[Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

GarryB wrote:It might be that they were test firing the barrel without the stabiliser engaged to determine that if can fire without the stabiliser turned on.

Sort of a worst case accuracy test...

Werewolf wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:

GarryB wrote:It might be that they were test firing the barrel without the stabiliser engaged to determine that if can fire without the stabiliser turned on.

Sort of a worst case accuracy test...

I can understand why they would do those tests, but why release the video? I just know that I would only release the video when all the integral components have been installed on arguably the best tank in the world.

You mean you would only make videos of  a highly secret new tank just to show off?

That is how you give to much information to analysts meaning you feed them information just to be cocky on the internet. Those are companies that make that stuff not Forumers that try to make  a point and win some fanboy argument battle.

Good thing not to show everything, that gives it time without being pressured by providing enemies with information of its capabilities. If enemy does not know how big your shield and sword is he is going to build a sword and shield with certain limits and expectations in mind in what he believes your armor and weapon is sized to counter it, he might be wrong or right he will see that only later. Provide him to many information before you have equipped your soldiers with your armor and weapons and he will have time to find measures to it.

Garry B wrote:Ironically gas turbines are widely used for electricity generation and are efficient for being rather compact generators. the problem with using them as engines in tanks is that they don't do torque very well and variable throttle changes are terrible for fuel consumption. A future arrangement where the gas turbine is just connected to a generator and is run at a constant efficient rate to generate electricity and the wheels are propelled by electric motors drawing charge from the generator and batteries and capacitors it will be a very simple and cheap and efficient way of propelling large vehicles.

Such propulsion is already used on Buses and trains using diesel fuel.

Cyrus the great wrote:It would be great if the Russians used a modified VK-3000 turboshaft engine (connected to a generator) for the Armata. The VK-3000 turboshaft engine produces 3200 hp whereas other tanks only produce 1500 hp. The VK-3000 engine has a weight of 360 kg -- which is incredibly light; to put that into perspective, the Abrams Honeywell AGT1500 engine has a total dry weight of 1, 135 kg.

Garry already explained this:

Garry B wrote:Ironically gas turbines are widely used for electricity generation and are efficient for being rather compact generators. the problem with using them as engines in tanks is that they don't do torque very well and variable throttle changes are terrible for fuel consumption. A future arrangement where the gas turbine is just connected to a generator and is run at a constant efficient rate to generate electricity and the wheels are propelled by electric motors drawing charge from the generator and batteries and capacitors it will be a very simple and cheap and efficient way of propelling large vehicles.

Such propulsion is already used on Buses and trains using diesel fuel.

Stupid question: Could a significantly lighter helicopter like the Rooivalk use the VK-3000 engine if some country wanted these powerful engines in their Rooivalk attack helicopters? The Rooivalk's Turbomeca Makila engine has a total weight of 278 -- which is 25% lighter than the incredible VK-3000 engine.

Werewolf wrote:Gas turbines are horrible for tanks, to much complications, requirements and logistical burden and overall there is no purpose of having 3000shp for a vehicle that weights 48-56tons. Extra HP are consuming fuel without any use for them. Your tank won't win any drag race nor have an acceleration to justify so much SHP, waste of money   since such engines already cost 2/7 of the tank itself.

Tanks T-14 "Armata" and T-15 "Barberry" should get new guns that will provide them with an advantage over foreign military equipment, the press service of the Industry and Trade Ministry.

Developers test the tank "Armata" 152 mm caliber cannon, which is to provide a competitive advantage of Russian military equipment to the Armed SShA.Seychas on a tank of this model is used 125 mm caliber cannon.

At the T-15 "Barberry" is also being tested for the use of 152 mm caliber cannon.

Experts say that with the help of modernization can not only amaze with 100% ground targets using missiles, but also to fire at the helicopters.

Zivo wrote:Apparently they are testing 152mm guns on the T-14, AND the T-15.

http://kremlinpress.ru/news/obshchestvo/tanki-t-14-i-t-15-na-bazakh-armata-i-barbaris-poluchat-novye-pushki/

Tanks T-14 "Armata" and T-15 "Barberry" should get new guns that will provide them with an advantage over foreign military equipment, the press service of the Industry and Trade Ministry.

Developers test the tank "Armata" 152 mm caliber cannon, which is to provide a competitive advantage of Russian military equipment to the Armed SShA.Seychas on a tank of this model is used 125 mm caliber cannon.

At the T-15 "Barberry" is also being tested for the use of 152 mm caliber cannon.

Experts say that with the help of modernization can not only amaze with 100% ground targets using missiles, but also to fire at the helicopters.

Since the T-15's front engine is a no-no for the MBT roll, the only other explanation I can think of is using the T-15 as some sort of assault gun/missile tank. This is the first time I have heard of this Armata modification. The SAA use their Akatsiya's mainly as assault guns, I wonder if the Russian advisers in Syria picked up on it and suggested it be tested.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Zivo wrote:Apparently they are testing 152mm guns on the T-14, AND the T-15.

http://kremlinpress.ru/news/obshchestvo/tanki-t-14-i-t-15-na-bazakh-armata-i-barbaris-poluchat-novye-pushki/

Tanks T-14 "Armata" and T-15 "Barberry" should get new guns that will provide them with an advantage over foreign military equipment, the press service of the Industry and Trade Ministry.

Developers test the tank "Armata" 152 mm caliber cannon, which is to provide a competitive advantage of Russian military equipment to the Armed SShA.Seychas on a tank of this model is used 125 mm caliber cannon.

At the T-15 "Barberry" is also being tested for the use of 152 mm caliber cannon.

Experts say that with the help of modernization can not only amaze with 100% ground targets using missiles, but also to fire at the helicopters.

Since the T-15's front engine is a no-no for the MBT roll, the only other explanation I can think of is using the T-15 as some sort of assault gun/missile tank. This is the first time I have heard of this Armata modification. The SAA use their Akatsiya's mainly as assault guns, I wonder if the Russian advisers in Syria picked up on it and suggested it be tested.

Well if the turret module is a "drop in", then why not. But seeing an IFV with a 152mm gun...and we all though the BMP-3 was already a stretch.

George1 wrote:Tanks A Lot: Russia's Advanced Armata T-14 'Already in Serial Production'

http://sputniknews.com/russia/20160314/1036238101/russia-armata-production.html

Armata is already in serial production??

Here's why NATO is afraid of Russia's new Armata T-14

March 14, 2016 -
By J. Arnoldski for Fort Russ

“The Armata is a source of major concern for Western armies” were the mild words which The National Interest defense editor Dave Majumdar attached to the news that Russia’s new T-14 Armata is already in production. Moreover, just as two strikes brings the out-maneuvered player dangerously close to the third, final strike, so is this “major concern” stuttered by Majumdar twofold. Firstly, the hordes of “Kremlinologists” and Western defense analysts hellbent on forging a picture of an economically devastated and hopelessly desperate Russia fell for their own trick. They did not anticipate that the T-14 would already be in production, much less that the project would still be pursued despite economic slowdown. Secondly, and perhaps most concerning of all, not only is the T-14 already becoming a serial-produced reality, it is indeed a terrifying and shocking reality for the militaries of the US and NATO which have been flexing their muscles and creeping towards Russia’s borders, all the while unprepared to face the new T-14.

The innovative and state-of-the art T-14 first publicly displayed during the 2015 Victory Day parade in Moscow represents a new generation of tank which, as Majumdar worryingly quotes, “will change battlefield dynamics by increasing the importance of cannon, anti-tank guns, and tanks,” the very factors for which the Armata is expected to give the advantage to Russia. All of the scenarios or factors that prove a tank’s worth as laid out by Majumdar for The National Interest seem to point towards the Armata T-14’s superiority.

“[T]he best way to survive on the battlefield is [sic] to not be seen in the first place” or “a question of who sees the other first”, Majumdar writes. Not only has special attention been paid to guaranteeing a reduction in the Armada’s radar and infrared signature, but, in the case of being detected, the T-14 boasts a secret composition of double-layered explosive reactive armor, passive armor, slat armor for grenade-vulnerable areas, and “perhaps the most impressive feature,” the Afghanit active protection system which “uses a 360 active electronically scanned array radar and a potent electronic warfare system to disrupt the guidance of incoming rounds” plus a laser guidance jamming countermeasure and interceptor rounds that might prove to be effective against kinetic energy rounds.

In terms of adaptability and technological points, the Armata represents a complete departure from the Russian tank design tradition handed down from the Second World War which NATO militaries have trained to fight against. The advanced technological features of the T-14 include “what immediately sets the Armata apart from any other operational tank” - an unmanned turret which, touching on yet another crucial factor of tank warfare, means unparalleled crew survivability. These game-changing leaps stand in stark contrast to the United States’ persistent reliance on upgrading Cold War version tanks.

The T-14, in addition, is not alone. The 2,300 that are to be produced by 2020 come in a larger set, the Armata Universal Combat Platform, which includes the T-14 tank itself, the T-15 heavy infantry fighting vehicle, and the T-16 armored recovery vehicle along with a companion of other support vehicles, self-propelled artillery, and equipment which make the Armata Platform a strike or defense force all by itself.

As a whole, as NATO analysts feared, the Armata T-14 is 20 years ahead of the West. In response, Germany has sought to increase the firepower of its Leopard 2 and is scrambling to develop plans for a new battle tank, the Main Ground Combat System. The US, on the other hand, is striving to make its Abrams tanks lighter and more mobile with sleeker guns. But these are all just reactions and attempted compensations. NATO has not only underestimated Russia’s ability to realize the Armata project, but also seems unprepared for the fact that the Armata is a new generation of tank for a new generation of warfare. Meanwhile, NATO militaries and their American overlord seem to just be fiddling with weapon sizes, mobility, and target distance.

Despite having described the breathtaking features of Russia’s intimidating new tank which, according to his own standards, threaten to overwhelm NATO’s armor, he rests assured that “the specter of a massive armored Red Army juggernaut smashing its way through the Fula Gap is long past” and that "there is the question of whether the T-14 can be produced in numbers…given the state of Russia’s economy.” Such self-assurance is the same arrogance that bit NATO propagandists in the tail when the T-14 entered production. By the time that NATO’s yes-men realize that they’ve brought knives to a gunfight, or Abrams up against the T-14, it’ll be too late to call off their crusade charge of “democracy and human rights” against Russia’s new St. George ribbon-adorned Armata cavalry.

References:

Majumdar, Dave. "Surprise: Russia's Lethal T-14 Armata Tank Is in Production." The National Interest. 13 March, 2016.

Majumdar, Dave. "Russia's Armata T-14 Tank vs. America's M-1 Abrams: Who Wins?" The National Interest. 11 Sept. 2015.

magnumcromagnon wrote:From Otvaga: