret you see outside. Actual turret outside is only a gun with mechanism and optics, which are protected in armored capsule, all the rest is under the gun inside the vehicle. All the rest of the outside turret is empty space, nothing to protect. You could take all this off and turret is still operational. Do you think those hits in empty boxes will bring the turret down? No, because you will not hit anything vital. Turret without crew is actually quite small and well protected, because you don't need a big volume inside for the crew and protect it with heavy armor. They save a lot of weight with this turret and place that saved armor on other places to give better protection for vital parts.

if that's the case, than I'm all fine with it.

Some top attack munitions, like guided mortars and independently aimed EFP cluster munitions do come down almost vertically.

If those upward facing grenades on armata's are hardkill, they should be able to intercept these munitions.

Zivo wrote:Some top attack munitions, like guided mortars and independently aimed EFP cluster munitions do come down almost vertically.

If those upward facing grenades on armata's are hardkill, they should be able to intercept these munitions.

Why always hardkill ?

Is providing some cover  to obscure the tank and confusing the seeker not enough ?

------------

For interception however.. that small grenade might not be enough. It need propulsion, actuator and autopilot guidance. It will end up as large as US Quick Kill concept.

So, the nightime sideview of T-14 is good, no complaints, it's only in daylight it looks ugly. No apologies for saying this, T-14 turret is modern, futuristic, different, groundbreaking, but ugly. Now to clarify. Only the turret is ugly, the hull looks great, superb, T-15 looks superb, all of it, and I want one now. T-15 has made all other types of BMP all over the world obsolete. I have no doubt, not for even a nanosecond, that T-14 has made all other tanks in the world obsolete. I do not even dispute that function comes before form. But it is very difficult to look at the turret and not notice it looks ugly. However, I do not doubt that when production models roll out of Uralvagonzavod they will not look like these prototypes that still have a disguised turret. Yes there is the real core of the turret underneath, but what we see bolted around it does not look like the real deal and parts of it look like a mock-up. I am not surprised, nobody should be surprised, and when in a year or more we see a production version we will forget what we see now and it will be some oddity. If when we see production version and I am wrong then I will eat my words. I could not find an example of any ugly Soviet prototype tank that entered production, so this Chieftain has to be the example of what is seen at first, and what it becomes in series production. When I was looking for the photo of the prototype Chieftain I came across the information that it's first public showing was at a military parade, and when everybody thought the last tank had driven by, there was a gap, then Chieftain drove at speed past the crowd and into the distance. It would be a good surprise if at the end of the parade on Saturday one different turreted T-14 suddenly dashed along Krasny Ploshad, but no, fantasy...

Stealthflanker wrote:

Zivo wrote:Some top attack munitions, like guided mortars and independently aimed EFP cluster munitions do come down almost vertically.

If those upward facing grenades on armata's are hardkill, they should be able to intercept these munitions.

Why always hardkill ?

Is providing some cover  to obscure the tank and confusing the seeker not enough ?

It would make sense to use a mix of grenades.

Stealthflanker wrote:

Zivo wrote:Some top attack munitions, like guided mortars and independently aimed EFP cluster munitions do come down almost vertically.

If those upward facing grenades on armata's are hardkill, they should be able to intercept these munitions.

Why always hardkill ?

Is providing some cover  to obscure the tank and confusing the seeker not enough ?

------------

For interception however.. that small grenade might not be enough. It need propulsion, actuator and autopilot guidance. It will end up as large as US Quick Kill concept.

Someone comes up with a new seeker and your entire system is useless!

Strizh wrote:

auslander wrote:

Strizh wrote:Yes I am an engineer and things must be admitted how they are.
Tank driver/gunner/commanders and military personal at all have almost never any competence and knowledge about more than how to drive/shot/command a vehicle.

Have you ever served and been to war? I find your observations about military personnel quite interesting.

Worked with some and almost all my friends served/went to war and still no idea beside how to drive/shot/command.
That's not their work, why should they know anything better beside how to drive/shot/command?

Thank you for your reply. You have not a clue about warriors.

Strizh wrote:
I am sure that they are able to come up with a modern APS, no doubt. It's not like that they didn't know about top attack missiles but that they simply didn't give a fuck about it...

So you really think the Russian Army will not give a fuck about top attack weapons ,
when is the most likely weapon they will be facing against NATO ,with javelines ? lol

IF you were an engineer , you will know what Networked Radar information means.  Even if the armata did not have sensors facing upward ,that will not mean it will be blind ,because a SECOND TANK.. can provide information to the first one its own interception needs or even intercept the top attack missile from the second tank.. So completely infantile your arguments about Armata APS and its top attack defenses capabilities.  Even Arena-E is advertised with Top Attack defense.  So the believe that Russia did not care about it now.. is ludicrous.

For your information ,Russia the first nation with active defense in the world. way back from soviet -afgan war.. in the 70s .. with their early Drozd protection.. then in the early 90s developed Arena , and now is a third generation system in armata. Israel in the other hand have Trophy APS for about 5 years and depending who you ask ,theirs was designed with the stealing of Russia technology .

So the believe Russia do not cares is simply pure ignorance.  active protection in armata is advertised to cover top attacks and i have no reason to doubt it will.. how they do it ,i don't know..  but ideas are plenty of how could they do it..

look how previous generation of APS was adverstised by Russia.



Arena advertised as Protection against Apache hellfire and Javeline missiles . So either they lying or their APS is actually good.  the new protection in Armata seems to be more integrated in the tank and not as externally exposed as arena.

Some ways how could armata cover its ceiling even if it was true have no sensors pointing upward. Networking and sharing radar information is one.. a second tank that cover the blind spot of the other.. or to add a few Non fixed Radars that rotate upwards is another in combination with static ones is another. or  Intercepting a missile before its above the tank.. that is interception from a longer distance is another. How far can a shotgun fire?  Did you know Arena APS can track missiles as far as 50 meters away? Engineer dito..
you didn't learned nothing it seems.


The only valid concerns i have seen about armata is the turret capability to survive a single direct hit of a sabot round.. in case the APS fails. Contrary to what some beliefs that "there is nothing to protect in the turret" ,as if the tank could fight without it.  
the turret is actually the most important part of the tank..as important if not more than the
body of the tank.. because as i said earlier ,if winning wars is your goal ,is better to lose 2 man crew and get more with minor repairs to the tank if any..,and keep the enemy away of your city ,than to have a 7 millions dollars tank destroyed ,that could not be repaired ,because of catastrophic damage.  Offense is the best defense , to destroy the enemy first.. and if anyone wants to be 100% safe..then it should better not join the army at all..

The turret looks actually with many spaces , and not very solid and dense.. but probably
we are only seen a prototype tank..and unfinished tank only released for Victory Parade.
And the final tank will have more armor and protection and different configuration .  The say in Russian Government media is that in 2016 is when armata will begin trials.. so thats a lot of time ,for starting test.. many things can change and we might be jumping into conclusions too early about something that is not final but early unfinished model.

The fact that Russia have plans to develop wheeled light armored cars with a heavy Tank Gun
shows how offensive can be your best defense.. overwhelming the enemy with powerful punch.

Zivo wrote:Some top attack munitions, like guided mortars and independently aimed EFP cluster munitions do come down almost vertically.

If those upward facing grenades on armata's are hardkill, they should be able to intercept these munitions.

Others have suggested the same as well. As some of the tubes are facing straight up, I think it's a reasonable possibility

Regarding the armoured protection of the turret, "the core" turret is possibly roughly along the lines in the pic below, while the outer panels cover the various sensors added on to the "core" turret.


   

Note that the top of the turret has dynamic protection panels. On Otvaga, some posters claim the roof plates just by themselves have added at least 10cm in height....therefore it's highly unlikely that the front and sides of the turret are unprotected

Vann7 wrote:

Strizh wrote:
I am sure that they are able to come up with a modern APS, no doubt. It's not like that they didn't know about top attack missiles but that they simply didn't give a fuck about it...

So you really think the Russian Army will not give a fuck about top attack weapons ,
when is the most likely weapon they will be facing against NATO ,with javelines ? lol

IF you were an engineer , you will know what Networked Radar information means.  Even if the armata did not have sensors facing upward ,that will not mean it will be blind ,because a SECOND TANK.. can provide information to the first one its own interception needs or even intercept the top attack missile from the second tank.. So completely infantile your arguments about Armata APS and its top attack defenses capabilities.  Even Arena-E is advertised with Top Attack defense.  So the believe that Russia did not care about it now.. is ludicrous.

For your information ,Russia the first nation with active defense in the world. way back from soviet -afgan war.. in the 70s .. with their early Drozd protection.. then in the early 90s developed Arena , and now is a third generation system in armata. Israel in the other hand have Trophy APS for about 5 years and depending who you ask ,theirs was designed with the stealing of Russia technology .

So the believe Russia do not cares is simply pure ignorance.  active protection in armata is advertised to cover top attacks and i have no reason to doubt it will.. how they do it ,i don't know..  but ideas are plenty of how could they do it..

look how previous generation of APS was adverstised by Russia.



Arena advertised as Protection against Apache hellfire and Javeline missiles . So either they lying or their APS is actually good.  the new protection in Armata seems to be more integrated in the tank and not as externally exposed as arena.

Some ways how could armata cover its ceiling even if it was true have no sensors pointing upward. Networking and sharing radar information is one.. a second tank that cover the blind spot of the other.. or to add a few Non fixed Radars that rotate upwards is another in combination with static ones is another. or  Intercepting a missile before its above the tank.. that is interception from a longer distance is another. How far can a shotgun fire?  Did you know Arena APS can track missiles as far as 50 meters away? Engineer dito..
you didn't learned nothing it seems.

Using a network for APS seems very vague for me.
Nonetheless the advertisement is not a lie but an advertisement.
The hellfire missiles aren't real top attack missiles and Javelins can be launched in a direct mode too.

Money for development -> pocket -> old development sold as a new one.

auslander wrote:
Thank you for your reply. You have not a clue about warriors.

"Warriors"..

He isn't a native english speaker, he is from Crimea.

As well, just to ask, do you have any evidence to your claims?  Do you have evidence that there wont be APS?  Do you have evidence that the things installed now are not APS, even the launchers on the top.  Do you have evidence it wont be installed?  Do you have evidence they pocketed the money?  Do you have evidence that it is an old design (since there was no previous unmanned turret).

You are making a lot of allegations.  Please, share what information you have.

Anyone with a half bit of critical thinking will be able to tell you that: What we see now isn't final product as if it was, it would not be in trials in mid 2016 but next couple of months. As well, it would make Russia the first to field unmanned turrets for a tank.

There is definitely no coaxial MG....

They rely entirely on the RCWS station with the tiny PKT. Hope it's just prototype stage.


For a coax there should be a 12.7 or even a KPVT, the RCWS with 7.62 is quite good if the coax is a big cal.

Problem is: there are no variant of the NSV or KORD viable for a coax gun, but the KPVT is definitely perfect for the role, let's say with 800 rounds in a belt or even 1200 if possible. I wish they make a KPVT coax, perfect weapon for a MBT, long range, enough to destroy pretty much all soft and semi-hardned targets without wasting 125mm ammo, and much more sound than any 20mm coax attemps in the past on some tanks.

Combine the KPVT with the extraordinary GPS of the armata T-14, and it becomes a 2km effective pin point weapon. I'm just fond of 14.5mm, it's my favorite machine gun for vehicles.

What is the equivalent of Shtora in the T-14?