[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

The cannon/aim needs to be better calibrated.. it could be that.. for 100% accurate shots..

On other note.. have more details of AFganit active protecition The active protection of Armata
have been released in RAE? WIll be nice to see exactly how it works.. if armata active protection can cover any attack from the top of the turret.

chicken wrote:The gunner's sight was zeroed in but the hit was off by a few centimeters to the left and it happened twice. Why?

Because theres gunner sight is not in line with the gun. Gun is very precise, as well as FCS, but their offset causes a very small offset from crosshair to impact point.

Khepesh wrote:It's difficult to get a precise measurement due to the way this video is edited, but I estimate turret traverse speed to be a full 360 rotation in no more than seven seconds, this is two seconds faster than any NATO tank and is a significant advantage. This should not be surprising due to lower weight of crewless turret. I will throw this observation as well. It may turn out that with gunner and commander in the hull, then there may be less disorientation due to sometimes loosing track, even with the turret traverse indicator, of where the turret is facing in relation to were the hull is facing. Of course only testing and practise will show if this is the case.

Someone did a measurement and got 45-degrees per second, which happens to be 8 seconds on the dot; and that may not be its' highest rotational speed. T-72B3 can already turn its' turret at 40 DPS.

It's impossible for the TC & Gunner to move with the turret, when they are located in a "firm" capsule forward of the turret. 

Thanks Spudd, lot of misinfo. over there.

Mike E wrote:

It's impossible for the TC & Gunner to move with the turret, when they are located in a "firm" capsule forward of the turret. 

I know, it's why I think it may be a help as when you are in the turret and the hull goes one way, the turret another, and you are looking thro commanders sight in a third direction, sometimes, when tired for instance, you get a bit disoriented as to were you are heading and what direction you are looking at. I would also say that not being subjected to the phsyical effects of being in a rapidly rotating turret, but in the more stable environment of the hull will also help. I think as long as the various screens that the commander can pull up show a clear indication of what they are, for instance it being clear which is the view of where the turret points and which way the panoramic sight points, then maybe the commanders job may be easier. Certainly having a bank of screens and information laid out directly in front of you is a leap forward I think.

On rotation speed I know that the speed expressed in how fast the turret can do a full rotation or X degrees is always quoted, but I think it more important how fast it can rotate from stationary, or moving from one direction to the opposite. For instance, if the gunner is scanning for targets over the left frontal quadrant and the commander is using the panoramic sight over the right quadrant, then, if commander sees a target, how fast will gun line up with his sight from possibly rotating in the opposite direction. The video nicely showed the panoramic sight contra-rotating for show, but I want to see it working in combat situation.

http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2259745

Looks like we will see demonstrations of the Armata platforms in RAE-2017

Similar news, in English

http://tass.ru/en/defense/820920

Firepower of Russia's new Armata tank may be demonstrated at next RAE arms show in 2017

(...)

The combat capabilities of the latest Russian military hardware, including the Armata platform, might be demonstrated at Russia Arms Expo 2017 in Nizhny Tagil , Alexey Zharich, deputy director general of the manufacturer, said at a news conference in TASS’s Urals Regional Information Center on Monday.

"We hope that the Defense Ministry in 2017 will permit us to demonstrate the tactical performance of the latest Russian armament, including the Armata," Zharich said.

Flyboy77 wrote:Just wondering with the Armata being shown at RAE, was there any reports/article/videos that answer the question why they decided not to integrate a coaxial machine gun into the tank?

Again? Armata has a coaxial machine gun, in the usual position at the right side of the gun elevation mechanism, you just can't see from the outside because you are still thinking the external structure you see is the real turret and not a simple covering.



Real turret or better gun pod is well inside it and contain only the most essential parts under a heavy but smallest possible volume armor, while between the pod and cover there are the active defense sensors and components i.e. something worthy enough to get some protection from blasts, fragment and smaller, not AT specific threats but not so to need some tons more armor added.
Just look as how much the gunner sight are buried inside structure or how the AFGANIT tubes are located under the outer skirt to get an idea of it works.

marcellogo wrote:Again? Armata has a coaxial machine gun, in the usual position at the right side of the gun elevation mechanism, you just can't see from the outside because you are still thinking the external structure you see is the real turret and not a simple covering. (...)

Correct me if I am wrong but since Armata machine gun can be electronically controlled, it can be programmed to be locked into the direction of the main gun. And in that case you won't need a coaxial gun anymore.

Mike E wrote:

Khepesh wrote:It's difficult to get a precise measurement due to the way this video is edited, but I estimate turret traverse speed to be a full 360 rotation in no more than seven seconds, this is two seconds faster than any NATO tank and is a significant advantage. This should not be surprising due to lower weight of crewless turret. I will throw this observation as well. It may turn out that with gunner and commander in the hull, then there may be less disorientation due to sometimes loosing track, even with the turret traverse indicator, of where the turret is facing in relation to were the hull is facing. Of course only testing and practise will show if this is the case.

Someone did a measurement and got 45-degrees per second, which happens to be 8 seconds on the dot; and that may not be its' highest rotational speed. T-72B3 can already turn its' turret at 40 DPS.

It's impossible for the TC & Gunner to move with the turret, when they are located in a "firm" capsule forward of the turret. 

Thanks Spudd, lot of misinfo. over there.

Where? Want to read that funny stuff!

higurashihougi wrote:

marcellogo wrote:Again? Armata has a coaxial machine gun, in the usual position at the right side of the gun elevation mechanism, you just can't see from the outside because you are still thinking the external structure you see is the real turret and not a simple covering. (...)

Correct me if I am wrong but since Armata machine gun can be electronically controlled, it can be programmed to be locked into the direction of the main gun. And in that case you won't need a coaxial gun anymore.

Could be that there are situations where gunner can engage targets with co-axial and commander with the MG on the panoramic sight. Or gunner can engage with co-axial while commander is busy with some other task. Due to all sights now being remote TV it may be possible that the ability if necessary for gunner to operate the panoramic sight is built in, but that would seem to present opportunities for confusion. Also you could have the co-axial as 12,7 to better take out soft skinned vehicles and leave the other MG as anti personel.

Werewolf, at the Armored Warfare forums. 

Sorry for the -1, my phone is acting up right now. I'll fix it tonight.

Mike E wrote:Werewolf, at the Armored Warfare forums. 

Sorry for the -1, my phone is acting up right now. I'll fix it tonight.

Might register to put that Israeli troll in his place.

Can't figure out what's worse - his lack of knowledge about WW2 and its tanks, or his superiority complex against Russian technology in general. What a douche.

flamming_python wrote:

Mike E wrote:Werewolf, at the Armored Warfare forums. 

Sorry for the -1, my phone is acting up right now. I'll fix it tonight.

Might register to put that Israeli troll in his place.

Can't figure out what's worse - his lack of knowledge about WW2 and its tanks, or his superiority complex against Russian technology in general. What a douche.

The thing that got me riled the most was the insistence that the T-14 is simply an equalizer,  that it is now simply a "Western" design. Out-fricken-standing.

OminousSpudd wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

Mike E wrote:Werewolf, at the Armored Warfare forums. 

Sorry for the -1, my phone is acting up right now. I'll fix it tonight.

Might register to put that Israeli troll in his place.

Can't figure out what's worse - his lack of knowledge about WW2 and its tanks, or his superiority complex against Russian technology in general. What a douche.

The thing that got me riled the most was the insistence that the T-14 is simply an equalizer,  that it is now simply a "Western" design. Out-fricken-standing.

I tried to "debunk" that belief on multiple occasions, with no success. The funny thing is; when someone says it "now matches Western vehicles", they can never explain why it doesn't surpass them. 

UVG...talking about exporting Armata in the future;

http://tass.ru/en/politics/821045

At the 2:50 mark on Zvezda's Armata video the turret rotation looks even faster than the 7 second guesstimate. Is it just me? Or is the video actually sped up just slightly at the start of the clip?

Can't find any official data on the turret traverse speed with my desperate English searching.

Also:

Gur Khan wrote:The T-14 will receive a 152-millimeter cannon and machine guns, including anti-aircraft.

from here.

According to the director general of the Uralvagonzavod the approximate price of T-14 is "almost 2 times lower than 500 mln rubles" (that was the number stated by the journalist).

http://svpressa.ru/war21/news/131826/

OminousSpudd wrote:
Can't find any official data on the turret traverse speed with my desperate English searching.

And you won't find it. Don't bother. It's classified. As well as top speed, weight, engine hp and so on. All numbers in the internet are just speculations.

ult wrote:According to the director general of the Uralvagonzavod the approximate price of T-14 is "almost 2 times lower than 500 mln rubles" (that was the number stated by the journalist).

http://svpressa.ru/war21/news/131826/

That would mean the T-14 costs are roughly $3.7M USD per tank.

500,000,000 roubles / 67 (extange rate to USD) / 2.

Although, I never heard the term 2x lower so I am assuming he means half the price. In english, 2x lower would indicate that the company pays them $7.2M.

Yeah, "almost 2 times cheaper". Probably around 300 mln.

I must notice that FCS software on Armata is far more mature than one i observed in K25 even tho its more than obvious they use similar hardware and very (at the end i belive it will be almost identical) software. K25 FCS software in that documentary from few days ago was very clumsy, this here however looks alot smoother and suprisingly i see it has sort of ORD. For those wondering what i am talking about http://www.igp.ethz.ch/photogrammetry/publications/pdf_folder/leibe08pami.pdf

Militarov wrote:I must notice that FCS software on Armata is far more mature than one i observed in K25 even tho its more than obvious they use similar hardware and very (at the end i belive it will be almost identical) software.  K25 FCS software in that documentary from few days ago was very clumsy, this here however looks alot smoother and suprisingly i see it has sort of ORD. For those wondering what i am talking about http://www.igp.ethz.ch/photogrammetry/publications/pdf_folder/leibe08pami.pdf

They are identical in their capability as automated track/lockon and guidance channels. They are both equipped with the exact same component which probably is derived from Okhotnik or alike. What you confuse with "stabilization" is nothing else but the gunner choose first the Commanders sight and then switched to gunners sight, both are independend adjustable. Why ? Quite simple if the gunner wants to see the target the Commander has choosen for him he turns one switch and both commanders and gunners sights are swapped, so gunner can engage while commander can quickly search for another target. Of course theory, but the obvious part is that he switched from one Commanders sights to his gunners sights which are next to the gun and not a little bit higher.

From my understanding is that the k15 weapon system isnt final yet.

It is my understanding that they are developing the electronics and sensors and weapons as suites... a bit like aircraft systems that are called avionics, the ground vehicles will also have sensor, electronics, and weapons suites to suit their role.

For instance the crew positions including controls will be unified and standarised so the gunner can be the driver or commander without moving position. the gunner from an Armata Tank vehicle will have the same controls as the gunner from a Kurganets, Boomerang, and Typhoon tank vehicle.

Of course the Typhoon might have a 57mm high velocity gun instead of a 125mm gun as fitted to the Kurganets and Boomerang and Armata because of its light weight, but the sensors and systems will be the same for all the vehicles. Equally the IFV model of all four vehicles will have the same sensors and systems though the Typhoon might have lighter weapons to increase ammo capacity on the lighter vehicle.

the main differences will be 152mm artillery and 125mm tank gun carrying models as they would both likely be too big and heavy for the Typhoon class vehicles and the 152mm might even be too big for the Boomerang and Kurganets vehicles.

I would speculate that the Boomerang and Kurganets might substitute the 120mm long barrel rifled gun/mortar of the Vena instead of the 152mm, while the Typhoon might have a the same, or if it is too much gun then a 100mm rifled gun from the BMP-3M as direct fire support artillery

I suspect with the widespread use of a 57mm or 45mm gun for the IFV models the 30/100mm combination might become redundant. The APC models might get the 30mm, but I doubt they would give it the 100mm gun due to ammo space taking up too much troop capacity room... therefore external 30mm cannon with turrets that do not penetrate into the crew compartment will be the APC armament along with ATGMs most likely. (in my opinion of course )

I donÄt know Mike E but i think you are trying to argue with that guy on AW forum with the u-57... username, how he constructs his sentences reminds me of one guy here and he seems to be online. At least i have read exact same words years ago arguing with Damian90/Militarysta...just saying.

ult wrote:According to the director general of the Uralvagonzavod the approximate price of T-14 is "almost 2 times lower than 500 mln rubles" (that was the number stated by the journalist).

http://svpressa.ru/war21/news/131826/

OminousSpudd wrote:
Can't find any official data on the turret traverse speed with my desperate English searching.

And you won't find it. Don't bother. It's classified. As well as top speed, weight, engine hp and so on. All numbers in the internet are just speculations.

Inflation is so sweet for Russian steel.