[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

Honestly at this point, it's just better to go with a cheaper and more reliable solution, which would be HE-Frag shells with multiple fuzes. Ideally it would have mutliple fuzes for the shell, like a fuze that causes the APS shell to explode on proximity towards and APFSDS dart 5-10 meters away from the Armata vehicle, with the help of it's X-band radar, and Zoopark-1 Ground Surveillance/Artillery radar (to identify MBT's). Another fuze could fire APS shells out of the canister like a massive buckshot shot gun shell to destroy RPG's at extreme point-blank range, which should be the default fuze setting.

I was laughing, and thinking half-seriously about the 45 mm vs 57 mm autocannon debate...and I thought to myself, wouldn't it be hilariously if the 57 mm autocannon won the competition, but the 45 mm was still adopted as a dedicated APS shell lol? Yeah, it may prove to be impractical, but the idea had me smiling with child-like glee lol...

Mike E wrote:Computers aren't the solution to everything... You'd be much more stressed to get a DIRECT hit on the incoming projectile than simply detonating next to it. 

HEF is more than enough for incoming projectiles... The blast stresses and redirects it, while fragmentation weakens it to the point of breaking. 

Computers are indeed the solution, and yes it is more complex, but not one that would present difficulty.

Again, a T-90A can withstand a 30Knt blast from less than a kilometre.

Realize that blast overpressure is a rather inefficient way of defeating anything dense.

I have doubts on the effectiveness of mere kilograms of explosive creating a strong enough blast wave to defeat an extremely dense solid penetrator traveling at extreme supersonic speeds.

Mike E wrote:This is the CIWS argument all over again... Frag is more reliable than an interception with an EFP, and like it or not Afganit uses it...

Remind me of the CIWS argument?

Frag is an inefficient system compared to EFI, and like it or not you have no clue to how Afghanit works.

magnumcromagnon wrote:Honestly at this point, it's just better to go with a cheaper and more reliable solution, which would be HE-Frag shells with multiple fuzes. Ideally it would have mutliple fuzes for the shell, like a fuze that causes the APS shell to explode on proximity towards and APFSDS dart 5-10 meters away from the Armata vehicle, with the help of it's X-band radar, and Zoopark-1 Ground Surveillance/Artillery radar (to identify MBT's). Another fuze could fire APS shells out of the canister like a massive buckshot shot gun shell to destroy RPG's at extreme point-blank range, which should be the default fuze setting.

What makes you think that the EFI option would be that much more expensive than a HE-FRAG solution?

Armata with X-band radar I know of, but where did you get the Zoopark-1 radar being mounted on the Armata from?


Instead of wasting time on fuzes, simply use a EFI to intercept any munition at a long distance, 5-10 meters or so. Anything extreme point-blank would have to be small and lightweight to get that close and not have its operator killed, and any man portable anti tank system that is small and lightweight is easy pickings for Armata's armor.

Yes, computers are magic machines that can do anything. 

That's not relevant... The HEF round will be in close proximity to the projectile. 

Which is why it combines the HE with...the FRAG. Together they are efficient and reliable, never mind simpler. 

It doesn't need to demolish the round. A few kilos combined with fragmentation (especially if directed) is enough to stress the round out if its path and cause drastic structure problems. 

Frag vs. AP shells is the "CIWS" argument as navies head to using larger caliber CIWS guns.....that use timed HEF (I wonder why).

The munitions are labeled for explosives.

Mike E wrote:Yes, computers are magic machines that can do anything. 

That's not relevant... The HEF round will be in close proximity to the projectile. 

Which is why it combines the HE with...the FRAG. Together they are efficient and reliable, never mind simpler. 

It doesn't need to demolish the round. A few kilos combined with fragmentation (especially if directed) is enough to stress the round out if its path and cause drastic structure problems. 

The munitions are labeled for explosives.

Never did I say that computers are magic machines, the computer already makes 4 dimensional calculations, this won't really complicate things all that much.

Afghanit will have to contend with next-gen western APFSDS, new materials, new speeds, etc.


Blast overpressure loses effectiveness very quickly, how close can you get the canisters, are they supposed to maneuver in air?

ATGM/APFSDS don't maneuver, but you do realize the launchers are fixed right?

Depending on the angle the penetrator comes in at, the launchers won't be able to intercept it.

Look at the Afghanit launchers, they do not exactly angle anywhere close to upwards.

To intercept a penetrator that comes in at a upper angle,(ie the shooter is above the Armata) the APS munition would have to maneuver in some fashion at least to set off a directed blast.

But a munition of that kind would be rather expensive and not that reliable, just look at the U.S. Quick Kill.

So Russia goes a step above, truly worthy of the slavic master race, a APS munition that was higher performing yet simpler at the same time.

Instead of a munition that required maneuvering, they created a munition that would have a natural spin, with an ever increasing angle deviation from path of travel.

This munition when exploded, sends a EFP flying at hypersonic speeds, with significant imparted velocity, destroying any munition with in its line of fire.


The APS munition will have to take some time in flight before being able to engage high angle incoming targets, but that is fine as high angle targets can be spotted long before they get close, thanks to both the radar and EO systems on the Armata. And vice versa, the APFSDS rounds will most likely come in at a similar plane and azimuth to the fixed launchers, thereby reducing flight time needed for the munition to achieve line on target.

Much like the Armata, the APS system leaves everything previously developed behind, much to the displeasure of the Western fanboys.

You raise a good point but it is also true v. EFP interceptors to a point. 

Anything immediately above or below could be targeted assuming they are at distance (lesser angle) but anything outside of the ordinary would pose a problem. 

The munitions EFP or not could have some sort of basic thrust system to follow a programmed path...but details are scarce and only time will tell. 

EFP or HEF, Afganit is a leader.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
Why rely on blast overpressure when you can use directed penetrators.

Because you are trying to intercept something that are very small, much smaller than ATGM's. If one wish to keep its munition cost low.. then blast offer best options.

Your "kinetic solution" may even require the munition to have terminal seeker in the manner of Quick Kill.

Show me at least one scientific paper that says Blast Overpressure is better optimized for defeat of kinetic penetrators than a direct kinetic hit on the projectile itself.

I politely recommend you consider the effect of a blast-overpressure type munition on a highly dense penetrator traveling at extreme speeds.

This excerpt from that rag you linked should conclude this paragraph nicely.

"The effect of the explosion on the flight path seems to be insignificant".

How about if you do the math in that paper yourself and change the intercept distance to 100 m or 200 m



302 cm deflection. Warhead assumption is HMX.

Yaw effect ? 40 degrees.

Now how much deflection your kinetic solution can afford ?

Stealthflanker wrote:
Good radar helps everything, and again, with blast overpressure you simply waste energy. Blast Overpressure as a defeating element leaves doubts to its effectiveness.

Nope. and anyway Blast can be directed, and it does not even need your hypercomplex unnecessary spinning. How ? fly slightly above the penetrator and you're all set.

Stealthflanker wrote:
Because blast overpressure is less effective than directed kinetic interceptors.

Define "Effective"

Stealthflanker wrote:
How about if you do the math in that paper yourself and change the intercept distance to 100 m or 200 m

now that intercept distance would be very unlikely. first of all the launchers are fixed; it has to be aimed directly so that the interceptor can use most of its energy to speed up to the intercept point and not waste it correcting itself. second, the launchers dont look like what's inside them pack the needed propulsion power to reach 100m let alone 200m in the time it takes the KEP to strike the tank after being detected.

OTOH, i just learned that shaped charge jets are actually disadvantaged when coming up against something moving very fast on the approach rel. to it and possessing orders of magnitude more mass and also being much harder and also meeting it while it hasnt had properly formed. so EFP will not do well either as i previously thought it would since while its mass is enough to be noticed(whether the liner is arranged laterally normally(like 2SPOOKY4U's idea)), the velocity it travels is very comparable to the KEP's and more importantly it would need quite a lot of room to properly form, not to mention the really insane precision this thing needs to have- the KEP is a really small and very fast and very hard target, though not maneuverable in any way- if it werent for the last it would be complete antithesis of ideal target. trying to hit this thing with another of same working principle is literally hitting bullet with bullet problem- can be done but very, very hard to pull off.

instead, i think what they would use is time proven solution- directed frag warheads, good enough for S-300v, good enough for afghanistan APS.
it makes up for the weak effect of a pure blast warhead (remember since the intercept distance is much closer now) with some mass behind it to push the KEP out of line and the EFP's inherent difficulty in hitting the target with a tightly choked shotgun blast.

collegeboy16 wrote:
now that intercept distance would be very unlikely. first of all the launchers are fixed; it has to be aimed directly so that the interceptor can use most of its energy to speed up to the intercept point and not waste it correcting itself. second, the launchers dont look like what's inside them pack the needed propulsion power to reach 100m let alone 200m in the time it takes the KEP to strike the tank after being detected.

Which would imply shorter intercept range. It is still possible to punch the inbound penetrator off the path at 15 meter with pure blast. The required miss distance to achieve this is around 5 cm directly tied to the radar's achievable angular accuracy. Still possible with small antenna (say 30x20 cm) and frequency of 35 GHZ.

The deflection is 1.81 m. still enough to ground the APFSDS. the warhead mass is 1 Kg.

instead, i think what they would use is time proven solution- directed frag warheads, good enough for S-300v, good enough for afghanistan APS.
it makes up for the weak effect of a pure blast warhead (remember since the intercept distance is much closer now) with some mass behind it to push the KEP out of line and the EFP's inherent difficulty in hitting the target with a tightly choked shotgun blast.

The thing is that can you ensure the munition will stop spinning after leaving the launcher ?

All what it need is a good sensor with good accuracy. No need to overcomplicate stuff with spinning or aligning warhead.

Stealthflanker wrote:
The deflection is 1.81 m. still enough to ground the APFSDS. the warhead mass is 1 Kg.

bretty good effect i should say- i was kinda worried a pure blast warhead doesnt have that much momentum in its, uh , well blast to deflect the KEP thisclose to the tank, inverse square law and all and that a directed frag. would be needed. btw what is yaw angle on the KEP?

anyways, i just found out that the 125 guns are actually 51 calibres in length and not 48 . turns out the guns the T-14 sport all this time are 2a82-1ms , and have 7m long gun barrel.

Koaliton SV modify T90 chassis. I think can work

No perfect even US buy outside
- Aim 120 + Aim 9x rely Norway Nammo motor
- Sryker the EU design
- M1 lot german tech
- Ru rocket space

But need the partner. Ru to help ?  

A little hint from a patent...


http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/226/2263268.html

Mindstorm wrote:
A little hint from a patent...


http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/226/2263268.html

Knowing google translate...can I have more than a hint? 

Seemingly a few mysteries have been solved; 

 - The whole "NERA" thing was true (though it ain't really NERA)... Armata uses small bricks on its' top armor for the above-Glacis and turret. This is a so-called "Ballistic Reactive Armor" that uses a thin layer of explosives, very thin, and multiple layers of metals & ceramics to defeat chemical and kinetic projectiles. Supposedly it does so by transferring huge amounts of vibrations and energy into the projectile directly, rather than hitting it with a plate as per K-5, or two plates as per Relikt. Instead of inducing one kind of stress onto the projectile, it induces many. Why they don't use this on the Glacis I do not know...though it probably has to do with cost/complexity, or Armata's new ERA simply being *that effective*. 

- Afganit, or at least one kind of interceptor, does indeed use EFP's as their charge. 

- Crew capsules of both T-14 & T-15 have extra plating underneath, for increased mine protection. 

- T-14 & T-15 have integrated ERA or the new "ballistic" solution for the Lower Frontal Plate, increasing protection dramatically. 

- T-14's turret indeed uses some form of reactive armor within the external shell, per observation. 

- Both Armata's use a type of composite side armor that was first pioneered on the Object-477A.

Book. wrote:Koaliton SV modify T90 chassis. I think can work

No perfect even US buy outside
- Aim 120 + Aim 9x rely Norway Nammo motor
- Sryker the EU design
- M1 lot german tech
- Ru rocket space

But need the partner. Ru to help ?  

M1 Abrams had a british gun in its prototype version (105mm rifled). It also had crap armour... till they got Chobham Armour from the British and a German 120mm smoothbore main gun. The upgrades now include a variation or Dorchester armour... also British, and it still has a German main gun and now it has a Belgian coaxial MG (M270... FN MAG).

Mindstorm wrote:
A little hint from a patent...


http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/226/2263268.html

The aim of the present invention is to increase the speed and effectiveness of the weapons complex active protection.

The goal is achieved in that the weapon system is used as a protective munition warhead with a cumulative funnel with a large opening angle, which operates on the principle of "shock core" and mounted on a rotary basis, associated with the control system of the complex protection.

The principle of operation of the proposed weapon system is as follows. After the start of the detection system to accompany the purpose and define its parameters, the signal from the system of processing and control goes to the actuator pivot base, which begins work at the direction of the goal in two planes. The estimated time for the fuse protective ammunition supplied control signal and is its subversion. As a result, it undermines formed striking element - the "core of shock", which, depending on the intended use, may have a diameter of 30-40 cm and armor-piercing capacity of up to 50-80 mm monolithic steel armor average hardness.

The speed of the striking element reaches 2-3 km / s. Thus, the point of intersection killing agent will be delivered in time than in all known systems (bullet speed - 900 m / s, the velocity of the munition KAZ "thrush" - 120 m / s), and therefore, the proposed technical solution allows improve the performance of complex active protection.


Excellent find Mindstorm.

Excellent to see the protective munition reaching hypersonic velocities, consistent with EFP

First word about price ...

Businessinsider place it abt. 15million $

LINK

Viktor wrote:First word about price ...

Businessinsider place it abt. 15million $

LINK

1; They say nothing about 15 million $.
2; The article is crap and has literally no numbers to back it up other than linking to some blog.
3; Businessinsider is generally speaking crap.

400 million rub per piece has been thrown around but that number is pure speculation and is related to prototypes and those will always be much more expensive.

The question of price: what is the price of the «Armata» going to be? Is it going to be similar to the price of a modern aircraft or a helicopter?

М.: No wonder the new tank price is going to be higher than of those that are in the inventory now. Further upgrading of the equipment that is operated on the same physical principles becomes still harder. Though, the new tank, if compared by the «effectiveness to cost» characteristic, surpasses the previous generation equipment significantly. An everyman is free to compare anything he wants. But experts fail to understand how one can compare the prices of different purpose battle systems that operate in different mediums. Why not to compare a tank to a submarine or to a space rocket, then?

К.: One cannot compare the T-14 and modern fighter plane prices. The latter costs dozens of millions of dollars. At the most, it can be compared to the Yak-130 fighter-trainer, though, the T-14 price is lower (about 4 to 5 million dollars at the current exchange rate). That is much cheaper than the foreign analogues that cost much more than 10 million dollars.

Kh.: the T-14 starting price, announced by the Ministry of Defense magazine «Vooruzhenie i ekonomica», is 400 million rubles. The last T-90A procurements price was about 100 million rubles. It is quite natural one cannot compare the abovementioned prices to those of the aircraft. Modern battle planes are much more expensive.

One should mention that unlike an aircraft a tank is a less complicated and wider spread type of armament. If a tank engine dies out, it will neither fall nor crash; requirements for both the tank and its crew training are less strict. The tanks presented on the parade were hand assembled, under temporary instruction and technology. If they buy them in lots of 100−200 units a year, the price will fall considerably.

All foreign tanks (excluding the Chinese tanks) cost from 5 to 12 million dollars. But if compared to «Armata» they are outdated. They assemble the T-14 just of the homemade components, which means the tank price does not depend on exchange fluctuation.

http://en.defendingrussia.ru/a/t14_armata_mnenie_ekspertov-2693/

Defend Ru respond to West popogana!

Viktor wrote:First word about price ...

Businessinsider place it abt. 15million $

LINK

Business Insider is load of crap authored by collection of morons. It should be used only as entertainment material.

That guy Gorenburg  who first came up with ''Armata too expensive for Russians'' actually thinks that Serdukov is Napoleon-level military genius.

Berkut wrote:

Viktor wrote:First word about price ...

Businessinsider place it abt. 15million $

LINK

1; They say nothing about 15 million $.
2; The article is crap and has literally no numbers to back it up other than linking to some blog.
3; Businessinsider is generally speaking crap.

400 million rub per piece has been thrown around but that number is pure speculation and is related to prototypes and those will always be much more expensive.

400 mln RUB makes it 6.8 mln USD at current exchange rate...what's so bad about the price? The VT-4 is at 5 million USD piece "naked"...It's hardly overpriced. The KSA contract for the new Leopard 2A7SA was at 14 million a tank. European. This is like the Greek crisis, people talk out of their arse, with numbers from the Cold War...At 8 mln a pop in 1991 the Abrams current cost would 14 million USD, "NAKED". Inflation matters.

''Soon the entire Russian army will sit on the chassis "Armata" ''

http://military-informant.com/?p=26645

PapaDragon wrote:
''Soon the entire Russian army will sit on the chassis "Armata" ''

http://military-informant.com/?p=26645

If they mean that soon is within the next 20+ years then sure.

KoTeMoRe wrote:400 mln RUB makes it 6.8 mln USD at current exchange rate...what's so bad about the price? The VT-4 is at 5 million USD piece "naked"...It's hardly overpriced. The KSA contract for the new Leopard 2A7SA was at 14 million a tank. European. This is like the Greek crisis, people talk out of their arse, with numbers from the Cold War...At 8 mln a pop in 1991 the Abrams current cost would 14 million USD, "NAKED".  Inflation matters.

I said anything about it being a bad price?

Because it is about 4 times as much as T-90A? How many of those are in service, thousands? Source for 14 million per Leo 2A7? Oplot-M's were ~4million a piece and generally speaking normal prices are around that from what i have seen, 4-6 millions. A good price for armata would be 200-250mil RUB imho.

Berkut wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:400 mln RUB makes it 6.8 mln USD at current exchange rate...what's so bad about the price? The VT-4 is at 5 million USD piece "naked"...It's hardly overpriced. The KSA contract for the new Leopard 2A7SA was at 14 million a tank. European. This is like the Greek crisis, people talk out of their arse, with numbers from the Cold War...At 8 mln a pop in 1991 the Abrams current cost would 14 million USD, "NAKED".  Inflation matters.

I said anything about it being a bad price?

Because it is about 4 times as much as T-90A? How many of those are in service, thousands? Source for 14 million per Leo 2A7? Oplot-M's were ~4million a piece and generally speaking normal prices are around that from what i have seen, 4-6 millions. A good price for armata would be 200-250mil RUB imho.

My bad, the initial contract was at 5 billion Euro per 270 Leopard vehicles (240 Leo2A7-SA and 30 Leo2 based ARV's) This puts the cost per vehicle at ~19 million. Let's say you have a Log train to respect And slash about 60 million for the spare parts a year over 20 years as per norm, and another 90 million for the ARV's (that's the catalog price btw) and we sit nicely over 1.29 billion Euro for the side dishes. This makes way for the rest of the calculus. You have a usually about 10x the net complement of rounds per tank yearly (the Greek contract had the ammo complement at 40 million Euro for its 150 used 2A4's ten years ago- let's quadruple that just because of the KSA 160 million) we're at 1.45 bln Euros worth in spares and ARV's. That's 3.55 bln Euros for 240 tanks. That's 14.8 mill per tank.

The NEW contract spoke about 800 tanks in a 18 billion Euro bill. Just so you know.

http://www.neurope.eu/article/germany-likely-lose-arms-export-contract-saudi-arabia/

http://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/industrie/panzer-exporte-kampf-um-den-leo-user-club/10707978.html

http://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/industrie/kraus-maffei-wegmann-milliardenschwerer-panzerdeal-droht-zu-scheitern/8487434.html

I wasn't taking on you at all. If you had that feeling, I appologise.