[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

Hole wrote:


Interior.

Looks spacious

It is shot with fisheye lens, it misleads.

It is much more roomy than the T-XX tanks. They don't need space for the autoloader and breech.

We kept hearing that a hundred first production variants were going to be built before entering service. Have they been built?


Any news on the GLATGM, sprinter I think it was called? I wonder how they would make it higher performance compared to the invar given they're limited to the same caliber of gun.

Svir and Reflex are certainly limited to 125mm calibre but are actually relatively tiny considering the available space for the projectile because their propulsion stubs are tiny as very little power is used to eject them.

A new missile design could take advantage of these facts and be much longer... with perhaps a rear mounted full calibre warhead, then a rocket fuel space and then guidance and controls and then the main HEAT warhead charge and then a tapered nose with a tip mounted precursor charge to penetrate ERA and active armours.

But to be fair there is not a huge need to drastically improve performance... 5km range is pretty good and unless you operate in deserts greater range is not going to be that much more useful. Certainly the ability to adopt a diving flight profile to engage top armour and angled armour at a more efficient angle would be useful.

My understanding is that Sokol-1 is supposed to have an optical sensor and be able to detect targets marked with lasers and also moving targets on its own.

I suspect Kord mount without Kord Machine gun being fitted.

I would normally expect such an induction fuse setting device to have three coils... the first two measure actual muzzle velocity in real time and the third coil further away sets the time fuse for the air burst.

The thing is that such set ups require exceptionally accurate timers to be fitted to the projectile which generally makes them rather expensive... the cheaper option would be to have a vehicle mounted system that lases or radio commands the round to detonate either based on much more accurate timers inside the vehicle that are reused over and over for each shot and therefore can be very expensive but very worth it, or fit a tracking radar to the vehicle that tracks the outgoing round and the target and sends a detonation command to the outgoing round when it gets to its closest point to the target.

Simple command detonation via laser code or radio or radar signal makes the rounds cheap and affordable because you will want enormous numbers if they work as advertised and that will actually dramatically increase the number of targets you can effectively engage per ammo load.

It is hard to over emphasise the effect of airburst rounds over normal rounds... it is the difference between useless and effective for small calibre cannon rounds like 30mm against small light targets like drones.

Against vehicles and manned aircraft the chances of a hit are still good but against a tiny drone the chances of a direct hit are very very low so air burst rounds damage the tiny light target while standard rounds would just wush past with no effect.

Note the outer barrel of the twin barrel 2A38M cannon on the Tunguska and late model Pantsirs has two induction coils to measure muzzle velocity and there is a shroud over the other barrel to prevent rounds from the other barrel interfering in the real time muzzle velocity measurements... but there is no third fuse setting coil.



Seen here with two coils on one barrel, shroud on the other and water cooling pipe system for sustained fire capability.

This gun is fed from a single belt so all rounds need to be of similar ballistic performance... AP and HE so they all fire to the same point of aim. It reduces the effective HE potential of the HE rounds because they have to be lighter and the AP performance of the AP rounds because they can't have maximum speed and reduced calibre penetrators, but the effect on target is better having a mix of rounds to punch holes and explode.

It's exactly the same turret as on the Kurganets APC variant. Looks like a reinforced mount for the Kord HMG.

Rostec supplies Russian army with Armata tanks. 

Rostec has delivered an industrial batch of Armata tanks to the Russian troops. This was announced on Monday by the First Deputy General Director of the state Corporation Vladimir Artyakov during the solemn greeting of the participants of the Army-2021 forum.

"We have delivered the latest upgraded T-90M Proryv tanks, an experimental industrial batch of T-14 Armata tanks to the troops, and Pantsir-S deliveries are continuing" – he said.

Artyakov stressed that these products are in demand not only in Russia, but also abroad. "A lot of things show that we are able to implement these programs in any circumstances" – he said.

Source: 

New support wheels for the T-14 Armata:

Before:

The Armata tank will receive artificial intelligence. 

The newest Russian T-14 Armata tank will receive a number of updates, Alexander Potapov, CEO of Uralvagonzavod, said in an interview with RIA Novosti.

"Moreover, I will slightly reveal the secret that we have already begun to modernize Armata through the introduction of artificial intelligence, as well as some other developments" – the agency interlocutor added.

According to him, the tank is significantly different from all world models. In the future, it should become a base that will be developed for more than a dozen years.

Source: 

Monoblock of the T-14 tank

Russian_Patriot_ wrote:Monoblock of the T-14 tank

Nice. Any news about the engine for the armata project?

TMA1 wrote:

Russian_Patriot_ wrote:Monoblock of the T-14 tank
https://i.servimg.com/u/f81/20/34/63/61/r9vcml10.jpg

Nice. Any news about the engine for the armata project?

Photos were released years ago, look it up

PapaDragon wrote:

TMA1 wrote:

Russian_Patriot_ wrote:Monoblock of the T-14 tank
https://i.servimg.com/u/f81/20/34/63/61/r9vcml10.jpg

Nice. Any news about the engine for the armata project?

Photos were released years ago, look it up

You misunderstood. There was supposedly engine trouble. The sources are west leaning so I usually come here to find out what is going on. Also I meant "recent" news.

TMA1 wrote:...You misunderstood. There was supposedly engine trouble. The sources are west leaning so I usually come here to find out what is going on. Also I meant "recent" news.

Never heard of it

PapaDragon wrote:

TMA1 wrote:...You misunderstood. There was supposedly engine trouble. The sources are west leaning so I usually come here to find out what is going on. Also I meant "recent" news.

Never heard of it

I think he is alluding to the fiasco that was the first showing of the Armata tank at May 9th celebration couple years ago. It ended up being not the engine itself but bad oil.

I thought it was a green recruit failing to properly engage the gear. I don't recall any engine or oil problem.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32628236

It is easy to stall an engine with the wrong gear.

kvs wrote:I thought it was a green recruit failing to properly engage the gear.   I don't recall any engine or oil problem.  

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32628236

It is easy to stall an engine with the wrong gear.

Indeed, it was the driver who used the wrong gear lol. The tank was able to move on its own shortly after.

Also, some very interesting images of the T-14:
https://magic-models.com/walkarounds/t-14-armata/

and these two images showing the thickness of turret armor. The bump in pic 1 is for the coax (courtesy First Guard Army page and in pic)

miketheterrible wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

TMA1 wrote:...You misunderstood. There was supposedly engine trouble. The sources are west leaning so I usually come here to find out what is going on. Also I meant "recent" news.

Never heard of it

I think he is alluding to the fiasco that was the first showing of the Armata tank at May 9th celebration couple years ago.  It ended up being not the engine itself but bad oil.

No that was just the guy not knowing exactly what he was doing. I am referring to troubles with the engine and production. Heard these rumors from sturgeonhouse or paralay some other place forgot which though i think it was paralay and the guy talking about the issue was strangely critical of armata platform but the ensuing conversation seemed to show there were indeed troubles. The two problems argued were the engine and APS. And no a lot of this you cant just "look up". Hence coming to a place where many people who have seen many things where you can more easily track down a source.

Btw Lennox that second image is the best I've seen as far as armor thickness of the turret goes. Thanks!

Edit: had to explain further in my post

This is what I call weight reduction with crewless turret. I would not call those plates armor, as there is nothing behind to protect, but more turret shape plates.

Not so much armour as weather protection for the bits inside the turret... but that is the logic behind unmanned turrets... western remote weapon stations haven't got super heavy armour either.

The very idea that leaving the main gun vulnerable to hits is amusing because any tank on the planet is vulnerable to having its tracks destroyed and its gun barrel shot... and if that is the case why have heavy armour at all?

Engine development for armour has traditionally been centred in the Ukraine for the Soviet Union, so the idea their might be a few issues with brand new rather powerful tank engines is no real surprise.

The idea that they might cancel the entire programme because of minor problems suggests it is western propaganda bullshit blown all out of proportion... look at the problems the F-35 has had and no one has suggested it is cancelled just yet.

It is important to keep in mind that the follow through plan is for 27 vehicle types to be developed based on the Armata chassis so that they can replace all the vehicle types in a modern armoured division.

At the moment they have vehicle families like the BMP family of vehicles includes engineer and a range of other platforms in a modern armoured division, but the problem is that those vehicle families have also developed families that are not compatible.

What I mean is that an engineer vehicle based on the BMP-1 to replace BMP engines in the field means you can use it to support your non tank vehicles which makes it lighter and cheaper than a tank based equivalent and it should be able to deal with most vehicles... except possibly the biggest heaviest tanks or their biggest trucks or armoured vehicles. The problem arises when they develop another engineer vehicle based on the BMP-2 and another one based on the BMP-3 because the engines and transmissions and even wheels and tracks are not the same so despite all being BMP based there is no commonality and parts sharing except for add on dozer blades and cranes etc etc.

Equally even just BTR and BRDM and BMP are all different vehicle families, but with Armata the difference between the BTR and BMP and BRDM will be the turret and equipment... the BMP likely with an epocha turret with a 57mm grenade launcher and various ATGMs, the BTR with an epocha turret with a 30mm cannon and various ATGMs, and the BRDM will likely have the tiny Kord turret mount... but the point is that in the Kurganets and Boomerang and Typhoon vehicle familes the same turrets will be used for the same vehicles... though the Typhoon might be too light for the T-14 tank turret.

They are not going to start deploying vehicles in complete divisions... what is likely to happen is that motor rifle divisions and tank divisions will receive the type of vehicle suitable to their role... so a division intended for fighting in urban areas in western europe will likely have Armata based vehicles so its current tanks will be replaced with T-14s and its current BMPs will be replaced with T-15s and its current BTRs will be replaced with T-??s and its current engineer BREMs will be replaced with T-16s.

As new Armata based vehicles are developed they will be fielded in Armata units and eventually the entire vehicle inventory of an Armata force will be Armata based vehicles all sharing the same level of armour and mobility.

And it will be the same for the Kurganets and Boomerang and Typhoon vehicle families... a Kurganets force will get its BMPs replaced by B-11s, and the BTRs will be replaced by B-10s and the new Kurganets engineer vehicle is the B-12.

The Coalition will eventually be Armata based and will likely get a T designation too but for the moment is known as the 2S35.

The Typhoon family of vehicles is a mix of four and six wheeled light vehicles and may not have a T-14 equivalent due to weight issues, but Kurganets and Boomerang units will need a tank like vehicle which will likely have a T-14 style turret and be used as a mobile gun platform.

The idea is that the electronics and sensor and weapon suite is developed for each of the 27 roles or jobs within the force and is mostly mounted in a turret and vehicle layout so they don't need to develop four completely different versions of each type... for the BMP models a turret and a chassis layout with the engine in the front is good enough... and the T-14 has a rear mounted engine but where it makes sense like the BMP and BTR it has a front mounted engine so it can have a rear ramp door.