[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

Mike E wrote:

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. 

President of NII Stali, on crack?

And what precisely did Werewolf state? Other than overgeneralizations and simplifications and otherwise unsourced drivel?

In your opinion, Werewolf is more credible than the president of NII Stali? One of the most forefront leaders if not THE best in their field?

Yes he is... This "president" was clearly talking bollocks because what he described *does not* exist.

Mike E wrote:Yes he is... This "president" was clearly talking bollocks because what he described *does not* exist.

I don't understand, you are claiming that Valeriy Grigoryan, president of OAO NII Stali is not a president?

If you have such trouble believing, here is a source:

https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/28/2856099_-military-fwd-os-russia-mil-russia-to-unveil-new-explosive.html

I don't doubt his position... I doubt his claims which are clearly exaggerated.

Mike E wrote:I don't doubt his position... I doubt his claims which are clearly exaggerated.

I see, this conversation is over.

the N in NERA stands for non-explosive, that is no explosive is used as reacting element.(duh!)

stolen from LoooSeR here http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/6-the-soviet-tank-thread-what-do-you-mean-i-cant-put-a-4500hp-engine-on-the-is-7/page-19
as you can see the first ERA that can counter APFSDS, the Kontakt-5 contained a bit more explosives than its predecessor. however, for Relikt they went the other way around and reduced the explosives by a whopping half, while greatly improving its performance against APFSDS rounds. less explosives mean that the design is more efficient in delivering the energies to counter the offending penetrator, continue this trend of increasing efficiency and you wont even need explosives anymore which makes it NERA then.

besides, the president of Nii Stali himself stated that they now have materials better than explosives as reactive elements so i dont get how some of you guys are hung up on the idea that ERA is better pound for pound than NERA.

collegeboy16 wrote:the N in NERA stands for non-explosive, that is no explosive is used as reacting element.(duh!)
stolen from LoooSeR here http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/6-the-soviet-tank-thread-what-do-you-mean-i-cant-put-a-4500hp-engine-on-the-is-7/page-19
as you can see the first ERA that can counter APFSDS, the Kontakt-5 contained a bit more explosives than its predecessor. however, for Relikt they went the other way around and reduced the explosives by a whopping half, while greatly improving its performance against APFSDS rounds. less explosives mean that the design is more efficient in delivering the energies to counter the offending penetrator, continue this trend of increasing efficiency and you wont even need explosives anymore which makes it NERA then.

besides, the president of Nii Stali himself stated that they now have materials better than explosives as reactive elements so i dont get how some of you guys are hung up on the idea that ERA is better pound for pound than NERA.

Thank you, someone finally understands that it is good to listen to the president of NII Stali.

Cool thread btw.

Relikt still uses explosives, so clearly the efficiency is in its' design. 

At the best NERA uses the projectiles' energy against this....but ERA should use *more than* the incoming projectiles, maybe, maybe not. 

Even people on the highest positions can say false or inflated statements... The fact that this man hasn't said anything more than his initial statement is worrisome IMO.

Why hang up on ERA?

Simple to answer, the understanding of physics on that level is there, the understanding and knowledge to achieve similiar results without explosive, since only a massive energy can counter a massive energy to reduce it greatly or even to neutralize it. I don't know how materials similiar to Rubber can even show any signs of producing or redirecting energy of Sabot rounds, even CE rounds, such simple NERA like Steel/Rubber/Steel has only weak effect on. The rubber upon impact from CE or KE penetrator creates a water shock like reaction which it expands outwards between its sandwiched area and then snaps backwards, the problem here is copper liners in when forming a penetrator are behaving like a liquid meaning easy to deform from its sides while a stiff very hard Sabot will not have any effect that is worth mentioning. So lets jump forward and brainstorm on what materials could be used. The basic principle of NERA is either by using energy induced from penetrator to direct it against the penetrator or in its path. The problem here is still that the energy is ejected into the opposite path of the projectile it travels that only will reduce its muzzle velocity and maybe worsen its shape, but to redirect the energy from its normal trajectory is not only much easier energy wise but also more effecient in reducing its penetration capabilities.

The principle of NERA like i know it is that the rubber is moving outwards, meaning this energy that is moved outwards is lost and not used for anything, just the remaining energy of the rubber when it snaps back in position is used to worsen the shape of jet line of CE warheads, this snapping back off the rubber liner is much lower energywise then the intial energy transfer when it expands. My thought would be to use this initial energy to induce a movement of the entire shape of the NERA box, meaning that it squashes energy inwards and wobbles, meaning it moves a plate or several plates inside the NERA box with a wobble effect, similiar to what the author described with NERA inside the T-72B and not just each single NERA plate but the entire body/box with additional plates in different angles so they maybe could induce a jaw to the Sabot. However even when you use the entery energy of NERA, i doubt that it will achieve similiar 80-90% effeciency of lowering performance of CE/KE like ERA does, not to mention the mentioned NERA being even better, so i doubt they can achieve 90-99% effeciency of defeating even CE, not to mention KE.

There is a good reason we see ERA blocks on tanks and light armored vehicles.

Mike E and Werewolf


Relikt uses HALF the explosives from its predecessor, Kontakt-5.

We are already half way there to NERA!

Let us just sit back and watch what the changes will be to Armata, no point in arguing now.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:Mike E and Werewolf


Relikt uses HALF the explosives from its predecessor, Kontakt-5.

We are already half way there to NERA!

Let us just sit back and watch what the changes will be to Armata, no point in arguing now.

But it still USES explosives... The difference between Relikt and NERA is massive. 

I agree, but I'm certain Armata uses ERA all around.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:Mike E and Werewolf


Relikt uses HALF the explosives from its predecessor, Kontakt-5.

We are already half way there to NERA!

Let us just sit back and watch what the changes will be to Armata, no point in arguing now.

That is to little information and very deceptive when not taking all factors into account.

What is important is how brisant is the explosive.

Trinitrotoluene (TNT) 1.60 6900 1.00

Hexanitrostilbene (HNS) 1.70 7080 1.05
Nitrourea 1.45 6860 1.05
Tritonal (80% TNT + 20% aluminium)* 1.70 6650 1.05
Amatol (80% TNT + 20% AN) 1.55 6570 1.10
Nitrocellulose (13.5% N, NC) 1.40 6400 1.10
Nitromethane (NM) 1.13 6360 1.10
PBXW-126 (22% NTO, 20% RDX, 20% AP, 26% Al, 12% PU’s system)* 1.80 6450 1.10
Diethylene glycol dinitrate (DEGDN) 1.38 6610 1.17
PBXIH-135 EB (42% HMX, 33% Al, 25% PCP-TMETN’s system)* 1.81 7060 1.17
PBXN-109 (64% RDX, 20% Al, 16% HTPB’s system)* 1.68 7450 1.17
Triaminotrinitrobenzene (TATB) 1.80 7550 1.17
Picric acid (TNP) 1.71 7350 1.20
Trinitrobenzene (TNB) 1.60 7300 1.20
Tetrytol (70% tetryl + 30% TNT) 1.60 7370 1.20
Nobel's Dynamite (75% NG + 23% diatomite) 1.48 7200 1.25
Tetryl 1.71 7770 1.25
Torpex (aka HBX, 41% RDX + 40% TNT + 18% Al + 1% wax)* 1.80 7440 1.30
Composition B (63% RDX + 36% TNT + 1% wax) 1.72 7840 1.33
Composition C-3 (78% RDX) 1.60 7630 1.33
Composition C-4 (91% RDX) 1.59 8040 1.34
Pentolite (56% PETN + 44% TNT) 1.66 7520 1.33
Semtex 1A (76% PETN + 6% RDX) 1.55 7670 1.35
RISAL P (50% IPN + 28% RDX + 15% Al + 4% Mg + 1% Zr + 2% NC)* 1.39 5980 1.40
Hydrazine mononitrate 1.59 8500 1.42
Mixture: 24% nitrobenzene + 76% TNM 1.48 8060 1.50
Mixture: 30% nitrobenzene + 70% nitrogen tetroxide 1.39 8290 1.50
Nitroglycerin (NG) 1.59 8100 1.54
Octol (80% HMX + 19% TNT + 1% DNT) 1.83 8690 1.54
NTO (Nitrotriazolon) 1.87 8120 1.60
DADNE (1,1-diamino-2,2-dinitroethene, FOX-7) 1.77 8330 1.60
Gelatine (92% NG + 7% nitrocellulose) 1.60 7970 1.60
Plastics Gel® (in toothpaste tube: 45% PETN + 45% NG + 5% DEGDN + 4% NC) 1.51 7940 1.60
Composition A-5 (98% RDX + 2% stearic acid) 1.65 8470 1.60
Erythritol tetranitrate (ETN) 1.60 8100 1.60
Chopin's Composition (10% PETN + 15% RDX + 72% ETN) 1.67 8220 1.60
Hexogen (RDX) 1.78 8700 1.60
PBXW-11 (96% HMX, 1% HyTemp, 3% DOA) 1.81 8720 1.60
Penthrite (PETN) 1.71 8400 1.66
Ethylene glycol dinitrate (EGDN) 1.49 8300 1.66
TNAZ (trinitroazetidine) 1.85 8640 1.70
Octogen (HMX grade B) 1.86 9100 1.70
HNIW (CL-20) 1.97 9380 1.80
Hexanitrobenzene (HNB) 1.97 9400 1.85
MEDINA (Methylene dinitroamine) 1.65 8700 1.93
DDF (4,4’-Dinitro-3,3’-diazenofuroxan) 1.98 10,000 1.95
Heptanitrocubane (HNC) 1.92 9200 N/A
Octanitrocubane (ONC) 1.95 10,600 2.38

Take a different explosive and you can cut down the weight of explosives without sacrificing effeciency of your explosive charge. The lower the explosive content the easier it is to find ways to direct it without sacrificing its effeciency but enhancing it, while lower tier of explosives with higher content always is wasted in unwanted directions.

Just because they use less explosive does not mean it is identical explosive material.

Let me put it amateurish, ERA will always be more effecient then NERA unless you stop developing ERA and only focus on NERA...

Well Werewolf

I am in good company with the president of NII Stali

Let us bet on the next iteration of dynamic armor being either NERA or ERA.

What shall we wager?

2SPOOKY4U wrote:Well Werewolf

I am in good company with the president of NII Stali

Let us bet on the next iteration of dynamic armor being either NERA or ERA.

What shall we wager?

My bet it is both.

Werewolf wrote:

What is important is how brisant is the explosive.

or more accurately the more brisant the explosive the faster the flyer plate becomes and the more metal you feed to the penetrator, assuming a sideways flying plate design.

Werewolf wrote:
Take a different explosive and you can cut down the weight of explosives without sacrificing effeciency of your explosive charge. The lower the explosive content the easier it is to find ways to direct it without sacrificing its effeciency but enhancing it, while lower tier of explosives with higher content always is wasted in unwanted directions.

Just because they use less explosive does not mean it is identical explosive material.

true, but from your source all the double efficiency explosives (rel. to TNT) are experimental or impractical. plus the dimensions are small enough and geometry simple(like just flat layer behind metal or something like that) that a "not so packed" to the reactive element explosive layer couldnt be noticeably more inefficient than one layer of slightly more powerful explosives.

Werewolf wrote:
Let me put it amateurish, ERA will always be more effecient then NERA unless you stop developing ERA and only focus on NERA...

but sooner or later you are going to encounter the middle of the s-curve, and unless you make a breakthrough results will stagnate. for ERA its the more brisant explosive, only problem is explosives as of late havent been doing much of success increasing their brisance- most efforts are to reducing the blast and enhancing hardiness against fire, elements etc. and if the 1st gen. heavy ERA subs. they use are only slightly worse than the former then with a few optimizations it will surpass it.

and reactive armors are merely virtual sloped armors really- doesnt matter what method you use to make the penetrator eat through a metal plate sideways as possible be it explosives, rubber, non-newtonian fluids, electromagnets etc.

Werewolf wrote:

2SPOOKY4U wrote:Well Werewolf

I am in good company with the president of NII Stali

Let us bet on the next iteration of dynamic armor being either NERA or ERA.

What shall we wager?

My bet it is both.

agree x9001. even if the NERAs they use surpass greatly the latest ERA in efficiency its still prudent to keep that outer layer of Heavy ERA just to complicate the ammo designer's job with incorporating a counter for the ERA's mode of defeat. in contrast, this is the main problem with the "muh composite armor is the best hurr durr" school of thought of armor design. the designers at NIMI(afaik the main ammo and warhead designer for the Russians) must be grateful this erroneous line of thinking will not stop soon .

GarryB wrote:ERA can't be used effectively on light vehicles... NERA can.

Their main drive to reduce the HE content of ERA was to make it usable on BMP-3 type vehicles.

I rather suspect that now the BMP-3 like vehicles (armata, boomerang, kurganets, and typhoon) can use normal ERA with the exception of Typhoon.

NERA can be used as built in armour modules and also add on skirt armour slabs.

ERA can be placed on top of pretty much any armour, though with very light armour there is no point.

As an example on a BTR the side armour wont stop HMG fire... and with ERA it still wont. Increasing the base armour like they have on the Typhoon means that ERA might be useful against older generation RPG models that have penetration performances of 300-400mm in that the ERA will greatly reduce that and might result in enough reduction that at some angles penetration of the underlying heavier layer might fail.

NII stali has already developed and sells ERA as effective as Kontakt-5 with bigger ERA blocks then usual Kontakt 5 but they also can stop 30mm to its side to BMP's because the ERA blocks have plates within, several off them without shattering or damaging the thin armor of light armored vehicles. So ERA can and is already in use on light vehicles while no NERA so far can even dream of achieving similiar effeciency. It is no wonder that Nii Stali constantly gets new patents and products of ERA but barely shows anything of NERA that is even K1 effective.

The misunderstanding here come from a bad use of the words ERA and NERA linked to the product in object.

For the significative technological breakthrough obtained by NII Stali some years ago in "energetic" materials ,and at which the statement of V. Grigoryan was refered, the terms NERA, NxRA and ERA badly adhere (maybe a kind of SLERA is the term most near to the product).

Those new nanomodified materials exploit local level of exoenergetic reactions (just in the interaction area) several times higher than those shown by the most advanced domestic ERA to those years (such as Relikt) with level of increased disturbance on the tunneling elements nearing a whole order of magnitude .

Those already validated products (with the potential to render totally obsolete even next generation of 152 mm KE penetrators and >150 caliber cumulative charge warheads) and with almost perfect multi-hit proprieties have the unique downside in enormous cost of theirs production with today basis.

Therefore until new production's solutions capable to render them mass affordable will be found, in the new line of ground forces vehicles will be implemented only transient solutions ,anyhow showing a dramatic increase in the level of protection offered in comparison with Relikt's staple.

^holy fck now i understand where they are coming from when they said the next gun for the T-14 would be a 152mm ETC gun...

Mindstorm wrote:
The misunderstanding here come from a bad use of the words ERA and NERA linked to the product in object.

For the significative technological breakthrough obtained by NII Stali some years ago in "energetic" materials ,and at which the statement of V. Grigoryan was refered, the terms NERA, NxRA and ERA badly adhere (maybe a kind of SLERA is the term most near to the product).

Those new nanomodified materials exploit local level of exoenergetic reactions (just in the interaction area) several times higher than those shown by the most advanced domestic ERA to those years (such as Relikt) with level of increased disturbance on the tunneling elements nearing a whole order of magnitude .

Those already validated products (with the potential to render totally obsolete even next generation of 152 mm KE penetrators and >150 caliber cumulative charge warheads) and with almost perfect multi-hit proprieties have the unique downside in enormous cost of theirs production with today basis.

Therefore until new production's solutions capable to render them mass affordable will be found, in the new line of ground forces vehicles will be implemented only transient solutions ,anyhow showing a dramatic increase in the level of protection offered in comparison with Relikt's staple.      

Can you post any research papers/files or principles and basis on physics that explain this SLERA?

Werewolf wrote:

Mindstorm wrote:
The misunderstanding here come from a bad use of the words ERA and NERA linked to the product in object.

For the significative technological breakthrough obtained by NII Stali some years ago in "energetic" materials ,and at which the statement of V. Grigoryan was refered, the terms NERA, NxRA and ERA badly adhere (maybe a kind of SLERA is the term most near to the product).

Those new nanomodified materials exploit local level of exoenergetic reactions (just in the interaction area) several times higher than those shown by the most advanced domestic ERA to those years (such as Relikt) with level of increased disturbance on the tunneling elements nearing a whole order of magnitude .

Those already validated products (with the potential to render totally obsolete even next generation of 152 mm KE penetrators and >150 caliber cumulative charge warheads) and with almost perfect multi-hit proprieties have the unique downside in enormous cost of theirs production with today basis.

Therefore until new production's solutions capable to render them mass affordable will be found, in the new line of ground forces vehicles will be implemented only transient solutions ,anyhow showing a dramatic increase in the level of protection offered in comparison with Relikt's staple.      

Can you post any research papers/files or principles and basis on physics that explain this SLERA?

x2, this sort of tech is really upsetting... and sounds too good to be true. i mean an order of magnitude of destructive/disruptive effect against the offending element is going to be confined such that multi-hit capability is retained.

So basically...instead of a larger explosive ala ERA this SLERA uses a material to mimic multiple, smaller explosions? 

The idea that a material reacts just at the "interaction area" makes it sound like a more potent non-Newtonian. 

If so I can see why it would best Relikts' performance.