[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

TMA1 wrote:Is this the first view of vacuum apfsds??? It looks large. Compare to the 7.62x54r linked ammo. Also wonder about the missile also seen.

GarryB wrote:
It depends on the tracking systems and its capacity, the new system for Armata uses both MMW radar and optical sensors to track incoming threats, the latter being totally passive and the former active of course.

GarryB wrote:
That is true, but does that suggest Russian APS systems have that flaw or the APS systems of their likely opponents have that flaw?

GarryB wrote:
Multiple launch tubes means turret rotation is not required... even the old ARENA had widely overlapping munitions and the new ARENA has munitions that cover quadrants... four launch bins to cover four directions with munitions that shower interceptor fragments over a wide area and if the drawings are correct can include top attack threats as well.

The last article I read on the Armatas APS system suggested it used directional fragmentation rockets to direct the fragments at the incoming target to improve interception performance...

Most threats coming from horizontal angles are covered by the system, but most top attack systems use laser beams to mark the target or optical systems to target the tank like Spike or Javelin etc etc, for which multispectoral smoke is just as effective... especially with incendiary particles that can fake a shape of a tank in IR which creates an IR pattern that may or may not look like a tank to an incoming IR guided missile that could be launched ahead of or behind the tank itself.

GarryB wrote:
The only current threats the APS on the Armata T-14 seem to not be able to defeat effectively would be a Khrisantema in a top attack flight profile because smoke and IR decoys wont stop it.... a snow storm or a brown out (dust storm) wont stop it either.

LMFS wrote:
Ok, you know much more than me about tanks but allow me to speculate. The hardkill cassettes are launched and project the fragments perpendicularly to its axis, or frontally? In Arena it is perpendicularly, probably to increase the interception chances and also to avoid hitting friendly forces in the surroundings. If that is the case in Afganit too, it should be perfectly possible to cover the top of the tank. The last picture you link could cover both upper and lower hemisphere in that way.

GarryB wrote:
Most optics on armoured vehicles have cleaning systems to prevent being covered in mud and being rendered useless... in service systems can be adapted over time with experience too.

GarryB wrote:
Most missiles wont be noticed till they are very close... perhaps 100m or less so less than a second or two to turn to face suggests it is unlikely to be relied upon.

GarryB wrote:
Drozd had an effective protection angle of +-40 degrees... so 80 degrees in total... Drozd 2 is +- 180 degrees... and 200kgs lighter and with reduced power consumption too.
ARENA covers 270 degrees in comparison but obviously that moves with the turret.

The new ARENA has four boxes of munitions that each covers a compass heading...

GarryB wrote:
By EFP are you meaning a self forging fragment?

My understanding was that the munitions had smart fuses and were essentially claymore fragmentation type mines... the detection system detects a threat and determines the suitable intercept munition which it launches at a suitable time to achieve interception... so no different from Drozd or Arena yet, but the munitions are more advanced so when it is launched it is given an indication to the direction of the incoming threat and the fuse sets off the warhead to direct the bulk of the fragments in the direction the incoming threat is calculated to arrive along its path of travel.

No moving parts or manouvering... just a directed explosion... to maximise effectiveness and it would have the added bonus of improving coverage if threats keep coming from the same location you wont run out of munitions able to engage the threats so quickly as if each rocket covered a direction and one direction only.

LMFS wrote:
I refer rather to a configurable fragmentation pattern. There are reasons why I think the blast direction is perpendicular to the advance direction of the cassette and not in the same axis
- It would not allow to effectively intercept missiles with different trajectories / flight height even on a lateral approach
- It would not allow to intercept top attack threats
- It would not be effective against APFSDS (blast perpendicular to the rod is needed for that)
- It would be dangerous for infantry and vehicles in the surroundings

LMFS wrote:
A flying cassette that explodes at the right time is the same way Arena works too. Maybe the warheads can work downwards and upwards only, and that is the reason they are spaced in the azimuth plane

TMA1 wrote:

GarryB wrote:
I would speculate that optical detection systems and also radar detection systems scanning the airspace and ground around a vehicle would be highly useful for crew in the hull of an armoured vehicle... and that expanding the range of the radar might be useful in a range of roles including  finding enemy positions based on enemy fire going past the tank allowing enemy firing positions to be calculated and passed on to other units.

It is very much a case of everyone with a shared digital map each scribbling in enemy positions and their own positions to allow better coordination and prosecution of enemy positions.

GarryB wrote:
You have to make the distinction... Afghanit is designed for the T-14 which will face all sorts of enemy but will be facing enemy armour which might not have the luxury of side or rear shots in battle... the T-14 would certainly do its best to keep its frontal armour pointed at the enemy most of the time... (obviously not always possible)... whereas ARENA is a general APS that would be fairly widely used in situations where attacks from the side and rear might actually be more common than from the front.... Ironically the best protection might be a combination of Afghanit and Arena where the Arena system covering the sides and rear of the vehicle while the Afghanit covers the front... it might be the case that even if Afghanit intercepts an APFSDS going for the engine deck that it will still hit and penetrate to the engine doing serious damage, but because it will be going sideways it will break up and not penetrate to the inside of the tank... or from the front the Yaw inflicted on the penetrator means it wont penetrate the frontal armour even if on paper it should if it got a clean hit.

GarryB wrote:
Actually I would argue that logic... I think metal pieces accelerated by explosives would inflict more kinetic energy onto an incoming object than just the expanding gas of a shockwave from an explosion.

GarryB wrote:
Soft kill measures are very useful and should be carried and used heavily where possible and are more effective than many think.

From the sounds of things lasers being used to destroy drones to 5kms suggests that lasers used to blind IR and IIR guided missiles should be easily possible too...

Isos wrote:
Frontal arc isn't the most dangerous anymore. ATGM are more used on the sides, rear and top than on the front. When driving a tank you always expose your sides even if the enemy is in front of you because you can't just go straight at him and you don't always know where he is.

An APS that can stop at least 4 attacks on every side is good.

GarryB wrote:
The interesting thing is that ARENA-M does not have that big tower any more and its sensors are distributed much like Afghanits sensors, which means they would actually be redundant if you had both systems mounted, but the launch bins for the ARENA munitions launch upwards so you could pretty much put them anywhere.

Using the Drozd-3 for high velocity threats, ARENA for RPGs... those new 10kg SAMs they are talking about for intercepting artillery could be mounted on a command vehicle perhaps that defends more than one platform at a time... perhaps convoy defence... maybe even build it into a BMPT and use it as a convoy defence vehicle too...

Add some laser anti drone weapons that could also damage optical guidance systems or blind incoming weapons like Spike and Javelin... well if they are powerful enough to physically destroy drones to 5km they could probably blind EO guided weapons to four or five times that range...

GarryB wrote:
Could that be defeated by simply making the fins much smaller or thinner... they are needed to stabilise the penetrator but you could put extra fins half way down as well that match the tail fins so any sideways blast doesn't twist it, it tries to shift it sideways instead... or reduce the number of fins to maybe two and give it a slow roll so there is a chance to explode next to the penetrator with the two fins edge on...

Air to air missiles often have what is called an expanding rod warhead where the warhead consists of a long warhead with rods of metal around the outside, with small links connecting each rod to the rod next to it. The explosion causes the rods to spread outwards dragging the rods next to them with them.

The result on target is cuts like a sword instead of holes like a shotgun blast... 20cm long rods linked together moving sideways at high speed would minimise the threat to nearby troops but would maximise the chance of hitting an APFDS round that might be 1 metre long... the calculations would need to be very very accurate though...

Shrapnel with smart fusing to direct the fragments in a very specific direction makes more sense to me though... they have been using those for half a century with their SAMs...

GarryB wrote:
In the terror and difficulties of war, the complex difficult to use weapons often fail first... especially when supplied from old stocks by allies who don't think you can win anyway.

thegopnik wrote:if they are serious about using these tanks than they will be serious that none will get captured in their planned offensive.

lyle6 wrote:

thegopnik wrote:if they are serious about using these tanks than they will be serious that none will get captured in their planned offensive.

Its just a really advanced tank. NATO can design and build their own equivalent if they want - the concept of an unmanned turret and battlefield networks are both a product of the computer revolution. It won't help them, though. What really makes a hunk of steel and silicon a weapon of war is the organizational and industrial machine to wield it in the first place. The doctrine, the tactics, the training to use these things properly on the battlefield and the infrastructure of mass production and sustainment. Capabilities which takes a very long time and take in a colossal amount of resources to develop.

Russia has spent the last 20 years and sacrificed its potential for explosive economic growth just to recover their vast mobilization capacity while NATO did the exact opposite. Does NATO have 20 years to catch-up?