[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

First of all, so what if they did?

Second of all you kinda need to get a working example before you can actually copy something, and it takes more than lots of good external photos of a vehicle to copy it accurately.

The T-14 is one of their new tanks, there is going to be a Kurganets and Boomerang and DT-30 and perhaps even a Typhoon based tank vehicle they will be creating too... perhaps the lighter vehicles will get an unmanned version of the Sprut turret or maybe a T-14 turret with the long recoil Sprut 125mm gun.

The really funny thing is the financial situation means all the western countries now wanting to catch up need to fund producing the basics... ammo and missiles and are no where near ready to afford to replace their entire armour stocks with something brand new, they need to be reducing debt and instead they are spending like someone else is going to be picking up the tab.

The west is so broken and empty a hard core supporter of the west like yourself is actually reduced to threatening that China is going to beat Russia... not even going to pretend that the US or EU or HATO could do it....

That alone makes me very happy... all their hard work developing new vehicles and equipment is paying off, and while it is coming into service rather slower than the stuff the Chinese are making, it is mostly also a generation ahead of what China is making too.

No one in Taiwan wants to fight a war with China just to save the Biden administration... it is a shame for Georgia and Ukraine that their governments didn't think this through properly either.

Russia isn't the best buddy of China or Georgia or Ukraine, but they don't have to be their enemy.

China is where it is today because it was smart enough to not jump on board with the west and blindly sanction Russia... the Chinese know they would be next.

If China makes T-14s then Russia can supply ammo and spare parts against the US in Taiwan... and Alaska.

The current generation of APS with active radar as the primary sensor is not fit for the modern battlefield. Only Afghanit is compatible with requirements for low detectability and enhanced countermeasures against electronic targeting (IR/visual obscuration and radio jamming).

RTN wrote:
Even before Russia manages to roll out 5-6 regiments of the T-14, China will copy the entire T-14 design and start mass producing it for bot their domestic market and the export market.

China has the entire documentation for the original Soviet supertank Object 477A and even physical samples hauled out from the Kharkov warehouse. And yet they are persisting on the tried and true T-72 pattern for their latest MBT.  

Seems like there is more to tanks than just copying lol.

They have operational LIDAR systems mounted on drones for mapping and target finding ( moving targets are obvious with multiple pass scanning), and depending on the frequency would only reach limited distances that would be difficult to detect at extended ranges, though smoke and dust or snow would effect its performance I suspect.

Such a system would actually be good for detecting drones at the last second too, but equally with a laser that can scan the sky you could use it to detect reflective surfaces like the lens of the camera on a high flying recon drone which could then have a rather more powerful laser pulse directed at it to damage the camera or damage the drone.

Optics from enemy snipers and laser target markers as well as ATGM and even RPG launchers could be detected too with their locations plotted and allow the captain to turn his optics for closer examination too.

Even optically guided weapons like Javelin or Spike could be defeated with such a system.

A LIDAR is still an active sensor that sends out light signals that can be detected by an outside observer much further than the reflected signal can be detected by the system. Much more useful to have passive sensors that can determine the general direction of the attack while the RADAR/LIDAR performs precision track for the actual interception.

This thing can be only a light tank/amphibious.
And that is ... hardly ...
Howitzer or mortar is my guess.

A LIDAR is still an active sensor that sends out light signals that can be detected by an outside observer much further than the reflected signal can be detected by the system. Much more useful to have passive sensors that can determine the general direction of the attack while the RADAR/LIDAR performs precision track for the actual interception.

That is true but fighter aircraft have radars in their noses despite the fact that it gives away their position, because sometimes it is more important to be able to find things in the air space around you than it is to be hidden.

I marvel at the US Navy and their carrier groups because it seems, according to western experts, that a US carrier group combines the attributes of the all seeing eye together with being a ghost that no one can pin down. Bear MPAs will be destroyed before they can detect their ships and anti ship missiles will never even find their ships... they see all but cannot be detected.

Active systems makes sense to detect threats at max range because you can't defend yourself from things you can't detect... Saudi Arabia had that problem with drones and cruise missiles. Perhaps what they need are air defence vehicles that generate a MMW radar web over an operational unit that detects all threats and targets and when it spots threats it instantly communicates to those vehicles in the line of fire of the detected threats to start scanning for the threats themselves so that the entire formation can be in passive mode and one or perhaps two vehicles in active scan mode, but they can alternate depending on the terrain to give the best coverage.. mayve a drone overhead with LIDAR pointing downwards at the ground looking for approaching low flying suicide drones.

They could also take it a step further and have special air defence systems with 23mm cannon with airburst shells and lasers and jammers that pretend to be armour formations moving around the rear areas too looking for drones on their way through friendly territory heading towards targets deep in the Russian rear areas.

There will not be a single perfect solution... a combination of solutions would make the most sense I suspect and also offer upgrade paths for the future.

A laser radar system now could be boosted in power levels to be a jammer or optical sensor blinder quite easily now and in the near future the power levels could be boosted to allow damaging light drones. Those cardboard drones they were using could be detected using laser radar that does not care about radar transparency or IR signature, and of course cardboard would be vulnerable to laser energy and catching fire.

A laser radar detection of a small drone means you could use your 23mm cannon to direct a burst of HE shells that will airburst around the target drone and greatly increase the chances of a defeat.

Such a vehicle could also be used to escort supply convoys and would be excellent to deal with an ambush situation too.

The risk of getting blinded by a laser while attacking an enemy convoy might also lead to a massive reduction in volunteers and also a better chance of people surrendering rather than wanting to fight.

Blinding enemy troops would be a burden to the enemy forces too.

This thing can be only a light tank/amphibious.
And that is ... hardly ...
Howitzer or mortar is my guess.

It appears to have optical ports to the side of the gun, which suggests direct fire gunner optics...

lancelot wrote:
There were people making design studies in China on having a two person vs a three person tank. This could be that.

A bold move, but once you reach the level of automation that can substitute for humans in any of the highly complicated tasks like maneuvering, battlefield observation, target engagement, coordination and command control you don't stop at a 2-man MBT; you automate these processes and end up with a UGV.

From a design standpoint there's no purpose in reducing the number of crew either. A 2 man crew will still be seated side-by-side in a crew capsule that while narrower is not something you can take advantage of to reduce the size of the vehicle. That's because hard cap on the tank's width is the turret ring which has to be of large enough diameter to accommodate the breech of the main gun and its firing action. Unless you want to go to a smaller caliber main gun that is...

Seems to me that with a 2 man MBT what you're going to end up with is a vehicle that has maybe an extra 200 mm of armor to the sides of the crew citadel for enhanced crew protection but in exchange an overloaded crew that would struggle in the heat of combat. Doesn't seem like a nice trade to me.

lancelot wrote:
The slide talks about it having APS. You wouldn't put APS on a howitzer or mortar. This is a direct fire platform.
Also, they already have a modern light tank, the Type 15. Why would they build another one.

There were people making design studies in China on having a two person vs a three person tank. This could be that.

Take a look at the thickness of the armor array and the whole space assisted.
It makes maybe 30 cm.
That would be half of the usual measure for a tank.
Light one? Perhaps.

The general director was probably talking about the new shells made exclusively for the T-14 MBT. We know of two: the new 3BM69/70 Vacuum subcaliber shells with enhanced dimensions and new 3UBK21 gun launched ATGM with multimode active seeker. Hopefully they also include the 3BK31 triple-charged shaped charge shell as well as those would be really handy against medium armored vehicles and hardened fortifications.

And yes, the Merkava 4 is a very mediocre MBT made hot garbage by the IDF's circus impression of armored tactics. They're having trouble against home made RPGs now, they have zero chances against anyone who can import the latest Russian anti-tank weapons (or their Iranian copies).

The slide talks about it having APS. You wouldn't put APS on a howitzer or mortar. This is a direct fire platform.

I don't think you can be 100% sure of that... it makes sense to adapt existing and experimental APS systems to allow them to engage drones including FPV drones and suicide drones as such last ditch systems as APS systems could effectively hit and set off warheads at extended distances allowing the vehicle to perhaps survive without needing massive cage structures to be built on top of them.

The sight position beside the gun seems to suggest direct line of sight firing, but that does not rule out an artillery vehicle completely on its own.

It is also relevant to improve all round protection with APS and electronic warfare as this is where most of the losses are coming from.

Treating the vehicle as a complete system the same way the do with the Sotnik super soldier system means they can combine systems for a range of uses... for instance ARENA M APS systems was designed for direct fire and indirect fire anti armour weapons but could easily be adapted to engage FPV drones and suicide drones which might be travelling much slower than a rocket or missile but would still be useful to intercept before it reaches the vehicles armour.

EO and laser jammers and APS systems could be adapted to detect and engage drones of all types too, whether they are recon drones that remain kms away that could be engaged with a laser dazzler to blind the platform or a more powerful laser to damage or make the drone crash, through to popping smoke or blinding suicide drones or FPV drones and launching interception APS munitions for things that get too close.

The use of its own drones to monitor the airspace around the tank would be useful too... a tethered drone that could fly 200m above the tank with MMW radar and Thermal cameras as well as digital video cameras with colour night vision could scan the airspace and ground within 1,000m radius around the tank looking for drones or troops with drones or suicide drones approaching etc etc... the drone could operate 24/7 with power being delivered to it via the tether and perhaps with information from the cameras and radar being transmitted via a broad band fibre optic cable.

In fact balloons and airships could operate above the battlefield scanning for targets and threats 24/7...

Such aircraft were used widely during WWI as artillery spotters before satellite and aircraft spotters became the norm.

william.boutros wrote:
I think an important added capability would be to integrate UAVs into the tank or get targets from elsewhere and use them to fire indirect non line of sight projectiles and missiles at targets.

Integration to the local battle network and the collective battlefield situational awareness is standard feature on Russia's newest generation of AFVs. Any sensor be it a drone, infantry or another IFV can register a target and have that target identified and classified by the battle management system's to be serviced by the most appropriate and opportune shooter available as well as to warn the relevant friendlies to implement the required countermeasures.

In fact, this capability is already present in their aerospace defense arm. The Russians have AWACS that can act as spotters for land bound SAM systems to allow the latter to engage targets that would normally be out of reach of the SAM's sensors. In practice their ground forces already operate on similar lines with swarms of drones constantly combing the battlefield for targets that are then destroyed by the artillery. They just need to adopt the necessary informatization and networking technologies to make the process as seamless as the aerospace forces does it.

william.boutros wrote:It is also relevant to improve all round protection with APS and electronic warfare as this is where most of the losses are coming from.

When it comes to active ballistic and electronic protection systems you would be happy to know that there is not much to complain about on the T-14. Its actually the only MBT that uses both hardkill and softkill systems for a start. One of the very few that even devotes attention on the upper hemisphere against top attack threats.

The Armata is a vehicle family, with the T-14 being the MBT and the T-15 being the BMP, this is the engineer vehicle T-16:

And the monolit heavy ERA module to go with that monolith of a frontal hull armor:

... and keep in mind that this is add on package only

ALAMO wrote:... and keep in mind that this is add on package only

Technically they're not add-ons, because they are an integrated component of the physical protection of the MBT together with the composite armor. The heavy ERA works in conjunction with the composite armor to defeat threats, not as a supplement on top.

In any case, it really puts into perspective the colossal amount of firepower you need to take down a truly next gen MBT.

Sounds like the engine issues have been resolved. Have heard rumors of teething issues concerning the APS system. These are just rumors, though.