[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

So for $6.8 billion Russia can get 1000 T-14 Armata tanks. Does anyone believe that Russia cannot afford this cost?

Note that 1000 tanks is not peanuts and Russia does not need 10000 of them.

Here is some comic relief:

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/five-nato-weapons-war-russia-should-fear-10769

$6.8B is a small amount when Russia's budget this year is $80B and next year it will be about in the $60-70B range and by 2018 it will be in the $55B range, so even with a reduction of a budget by 2018, they could easily afford them.  Heck, if they purchased 1000 in 2018, that would still leave the budget in the late $40B range which is quite a bit still.  If spread out to 300 tanks a year, then it is far less per year.

I think the smart move is to simply purchase into the platforms as a whole. Look at replacing all others. If they all use some common parts (Armata's and Kurganets as examples), then it would greatly reduce costs in the long run and I bet that the cost of those tanks and IFV and such will drop drastically over time.

kvs wrote:So for $6.8 billion Russia can get 1000 T-14 Armata tanks.   Does anyone believe that Russia cannot afford this cost?

Note that 1000 tanks is not peanuts and Russia does not need 10000 of them.

If the mass-produced the average price will go down and Russia could afford at least 2000. UVG says $5 million per T-14.

kvs wrote:So for $6.8 billion Russia can get 1000 T-14 Armata tanks.   Does anyone believe that Russia cannot afford this cost?

Note that 1000 tanks is not peanuts and Russia does not need 10000 of them.

Here is some comic relief:

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/five-nato-weapons-war-russia-should-fear-10769

Once again, this is the hypothetical price. We don't know how much the programme will end up costing. The first prototypes will be the most expensive. For the rest EVEN if the tank comes at 400 mln RUB the price isn't abnormally high.If the procurement goes for more than a decade (90 tanks a year) then the cost would be the least of Russia's worries.

kvs wrote:So for $6.8 billion Russia can get 1000 T-14 Armata tanks.   Does anyone believe that Russia cannot afford this cost?

Note that 1000 tanks is not peanuts and Russia does not need 10000 of them.

Here is some comic relief:

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/five-nato-weapons-war-russia-should-fear-10769

Lol, Tiger Helicopter, Eurofighter and Chally 2 is worrying for russia?

So Tiger, Eurofighter and Chally are worrying for russia but Leopard 2A6, Apache AH-64D/E and F-18/15 which exists in numbers are not?

What a nonsense.

Viktor wrote:First word about price ...

Businessinsider place it abt. 15million $

LINK

Viktor, be careful about quoting prices from business insider. It is another Western propaganda journal. They would purposely showcase Russian hardware in poor light and this includes inflating prices as well.

KoTeMoRe wrote: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.

Thanks for the sources. I am honestly a bit weary about KSA contract numbers as they are always inflated and there is boatload of weapons/support/spareparts/training behind them, like their F-15SA contract. Again, thanks for the sources but i still think 14.8mil euro is inflated still. Finland bought 100 Leo A6's for 200 mil euro, but those were second hand from NL so not really representative, however an article about the contract says following;

According to the military planning, the upgrading of existing Leopard 2A4 into 2A6 level would have cost €5 million per tank, while the procurement of new production tanks would cost about €10 million. wrote:

http://defense-update.com/20140119_finland_buys_dutch_leopards.html#.VauU0_ljbIU

10 mil euro is probably closer to the truth although i admit that is still higher than what i expected them to be.

And no worries.

I have once asked but i ask again: if on tank we put some wheels wich spin some iron barrels there is posibility to deviate the incoming apfsds?

victor1985 wrote:I have once asked but i ask again: if on tank we put some wheels wich spin some iron barrels there is posibility to deviate the incoming apfsds?

Would a be a very wierd form to protect a tank and i doubt that it would had any effeciency from the spinning maybe some spaced armor and those iron barrels would block alot of space and maybe prevent tank from moving, seeing or proper function of ERA,APS or detection of incoming objects.

Berkut wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote: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.

Thanks for the sources. I am honestly a bit weary about KSA contract numbers as they are always inflated and there is boatload of weapons/support/spareparts/training behind them, like their F-15SA contract. Again, thanks for the sources but i still think 14.8mil euro is inflated still. Finland bought 100 Leo A6's for 200 mil euro, but those were second hand from NL so not really representative, however an article about the contract says following;



http://defense-update.com/20140119_finland_buys_dutch_leopards.html#.VauU0_ljbIU

10 mil euro is probably closer to the truth although i admit that is still higher than what i expected them to be.

And no worries.

Everything depends on what you put on your upgrade. The Total contract for the 2A6HEL was 230 million euros (150 vehicles+20 in option). The New ammunition complement for 355 tanks for the Greek Armed forces (12K rounds) was worth 52 million Euros. You're free to think the way you want, but the 2A7 PSO (picked up by the KSA) is a totally different beast. I'm sure about my math, but time will tell.

Edit: My bad the 230 million contract was for the used 2A4's. The actual cost of the 2A6HEL (among other goodies) was around 2 bln Euro.

Probably depends also of how well is the wheel system maked. With a some heating system would prevent blocking and frozing. But...will require lot of energy. On the other side if work...could lead to a almost impenetrable tank. Now maintenance and replace parts would be ideed a problem. But...lets think to formula 1 teams how fast change the wheels. Some fast replacing sistem and modular parts logically maked that to be easy to unpack would work. Heat will help unblocking.

The big problem would be the cost. But you dont need to make 1000 of them. 700 is enough. Thinking that such a tank could be better than 5enemy ones the price would be acceptable

Well not quite. You take for example a simple electromotor wich spin the wheel at 300 rpm. 300 divided by 60 how much is it? Is a complete rotation in 5 seconds. Add the fact that on the wheel would 3-5 barrels then at every second a barrel is everywhere on the circle of wheel. Is impossible that a apfsds not being hit by wheel and deviate.

Also is the fact that the kinetic energy would help deviate the apfsds ... And is not need to deviate much but only to have a no perpedicular trajectory with the armour and air.

*note ...is 0,5 seconds.
Wait ...is even less.
Is 60 divided by 300 wich is 0,2

Too bulky and inefficient, never mind the weight. The goal of modern armor is to be "dense" in regards to Mass Efficiency and Thickness Efficiency, and the best ways of doing that are composites, laminates, ERA, and NxRA.

Such wheels would be useless. The biggest effect such wheels could have on the penetrator is as spaced armor for HEAT and the only actual benefit against KE projectiles would be the spinning, not the spinning upon impact, but the spinning of the wheel after the Sabot has passed half or 2/3'rd into the wheel and the wheel then pushes against the rear of the Sabot and induces a yaw, however from understanding of physics often Kinetic impact on moving parts will often clog those moving parts for at least a split second this split second is far enough for a high velocity Sabot to pass through the wheel and further advance to the armor without any effect on it and no yaw induced from moving barrel.


BTW, moving barrels are more useful on aircrafts and ships to reduce cross winds or use it like sail that uses the wind to push it.

It is called the Magnus-Effect.

Russia’s newest Armata tank to be on display at RAE-2015 expo in Nizhny Tagil

The Armata was developed as a replacement to the T-95 tank

YEKATERINBURG, July 27. /TASS/. Russia’s newest tank on the Armata platform will be put on display on the second day of the Russia Arms Expo - 2015 (RAE-2015) exhibition, which will be held in Nizhny Tagil in Russia’s Urals region in September, director general of the Nizhny Tagil Institute of Metal Testing Nikolai Smirnov said on Monday.

"Complex demonstrations of military equipment within a company task group will be held on the first day of the exhibition. Armata will not take part in them. Such displays are for the equipment adopted by the Defense Ministry. New products, including the famous Armata tank, will be put on display on the second day of the exhibition. This is a traditional day for companies to present their new products, including in action," Smirnov said at a news conference in the TASS-Urals regional centre.

Armata is a heavy unified platform serving as a base for a tank and an infantry combat vehicle. The new tanks have received unmanned turrets, all digital control and isolated armoured crew capsules. The key armament of Armata is a 125-mm gun, but the use of a 152-mm gun is not ruled out in the future. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said previously that an Armata shell "burns a metre of steel." The Armata tanks were showcased during the Victory Parade in Moscow on May 9, 2015. These are experimental prototypes that returned to their manufacturer plant for improvement and later tests in troops, which are to be held in 2016. Serial production of these tanks is expected to begin in 2017-2018.

The Armata is a new Russian main battle tank (MBT) project. Sometimes it is referred to as T-14. Its development commenced in 2011. The Armata was developed as a replacement to the T-95 tank. The whole project was kept in high secrecy. First mock-up was revealed to Russian military officials in 2013. Trials commenced in 2014. Armata is a new-generation tank, which has little in common with the current T-90. Exact technical specifications of this MBT remain classified.

RAE-2015 will be held at the Staratel range of the Nizhny Tagil Institute of Metal Testing from September 9 to 12. The previous RAE exhibition, held in 2013, brought together early 470 exhibitors and delegations from 40 countries. The exhibition attracted more than 20,000 visitors.

GarryB wrote:

Also is the fact that the kinetic energy would help deviate the apfsds ... And is not need to deviate much but only to have a no perpedicular trajectory with the armour and air.

The problem with spinning plates or barrels is that to get them to spin they can't be too heavy... if they are light then it doesn't matter how fast they are spinning they will be easily penetrated by a modern APFSDS round.

ERA uses explosives to move a metal plate into the path of an incoming penetrator and is vastly more efficient... they don't need to continuously spin or move, they can be added on top of existing armour, and they don't activate unless hit directly.

Physically moving armour is far too problematic to be practical.

I dunno, I consider it an interesting idea even if an inpractical one.

It goes w/o saying that an APFSDS round will get through any garbage spinning in its way; however imparting even a tiny bit of lateral momentum to the round, or deflecting it a tiny tiny bit so that it doesn't quite come head on - will hugely inhibit its effectiveness.

We are of course talking about a very dense, heavy, hot spear of alloy travelling at over 2km/s, so the rpm of the spinning material would have be pretty high, and also weigh at least a few kg so as to not simply crumple like paper or melt when it comes into contact with the nose/middle/tail of the round.

Couldn't find any post like this before: http://www.arms-expo.ru/news/vooruzhenie_i_voennaya_tekhnika/raskryty_plany_po_osnashcheniyu_armii_armatoy/