[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

I am pretty sure they will delay the introduction of the 152mm calibre tank gun as it just adds another ammo type.

In terms of performance a 152mm wide HEAT round would be rather more powerful than any 125mm calibre warhead, and the increased volume would greatly increase the potential for GLATGMs and any GL-UAVs.

I wonder if there is any unification between the Coalition and 152mm tank gun ammo... some EM assistance in muzzle velocity would improve the performance of both weapons though a tank gun benefits from a smoothbore gun, while artillery benefits from rifling for standard HE shells.

Stealthflanker wrote:Sooo. what's the probable contents of the bustle ? All speculations so far depicts turret "naked" Without bustle.

Most think it's just a storage compartment for extra ammo and equipment, like on the T-90SM

Have anyone heard rumours about the main gun beng able to fire a sirface to air missile?
Couple of years i have read somewhere that Russians were planning to develop a missile being able to be fired by a smoothbore gun of a tank to act as a repellent against helicopters....

Cyberspec wrote:

Stealthflanker wrote:Sooo. what's the probable contents of the bustle ? All speculations so far depicts turret "naked" Without bustle.

Most think it's just a storage compartment for extra ammo and equipment, like on the T-90SM

Is it possible that this bustle is a storage of ammunitions for "future" installation of an external 30mm weapon ?

Flanky wrote:Have anyone heard rumours about the main gun beng able to fire a sirface to air missile?
Couple of years i have read somewhere that Russians were planning to develop a missile being able to be fired by a smoothbore gun of a tank to act as a repellent against helicopters....

You mean a specifically designed Anti Aircraft missile launched from gun?

Russians do have GLATGM which are shaped charge but can be guided via Laser Beam Riding against moving aircrafts (physically only helicopter).

No im not talking about GLATGM im talking about gun launched anti aircraft missile....
Some years ago i have read some article about them developing such a missile to counter the treat of massive Helicopter attacks...

Flanky wrote:No im not talking about GLATGM im talking about gun launched anti aircraft missile....
Some years ago i have read some article about them developing such a missile to counter the treat of massive Helicopter attacks...

No such GLATGM is necessary.

Current SHORADs traveling with armored formations are perfectly suited to defend formations against helicopter formations, even massive ones.

Current GLATGMs are perfectly adequate for dealing with Apache type helicopters flying NOE flights.

To make a dedicated AA missile for tanks would eat into the current ammo supply and would be pointless.

Better to simply put a FoF function into the next generation of GLATGM for "massive Helicopter attacks...."

I have doubts on the possibility of such a threat occurring however.

Pretty sure it was mentioned upthread that Russian GLATGM (usable vs. helicopters) have greater range than dedicated AA missiles e.g. Igla-S.
(and out-range anything arming Western helicopters)

mutantsushi wrote:Pretty sure it was mentioned upthread that Russian GLATGM (usable vs. helicopters) have greater range than dedicated AA missiles e.g. Igla-S.
(and out-range anything arming Western helicopters)

Neat

But in the end it is better to leave it to the Pantsirs, they will outrange any helo and any tank.

Current Russian GLATGMs are very good against hovering and low-flying helos.

It would be better to improve the next generation of GLATGMs used on T-14 for better effectiveness against helos, than to make a dedicated missile for it and eat into the ammo supply.

improved detection means(like a full sized mmw target search/tracking radar, hopefully its not axed - put it in command tanks if its that expensive) and datalinking would significantly boost the T-14's attack helo raping capacity more than a new GL-AD missile. besides, what countermeasures are there that an attack helo has against a Reflex-M coming its way? it would detect it ofc. but what do? it could dance around, but that wont help. it has no obscurants and hard kill interceptors for obvious reasons and DIRCM and electronic jamming wont work either. and not only that, firing the ATGM does not produce much of a signature- and the tank can also maneuver around cover and concealment, this way the attack helo doesnt even get a chance to retaliate in its last moments.

Flanky wrote:No im not talking about GLATGM im talking about gun launched anti aircraft missile....
Some years ago i have read some article about them developing such a missile to counter the treat of massive Helicopter attacks...

I have posted at least once about this topic, with images and at least one TGLSAM missile type.

Russian dedicated TGLSAMs, TGLSAGPs, IFVGLSAMs, and IFVGLSAGPs are decades old. However their development has been "just for the heck of it", and I don't think there is a military requirement for TGLSAMs or IFVGLSAMs.

I should mention that the anti-air capabilities of the Russian tanks and IFVs, again just for the heck of it, has always been huge with many battlefield successes, without much necessity for any of that capability.

The situation for IFVGLSAMs is pretty much the same, but there is more of a story to that.

The TGLSAM I posted about was 9M395T for the 115 mm tank gun with a missile diameter of 100 mm, missile mass of 17.2 kg, warhead mass of 2.5 kg, "nominal" max speed of 1350 m/s, and a "nominal" range of 10 km.


Edit—Image reposted:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

Flanky wrote:No im not talking about GLATGM im talking about gun launched anti aircraft missile....
Some years ago i have read some article about them developing such a missile to counter the treat of massive Helicopter attacks...

I have posted at least once about this topic, with images and at least one TGLSAM missile type.

Russian dedicated TGLSAMs, TGLSAGPs, IFVGLSAMs, and IFVGLSAGPs are decades old. However their development has been "just for the heck of it", and I don't think there is a military requirement for TGLSAMs or IFVGLSAMs.

I should mention that the anti-air capabilities of the Russian tanks and IFVs, again just for the heck of it, has always been huge with many battlefield successes, without much necessity for any of that capability.

The situation for IFVGLSAMs is pretty much the same, but there is more of a story to that.

The TGLSAM I posted about was 9M395T for the 115 mm tank gun with a missile diameter of 100 mm, missile mass of 17.2 kg, warhead mass of 2.5 kg, "nominal" max speed of 1350 m/s, and a "nominal" range of 10 km.


Edit—Image reposted:

+1

Thanks did not know that this already exists. Maybe they will do it for 125mm aswell...

Have anyone heard rumours about the main gun beng able to fire a sirface to air missile?
Couple of years i have read somewhere that Russians were planning to develop a missile being able to be fired by a smoothbore gun of a tank to act as a repellent against helicopters....

The older missiles were considered too slow to be practical against aircraft, but the newer missiles often come with specs that include effective range against helos.

Most of the current in service missile (ie Svir) is described as being effective to 5-6km against tanks and up to 8km against helos.

Russians do have GLATGM which are shaped charge but can be guided via Laser Beam Riding against moving aircrafts (physically only helicopter).

They also have multipurpose missiles with HE warheads too.

No im not talking about GLATGM im talking about gun launched anti aircraft missile....
Some years ago i have read some article about them developing such a missile to counter the treat of massive Helicopter attacks...

Most of their helicopter launched ATGMs have secondary AA capability like Vikhr, Ataka, and Shturm.

But in the end it is better to leave it to the Pantsirs, they will outrange any helo and any tank.

Exactly... they will be carrying ATGMs anyway so having them be able to engage helos is useful, but at the end of the day it is rather more efficient to use real SHORAD assets with the proper sensors and weapons to do the job.

Well i know that SHORADs are there to defend the column from Helis but... in case of massive confrontation they wont have that many shorads as there will be many tanks.... literally thousands... ofcourse one can ask what is the possibility of such massive confrontation....

Anyways good to know they had already previous versions of these missiles.
GLATGMs are fine if a helo is not moving or moving slowly or perhaps it is close. But as we all know these kinds of missiles are very slow and their ability to maneuver is against a very agile Apache is severely restricted, especially if the target is moving perpendicular to the incomming missile. So normally with such a missile you have limited engagement envelopes that would be efficient to defeat.

Anyways thanks for the post with all those missiles. Good to know they were developing these a long time ago.

Flanky wrote:Well i know that SHORADs are there to defend the column from Helis but... in case of massive confrontation they wont have that many shorads as there will be many tanks.... literally thousands... ofcourse one can ask what is the possibility of such massive confrontation....

Anyways good to know they had already previous versions of these missiles.
GLATGMs are fine if a helo is not moving or moving slowly or perhaps it is close. But as we all know these kinds of missiles are very slow and their ability to maneuver is against a very agile Apache is severely restricted, especially if the target is moving perpendicular to the incomming missile. So normally with such a missile you have limited engagement envelopes that would be efficient to defeat.

Anyways thanks for the post with all those missiles. Good to know they were developing these a long time ago.

Attack helicopters are not that maneuverable when they fly sorties with combat load. They have amazing maneuverability when empty loaded and only fueled but that decreases dramatically when they are reaching NTOW not to mention MTOW. The range at which the tank engages with GLATGM is also very important, because maneuverability means little to nothing when your target is several km away with the size of a dot while your Laser beam rider has a proximity fuze for 5m radius. The only solution is to dive down and hide behind obstacles.

Werewolf wrote:

Flanky wrote:Well i know that SHORADs are there to defend the column from Helis but... in case of massive confrontation they wont have that many shorads as there will be many tanks.... literally thousands... ofcourse one can ask what is the possibility of such massive confrontation....

Anyways good to know they had already previous versions of these missiles.
GLATGMs are fine if a helo is not moving or moving slowly or perhaps it is close. But as we all know these kinds of missiles are very slow and their ability to maneuver is against a very agile Apache is severely restricted, especially if the target is moving perpendicular to the incomming missile. So normally with such a missile you have limited engagement envelopes that would be efficient to defeat.

Anyways thanks for the post with all those missiles. Good to know they were developing these a long time ago.

Attack helicopters are not that maneuverable when they fly sorties with combat load. They have amazing maneuverability when empty loaded and only fueled but that decreases dramatically when they are reaching NTOW not to mention MTOW. The range at which the tank engages with GLATGM is also very important, because maneuverability means little to nothing when your target is several km away with the size of a dot while your Laser beam rider has a proximity fuze for 5m radius. The only solution is to dive down and hide behind obstacles.

Exactly... thats the reason why you would need a GLSAM with lock on after launch capability to fly over a hill and find the heli hiding behind the hill....

Flanky wrote:
Exactly... thats the reason why you would need a GLSAM with lock on after launch capability to fly over a hill and find the heli hiding behind the hill....

In that case an entire passive targeting system via IRST/TIS image processor is necessary, because as soon you aim your gun at the helicopter the crew will be alerted by LWR and try to get low to break the LOS.

Well i dont dispute that.... the missile would have to have that...

Werewolf wrote:
In that case an entire passive targeting system via IRST/TIS image processor is necessary, because as soon you aim your gun at the helicopter the crew will be alerted by LWR and try to get low to break the LOS.

only true for older thermals. nowadays they have this library of targets and image processing power to get relatively accurate range estimation by comparing the actual size with what is seen and how many zooms it takes- kinda like how snipers do it without laser rangefinders.
not the most accurate of methods, but it wont alert the LWR, and that's what matters.

collegeboy16 wrote:

Werewolf wrote:
In that case an entire passive targeting system via IRST/TIS image processor is necessary, because as soon you aim your gun at the helicopter the crew will be alerted by LWR and try to get low to break the LOS.

only true for older thermals. nowadays they have this library of targets and image processing power to get relatively accurate range estimation by comparing the actual size with what is seen and how many zooms it takes- kinda like how snipers do it without laser rangefinders.
not the most accurate of methods, but it wont alert the LWR, and that's what matters.

They are still Laser Beam Riders, it will take time untill the helicopter realizes that it is targeted via its LWR's but the last few hundred meters the Laser Beam is narrowed on the size of the target, but more or less it is to late for the chopper to react.

I am not aware of such systems installed on any tanks, do you have specific information?

Werewolf wrote:

collegeboy16 wrote:

Werewolf wrote:
In that case an entire passive targeting system via IRST/TIS image processor is necessary, because as soon you aim your gun at the helicopter the crew will be alerted by LWR and try to get low to break the LOS.

only true for older thermals. nowadays they have this library of targets and image processing power to get relatively accurate range estimation by comparing the actual size with what is seen and how many zooms it takes- kinda like how snipers do it without laser rangefinders.
not the most accurate of methods, but it wont alert the LWR, and that's what matters.

They are still Laser Beam Riders, it will take time untill the helicopter realizes that it is targeted via its LWR's but the last few hundred meters the Laser Beam is narrowed on the size of the target, but more or less it is to late for the chopper to react.

I am not aware of such systems installed on any tanks, do you have specific information?

Which one? Optronic database? There is no tank that could do that. There are systems in study for the AMX-56 with shape-factor IFF. They are trying to solve one issue with Optronic IFF, density. In most cases the optical/IR IFF will be difficult over 1K since the tank will show a shape, but not the actual density. Thales BMS PIDed 8/10 cardboards as real targets...it went to 9/10 with cars dressed up as tanks.

Armour estimate and a few other details from a Armata analysis by "Armeiski Vestnik" (Army Journal)

The Armata is protected by a new type of armour of  44S-SV-sh type (composition is classified) which is 15% stronger than the previous type. The sheets of armour feature a tripple cast scheme, where 3 segments are welded together each at a different angle:

1. layer @ 68 deg
2. layer @ 75 deg
3. layer - almost horizontal

Estimate of protection:

Front Armour = 1100mm (Kinetic) -> 1300-1400mm (Chemical)

Top Armour = 260-300mm - significant improvement over older models and author believes enough to defeat Javelin type missiles. He also praises the new type of "gun mask" (where the gun joins the turret) which was an area of weakness in older models.

Side Armour = 700-750mm

Weak spots: area around the gunners sight (top of turret) + the "hole" on the left side of turret, which the author believes will house an automatic cannon or some other device


Source: http://army-news.ru/2015/05/vidimye-preimushhestva-perspektivnogo-tanka-t-14-armata/comment-page-2/

There's a few other details in the analysis for those who might be interested...

The Javelin has way more penetration than the Armata has top-armor, but it also has many flaws against it. Because the missile is HEAT, it requires a direct hit on the target to do...anything and against a target with sophisticated soft-kill (like T-14) system the percentage of even just hitting the vehicle plummets. Another thing to keep in mind is that with the unmanned turret, an overhead penetration would most likely damage that without any damage to the hull or crew inside. It is for all intensive purposes, to waste that missile at the T-14. 

Javelins also have a really short range, one so short that chances are it could never get the round off to begin with. 

That frontal armor estimate is right around where I thought it would be...the layers of armor combined with newer reactive armor and technology in general really gave it an increase. 

The side armor does appear to be *a bit* optimistic though... If you include the tracks and the spacing it include, it might not be far off. (~700 mm RHAe means Western rounds would struggle to penetrate it at range, or it slightly angled. Really impressive if true.

Regarding the Javelin, he talks about angles of approach and the shape of the turret but my Russian is poor and I can't really understand it properly (translators don't help). Perhaps some Russian member can translate properly.

On the side armour issue, I think he's talking about the area covered by dynamic protection...he also says enemy tanks would have a hard time penetrating the side armour in many scenarios....he believes the Armata armour protection will be superior to anything currently in service

Keep in mind these figures are estimates based on available info and visual observation, not official figures

Cyberspec wrote:Regarding the Javelin, he talks about angles of approach and the shape of the turret but my Russian is poor and I can't really understand it properly (translators don't help). Perhaps some Russian member can translate properly.

On the side armour issue, I think he's talking about the area covered by dynamic protection...he also says enemy tanks would have a hard time penetrating the side armour in many scenarios....he believes the Armata armour protection will be superior to anything currently in service

Keep in mind these figures are estimates based on available info and visual observation, not official figures

If we are looking at pictures of the frontal projection of the tank, so we see that the roof protection is 300-350mm higher than the gun mantlet and axels mounts, which indicates that roof protection raises to 260-350mm RHAe protection, moreover, the minimum angles of approaching enemy missiles to normal.
This kind of armor is the last layer of protection against threats like ATGM's "Javelin", at the approaching of FGM-148 at angles of 30-60° to normal, with the use of ERA it can prevent penetration of roof layer armor. The T-90 and T-80's roof armor is significantly lower and the penetration can only be defeated with "Arena".