[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

People still dont realize how strong the Russian artillery firepower is compared to Ukrainian. Just look at how fast Ukraine troops were destroyed because of UAVs pinpointing their locations and EW systems cutting their communications. Sure, Ukr artillery power is stronger now (but lol they cant produce enough artillery shells), but so is Russian.

Also, UAVs have never been a game-changer, and people need to stop thinking like that. It's not like before UAV there were no counters to tanks. What you saw in Nagorno Karabakh was not because of how effective UAVs were, but in fact how effective the Air Force was. Azerbaijani AF basically destroyed 80% of Armenian air defense before sending in the drones. Azerbaijan had the advantage since the beginning, and so was Israel in their wars. But Ukraine? Not so much.

UAVs are only effective if and when they're used against a much less capable enemy. People keep saying how trash the Pantsir was, but it completely changed how Turkey and other countries used UAVs in their wars. Then again, this has nothing to do with Armata.

As for Bumerang, that thing completed tests years ago, but the manufacturer decided to change its armor design to increase buoyancy, which led to more tests. For the T-14, it's mostly about the cost, but also, some problems regarding engine and production of cannons and other things. Not like you can shift from making T-90 to T-14 in a day.

They have reportedly used in exercises a new optical dazzler/jamming system called Quarry for Russia IFVs... I suspect that alone will render Javelin ineffective except in line of sight... and in line of sight use against conventional armour its 750mm penetration performance is going to be a serious drawback against ERA and APS and even just the frontal armour of a tank.

A bit off topic but I said a while ago that drones in general and swarm type attacks that HATO is pushing through make having a decent IADS of your own critical to survive in a future war, which is really a huge advantage for Russia because it has an excellent IADS and a range of anti air weapons that are mobile small and light and most importantly affordable.

A Kornet-EM able to kill a drone at 10km or 10km altitude that is relatively cheap enough to be used in numbers makes a huge difference and the new Bulat which seems to be a scaled down 70-80mm calibre Kornet for use against targets that don't need 1.2m penetration is probably lighter and cheaper and could be used in greater numbers... against a variety of targets.

This is important for Armata because in addition to the new LMUR missile that will likely come in an Armata platform like this:



To replace the current Shturm/Ataka and the new Kornet vehicles, will likely have a range of air defence versions with 57mm guns like the 2S38 or a vehicle with Sosna-R/Pine missiles and EO equipment too... not to mention vehicles that support the use of Russian drones... like recon vehicles and the reported tethered drone for the T-14 and possibly T-15 and perhaps even T-16 to find vehicles to recover or spot mines etc.

lyle6 wrote:
I disagree. UAVs finally realized the age old artillerists wet dream: real-time observation of indirect fire targets right at their finger tips. You can now literally walk your shells into the exact locations of enemy hidey holes in trenches - that's how fucking insane artillery has become. And the best part is you aren't even risking anything much more than several dozen shells worth of equipment with how cheap the things are. Not that they are at that much risk - they are hard to spot, and even harder to bring down, unless you brought ample air defences with you (and how many armies on the planet could even boast of anything better than a MANPAD for their low level units?).

That's not the point. While there's no doubt that UAVs significantly enhanced arti's capability, it literally cannot be a game-changer. Heck, recon UAVs were already used in mass number in the Vietnam War, didn't change a thing. If stronger arti alone can win a war, we would have seen mass use of guided shells (they have longer range too) by now, but that didnt happen. The guided shells are also way more accurate, than shells corrected by UAVs.

lyle6 wrote:
UAVs will ensure that any army that even dreams of lasting 3 seconds on the modern battlefield has to have adequate organic air defences in the Soviet style. Not even the massed airpower of the US could force such a sea change in warfare.

Lybian troops have been lasting much longer than 3 seconds. Turkey won in Libya, but they lost a shit ton of drones. Turkey posted vids of destroying Pantsir in Syria, but guess what they didnt get any significant objectives. And the war in Azerbaijan? That's the result of Air Force and coordinated warfare, but people just love to give all the 'kills' to the TB2. It's just that with the UAVs you can film the kill, which seems rather 'cool'

lyle6 wrote:
From what we've seen the Bumerang's dismount compartment is narrow enough that soldiers sitting face to face and not wearing kneepads would have their knees touch. Not only is it gae, but in case of a mine explosion or a rollover it could easily cause some injuries - and you don't want immobilized soldiers blocking the only way out...

Lol. I guess the long wait now makes a lot of sense if they have to fix the hull because of that. But I dont see the hull being bigger tho.

Lennox wrote:

lyle6 wrote:
I disagree. UAVs finally realized the age old artillerists wet dream: real-time observation of indirect fire targets right at their finger tips. You can now literally walk your shells into the exact locations of enemy hidey holes in trenches - that's how fucking insane artillery has become. And the best part is you aren't even risking anything much more than several dozen shells worth of equipment with how cheap the things are. Not that they are at that much risk - they are hard to spot, and even harder to bring down, unless you brought ample air defences with you (and how many armies on the planet could even boast of anything better than a MANPAD for their low level units?).

That's not the point. While there's no doubt that UAVs significantly enhanced arti's capability, it literally cannot be a game-changer. Heck, recon UAVs were already used in mass number in the Vietnam War, didn't change a thing. If stronger arti alone can win a war, we would have seen mass use of guided shells (they have longer range too) by now, but that didnt happen. The guided shells are also way more accurate, than shells corrected by UAVs.

lyle6 wrote:
UAVs will ensure that any army that even dreams of lasting 3 seconds on the modern battlefield has to have adequate organic air defences in the Soviet style. Not even the massed airpower of the US could force such a sea change in warfare.

Lybian troops have been lasting much longer than 3 seconds. Turkey won in Libya, but they lost a shit ton of drones. Turkey posted vids of destroying Pantsir in Syria, but guess what they didnt get any significant objectives. And the war in Azerbaijan? That's the result of Air Force and coordinated warfare, but people just love to give all the 'kills' to the TB2. It's just that with the UAVs you can film the kill, which seems rather 'cool'

lyle6 wrote:
From what we've seen the Bumerang's dismount compartment is narrow enough that soldiers sitting face to face and not wearing kneepads would have their knees touch. Not only is it gae, but in case of a mine explosion or a rollover it could easily cause some injuries - and you don't want immobilized soldiers blocking the only way out...

Lol. I guess the long wait now makes a lot of sense if they have to fix the hull because of that. But I dont see the hull being bigger tho.

Dont think Turkey won the proxy war in Libya as it is still going on. America has to be careful and must use its toadies to nation-build once more as too many citizens are aware now of their games. I believe the GNA is still on the defensive arent they? What is Egypt's place in it at the moment? And yeah the TB2 is good because it has almost entirely western components in it and succeeds in areas with no modern combined arms and little air defense. They also dont discuss the massive losses as you were saying.

Anyways sorry for going off topic. Does anyone know if it is still a go for 20 Armatas for next year?

Drones allow enormous improvements in situational awareness, which is critical for artillery support but also for individual units.

A tethered drone for an Armata can operate at much higher altitudes than a mast mounted optics package as seen on T-90s.

Being tethered there is no need for datalink communication of the gathered data, and the drone can run on tank power so it can remain operational for extended periods of time.

For a unit in a fixed base that tethered drone could be airship based with an anchor wire to stop the wind taking it away, with a light vehicle or building supplying continuous power and analysing any information it collected.... 360 degree radar and IIR views of the surrounding area would be valuable information that would prevent surprise attacks from being effective.

It would certainly make artillery more efficient and more effective and reduce operational costs, because the alternative would be to have helicopters or light aircraft performing the same missions are much higher costs.

Ratnik III will likely include all sorts of hand launched drones that could operate above an infantry group providing god like overwatch like some computer game.

Drones were used in Vietnam, but not by the soldiers, and the information the drones gathered was often in the form of camera film that had to be processed and analysed which often took hours and could only start when the drone returned to base and the film could be processed.

Sound off topic, but you have to remember that Armata is not a tank, it is a vehicle family and that vehicle family will include all the vehicles in an armoured division so drone carrying vehicles will be included... not just the T-14, but likely engineer vehicles like the T-16 and recon platforms etc etc will be using or having to deal with drones of their own and enemy respectively.

King-on-the-mountain

https://naukatehnika.com/zontik-dlya-bronetexniki-%E2%80%94-aktivnaya-zashhita.-ot-kaz-drozd-do-afganita.html

are they saying what I think they are saying, or is it just common to call millimeter radars radio optical?

What an excellent article...

It says that Afghanit is both radar and optical.

One of the first APS systems was a 14.5mm gatling machine gun mounted on a T-10 which used radar to direct the gun. No good against close weapons. Radar gives away vehicle location.

Well read it for yourself... https://translate.yandex.com/translate?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnaukatehnika.com%2Fzontik-dlya-bronetexniki-%E2%80%94-aktivnaya-zashhita.-ot-kaz-drozd-do-afganita.html&lang=ru-en

Afghanit it says:

"All-threatening ""Afganit" To date, the most advanced Russian KAZ is considered to be the all-course and almost "all-threatening" "Afghanit". It uses several breakthrough design solutions that take the very concept of "active protection" to a new level. In fact, "Afganit" is an individual anti-missile and anti-shell defense of the tank, which protects it from air strikes, among other things. Due to the integrated fire control system, the KAZ "Afganit" not only automatically launches protective ammunition at the detected ATGM, but can also, for example, automatically turn the turret towards the incoming munition in order to substitute it with a more powerful section of armor or protective equipment. It is planned to install Afganit in full configuration on Armata family vehicles (T-14 tank, T-15 infantry fighting vehicle), and its individual components, such as the shell destruction system, can also be used on other armored vehicles.

Instead of the previously used defensive ammunition with a warhead of the" directed flow of fragments "type, the "Afganit" uses new ammunition of the "shock core" type, which intercept enemy ammunition at a distance of about 15 ... 20 m. Their launcher has a carriage that is guided in two planes, additional guidance on the selected target is carried out by programmable detonation of the fuse. The main survey radio-optical radar "Afganita" consists of four AFAR panels of the pulse-Doppler radar and integrated with it circular HD cameras of the far and near infrared range. Due to the full integration of radars with infrared surveillance, Afganit has increased resistance to electronic warfare and can work in a "passive" mode for camouflage: with the cameras turned on, but the radar turned off.

The effective response time of "Afganita" is 0.01 s, the minimum allowable target interception limit is about 4 m. It is claimed that the "Afganit" is able to protect the tank not only from ATGMs, but also from armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber shells (BOPS) flying at speeds up to 1700 m/s. The latter was made possible by the presence of two additional high-speed short-range Doppler radars manufactured using PAFR technology. "Afganit" has passed a set of tests and is ready for production, but it is not cheap (even at the level of KAZ, which are all very expensive), which so far hinders its use.

So although the launch tube of Afghanit looks like a Drodz tube it is actually a smart munition that can adjust its flight vertically to intercept the incoming threat.

It also lists the other Soviet and Russian APS systems and why they failed to be adopted.

ARENA, the mast was considered too vulnerable leaving the vehicle with 1.3 tons of dead weight when the antenna is destroyed with ground fire.

The ARENA update which can be used on T-90s and upgraded T-72s does not have a mast and has a rearranged munitions launcher to be more low profile and harder to see and hit...

Don't mind me while i laugh at every idiot who thought that the APS launchers could only fire in a straight line determined by the tube, thus creating some "limitation" to the system.

the thing is they said radio optical AESA and we all take that as a photonic radar.

Don't mind me while i laugh at every idiot who thought that the APS launchers could only fire in a straight line determined by the tube, thus creating some "limitation" to the system.

The original Drodz was designed to hit line of sight weapons like RPGs and missiles and not diving attack weapons, so its munitions didn't need to be very sophisticated and just flew out a fixed distance and exploded sending fragments radially sideways to intercept the incoming munition.

Essentially this munition in Afghanit does exactly the same thing but has a smart fuse where the fragments are directed at the expected position of the incoming threat... so it is a directional fragmentation weapon that can direct its fragments in very specific directions based on information fed to it before launch from optical and or radar sensors.

Pretty clever...

the thing is they said radio optical AESA and we all take that as a photonic radar.

I would think a normal AESA radar would be all you needed for this job and a photonic radar would be much more expensive and pretty much overkill... just based on speed it should be able to determine HEAT missile or APFSDS Uranium core penetrator... so no need for extreme discrimination of the surface texture of the incoming threat...

I would say not... and hope they are using such new technologies for rather more practical uses in aircraft and missiles etc etc.

far and near infrared range

Note this suggests long wave IR and short wave IR which is rather good... each frequency range has advantages and disadvantages... previously thermal imagers were medium wave IR and can't see through water or glass... part of the reason they were so expensive was that they needed expensive Germanium crystal lenses because normal glass and clear plastic blocks heat in that frequency.

The atmosphere actually blocks a lot of IR and there are three frequency ranges that are not absorbed by the atmosphere and so they are called long, medium, and short wave IR. Long wave is good for detection and long range visibility though the resolution and definition are not great... there was a long wave IR targeting pod for the F-16 where the IR sensor had a better range than the radar against some targets. Medium wave has better discrimination but shorter range while short wave IR looks a lot like a black and white image and it can see through some thin materials and also glass and water which makes them rather useful... and cheaper because you can use glass lenses.

They talk about a surveillance system composed by both radar and EO devices which is integrated in a unified threat overview

There has been mention of 360 degree optical and IIR sensors for helicopters as well as vehicles for unobstructed view of the surrounding area that is day night all weather capable which should be very useful on a range of platforms... especially if it is connected to video processing systems looking for targets and threats (ie moving target indicators MTIs). Such things can be linked to remote weapon systems for targeting or just observation.

I doubt the Afghanit uses lateral EFP axes or the more cookie directional EFP for that matter.

AFAIK they have been using directional warhead technology for decades and that even S-300 missiles use it to direct the fragments at the last milisecond to intercept specific parts of the target depending on the target... ie a Scud or ballistic missile target would focus the fragments at the nose and warhead area to detonate the target, while an aircraft would aim for the centre of mass to destroy the structure... break wings and tails off...

For air to air missiles lengths of metal rod chained together are used that cut sections of the target off like a guillotine... but this article seems to suggest multiple fuses allowing the directional throwing of a large mass of metal in a specific direction at a specific distance from the vehicle all calculated before hand... essentially a super shotgun blast that either shatters the HEAT warhead or makes the incoming penetrator yaw.

Anyone who has used a hammer to knock in a few nails knows that if the nail is just a few degrees off the angle you are hammering and the energy is not longer applied pushing the nail into the wood... it is instead used to fold up the nail with no wood penetration at all because nails going in sideways bend and never penetrate well.

Against ATGMs the shockwave should be enough to shear off the more fragile control surfaces, which more or less guarantees a miss.

ARENA and DROZD use kinetic material to destroy the incoming round rather than blast... in the case of ARENA the blast is from a munition launched up into the air and the fragments from the munition fired down into the ground to reduce the danger to troops nearby... I would hope the narrowly focussed fragments of the Afghanit system also avoid showering the area with fragments that could damage friendly vehicles or troops or the vehicle itself.

Just some limited corrections, nothing spectacular like intercepting top attack munitions (which the softkill system is for). Guidance would have to be inertial since we don't see any uplinks, and with commands uploaded prior to launch since the target trajectories are pretty much just straight lines themselves.

Just reading it again I suspect it is a smart fused directed fragmentation munition... it likely launches straight out a certain distance... say 5,10,20m and then explodes sending fragments in the direction of the incoming threat as calculated by the optics/radar system.

Perhaps depending on the threat and the space around the tank at the time it can vary the distance it travels before launching its attack and that this is set on firing... an induction coil could easily do that as it is fired...

We have heard about two systems.... Afghanit for Armata T-14 and T-15, and a system called Standard for Kurganets and Boomerang... I wonder if they all use the same munitions and the simpler ones for the lighter vehicles don't have the surveillance radar and extra bits and pieces?

The IR optics covering 360 degrees would be useful for any vehicle anyway... you could see who is near your vehicle... friendly or enemy...

ARENA could be manually fired in case enemy troops approached the tank... in some mountings they are a layer behind the front ERA armour... so ERA, then ARENA munition launching upwards, and then armour of the tank... sometimes in taht space between the ERA and main armour they also had things like Smoke grenades etc etc... I always think mixing a few different systems together is a good idea.

What I did like about ARENA is the enormous numbers of overlapping munitions so attacks from the same direction could be countered with four or five munitions without moving the turret... and having a munition that launches up before it fires would mean you could redesign it to not just fire fragments downwards but also horizontally backwards over the top of the tank to protect from diving top attack weapons too... which would mean every single munition could be used against a top attack Javelin... and you could fit Drozd or Afghanit munitions on the turret too with Afghanit sensors because they seem to be the most capable and less obtrusive...

The complaint that the ARENA munitions were vulnerable to fire... well they were spread out so your chances of hitting one was good but equally the chances of damaging them all is low, whereas putting them in launch bins means your chance of hitting them is low but hitting one may damage all the munitions in that bin and there are only two bins... protecting front or rear and a side each...

With the original ARENA if a munition is hit and damaged the munitions on either side should still get the job done... you would need some sort of layer on top that detects penetrating hits to determine if a munition is damaged so the system knows to launch a munition on either side of it instead of a hit munition... you could try to launch two and if the damaged one fails then it is OK.

That's one more reason to use a blast kill vehicle: less chances of collateral damage. If you're using anything metallic like a shaped charge liner of a fragmentation sleeve expect possible collateral zones of up to several hundred meters at least since metal is that much better at retaining momentum than hot gases.

But that is the point... ARENA with fragments being the kill mechanism can be detonated a dozen metres up in the air away from the tank it is mounted on and away from friendly troops on the ground.... the only danger area would be a section of ground beneath the munition where the fragments are directed.

Fragments are incredibly efficient at doing specific damage, which the rest of the munition body can be made of a light plastic that shatters into a fine powder of fragments that would be harmless 1m away from the blast... the interception fragments could be effective to 100m but as they are fired from 10-15m up and are directed into the ground at a 70-80 degree angle they would really only be dangerous over a very small area... which is what you want.

Think of it in terms of a Claymore mine... a block of HE with ball bearings and metal fragments in the front face and the rest a plastic box. When detonated the metal shrapnel makes the mine dangerous out to about 50m at an angle of about 30m... there is a small back blast area of maybe 10-15m where it is not safe to stand but the danger area is focused forward at very specific angles.

You can use multiple mines covering different angles because they are not really dangerous outside the angles they are designed to kill people.

To make it a blast weapon to kill or knock down enemy soldiers using just blast out to 50 metres it would need to be a 500kg bomb.

The fragments for ARENA are directed down into the ground.

AFAIK the Drozd fragments go sideways but mostly up and down to stop incoming horizontally fired anti armour weapons.

Afghanit will focus its fragments directly at the incoming threat rather than spread them in every direction.

They used fragmentation kill vehicles back then because the sensors weren't terribly precise that to compensate each munition is designed to fill every space in a sector with fragments. Once you have an electronic scanning radar with minutes of arc accuracy, its not that hard to go for almost hit to kill performance and a blast warhead is more than enough for even close misses.

I don't agree. The wider area of the fragments was intended to give an overlap so if multiple weapons came from the same direction then munitions could be used without having to move the turret to align new munitions for the intercept.

Its ideal to intercept the projectile as far away as possible. The farther the interception the less fragmentation that could hit the tank's external subsystems, to include elements of the APS.

Very much agree but would assume the design of the munitions means they would never be directed back at the tank they were launched from...

ARENA is also excellent for more close-in threats like RPG teams than Afghanit, which relies on its slow turret traverse to lay the full 360 degrees in azimuth.

ARENA was something like $300K per set.... which is half the price of a Javelin missile... I would hope it gets widely deployed to T-90s and upgraded T-72s and T-80s. The more they put these things into service the more affordable they will become as well as refinements in design and especially production might help reduces costs and further improve performance in several areas....

The newer ARENA effectors have directional thrusters installed. If you think about there's really not much stopping every other interceptor from reorienting to face threats that are not even in the adjacent sectors. In theory you could even have all the munitions intercept threats in the same exact spot. Of course the ARENA intercepts its targets at a rather close range which does not really bode well for the continued operation of the ARENA's vulnerable sensors and other external systems.

The new ARENA sounds like it covers entire quadrants so the two launcher bins on each side cover one side and either the front or the rear which makes me think it sends fragments to cover 8-10 metre areas probably a few metres away from the vehicle... each munitions sends down a curtain of fragments that covers the entire sides or front or rear of the vehicle... which is fine... being launched up high and fired down into the ground makes them much safer than some of the systems I have read about... but it also means that extra bins could be fitted to the hull for extra munitions in dangerous areas to give capacity to deal with a lot of attacks...

Any news on the 20 t-14's that were supplied to the russian military this year?

Russian army calendar for 2022 and september is reserved for the T-14 photo.
Those tanks are coming, there is no question about that.