[Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

Thermal and IR image of T-14 in motion and warmed up:

kvs wrote:

Great post!  Now we see one of the advantages of the unmanned turret.   It is basically at background temperature.   So the real world
height of the T-14 is lower than it appears since IR detection systems will not be able to effectively resolve the turret.  

Well to be completely fair, in a combat situation the turret should heat up once the stabilizers and electric drives are performing, and even more so when the main gun is firing. The same goes for the barrel of the machine gun inside the RWS, and possibly the electro-optical sensors.
Still, its a highly interesting perspective.

Is there any detailed info available about the APU used by the T-14, and where it is located inside the vehicle?

kvs wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Thermal and IR image of T-14 in motion and warmed up:

Great post!  Now we see one of the advantages of the unmanned turret.   It is basically at background temperature.   So the real world
height of the T-14 is lower than it appears since IR detection systems will not be able to effectively resolve the turret.  

Not to mention that if the above image of Armata is correct ,and maintained in a battle field.
It means Armata have an extremely low heat signature on its armor and turret and that the latest anti tank missiles of US and ISrael ,like Javelin or Spike missiles ,which depends a lot
on infrared homing will have a difficult time finding the location of the tank ,since its tracks
that is the only thing that shows heat ,will be covered by the tank body from a top -down looking position.   And from a side position ,the tracks will very likely be hidden by the terrain if they running in uneven soft terrain as the majority of battlefields will be.

They also should be invisible to Apache helicopters hellfire missiles too. Since it was said the tank will be stealthy to radio emissions too. This means that Russia passive defenses alone
in combination with the smoke screen ,defenses they use , should be significantly more effective than in previous generation of tanks . and the Armata tank could pose a real challenge to be hit ,by guided modern anti tank missiles. and only rocket unguided grenades
will not be affected by that ,but their penetrating power is very weak already anyway for a modern tank. I remember in one time years ago ,were Putin himself told in an interview that in the future tanks will be next to impossible to penetrate by anti tank missiles or rocket grenades. and is very likely he was speaking from experience of what the Russia military was developing in armata new tanks.

In russian winters however ,for sure any tank will be stealthy from infra red guidance. .

In russian winters however ,for sure any tank will be stealthy from infra red guidance. .

No.

Actually hot weather is more of an issue.

In a normal thermal image a human being stands out as white hot on a dark background.

When the outside temperature is 38 degrees or hotter than the back ground temperature is the same as a human body so it all looks white and it is hard to find human targets.

Hot ground also makes hot tanks harder to see.

Of course the application of materials like Nadezhda will change the surface temperature of the vehicle to close to ambient temperatures so they wont stand out.

IR guided systems like Javelin would need to be used in manual guidance mode... making it a very expensive underpowered Metis...

T-72B3 mod. 2016 and T-90A, top view.

Tanks will always be the important part of military doctrine of every army. I don`t belive the claims that tanks are obsolete in 21. century warfare. Soviet Union has allways been the pioneer of tank development. Russia today must keep pushing the envelope and developing new tank technologies. Russia must climbed back to the top of tank Olymp.

What about tank industry in Ukraine ? I have heard that their Oplot tank is utter and complete disaster. Even Thailand canceled the contract to buy Oplot tanks from Ukraine. What is the state of tank industry in Harkov (Ukraine) today ? I heard that KMDB Morozov is in state of total bankruptcy and has been take under control by ukrainian oligarchs and mafia clans in Kiev junta.

Sochi_Olympic_Park wrote:Tanks will always be the important part of military doctrine of every army. I don`t belive the claims that tanks are obsolete in 21. century warfare. Soviet Union has allways been the pioneer of tank development. Russia today must keep pushing the envelope and developing new tank technologies. Russia must climbed back to the top of tank Olymp.

What about tank industry in Ukraine ? I have heard that their Oplot tank is utter and complete disaster. Even Thailand canceled the contract to buy Oplot tanks from Ukraine. What is the state of tank industry in Harkov (Ukraine) today ? I heard that KMDB Morozov is in state of total bankruptcy and has been take under control by ukrainian oligarchs and mafia clans in Kiev junta.

Ukropistani inbred orcs have not only killed the goose that laid the golden eggs, they got the bones stuck in their throat, and fought over the scraps and feathers. Oplot is a joke, a 3rd-world hunk of garbage, and the once mighty Malyshev plant is a pathetic shadow of its once-glorious past.

Q - How do you get a Ukropi involved in small business?
A - Give him a big business, and let him take it from there...

Big_Gazza wrote:

Sochi_Olympic_Park wrote:Tanks will always be the important part of military doctrine of every army. I don`t belive the claims that tanks are obsolete in 21. century warfare. Soviet Union has allways been the pioneer of tank development. Russia today must keep pushing the envelope and developing new tank technologies. Russia must climbed back to the top of tank Olymp.

What about tank industry in Ukraine ? I have heard that their Oplot tank is utter and complete disaster. Even Thailand canceled the contract to buy Oplot tanks from Ukraine. What is the state of tank industry in Harkov (Ukraine) today ? I heard that KMDB Morozov is in state of total bankruptcy and has been take under control by ukrainian oligarchs and mafia clans in Kiev junta.

Ukropistani inbred orcs have not only killed the goose that laid the golden eggs, they got the bones stuck in their throat, and fought over the scraps and feathers.  Oplot is a joke, a 3rd-world hunk of garbage, and the once mighty Malyshev plant is a pathetic shadow of its once-glorious past.

Q - How do you get a Ukropi involved in small business?
A - Give him a big business, and let him take it from there...

The most advanced technology on ukrainian Oplot tank is T-80 chassis, gun and tank systems, hull, autoloader and mechanisms developed and produced in Soviet Union (Leningrad Kirov Plant) by russian constructor Nikolai Popov. Everything else (ukrainian diesel engines, electronics, optics, ammunition, protection systems, armor...etc) is complete junk and crap.

U.S made Javelin ATGM ineffective against Armata's APS

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40083641

Russian troops to start Armata tank operational evaluation in 2019

http://tass.com/defense/952377

Russia is developing a new arctic infantry fighting vehicle based on the T-15 chassis

The Arctic Rytsar (Knight) has been added to the list of advanced infantry fighting vehicles consisting now of the T-15 based on the Armata platform, B-11 based on the Kurganets-25 combat vehicle, and the wheeled Boomerang. This is a new product from the Kurgan Machine-Building Plant (Kurganmashzavod). Expert Sergei Cherkasov writes about this in newspaper Military Industrial Courier.


Undoubtedly, a vehicle customized to local conditions is needed for the Arctic. Combat units must be as autonomous as possible and adapted to climatic conditions. The equipment must not only be operable at all times, but also provide comfortable conditions for people who serve at the edge of the earth. The priority in the Arctic military equipment is given to the engine and running gear. Armament is configured into weapon stations, and the choice can be any, depending on the needs. But in the Arctic, powerful weapons are unlikely to find a worthy target.

GTEs are capable of operating on any fuel that can be pulverized or emulsified, even on coal, not to mention diesel fuel, natural gas or fuel oil. With long supply lines, the opportunity to fill the IFV from a barrel at a polar weather station is worth much. In the early 2010s, a special IFV intended for use for use in high latitudes was already under development. The project called Arctic was developed by Uralvagonzavod, which used the insights on the two-unit all-terrain vehicles Vityaz. Now, judging from media reports, the Tractor Plants Concern, which includes both Kurganmashzavod and KOBM, has found funds to carry out research and design studies. These efforts should result in an armored all-terrain vehicle available in both two-unit and one-unit versions.

Source: http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_2017_global_defense_security_news_industry/russia_developing_new_arctic_ifv_on_t-15_chassis_81506173.html

Interesting info of many of the technology that never made it into the black eagle tank..
but that helped in the development of Armata.


https://aw.my.com/us/news/general/development-object-195

quite a general question , i'd like to know if you guys share my opinion.
i've seen many claims pointing out that the T14's sensor equipment and weapons are "exposed", as well as the turret being lightly armored , and anything can take them out.
i strongly disagree , imo , all other tanks have exposed "fragile" equipment such as gunner sights , CITV's and laser warning receivers for some tanks , so this is a common thing for all modern tanks , the only difference is that the T14 's turret is crewless , so no armor needed , unlike other tanks.
what do you think?

HM1199 wrote:quite a general question , i'd like to know if you guys share my opinion.
i've seen many claims pointing out that the T14's sensor equipment and weapons are "exposed", as well as the turret being lightly armored , and anything can take them out.
i strongly disagree , imo , all other tanks have exposed "fragile" equipment such as gunner sights , CITV's and laser warning receivers for some tanks , so this is a common thing for all modern tanks , the only difference is that the T14 's turret is crewless , so no armor needed , unlike other tanks.
what do you think?

The argument of overexposed sensors exists only in a situation where a threat would attempt to engage said sensors. This threat could be for example a sniper with an anti-material rifle, an infantry fighting vehicle with a medium caliber auto cannon, an artillery barrage or possibly even a UAV.

Most of these threats would all be taking a very big risk for even attempting to target these sensors, or even the tank in general. The chance of exposing itself to return fire by either the target tank, or tanks/IFV's/infantry operating with the tank is high. Such return fire would have a fairly high chance of being very effective, as the would be assailants would all be well within the lethal range of the main gun.
The biggest threats remain long range ATGM's, which would cause more critical damage in general, and damages through artillery shrapnel or indirect fire. Not much can be done about this. As u said, any tank is vulnerable to this.

Important sensors could be carried as spares which are made replaceable by the vehicle crew in field conditions. Thats about it really.  

With advances in battlefield networking technology, a platoon of T-14's would likely not even require to have its own eyes. It could simply obtain detailed targeting information from other sources.
Other sensors such as laser warning receivers, radar and meteorological mast are non-essential in most battlefield scenarios. The tank can perform its mission even with these systems damaged.
At any rate, the current turret design can be altered fairly easily. It is be no means a design set in stone. We could still see any number of modifications emerge. Extensive field trials are bound to reveal weaknesses or problems with durability.

Also I think there will be urban warfare kit for T-14. Syrian mods of T-72 tanks are fairly effective so far.

If the enemy is talking about blinding your tanks instead of blowing them into tiny pieces and killing all the crew you know your tanks are well protected.

Armata vehicles will be nodes in a network that includes ground, air, sea, and space based nodes all feeding target and threat information into a data management system... while the enemy tanks are trying to use machine gun fire to shoot out the optics and sensors if an Armata tank so that their missiles and rounds can penetrate their defences, the armata will be passing precise locations and information about those enemy tanks up the chain to HQ which means pretty soon the air is going to be humming with the sound of Mi-28NMs and Ka-52s and Hermes, Vikhr, and Krisantema... not to mention that the tethered UAV flying 30m above the Armata with thermal and radar sensors has probably already been used so the enemy tanks were likely detected well before they detected the Armatas, which means those armatas had likely already fired at those enemy tanks before they had a ground based line of sight with fire and forget tank launched anti armour missiles at those tanks anyway so they were probably destroyed before they even saw the Armata tank in the first place.

All they might have seen were a few UAVs hovering above a group of trees... there might have been a dozen Armata vehicles in there or it might have been one Tigr recon vehicle with the tethered UAV... either way the sensor data would have been used by someone somewhere nearby to deal with the threat.

Haters going to hate.

They would likely go for over kill most likely, like they did in desert storm where 250kg guided bombs were used to take out dug in armour in the desert.

Armata will not be some invincible system but it will take time for them to upgrade their capacity to counter it effectively... and it is not alone... it will have all sorts of support systems and vehicles too... unlike the T-72 in the desert whose only protection was the fake inflatable models around it...

well that one is true.
people claiming the optics / sensitive parts will conveniently be shut down , as if there isn't a plethora of other harware peices around.

Is there any source speaking about the T14 creating a magnatic field to mess up with detonation fuses?

HM1199 wrote:well that one is true.
people claiming the optics / sensitive parts will conveniently be shut down , as if there isn't a plethora of other harware peices around.

Is there any source speaking about the T14 creating a magnatic field to mess up with detonation fuses?

HM1199 can you clarify on the AESA issue on "Busting Myths about T-50" video you created , Its an Amazing Video which I shared can you update the video to make it more upto date ?

Is there any source speaking about the T14 creating a magnatic field to mess up with detonation fuses?

Standard mine clearing vehicles including the BMR-3M have jammers for radio command mines and IEDs and have done for decades.

In fact I think the mine roller kits for BMPs and tanks have jammers included too.

GarryB wrote:

Is there any source speaking about the T14 creating a magnatic field to mess up with detonation fuses?

Standard mine clearing vehicles including the BMR-3M have jammers for radio command mines and IEDs and have done for decades.

In fact I think the mine roller kits for BMPs and tanks have jammers included too.

Strange, wouldn't a time delay with a pressure sensor be a good way around such things, even i could do it (not the bomb, just the detonator).

Austin , thatnks a lot for sharing man , i'm glad you liked the video. I'll send you details via PM , in order to not mix the armata thread with T50 information.

Strange, wouldn't a time delay with a pressure sensor be a good way around such things, even i could do it (not the bomb, just the detonator).

The purpose of such things is to jam any radio detonator that might be used as the mine vehicle is in a vulnerable position... ie a huge IED is directly under the vehicle... flick a switch and boom.

The jammer prevents the signal from setting off the explosive.

It does not deal with tricks like delayed fuses, but a scoop plough would scoop such a mine out of the ground and push it aside so when it does explode it is not under the vehicle.

Guys this just my thoughts I'm sharing. It is related to the armaments of current Armata, Kurganet and Bumerang vehicles.

So far the armament is:

T-14: 1x125mm gun with 125mm ATGM capability with 1x7.62mm gun co-axial and 1x12.7mm gun on top mini turret.
T-15: 1x30mm gun with 4x152mm ATGM ready to launch with 1x7.62mm gun co-axial.
Kurganet-25 IFV: 1x30mm gun with 4x152mm ATGM ready to launch with 1x7.62mm gun co-axial.
Kurganet-25 APC: 1x12.7mm gun.
Bumerang IFV: 1x30mm gun with 4x152mm ATGM ready to launch with 1x7.62mm gun co-axial.
Bumerang APC: 1x12.7mm gun.

Also in testing 1x57mm gun with 4x130mm ATGM ready to launch, which I assume will be applied on some of them.

My thoughts so far regarding the armaments:

T-14: 1x125mm gun with 125mm ATGM capability with 1x7.62mm gun co-axial. And 1x30mm and 1x12.7mm combination at top.
T-15: 4x30mm (or at least 2x) gun with 4x152mm ATGM ready to launch + 2x infra-red AAM ready to launch at the back of turret. With 1x12.7mm gun on another small turret like on T-14 current armament. Search and track will be done by modified OLS-30 mounted on top of the mini turret.
Kurganet-25 IFV: 1x57mm gun with 4x152mm ATGM ready to launch with 1x7.62mm gun co-axial and 1x12.7mm gun on top mini turret.
Kurganet-25 APC: 1x30mm gun with 1x7.62mm gun co-axial and 1x12.7mm gun on top mini turret.
Bumerang IFV: 1x57mm gun with 4x152mm ATGM ready to launch with 1x7.62mm gun co-axial and 1x12.7mm gun on top mini turret.
Bumerang APC: 1x30mm gun with 1x7.62mm gun co-axial and 1x12.7mm gun on top mini turret.

The point of top mini turret on everything is that it can fire another direction than the main gun. Suppose the APC is engaged with its 30mm gun in one direction occupying the 7.62mm gun with it. But 12.7mm is still free to rotate and can fend of any stray ATGM or RPG carrier or troops in another direction.

These are my thoughts so far, what are your comments on this?