[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

Deliveries of new Armata tanks to the troops will begin in 2020

MOSCOW, February 3. / TASS /. Deliveries of armored vehicles on the Armata platform developed by Uralvagonzavod (part of Rostec) to pilot military operations will begin this year. This was announced by General Director of UVZ Alexander Potapov in an interview published on Monday in the newspaper " Vedomosti ".

"In 2020, we will begin deliveries for the pilot combat operation of the machine. During the factory tests, all the characteristics laid down in it were confirmed," Potapov said.

According to him, at present, the main stages of the preparatory work are being completed, which already allows "to enter the series." Potapov noted that "there is no such tank in the world - and in the coming years nothing of the kind will even come close to competitors". "Those who say that difficulties arise there, forget: the same T-72 was created much longer, but here we are talking about a completely new product," said the general director of UVZ.

When asked about the timing of the export deliveries of “Almaty”, Potapov answered that foreign customers prefer, as a rule, to make purchases when the goods were purchased by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. "In the near future we will develop an export lookport, and the deliveries themselves, if there is a solution from our management, can become real in the foreseeable future," he said.

In mid-January, Rostec’s head Sergei Chemezov told TASS that supplies to armored forces on the Armata platform had not yet begun.

Armata is a heavy tracked unified platform developed by Uralvagonzavod Corporation. On the basis of the platform, the main tank, infantry fighting vehicle, armored personnel carrier and a number of other armored vehicles are created.

ob Lee
@RALee85
·
10h
An OPK source tells Vedomosti that Russia will likely receive ~900 T-90M and T-14 Armata tanks by 2027. State tests of the T-14 will begin this year, and, if successful, the MoD will likely begin receiving them in 2021 and a total of ~500 by 2027.

What a nothing article... it is trying to claim the engines for new Russian vehicle families are inferior to foreign equivalents in terms of power and fuel consumption... who gives a fuck?

They are still tons in weight lighter than their western equivalents who have inferior armour anyway... just fit them with bigger fuel tanks and spend some money on improving the materials and design of the engine to improve performance... it will be a decade before Armata divisions are in service as Armata divisions anyway... it was intended from the start that the engine for the Armata vehicles be about 1,800hp or so, with future power improvements in the design to about 2,400hp and improved operational hours...

GarryB wrote:What a nothing article... it is trying to claim the engines for new Russian vehicle families are inferior to foreign equivalents in terms of power and fuel consumption... who gives a fuck?

They are still tons in weight lighter than their western equivalents who have inferior armour anyway... just fit them with bigger fuel tanks and spend some money on improving the materials and design of the engine to improve performance... it will be a decade before Armata divisions are in service as Armata divisions anyway... it was intended from the start that the engine for the Armata vehicles be about 1,800hp or so, with future power improvements in the design to about 2,400hp and improved operational hours...

Arrow wrote:It shows that Russia has huge problems with the new power unit for Armata tanks.

Article is relevant as it show were are the main problems in development.

And yes, Russian definitively gives a lot of fuck about reliability, sturdiness ,affordability of their own military designs.
So, if someone consider the entry in service of things like F-22A, V-22, LCS and Zumwalt class a success of military design and development, I will side happily with russian prudence instead.
Anytime, anywhere.

GarryB wrote:What a nothing article... it is trying to claim the engines for new Russian vehicle families are inferior to foreign equivalents in terms of power and fuel consumption... who gives a fuck?

They are still tons in weight lighter than their western equivalents who have inferior armour anyway... just fit them with bigger fuel tanks and spend some money on improving the materials and design of the engine to improve performance... it will be a decade before Armata divisions are in service as Armata divisions anyway... it was intended from the start that the engine for the Armata vehicles be about 1,800hp or so, with future power improvements in the design to about 2,400hp and improved operational hours...

Andrei-BT is a butt hurt Ukrummian who's upset that Ukraine's MIC has completely belly flopped! He has to project his countries weakness on to others.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

GarryB wrote:What a nothing article... it is trying to claim the engines for new Russian vehicle families are inferior to foreign equivalents in terms of power and fuel consumption... who gives a fuck?

They are still tons in weight lighter than their western equivalents who have inferior armour anyway... just fit them with bigger fuel tanks and spend some money on improving the materials and design of the engine to improve performance... it will be a decade before Armata divisions are in service as Armata divisions anyway... it was intended from the start that the engine for the Armata vehicles be about 1,800hp or so, with future power improvements in the design to about 2,400hp and improved operational hours...

Andrei-BT is a butt hurt Ukrummian who's upset that Ukraine's MIC has completely belly flopped! He has to project his countries weakness on to others.

Indeed, the article is total rubbish.   For f*ck's sake we are talking about a diesel engine and not new physics teleports.  
These smear pieces are par for the course these days.   They are exactly like the articles claiming Russia could never
build the Kerch Strait bridge because it did not have the work culture and technology.   For some reason these clowns
are quiet these days.   Although there are some butthurt rumblings about the bridge falling apart soon.   The only
evidence offered is assertion and hearsay.

Andrei-BT would have to be some sort of spy to get insider information on the engine(s).   I am going to have to see some real
proof.   Bloggers can spout all sorts of shit without trying.   This includes the clown who started the whole Putin is a billionaire
narrative.   An example of self-propagating BS non-information.   Who needs evidence?   Just repeat the lie.

I find it funny how saps in these threads assume such articles are legit.   Russia is at the top of the world in materials science.
It even puts the yanquis to shame who still cannot copy the RD-180 and didn't believe its performance specs in 1990 because
like the idiots in this thread they just assume Russians are inferior.   Building a freaking diesel engine is child's play compared
to the RD-180.   Any number of choices can be made about materials of the pistons and engine block.   And spare me the
retarded "skepticism" about Russian turbochargers.   Again, a device predicated on the right choice of alloys.  

Note the tendentious language use in the smear piece: "tests did not achieve success".  Really?  The engine failed to
work or what?   Such intellectually insulting drivel.   And here we see the usual anti-Russian fanboi spooge fest that
any delay and design change is proof of fail.   Get f*cked and grow a brain, losers.   Redesign is tweaking and to be
expected in any new product.   Time to stop playing stupid video games and swallowing NATzO propaganda as God's
truth, wake up and smell the coffee of reality.    The notion that complex devices are rendered perfectly in the first
pass in transcendental inanity.   We are dealing with empirically constrained devices and not computer constructs.
Computer constructs live inside computers and not the real world.   There are always parameters and variables that
are too difficult to program.   I know this because I work with HPC base 3D chemical transport models for a living.

That's the thing. What are his sources?  So far I don't think anyone has access to the hardware of the tank to know


Andre made a lot of claims and has been full of shit especially after 2014 and the failed tank bid to Thailand.

What's funny is a butthurt Ukie scumbag uses livejournal.

miketheterrible wrote:That's the thing. What are his sources?  So far I don't think anyone has access to the hardware of the tank to know


Andre made a lot of claims and has been full of shit especially after 2014 and the failed tank bid to Thailand.

What's funny is a butthurt Ukie scumbag uses livejournal.

That renders everything he spouts automatically suspect. What did this loser expect from the Kiev regime's policy to
cut off Ukraine's nose to spite Ukraine's face? Did he think that Ukrainian industry would prosper without the Russian
market? That frames his IQ, doesn't it.

Article is relevant as it show were are the main problems in development.

But it is a mess... I don't know if it is the translation into English, but I found it unintelligible...

Could you list the main problems in development for us?

GarryB wrote:

Article is relevant as it show were are the main problems in development.

But it is a mess... I don't know if it is the translation into English, but I found it unintelligible...

Could you list the main problems in development for us?

With actual evidence too and not claims without a base.

PapaDragon wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:...
Regular weight - 48 tons

After additional applique armor - 55 tons

It's also said the Armata series is able to be up armed/armored to the weight of 65-70 tons.

Heavier more capable Armatas would be used in a high risk environment like cities with high rise buildings with multiple windows (Grozny). In a city environment with paved roads, there's less importance on ground pressure as paved roads can handle heavier vehicles where dirt, mud and snow can't.

This puts it in the range of Abrams and more than Merkava
Good to see they are going for flexibility

The passive weight of a tank is less important, what will save the tank from ATGM or RPG or tank’s shell, are the ERA system and its APS.
The interceptor is not going to hit the ATGM head on, but going to explode next to it and move it from his path, so it will miss the tank or will hit the tank with his side so it will not penetrate the tank.

kvs wrote:

GarryB wrote:

It's also said the Armata series is able to be up armed/armored to the weight of 65-70 tons.

Well you have to remember that the Armata series includes Coalition with its massive turret and 152mm long range gun and all the 152mm shells and propellent charges... it was supposed to be 65 tons on its own... and then of course there will be armour upgrades over time to add armour as needed... NATO will introduce new guns and new missiles to defeat it, which will require further armour improvements and upgrades.

The base 48 tons for an MBT is almost absurdly small.   The Armata platform is designed for 65+ total weight in the same class as western MBTs.   But as Hole has
mentioned it can use extra weight on useful features instead of a hotel room.   The T-14 can easily field a 152 mm gun, associated shells and more reactive armour.  
Some thought was put into the Armata design.    

there is no army yet that upgrade his tank's caliber because there is no target that can't be penetrate by the 120-125 mm gun.
Just think about the amount of money to replace all of it.

The base 48 tons for an MBT is almost absurdly small. The Armata platform is designed for 65+ total weight in the same class as western MBTs. But as Hole has
mentioned it can use extra weight on useful features instead of a hotel room. The T-14 can easily field a 152 mm gun, associated shells and more reactive armour.
Some thought was put into the Armata design.

Armata still retains the low silhouette of soviet designs. There is no need for 65+ tons.

Even at 80 tons its sides, rear and top will be unprotected against anti tanks guns/missiles while tge front would be over peotected adding mass for no reason.

What matters is that the front can sustain direct hits from any western tank and that the design makes the tanks survivable to a penetration. That can be achieved by a mass of 46-50 tons pretty easily. The other parameter is to have many tanks to achieve number superiority.

In city environment any tank will be destroyed easily if there is no infantry to protect it.

In usual soviet/russian tactics of deep penetration with huge numbers, you need a protection on the front because the greater numbers of tanks makes the enemy a tiny target on the front of your formation and soviet would most likely flank them with the tabks that are on the far let and right of the enemy.

Be aware that the Armata is not a tank, there is a tank based on the Armata but Armata is a vehicle family.

When they talk about weights up to 65 tons they don't mean each vehicle type from command vehicle and air defence vehicle through to artillery and MBT and BMP could all be modified to weigh 65 tons.

What they mean is that the suspension and engine power and chassis capacity is limited to 65 tons total weight.

The concept behind the unmanned turret was supposed to reduce weights by eliminating the need for very heavy armour on the front of the turret protecting the crew in the turret.

With it being unmanned only the gun from the front needs protection... if your enemy has to resort to trying to destroy your main gun to defeat your tank then you have a successful tank design...

wow..armata tank is huge !!!!  

New reports shows lots of new things from armata t-14...
but also shows how big the tank is.. with people around it..



seems like 30% to 40% taller than t-90 and even more larger..

Russia need to order 12,000 of those tanks..  and another 5,000 for reserve..

check at 27:52 in the video ,how big and tall they are..

i will have done a btg differently the tanks.. with even more space.. inside..
for allowing the tank not only to be used for combat.. but as a mobil armored
bunker too.. so that soldiers in the battlefield can rest in comfort inside the tank capsule..
then if you park 2-5 of them.. enhance the level of protection for them.. the most vulnerable parts
covering each other with tanks..

Big and tall are bad things generally... they make the tank more comfortable for the crew to operate, but they mean all the transportation systems they have in service to move existing T series tanks might need to be modified to carry a much larger platform.

Vann7 wrote:wow..armata tank is huge !!!!  

New reports shows lots of new things from armata t-14...
but also shows how big the tank is.. with people around it..



seems like 30% to 40% taller than t-90 and even more larger..

Russia need to order 12,000 of those tanks..  and another 5,000 for reserve..

check at 27:52 in the video ,how big and tall they are..

i will have done a btg differently the tanks.. with even more space.. inside..
for allowing the tank not only to be used for combat.. but as a mobil armored
bunker too.. so that soldiers in the battlefield can rest in comfort inside the tank capsule..
then if you park 2-5 of them.. enhance the level of protection for them.. the most vulnerable parts
covering each other with tanks..

Hull is considerably larger than in previous (tank) models but it host all crew now , turret is in reality made by an heavily armored gun pod, hosting also gunner optics on the left side surrounded by a larger encasing in which, not -essential components, notably the APS system are posed, also this is armored but intended instead to stop non specialized AT weapons, like large HE rounds or small gun AP shells and to complement inner protection against heavy ones .
So, precursor charges of a large Heat round would be stopped by it, while main one would have to pass in the empty space, losing effectiveness before even impacting impacting on heavy reactive armor surrounding the gun pod.
Given that such categories of weapon only punch a small hole into an armor only those components directly in the path of the weapon would be affected, while some inner walls and electronic components own encasing would prevent debris flying around doing extensive damages.
So, you would retain traditional advantages of Soviet style reduction of spaces to be protected, a.t.c. taken to the max possible extension, without paying the usually associated prices in terms of cramped living space, elevation and depression of main gun and above all increasing dramatically the possibility of containing damages of a successful penetration.

[quote="GarryB"]
Is the engine for the Armta family is canceled? and for the time being the engine that being used is the A-35-3A?

AJ-47 wrote:

GarryB wrote:
Is the engine for the Armta family is canceled? and for the time being the engine that being used is the A-35-3A?

No reputable source has ever reported this. There's plenty of fake news sites who live off click bait to direct ad banner traffic, but besides that nothing to report.

AJ-47 wrote:

kvs wrote:

GarryB wrote:

It's also said the Armata series is able to be up armed/armored to the weight of 65-70 tons.

Well you have to remember that the Armata series includes Coalition with its massive turret and 152mm long range gun and all the 152mm shells and propellent charges... it was supposed to be 65 tons on its own... and then of course there will be armour upgrades over time to add armour as needed... NATO will introduce new guns and new missiles to defeat it, which will require further armour improvements and upgrades.

The base 48 tons for an MBT is almost absurdly small.   The Armata platform is designed for 65+ total weight in the same class as western MBTs.   But as Hole has
mentioned it can use extra weight on useful features instead of a hotel room.   The T-14 can easily field a 152 mm gun, associated shells and more reactive armour.  
Some thought was put into the Armata design.    

there is no army yet that upgrade his tank's caliber because there is no target that can't be penetrate by the 120-125 mm gun.
Just think about the amount of money to replace all of it.

The history of armour is the never ending spiral of defense vs. offense. Reactive armour gets better, then throw more powerful shells with
diversionary penetrators. More shell weight means more powerful gun is necessary. And so on.

[quote]

GarryB wrote:
Is the engine for the Armta family is canceled? and for the time being the engine that being used is the A-35-3A?

The engine for the Armata family can't be cancelled... it is like suggesting the new engine for the Su-57 has been cancelled... but without any proof or evidence... just the word of a blogger...

The engine of the Armata family ranges in power from about 1,800hp through to an expected 2,400hp eventually as it is improved. Even if they can only get 1,500hp out of it it would still have a better power to weight ratio to the T-80 which is about the same weight.

They are talking about putting some T-14 tanks and T-15 IFVs into service this year which means they will need engines... just like the prototypes seen so far need to have working engines... which they seem to have.

Cancelled because of design improvements? That is just absurd. Really, people, stop snorting the fake news coke like it was real.
The engine was approved based on extensive testing. Whatever issues they have encountered do not prove gross incompetence.
These days it is far more likely that any sort of failure is pure sabotage by NATzO agents. The information war is being fought
on all fronts. To NATzO, Russian technical failures are propaganda gold since it feeds the NATzO-supported propaganda narratives
inside and outside Russia.

I will repeat that the 48 ton weight of the 7 axle T-14 is impressively low. It is the size of an Abrams but does not weigh over
65 tons. As for its height. It is the turret that is exposed. Since it is unmanned this changes the game. A higher vantage point
is able to better see far, but the lack of volume makes it a hard target to hit. Even a direct hit would not kill the tank.

All of the western tanks have heavy turrets to protect the crew. The T-14 no longer needs this protection. It can probably survive
a sabot penetration without exploding. In some sense the turret has become disposable but we still do not know the shell
handling in this turret.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

AJ-47 wrote:

GarryB wrote:
Is the engine for the Armta family is canceled? and for the time being the engine that being used is the A-35-3A?

No reputable source has ever reported this. There's plenty of fake news sites who live off click bait to direct ad banner traffic, but besides that nothing to report.

It is consistent with the NATzO view of Russians as untermenschen. That is why there is such a demand for this sort of garbage "news".
It pacifies the fears of the media consumers who need to believe that Russia cannot resist the "invincibility" of the western horde.
That business as usual will persist even if NATzO launches a war on Russia.

Too bad for NATzO vermin, but the eastern front is never easy and this time around it will be the most difficult of all.