[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

would love to see image released on Armata's cockpit.

Must be not much different to current fighter aircrafts, with "glass cockpit"

Well the cool thing is that the crew positions are supposed to be standardised so the crew position in the Boomerang should be the same as in the Kurganets and Armata... there is no commander or driver or gunner position as such as the controls are the same so all could drive or fire the gun or command the vehicle...

You can buy Armata from 2017 Damn I can afford my own Armata !

UVZ will release a miniature version of "Armata" for collectors of models of military equipment

YEKATERINBURG, June 24. /TASS/. Research and production Corporation Uralvagonzavod (UVZ) will release a miniature version of "Armata" for collectors of models of military equipment. A toy version of the combat platforms may appear on store shelves by 2017 and will cost about 1 thousand rubles. This was reported in an interview with TASS Deputy General Director UVZ Alexey Zharich.
"We're the last two years trying to restore the production of toy models of military equipment produced by our Corporation," he said. - For some reason on the shelves of many toy stores now military equipment of the U.S. army, but not ours. We decided to revive the tradition of producing models of Russian tanks, which was lost in the 90-ies".
According to Deputy Director of UVZ, partner for the production of toys Corporation is looking for a long time, including in China. "But in China we were unable to find a company that would be in the ratio the price-quality able to produce large quantities of toy tanks and other military equipment, - said the Agency interlocutor. - In the end we found a partner in Russia, which has strong and long-standing relationship with manufacturers in China. The first collection of military toys in the framework of the project UVZSHOP.ru we plan to release for the international exhibition of arms Russia Arms Expo-2015, which in the beginning of September will be held in Nizhny Tagil".
Zharich noted that while UVZ plans to release a line of 9 toy cars, the originals of which the Corporation produces. In particular, in the toy configuration will appear models of tanks T-90, T-72, MSTA, war machines tank support "Terminator", "Terminator 2". "As for the "Armata", she will join the lineup later," concluded Deputy General Director of UVZ.

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2015/06/blog-post_25.html

Stealthflanker wrote:would love to see image released on Armata's cockpit.

Must be not much different to current fighter aircrafts, with "glass cockpit"

prolly more comfortable too. airconditioning, a mini-toilet and a BV would be some of the amenities i would expect to see on the tank. the ride is supposedly very smooth, enough so that firing rate is visibly improved allegedly. plus the constant high-pitched whine of hydraulics in the turret is no more since the crew is seperated from the noise by a bulkhead.

Is there any official information on Armata weight ?

Garry B:

Thanks for your incredibly detailed and informative response -- it's cleared up a lot of things for me. I can now see how advanced electro-optical systems and nimble gun launched UAVs, married with a powerful 14 km 120 mm mortar, would be more than formidable in urban environment engagements. A platform like that would be an absolute God send in cities like Homs, Aleppo, Idlib, Daraa and Hasakeh. These cities have all become meat-grinders for the increasingly vulnerable Syrian army. The entire Armata program is beyond incredible and will strengthen the conventional capabilities of the Russian military beyond the approach of their enemies.

Stealthflanker wrote:would love to see image released on Armata's cockpit.

Like this?

chicken wrote:

Stealthflanker wrote:would love to see image released on Armata's cockpit.

Like this?

Only reason we saw that picture is because none of the real goodies are being shown, I wouldn't say it is a good picture of the cockpit by any measure. I will venture to say that we won't see any good pictures until an export model shows up.

Indeed....that picture shows us nothing. 

Does anyone know if the ammunition compartment of T-14 will have extra protection?

chicken wrote:

Stealthflanker wrote:would love to see image released on Armata's cockpit.

Like this?

except that its of the Koalition based on a heavily modified T-90 chassis. look at the thin roof.

Mike E wrote:Indeed....that picture shows us nothing. 

Does anyone know if the ammunition compartment of T-14 will have extra protection?

it should be well protected. the side armor alone has a couple layers of steel plates that act like composite armor esp. if they are made up of steels of varying physical properties. then you have the thick skirt armor which is optimized for side attacks. it prolly is some form of reactive armor; an outer ERA layer, some spacing then NERA all within a bullet-resistant metal housing. on the inside a generous amount of kevlar padding to the walls to prevent spall as last layer.

if all of those fails however, i expect extreme firefighting measures like tanks of inert gases at very high pressure, and blow out panels would be used.

Yeah looks quite different from T-14 hatch

The side armor itself is immense as you noted... 

Laminated armor plating, that is also angled.

And the skirts with the ERA... The spaced armor between the skirts and hull also add a good bit of protection.

All of that means the side armor should actually...be impenetrable to Western APFSDS assuming the ERA is as effective as claimed. 

I'd assume the ammunition compartment is somewhat armored... Most likely with a spall liner as well.

Based on the compartments location I doubt it could be blown out, but you are probably with the extinguishers.

Mike E wrote:The side armor itself is immense as you noted... 

Laminated armor plating, that is also angled.

And the skirts with the ERA... The spaced armor between the skirts and hull also add a good bit of protection.

All of that means the side armor should actually...be impenetrable to Western APFSDS assuming the ERA is as effective as claimed. 

I'd assume the ammunition compartment is somewhat armored... Most likely with a spall liner as well.

Based on the compartments location I doubt it could be blown out, but you are probably with the extinguishers.

I am rather disappointed with the current ERA placing, I expected something a little different for T-14 and Armata, although Bumerang and Kurganets are fine on the that front.


Remember that these are prototypes, I am willing to bet my dried salted ribki that there are some major changes coming to Bumerang, Kurganets, and Armata.

Things like more ERA on the sides and proper protection of the engine bay on the T-15 are the most likely changes.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

Mike E wrote:The side armor itself is immense as you noted... 

Laminated armor plating, that is also angled.

And the skirts with the ERA... The spaced armor between the skirts and hull also add a good bit of protection.

All of that means the side armor should actually...be impenetrable to Western APFSDS assuming the ERA is as effective as claimed. 

I'd assume the ammunition compartment is somewhat armored... Most likely with a spall liner as well.

Based on the compartments location I doubt it could be blown out, but you are probably with the extinguishers.

I am rather disappointed with the current ERA placing, I expected something a little different for T-14 and Armata, although Bumerang and Kurganets are fine on the that front.


Remember that these are prototypes, I am willing to bet my dried salted ribki that there are some major changes coming to Bumerang, Kurganets, and Armata.

Things like more ERA on the sides and proper protection of the engine bay on the T-15 are the most likely changes.

Why? They should be very effective.... 

Bumerang uses NERA and Armata uses ERA, that's the big difference.

Mike E wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

Mike E wrote:The side armor itself is immense as you noted... 

Laminated armor plating, that is also angled.

And the skirts with the ERA... The spaced armor between the skirts and hull also add a good bit of protection.

All of that means the side armor should actually...be impenetrable to Western APFSDS assuming the ERA is as effective as claimed. 

I'd assume the ammunition compartment is somewhat armored... Most likely with a spall liner as well.

Based on the compartments location I doubt it could be blown out, but you are probably with the extinguishers.

I am rather disappointed with the current ERA placing, I expected something a little different for T-14 and Armata, although Bumerang and Kurganets are fine on the that front.


Remember that these are prototypes, I am willing to bet my dried salted ribki that there are some major changes coming to Bumerang, Kurganets, and Armata.

Things like more ERA on the sides and proper protection of the engine bay on the T-15 are the most likely changes.

Why? They should be very effective.... 

Bumerang uses NERA and Armata uses ERA, that's the big difference.

I imagine that they will both use NERA, Russian armor developers have stated the Relikt is the past for them, and the NERA will be the future for them.

Doubt they would skimp on NERA for their heaviest vehicles.

To begin... It uses ERA on the glacis...

The side panels are way too thin to be NERA on both T-15 and T-15, as there is a little spacing between the ERA and skirts. 

NERA is generally less effective than ERA anyway.

Mike E wrote:To begin... It uses ERA on the glacis...

The side panels are way too thin to be NERA on both T-15 and T-15, as there is a little spacing between the ERA and skirts. 

NERA is generally less effective than ERA anyway.

NERA is the future, I believe NII Stali have said so.....

I was expecting Kurganets levels of NERA/ERA on the sides of the T-14/15.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

Mike E wrote:To begin... It uses ERA on the glacis...

The side panels are way too thin to be NERA on both T-15 and T-15, as there is a little spacing between the ERA and skirts. 

NERA is generally less effective than ERA anyway.

NERA is the future, I believe NII Stali have said so.....

I was expecting Kurganets levels of NERA/ERA on the sides of the T-14/15

NERA is good for integrated armor but ERA has a huge advantage externally.

ERA that big would be impractical.

Mike E wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

Mike E wrote:To begin... It uses ERA on the glacis...

The side panels are way too thin to be NERA on both T-15 and T-15, as there is a little spacing between the ERA and skirts. 

NERA is generally less effective than ERA anyway.

NERA is the future, I believe NII Stali have said so.....

I was expecting Kurganets levels of NERA/ERA on the sides of the T-14/15

NERA is good for integrated armor but ERA has a huge advantage externally.

ERA that big would be impractical.

NERA/ERA that big would be ludicrous, and that is what I want

No point in ERA that thick... Simply put you couldn't use the space. Russia doesn't like using too much explosive either, unlike Ukraine.

NERA that thick would work well but not as well as ERA that is thinner.

Mike E wrote:No point in ERA that thick... Simply put you couldn't use the space. Russia doesn't like using too much explosive either, unlike Ukraine.

NERA that thick would work well but not as well as ERA that is thinner.

I could understand T-14 not having that level of side protection, but T-15 being the urban apc, it becomes important.

I'll go look through Mindstorm's posts again, he posted a link about Relikt being the past, and NERA being the future.

Re-read what I posted... 

The ERA currently used is perfect for the job because *it is the most effective ERA you're ever gonna get on the side of a vehicle* and *NERA twice as thick probably wouldn't have the same performance.* 

NERA is preferred because it is safe to personnel, but it doesn't offer the same level of protection.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

Mike E wrote:To begin... It uses ERA on the glacis...

The side panels are way too thin to be NERA on both T-15 and T-15, as there is a little spacing between the ERA and skirts. 

NERA is generally less effective than ERA anyway.

NERA is the future, I believe NII Stali have said so.....

I was expecting Kurganets levels of NERA/ERA on the sides of the T-14/15.

NERA isn't the future, NERA is the weakest of all current used armor types on any tank, its effeciency is lower than Kontakt-1 and it does not even provide in the sligthest protection from Sabots while Kontakt-1 does, it is very slim, mostly not even taken into consideration but it is noticeable. NERA there is not even a noticeable effect on Sabot penetration capability or inducing a yaw to the sabot.

The future of armor is the exact path UVZ have been doing for decades, a multilayered protection of armors and passive/active/reactive measures. Each technology ERA, NERA, NxRA, Composite Armor, Gill Armor, any future armor of electromagnetic armor whatever they might come up with has its own advantages and disadvantages and come all with different limitations.

While NERA provides to some point multiple hit capability with constantly reducing its performance in comperision with ERA, but it has a very low effect on CE and non against KE.

ERA is the best type of armor to increase survivability while no composite nor NERA is effecient enough to be mounted on weakened zones of tanks like all sides, roof and weakened zones of frontal projection.

Composite armor even though it is the main mean of protection to tanks it is not a black and white colored protection that either will stop the entire projectile without damage or perforation depth into the armor and leave a weakened zone (small yes, but still weakened from different angles very close to the hole). Each round will create damage to tanks armor, regardless if it is Chobham, Dorchester, Depleted Uranium, 44S-SV-Sh or Adamantium or any other Magical type of material that will protect a tank from direct meteor strike or those internet worriors (who use such terms as a magical royal flash argument that beats everything) it will protect their virginity aswell.

ERA has lot off benefits that are often ignored on forums at least. ERA reduces the penetration of projectiles be it CE or KE, greatly and sometimes almost vaporizes any effect of penetrators for the passive armor. ERA is very cost effecient, light and small enough to provide protection for side armor or even frontal armor without comprimising the protection of the passive/main armor. Penetrators that hit on armor without ERA will always dive right into the armor, deep or not so deep it does not matter, such composite armor is not cheap and takes special personal to fix, which can not be done by soldiers in the field. Preventing harm and extending life span or protection of the main armor is a very relevant factor. Once the main armor is damaged it might need repairs and needs to leave the battlefield, leaving a gap among its forces, it might be not big deal when looking at it out of context, but in a scenario where you fight harsh intense wars like Syria or Ukraine with the West constantly resupplying, financing and pushing their little proxy terrorists such wars will always deplete military resources and in long fighting wars management of resources is the highest factor on military level that can win or lose a war.

NERA, low cost, slim, not so heavy, has some effect on CE, no significant effect on KE the advantage is multiple hittaple without a massive comprimise of its protection.

ERA, low cost, slim, very good protection to weight ratio, the only type of armor capable of defeating modern type of warheads or greatly reducing its destructive capabilities, the only safe measure for all around (180-270°) coverage of turret and hull, has proven itself in urbanwarfare, simple to replace and will stay the main type off addon armor for all kinds of vehicles from light to heavy armored.

Composite Armor, big disadvantage of that type of armor is it is very ineffecient in size wise, meaning to have increased protection compared to HHS or RHA armor it needs more LOS with spaced armor to increase its capability, which makes this armor not possible to protect the side hull, roof or rear on some tanks not even side turret. Meaning tanks composite armor is only the frontal projection of hull and a little wider angle of the turret covered by Composite Armor, rest of armor is simple RHA steel with spaced armor and side skirts either ERA or NERA to compensate the weak sides,roof and rear.

Other type of armors like slat or gill have either very rare possibility in mainsteam use of tanks or are facing little projection of the frontal aspect and therefore covering usually engine as a very cheap armor version.

Mindstorm wrote:The news i have found most surprising in this beginning of Nizhniy Tagil arms expo are the declarations of the NII Stali's President Valeriy Grigoryan.

"For us, Relikt is something in the past.Completely new systems that do not utilize explosives are arriving. We are using completely new energy substances that are much more effective and much safer than explosives,"

I ask to myself if Armata heavy platform ,in its tank incarnation ,will see the integration of those revolutionary not explosive reactive armor much more effective (...for not say totally immune to multi warhead missiles ,virtually without limits for multiple hit and perfectly integrable in the main armor ...) than even the actual outstanding Relikt ERA.

Valeriy Grigoryan,president of NII Stali, has declared after the description of the capabilities of Relikt ERA now approved for export (likely in a slightly inferior version) continue saying:

"For us, Relikt is something in the past. Completely new systems that do not utilize explosives are arriving. We are using completely new energy substances that are much more effective and much safer than explosives"

2SPOOKY4U wrote:

Mindstorm wrote:The news i have found most surprising in this beginning of Nizhniy Tagil arms expo are the declarations of the NII Stali's President Valeriy Grigoryan.

"For us, Relikt is something in the past.Completely new systems that do not utilize explosives are arriving. We are using completely new energy substances that are much more effective and much safer than explosives,"

I ask to myself if Armata heavy platform ,in its tank incarnation ,will see the integration of those revolutionary not explosive reactive armor much more effective (...for not say totally immune to multi warhead missiles ,virtually without limits for multiple hit and perfectly integrable in the main armor ...) than even the actual outstanding Relikt ERA.

Valeriy Grigoryan,president of NII Stali, has declared after the description of the capabilities of Relikt ERA now approved for export (likely in a slightly inferior version) continue saying:

"For us, Relikt is something in the past. Completely new systems that do not utilize explosives are arriving. We are using completely new energy substances that are much more effective and much safer than explosives"

Clearly he was on crack when he said that... Werewolf stated it nicely, thanks.