[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

Tanks don't use full power to cruise at their top speed. More commonly their speeds are limited by the track and terrain. A Hybrid will typically keep a min of 10% battery in reserve. Once at cruise it will recharge the battery with surplus power. Need a surge of power? No problem at all.  I cannot think of a scenario where a tank puts a full fuel load through the engine at max power. Yes sometimes tanks do get stuck for a variety of reason, and some times its fatal

mnztr wrote:Tanks don't use full power to cruise at their top speed. More commonly their speeds are limited by the track and terrain. A Hybrid will typically keep a min of 10% battery in reserve. Once at cruise it will recharge the battery with surplus power. Need a surge of power? No problem at all.  I cannot think of a scenario where a tank puts a full fuel load through the engine at max power. Yes sometimes tanks do get stuck for a variety of reason, and some times its fatal

You're assuming the energy consumption schedule for a hybrid in city conditions for a tank - its nowhere near close. Once you leave the roads even flat terrain has all sorts of micro-terrain like gullies and mounds and the like, and all of which require the tank to power through. If moving on hilly terrain that max torque is going to be the deciding factor for you to traverse certain passes. Then you have to consider wet ground from rain, or just the general topography - wet muddy ground requires even more oomph to move through as do snow covered grounds. Forests, or just all manner of vegetation in your way, you guessed it, requires more horsepower still. There's bound to be hundreds if not thousands of obstacles that a tank has to pass through before it even encounters the enemy, and a hybrid simply doesn't have the reliable excess power to do that.

GarryB wrote:
But the thing is that as electric motors get more efficient and more powerful, this will likely change over time.

This projected tank will have a 3,000hp gas turbine engine, but I don't think it will be excessively heavy.

What I meant to say is that a hybrid relying on batteries to provide burst power is less reliable than an ICE with conventional transmission - batteries will run out of charge before diesel fuels run out.

GarryB wrote:
This projected tank will have a 3,000hp gas turbine engine, but I don't think it will be excessively heavy.

It does present its own set of requirements compared to mechanical transmissions. Namely increased volume - electric transmission anything occupies a much larger space than purely mechanical transmission systems. Thermal management is also an issue, given that silicon based power electronics conk out at relatively mild temps of 70 degrees or so, and you have a gas turbine just putting out waste heat like its nobody's business nearby. Still, the idea holds a lot of promise - its just that the technology is not quite there yet.

lyle6 wrote:

mnztr wrote:I suspect they won't need an APU, if you have an electric motor that can deliver the 1200 HP for acceleration, then you only need to provide a bit more power then you need at cruising speed. with 500 KWh of battery (5x a Tesla) you will be able to supply full power for 30 mins (doubt that is necessary), if you really need all out power you can fire up the 500 HP turbine and strech that out to 45 min at full power. At slow cruise the engine cycles in and out maintaining the battery charge within a range. When parked, it has those massive batteries to supply power.

Hybrids don't have a place on a military vehicle like a tank, yet. At the tactical level, the tank must have excess horsepower on demand at any given time, for as long as possible, not just 30 minutes. Movement in combat is nothing like commuting to work on your car; you have to overcome a wide variety of off-road terrain, mostly unsurveyed, and more importantly with no set routing. Hybrids also are incapable of dealing with excessive loads so if a hybrid tank does gets stuck or mobility killed he's SOL. At the operational level the tank must be able to drive hundreds of kilometers at high speeds and stop for 10 minutes in the middle of bumf*ck nowhere to refuel. Obviously with a hybrid you can't do any of that. The only reason hybrid cars even have the range on battery power is because the vehicles are built out of low density materials like carbon and plastic composites and even then the batteries take up a significant share of the vehicle's internal space and weight. Did I mention that batteries don't even come anywhere near close to the power density of hydrocarbons? Because they totally aren't, and you need a lot of them just to power a 50 ton vehicle, an amount that more than exceeds the allowable share on the tank's precious, precious internal volume. They couldn't even contribute to the vehicle's protection, not unlike fuels that when compartmentalized can be incorporated in the vehicle's armor matrix as an additional barrier. Unless power storage technology gets a nice exponential boost in capacity petroleum is still the primary and only choice for the military.

Here's Oleg Salyukov, The Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces from a recent (published Oct. 1st, 2020) interview on this very topic:

Hybrid propulsion systems

Hybrid power plants with electric transmissions and energy storage are planned to be used in models of weapons and military equipment.

"The issue of using hybrid power plants with electric transmissions using high-capacity energy storage units in weapons is being considered. A certain groundwork has already been obtained in this direction," Salyukov said.

He explained that such a technique would allow performing assigned tasks in various conditions, adapting to the dynamics of changes in external factors, and also significantly increasing the autonomy of troops' actions.

"The practical implementation of the application of these technical solutions will allow an order of magnitude to increase the amount of energy circulating on board the vehicles, expand the possibilities for the layout of samples and crew habitability, and ensure the use of weapons on other principles of action," the commander-in-chief stressed.

The introduction of hybrid power plants is considered one of the most promising areas for the development of weapons and military equipment. In Russia, the Kalashnikov concern is working on this, in particular, which presented hybrid buggies and hybrid motorcycles for the Special Operations Forces, the Advanced Research Fund, which is developing a hybrid helicopter, the United Engine Corporation, which is working on the creation of hybrid engines for various purposes, and many others. ...

https://translate.yandex.com/translate?lang=ru-en&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftass.ru%2Farmiya-i-opk%2F9597331

If you take a look at the energy balance of any EV the first think you realize is that they use several times less energy than an ICE equivalent, and that is critical for the concept to actually work. A good part of the savings come from the more efficient drivetrain, another very good part from aero, weigh and the fanatical limitation of accelerations and in general a very, very conservative drive profile. That is essentially the polar opposite of an incredibly dense tank fighting its way through mud, snow, vegetation and obstacles. It will be hard to get to the point where such vehicles can be electric, but hybrid drive train is a very different thing, where more efficient and compact ICEs can be used and electric motors of huge torque and very small size can drive the tank very quietly and efficiently. The fuel remains, the efficiency increases a lot and the power conversion HW is included that can power things like plasma armour, powerful onboard sensors, EW and so on. in fact without the hybrid drivetrain such huge amount of electric energy cannot easily be generated nor managed.

As I've said the real kicker is the miniaturization and thermal hardening of power electronics and batteries. Once we've made real substantial progress in those areas only then are we going to see hybrid powerpacks going to tanks. As it stands, most applications are on platforms that don't have the stringent power density requirements and tight packing of components that tanks do - they merely sidestep the issue altogether. Its quite easy to implement a hybrid powertrain on something like a ship or a plane where you have much more relaxed volume requirements and near infinite heat sinks surrounding the vehicle than with a tank.

It is very likely that Russia will be a pioneer in the creation of a weapon based on new physical principles.

Recently, Army General Oleg Saliukov, Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces, allowed the caliber of Russian tank guns to increase in an interview with Rossiyskaya Gazeta. Experts linked that statement to the beginning of a new stage of tank weapon development. In fact, it is a new round of armor and projectile fighting.

According to the General, the modern Russian tanks (OBTs) T-72B3, T-72B3M, T-80BVM, T-90M are equipped with 125-mm guns and ensure the use of a wide range of shots. This is good, but not enough for tank wars of the future.

T-14 is the king of the battlefield

The gunners specify that the multi-purpose tanks currently serving in the Russian Armed Forces are armed either with the usual 125 mm cannon 2A46 (and its modifications) or 2A82, which was intended for re-equipping the T-72, T-80 and T-90 tank fleets with a small improvement of combat compartments. In addition, the list of tanks equipped with 125-mm guns can also include the T-14 on Armata platform. Its turret is equipped with 2A82 modifications 1M.

Gun mass 2A82-1M - 2 700 kg, barrel length - 7.000 mm. The muzzle energy of the shot is 15-24 MJ. Initial projectile flight speed - more than 2.000 m/s. The effective range of the projectile is 4,700 m, the projectile guided by the 3UBK21 "Sprinter" projectile - 8,000 m, the anti-tank guided missile (ATUR) "Reflex-M" - 5,500 m. Cannon speed - 10-12 shots per minute. Armor penetration by the armor-piercing sub-caliber shell (APC) - 850-1.000 mm, PTUR - 950 mm. Cannon barrel life - 800-900 shots. Ammunition - 45 projectiles. Charging automat - 32 rounds.

New is good, but not completely improved old.

It is easy to notice that 2A83, compared to 2A82-1M, has a number of advantages. I would like to emphasize that 2A83 has a possibility to fire ammunition up to one meter long, such as "Krasnopol", which is fired by, for example, SAU "Msta-S".

But this tool has a number of shortcomings. One of them is the large mass of the cannon (and the resulting reduced ammunition). Another drawback is that it has a much smaller life span as compared to 2A82-1M. However, experts believe that the ammo problem can be solved by placing additional shells in an awesome niche.

It is believed that the range of 2A83 rounds will be extended by the depleted uranium sub-caliber rounds that Rosatom experts are working on.

The new cannon means new tasks

One way or another, the variant of the T-14 tank with a 152-mm cannon will surely be put into series. But at such power and in the presence of guided missiles "Krasnopol" it will no longer be a tank, but rather a SAU. Destruction of enemy fortifications, high-precision strikes on armored vehicles and air defense at long ranges - all this is listed on the shoulder 2A83 (recall, the range of 2K25 "Krasnopol" - more than 20 km).

In general, this is quite a specific task, and for the multi-purpose OBT is not always the main one. Therefore, we can assume that the T-14 series with a 152 mm cannon will still be limited. Such machines, most likely, will start to be included in tank groups to solve very narrowly specialized problems.

And what is on the other side?

On the battlefield our T-14 with a 152-mm cannon 2A83 will be opposed by NATO tanks with the German 130-mm gun Rheinmetall L51 and the American 140-mm gun XM291. As for the L51, serial production of this cannon is planned to be launched in 2025.

It is known that the barrel length of the gun is 6.630 mm, weight - 3.000 kg. In the range of ammunition there is an armor-piercing sub-caliber projectile (APFSDS) with an elongated tungsten core, partially burnt with a shell using a new type of powder charge and a multi-purpose shrapnel-phase projectile with programmable air burst, developed on the basis of DM11 projectile.

Incidentally, Bild has recently written about a new French-German tank, which is due to enter the market in 2035. This tank will be preliminarily named MGCS (Main Ground Combat System), and, according to the developers, will be significantly superior to the characteristics of the German Leopard 2.

According to the publication, the crew of the new tank will consist of two people. The reduction in number is due to the desire to provide autonomous driving mode. Recharge the shells while they will be manually. Apparently, the MGCS will get a new L51 cannon.

The American perspective 140 mm XM291 tank gun, according to its designers, has twice as much power as the 120 mm M-256 gun installed on M1A2 Abrams tanks.

Due to its special design, the 140mm XM291 barrel can be replaced with 120mm barrels, and old types of ammunition can be further used. The XM291 has an automatic loader. Its rate of fire is 12 shots per minute. Ammunition - 22 140-mm shot or 33 120-mm shot. Like the German L51, the American cannon is still being tested. The designers have not yet rid it of a number of serious shortcomings. As one of these, experts call too much momentum of recoil.

Against this background, the statement of Oleg Salyukov, the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Army about possible increase in the caliber of the tank guns was received with great concern in the USA. The National Interest magazine stressed that the Russian 2A83 cannon could have been successfully used by the tank special forces to break into the enemy's defense.

Tomorrow's Tank Construction Day

Meanwhile, Russian designers are already thinking about a fundamentally new generation of tanks. Journalists here are satisfied with only rumors and general reasoning. For obvious reasons, this topic is obviously top secret.

According to confidential sources in the DIC, the new vehicle should become unmanned. The tank will be controlled by artificial intelligence (which, of course, does not cancel the operators' remote participation). And what is especially important for us in this case is that the project envisages the use of a gun based on new physical principles. We are talking about an electrothermal cannon.

The thermal principle of acceleration provides for preheating of the throwing substance in the heat exchanger with its subsequent feeding under high pressure into the gun barrel. It is then converted into plasma by means of electrical energy. In this case, it is possible to obtain a more smooth pressure curve in the barrel channel than in conventional guns and, as a result, increase the initial velocity of the projectile almost to 4,500 m/s.

It should be emphasized that an electrothermal (ETCP) or electrothermal (ETP) gun is similar to a conventional artillery barrel system. It can be installed on existing tanks (and in general self-propelled artillery) without significant design changes in the carrier. Since it has an acceptable size and weight.

As a result, we get a much shorter projectile flight time to the target, excellent armor penetration, relatively small caliber (according to some sources, about 60 mm), which means that we can significantly increase the ammunition stock and simplify the charging process.

Russia, as always, is a pioneer

To date, no army in the world has this type of weapon. It is very likely that Russia will be a pioneer in this area as well. In any case, the statement of Army General Oleg Salyukov indicates that our military does not intend, as they say, to rest on its laurels and is committed to the constant growth of the country's defense potential (in some cases, the growth is even on an exponential basis).

It is safe to say that contrary to the opinion of skeptics, Russia has fully preserved its own engineering and design school. The country's defense potential is ensured by a large scientific and technical potential, which does not exist in itself, but in close connection with production.

This state of affairs allows our Motherland to confidently maintain its own political line in the international arena, and its so-called geopolitical partners to bite their elbows in vain attempts to force us to play by the rules of others.

https://zvezdaweekly.ru/news/t/202010271014-rTjyQ.html

The thermal principle of acceleration provides for preheating of the throwing substance in the heat exchanger with its subsequent feeding under high pressure into the gun barrel. It is then converted into plasma by means of electrical energy. In this case, it is possible to obtain a more smooth pressure curve in the barrel channel than in conventional guns and, as a result, increase the initial velocity of the projectile almost to 4,500 m/s.

Sounds very similar to an idea I came up with a while ago for transitional energy weapons that use high pressure plasma formed from matter in the cartrige to accelerate a solid projectile t greater velocities than would be achievable with conventional explosives, it seems that this was not such a silly idea after all.

Though in my scifi weapons there were oten magnetic "pumps" to further increase the pressure of the plasma.

Anyway, I found this, one minuite in there is a picture of some gun with electrical cable coming out of the breech block on a test mount.

The-thing-next-door wrote:
Anyway, I found this, one minuite in there is a picture of some gun with electrical cable  coming out of the breech block on a test mount.

Those wires are probably there to control the gun/mount remotely and safely. If you think 4.5 km/s. is phenomenal, you should know that Federation physicists managed to fire objects at 11 km/s. which translates to Mach 32 at low altitude and Mach 37 at high altitude.

kvs wrote:I do not think that a hybrid power plant is not viable for tanks.    The generator part of the system is rather small and they
can distribute the electrical drive motors easier than in a car with the added bonus of removing the transmission outright.  
So in terms of efficiency there is not much more lost to producing electricity instead of direct mechanical driving.   In fact,
the ICE can be optimized to run in a narrower and more efficient range of RPMs and can be reduced in size.   Electric motors
are much better at taking direct loads than pistons in the ICE which just puts it into a less efficient operation regime.

As with other EVs, the acceleration improves substantially.  

Tanks are not supercars; acceleration performance is not just the goal here. Tank designers want a powerplant that consumes a reasonable amount of diesel, has a sufficient amount of performance, comes in a dense package and more importantly is robust for heavy use in a wide variety of environments. Hybrids tick the first 2 boxes but fail in the latter 2. Take a look at this:


As you can see the hybrid powerplant with ancillaries is absolutely massive; it almost engulfs the entire sides of the tank with how voluminous the entire thing is. The hybrid version also weighs a lot more than the mechanical transmission version: the minimum weight for the former is the maximum weight for the latter at 63 tonnes, and is projected to even go up to 76 tonnes mostly because they have to affix massive slabs of armor at the sides just to maintain a decent amount of side protection. That's the closest we have to the state of the art for a hybrid for a tank, and it doesn't look good at all.

GarryB wrote:
Except that looks like western designs and are APCs and not tanks... compared with current western designs a 63 ton tank is normal weight with no increase at all, yet the potential for much better performance with the improved systems.

In the Mid 1990s a German magazine called Military Technology ran a few articles about electric drives for armour, and they stated even then that the ability to increase power generation from diesels is limited to about 2,000Kwt or so. No such hard limits for gas turbines however.

Russia has experience with gas turbine powered tanks... the T-80 of course, so they know the problems and advantages, but even they are talking about a 3,000hp GT engine on the tank that replaces the Armata... in 30-40 years time...

I just posted it to illustrate the disadvantage of the hybrid setup over the conventional powerpack. Would there be any changes compared to the tank version? Absolutely; the tank would have no need for a distributed powerplant and its always preferred to have vital equipment buried under armor else you would see shenanigans like multimillion dollar Abrams set on fire with HMG fire on the external APU. At the same they wouldn't have resorted to their current setup if the entire thing would fit within the volume parameters of the conventional powerpack in the first place. A Russian design likely would run into the same difficulties when trying to fit a hybrid powerplant as their American counterparts if they are to have a go at it - unless they have some nifty storage technology burning a hole in their pockets, that is.

AFAIK the Soviets didn't deploy T-72s to Afghanistan. Correct me if I'm wrong but they used T-62s and T-55 throughout.

Big_Gazza wrote:AFAIK the Soviets didn't deploy T-72s to Afghanistan.  Correct me if I'm wrong but they used T-62s and T-55 throughout.

This is correct I believe it was the 40th Soviet Army who was deployed and they had mainly T-62's, 55's and some 64's.

T-15 porn

All power conversion electronics involved do not like high temperatures, batteries hate it too. With new technology for the power accumulation and SiC electronics a hybrid IFV or tank shoud be doable, the idea is clear, but all the technological pieces must fall in its right place before it turns a reality

The US is reportedly preparing a groundbreaking successor to Abrams, which will overtake all competition.

Arrow wrote:The US is reportedly preparing a groundbreaking successor to Abrams, which will overtake all competition.

It won't have a autoloader or GLATGM's, it's almost guaranteed in won't.

Arrow wrote:The US is reportedly preparing a groundbreaking successor to Abrams, which will overtake all competition.

in 2035 when

Happy to hear that, please call us back when it will be ready i.e. not in the next 12-15 years...

They failed often with their vehicle projects. I doubt this one will succeed.

They will probavly beg germans for help.