[Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

Militarov wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:

.....................................

That is incredible. I would hate to be in opposing tanks because it would just be the Armata and burning wrecks. I read up on the ISU-152 and what its low velocity rounds were able to do to German tanks, so imagine what 152mm rounds traveling at 1750mps could do to the Abrams and other modern MBTs. A binary liquid propellant set up would prevent sympathetic detonations even if the Armata was penetrated from the side and so I think that it's something worth investing in.

.....................................

Another problem mitigated by the unmanned turret. Because there is nobody inside, they can use more violent and toxic but also more effective firefighting chemicals than on the older models where they would poison the crew.

Crew is safely tucked away in the capsule so they can use whatever unholy firefighting toxin they want in order to put out the fire instantly and prevent ammo cook off.

That's true and I guess nitrogen could quickly extinguish any fire within seconds and so I guess a binary liquid propellant is not necessary and would make more sense from a technical and financial level. Gold platting can be quite dangerous to any military.  

Actually for purposes like this, at least to this day nothing beats Bromotrifluoromethane aka Halon 1301. They are trying to find replacement for it for 2 decades now but its not coming around any time soon. Issue is that its not very...healthy...at the best.

I guess the only time the crew would have to exercise caution with regard to Halon 1301 and Nitrogen is when they have to maintain the tank after these chemicals have been used. A binary liquid set up is the only way to completely prevent sympathetic explosions but it does seem that it would be a difficult and expensive undertaking.

Interesting. I've read elsewhere that the 2a83 has a muzzle velocity of at least 1780mps and other sources have put the muzzle velocity at 2000mps+.

It is a question of projectile to propellant ratio... a full bore or full calibre round like a HE Frag round is about 23kgs... that is the projectile is 23kgs.

The entire round is about 33 kgs so we are talking about 10kgs of propellant pushing 23kgs of projectile... down an old 125mm barrel that means about 850m/s muzzle velocity... which is fine... HE rounds don't need to move fast.

An APFSDS round which is basically a metal dart is about 8kgs and has about 13kgs of propellent pushing it down the barrel at about 1.7km/s down a normal barrel.

A 152mm full bore round... ie not an APFSDS round, would not be travelling faster than 950m/s or so unless it has a very large propellent charge and a very long barrel... it would never get above 1,500m/s.

Of course an APFSDS round that is about 10kgs and with extra propellant would be a lot faster than 1.8km/s I would assume.

If the T-14 Armata did decide to install a 60mm mortar in the turret and stabilized it and connected it to the FCS... how many rounds do you think it could hold in the turret?

If they wanted a secondary small calibre I doubt they would develop a 60mm mortar.. more likely they would adapt something like the 57mm grenade launcher they were working on... the advantage would be much smaller rounds so you could have a much larger number of targets engaged, and a 57mm low velocity grenade would have quite a powerful HE round. Being an external weapon the ammo could be added to the outside of the vehicle and could carry as many rounds as you want... Placing it on the rear of the turret like the 30mm grenade mount on the upgraded BMP-2s would be interesting... it would just need elevation performance rather than 360 degrees rotation which would mean it would not obstruct the roof mounted 12.7mm HMG.

The T-90sm seems to have a BMS like other tanks so I wonder what kind of advanced BMS will be installed on all the Armata variants. I hope I'm not being a nuisance.

Likely all the new vehicles will have a C4IR system that communicates to each other and other platforms. It is likely it will also allow control of UAVs and to get video footage of nearby sensors both air and ground based.

That's true and I guess nitrogen could quickly extinguish any fire within seconds and so I guess a binary liquid propellant is not necessary and would make more sense from a technical and financial level to use these chemicals. Gold platting can be quite dangerous to any military.

No. Even with nitrogen or even Halon if a spark hits the cardboard shell of a 125mm propellant charge then it will burn... it does not need oxygen from the air to burn... when the shell and propellant in the gun ready to fire there is not enough oxygen to burn... it provides its own fuel and oxygen... once ignited it would burn in space or under water... the fact that nitrogen has replaced the air around it would not stop the fire... just slow it down from burning objects nearby.

If you dropped a flare into a nitrogen filled turret the lack of oxygen would stop things in the turret like foam or plastic or wood from burning... it will still be damaged by the heat of the flare but would not burn without the oxygen in the air.

Put 20 propellant stubs in there and drop a burning flare on them even with no oxygen in the air the carboard would burn because it is designed to combust and leave little residue in the chamber... once the flame of the flare hits the propellant... boom and the shower of flame will ignite the other stubs and the pressure spikes exponentially and boom off go the hatches and anyone in that turret is dead... though they already suffocated with a lack of oxygen anyway.

A binary liquid set up is the only way to completely prevent sympathetic explosions but it does seem that it would be a difficult and expensive undertaking.

At its heart it is just plumbing... and a liquid propellant would be more powerful than the current solid propellant.

It would also be easier to change the charge, so a HE shell uses less propellant, while APFSDS rounds have more...

I don't think anyone here has argued that tanks are "impervious", so this seems like a straw man argument on your part. People have consistently reaffirmed that tanks will continue to face potent and deadly threats on the battlefield even as multi-layered countermeasures are developed and deployed to address these challenges.

Ditto.

There is no perfect tank, just like there is no perfect anti tank weapon.

Russia is not just applying a range of technologies to help protect their men, like armoured capsules, ERA, NERA, APS, Nakidka, Shtora, different armour types, but it is also investing in communications and command and control systems and computers down to infantry level as well as systems to defeat the enemies equivalent equipment.

Garry B wrote:

It is a question of projectile to propellant ratio... a full bore or full calibre round like a HE Frag round is about 23kgs... that is the projectile is 23kgs.

The entire round is about 33 kgs so we are talking about 10kgs of propellant pushing 23kgs of projectile... down an old 125mm barrel that means about 850m/s muzzle velocity... which is fine... HE rounds don't need to move fast.

An APFSDS round which is basically a metal dart is about 8kgs and has about 13kgs of propellent pushing it down the barrel at about 1.7km/s down a normal barrel.

A 152mm full bore round... ie not an APFSDS round, would not be travelling faster than 950m/s or so unless it has a very large propellent charge and a very long barrel... it would never get above 1,500m/s.

Of course an APFSDS round that is about 10kgs and with extra propellant would be a lot faster than 1.8km/s I would assume.

I think I confused APFSDS with full-bore rounds. A full-bore round travelling at 950 m/s is incredibly fast and would be really effective in an urban environment where the distances aren’t so great. The 2a83 is an impressive gun and will destroy any tank in existence [or in development] with just one shot. If it doesn’t completely destroy an opposing tank, it should immobilize it.

Garry B wrote:If they wanted a secondary small calibre I doubt they would develop a 60mm mortar.. more likely they would adapt something like the 57mm grenade launcher they were working on... the advantage would be much smaller rounds so you could have a much larger number of targets engaged, and a 57mm low velocity grenade would have quite a powerful HE round. Being an external weapon the ammo could be added to the outside of the vehicle and could carry as many rounds as you want... Placing it on the rear of the turret like the 30mm grenade mount on the upgraded BMP-2s would be interesting... it would just need elevation performance rather than 360 degrees rotation which would mean it would not obstruct the roof mounted 12.7mm HMG.

This might sound a little daft but couldn’t they have both? A fully stabilized 60mm mortar [connected to the FCS] could provide great indirect fire against opposing infantry and anti-tank teams in defilade – something that I don’t think the 57mm could achieve. The unmanned turret of the T-14 could probably accommodate 20 + plus 60mm rounds and the 57mm grenade launcher could operate in lieu of the 7.62mm in the remote weapons station. The 57mm grenade would be a great direct fire weapon.

It would also be great if two 23mm autocannons were attached on the sides of the turret and would make the T-14 Armata an incredibly effective platform in urban engagements.

Garry B wrote:

Likely all the new vehicles will have a C4IR system that communicates to each other and other platforms. It is likely it will also allow control of UAVs and to get video footage of nearby sensors both air and ground based.

The T90SM seems to have a good BMS and so I expect the Armata series to have a world class BMS just like how its FCS is arguably superior with its advanced image processing capabilities. With barrel launched drones and an advanced C4IR, the T-14 Armata should be able to see other tanks first thereby getting off the first shot.

Garry B wrote:No. Even with nitrogen or even Halon if a spark hits the cardboard shell of a 125mm propellant charge then it will burn... it does not need oxygen from the air to burn... when the shell and propellant in the gun ready to fire there is not enough oxygen to burn... it provides its own fuel and oxygen... once ignited it would burn in space or under water... the fact that nitrogen has replaced the air around it would not stop the fire... just slow it down from burning objects nearby.

If you dropped a flare into a nitrogen filled turret the lack of oxygen would stop things in the turret like foam or plastic or wood from burning... it will still be damaged by the heat of the flare but would not burn without the oxygen in the air.

Put 20 propellant stubs in there and drop a burning flare on them even with no oxygen in the air the carboard would burn because it is designed to combust and leave little residue in the chamber... once the flame of the flare hits the propellant... boom and the shower of flame will ignite the other stubs and the pressure spikes exponentially and boom off go the hatches and anyone in that turret is dead... though they already suffocated with a lack of oxygen anyway.

That is incredibly frightening and really puts it all into perspective and really does create the impression that a binary liquid propellant is absolutely essential and will eventually have to be incorporated into the T-14 Armata. Thanks for this informative write-up. I’ve learned a lot from it.

Garry B wrote:
At its heart it is just plumbing... and a liquid propellant would be more powerful than the current solid propellant.

It would also be easier to change the charge, so a HE shell uses less propellant, while APFSDS rounds have more...

If they can introduce binary liquid propellants then it really should be done especially if it increases efficiency and the speed of the loading system.

Garry B wrote:

Ditto.

There is no perfect tank, just like there is no perfect anti tank weapon.

Russia is not just applying a range of technologies to help protect their men, like armoured capsules, ERA, NERA, APS, Nakidka, Shtora, different armour types, but it is also investing in communications and command and control systems and computers down to infantry level as well as systems to defeat the enemies equivalent equipment.

Exactly. I really do appreciate Russia’s emphasis on layers of defence to more effectively counter the ever evolving range of threats that armored vehicles will continue to encounter in war.

The 2a83 is an impressive gun and will destroy any tank in existence [or in development] with just one shot. If it doesn’t completely destroy an opposing tank, it should immobilize it.

The 152mm shells were so effective because their weight... ie about 50kgs is enough to kill the crew on the other side of heavy armour with the concussion effect.

Just like a 100kg bomb can kill everyone inside a tank... even if it wont penetrate the armour the shock wave will kill the crew anyway.

This might sound a little daft but couldn’t they have both? A fully stabilized 60mm mortar [connected to the FCS] could provide great indirect fire against opposing infantry and anti-tank teams in defilade – something that I don’t think the 57mm could achieve. The unmanned turret of the T-14 could probably accommodate 20 + plus 60mm rounds and the 57mm grenade launcher could operate in lieu of the 7.62mm in the remote weapons station. The 57mm grenade would be a great direct fire weapon.

No disrespect meant, but the Russians don't have any 60mm mortars in service... the Israelis do because it is an american weapon. the Soviets had 50mm mortars but withdrew them because they were expensive to make and not that effective on the battlefield.

If you want to add a light automatic weapon on a Russian tank it would make sense to use an existing type rather that create one completely from scratch or even copy an american design when existing Russian designs have pretty much similar performance.

the 57mm grenade launcher I am talking about is a new weapon like a 40mm grenade launcher with much bigger and heavier projectiles... the difference between a 57mm grenade and a 60mm mortar bomb is less than 3mm in calibre... both are low velocity rounds that rely on HE capacity for performance... the difference is that the 57mm weapon could be belt fed and automatic, while a 60mm mortar that is not in service in Russia would be semi automatic only.

the 57mm grenade launcher has a low muzzle velocity... don't confuse it with the new 57mm high velocity guns they are talking about for IFV use with guided shells.

A 57mm grenade launcher has a curved trajectory like a mortar but a much higher rate of fire and can be used for direct and indirect fire.

It would be mounted coaxially with the main gun but with independent elevation so where you point the main gun you are pointing the grenade launcher but the grenade launcher can be angled up much higher than the main gun.

In fact knowing the Russians the 57mm grenade launcher probably has the same cheap simple air burst rounds as their 40mm grenades making the 57mm grenade launcher much more effective than the US or Israeli 60mm mortar.

(BTW the Israelis used the 60mm mostly for launching illumination rounds to float over the target area to illuminate the enemy and make their own forces harder to see in the dark.)

It would also be great if two 23mm autocannons were attached on the sides of the turret and would make the T-14 Armata an incredibly effective platform in urban engagements.

It would make more sense to keep the tank as a tank and have a fire support vehicle like a BMP-T to have the anti infantry fire power. IFVs will also be very well armed and of course the artillery vehicles will also add their fire power... there will be no shortage of bang.

Exactly. I really do appreciate Russia’s emphasis on layers of defence to more effectively counter the ever evolving range of threats that armored vehicles will continue to encounter in war.

the key is to remember not to confuse a component with a system. You can look at any single part of a machine and point out its potential faults, but when it is operating as part of a machine... particularly a war machine where every part works as a greater whole trying to assist each other part as well as do a particular job it stops being so easy to find fault or weakness.

I mean with most vehicle units likely including systems that can detect gunshots then the vulnerability to snipers is reduced. Systems that defeat IEDs and mines and booby traps further make systems safer.

Learning enemy tactics and adapting to tricks means sneaky attacks can be successful first time and perhaps even second and third time but eventually they will devise tactics to defeat such attacks... it is a constant battle... one side introduces MRAP vehicles able to survive 5kg HE mines under their wheels... the enemy is not just going to stop trying to blow up your vehicles... they will likely start using more HE or different IEDs that attack from the side or the belly rather than blow up a wheel.

Armata being field tested;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JxzSdfQlu0

Russia's 21st century T-14 Armata battle tanks have commenced combat tests displaying their unique features on firing ranges.



Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20160522/1040052588/armata-firing-tests-video.html#ixzz49R3Jf2PL

Talk of a Terminator version of the Armata;

http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160528/1040419603/armata-t14-platform-terminator3.html

I was away for a little while and I didn't thank Garry and others for answering my questions about mortars and grenade launchers. Thanks guys. Question: Why were whole pages removed?

Why were whole pages removed?

Off topic meaningless argument about HE shells and armour.

Janes : [Extract] Intelligence Briefing: Latest Developments in Russian Armoured Fighting Vehicles

http://www.janes.com/article/60778/extract-intelligence-briefing-latest-developments-in-russian-armoured-fighting-vehicles

not sure where to post, but soon (13-17 june) there is eurosatory in paris and i live there... so... I wonder if someone knows what will russia show off there, any info? I saw in the participants a stand from russia called "army 2016", promising when you think about "army 2015"... Can I expect to see samples of armatas maybe? That would be sick! Please let me know if you have any info on what is known or what is supposed to be shown

cracker wrote:not sure where to post, but soon (13-17 june) there is eurosatory in paris and i live there... so... I wonder if someone knows what will russia show off there, any info? I saw in the participants a stand from russia called "army 2016", promising when you think about "army 2015"... Can I expect to see samples of armatas maybe? That would be sick! Please let me know if you have any info on what is known or what is supposed to be shown

i could be wrong but i think the army thing is celebrated every 2 years. Russia have one major military expo that is done that way. But nothing stop them from doing it every year.

Our Israeli friends have now designed a helmet mounted system to allow armored personnel carrier and tank crews to see straight through their armor.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Troops-can-see-through-armored-vehicles-with-Israeli-firms-new-helmet-456258?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Hoping Armata and other Russian tanks, IFVs etc have some answer to this coz this system will now be exported.

As expected, its from video feeds from the cameras outside. But I don't know if its really needed as the display inside the Russian tank shows feed from the outside camera.

This can be put to advantage (if its really that needed) if there is a retractable display on the helmet that provide video feed on the location as the user (driver/gunner/commander) turns his head rather than having to select manually feeds from different camera on the screen.

jhelb wrote: Our Israeli friends have now designed a helmet mounted system to allow armored personnel carrier and tank crews to see straight through their armor.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Troops-can-see-through-armored-vehicles-with-Israeli-firms-new-helmet-456258?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Hoping Armata and other Russian tanks, IFVs etc have some answer to this coz this system will now be exported.

Oculus rift for tanks? I wouldn't want that. Better off with a display than the expensive helmet.

sepheronx wrote:

jhelb wrote: Our Israeli friends have now designed a helmet mounted system to allow armored personnel carrier and tank crews to see straight through their armor.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Troops-can-see-through-armored-vehicles-with-Israeli-firms-new-helmet-456258?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Hoping Armata and other Russian tanks, IFVs etc have some answer to this coz this system will now be exported.

Oculus rift for tanks? I wouldn't want that. Better off with a display than the expensive helmet.

Actually its alot more similar to latest fighter pilot helmets that are slaved to cameras outside to allow "though the floor" observation. I dont think its bad thing, issuing such device to commander doesnt look like bad idea. If its cheap enough maybe even to whole crew.

Screens stay there anways.

RT posted an article covering Rheinmetall's new 130mm gun, calling it an ‘anti-Armata’ tank gun.

It's all fine and dandy that the 120mm is inadequate and needs a replacement, but how exactly is adding 10mm's going to help it defeat afghanit, which is fast enough to intercept APFSDS rounds?

Zivo wrote:RT posted an article covering Rheinmetall's new 130mm gun, calling it an ‘anti-Armata’ tank gun.

It's all fine and dandy that the 120mm is inadequate and needs a replacement, but how exactly is adding 10mm's going to help it defeat afghanit, which is fast enough to intercept APFSDS rounds?

Is called advertising ,marketing. Naturally Reinmetalls will have to say only good things
about the product they want to sell. Regardless if they are true or not. But in any case,
Rogozin have told that Armata can eat a meter of reinforced steel. while at the same time
they have said they have been unable to penetrate the internal capsule inside the armata
Tank were the soliders are. all said , the internal protection of armata combined with the external one ,have to be at least a combined 1,100 mm to 1,200mm armor protection after era and this is the initial batch of Armata tanks. Because newer modified revisions could enhance that even more. So by the time that gun enter services in 2020 or 2025? Russia should have its revision of Armata between by that time ,at least between 1,300 to 1400 armor .So very unlikely the german gun with just 130,mm gun will cut over that. This is not mentioning Afganit active defenses that adds a new layer of defense.

Zivo wrote:RT posted an article covering Rheinmetall's new 130mm gun, calling it an ‘anti-Armata’ tank gun.

It's all fine and dandy that the 120mm is inadequate and needs a replacement, but how exactly is adding 10mm's going to help it defeat afghanit, which is fast enough to intercept APFSDS rounds?

Well it just "can defeat Armata" has become the new standard for Western weaponmakers, and "can defeat Armata" is equivalent to "you should buy our stuffs".

You can say that, Armata manages to frighten the West to the core, the West is desperatingly trying to use whatever they can to mitigate their scare.

ST PETERSBURG, June 16 -. RIA Novosti Defense Ministry has agreed to the "Uralvagonzavod" price newest T-14 at the "Armata" platform, told reporters CEO Oleg Siyenko.

According to him, the "Uralvagonzavod" has a valid contract with the defense department. This Siyenko noted that the volume of deliveries scheduled until 2020, will be adjusted in connection with the fact that the program is likely to last until 2035.
"And, most likely, that's right, because on arms flows more and more types of equipment," - said CEO.
Earlier it was reported that the total demand of the Russian Armed Forces in the tanks T-14 is defined by 2.3 thousand units. The first batch of one hundred "Armata" should go to the troops in 2017-2018 years.
The tank T-14 on a platform of "Armata" was first shown at the Victory Parade in 2015. The main distinguishing feature of the new combat vehicle - the desert tower and the armored crew capsule separated from the combat pack, which increases the chances tank to stay alive even when blasting ammunition.

franco wrote:total demand of the Russian Armed Forces in the tanks T-14 is defined by 2.3 thousand units

That's a very small number, if it is to replace all MBTs in Russian service.
Unless there's a plan to keep T-72 clones active well into 2035. Which is ill-advised.

KiloGolf wrote:

franco wrote:total demand of the Russian Armed Forces in the tanks T-14 is defined by 2.3 thousand units

That's a very small number, if it is to replace all MBTs in Russian service.
Unless there's a plan to keep T-72 clones active well into 2035. Which is ill-advised.

What is this WW3??? No general would be like "Gimme 50,000 tanks by tomorrow"...there's gonna be tranches, superior developments that supersede the lasted generation, etc.

KiloGolf wrote:

franco wrote:total demand of the Russian Armed Forces in the tanks T-14 is defined by 2.3 thousand units

That's a very small number, if it is to replace all MBTs in Russian service.
Unless there's a plan to keep T-72 clones active well into 2035. Which is ill-advised.

This is initial demand. Demand that they hope to achieve relatively early than not. Once that is said and done, they will definitely have more to replace the old tanks, but T-72B3 models and T-90A will live a lot longer than you would hope. Sucks, but makes sense in order to make things cheap for time being.

sepheronx wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

franco wrote:total demand of the Russian Armed Forces in the tanks T-14 is defined by 2.3 thousand units

That's a very small number, if it is to replace all MBTs in Russian service.
Unless there's a plan to keep T-72 clones active well into 2035. Which is ill-advised.

This is initial demand.  Demand that they hope to achieve relatively early than not.  Once that is said and done, they will definitely have more to replace the old tanks, but T-72B3 models and T-90A will live a lot longer than you would hope.  Sucks, but makes sense in order to make things cheap for time being.

For the long term I would expect to see all the tanks in active service replaced by new T-14 armatas in 20-25 years. Taking it into account the number of 2300 tanks (maybe 2500) seems right. This seems an stimation for peace time. The T-90s and T-72s should be in the reserve at the time, and a new Russian tank model should emerge around 2040.

T-72/80/90 with maximum upgrade and add-ons are already competent and sufficent to deal with Western counterparts at the moment, even if the West manage to standardize the 130mm cannon.

So there is no need to be so hasty about Armata.