[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

I'm not sure why you would need an even bigger gun when the upgraded gun is more than enough.

It is already paid for... and imagine the volume increase the shift in calibre from 125mm to 152mm offers in terms of content for missiles and indeed UAVs launched from its main gun.

Many of their current ATGMs are 152mm calibre like Kornet... take away the inefficient rocket propulsion and give it a tank propellent accelerator to get it up and moving and make it a glider that is lofted up into the air...

The 2A82-1M is sufficiently future-proofed: it should be able to shoot at least 1200 mm long projectiles, having inherited the autoloader from the Object 195, which is far more in excess of what you would need to defeat upgraded NATO MBTs.

The bigger gun is already paid for... in many ways it is like the 240mm mortar Tulip or 203mm Pion... there when you need them, and potential for further growth and development.

A 152mm coastal gun based on Coalition would be rather superior to their current 130mm gun in the form of the Bereg, and with 70km range guided rounds it would be a very potent weapon, but imaging a further development of the 203mm calibre for coastal guns and for cruisers for shore bombardment, or delivery of nuclear armed anti swarm shells that will airburst in the midst of an enemy drone swarm on its way to attack a Russian surface fleet group.

If we're to go by actual numbers, most casemate designs were actually utilized in the close quarters infantry support roles with the larger gun packing a much larger HE shell for the task than otherwise is possible.

The success of the T-34 was because its HE round was pretty useful. I don't think it would have been as successful with a high velocity 57mm round as was proposed at the time... lack of ammo was another factor but I seem to remember the guy in charge of new guns was rather a conservative idiot...

The T-34 with a longer barrel 76.2mm gun would have been better than what they started with, and KV-1s armed with 57mm guns to make them tank destroyers would have been much better.... this would have created a much bigger distinction between the types, so they could be used better in their intended roles where the KV would be an excellent tank killer with heavy armour, while the T-34 would be an infantry support tank....

I would have taken the turrets off all those T-26s and made them into APCs and artillery tractors too...

If push really came to shove I think you can still force the 152 mm gun on the T-54/55 turret. They managed it with a modified T-80, and the T-54/55 is actually much roomier compared to the T-64/72/80. Only problem is the paper thin armor.

Getting rid of the turret should massively reduce weight... put a much bigger engine in it and thicker frontal armour with ERA... hell why not try massively spaced armour with an outer layer of say 50mm with ERA on its front and then a gap or cavity of 50cm+ and then another steeper angled layer of say 80mm armour but with ERA on its front and then anti spall liner and then two separate capsules for the two crew separated from each other and from the ammo and fuel. Fill the front gap with water or something... and of course have a modern APS system.... a simple chisel shaped hull front would suffice...

Would be fun designing such a vehicle I think...

I really like how thin the gun looks on the T-14. Its almost like its holding a lance instead of a massive tank gun.

Interesting the 57mm grenade launcher and new turret is covered on the T-15...

It is a very well thought out system and I look forward to seeing other model vehicles.

So far there is the T-14 MBT, the T-15 BMP, the T-16 BREM armoured engineer vehicle, and of course the 2S35 Coalition 152mm artillery vehicle... but they have not released the T designation of the APC vehicle with the Kord turret.

The T-15 went from the 30mm cannon Epoch turret to a similar turret with a 57mm grenade launcher/gun.

I suspect for some roles it might retain that 30mm cannon for situations where it is more useful or practical.

GarryB wrote:
It is already paid for... and imagine the volume increase the shift in calibre from 125mm to 152mm offers in terms of content for missiles and indeed UAVs launched from its main gun.

The 2A83 gun still had significant issues yet to be solved, like the poor barrel resource. You also would have to invest in an entirely new production line for 152 mm smoothbore ammo. There was hope that the smoothbore 152 mm might be able to use the rounds developed for the 152 mm rifled, but I doubt it could be done without much fuss as to be practical. For example the HE-fragmentation shells for the artillery would be all but useless without the spin stabilization, so you would have to make an entirely upsized or a saboted 125 mm HE-frag with its built in fins for anti-personnel use.

GarryB wrote:
Many of their current ATGMs are 152mm calibre like Kornet... take away the inefficient rocket propulsion and give it a tank propellent accelerator to get it up and moving and make it a glider that is lofted up into the air...

Kornet and and in service GLATGMs are SACLOS guided - its impossible to fire them at full charge without damaging the rear of the missile where the receiver sits, hence they are rocket powered for the duration of the flight.

GarryB wrote:
The bigger gun is already paid for... in many ways it is like the 240mm mortar Tulip or 203mm Pion... there when you need them, and potential for further growth and development.

A 152mm coastal gun based on Coalition would be rather superior to their current 130mm gun in the form of the Bereg, and with 70km range guided rounds it would be a very potent weapon, but imaging a further development of the 203mm calibre for coastal guns and for cruisers for shore bombardment, or delivery of nuclear armed anti swarm shells that will airburst in the midst of an enemy drone swarm on its way to attack a Russian surface fleet group.

The catch with larger calibres is that the 6 in. shell is more than sufficient for most combination of targets. A bigger shell is not going to suddenly dramatically increase the amount of damage you can inflict. Their only real advantage is the increased range - but that comes at a price in accuracy and you actually have to have the capability to spot targets that far away and reliably to really lean on this capability.

GarryB wrote:
Getting rid of the turret should massively reduce weight... put a much bigger engine in it and thicker frontal armour with ERA... hell why not try massively spaced armour with an outer layer of say 50mm with ERA on its front and then a gap or cavity of 50cm+ and then another steeper angled layer of say 80mm armour but with ERA on its front and then anti spall liner and then two separate capsules for the two crew separated from each other and from the ammo and fuel. Fill the front gap with water or something... and of course have a modern APS system.... a simple chisel shaped hull front would suffice...

Would be fun designing such a vehicle I think...

And it would end up costing about as much as a turreted tank with all the bells and whistles, only its still disadvantaged since it lacks the flexibility of the turret.

Casemates made sense because they were a fraction of the price of turreted tanks - back then metal working actually was a significant portion of the cost of a new build tank. Nowadays its trivial compared to the cost of the sophisticated electronics equipment.

GarryB wrote:
Interesting the 57mm grenade launcher and new turret is covered on the T-15...

It is a very well thought out system and I look forward to seeing other model vehicles.

So far there is the T-14 MBT, the T-15 BMP, the T-16 BREM armoured engineer vehicle, and of course the 2S35 Coalition 152mm artillery vehicle... but they have not released the T designation of the APC vehicle with the Kord turret.

The T-15 went from the 30mm cannon Epoch turret to a similar turret with a 57mm grenade launcher/gun.

I suspect for some roles it might retain that 30mm cannon for situations where it is more useful or practical.

There's supposed to a missile armed tank destroyer, maybe using Hermes missiles. Then there's support like bridgelayers, minelayers, etc. possibly even an armored resupply vehicle.

The 2A83 gun still had significant issues yet to be solved, like the poor barrel resource.

I would think the Coalition gun is facing similar issues if it is launching rounds to 70km at the moment with talk of extending that to 180km in the future (presumably with a reduced weight payload and ramjet propulsion I suspect).

You also would have to invest in an entirely new production line for 152 mm smoothbore ammo.

Why?

The 152mm gun of the Coalition  appears to be a smoothbore gun...  look at 1:38 to 1:40 in this video... it appears to me to be a smoothbore gun...



Note at 30:46 to 34:44 of the above video where he is cleaning the barrel it is also a smoothbore, so I suspect there could be a unification of that barrel with the tank barrel... obviously with the tank barrel being shorter...

This is important because the Coalition artillery gun and the MBT gun could use unified ammo... the Coalition is also going to be used on ships and by the navy for coastal defence guns so it will be mass produced and widely used.

For example the HE-fragmentation shells for the artillery would be all but useless without the spin stabilization, so you would have to make an entirely upsized or a saboted 125 mm HE-frag with its built in fins for anti-personnel use.

The rounds shown in the above video seem to be conventional HE shells with no flight control fins...

The smart fuse they were supposed to use together with GLONASS guidance for a CEP of 10m at 70km range supposedly had the problem of rifled barrels degrading accuracy because of the rotational spin rate making guidance difficult...

Kornet and and in service GLATGMs are SACLOS guided - its impossible to fire them at full charge without damaging the rear of the missile where the receiver sits, hence they are rocket powered for the duration of the flight.

If this gun shares ammo with Coalition there is no reason why guided rounds couldn't be used to 30-40km range which means laser beam riding guidance makes little sense anyway.

The catch with larger calibres is that the 6 in. shell is more than sufficient for most combination of targets. A bigger shell is not going to suddenly dramatically increase the amount of damage you can inflict.

The difference between a 203mm shell and a 152mm shell is 110kg HE vs about 40kg HE, which is quite significant... and for use against ships more metal can be used for an APHE shell to penetrate deeply into a ship before exploding and spreading incendiary material, which would make it rather more effective against bigger vessels too.

Their only real advantage is the increased range - but that comes at a price in accuracy and you actually have to have the capability to spot targets that far away and reliably to really lean on this capability.

With the 152mm Coalition rounds being guided I would expect 203mm rounds would be guided too.

And it would end up costing about as much as a turreted tank with all the bells and whistles, only its still disadvantaged since it lacks the flexibility of the turret.

Why would you think that? Is a double layer of ERA that expensive?

It could have a lid on top to open so you can replace the inner ERA tiles that are used up... in fact instead of a lid it could be open and things like smoke grenades or ARENA interception munitions could be stored in there with protection from most enemy autocannon and HMGs.

Casemates made sense because they were a fraction of the price of turreted tanks - back then metal working actually was a significant portion of the cost of a new build tank. Nowadays its trivial compared to the cost of the sophisticated electronics equipment.

They claimed with the Leopard II to have 2.5m effective frontal turret armour with empty space... having 1 metre space with two layers of ERA, and using that 1m space for smoke grenades and ARENA intercept munitions that could be stacked should be rather effective too, and being a two crew vehicle you could have a smaller two man capsule somewhere on the vehicle for them... with the gun mounted at the back to reduce gun barrel overhang... engine in the middle crew at the front under the heavy armour... what is not to like?

RWS turret on the top with light cannon and grenade launcher for self defence....

There's supposed to a missile armed tank destroyer, maybe using Hermes missiles. Then there's support like bridgelayers, minelayers, etc. possibly even an armored resupply vehicle.

There was a post recently of a vertical launch 15km range anti armour missile with fire and forget capability that would be ideal as a missile armed tank destroyer to replace Khrisantema and Shturm/Ataka...





So there looks like two vehicles, one with a turret and long arm sensor to look for targets and aircraft one presumes from the targets engaged picture which includes fighter aircraft and helicopters as well as armoured vehicles and bunkers and drones.

The other vehicle seems to have large numbers of vertically launched missiles ready to fire with a machine gun RWS.

Would likely be Kurganets and Armata and Boomerang and Typhoon and DT-30 twin chassis versions (the latter for arctic use).

Hermes in the ground launched model is more likely to be part of a Grad or Smerch battery on a truck because of its 100km range being too big for Armata based vehicles to get target information for... or be outside their interests.

GarryB wrote:
I would think the Coalition gun is facing similar issues if it is launching rounds to 70km at the moment with talk of extending that to 180km in the future (presumably with a reduced weight payload and ramjet propulsion I suspect).

180 km range is deep well enough into the enemy's rear. Whatever target you spotted that far off would have to be pretty important militarily if its to be engaged, enough to risk whatever asset has acquired them in the first place. If its that important it would also warrant a much stronger strike option than a mere artillery shell just to make sure whatever you hit stays dead, so an Iskander perhaps.

GarryB wrote:
Why?

The 152mm gun of the Coalition  appears to be a smoothbore gun...  look at 1:38 to 1:40 in this video... it appears to me to be a smoothbore gun...



Note at 30:46 to 34:44 of the above video where he is cleaning the barrel it is also a smoothbore, so I suspect there could be a unification of that barrel with the tank barrel... obviously with the tank barrel being shorter...

This is important because the Coalition artillery gun and the MBT gun could use unified ammo... the Coalition is also going to be used on ships and by the navy for coastal defence guns so it will be mass produced and widely used.

That's clearly a 125 mm gun barrel. The extra inch might not be readily detectable but the lack of a muzzle device certainly is.

GarryB wrote:
The rounds shown in the above video seem to be conventional HE shells with no flight control fins...

The smart fuse they were supposed to use together with GLONASS guidance for a CEP of 10m at 70km range supposedly had the problem of rifled barrels degrading accuracy because of the rotational spin rate making guidance difficult...

If this gun shares ammo with Coalition there is no reason why guided rounds couldn't be used to 30-40km range which means laser beam riding guidance makes little sense anyway.

The smart fuzes with the small paddles? Those only work if the projectile is spinning at several hundred rpms - if not they would provide asymmetric drag and send the projectile into an uncontrolled tumble.

GarryB wrote:
The difference between a 203mm shell and a 152mm shell is 110kg HE vs about 40kg HE, which is quite significant... and for use against ships more metal can be used for an APHE shell to penetrate deeply into a ship before exploding and spreading incendiary material, which would make it rather more effective against bigger vessels too.

It has a slightly larger burst radius, but drastically slower rate of fire. When it comes to bathing a field with supersonic metal fragments the 6 in. still wins. And it can penetrate ships, great - only most ships have paper armor in the first place so, no real gain there. If you're engaging rather robust targets like a ship with not much armor to speak of its actually better to have a much higher rate of fire to rack up the hits and spread the damage over a wider area. And would you look at that, the smaller calibre 130 mm rifled gun for the Bereg is exactly what the doctor ordered.

GarryB wrote:
With the 152mm Coalition rounds being guided I would expect 203mm rounds would be guided too.

The issue with heavy artillery is that missiles can take their place at the higher end of the fire mission spectrum while the 6 in artillery can manage most tactical fire missions just fine. They are being crowded out from both directions so I don't really think the heavy artillery would have a future beyond specialist roles.

GarryB wrote:
Why would you think that? Is a double layer of ERA that expensive?

It could have a lid on top to open so you can replace the inner ERA tiles that are used up... in fact instead of a lid it could be open and things like smoke grenades or ARENA interception munitions could be stored in there with protection from most enemy autocannon and HMGs.

Supposedly the Chinese use an integral ERA apart from their regular external ERA. But my point is if you are spending all that money anyway why even bother with handicapping yourself with a casemate design? If money is no concern and you are very much set on the course with no regards to possible disadvantages its very much possible to integrate a larger gun into a smaller hull - several cold war projects like the Object 292 revolve around this.

Its acting penny wise and pound foolish - the turret gives you the supreme benefit of decoupling shooting from movement. In a fast paced armored brawl where engagements can start and end in literal seconds you'd want that capability with you than without.

GarryB wrote:
They claimed with the Leopard II to have 2.5m effective frontal turret armour with empty space... having 1 metre space with two layers of ERA, and using that 1m space for smoke grenades and ARENA intercept munitions that could be stacked should be rather effective too, and being a two crew vehicle you could have a smaller two man capsule somewhere on the vehicle for them... with the gun mounted at the back to reduce gun barrel overhang... engine in the middle crew at the front under the heavy armour... what is not to like?

RWS turret on the top with light cannon and grenade launcher for self defence....

I wouldn't bother with a heavily armored turret at tall, and save on the trouble of hauling an extra 10 tons of dead weight.

GarryB wrote:
There was a post recently of a vertical launch 15km range anti armour missile with fire and forget capability that would be ideal as a missile armed tank destroyer to replace Khrisantema and Shturm/Ataka...





So there looks like two vehicles, one with a turret and long arm sensor to look for targets and aircraft one presumes from the targets engaged picture which includes fighter aircraft and helicopters as well as armoured vehicles and bunkers and drones.

The other vehicle seems to have large numbers of vertically launched missiles ready to fire with a machine gun RWS.

Would likely be Kurganets and Armata and Boomerang and Typhoon and DT-30 twin chassis versions (the latter for arctic use).

Hermes in the ground launched model is more likely to be part of a Grad or Smerch battery on a truck because of its 100km range being too big for Armata based vehicles to get target information for... or be outside their interests.

The Armata chassis is not just a good base for armored fighting vehicles. The high strength hull can also be used as a prime mover for heavy equipment like strategic SAMs, heavy rocket artillery etc. It would be ridiculously expensive to buy and operate, but then again these capabilities are already expensive on their own that a little more splurging wouldn't really hurt that much more. Against a near peer threat that would require you to bust out the big guns you really don't want to exercise restraint - throw the kitchen sink if you have to, just make sure you win.

GarryB wrote:
With the 152mm Coalition rounds being guided I would expect 203mm rounds would be guided too.

What's the need for 203mm rounds when Iskander already exists?

In the U.S we use ATacMS.

Effectively, 18 ATacMS equals the impact of 792 155mm artillery rounds. ATacMS’ launch can be as much as 30 degrees off axis, and the missile is steered aerodynamically by electrically-actuated control-fins during the descent phase, modifying the flight path from a ballistic parabola. Offsetting the launch angle and descending semi-ballistically complicates the enemy’s ability to trace trajectory back to the launch vehicle

RTN wrote:

GarryB wrote:
With the 152mm Coalition rounds being guided I would expect 203mm rounds would be guided too.

What's the need for 203mm rounds when Iskander already exists?

In the U.S we use ATacMS.

Effectively, 18 ATacMS equals the impact of 792 155mm artillery rounds. ATacMS’ launch can be as much as 30 degrees off axis, and the missile is steered aerodynamically by electrically-actuated control-fins during the descent phase, modifying the flight path from a ballistic parabola. Offsetting the launch angle and descending semi-ballistically complicates the enemy’s ability to trace trajectory back to the launch vehicle

Very good question but I would say the Iskander has a minimum range of around 50km - that is probably around the maximum range of the 203mm artillery piece.

ALAMO wrote:Russia operates 203mm 2S7 for decades and is modernizing them right now.
70km is its actual maximal range, and the guns have their niche in Russian operational plans.
There is no point in discussing the need for having those.

At least I thought it was a very reasonable question coming from RTN

At 36:13 it clearly shows the grooves of the rifled barrel.

Good to hear. The 20 they are mentioning, is that just t-14 or does this include t-15 and t-16?

franco wrote:

TMA1 wrote:Good to hear. The 20 they are mentioning, is that just t-14 or does this include t-15 and t-16?

Would suspect just T-14's. First order apparently is for 2 battalions so these 2 companies will allow training until the rest arrive next year.

Yeah, this first unit literally needs to write the user manual for everyone else

Trials are one thing, actual practical use is something completely different

180 km range is deep well enough into the enemy's rear. Whatever target you spotted that far off would have to be pretty important militarily if its to be engaged, enough to risk whatever asset has acquired them in the first place. If its that important it would also warrant a much stronger strike option than a mere artillery shell just to make sure whatever you hit stays dead, so an Iskander perhaps.

We know too little about the 180km range round to talk seriously about it... it might be a specialist round for artillery to be used with UAVs in situations like Syria where you can fire and the UAV spots the moving target for you and the round itself might have a 10kg payload and a rocket or ramjet motor with the rest of the weight fuel to get that far... not good for sinking ships but taking out small trucks and light vehicles or individual enemy positions like ATGM launchers or machine gun nests... with the guidance of course it would be excellent.

Or it might be a double length round with a normal payload and a ramjet motor at the rear with fuel tank and nose mounted optical guidance...

If the target is a bit stronger than a light vehicle it should be able to fire a dozen rounds at slightly different angles to ensure they all hit the target at the same time... which is always pretty devastating... note even 70km range shells are coming in from behind the horizon at sea level.

The smart fuzes with the small paddles? Those only work if the projectile is spinning at several hundred rpms - if not they would provide asymmetric drag and send the projectile into an uncontrolled tumble.

But that is the point... they don't want the HE rounds to spin... the spin of a rifled barrel just makes accuracy with satellite navigation systems more difficult to achieve.

My understanding is that the guidance system for standard rounds is based on a nose mounted fuse system that has a guidance package and control fins to steer the round in flight.

It has a slightly larger burst radius, but drastically slower rate of fire.

Slightly? 45kg for 152mm vs 110kg for 203mm calibre. 2.5 times heavier shell... not to mention greater range.

If you're engaging rather robust targets like a ship with not much armor to speak of its actually better to have a much higher rate of fire to rack up the hits and spread the damage over a wider area. And would you look at that, the smaller calibre 130 mm rifled gun for the Bereg is exactly what the doctor ordered.

Rate of fire for naval guns is not the same. Plus the 130mm gun has a range of less than 30km, while Coalition is already reaching more than double that with standard rounds...

Its acting penny wise and pound foolish - the turret gives you the supreme benefit of decoupling shooting from movement. In a fast paced armored brawl where engagements can start and end in literal seconds you'd want that capability with you than without.

With autoloader technology and no turret bustle a tank without a turret would have no practical limit on penetrator length... a projectile that could also be used in towed variants of the gun too...

An ambush vehicle with a rear facing gun with electric drive that can turn on the spot... with active suspension so it can elevate and depress the vehicle as well as the gun leading to super elevation and super depression angle potential.

Having a ten round dual feed autoloader means you can have two types of ammo ready to load and you can get ten shots off before moving and repositioning... though you would probably want to fire one or two quick shots and get your kill and then move.

Excellent defence gun... low and easy to hide, able to take advantages of reverse slopes and interesting positions.

Even just start with a 125mm gun and make it a gas turbine all electric test bed.

I wouldn't bother with a heavily armored turret at tall, and save on the trouble of hauling an extra 10 tons of dead weight.

You could have two models... one with a light weight T-14 like turret, and the other could be a fixed gun with an autoloader able to take all sorts of length penetrator rounds. It could have a towed gun twin mount for defensive positions.

The Armata chassis is not just a good base for armored fighting vehicles. The high strength hull can also be used as a prime mover for heavy equipment like strategic SAMs, heavy rocket artillery etc. It would be ridiculously expensive to buy and operate, but then again these capabilities are already expensive on their own that a little more splurging wouldn't really hurt that much more. Against a near peer threat that would require you to bust out the big guns you really don't want to exercise restraint - throw the kitchen sink if you have to, just make sure you win.

Only a country like Israel would go all Armata... that missile layout could go in the back of almost any vehicle type including Kurganets and even Boomerang and would be especially useful in the two chassis DT-30 arctic vehicle they are using.

That missile layout could be applied to current generation platforms too... BMP-4 BMD-4 BTR-82 MTLB etc etc.

The missile range means it does not need direct line of sight nor does it need to be on the front line, so mobility is probably more valuable than armour, and certainly C4IR is critical for it to be effective.

What's the need for 203mm rounds when Iskander already exists?

They have effectively doubled the range of the 152mm rounds and appear on the verge to extending them even further... using the same techniques and technologies if they could do the same to the 203mm round then they would have a relatively cheap mobile system for both land and sea use that could hit point targets out to very useful ranges freeing the Iskander up for more strategic targets.

These artillery rounds are free flight free fall ballistic rounds with simple minor steering to get them very close to the aim point... an SA-15 air defence missile could shoot them down easily... but the west does not have SA-15s and they don't have a huge number of SAMs to waste on artillery shells.

It means in serious WWIII combat they would have a long range (90-100km) weapon system accurate enough to hit an individual house and heavy enough to flatten half of it with one shot.

Being modern artillery a battery should be able to launch several rounds and time them so they all land together... which would actually be pretty devastating.

They can have millions of 203mm shells, but closer to thousands of Iskander rounds.

For naval artillery it will just reach further and hit harder than existing calibres and the cost of development can be shared with the Army.

Effectively, 18 ATacMS equals the impact of 792 155mm artillery rounds.

So each ATACMS has a warhead 44 times bigger than a 155mm round?

Hard to believe.

What I suspect is the case is that the accuracy of ATACMS means it hits the target in one shot, while conventional HE rounds require an average of 44 rounds to be fired for each target to ensure it is hit properly.

The difference is that the Russian Coalition 152mm shells have smart fuses with guidance kits included that steer the round onto the target so instead of firing a volley of shells at a target to ensure a hit and a kill it can fire 1-2 rounds to get the kill.

203mm rounds will use the same guidance but the shells are 2.5 times heavier.

Very good question but I would say the Iskander has a minimum range of around 50km - that is probably around the maximum range of the 203mm artillery piece.

Iskander will be focused on different targets, and I am not sure they would deploy 203mm guns in every unit. Currently 203mm guns and 240mm mortars are in service but are kept in reserve for situations where their special capabilities are useful.

For the Navy on the other hand a mix of 203mm and 152mm guns would be excellent for providing naval gunfire support to landing operations, but also for use with warning shots in anti piracy missions etc etc.... warning shots for British destroyers violating Russian waters.

Russia operates 203mm 2S7 for decades and is modernizing them right now.
70km is its actual maximal range, and the guns have their niche in Russian operational plans.
There is no point in discussing the need for having those.

I am talking about upgrading the 203mm the way they have upgraded the 152mm guns with Coalition... the costs could be shared between the Navy and Army... they already share SAMs for the most part, it would be good to unify the guns... they already both use 30 x 165mm and the 57mm gun calibre... the Army really does not need a 76.2mm calibre, and the 100mm calibre on land is becoming redundant too.

At 36:13 it clearly shows the grooves of the rifled barrel.

I don't see that, and more importantly at 36:19 you can see past him into the barrel and the barrel is shiny smooth and not rifled at all... but as Lyle mentioned... it might be a 125mm gun...

From 36:09 to 36:15 the narrator even says " And we can see the whole surface of the bore spread before our eyes. Here are the grooves for instance."

After that we get a distorted view with a small circle of light shining from the far end of the barrel, which makes the rifling look tiny and straight.

GarryB wrote:
We know too little about the 180km range round to talk seriously about it... it might be a specialist round for artillery to be used with UAVs in situations like Syria where you can fire and the UAV spots the moving target for you and the round itself might have a 10kg payload and a rocket or ramjet motor with the rest of the weight fuel to get that far... not good for sinking ships but taking out small trucks and light vehicles or individual enemy positions like ATGM launchers or machine gun nests... with the guidance of course it would be excellent.

Or it might be a double length round with a normal payload and a ramjet motor at the rear with fuel tank and nose mounted optical guidance...

If the target is a bit stronger than a light vehicle it should be able to fire a dozen rounds at slightly different angles to ensure they all hit the target at the same time... which is always pretty devastating... note even 70km range shells are coming in from behind the horizon at sea level.

It would have to compete with Hermes tactical missile for the role. Only not being constraint with the form factor of the 152 mm shell the Hermes would have easily the much better performance across the board. It would also be not that much more expensive per shot since the primary cost driver for the two would primarily be in the electronics. While you have to pay for the missile launch platforms you are also buying extra survivability and resiliency with that, and its not like the Russian Army couldn't afford the extra couple of Kamaz to haul their stuff.

A double length round would not work either. Remember it must fire from the a 152 mm gun and there are mass and volume limits associated with that. Of course you can just cheat and make the propulsion all rocket like the GLATGMs but what's the point?

There is also no guarantee that multiple attacks would work. Some targets could be sufficiently hardened that no matter how much you attack them you can only manage superficial damage. Stuff like aircraft shelters for instance. You can spend all day shooting at it with RPGs and make not much beyond a few tiny holes but get a proper bunker buster and boom.

GarryB wrote:
But that is the point... they don't want the HE rounds to spin... the spin of a rifled barrel just makes accuracy with satellite navigation systems more difficult to achieve.

My understanding is that the guidance system for standard rounds is based on a nose mounted fuse system that has a guidance package and control fins to steer the round in flight.

Without spin stabilization the shell itself won't go very far. It would tumble and plunge like a rock. Spinning tends to keep a projectile on its trajectory, sure, but with modern digital FCS combining automatic and mil precision gun laying with up to meter precision satellite navigation even dumb shells can be sent very accurately that the target is within range of the shell's terminal effects anyhow. The terminal guidance is just there really to make sure the rounds touch the target in this case.

GarryB wrote:
Slightly? 45kg for 152mm vs 110kg for 203mm calibre.  2.5 times heavier shell... not to mention greater range.

2.5 times heavier but its effective radius is not going to be 2.5 times larger, hence why people use distributed charges to achieve greater saturation.

GarryB wrote:
Rate of fire for naval guns is not the same. Plus the 130mm gun has a range of less than 30km, while Coalition is already reaching more than double that with standard rounds...

They fire at cyclic rates for starters, what with having the entire ocean to dump their excess barrel heat in.

GarryB wrote:
With autoloader technology and no turret bustle a tank without a turret would have no practical limit on penetrator length... a projectile that could also be used in towed variants of the gun too...

An ambush vehicle with a rear facing gun with electric drive that can turn on the spot... with active suspension so it can elevate and depress the vehicle as well as the gun leading to super elevation and super depression angle potential.

Having a ten round dual feed autoloader means you can have two types of ammo ready to load and you can get ten shots off before moving and repositioning... though you would probably want to fire one or two quick shots and get your kill and then move.

Excellent defence gun... low and easy to hide, able to take advantages of reverse slopes and interesting positions.

Even just start with a 125mm gun and make it a gas turbine all electric test bed.

There is no requirement for a vehicle with the ridiculously long penetrator (> 1m) just yet, and likely not for the foreseeable future. The conventional manned turret has a limit to how deep you can create the frontal turret armor array though which is far more readily achievable with upcoming rounds.

After that we get a distorted view with a small circle of light shining from the far end of the barrel, which makes the rifling look tiny and straight.

You clearly have a better monitor than me...

It would have to compete with Hermes tactical missile for the role.

They have a good tradition of mixing missiles with guns... simply because guns are cheaper, but missiles are more efficient against moving targets.

They compliment each other and having a significant IADS and C4IRSTAR system means that those "managing" the conflict can use the most effective and appropriate weapon for the task at hand.

A double length round would not work either. Remember it must fire from the a 152 mm gun and there are mass and volume limits associated with that. Of course you can just cheat and make the propulsion all rocket like the GLATGMs but what's the point?

The missile round for the BMP-3s 100mm gun is totally different in length and shape and weight to the 100mm HE Frag round... to get a range of 180km you might need a double length round that is split in two halves and takes up two positions in the autoloader where the first part is rammed into the chamber and the second piece is then slotted into the back of it with no return clips and then a propellent charge is loaded.

The missile of the 100mm gun on the BMP-3 is totally different in trajectory and speed and ballistics to the normal HE round but that is OK.

The long range 180km range round might have a scramjet in its tail and pop out fins that deploy on firing and all the rest of the rear half is a fuel tank for the scramjet which would start accelerating the round from mach 0.8 out of the barrel to mach 5 or 6 when the fuel runs out and the rear end falls away leaving the standard front round portion with its guidance system built in to the fuse mechanism to guide and hit the target.

There is also no guarantee that multiple attacks would work. Some targets could be sufficiently hardened that no matter how much you attack them you can only manage superficial damage.

This is very true, and for such targets you replace the front mounted HE Frag shell with guidance fuse with a concrete piercing shell with a guidance fuse... or in extreme cases a 2 KT tactical nuclear round will do the trick every time.

In 203mm calibre you can go further with more original shell weight to work with too.

Stuff like aircraft shelters for instance. You can spend all day shooting at it with RPGs and make not much beyond a few tiny holes but get a proper bunker buster and boom.

Very much agree and that is why the Russian Army has not withdrawn their 240mm mortar batteries and their 203mm gun batteries... because there can be situations where they are the best tool for the job.

152mm and 120mm in guns and mortars however are very capable and become much more so with the improved accuracy of these new fuses.

Without spin stabilization the shell itself won't go very far.

Actually spin stabilisation reduces velocity, which is why it is not used in tanks.

The key rounds for a MBT are APFSDS and HEAT... APFSDS can't be spun fast enough to stabilise, so it uses fin stabilisation, and of course 120mm and 125mm and 115mm HEAT rounds are HEAT FS rounds because spinning HEAT charges spreads their mass and reduces their penetration performance dramatically.

Tanks use smoothbore guns because they are lighter and cheaper and easier to make and keep clean and offer better muzzle velocity than a similar rifled gun.

A rifled gun is said to be more accurate but ironically for APFSDS rounds that use a Sabot and are not spun and HEAT rounds that also need to ride over the rifling and not be spun there is no difference in accuracy because the rifling is not used to stabilise those rounds anyway.

The 100mm gun on the BMP-3 is rifled because its primary round is a HE-FRAG shell that benefits from rifling, while the missile it fires slips over the rifling and is not spun in flight.

For HE rounds for 125mm smoothbores and other smoothbore guns a fin stabiliser is good enough to keep it roughly on target... for guided shells spinning in flight actually stuffs up the guidance and makes it harder to guide, so these new 152mm rounds would make more sense from a smoothbore gun because it would allow a higher velocity for a given barrel length and propellent load and the steering vanes of the shell should keep it heading towards its target just fine.

It would tumble and plunge like a rock.

A cannon ball would... a pointed projectile with no stabilising fins would likely flip over and head tail first to the target... like a bullet does when it hits a human body.

The terminal guidance is just there really to make sure the rounds touch the target in this case.

Certainly, being guided does not mean you can launch these things in just any direction and expect a direct hit.

Soviet and Russian laser guided weapons like bombs and artillery shells are traditionally linked with the laser target marker so the target is not usually marked till about 3 seconds before impact with an indirect fire weapon or 1 second for a direct fire weapon... it means you still have to aim at the target but gives the target almost no warning it is being attacked till it is too late.

2.5 times heavier but its effective radius is not going to be 2.5 times larger, hence why people use distributed charges to achieve greater saturation.

It is going to be able to smash through much heavier structures, and there are cluster munition versions of both calibre weapons too.

They fire at cyclic rates for starters, what with having the entire ocean to dump their excess barrel heat in.

With Range they are adding precision too which suggests to me that the days of hub to hub 152mm guns firing 10,000 rounds to start an attack are probably over.

There is no requirement for a vehicle with the ridiculously long penetrator (> 1m) just yet, and likely not for the foreseeable future.

Having it might mean they will stop getting heavier and start getting lighter making your existing weapons more effective.

Besides there are situations where extra penetration might be useful...

It is not like it would need ground breaking new technology to develop and all towed weapons could have it as an option too.

The conventional manned turret has a limit to how deep you can create the frontal turret armor array though which is far more readily achievable with upcoming rounds.

The Russians seem to have moved away from manned turrets.

Unknown tanks on platform cars. On one of the platforms there is a tank that resembles an Armata in outline

T-16 BREM

Interior.