[Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

sepheronx wrote:

BKP wrote:Thanks for replies regarding bbc piece. And, yeah, the British press is a real pisser.

sheytanelkebir wrote:One issue with the microelectronics / imports highlighted is not for the basic ballistic computers and autoloaders etc (which the current generation of russian electronics will easily handle)... but for current / future augmented reality systems where you would need 22nm and better chips to reduce power consumption on visor and UAV mounted electronics...

Interesting. If RF needs to develop the capability to produce 22nm chips, then I would guess it's considered a priority to do so.

I remember reading a piece in (I believe) an IEEE publication a couple of years ago about the supreme difficulty in detecting trapdoors and other malicious code in firmware, much more so than in OS or application software. So I would hope that Russia would never opt to use western-designed chips in critical systems.

My suggestion to you people is to do your research.  Let me help you:

HAD TO REMOVE THE LINKS 'CAUSE I'M AN FNG

All of these are chip R&D facilities making various chips for various purposes, some of these are made domestically in Angstrom, and some are made in China/Taiwan with 1 (Modules ARM) is co-developed in Fujitsu Japan.  Nanometer does not indicate instant reduction in power usage, as I should remind some of you, the Elbrus 2C+ operates within 40W, which is pretty darn good for a 90nm processor and operates significantly cooler and less power hungry than the AMD x86 processors running at 40nm and less.

kvs wrote:

sheytanelkebir wrote:One issue with the microelectronics / imports highlighted is not for the basic ballistic computers and autoloaders etc (which the current generation of russian electronics will easily handle)... but for current / future augmented reality systems where you would need 22nm and better chips to reduce power consumption on visor and UAV mounted electronics.

Also I would say that in the future Armata tanks and IFVs should each have 2-3 small UAVs which are charged on board and launch and fly automatically above / in front of the vehicle as a forward scout and give a better Situational awareness for the crews. Those would also benefit from the 22nm and better chips to reduce power consumption and improve the endurance of each UAV... Imagine that a "buttoned up" tank would be launching and recovering these small UAVs automatically, the commander simply having the feed from these cameras fed to him without having to think about launching or controlling an individual UAV. whilst one UAV is in the air, the other 2 are getting charged on the tank in their own "recharge stations" that they land into automatically when their power goes low.

Such an addition would only cost maybe $100k per tank (with three thermal camera equipped UAVs). a small price for a dramatic improvement in SA.

As was shown a few pages ago, there are a series of rear view cameras... so I imagine that the driver can drive the tank forward and backwards effortlessly without having to "think" about which direction he's driving in. when he engages reverse, his visor and controls automatically switch... perhaps he just has a little sign on his visor/screen with "R" on it.

I just can't see UAV information processing requiring AI computing.  Augmented reality I call unnecessary information overload.  A system that tracks discrete objects and a human-digestible level of them is all that is needed.  Pushing a vast amount of pixels to do real time rendering of landscapes and
pattern recognition is gross overkill.   I see these "VR" tools being more relevant for pilots and not tank operators.

What a modern tank needs is high level sensors (spanning visible to IR emissions) and the ability to track the significant objects in its vicinity.  
Sophisticated detection technology coupled with training will run circles around some pattern recognition system that "augments"
the operator.  

If there isn't a war in the next few years, Russia will reach the same IC resolution limits (< 5 nm) that NATO has to deal with.  Given
Russia's previous performance is doing more with less by that stage it will be NATO that will in the clear disadvantage.  (BTW, I
see this "throw more CPU resources at the problem" mindset in the civilian research field, the problem is that the problems involved
are not one-parameter that they can be "solved" this easily.)

Werewolf wrote:It is just the turret core model, no armor at all it will change hopefully to the clamshell we saw of the scale model. Russian turret models are the best protected shapes like T-90A, regardless how the turret moves the armor still protects most of the turret unlike western designs as soon as they move the turret to the side the armor protection is on paper level for every serious AT weapon.

Viktor wrote:

Austin wrote:Interview with deputy general director of corporation "Uralvagonzavod" Vyacheslav Halitov.

Armata : http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/1954916?page=2
Kuragnets: http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/1954916?page=3

from your link:

And we offered today its unprecedented level, providing, in addition to the passive armor with ceramic plates, a kind of "protective dome", consisting of active protection and the protection of the upper hemisphere, systems setting screens and electromagnetic protection.

that settles some speculation

COMPLEX PROTECTION OF THE UPPER HEMISPHERE (CSWP)

The principle of operation is based on the detection of an incoming high-precision munition, striking with the upper hemisphere, and disrupting its guidance system or a powerful electromagnetic pulse, or on a securable multi-spectral aerosol cloud and a false thermal targets.

http://www.niistali.ru/products/nauka/protection/uplook_protection/

У танка Армата и его украинских критиков есть одно общее - необитаемая башня
The tank Armata and his Ukrainian critics have one thing in common - an uninhabited tower (head)

Werewolf wrote:

У танка Армата и его украинских критиков есть одно общее - необитаемая башня
The tank Armata and his Ukrainian critics have one thing in common - an uninhabited tower (head)

Vann7 wrote:Victory parade over.. and no armata failed ,at least not in front of cameras..

It looked more impressive in the training that in Red Square , they were so few armata
at red square and they passed too fast to see anything really. and the Big Letters of Victory parade covering half the screen. .  

any case we will not see Armata in service until 2018 ,so lot can change in the production models. Still was good to have a preview of them.  WOndering if the final specifications of the tank will be released , interested to see more about armata tank and T-15 sensors and technology and how it works.

full moscow  parade..

kvs wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

Werewolf wrote:It is just the turret core model, no armor at all it will change hopefully to the clamshell we saw of the scale model. Russian turret models are the best protected shapes like T-90A, regardless how the turret moves the armor still protects most of the turret unlike western designs as soon as they move the turret to the side the armor protection is on paper level for every serious AT weapon.

Relax Werewolf

The turret is unmanned, meaning it has vastly more places to mount armor, it can have thicker armor than a Leopard, yet the turret can weigh lighter and be smaller at the same time.

And even if it does not have any armor on the turret, so what?

The only things that are up there are the gun, targeting, and APS, what is there that you can actually protect?

A hit to the gun/gun mantlet will disable it, even on the heaviest of tanks, and the aps systems are impossible to armor, and you can forget trying to armor the sights to any level.

Everything is fine Werewolf, the turret needs no changing, rather everyone else must change to catch up.

The shape of the unmanned turret tells us a lot.  There is no longer a need to bounce off incoming shell damage to protect
the empty space inside the turret.  The whole paradigm of the armour in the unmanned turret is different.  Applying some
simple analysis, the opposite of trying to exclude the damage outside some perimeter is to absorb the damage in a volume.
The old case was severely constrained by geometry of having to protect the given perimeter encompassing the turret
interior.  In the case of the new turret there are many more options, including layer heterogeneous armour (ceramic,
steel, rubber) through most of the volume of the turret.   No anti-tank projectile in existence would be able to disable
this turret and there is no point sloping it like before at the expense of turret volume.   It seems like with the new
paradigm, making the turret smaller is actually detrimental.

Book. wrote:

If repost sry.

Werewolf wrote:

Some of the comments under the Ukro propaganda TV of the "paper Armata" was this.

У танка Армата и его украинских критиков есть одно общее - необитаемая башня
The tank Armata and his Ukrainian critics have one thing in common - an uninhabited tower (head)

Book. wrote:

If repost sry.

franco wrote:
Not to encourage the nay sayers but you will notice that 3 T-14's and 2 Buk's were pulled and parked down the ramp just before the vehicles enter Red Square in the Parade video. The fact that these new AFV's go directly into testing after the parade will not matter to some.

Defense Update wrote:Preliminary analysis of the new Russian Armata family of vehicles
http://defense-update.com/20150509_t14-t15_analysis.html#.VU6GhZOC29c

Vann7 wrote:

franco wrote:
Not to encourage the nay sayers but you will notice that 3 T-14's and 2 Buk's were pulled and parked down the ramp just before the vehicles enter Red Square in the Parade video. The fact that these new AFV's go directly into testing after the parade will not matter to some.

And ?

The tanks are prototypes.. is an early preview of tanks they developing and will start trials in 2016 and will not go into service until 2018.  So im glad they lets us show their early prototypes
before they go into service. Not to encourage nay sayers but your F-22 and F-35 have been failing even after going into production. The F-22 even had to be suspended it uses even AFTER final production several times because of faulty designed hardware and the F-35 too..

So is nothing new.. it happens.. technology always needs refining. Specially when is a prototype and in under testing..But im sure in the case of Russia they will fix any issues by the time the go in service in 2018. Nothing to worry about.

kvs wrote:

Book. wrote:

If repost sry.

Good post.

They mention that the turret is invulnerable to any modern anti-tank munition, but the context is mangled.  It has
reactive armour under those plates.   I suspect the surface plates are like ERA bricks with a layer of explosive on the
back.   But there was a "hint" that this was not the only thing going.   As I said, the designers have many more options
when it comes to defending an unmanned turret.