[Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

hahahaha... Afghanistan is a new generation APS system to replace Drozd and Arena... did they forget to give it capability against top attack munitions?

The main reason the drozd and arena were not adopted was because they could not engage diving top attack missiles or missiles that fly over the defended tank...

Does this western expert think the Russians forgot?

Mike E wrote:why would Armata exist if the T-90 platform wasn't outdated? It wouldn't need to and it would be way cheaper to just upgrade the 90's.

The production of new tanks is needed in a few years.

The reason of the need of a new tank at production level is that the life in service of the new tanks produced would be around 50 years, and this timeline exceeds the duration of the cicle of life of the T-90, which is in production since 1992.

The cicle of life of the T-90 is going forward, and is not exhausted, but it is not a tank that must be produced more for the Russian Armed Forces (surely it will be produced still for other countries).

This is not to be outdated. The T-90 is useful today and likely will be useful in around 25 years more.

Mike E wrote:T-90 is directly based on the T-72, which was based directly on the T-64. You get the idea.

You can't simply throw ERA everywhere and hope to solve the issue. The mantlet can't be protected with ERA for obvious reasons, the LFP can't as it is equipped with an earth-moving tool and ERA in that location would be stripped off -- and the Driver's area would be in danger if protected by ERA: it would be located close to his optics and hatch.

Modularity? No. The Abrams can swap powerpack, armour packages, even optics rather easily. The Leopard 2 can be outfitted with exterior armour packages w/ no issue and like the Abrams, has an easily removable powerpack. Etc etc, the Leclerc's armour is semi-modular (ie could be replaced after combat), for another example.

T-90AM doesn't exist, and the SM didn't solve the length issue, it only allowed for a few new (still short) rounds to be fired.

It's way more outdated than its contemporaries, hence why the US/GER/FR can upgrade their platforms rather than going for a whole new one ie Armata. Seriously man, why would Armata exist if the T-90 platform wasn't outdated? It wouldn't need to and it would be way cheaper to just upgrade the 90's.

Armour add-ons to Western designs increase weight exponentially... on already overweight vehicles. Gas turbines are fucking abysmal, yet the Abrams still uses one, despite diesel replacement proposals, logistically speaking Western MBTs are literal nightmares on tracks and if a war stagnates for more than 48 hours in a logistically starved location this problem would probably accentuate to out-of-this world proportions. No GLATGMs, huge disadvantage over ranged engagements. Modularity again or more to the point, modular upgrades, same old weight issue, seriously, the US struggles every time they make a modification as to how much they have to factor weight into the equation. I don't see how it is harder to swap out optics on a T-90A either, compared to an Abrams. No EOAPS on majority of Abrams.  How on earth does Le-dollars even factor into tank debates lol.

UK/GER/FR have no choice but to upgrade their current MBTs, they have exactly $0.00 for developing a next-gen MBT. US has produced a huge amount of M1s, so they are stuck in the same conundrum as Russia with T-72. Also, corrupt MIC means they will keep Abrams in service due to the amount of money the thing makes for GDLS in spares (yeah swappable power packs are very important when you're replacing them every 5 minutes in the desert.)

Weak points exist in all vehicles, taking advantage of them in the field is something else again, however. So far, T-90 in Syria has done a sight better at defeating ATGMs than nearly every other MBT out there, and that's with seemingly shite crews, in areas with little logistical support, and actually fairly well armed adversaries (considering numbers).

Armata exists because Russia wants complete dominance against potential adversaries in the field, no questions asked, not because T-90A/BTR-82A//BMP-3M/Msta/TOS-1A/ et al. are "way more outdated".

On a tank by tank, one-on-one engagement, in a sterile environment, yes most Western MBTs are superior due to optics, FCS, etc. in a real war though? It becomes literal Panther v T-34 argument. I feel like you've been sucked in to the whole MBT vs. MBT argument.

GarryB wrote:hahahaha... Afghanistan is a new generation APS system to replace Drozd and Arena... did they forget to give it capability against top attack munitions?

Yes Garry, but i believe that the level of understanding of similar subjects by part of that "expert" is better highlighted by its certainty that T-14 will have integrated "Relikt" ERA !!!

Naturally as declared by the same НИИ Стали already today T-14 mount a new kind of "ERA" (even if with deep changes in its working mechanism that stress the same word ERA) that is more than two times more effcient than Relikt and it is known that is already in work a new generation of dynamic protection with efficiency on a complete another level.

Well we have all seen the tandem warhead of advanced BGM-71E in Syria failing to overcome domestic production version of K-5 dynamic ERA mounted on first version of T-90 with cast turret not the much advanced "Relikt".

Designers of the Institute was very pleased in getting proof directly from the operational field of the very very high level of resiliency offered by the domestic composition of K-5 ERA (in its advanced iteration) provided to Federation's armoured brigades against the tandem warhead supposedly designed by western designers to overcome it.

In this picture 4С23 "Реликт" ERA (in its domestic iteration) already would represent an enormour leap in defensive performance......the new dynamic protection now mounted on T-14 and T-15 should not even be put in the same analysis piece.

Mike E wrote:T-90 is directly based on the T-72, which was based directly on the T-64. You get the idea.

The T-90 fruited from Obj. 187 not from anything else.

Mike E wrote:
You can't simply throw ERA everywhere and hope to solve the issue. The mantlet can't be protected with ERA for obvious reasons, the LFP can't as it is equipped with an earth-moving tool and ERA in that location would be stripped off -- and the Driver's area would be in danger if protected by ERA: it would be located close to his optics and hatch.

The mantlet can't but there is no Mantlet in the world that is not a weak spot. Every tank will get penetrated in that spot or you sacrifice depression and elevation even more with trying to address a tiny weakspot which is unlikely to be hit. We are talking here about the big picture not scenarios of 1vs1 tank but entire battles of various weapons,plattforms and no one aims or could ever possible aim for weak spots.
The LFP is tiny weak spot since it does not face majority of the hits and yes LFP can and has been protected by ERA look on T-14.

In case of hit the self-digging tool gets blown off, since it is not important in that situation anyway. All driver areas are weaker than the rest, stop addressing things as exclusives when they are the case for every tank. The LFP is the only thing that is not the case for every tank, but when other tanks have stronger LFP their UFP is shitty thin like on Abrams, it only benefits from angles, a WW2 AT grenade would penetrate the UFP when thrown on it.

Mike E wrote:
Modularity? No. The Abrams can swap powerpack, armour packages, even optics rather easily. The Leopard 2 can be outfitted with exterior armour packages w/ no issue and like the Abrams, has an easily removable powerpack. Etc etc, the Leclerc's armour is semi-modular (ie could be replaced after combat), for another example.

Nothing of that is called modularity. Armor on Abrams is certainly not modular, it is a segment block within the armor and needs to be welded open just like on every other tank. That is not what modularity means. Powerpacks are not modulare either and certainly can not be a pro for the Abrams since that is impossible to do in the field which is a requirement for other tanks. Applique armor is neither modular otherwise you can count the K5 or any other ERA as modular since they exist in different shapes to fit the needs for spots on tanks. The leopard 2 has also no option to be without its Applique armor, it does not have that option unless you are facing WW2 tanks.

Mike E wrote:
T-90AM doesn't exist, and the SM didn't solve the length issue, it only allowed for a few new (still short) rounds to be fired.

Still superior rounds can be used by T-90 than NATO has. If they are in use that is a different question.

Mike E wrote:
It's way more outdated than its contemporaries, hence why the US/GER/FR can upgrade their platforms rather than going for a whole new one ie Armata. Seriously man, why would Armata exist if the T-90 platform wasn't outdated? It wouldn't need to and it would be way cheaper to just upgrade the 90's.

So outdated that the west is trying to always catch up on the inventions or pioneers of UVZ. Abrams is outdated which soviets knew since T-80 gas turbine, the US talked horseshit and now wants german diesels. The design of the turret is just horrible with to big projection even in safe maneuvering angles let alone in idling position on search mode. It exposes the entire turret flank along with its ammunition bustle which we have seen two times can grill the entire crew.
There are problems but it is not outdated, no more than anything else. And they are indeed planning to produce a new tank, they just have no fucking money nor expertize to pull it of in a join venture project. Armata exists the same way like T-80 along with T-72 and T-90 existed. They had already Obj. 640 despite T-90 was not outdated but in production since short time. That is a false argument.

Werewolf wrote:

Mike E wrote:
It's way more outdated than its contemporaries, hence why the US/GER/FR can upgrade their platforms rather than going for a whole new one ie Armata. Seriously man, why would Armata exist if the T-90 platform wasn't outdated? It wouldn't need to and it would be way cheaper to just upgrade the 90's.

So outdated that the west is trying to always catch up on the inventions or pioneers of UVZ. Abrams is outdated which soviets knew since T-80 gas turbine, the US talked horseshit and now wants german diesels. The design of the turret is just horrible with to big projection even in safe maneuvering angles let alone in idling position on search mode. It exposes the entire turret flank along with its ammunition bustle which we have seen two times can grill the entire crew.
There are problems but it is not outdated, no more than anything else. And they are indeed planning to produce a new tank, they just have no fucking money nor expertize to pull it of in a join venture project. Armata exists the same way like T-80 along with T-72 and T-90 existed. They had already Obj. 640 despite T-90 was not outdated but in production since short time. That is a false argument.

I would like NOT to use the word "outdate". The more precise word is "nearly at limit of upgrade".

Which means people desire a complete novel design.

It is a matter of which word should be used to describe it. Russia recent demands exceeds what T-90 can provides, and that is how Armata comes into play.

When people come with propaganda language of "outdated" they will be addressed with the same horseshit propaganda talk.

Something is first outdated when upgrades do not anymore exist to meet requirements of the current battlefield. Which is not the case for T-90. We saw Proriv-3 and the armor upgrade on UFP on BMPT. Still lot of things very easily upgradable.

Werewolf wrote:When people come with propaganda language of "outdated" they will be addressed with the same horseshit propaganda talk.

Something is first outdated when upgrades do not anymore exist to meet requirements of the current battlefield. Which is not the case for T-90. We saw Proriv-3 and the armor upgrade on UFP on BMPT. Still lot of things very easily upgradable.

T-90 is more than enough to deal with issues from current battlefield. But Russia needs something more breathtaking, to maintain a big gap ahead of Western counterparts.

With Leopard 2Axxxx, Germany is moving nearer to the level of T-64/72/80/90, so that's why Russia has to go with the Armata, to make sure Russia is still one step ahead.

Armata will provide the advantages which even the higest upgrade of T-90 cannot afford. For example, the new kind of steel and composite materiel in the basic armour. Or, the umanned turret significantly reduce useless weight, and increase the safety for crews. And the level of automaton which probably can never be seen in the highest T-90.

Armata set to get another impressive development. Rostec has just developed the ECM equivalent of anti-spall lining:

"Roselectronika" presented a unique material that can completely neutralize the effects of electronic warfare

Included in "Rostec") Specialists' Roselectronika "Russian holding company created a ferrite fiber that can protect electronic devices of modern armored vehicles, anti-aircraft missiles and aircraft from the effects of electronic warfare (EW). According to "Izvestia" CEO Igor Kozlov holding in Russia developed a unique material with low specific weight and high flexibility, capable of fully absorb the impact of the "shock wave" radio-electronic equipment, as well as to prevent the spread of non-directional electron radiation of its own instruments, which may be caused precision system defeat.

- Our development in some of the products comparable to suit fabrics and drapes - said "Izvestia" Igor Kozlov. - At the same time she is available level of absorption of electromagnetic waves is comparable with the much heavier and bulky analogues used in electronic equipment for protection against radio-electronic weapons, and obstacle detection of military equipment in its electromagnetic radiation. In fact, we created a "cloak" for the whole of Russian military equipment, units on the battlefield of modern high-precision weapons.

The JSC "Ferro-domain" (the company-developer of the material) "News" said that the uniqueness of the development due to the fact that no the world, nor in Russia, until recently, it was not possible to create a material as a low specific weight with such high absorption properties. Ferrite fabric protects against electromagnetic radiation in the frequency range from 0.5 GHz to 50 GHz. The material can reduce the level of the electromagnetic field of a particular sample of military equipment to 10-30 dB (the radiation reflected from the material) and up to 100 dB (radiation transmitted through the material). All this allows us to both stationary and moving objects on the battlefield virtually indistinguishable for precision weapons, which guidance takes place in various physical fields:. Heat, infrared and electromagnetic

By owls Igor Kozlov, ferrite fiber ensures the stability of electronic equipment placed inside the base bearing structures of the first, second and third level of disaggregation, - that is, from the banal IPhone in the hands of a soldier, to the radar station detection and missile guidance to the target air defense system S-500 "Prometheus". Igor Kozlov pointed out that in its properties the new material may be intended for the protection of terrestrial and marine electronics.

- It is not only the protection of electronic equipment by means of electronic warfare, and radar camouflage defensive means or shock terrestrial groups such as camouflage covers for "Armata" tanks - Igor Kozlov said. - New materials allow for health care personnel and facilities with high levels of electromagnetic field strength over a wide frequency range. These materials can be used in medicine, in areas of diagnostic, therapeutic, disinfecting electronic equipment.

As the "News" expert in the field of armored vehicles, Sergei Suvorov, masking machines on the battlefield - one of the global challenges of the modern equipment. Especially when thermal emission engines added another and electromagnetic fields generated by operating intelligence systems, target designation and communication.

- All the latest means of destruction of armored vehicles are built on the principle of search and classification purposes on their emitted electron "portrait", - explained Sergey Suvorov. - On the same principle established and modern systems of electronic countermeasures, a task which "turn off" the "eyes and ears" of the tank or other machines, making the crew of "blind".

The most striking example of such effects - has already become a classic circled April 12, 2014 Russian tactical bomber Su-24 USS "Donald Cook" in the Black sea. Including systems EW "Khibiny", the crew is completely deprived of Americans able to use any weapons on board the ship.

- "Armata" or other high-tech fighting machine equipped with lots of electronic intelligence devices, targeting and communication, is no exception, if it is not protect - said the expert. - Nice to know that this caveat is reflected in the seemingly small things such - finishing fabrics for tank interior.


http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2016/08/blog-post_5.html

Article about the T-15 heavy IFV (sadly, not much news )

T-15 Armata HIFV to increase combat capabilities of Russian Land Forces

Russia`s newest T-15 heavy infantry fighting vehicles (HIFV) based on the Armata unified tracked platform will significantly beef up the combat capabilities of the Russian Land Forces, local sources suppose.


The T-15 Armata HIFV at Moscow Victory Parade 2015 (Photo Vitaly Kuzmin)

According to a source in the indigenous defense industry, over 10 low-rate initial production (LRIP) T-15 Armata HIFVs have been delivered to the Russian MoD. "At present, the developer of T-15, Uralvagonzavod (Russian acronym: UVZ) scientific-research corporation and the MoD are actively testing the vehicles. The HIFV has retained a number of T-14 Armata main battle tank`s (MBT) systems and subsystems, namely, hull, engine, suspension and explosive reactive armour (ERA). Such decision allows not only reducing the platform`s cost, but also increasing of its armour and electronic protection. At the same time, the internal layout of the T-15 HIFV significantly differs from the T-14 MBT. The engine compartment has been relocated to the front part of the vehicle. The crew of the vehicle is placed behind the powerpack. The remaining part of the hull comprises the troop compartment. T-15 has retained the driver`s seat of T-14, while the gunner and the commander of the HIFV have received new controls due to the introduction of the new weapons suite," he said.

The source pointed out that the T-15 HIFV features the Epokha (Epoch) remote controlled weapon station (RCWS) armed with the stabilized 30mm Shipunov 2A42 automatic cannon chambered for 30x165mm round, four ready-to-launch 9M133 Kornet/Kornet-D (NATO reporting name: AT-14 Spriggan) anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) with high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warheads, and a Kalashnikov PKTM co-axial machinegun chambered for 7.62x54Rmm round. He did not mention the ammunition load of the Epokha RCWS. In basic configuration, the 2A42 automatic gun has 500 rounds of ready-to-fire ammunition, including 160 armour-piercing and 340 high-explosive (HE) fragmentation ones, while PKTM has about 2,000 7.62mm cartridges. The 2A42 gun has an effective firing range of 1,500 m against personnel targets and 4,000 against armour targets, while Kornet/Kornet-D ATGMs can destroy enemy`s tanks at 5,000 m and 10,000 m, respectively. The PKTM machinegun can eliminate adversary`s infantry at distances up to 2,000 m. The station`s sensors suite is comprised of two stabilized day-night optoelectronic sighting systems with integrated high-resolution thermal imagers and laser rangefinders, an advanced computer-based fire control system (FCS), and a meteorological sensor similar to the one fitted to T-72B3 and T-90A MBTs. A panoramic sight provides to the commander the ability to work in the hunter-killer mode.

The Russian defense industry has developed the AU-220M Baikal RCWS that is supposed to be fitted to the T-15 HIFV in the near future. AU-220M developed by the TsNII Burevestnik (a subsidiary of UVZ) scientific-research institute features a 57mm semi-automatic naval gun. The developer is integrating the Kornet and 9M120 Ataka ATGMs (AT-9 Spiral-2) with the station.


The T-15 Armata turret (Photo Vitaly Kuzmin)

The source said that T-15 Armata features "an unprecedented level of armour protection". The HIFV has received the newest Malakhit (Malachite) explosive reactive armour (ERA) developed by the NII Stali scientific-research institute (a subsidiary of the Tractor Plants Concern). "The Malakhit ERA protects the HIFV against state-of-the-art armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APSFDS) rounds, such as DM53/DM63 developed by Rheinmetall Defense and M829A3 by the Orbital ATK Corporation. I suppose that it can withstand even M829E4 APFSDS round being developed by Orbital ATK, let alone modern ATGMs, for instance, FGM-148 Javelin or MMP (Missile Moyenne Portee)," the source emphasized. T-15 HIFV also features improved passive composite armour made of steel and ceramic plates. The rear part of the vehicle is covered by bar-slat armour in order to provide additional protection against rocket-propelled anti-tank grenades equipped with HEAT warheads. The HIFV`s floor is reinforced with an additional armour plate to increase the counter-mine and counter-IED (Improvised Explosive Device) protection. The platform features both hard-kill (Afghanit) and soft-kill (optoelectronic suppression device) active protection systems (APS). The developer decided to use a special paint that significantly reduces the vehicle`s infrared signature. "T-15 has received several smoke grenade launchers. The HIFV also features a nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological (NBCR) protection system, situational awareness cameras, and a jamming system to detonate radio-controlled anti-tank mines in front of the vehicle," the source added.

The T-15 HIFV is powered by a new generation multifuel diesel engine (1,500 h.p.) coupled with a hydro-mechanical automatic transmission. "The vehicle has a combat weight of about 48 t, a maximum road speed of 65-70 km/h, an operational range of 550 km, and a power-to-weight ratio of over 30 h.p./t," the source said.

He pointed out that the UVZ Corporation is evolving the Armata family. "At present, the company is developing the T-16 Armata-based armoured recovering vehicle (ARV) to complement the MBT and the HIFV," the source added.

---

Article's link:
http://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/t-15_armata_hifv_to_increase_combat_capabilities_of_russian_land_forces_51008166.html

---

I thought that they would write about its future combat roles and production schedules, but we will have to wait for it .

New Russia's Armata Tank Control System to Be Unveiled at Army-2016 Expo

Russia’s United Instrument Manufacturing Corporation (UIMC) said Wednesday that it plans to unveil its latest communication and control systems to be installed in future Russian Navy ships and submarines, as well as at its latest Russian armored vehicles, including the Armata tank, at the Army-2016 military expo.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — In total, the company will present over 100 samples of military electronic products at the expo.

"Among the new products to be presented for the first time is the communication and control equipment for future warships, Navy submarines and new generation Russian armored vehicles — the Armata tank, the Kurganets-25 armored car, the Bumerang armored personnel carrier, the BTR-MD Rakushka and the Typhoon-K armored car," the company's press service said.

It was noted in the statement that visitors to the exhibition will also have a chance to see the Borisoglebsk 2 electronic warfare weapon system, as well as modern types of mobile command posts.

The International Military-Technical Forum Army-2016 will be held in Kubinka, a western suburb of Moscow, on September 6-11.

http://sputniknews.com/military/20160810/1044132207/armata-control-system.html

Pincus Shain wrote:I know the T-90 is not considered "the latest" by modern standards. However:

1.) It is a rugged and proven design.
2.) The army has experience using them.
3.) With upgrades, it begins to approach the standard of the M1A2, Leopard 2, Leclerc, Challenger 2 etc.
4.) Value for money it is excellent.
5.) Can be produced in decent numbers quite readily.

So my question is, is it really worth producing the Armata over simply buying and upgrading more T-90's? Does it really bring anything new that justifies such investment? With plans to buy 2300+ of these, it just seems like a large expense for something that is not really needed and at a time where money can be used elsewhere. Why spend so much money to match western tanks, when the current systems can be almost brought to that level with modernization? Am I missing something?

I would say that a definite advantage of passing to the Armata concept is the existence of the T-15.
While he T-90 is still a good tank the lightly armored BMPs and BTR are instead not more in line with modern level of menace: T-15  but also kurganets and boomerang would be a decisive step ahead instead.
One good thing it would be instead to keep on producing a t-90 chassis based Koalitsia: as t was decided to supply t-14 also to kurganets nùecquipped unit the same can be done with it.

Zivo wrote:
The T-14 is supposed to have a magnetic countermeasure suite which runs the perimeter of the hull and produces an artificially large field to spoof magnetic detonators in weapons like the TOW-2B and various anti tank mines.

Why are they not incorporating this really cool feature into the T-15 Armata HIFV?

So my question is, is it really worth producing the Armata over simply buying and upgrading more T-90's? Does it really bring anything new that justifies such investment? With plans to buy 2300+ of these, it just seems like a large expense for something that is not really needed and at a time where money can be used elsewhere. Why spend so much money to match western tanks, when the current systems can be almost brought to that level with modernization? Am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing something.

The Armata is not a tank.

It is a vehicle family platform.

The T-90 is a MBT and it could be used as the basis for MSTA, and the BMPT and BTRT and it could also be used for various other roles.

The Armata platform will be the basis for every vehicle in a division from ambulance to command vehicle to rocket, tube, and mortar artillery, to missile and gun defence, to ATGM carrier, every vehicle in the division will be Armata based so the bad guys can't just pick off the light vehicles and leave the MBTs exposed and vulnerable to infantry attack.

Even the armour level of the Boomerang and Kurganets and Typhoon divisions will actually improve because 90% of vehicles in a division are soft skinned vehicles... some barely armoured at all.

This is all about mobility and communication... having one engine type and one transmission type and one set of wheels or tracks for every vehicle makes the logistics tail of the force much smaller and simpler.

Where mobility is not so important older models could be used and the old mix of 10-20 different vehicle types could be used, but the future is vehicle families.

For instance a current tank division will have a T-90 MBT... the 152mm artillery will be MSTA which is based on the T-80. The BMP-3 and BTR-82 are troop carriers, and the MTLB is a prime mover and also the basis for ambulance and engineering vehicles and the ACRV command vehicle. The BRDM-2 vehicle is also used and of course the GM chassis of the Tunguska and the TOR and SA-13 vehicles are there too, plus lots of trucks including Grad launchers. And of course the MTLB platform for the ground based Shturm/Ataka ATGM vehicle. You might have a 120mm mortar carrier based on the 2S1 122mm artillery vehicle, or you might have the 122mm 2S1 artillery vehicle itself.

In a heavy Armata tank division you have all those types but they are all armata chassis based including the two variants... front and rear engined versions.

In a medium tracked tank division you would have all Kurganets based vehicles, and a medium wheeled tank division all Boomerang based vehicles and light wheeled tank division you'd have typhoon based vehicles.

You can't really do this with modified existing types.

Why are they not incorporating this really cool feature into the T-15 Armata HIFV?

What makes you think they are not?

AFAIK the designs are unified, so the armata tank model has the same weapons and optics and systems as the Kurganets tank model... even the weapon stations are unified so the screens and controls are the same in all four vehicle families.

The only exception will be that with the very light vehicles some things would be too heavy... ie likely no 152mm smoothbore for the Typhoon tank vehicle... it might have a 125mm smoothbore like the Sprut or perhaps even a 57mm gun like the IFVs of the other vehicles.

I would expect most will have these systems for self defence.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Fookin' hell that's talking business.

WoW WoW ... Russian 5th generations system of Army C3I is entering ground forces en masse

Control System "Andromeda-D" filled up with families "Armata", "Kurganets" and "Boomerang"

Nice  

Russian vehicles based on the Armata Combat Platform to get new armor for urban warfare

Designers have created a new set of defensive plates that will protect tanks and wheeled combat vehicles against the most common types of weapons used in offensive attacks.


The wheels and tracks of the latest armored vehicles constructed on Russia’s Armata Universal Combat Platform, which includes a new tank, will be equipped with additional protective armor. The Russian Research Institute (NII) is developing the new hardware for the platform.

According to the developers, "plate shields," which are similar in appearance to the bars on metal bunk beds, will be installed along the perimeter of the machines. These shields will protect armored vehicles from cumulative grenades and anti-tank guided missiles — the most common threat to them in urban settings. The new shields are intended to deform the head of a grenade when it makes contact with the vehicle and divert part of the energy from the explosion.

Designers are skeptical of the plan, however, pointing out that the shields, or screens, are inferior to dynamic armor in combat performance.

"They are cheaper and technically simpler and increase engine protection and transmission by several times in the conditions of urban warfare,” said Dmitry Safonov, military correspondent for Izvestia, speaking about the shields. “A key drawback is their low versatility. The lattice screen will save the technology only from certain types of hand-held anti-tank grenades.”

The Russian Defense Ministry has already tested the lattice screens on the BTR-80, a wheeled amphibious armored personnel carrier. An additional armor set has been installed on the perimeter of the body of the vehicle and has been tested to protect against chemical grenades. According to the developers, the test results show that the equipment can maintain its mobility and while cutting the effect of a striking grenade in half.


Source:
http://www.armyrecognition.com/august_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/russian_vehicles_based_on_the_armata_combat_platform_to_get_new_armor_for_urban_warfare_52508164.html

---

So they are developing bar-slat/cage armor, or what? They already have "Afghanit" APS, and "Malachit" ERA tiles can also be fitted onto the sides, and these can counter ATGMs/enemy tank rounds. BTW it would be good to have an another layer of defense. Maybe Afghanit's sensors cannot detect an incoming RPG grenade (which has a cumulative warhead) fired from 50-100 meters distance, or from a roof of a nearby building, so equipping cage armor would be logical.

But its seems like the Russian themselves are unsatisfied with the protection - which means imagine how powerful Armata will become if it manages to satisfy the designers.

So they are developing bar-slat/cage armor, or what? They already have "Afghanit" APS, and "Malachit" ERA tiles can also be fitted onto the sides, and these can counter ATGMs/enemy tank rounds. BTW it would be good to have an another layer of defense. Maybe Afghanit's sensors cannot detect an incoming RPG grenade (which has a cumulative warhead) fired from 50-100 meters distance, or from a roof of a nearby building, so equipping cage armor would be logical.

I think what they are suggesting is that one solution to protection has strengths and weaknesses and no one system is perfect.

This means it makes sense to have multiple levels of protection where different types offer different levels of protection but also have different strengths and weaknesses... so for example with the engine exhaust ERA and NRA will be effected by the heat and may not function properly. Also this is an area you can't put a lot of conventional armour due to the fact that if you have heavy conventional armour on every side then the tank becomes a 100 ton monster.

Slat armour is a good compromise as while it is not perfect it performs the role of stand off detonation of incoming rounds, is cheap and relatively light.

Of course in addition to cage armour, they will also use APS, modular special armour, NRA, as well as soft options like SHTORA EW and decoy and chaff/flare systems too... and probably some other secret techniques like active laser jammers... and Nakidka IR and radar suppressing layers.

First contract for Armata tanks!!

Russian Defense Ministry Signs First Contract to Deliver Over 100 Armata Tanks

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20160906/1045008276/russia-armata-tanks.html

"Za Stalyina" 

zg18 wrote:"Za Stalyina" 

https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/28072/8955119.13/0_a1ca2_405b0caf_X4L.jpg

Man, I love how it's silhouette resembles good old T-34.


Also: Is this pic from field trials?

zg18 wrote:"Za Stalyina" 

https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/28072/8955119.13/0_a1ca2_405b0caf_X4L.jpg

Still waiting for that 57mm secondary, up-specced turret and dat one-five-two screw you.