[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

Most fanbois think that the best tank always wins.... it does not.

War is not Pokemon where one on one two platforms fight it out using their different skills to see who wins.

Any decent enemy will use cunning and skill and exploit the weak points of their opponents... even the heaviest armoured tank is not safe from land mines... or even HMG fire directed at its tracks.

GarryB wrote:...having the rounds in the turret is not safe if hit by a HEAT warhead that sets off a HE round... blow out panels are fine for propellent type combustion...

Clearly the largest difference here being the drastically lesser usage of HE shells by US, although export M1 users use more HE.

T-44 wrote:Then are you implying people who claim T-14 is safer (which I do happen to think BTW) are also deluding themselves?

It is really safer because T-14 ammo is hidden below the turret, inside the hull, covered from 4 sides with relatively thick armour and other things, and less likely to be hit.

It never say it is invulnerable but it is less exposed.

Let Hell Freeze Over...

Business Insider: Russian tanks - the best in the world

...BTW Russia's #2 ranking is far more impressive, considering it was managed with 2.5% the debt of #1.

Need moar Armata photos

I imagine that the tactical data links on the T-14 Armata will be able to share targeting information with other Armatas and communicate with UAVs, fighter jets, bombers, other vehicles and troops on the ground in combined arms operations, but what kind of mission computer is it likely to have? Elbit Systems was awarded a contract to create a mission computer with 48 processing cores and up to 80 cores in the future for the AH-64D. I hope that every vehicle in the Armata program gets a similar mission computer. http://ir.elbitsystems.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=61849&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1747892

AW&ST: New-generation Russian Armored Vehicles Built On Common Design

Without a subscription Austin that article is one paragraph long... in fact here is the entire article available to non subscribers:

The Armata family of tracked armored platforms recently made its second public appearance, at the Russia Arms Expo 2015 in Nizhny Tagil, Russia, with displays of the T-14 tank and T-15 BMP infantry fighting vehicle (IFV). Built on the common Armata chassis, they will eventually replace the T-72 main battle tank, armored personnel carriers and other tracked platforms in the Russian military. Also on display was the Koalitsiya self-propelled 152-mm artillery system. The gun’s current ...

New-generation Russian Armored Vehicles Built On Common Design

Russia redesigns turrets, chassis and weapons for tracked vehicles

Oct 9, 2015 David Eshel | Aviation Week & Space Technology - Defense Technology Edition

The Armata family of tracked armored platforms recently made its second public appearance, at the Russia Arms Expo 2015 in Nizhny Tagil, Russia, with displays of the T-14 tank and T-15 BMP infantry fighting vehicle (IFV). Built on the common Armata chassis, they will eventually replace the T-72 main battle tank, armored personnel carriers and other tracked platforms in the Russian military.

Also on display was the Koalitsiya self-propelled 152-mm artillery system. The gun’s current hull is a derivative of the T-72, but future serial production vehicles are also likely to be based on the Armata chassis, thus gaining the advantage of matching the off-road mobility and sustainability derived from a fleet with common platforms.

This was the first time the armored vehicles had appeared in public since their debut in Moscow during the May Day parade. No noticeable difference was seen from those that traversed Red Square on that day, although this time only one example each of the T-14 Armata tank, T-15 IFV and Koalitsiya gun were displayed in a guarded corral, which allowed viewing by spectators from a safe distance.



First impressions clearly indicate a family resemblance, at least for the T-14 and T-15. Though the two vehicles have a common chassis, the directions are reversed, with the tank engine in the rear and the BMP’s power pack in front.

Both vehicles are fitted with what seems to be an integrated armor suite that looks heavier than those of the T-72 and T-90 tanks. The absence of add-on modules, or even add-on armor mounts, hints at the use of new and improved protection modules, at least in the hulls. Previous Russian tank designs used reactive armor modules extensively. The new family does not have the tiles that indicate reactive armor but likely shares those capabilities as part of an integrated armor suite.

The turrets of the vehicles set each platform apart from the others. The T-15 turret seems to be the most mature, employing the Epoch Almaty system designed by KBP Instrument Design Bureau. This remotely operated turret mounts a single 2A72 30-mm cannon with 500 rounds, coaxial 7.62-mm machine gun and four laser-beam-riding AT14 Kornet EM guided anti-tank/anti-materiel missiles. The turret has redundant, independently controlled optronic systems, enabling simultaneous operation by the crew of two onboard weapon systems. Both modules have a guidance kit supporting the Kornet missile system, possibly enabling the simultaneous guidance of two missiles launched at two targets.



The T-14 has a new unmanned turret, mounting a 2AD82-1M smoothbore 125-mm cannon. The turret is equipped with an automatic loader and ammunition-feeding system, enabling remote operation from the crew compartment in the hull. Forward of the weapons complex, the crew compartment has three positions—for driver, gunner and commander—and is isolated from the rest of the tank by armored bulkheads.

The T-14 shares the latest ammunition line developed for the T-90MS tank variant, including armor-piercing discarding sabot and high-explosive anti-tank rounds, as well as a new high-explosive/fragmentation round optimized for urban engagements against infantry and structures. For long-range engagement, the T-14 and T-90MS rely on the 9M119M Refleks gun-launched, laser-beam-riding guided missile.



The concept of operation relying on remotely operated weapons is also implemented in the highly automated Koalitsiya gun. Three crewmembers are seated in the hull, while the weapon, ammunition, loading systems and gun-laying and target-acquisition systems are in an unmanned turret above.

With crew seated low in the hull, both the T-14 and T-15 use active protection systems and multiple cameras to provide situational awareness and panoramic views. The T-14 has eight cameras embedded in the turret, on each face. The T-15 uses twin camera blocks on each side, and single cameras on the front and rear, in addition to a larger camera assisting the driver.



Apart from the Armata platforms, unmanned, remotely operated weapon stations (ROWS) were seen in other displays, including a modernized version of the BTR-80 8 X 8 vehicle unveiled by Uralvagonzavod and two new variants of the BMP-3 developed by vehicle manufacturer Tractor Plants Machinery and Industrial Group. The latter are part of the company’s modernization plan for the BMP-3, which takes advantage of the reduced weight and increased volume of under armor provided by the ROWS. The new design has more spacious seating for a squad and two weapon-operation positions, for commander and gunner.



The vehicle is offered with three optional weapon stations, all remotely operated. The Dragoon unmanned turret mounts the standard 2A70 100-mm cannon, 2A72 30-mm automatic cannon and 7.62-mm PKTM machine gun. Another option is the AU-220M turret, designated Derivative, mounting a new stabilized 57-mm cannon with 200 rounds. Unveiled earlier this year at the IDEX expo in Dubai, Derivative, developed by CRI Petrek, can be integrated on various armored platforms, including the T-15, Kurganets 25 and Boomerang 8 X 8 vehicles, all currently mounting the Epoch system.

In addition to offering higher-caliber firepower over the current 30-mm cannon, this turret is expected to accept an additional load of guided missiles, extending the vehicle’s effective range against different battlefield targets (short of main battle tanks) to 6,000 meters (19,686 ft.). The weapon’s high elevation will enable BMP-3s with Derivative to effectively engage targets in urban areas—as well as unmanned aerial vehicles and helicopters—at a range of 8,000 meters, according to data provided by the manufacturer.



The BMP-3 IFV will also be offered with an unmanned turret mounting a low-recoil variant of the 125-mm smoothbore cannon, the same cannon used on the current Sprut tank destroyer, but remotely operated. This version was not on display at the expo.

Fitted with an unmanned turret, the BMP-3 IFV becomes a more efficient and ergonomic platform. In the Dragoon variant, moving the engine to the front enables a redesign of the fighting compartment for greater accessibility, with troop seating comprising two three-seat benches rather than the campfire-like seating around the turret that characterized previous designs.

The new configuration of the BTR-80 8 X 8 armored vehicle adds the 6S21 ROWS, mounting a 14.5-mm heavy machine gun controlled via an electro-optical set comprising video and thermal cameras.

The vehicle is designed with spall liners and slat armor for improved crew protection. Video surveillance cameras surround it, providing better situational awareness under armor, an obvious asset in combat, particularly in urban areas. The ROWS improves weapon operation by adding weapon and optronics stabilization and by integrating a TV and thermal imager, as well as a laser rangefinder. Weapon operation and control is available from the gunner and commander positions, using the system’s displays and controls.

The Armata 14 costs only 3.7 million, while other tanks cost twice as much and the top tank costs over 9 million. How good is the Armata compared to other tanks? I thought it would cost a lot more, what is the price saying that other tanks are better than Armata 14.


http://m.rbth.com/defence/2015/09/25/cost_of_russias_armata_t-14_tank_to_fall_by_half_49585.html

par far wrote:The Armata 14 costs only 3.7 million, while other tanks cost twice as much and the top tank costs over 9 million. How good is the Armata compared to other tanks? I thought it would cost a lot more, what is the price saying that other tanks are better than Armata 14.


http://m.rbth.com/defence/2015/09/25/cost_of_russias_armata_t-14_tank_to_fall_by_half_49585.html

You are aware that price barely has much to do with performance, right?

sepheronx wrote:

par far wrote:The Armata 14 costs only 3.7 million, while other tanks cost twice as much and the top tank costs over 9 million. How good is the Armata compared to other tanks? I thought it would cost a lot more, what is the price saying that other tanks are better than Armata 14.


http://m.rbth.com/defence/2015/09/25/cost_of_russias_armata_t-14_tank_to_fall_by_half_49585.html

You are aware that price barely has much to do with performance, right?

I am aware but you get what you pay for right, why is Armata 6 million less than Japanese tank?

Well, lets see.

Armata has:
- Unmanned Turret
- Full composite structure (I understand a lot of tanks do)
- Uses modern thermal imagers much like US or French do
- AESA radar on it (I don't think any other tank has that) for self defense suite).
- New modern active protection system.
- Probably other stuff.
- up to 2000hp engine

Other tanks are expensive due to more than likely importing of technologies from other countries. Markup prices, etc.

par far wrote:The Armata 14 costs only 3.7 million, while other tanks cost twice as much and the top tank costs over 9 million. How good is the Armata compared to other tanks? I thought it would cost a lot more, what is the price saying that other tanks are better than Armata 14.


http://m.rbth.com/defence/2015/09/25/cost_of_russias_armata_t-14_tank_to_fall_by_half_49585.html

Why are costs being compared in nominal dollars? That is a meaningless way to compare actual costs. You need to compare in PPP dollars.
So $3.7 million is about $8 million, then your question sort of goes away.

sepheronx wrote:Well, lets see.

Armata has:
- Unmanned Turret
- Full composite structure (I understand a lot of tanks do)
- Uses modern thermal imagers much like US or French do
- AESA radar on it (I don't think any other tank has that) for self defense suite).
- New modern active protection system.
- Probably other stuff.
- up to 2000hp engine

Other tanks are expensive due to more than likely importing of technologies from other countries.  Markup prices, etc.

XK2 PIP shall have MAWS i suppose its AESA.

Militarov wrote:

sepheronx wrote:Well, lets see.

Armata has:
- Unmanned Turret
- Full composite structure (I understand a lot of tanks do)
- Uses modern thermal imagers much like US or French do
- AESA radar on it (I don't think any other tank has that) for self defense suite).
- New modern active protection system.
- Probably other stuff.
- up to 2000hp engine

Other tanks are expensive due to more than likely importing of technologies from other countries.  Markup prices, etc.

XK2 PIP shall have MAWS i suppose its AESA.

And well, Armata does as well, no?  And yet the price for Armata is great.

Also, if we take into account what exchange rates were, technically, Armata would be around $7 - 8M per tank in 2014 prices.

Tanks really shouldn't be valued in foreign currency. Keeping everything in Rubles; T-14 is twice as expensive as T-90A, which itself is twice as expensive as the T-72B3 upgrade.

That's still very affordable.

K2 PIP doesn't really have MAWS (per se). It is a radar system optimized for detecting APFSDS coming towards the vehicle. It's like Afganit without the interceptors.

UVZ is legendary for having low prices. The other high tech systems are driven down in price by mass production.

Mike E wrote:Tanks really shouldn't be valued in foreign currency. Keeping everything in Rubles; T-14 is twice as expensive as T-90A, which itself is twice as expensive as the T-72B3 upgrade.

That's still very affordable.

K2 PIP doesn't really have MAWS (per se). It is a radar system optimized for detecting APFSDS coming towards the vehicle. It's like Afganit without the interceptors.

UVZ is legendary for having low prices. The other high tech systems are driven down in price by mass production.

I thought XK2 is expected to have APS slaved to that radar in future http://www.seiyuuxzone.com/k-2-aps-active-protection-system-VnloaUhhYm1wT2c.html i mean no point in having warning of incoming sabot its too fast and you are too dead, unless its slaved to some kind of APS.

That's a possibility for sure.

For right now, it acts like a LWR for APFSDS. The radar detects the APFSDS, and where it was fired. The turret then swings to its' location and is ready to fire, IIRC.

I am more curious about the eight cameras being mentioned for the T-14's turret.

I have only counted 4, so each camera covering 90 degree sectors, but according to this, each camera would cover 45 degree sectors.

Or maybe a combined color/IIR system with each camera providing 90 degree views overlayed with each others imagery. Or maybe they are counting the commander and gunner cameras?

It would be interesting to see just how integrated the camera systems are with each other.

Will they be separated from each other? The crew having to interact with the systems on their own? Or perhaps, it will be 5th gen style, where the crew only sees one screen filled with targets, and the system only displaying camera feeds when requested or needed for targeting.

This could definitely fit with the whole radar system on the Armata. Anyone notice the two different types of radar on the T-15? and the two other cutouts on the turret directly over the Afghanit tubes on the T-14 turret, for perhaps those larger radars seen on the T-15 far front hull? Speaking of sensor differences, the commander/gunner optics on the T-15 are also different.

Armata has a very interesting electromagnetic sensor suite for sure. Definitely blows the Not Best Korea K2 out of the water.

Probably Armata may be the first one to witness this

Any one want to be enlisted

https://www.rt.com/politics/318368-we-need-world-of-tanks/

After a Russian defense firm revealed its plans to make a remotely-controlled tank in the near future, Deputy PM Dmitry Rogozin announced that the military would soon need people experienced in the computer game “World of Tanks.”

“We need no tankers now, we need World of Tanks players” Rogozin wrote in a Monday tweet.

Russian Modernization Puts Focus on Land Force Protection

Interview with Вячеслав Халитов Deputy Chief Director For Special Equipment at UralVagonZavod.


Of interest :

1) A very clear hint to the outstanding performances of the new generation integrated APS mounted on Armata platforms

2) The rational behind shift to high caliber (45/57 mm) autocannons in ground forces mostly influenced (as i had pointed out some years ago) by the vastly increase in
performance against airborne elements (aircraft, PGM, helicopters and UAV/UCAV) offered by the new remotely controlled turret/FCS armed with such a cannon.
Against those kind of soft/air targets (to the contrary of employment against ground targtes) ,in facts could be not only capitalized at maximum the much greater effective
engagement range - up to 16 km ,therefore with ample chances for the re-engagements of eventual UAV/PGM surviving the first attempt and way before them get the
chance to deliver theirs payload or submunition - but also the bigger space available for homing guidance/flight correction kit and late production in-fire programable fuses.

3) The quick improvements achieved in Federation Ground Force's robotization, up to the point that realization of a remotely controled T-90 today would not pose any kind of
problem.

So apparently UVZ will be testing varying applications of their RAM/IR-stealth coatings for Armata:

Tests stealth coatings, which can be used to "Armata"



According to the developers, the test is very important in order to adjust the composition of the coating, add some elements

YEKATERINBURG, October 14th. / TASS /. On the Chebarkul training ground (Chelyabinsk region) completed the first phase of testing a fundamentally new stealth coating that can be used on the new Russian armored vehicles, including on the platform "Armata". This Tass representative of the developer ink Constantine Lachihin.

"We are three kinds of paint - with De-Icing effect with radiopoglaschayuschimi and decontamination (reduction of radiation contamination) properties. These types of new stealth paint suitable for all types of armored vehicles, including for the latest models of the family" Armata ", - he said.

Within a month of the new coating were tested at the site of the Central Military District (CVO). The experiment involved a tank T-72, BMP-2 and BMP-1KSH. "During the night phase properties of the paint tested by means of intelligence, in particular, unmanned aerial vehicles and night-vision equipment of foreign production. Two of the three samples showed almost complete reflection of both light range and in the infrared spectrum. Also painted technique passed test Cross Country - ditches with water, dirt, "- TASS reported the press service of the CVO. Noting that the colors of new materials meet the standards adopted in the Armed Forces.

The developers did not disclose the chemical composition of the paint. "These tests are very important for us to adjust the composition of the coating, add some elements. On the piece of equipment goes from 25 to 50 kg of paint. Six months later, we will check as stealth coating and its properties are preserved in the technique," - added Lachihin .

http://tass.ru/ural-news/2347309

What could of been:

Объект 195