[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

Werewolf wrote: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.

Emm.... how da hell did i end up being sorted up with "Russian haters".... And no my username on AW is nothing like that its same as here and i do not really post there at all.

The designers of Russia’s T-14 Armata main battle tank have unveiled more details of what is arguably the best armored vehicle ever built.

First off, the tank’s engine and gearbox are built as a single whole, which facilitates its repair and replacement. Uralvagonzavod representative Oleg Zozulya did not elaborate on the engine’s details, saying only that the Armata tank featured the most powerful engine ever built for Russian tanks, which means that the engine packs at least 1,500 horsepower.

The tank’s speed is another big secret, but, judging by what they saw during the the May 9 Victory Day parade debut on Moscow’s Red Square, it could be in the ballpark of 100 kilometers an hour.

The tank crew is securely enclosed in a multi-layer armored capsule separated from the ammunition container. The vehicle is fully computerized and remote-controlled via a high-resolution video cameras that directs its movement, track targets and activates the tank's defense systems. This frees the crew from performing routine tasks to allow it to focus on key combat functions.

"For the crew, it's like playing a video game," said Ilya Demchenko, one of the Armata's designers. The Armata's chief designer, Andrei Terlikov, said that the new technologies built into the Armata could make it possible in the future to build a fully robotic vehicle that would operate autonomously on the battlefield.

The Armata uses a new type of armor, which designers say is significantly more resistant to enemy fire. On top of that, the vehicle is protected by an improved version of reactive armor, which explodes on impact to stop a projectile from reaching the main layer of armor. The Armata is also equipped with a so-called active protection system, forming an outer perimeter of its defenses. When the system spots an enemy projectile, it fires a round to destroy it or knock it off its path.

The current version of the Armata is equipped with a remotely controlled standard-caliber 125-mm cannon, with fully automated loading, which can fire both regular shells and rockets. Designers say that a much more powerful 152-mm cannon could be easily fitted to the Armata in the future.

The tank’s modular structure also allows for quick and easy modernization of its elements and systems.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150917/1027128656.html#ixzz3lzesTSAJ

KoTeMoRe wrote:

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.

Nosterdamus has a few descendants lol...

Lets get back ontopic. Did no one else here notice the image blending technology in the Armata?



Check out the distortion of the squares at the bottom, and the distortion of the BTR as well.

Coupled with the moving target indicators also present, Armata has some serious sensor/processing capability.

What are you getting at?

Technically speaking, have you ever took a video camera and filmed what you see on TV, and then look at the video vs what you are watching? You will notice distortion regardless when you are filming a display.

sepheronx wrote:What are you getting at?

Technically speaking, have you ever took a video camera and filmed what you see on TV, and then look at the video vs what you are watching?  You will notice distortion regardless when you are filming a display.

What are you getting defensive about? 

He's talking about the stitched image, not your typical distortion. I noticed that a few other people figured it out as well.

Mike E wrote:

sepheronx wrote:What are you getting at?

Technically speaking, have you ever took a video camera and filmed what you see on TV, and then look at the video vs what you are watching?  You will notice distortion regardless when you are filming a display.

What are you getting defensive about? 

He's talking about the stitched image, not your typical distortion. I noticed that a few other people figured it out as well.

Not defensive.  I am just curious really.  What is this "stitched image" you are referring to? Maybe I am blind but I do not see really any distortion, or any that seems off.

The line down the middle of the the screen, with accompanying minor distortion. It is an image from two different cameras. Quite the situational awareness advantage, I'd like to add. Continuous image instead of having to switch cameras.

I truly never noticed that! I see what you are now saying. To me, it looked like typical distortion at the bottom from the imager creating a "focus" (Sorry, I may not be using technical terms since I am not even considered amateur in camera technology. But definitions I would use as a way to describe it). Now I see that line you are talking about.

Mike E wrote:The line down the middle of the the screen, with accompanying minor distortion. It is an image from two different cameras. Quite the situational awareness advantage, I'd like to add. Continuous image instead of having to switch cameras.

Pretty much what I figured as well. I can't wait till we start seeing panorama pictures of Moscow and St. Petersburg taken from within Armata...

Meh, I'm waiting for the Armata Panorama of Kyiv.  

All joking (yeah, "joking") aside, this is quite a significant feature. One of the biggest possible problems with T-14 is a lack of near-vehicle situational awareness, due to an unmanned turret, and hence a "lack" of vision with the TC. Having a linked system of cameras means that T-14 will have such SA that no other current MBT will offer; because it allows for undelayed, 360 degree coverage of the vehicle, without relying on hatch sights...and the gunner, maybe even driver, can all be looking at different angles. I can't really tell if the camera's are TV or not, but that would be another advantage.

Mike E wrote:Meh, I'm waiting for the Armata Panorama of Kyiv.  

All joking (yeah, "joking") aside, this is quite a significant feature. One of the biggest possible problems with T-14 is a lack of near-vehicle situational awareness, due to an unmanned turret, and hence a "lack" of vision with the TC. Having a linked system of cameras means that T-14 will have such SA that no other current MBT will offer; because it allows for undelayed, 360 degree coverage of the vehicle, without relying on hatch sights...and the gunner, maybe even driver, can all be looking at different angles. I can't really tell if the camera's are TV or not, but that would be another advantage.

Another interesting aspect is that everyone sees what everyone else see's, meaning if you have one crew member that is sleep deprived than another can also be their set of eyes. Sleep deprivation can really screw with your head, such as seeing things that aren't there and not seeing things that are. Such a panorama SA system will alleviate stress off of sleep deprived crew members, and a fresher pair of eyes can cover for them. I know Armata's will come standard with autotrackers designed to track vehicles, but I wonder if they're capable of tracking human targets as well?

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Mike E wrote:Meh, I'm waiting for the Armata Panorama of Kyiv.  

All joking (yeah, "joking") aside, this is quite a significant feature. One of the biggest possible problems with T-14 is a lack of near-vehicle situational awareness, due to an unmanned turret, and hence a "lack" of vision with the TC. Having a linked system of cameras means that T-14 will have such SA that no other current MBT will offer; because it allows for undelayed, 360 degree coverage of the vehicle, without relying on hatch sights...and the gunner, maybe even driver, can all be looking at different angles. I can't really tell if the camera's are TV or not, but that would be another advantage.

Another interesting aspect is that everyone sees what everyone else see's, meaning if you have one crew member that is sleep deprived than another can also be their set of eyes. Sleep deprivation can really screw with your head, such as seeing things that aren't there and not seeing things that are. Such a panorama SA system will alleviate stress off of sleep deprived crew members, and a fresher pair of eyes can cover for them. I know Armata's will come standard with autotrackers designed to track vehicles, but I wonder if they're capable of tracking human targets as well?

Most trackers are either laser spot trackers or IR trackers, the apache actually has a TASS Target Acquisition Support System, that is helping it to recognize targets for quicker target acquisition when operator moves the crosshair close to a target, that feature helps for quick targeting of several targets with the LOAL (Lock on after Launch) capability, same feature can be used with optical tracking or supplimentary with IR tracking, which distinguishes IR signatures of targets. Most things radiate kind of IR signature, but IR signature for "targets" is specified in the programming to range in the surface IR signature of human bodies, cars, guns, or at least have a distinguished difference in temperature of the object and the surroundings to provide an IR image for the operator. The Armata most probably uses something like Okhotnik it uses both IR/optical tracking of some shapes like seen on cars (tanks), but both can be fooled, by Nakidka to reduce the IR signature or to camoflauge the tank with Nakidka against IR and some foliage to distort the visual straight lines of tanks, to "reshape" it to fool autotrackers that can recognize straight lines on objects to identify it is a target.

sepheronx wrote:What are you getting at?

Technically speaking, have you ever took a video camera and filmed what you see on TV, and then look at the video vs what you are watching?  You will notice distortion regardless when you are filming a display.

???????

Sorry if I did something you did not like, do not see why you are hostile.



Anyway, I made this photo to illustrate the distortion caused by the image fusion processing. I'll post a screenshot later showcasing the moving target indicators present within this system as well.

It seems the problem with limited SA has been solved, it would be interesting to know if Armata fuses these images with FCS as well, giving it a very fast reaction time in urban combat.

Ok here is Armata MTI in action for the 4 panoramic cameras.



The first circle points out the tracker detecting the head movement of the person, with the second circle showing detection of the moving feet.

Now to see how integrated the panoramic system is to the rest of the electronic systems. Only limited by the creativity of those programming it, and since it is a open architecture system, I am sure they will push it to the limit.

Lets speculate on the functions this camera system could perform.

1. 360 degree visibility, (given)
2. Missile Approach Warning System
3. Perhaps cueing for the APS?
4. Add more if you think of anything.

I suspect it will be separated from the defense system. Armata has dedicated radar panels for that purpose.

x_54_u43 wrote:Ok here is Armata MTI in action for the 4 panoramic cameras.



The first circle points out the tracker detecting the head movement of the person, with the second circle showing detection of the moving feet.

Now to see how integrated the panoramic system is to the rest of the electronic systems.  Only limited by the creativity of those programming it, and since it is a open architecture system, I am sure they will push it to the limit.

Lets speculate on the functions this camera system could perform.

1. 360 degree visibility, (given)
2. Missile Approach Warning System
3. Perhaps cueing for the APS?
4. Add more if you think of anything.

Wow that's interesting, So Armata's are capable of tracking individuals, which shouldn't be surprising because I posted Rostec articles in the past about Radar and Optical/Thermal systems developed in Russia that could actually differentiate human individuals in thick foliage (even capable of differentiating different kinds of foliage), within intense weather conditions, also capable of distinguishing two different objects with only 30 cm of space...but I wasn't sure Armata had similar systems installed.

The T-90SM's RWS has the capability to highlight movement, identify targets, and automatically track them. It's not surprising that Armata has the same capability.

What's interesting is since these panoramic cameras can ID a target's movement, theoretically, they could automatically queue the weapon systems. A very useful feature when hostile infantry are moving around in cluttered environments.

So a flashback from 4 months ago, I had a serious debate with one individual about whether or not Armata's will receive SAM complexes such as Pantsir/Tor. I claimed that Armata was probably designed to receive modular SAM complexes, while he basically said it was impossible. It turns out that I was right. The Deputy Director General of Research and Production Corporation "Uralvagonzavod" 'Vyacheslav Halitov', basically confirmed that the Armata heavy platform was in fact designed to accept modular SAM complexes:

"When did the idea of ​​a unified platform, we assumed that it will be set up anti-aircraft missiles, self-propelled artillery, heavy flamethrower system, Engineering - said Vyacheslav Halitov.

I also suspected (in agreement with other individuals) that Armata brigades will be controlling micro UAV's. Vyacheslav Haltov also confirmed this:

Machines are also needed to protect the group, he said, that will deal with a variety of robotic tools, operating both in the air and on the ground, including with microrobots. This module should be fighting machine control and intelligence, and to give a certain autonomy - machine software.

On the platform "Armata" will strike a heavy machine with a 152-mm gun, CSV and technology that can deal with fighting robots

magnumcromagnon wrote:So a flashback from 4 months ago, I had a serious debate with one individual about whether or not Armata's will receive SAM complexes such as Pantsir/Tor. I claimed that Armata was probably designed to receive modular SAM complexes, while he basically said it was impossible. It turns out that I was right. The Deputy Director General of Research and Production Corporation "Uralvagonzavod" 'Vyacheslav Halitov', basically confirmed that the Armata heavy platform was in fact designed to accept modular SAM complexes:

"When did the idea of ​​a unified platform, we assumed that it will be set up anti-aircraft missiles, self-propelled artillery, heavy flamethrower system, Engineering - said Vyacheslav Halitov.

I also suspected (in agreement with other individuals) that Armata brigades will be controlling micro UAV's. Vyacheslav Haltov also confirmed this:

Machines are also needed to protect the group, he said, that will deal with a variety of robotic tools, operating both in the air and on the ground, including with microrobots. This module should be fighting machine control and intelligence, and to give a certain autonomy - machine software.

On the platform "Armata" will strike a heavy machine with a 152-mm gun, CSV and technology that can deal with fighting robots

It was already known that the armata chassis would be used in this way, the naysayers are just those of little faith.


Regarding the micro UAS, it's only sensible that Armata would end up using them. In Arma 3, the second the quadrotor UAS are unlocked, I blow money on some and attach a few to my armored units, set them to follow my lead armor, hovering a few hundred meters up to keep them safe from groundfire, and use their aerial view to move my guys around and pick out those sneaky urban patrols with the drone's IR camera. It's ridiculously helpful to have that on-demand aerial view. There isn't a doubt in my mind that quadrotors will be used the same in the real world.

max steel wrote:for past few days I've observed keypublishing is becoming more and more informative eg. Pak-fa thread ,,

 

"informative" yeah sure.. only if you manage to ignore 99% of the people that post there..
and ignore the trolls.. overthere.. in keypublishing.com  there is the usual "Russia cant do
anything" is a gas station and that any technology they have likely was reverse engineered
from Americans or Europe..

Take a look at this idiot. post..  @ActionJackson

he complains that Russia use a lot of European machines on their labs..
But praise America as #1 in the world.. but the moron ignores that lot of American
technology depends of European one.. Look at their Tanks.. M1A2.. it have a german gun,
with british Armor and many other things that are anything but American.. Even Chinesse
parts were encountered in their F-35..  



http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?126959-The-PAK-FA-News-Pics-amp-Debate-Thread-XXIV/page39&s=448e8473e097527fc35bfb2f08f9fe86

So according to the Trolls in that forum.. every single thing in any Russian company have to be
made in Russia for their invention to be credited as Russian.

So if the refrigerator in a laboratory is European.. or the hammer..is german.. or the Computer used to design any new technology is American.. then automatically
they disqualify Russia  technology  because it used western technology in the labs to develops theirs..

Imagine how Ass-backward logic is that.. that if for example Russia wants to build a
new stealth plane it needs to also to waste its time creating things that already exist that is sold in the international market and that is NOT cost effective for Russia ,to build some hardware locally. that will be used by just 1 company and is very limited numbers.
Only so that a Fanboy in a forum can give Russia credit.. In any case ,they will claim even if all
was done in Russia ,that it was reverse engineered from the west.. look at armata.. lol
Because every troll in the west is convinced Russia can't do technology on their own..
Thats one of the reason i try to avoid such forums with armies of trolls ,trying to "proof" Russia
"cant do technology" that can compete with the west.

magnumcromagnon wrote:So a flashback from 4 months ago, I had a serious debate with one individual about whether or not Armata's will receive SAM complexes such as Pantsir/Tor. I claimed that Armata was probably designed to receive modular SAM complexes, while he basically said it was impossible. It turns out that I was right. The Deputy Director General of Research and Production Corporation "Uralvagonzavod" 'Vyacheslav Halitov', basically confirmed that the Armata heavy platform was in fact designed to accept modular SAM complexes:

"When did the idea of ​​a unified platform, we assumed that it will be set up anti-aircraft missiles, self-propelled artillery, heavy flamethrower system, Engineering - said Vyacheslav Halitov.

I also suspected (in agreement with other individuals) that Armata brigades will be controlling micro UAV's. Vyacheslav Haltov also confirmed this:

Machines are also needed to protect the group, he said, that will deal with a variety of robotic tools, operating both in the air and on the ground, including with microrobots. This module should be fighting machine control and intelligence, and to give a certain autonomy - machine software.

1) AAD = a new chassis for Buk M3 and M4 (now with 12 missiles´ loaded) ?

2) If I read correctly not only flying robots ? so maybe a docking station or swarm control for many small hunter killer pairs

3) tracking individuals? My tops: Nabiulina, Yudeva, Chubais, Dvorkovitch, Gref so they try harder 

Vann; the M1A2 uses an American gun, with American armor, and American parts.

To get back on topic; it makes sense that we will see SAM and SPAAG'S on the Armata chassis. Even missile carriers are likely.

Zivo wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:So a flashback from 4 months ago, I had a serious debate with one individual about whether or not Armata's will receive SAM complexes such as Pantsir/Tor. I claimed that Armata was probably designed to receive modular SAM complexes, while he basically said it was impossible. It turns out that I was right. The Deputy Director General of Research and Production Corporation "Uralvagonzavod" 'Vyacheslav Halitov', basically confirmed that the Armata heavy platform was in fact designed to accept modular SAM complexes:

"When did the idea of ​​a unified platform, we assumed that it will be set up anti-aircraft missiles, self-propelled artillery, heavy flamethrower system, Engineering - said Vyacheslav Halitov.

I also suspected (in agreement with other individuals) that Armata brigades will be controlling micro UAV's. Vyacheslav Haltov also confirmed this:

Machines are also needed to protect the group, he said, that will deal with a variety of robotic tools, operating both in the air and on the ground, including with microrobots. This module should be fighting machine control and intelligence, and to give a certain autonomy - machine software.

On the platform "Armata" will strike a heavy machine with a 152-mm gun, CSV and technology that can deal with fighting robots

It was already known that the armata chassis would be used in this way, the naysayers are just those of little faith.


Regarding the micro UAS, it's only sensible that Armata would end up using them. In Arma 3, the second the quadrotor UAS are unlocked, I blow money on some and attach a few to my armored units, set them to follow my lead armor, hovering a few hundred meters up to keep them safe from groundfire, and use their aerial view to move my guys around and pick out those sneaky urban patrols with the drone's IR camera. It's ridiculously helpful to have that on-demand aerial view. There isn't a doubt in my mind that quadrotors will be used the same in the real world.

Another aspect about micro UAV's is with the combination of Armata's human tracking software, with dedicated UAV control Armata's, combined with dedicated Command Post Armata's, you could have dozens of micro UAV's keeping track of hundreds of insurgents at a time.

MBT's have had many naysayers over the past decade, with many people claiming that MBT's are an obsolete concept, just like the claims that cannons on ships and aircraft were obsolete. Now with the introduction of T-14 Armata, we know for a fact that MBT's are 'not' obsolete as a concept, but not only that but in fact the momentum is likely shifting back towards in favor of armor, and away from asymmetrical insurgencies.

Mike E wrote:Vann; the M1A2 uses an American gun, with American armor, and American parts.

Sorry for but M1A2 120mm gun is actually from Rheinmetall. The U.S. purchased Rheinmetall license and domestically produced it under the name of M256.

Well actually it is U.S. law demanded that military weapons and equipment must be domestically produced by the U.S., therefore domestication of foreign design is a must.

Therefore, M1 Abrams uses American parts is a must, although the original design may be from foreign companies - but the U.S. will buy the license and modified into American standard.

We can see many U.S. weapon systems were originated from foreign countries... like Stryker was originated from Swiss Piranha, and the M855 bullet was originated from FN SS109. But of course, the U.S. bought the license, and domestically produced them - according to the law U.S. military weapons have to be domestically produced.