[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

The-thing-next-door wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

So it has kornets now, would be nice for them to give it a modular missile rack that could be used to mount larger ATGMs from helicopters and helicopter rocket pods if needed.

Kornet's are already over-powered: It's HEAT warhead has 1300mm RHA penetration (1400mm if you count the precursor charge). Can hit/defeat helicopters, strike drones like predator, and shoot down cruise missiles. Kornet's in tandem reliably defeat APS. Flies at Mach 1, and it's rear facing beam-riding sensor makes it incredibly difficult to jam. There's nothing even on par with it elsewhere in the world, and Javelins an TOW's can't even hold up Kornet's jock strap!

Surely at some point they'll probably develop a micro-Hermes ATGM to replace Kornet, but at the moment Kornet is still highly effective.

So it has kornets now, would be nice for them to give it a modular missile rack that could be used to mount larger ATGMs from helicopters and helicopter rocket pods if needed.

As Magnum points out the Ataka and Krisantema are 10kgs heavier than the Kornet and offer less range and similar armour penetration so there is no advantage to putting other ATGMs there... except perhaps Vikhr and it is rather too long really.

I suspect this vehicle probably has a retractable launcher for Bulat as well like the other turret shown for the IFV models... so it will be very well armed.

For places where the enemy is known to have no armour then HE armed Kornet and Bulat missiles would likely be fine and the 57mm main gun would have better accuracy in direct fire mode than rocket pods.

Having a rocket pod mount added to boost fire power wouldn't hurt, but it is already pretty well armed... putting a rocket pod box on top just blocks the 360 degree view of the commanders pano sight... a retractable pod would probably be too long... the Bulat seems to be more compact.

The missiles on T-15 are Ataka. Not Kornet.
They are the same module of the Terminator T-72.

GarryB wrote:Information about the 30mm airburst ammo suggests a back looking light sensor that detects laser beams... induction coils around the barrel muzzle perhaps setting the frequency of the laser beam detected for each shell as it passes through with the laser then directed at the shells to set them off as they get close to the target... changing "colour" to set off the different rounds.

Sorry that I asked before checking previous posts, Mindstorm pointed out to a radio command in order to avoid effects of weather and aerosols. I only doubt how they make the command so directional that it is jamming resistant.

https://www.russiadefence.net/t4074p600-kurganets-boomerang-discussions-thread-2#279271

Sorry, I am mistaken... for some reason I was thinking the ammo handling system used a chain drive.

Ok no problem!

BTW, the name of the low ballistics cannon was also mentioned in those previous posts, it is 2A94.

LMFS wrote:

GarryB wrote:Information about the 30mm airburst ammo suggests a back looking light sensor that detects laser beams... induction coils around the barrel muzzle perhaps setting the frequency of the laser beam detected for each shell as it passes through with the laser then directed at the shells to set them off as they get close to the target... changing "colour" to set off the different rounds.

Sorry that I asked before checking previous posts, Mindstorm pointed out to a radio command in order to avoid effects of weather and aerosols. I only doubt how they make the command so directional that it is jamming resistant.

They probably made the receiver rear facing, like how they do with beam-riding ATGM's like Kornet and Refleks.

To be clear I don't know, but if I was designing it for a 30mm round I would fit a cap over the rear 5-10mm of the projectile that is designed to come off in flight to expose a laser transparent optical receiver like the IR receiver for a TV remote control so it can receive a beam from the gun that fired it but at extended ranges as the trajectory starts to get steeper it can still see a signal from where it was fired from even if it is heading downwards.

Their equivalent to Copperhead... which needs its optical port to be cleaned and checked before loading and using... the Krasnopol has a cap cover over its nose mounted optical port. The cover is left on the round and it can be loaded into the standard ammo handling system for 152mm shells on the 2S3 and the MSTA. The optical port cover is ejected in flight as it starts coming down towards the target to keep it protected from anything that might block its view of the laser target marker beam.

For a laser based system having the laser sensor in the round look back for signals at the place it was fired from is a good way to ensure it is not susceptible to jamming by the enemy... coded beams also mean other lasers will be ignored. With command detonated rounds the commands can be enormously complicated and any other signal that doesn't use the same commands would be ignored... especially if they come from the direction of the enemy...

Size comparison between T-14 and other 'relatively' modern MBT's.

Merkava












...Also the T-14's suspension is capable of significantly lowering it's height if needed (like fitting in transport aircraft, making it's self a smaller target)

The other factor missing is that while it is a very big tank... particularly for the Russians... it is only about 48 tons in weight so it is actually a fraction of the weight of those western tanks and equivalent to those Chinese and Orcish tanks.

No, it is not hollow. It is at least 52 tons and can be 55 tons.
You don't ruin my happiness, Garry. I had been expecting a big, heavy and modern Russian tank for 35 years. Russian soilders deserve a roomy, comfortable, heavily armoured(all around) tank with 1500hp engine.
And, fxxk the low profile.

Isos wrote:Are you sure about thise size comparison ? Seems fake to me.  

I can be wrong, but I think it is a bit off, between 3-5%. Roof of the turret on the Leopard 2 should be roughly at the same height of the T-14. Also the Abrams' hull is too short. Merkava roof should also be the same height of T-14's turret.

EDIT: to be clear, when I say that I think it is off, I mean that I made measurements, but considering there is a lack of official data and I had to make certain assumptions.

xeno wrote:No, it is not hollow. It is at least 52 tons and can be 55 tons.
You don't ruin my happiness, Garry. I had been expecting a big, heavy and modern Russian tank for 35 years. Russian soilders deserve a roomy, comfortable, heavily armoured(all around) tank with 1500hp engine.
And, fxxk the low profile.

Actually it's probably 48 tons with out applique armor (ERA) and 55 tons with it. For comparison the T-90A MBT is like 48 tons with applique armor.

No, it is not hollow. It is at least 52 tons and can be 55 tons.
You don't ruin my happiness, Garry. I had been expecting a big, heavy and modern Russian tank for 35 years. Russian soilders deserve a roomy, comfortable, heavily armoured(all around) tank with 1500hp engine.
And, fxxk the low profile.

With modern fire control systems and ballistic computers and auto trackers being a small target isn't the advantage it used to be.

And it certainly isn't hollow and once they start putting the 152mm gun into it it will be 53-55 tons because bigger guns are very heavy, but while the hull is longer and much better armoured than the T-90, all that frontal armour on the turret is gone... it doesn't need it...

Russian soldiers are getting roomy comfortable and very heavily protected (all round) tank with a 1,800hp... upgradable to 2,400hp eventually engine...

The all round protection comes from the smoke parts of SHTORA and (APS) penetrator intercept munitions plus NERA and just heavy armour... but only for the crew... not for the unmanned turret.

Actually it's probably 48 tons with out applique armor (ERA) and 55 tons with it. For comparison the T-90A MBT is like 48 tons with applique armor.

It has always been my understanding that applique armour and ERA, or in this case NERA are two different things... applique armour to me was like the cheek armour added to the T-62, or the super dolly parton armour applied to later model T-72s that was extra actual armour... often layered and with different materials inside...

Even worst case scenario at 55 tons it is still 10-20 tons lighter than western tanks.

Armata has been cured from "child diseases" and that includes engine. It has two operating modes. With 1200 hp and 1800 hp.



https://ria.ru/20200701/1573690648.html

Nice.

the different vehicles in an Armata force will be different weights... for instance Coalition with all that ammo and that huge turret and gun will likely be one of the heaviest so an extra 600hp will make it more mobile and able to keep up with the other vehicles.

I can't wait to see the engineer troop transport version BMO-T equivalent...

Viktor wrote:Armata has been cured from "child diseases" and that includes engine. It has two operating modes. With 1200 hp and 1800 hp.



https://ria.ru/20200701/1573690648.html

It is the best news since the project started...

Should point out that the engine was designed from the outset with growth potential to about 2,600HP eventually. If they ran it at that now it would not last very long and its fuel efficiency would be terrible...

The plan was to start it at about 1,500hp using pretty conventional materials and then gradually improve performance incrementally with material upgrades of the materials used inside the engine... so the normal power output right now is probably 1,800 HP with normal materials and 1,500hp with a governor for use in the lighter vehicles in the range that don't need that much power.

It means different vehicles with different weights can have similar performances... accelerations and top speeds and similar fuel burns with engines that have all the same parts and design. It also means that if the vehicles start getting a bit heavier you can upgrade the engines to get more power more easily.

As time goes on improvements in design and materials will mean they will be able to increase the HP and decrease fuel consumption and wear and tear... perhaps new ceramic materials allow it to run hotter and burn the fuel more efficiently or whatever, or the cylinders can be enlarged or the piston stroke lengthened or what ever they do to add more power...

If they did it right now they could get extra power but at the expense of reliability and engine life and probably fuel consumption...

They will have another engine family for the Kurganets and Boomerang families of vehicles that will have the same growth potential built in to the design too.

MOSCOW, July 4 - RIA News. The tank on the heavy tracked platform " Armata " was tested in unmanned mode, a source in the military-industrial complex told RIA Novosti.

https://ria.ru/20200704/1573878330.html

What is the significance (if any) of the light blue region in the Merkava?