[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

What are the chances that Armata 14 will be tested in Syria? Not right now but say at the end of 2016.

Also can someone please shed light on the Urban version of the Armata 14.

par far wrote:What are the chances that Armata 14 will be tested in Syria? Not right now but say at the end of 2016.

Also can someone please shed light on the Urban version of the Armata 14.

Very slim. As much as field testing would help, its not really needed at this point, also imagine one being destroyed or captured or anything similar, it would affect possible sales alot as propaganda is powerful tool today. We might live to see newer variants of T90 tho.

Urban version as heavy IFV T15?

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Every action causes reaction. IF Russia feels threatened by a major conventional war, more funds will be allocated to the military and as a result, armament production will increase.

Putin is pumping money to arms production not because Russia is aggressive but because he knows US is pushing for war before goets bankrupt. Tanks? in vast Russian steppes tanks are quite useful tools. Helicopters or planes will no move all supplies/ammo and infantry needed to keep terrain.

Militarov wrote: We might live to see newer variants of T90 tho.

Urban version as heavy IFV T15?

I bet on Terminator 2 or its development as most suitable tool for Syrian theatre

Why use Armata on such à clusterfuck of environnement ?

BMPT is the most likely vehicle that will be used in Syria for purposes of combat evaluation of established doctrines and its value for improvement in urban warfare.

KoTeMoRe wrote:Why use Armata on such à clusterfuck of environnement ?

Especially considering the T-90 is having a field day in Aleppo.

Would like to see them experiment with several variations of armament for the Terminator... but not the Armata based model... the T-90 based model would suffice.

There are a couple of issues with any kind of vehicle sent to Syria.

1. T90. Russia has probably used it in Ukraine to the same extent (even to a far more conventional role) than it is using it in Syria. It already knows most of the tricks in the bag for such an AFV. It's more of a deepening of its "battle-test" rather than a test for it.
2. It might use elements, rather than whole systems (like we're seeing on those pickups/APC's/Tanks).
3. I don't thing there's any spot for the Terminator right now. Most of the "urban" combat we're seeing takes/has taken place because the SAA was unable to deliver enough firepower on target area. You can see that once the damn bombs and rockets start hitting there's not much of a resistance from our favourite moderate be-headers. I'm not saying that airpower is winning this war (after all airpower is only a tool in the toolbox) just that the people who use the AP have a plan and a clue about what they are doing.
4. They have to address valid threats, not be just a rolling lab. For instance the BMPT unless equipped with longer range missiles and a standoff warning suite, will be as much as risk as many of the vehicles Russia has been sending.

On otvaga they claim that this is part of the elektromagnetic protective suite against elektromagnetic detonators in some ATGM's and mines.




Cables running around the hull to induce a magnetic field to fool electromagnetic detonators of the actual position of the tank and by that detonate with some distance to the tank itself making such mines and ATGM's ineffective.

Werewolf wrote:BMPT is the most likely vehicle that will be used in Syria for purposes of combat evaluation of established doctrines and its value for improvement in urban warfare.

BMPT has been dropped by Russian Army. It's future equivalent is T-15. Same thing but with more armor and troop transport capability.

PapaDragon wrote:

Werewolf wrote:BMPT is the most likely vehicle that will be used in Syria for purposes of combat evaluation of established doctrines and its value for improvement in urban warfare.

BMPT has been dropped by Russian Army. It's future equivalent is T-15. Same thing but with more armor and troop transport capability.

I just remember some opinions say that "BMPT is a BMP uparmoured and uparmed" - although many of us do not agree with these opinions...

GarryB wrote:Would like to see them experiment with several variations of armament for the Terminator... but not the Armata based model... the T-90 based model would suffice.

This would have also commercial value. Kinda machine that destroyed terrorist in urban warfare.

IMHO merging tank chassis with urban kits (bulldozer to break thru barricades and debris) high elevation rapid fire gun (57mm) and gatling 12,7 HMG for suppression fire. complemented by thermobaric RGP/missiles and eventually 40mm grenade launcher. Is exactly what is needed to fight terrorist in hard terrain or urban env.

Technological Breakthrough: Russia to Debut 3D Printed Armata Tank

sepheronx wrote:Technological Breakthrough: Russia to Debut 3D Printed Armata Tank

The technology is just a step away from the ability to create 3D-printed titanium parts several meters in length.

Is it possible ? Titanium melting point is f***ing high, and the titanium processing is much more difficult than other metals.

higurashihougi wrote:

sepheronx wrote:Technological Breakthrough: Russia to Debut 3D Printed Armata Tank

The technology is just a step away from the ability to create 3D-printed titanium parts several meters in length.

Is it possible ? Titanium melting point is f***ing high, and the titanium processing is much more difficult than other metals.

Definitely possible.
The process is actually "weld" metal dust layer by layer.

BMPT has been dropped by Russian Army. It's future equivalent is T-15. Same thing but with more armor and troop transport capability.

You don't understand.

BMPT is a tank support vehicle.... and APC and an IFV are two types of troop transports.

If a vehicle is transporting troops then it can't be a BMPT, because a BMPT is supposed to be protecting the tanks from infantry... not hauling around troops... that is what IFVs and APCs are for.

From what I have read they are still deciding on whether they need a BMPT or not... the concept was to have the BMPT as a support vehicle with the same level of mobility and armour as a MBT but with its firepower optimised for dealing with targets other than enemy heavy armour. A good example of that would be an IFVs armament... ie 100mm low pressure gun and 30mm auto cannon, or just heavy high rate of fire weapons like the Shilkas four 23mm cannon.

The obvious issue is that the IFV of armata meets that criteria already, though the rear hull can be utilised to carry more ammo, but the separation of the crew in the front armoured capsule, the separate area for the weapons in the turret and the rear troop area all being sealed off from each other mean having extra ammo in the rear troop compartment is not so useful as you need to be able to move it to the centre section where the weapons are without having to have the crew leaving their armoured capsule.

this suggests to me that a new design with the weapons and troop transport section just separated by a firewall to allow ammo to be passed into the weapon area would be a good design addition.

The rear area that was the troop area in the T-15 IFV could be modified to take pallets of ammo so it could be loaded all in one go with a forklift... the first pallet could have its ammo transfered into the weapons section automatically and then the pallet removed and a new full pallet fitted so in combat it would have two full loads of ammo ready to go and able to be transferred in combat without the crew needing to get out of the vehicle.

Another option could be to use the rear troop area for other things like RWS and UCAV launchers and also ground based robots that can be sent ahead or launched for a better view of the battlefield.

The RWS will mean both the weapon area and the troop area will contain ammo, but both areas are still separated from the crew compartment anyway.

I follow with great interest your discussions. I am Italian journalist and infographic and professional defense sector. Yes, in the past the Russian products were seen as essential, and not beautiful. nice defense concept is relative, just that they work well ...
Recent years greatly improved recovery in this sector, just see the Russians stand in the exhibitions. It 's true, very beginners marketing Russians (just look photo t-14 armed first show 70 years) in the US this impossible.
(Better make shitty product but presented as the best) But this I see as positive for Russia, and legendary. Among many years we all remember with love and respect to the first pictures of T-14 or T-50, for example, first flights. (what memories!). In a few years, even the presentations will be better. The problem is another. Greetings to all from Italy.

I watched the video interior Armata. Many improvements in the man-machine relationship visual (my job) but,
the problem is that for more generations were only and exclusively managed at levels of importance (hierarchy). You are running too quickly, missing a generation of soldiers analyze the data. Who does it now must double toil. But the Russian soldiers are learning fast. And Russian programmers more good than Californians. Three years and the same level. How data presentation instead 10 years late.

tanino wrote:I watched the video interior Armata. Many improvements in the man-machine relationship visual (my job) but,
the problem is that for more generations were only and exclusively managed at levels of importance (hierarchy). You are running too quickly, missing a generation of soldiers analyze the data. Who does it now must double toil. But the Russian soldiers are learning fast. And Russian programmers more good than Californians. Three years and the same level. How data presentation instead 10 years late.

Not sure if I understand your post: How data presentation instead 10 years late ? As fpr programmers they never were bad so not sure what is this refering to:

Three years and the same level


of course Italian praising Russian design must be taken as a compliment

Sorry, data presentation looks at the T-50. On the screens they are shown the old analog-style circular paintings, artificial horizon etc. type. It takes some time to accustom pilots and engineers to view and interpret the data.

The artificial horison and other instruments are standardised pilots instruments and show a variety of data all at once in a way pilots are already trained to interpret... it is how they expect to see the information so it makes sense to display it that way.

You will find the same screens and symbology on all western aircraft too... though of course Russian units will be metric...

Hello Garry! an interesting topic. We could open a new post. Data visualization in the Russian armed forces and make the right analysis. You are right, if they are 20 years you read and analyze electro-optical instruments and mechanical dials and you have to fly ...
There is a Russian school? (See for example the color cream / beige used in the navy on almost all control Panel). Interesting!
Greeting from Italy

For all you techie folks, Topwar has an article out comparing the shape and sizes of the T-14 with the T-90 and the main Western Tanks.

One of the papers I did at university was on Human Computer Interaction, which included hardware and software and how it is used.

Two examples stick to my memory... the first is in front of you.

The Qwerty keyboard was originally designed for a manual mechanical keyboard and when the key layout was determined it was layed out to slow down the typist. commonly used letters from the most commonly used words are to the left and layed out so the typist does not lock the arms of the typewriter and then have to stop typing to separate the arms.

Obviously with electronic keyboards this is no longer an issue and there are plenty of new keyboard layouts, which when mastered should allow much higher typing speeds but no one will adopt them because the cost it would take to retrain all your existing typists and any new typists you hire.

Another example would be in late model spitfires where they decided to introduce a new layout for instruments and controls and they found that many of their best pilots were bailing out during combat.

it seems they decided that the bailout button would need to be used in an emergency so they moved it to where the firing button was previously. In combat pilots would forget the button had been moved and press the bailout button.

Learned behaviour often kicks in in periods of stress so having familiar controls and symbols and displays is important.

Of course in the Armata many of the features and displays will be more for information than for action as most problems will likely be sorted out automatically.

The crew are in a separate capsule so they wont be able to do many things manually that they could when they were in the turret.

The next step will be visual displays in helmets with camera views building up a 360 degree day night all weather view of the outside of the tank with each crewman having their current outside view displayed on screens in front of their eyes based on their position in the tank and the orientation of their heads. this would give the effect of seeming to be able to see through the vehicle things outside the vehicle... like a computer game.

Would be interesting to see an RPG coming in and slamming into the armour in front of you...