[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

lyle6 wrote:

See that gouge on the entry hole? The one that looks to be made by a slanted impact.

The projectile is supposed to arrive at close to a flat angle maybe a degree angle of descent at most, with the witness plate inclined at 60 degrees more or less. For the projectile to gouge the armor that way it must have a positive tilt relative to the armor surface...

A 10 degrees relative tilt is enough to reduce penetration by 20% - 20 degrees to 50%...

And is it just me or is the armor dented further below...

Look at the direction the removed plate is bent in, it is upside down. That taken into account the holes align such that the incoming projectile would be fired at zero elevation.

The thing I am not sure about is if the second plate is infact penetrated, that they did not remove it from the mount suggest it was not.

One other thing I noticed is that the ERA on the newer model T-14 seemed to get up to twice as thick as the ERA shown in this test.



Ofcourse this assumes that the ERA is mounted in a similar way to Relikt.

In one of the frontline materials provided, one of the VDV Kornet operators explained that Kornet already has an indirect attack mode.
It must not fly along the laser beam, but can deviate to attack side/top.
Honestly, I have never heard it before.

Ahhh, that makes sense... I have seen videos... I think it was Combat Approved, about ATGMs... I think the Khrisantema, where they showed video footage of a missile that looks rather like Kornet, flying towards a T-72 type tank target, but instead of hitting it directly it flys like a Bofors Bill 2... it attacks from directly in front and the tank has its turret facing forward but it flies about 2m above the turret height and when it draws level with the tank directly over the turret it explodes with a plasma beam directed down through the turret and the turret is blown off... presumably it has a loaded autoloader and the ammo is hit directly by warhead...

The Kornet uses laser beam riding, so how hard would it be to send a pulse code through the beam it is riding on to the target to detonate the warhead as the missiles distance and the tanks distance are equal... a simple MAD detector would probably work too.

Just watched the Chrisantemum show and it mentions top attack weapons as a direction they are going with improved missile designs.

I thought it might have been on the Mi-28NM/LMUR video but I can't see it in that either.

lyle6 wrote:
Obr. 2021 probably increased the overlap on the vertex to get rid of the edge problem with ERA.

That would only apply if the hull used a "solid" wedge shaped composite array. It would also make no sense for them to have ever made a tank with the flier plates touching the hull in any section.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PXt9TiYwVE
If they were doing this with the T72B like 20 years ago then it is expected for the T-14 to have a remote control mode as well

They could just get creative... a remote control vehicle is manually driven, but a modern flying drone uses an autopilot and waypoint navigation system to move around the battlefield without input from the operator.

Remember this is a sophisticated tank with auto loading guns and auto targeting optical systems that just requires the man inside to choose to fire or to not fire so shifting that responsibility to a remote operator wouldn't be that hard.

And penetrating the jamming system could be achieved in a few different ways including the coded laser based communication system they developed for the MiG-35 based on a satellite based system used between Russian satellites.

Obviously it is a direct line of sight system but to intercept it you would need to get between the two communicating lasers... which is not as easy as it sounds.

I mean they could even have a tethered drone that has a fibre optic cable through its tether that can be launched 300m up into the air and be clear of the jamming system to receive and transmit data like a submarine under water.

You could power the drone via the tether and have serious hardware on it like AESA radar and LIDAR and EO systems for recon and data collection... they are supposed to have something like this for the manned vehicle so why not the robot?

I would guess the first vehicles they make into robots will be older cheaper simpler models.

In fact fill them up with nitrogen gas which will prevent internal fire, and the enemy will have to hit something rather important before such a vehicle could be stopped.

Taking out tracks means it can still shoot and transmit information about enemy positions around it for attack by drone or helicopter or artillery.

To be useful the T-14 needs to be able to receive drone feeds and other video and audio signals so that REB system needs to be flexible and able to be turned off.

I suspect FPV drones will suffer the most from such a system though.

Ob 477

Think a hexacopter with greater payload, carrying an actual cooled IR camera, high powered optics with antennas to enable clear comms thru the REB zone...

If it is a tethered drone then it can use a fibreoptic cable to transmit data and information to and from the tank and drone and it can also supply power to the drone which means the drone wont need to carry batteries or a motor/power supply.

Power from the tank could easily run a computer and AESA radar and IIR optics and LIDAR as needed...

The AESA radar could be used as a datalink to transmit information over significant distances too.

Arrow wrote:What is the situation with the engine for the T 14? Do they already have the target power unit there? Western propaganda claims that the engine in the T 14 is the weakest part of this new platform.

It was originally developed in the 1970s as a tank engine. It was used in several prototypes and it was accepted with a certificate for serial production. The thing is the modern requirements for engine reliability are not the same as they were back then. Much higher reliability is expected. So the engine had to be modernized.

Supposedly the lifetime of the engine with the latest changes is quite decent. But for economic reasons the Russian MoD prefers to continue building old tank models.

IMHO they should have just converted Omsk to build the T-14. The T-80 with that gas turbine engine will likely be even more expensive than the Armata would have been. In the long term they could have developed a 1500 hp turbine engine and made that an option on Armata for Arctic warfare units. A missed opportunity I think.

The western propaganda claims about an unreliable engine was western claims it stalled at a may day event... except it didn't stall... the conscript driver left the park brake on.

The engine itself was designed with growth potential from the current 1800hp up to about 2,400hp with reduced reliability, but over time as materials improve that reliability would improve to a satisfactory level.

Remember the engine is for the Armata family of vehicles and the tank is not the heaviest vehicle in the family so it will be heavier vehicles in the Armata division that need the more powerful versions first... I believe Coalition is about 65 tons while the tank is only about 50-52 tons.

Of course a MBT on the front line needs more engine power to weight than an artillery vehicle...

Just feel sorry for the west... Russia has T-14s with a 152mm gun when they want to start using that... they can't say the autoloader rips off crew arms when manual loading is needed so they have decided the engine has problems.

The engine might have problems, but they will be sorted out and they certainly wont be as bad as the west makes out.

They are still trying to sell Challengers and Abrams and Leopards and Leclercs... which don't even look good compared with T-90s let alone T-14s or B-14s or K-14s.

That they have decided to continue production of T-80s suggests further work on armoured vehicle GT engines which is promising.

GTs are not so great if you are driving a big heavy vehicle and stopping and starting all the time with maximum acceleration to move from cover to cover in the shortest amount of time to reduce your exposure to enemy view and enemy fire.

However GTs are small and compact and very very powerful... the 11,500 shp engines in the Mi-26 are relatively tiny compared with 5,000hp marine diesel engines or engines used in trains or power stations.

You can scale up diesels to an enormous scale but they get really big and really heavy very fast and are not practical for aircraft or heavy ground vehicles except trains or trucks.

When the propulsion system that actually moves the propellers or airflow or wheels is electric then GTs actually turn out to be brilliant... their light weight and compact size and high power make them excellent and the fact that they can be run at efficient speeds means they are not the thirsty beasts they are when they are generating torque to turn wheels or propellers or rotor blades.

Klimov is already experimenting with hybrid propulsion systems where light aircraft have a gas turbine like a VK-650 that generates the electrical power while electric motors turn the propeller. The gas turbine generates electricity running at an efficient rpm that minimises fuel burn and because it will be connected to an electric generator it is never under extreme high torque loads like it would if it was connected to a gearbox and propeller.

As electrical requirements increase in a tank the need for power generation are also going to increase and as you get up to 2,500hp and beyond conventional diesel engines start to get very big and very heavy, while gas turbines like the one already fitted to Russian attack helicopters can already manage 2,700hp rather easily.

For next gen tanks things like electric armour and EM guns and even laser based weapons for dealing with drones and radar for detecting threats as well as an electric motor on each wheel perhaps meaning losing a track or a wheel or two does not immobilise the vehicle...

For two chassis platforms like the DT-30 arctic tractor you could have electric drive motors in both chassis with a high power gas turbine in one chassis providing energy for both pairs of tracks and the articulated link between them.

lyle6 wrote:The tank is ready. They're literally shipping tanks to armor schools and repair plants around the country for familiarization.

The decision has been made some time ago, the war just ate up all the available production lines.

Which is why I said they should have just started building the T-14 at Omsk. At this point I doubt there is that much of a used T-80 stock left. They had loads of spare capacity. And the T-14 is probably cheaper than making whole new T-80 tanks from scratch with the fancy gas turbine.

A missed opportunity.

The engine for the Armata family was well planned out and has growth potential to continue to be used in the future as possibly heavier armour options are added to all vehicles making them heavier and requiring more power.

They didn't decide two years ago that this engine design might be powerful enough and if it fails then I don't care because I will be retired then and it wont be my problem.

It is the west that is in a rush and does not plan fully and properly for the future... the whole idea of replacing all the vehicles in a division with one vehicle chassis requires detailed planning. The west has not even come close to such a thing.

It is certainly possible that in the future the Armata family might revert to all electric drive, in which case a gas turbine might be a more suitable power source as they tend to be more powerful and more compact and lighter and as shown by the T-80 can be successful if you design them to not need their filters cleaned every 6 hours.

The Gas Turbine in the T-80 or Abrams is different because they are direct drive and are connected to a gearbox and actually drive the wheels, so they operate under torque. With a tank you often move short distances and then stop. You move from covered position to covered position.... between the covered positions you are exposed so you try to accelerate to as high a possible speed as you move as you can... so you are sitting there idling and then you use enormous power to accelerate and perhaps move 100m or maybe 500m and then you stop. Acceleration and then braking. It is very fuel inefficient. It is much worse the heavier your vehicle is.

With an electric drive vehicle the wheels have their own electric motor and you run the gas turbine at a fuel efficient rpm all the time... though you probably have two... one very small APU and the main Gas Turbine... the small APU can generate enough electrical power to run the electronics and keep everything on the tank working like the turret traverse etc, and it can also heat up the main gas turbine without it running so it can start straight away without a warm up even in very cold weather but it wont be running... blasting out an enormous IR signature and burning rather more fuel. When in combat you shut down the APU and just use the main engine. When sitting monitoring an area for hours on end you shut down the main GT and run the APU to keep everything working and ready to start up and move in seconds.

Remember being electric drive you could probably drive a couple of 100 metres with the main engine off so that would be time to start it and then you can run as far and as fast as you need.

With the main GT running there is plenty of power to put high levels of electricity through the motors on the wheels for max acceleration... in fact you would probably get more acceleration than you would with the same power through a gearbox and transmission so the acceleration will likely be even better.

Work still needs to be done on the storage and transfer of electrical power. New batteries and capacitors that can store and deliver electricity when needed.

This will help the development of anti drone lasers and energy weapons as well as electric armour and EM powered or EM assisted guns and weapons.

Remember Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang and Typhoon and DT-30 are going to be in service for 40 years plus and will be upgraded with new modular armour and new weapons and engines etc.

Arrow wrote:So the current power unit for the T-14 is appropriate? Or will the T-14 be transitional and have a different engine in the future?

Supposedly it is fine after they improved the engine lifetime with some tweaking.
I would not be surprised if they were redesigning the tank taking into consideration the lessons from the conflict with Ukraine though. Some people also said maybe the tank could be simplified further to bring the unit costs down.

What are they going to redesign? Another redesign means that entry into service will be pushed back another decade if not more.

When he says there could be a redesign based on experience in the Ukraine conflict, he doesn't mean going from three men in the hull with an unmanned turret to a 30 man tank with no turret and 29 remote weapon stations all armed with shotguns to deal with ATGMs and drones and rockets.

It already has 360 degree day, night and all weather optics and radar coverage, but I would suggest that its systems and equipment have been upgraded to deal with drones... not just their erratic manoeuvring capacity and speed, but also their numbers on the battlefield... with radar and EO sensors an Armata tank can detect drones and warn nearby units of the presence of suicide and recon drones.

Jamming lasers and blinding lasers could add LIDAR features would allow drones with small RCS and low IR signature to be detected at decent ranges and to be engaged too.

The addition of a rear turret bustle mounted 23mm cannon would allow airburst cannon fire to be used against drone targets out to rather decent distances with a significant onboard capacity for ammo.

New tactics used for dealing with new threats can be applied to the design as well.