[Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

The-thing-next-door wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Photos of Armata factory under construction from 6 months ago. It's almost completed now.

...........

A whole new factory how many Armatas are they going to be making?

Also there are only a few hundred T-90As so are they going to be making T-90AM aswell?

Don't know really, I just found pics.

But if I had to guess I would say that they will be building plenty. It's not just T-14 MBT but also T-15 IFV and T-16.

And then you have Koalitsia SPG that will be using same chassis as Armata and quite a few other vehicles down the road using the same thing.

Add to that the fact that they plan to use Armatas for at least next half a century and new factory makes a lot of sense. Old one is definitely getting long in the tooth. As for T-90s they will probably keep building them in current factory, it will be hot export item for quite some time.

[quote="PapaDragon"]

The-thing-next-door wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Photos of Armata factory under construction from 6 months ago. It's almost completed now.

...........

Add to that the fact that they plan to use Armatas for at least next half a century

If so the T-14 would probably have to go through some serious evolution over the years how easy is it to swap out the base armor?

The-thing-next-door wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Photos of Armata factory under construction from 6 months ago. It's almost completed now.

...........

Add to that the fact that they plan to use Armatas for at least next half a century

If so the T-14 would probably have to go through some serious evolution over the years how easy is it to swap out the base armor?

Yes will have, and is having. The time runs, and it makes more likely, as example, to see the T-14 with the 152mm weapon since the begin of the serial production.

Good experience in Syria will have cemented the reputation of the T-90 as not a vehicle that blows its lid, which should enhance its reputation on the international export market.

India is going to buy a lot and make some more for itself and i suspect a few other countries in the Middle East might be impressed enough to buy a few as well.

For Armata every vehicle in an armata division will be Armata based so lots need to be made from engineer vehicles, artillery, air defence, tank, troop transport, recon, etc etc.

Reading you here, i must conclude that next army field kitchen will be placed on Armata too.

Well that is the question isn't it...

When an Armata div moves the whole idea of a shared platform is that they only carry spares and engine parts and kit for armata platform vehicles...

but with all the transport and support assets... will they also all be armata based or are they detached from the force?

They found out pretty quickly in Grozny that a column of armoured vehicles normally results in the IFVs getting taken out first from rooftops and basement floors where 125mm main guns can't elevate to hit. Once all those light support vehicles are taken out that leaves tanks, which you can take your time engaging because they can't elevate their guns high enough to get you.

The purpose of Armata is that all vehicles are armata level protected so trying to pick off the light vehicles is not an issue.

More importantly, most vehicles will have secondary and primary weapons that can elevate to hit targets on roofs or in basements...

GarryB wrote:Well that is the question isn't it...

When an Armata div moves the whole idea of a shared platform is that they only carry spares and engine parts and kit for armata platform vehicles...

but with all the transport and support assets... will they also all be armata based or are they detached from the force?

They found out pretty quickly in Grozny that a column of armoured vehicles normally results in the IFVs getting taken out first from rooftops and basement floors where 125mm main guns can't elevate to hit. Once all those light support vehicles are taken out that leaves tanks, which you can take your time engaging because they can't elevate their guns high enough to get you.

The purpose of Armata is that all vehicles are armata level protected so trying to pick off the light vehicles is not an issue.

More importantly, most vehicles will have secondary and primary weapons that can elevate to hit targets on roofs or in basements...

I dont have the problem with idea of unified platforms, i have problem with people imagining they will build everything on such platform.

Coalitions resupply vehicle for an example will seems be based on Kamaz truck and not T-14. NBC vehicles that will be part of heavy brigades will be on trucks too.

I highly doubt recon batallions in heavy brigades will be using anything Armata based as its just too heavy for such roles.

There is simply no need to put everything on Armata platform, nor it will happen.

Some ppl here already placed S-500 and Sarmat on Armata.

There is simply no need to put everything on Armata platform, nor it will happen.

The purpose is mobility which I suspect is less critical for an armata div than for a lighter div.

It is supposed to reduce the logistics tail of the force by reducing the number of supported vehicle types.

New trucks with armata engines and transmissions could be used in that regard, but the combat force itself needs tank level armour and tank level mobility.

Nudol and Sarmat don't operate at div level and would make no sense to have an armata base vehicle.

Tochka and Islander wont have them either for all the same reasons.

Within current divisions there are lots of vehicles based on the BTR, MTLB, and BMP chassis and in this context in an armata division such vehicles would be replaced with armata based vehicles.

A loosley Armata based artillery tracktor/command vehicle/SAM chasis would make sense to replace the many lightly aremored vehciles used in artillery and SAM groups but these vehicles would not have composite armor,APS and ERA since they are not for the front line .

A Russian division whether it is a tank division or a motor rifle division has air defence vehicles organic to it already and in an Armata division it will also have the same vehicles... it tended to have a gun/missile vehicle and a missile only AD vehicle.

Currently that would be the Tunguska for the gun/missile vehicle and the TOR as the missile only vehicle.

The Armata div will likely have a Pantsir-S1 vehicle and a TOR-M3 vehicle, both based on the armata chassis and operating with the vehicles it is protecting.

They will have the same level of armour for the crew as the tank.. including APS and ERA and other features.

I was refering to vehicles for behind the line use with the coalitsiya SV

Does the T-14 have a decent air conditioner? A tank cannot operate effectively in any desert environment without one.

Also what is the gunner sights maximum magnification?

The-thing-next-door wrote:Does the T-14 have a decent air conditioner? A tank cannot operate effectively in any desert environment without one.

Also what is the gunner sights maximum magnification?

I am sure somebody pointed out the requirement of an AC unit during design......
Anyway, T-90MS has an airco unit which was tested in Kuwait, and was already available in 2012. I am sure it worked fine. T-14 might be equipped with a different unit, or maybe the same. Either way it will do what it is supposed to do.

As for maximum magnification of the gunner sight, this information is unknown (and imho irrelevant to be asking). Even if you find some figures "online", then there is no way of validating them at this time, and they are most likely assumptions anyway. Generally, articles say the gunner sight has 12x magnification for the optical channel. All this has to be put into context, and is quite meaningless...

There are a lot of meaningless discussions at present here it seems.

The-thing-next-door wrote:Does the T-14 have a decent air conditioner? A tank cannot operate effectively in any desert environment without one.

Also what is the gunner sights maximum magnification?

Dude seriously?

Of course it has an air-conditioner, it's 21st century FFS...

About aircon is it capable of keeping the crew compartment at a nice comfortable -20°C while in a desert?

Balashikha (Moscow Region), December 22 - RIA Novosti.

Tests of the new Russian tank "Armata" are on schedule, told reporters on Friday the commander in chief of the Ground Forces, Colonel-General Oleg Salyukov.

OPK enterprises are debugging "Armata" and tuning and matching all components and units.
"The works are carried out according to the schedule," - said the commander in chief.

"The sample is designed in a modular fashion, using a unique digital and software solutions that opens up almost unlimited possibilities for its further modernization and robotics" - said the general.

eehnie wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Photos of Armata factory under construction from 6 months ago. It's almost completed now.

...........

Add to that the fact that they plan to use Armatas for at least next half a century

If so the T-14 would probably have to go through some serious evolution over the years how easy is it to swap out the base armor?

Yes will have, and is having. The time runs, and it makes more likely, as example, to see the T-14 with the 152mm weapon since the begin of the serial production.

Anything new on this 152mm gun or is it just talk?
I see some serious disadvantages with the upgunning, ammo not the least. A better way to increase the penetration is of course to make "hypersonic" rounds, and I talk about 4000-6000 m/s.

runaway wrote:Anything new on this 152mm gun or is it just talk?

Just talk.

Gun was designed but was shelved for later because there is nothing in existence or on the drawing board anywhere in the world that requires 152mm to deal with it.

Should something appear they will bring 152 back into play.

runaway wrote:

eehnie wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Photos of Armata factory under construction from 6 months ago. It's almost completed now.

...........

Add to that the fact that they plan to use Armatas for at least next half a century

If so the T-14 would probably have to go through some serious evolution over the years how easy is it to swap out the base armor?

Yes will have, and is having. The time runs, and it makes more likely, as example, to see the T-14 with the 152mm weapon since the begin of the serial production.

Anything new on this 152mm gun or is it just talk?
I see some serious disadvantages with the upgunning, ammo not the least. A better way to increase the penetration is of course to make "hypersonic" rounds, and I talk about 4000-6000 m/s.

Despite what some people says to mislead others, Russia has a real weapon for this purpose. Between other new weapons Russia has a new tank weapon of 152mm with designation 2A83:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t6260p75-heavy-calibre-ammo-artillliery-ifv-tank-aa-naval-guns#203139

There is not doubt that this weapon has been designed for its use on tanks. To note that this weapon has earlier designation than the 2A88 weapon of the 2S35, the works come since years and are likely very advanced. Its use on the Armata platform is very likely, and I expect it used too in the Kurganets and in the Bumerang platforms as anti-tank weapons.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t-14-armata-main-battle-tank/
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/04/russia-developing-152-mm-tank-gun-and-small-battlefield-nuclear-weapons.html

The situation is that there is a new real weapon, the 2A83, and there are 3 new real platforms where can be integrated, the Armata, the Kurganets and the Bumerang. Today the works are in the merge of the weapon and the platform.

PapaDragon wrote:

runaway wrote:Anything new on this 152mm gun or is it just talk?

Just talk.

Gun was designed but was shelved for later because there is nothing in existence or on the drawing board anywhere in the world that requires 152mm to deal with it.

Should something appear they will bring 152 back into play.

Pitty it would look like Warhammer 40,000 tank then   I guess we simply wait till some new qualitative stuff will be invented for tanks. Like "almost a railgun" electro chemical gun, not that new but couple years ago there were discussion and died. Now in October NATO announced they want to go this way. Looks like Burestwiennik did similar stuff in 2013... I wonder how probable this would be?

Germans based on Rh120L55 make an electrothermochemical gun (this is the type of throwing). On the same way we too go very quickly. In the framework of the research work with very speaking names "Lefty" and "Lefty-M", the first experiments on ETX-throwing were conducted. They gave positive results. It has already been decided to develop this direction using an existing 2A82 gun.

The further modernization of guns and ammunition has already been planned.

https://vpk.name/library/f/armata.html
https://vpk.name/news/89273_dlya_minoboronyi_izobreli_elektrohimicheskuyu_pushku.html


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrothermal-chemical_technology

Germans based on Rh120L55 make an electrothermochemical gun (this is the type of throwing). On the same way we too go very quickly. In the framework of the research work with very speaking names "Lefty" and "Lefty-M", the first experiments on ETX-throwing were conducted. They gave positive results. It has already been decided to develop this direction using an existing 2A82 gun.

The further modernization of guns and ammunition has already been planned.

I cannot quite make this out is it saying that they plan for the T-14 tobe upgraded with an electrothermal version of the 2a82?

The 152mm tank gun has been developed and ammo for it designed and built, but the cost of introducing it into service was decided to be not worth it at the moment, so the rounds designed for it are being adapted to 125mm calibre to improve ammo for the 125mm guns in service.

When a NATO country introduces a tank that requires a more powerful gun/ammo to deal with it than the 125mm then they should be able to introduce it fairly quickly... until then they can keep developing 125mm ammo.

GarryB wrote:When a NATO country introduces a tank that requires a more powerful gun/ammo to deal with it than the 125mm then they should be able to introduce it fairly quickly... until then they can keep developing 125mm ammo.

That makes sense, except how can you be sure that the 125mm is effective against the latest variants of Merkava, M1A2, Leopard 2A5-6 etc?
It would be a mistake to wait until a real conflict to see your ammo doesn't do the job. However I see no reason to change "just in case" and I am pretty sure they know what their 125mm can do and cannot.

It will perhaps be even more interesting to know how much beating this tank can withstand. Perhaps the hull will be near impregnable on the frontal arc and sides against most TOWS, RPG, AT-4´s and such. But how about the turret? It seems it mostly relies on active protection and this is a very revolutionary design. Perhaps they realized it isn't possible to build a turret that can withstand modern weapons with passive big slabs of armor alone.

And if the hull can withstand 120mm tank fire from the front, how about the turret front?
To compare, the Leopard 2 A5-6 can withstand nearly everything at the frontal arc, both hull and turret, but the sides is as vulnerable as ever.

Russia does not need to wait to some NATO country doing something to become then a follower.

Russia is a leader on military technology. If Russia sees advantage, when Russia has the T-14 152mm ready, will go forward without wait.