[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

The problem with electric is the batteries. At best electric drive can be used for short periods for extra silence.
A tank is pretty heavy, so you need oodles of energy to move it a decent distance. There is a reason why they try to make the electric vehicles as light as possible. Then there are the issues with ignition on lithium ion batteries when they are punctured.

As for the turbines, Klimov is designing the VK-1600 helicopter turbine right now which is supposed to have 1300-1800 hp. I am pretty sure they could design a modern gas turbine for a tank if they wanted to. They are also designing the VK-2500 replacement which is supposed to not require the use of oil as lubricant.

IIRC the Soviets projected that the MBT of the future should have at least 30hp/ton while keeping the 500km range or even exceeding it. Not so much as to make faster more agile tanks, but to provide ample reserves for ever heavier upgrades and the addition of power hungry systems like APS and electric guns. Modularity is also a very welcome addition to make it easier to cannibalize stricken vehicles in wartime for repairs (statistically 3 disabled vehicles have the parts to make one fully operational).

Problem is you still have to provide these contradictory requirements on top of providing unparalleled crew and system protection. I said system protection, so front mounted engines are already out (at least for the MBT).

All of those requirements meant one thing: density. You need to provide a propulsion system that is as dense as you can make it and then start from there.

Every meter of chassis you shave off is 5 tons of weight removed. That is deadweight you don't need to haul or protect. 

So the current diesel engines then are out: it would be difficult to uprate what are originally 700hp (440hp in the case of the V12) engines to more than double the power. The Kharkov diesels were also just trash. 

GT engines were promising but the poor fuel efficiency cuts into the range. The tank's range is its endurance on the battlefield: You want at least 500 km for 3 days of combat operations before you have to be topped up. 

ICE-electrics were looked into but there were concerns regarding production of the expensive alternators and traction motors (namely copper supplies). In the end the trains won out because logistics trumps making slighly superior tanks.

Hybrids with batteries and fuel cells were largely immature or didn't exist and their volatility still remains unsolved until this day. Not really a good idea to include gigajoules of batteries waiting for the slightest provocation to go boom.

In the end the Soviets arrived at the X-engine configuration with a mated partial hydrostatic transmission that the Object 187, 195 and now the T-14 uses to the wailing and gnashing of teeth of NATO faggots. 

Edit: got cut-off
This powerpack is insanely compact. It even fits within the automotive compartment of the T-72 chassis! 

It does 1500 hp but derated to 1200 hp in peacetime with an 1800 hp combat mode. There is an ongoing modernization to push it to 2000 hp nominal (the so-called scalable engine) and this is where they are having real delays, but the base A-85-3 is ready for exploitation.

Fuel consumption is also very modest compared to previous diesels or gas turbines. This allows the T-14 to have all of its fuel stored in internal tanks in the recesses around the turret basket and the space within the firewall between the combat and the automotive compartment. This fuel serves as additional armor and since its internal any fire can be put out by the firefighting equipment with no issue whatsoever, unlike external tanks on the fenders which can only be extinguished by dudes from the outside - good luck doing that in combat.

The transmission also deserves a mention. With it, the T-14 can neutral pivot and reverse as fast as it can go forwards. Very essential for when moving through closed terrain. The transmission is also the key to true multifunctionality lf the Armata chassis as the same chassis for the MBT can be simlpy reversed  and you get a front driving variant that can be used for IFVs, APCs, ARVs etc.

Me too. What's the rush?

The first batch of junior officers trained on the T-14 won't even graduate until 2025. They in turn will train the future tankers so give them at least 1 year so 2026.

By then the T-14 would have all its issues fixed and most importantly, all the lessons of the SMO would have been internalized. The resulting T-14M would not only be the most technologically advanced war machine of its type, it would also incorporate the latest and greatest battlefield experience in its design straight from fighting NATO in their best.

Annexation of Ukraine would also reintegrate many important supply chains in the Russian MIC. Donetsk would regain the old honor of forging the steel for Russia's tanks, this time for the Armata. Maybe Kharkov can build Armatas in the hundreds as well.

>The T-14 is capable of simultaneously tracking 25 aerodynamic and 40 dynamic targets.
Moreover it sends that precision targeting data to the battlenet for others to see. What you thought was an isolated T-14 actually has the sum total of the division's fire support assets one radio away. Engage at your own peril.

>The control of the guidance system, as well as protection and counteraction to strikes, is completely digital, using artificial intelligence, under the control of the commander.
Eventually AI will take in more and more functions over until it runs the tank by itself. Fire control for example is already largely automated - just drag the crosshair close enough for a tracking gate to appear, let it snap, lase, then pull the trigger and watch the target disappear. So simple even guys fresh from Warthunder can pick it up.

>The tank's weight of 48 tons allows it to reach speeds of up to 80 km/h, which the German "Leopard" does not have (the new American "Abrams" should have a comparable one, but its modification M1A2 SEP. v4 is still secret).
Combat load is 55 tons - the same as the original M1.

>For a high rate of fire, up to 70 shells are stored in the Armata turret, loading and firing are automatic, and there is also a fully automated system for loading ammunition on board.
Just 40. 32 in the autoloader, 8 in the bustle.

>"Armata" shoots not only shells, but also missiles, can hit targets at a distance of about 8 km, while Ukrainian and Western tanks - 4-5 km.
That's the missile range. Indirect fire with UAV spotting is easily 20 km+.

Backman wrote:
Still a completely f**ing stupid propaganda own-goal.

Don't worry, it will have its own parade in Kiev.

A true victory parade, one it earned after massacring so many of your nazi boyfriends.

Armor needs excess power not to travel faster but to negotiate natural and manmade obstacles and expand the space for maneuver. This improved tactical mobility in turn opens up many opportunities for attack and evasion. You can launch an attack from a surprise axis or bypass prepared killing zones and turn enemy defences around to your advantage...

However it is not the end all be all characteristic. There are other factors like high reliability, low consumption, survivability and SWAP requirements that have to be balanced too. Electrics - battery ran ones moreso, fail almost automatically because while they have huge power reserves once the batteries ran out of juice you are still left with a very heavy deadweight to lug around. Highly flammable and very sensitive deadweight - at least Diesel can be used as armor with the right fuel cell design...

Honestly railguns seem to me like a dead-end, at least on the tactical level of AFVs. Chemical propellants still have plenty of room for development and even then there aren't many targets that can't be taken out with a high pressure cannon...