Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Share

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 on Fri Apr 13, 2012 8:36 pm

    Rogozin denied the delay. 2015 still planned.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 14, 2012 7:34 am

    I rather suspect that they might go into production in 2015 but they might not reach operational service till 2017.

    These are largely untested vehicles and they are an entire family of vehicles too, so they are going from now with no actual prototypes to 3 years away... 2015 vehicles in production... I would expect they will have to produce and correct the designs of half a dozen different types of new vehicles on the Armata platform to put into operational service... that is not going to be easy or quick or cheap.

    Each heavy brigade will be all Armata, or all T-90 or all T-72 upgraded so they are going to need a lot of vechiles for each brigade.

    Remember even in a tank brigade there were about three regiments of tanks so we are talking a total of about 48 tanks per tank brigade, plus a regiment or two of BMPs or BTRs or both and then artillery (tube and rocket) and air defence units (missile and gun/missile) etc etc. This means instead of just making 48 tanks per brigade they will need 48 tanks plus perhaps 100 more chassis for the other vehicles... BMP, BTR, TOR, Pantsir-S1, Tornado, Coalition, etc etc.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9423
    Points : 9915
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  George1 on Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:04 pm

    http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_03_26/69675961/

    Russian armoured vehicles to roll on single platform

    Russia is the first to be switching to a uniform combat platform in three major types of ground vehicles, which will presumably make them easier and cheaper to build and maintain, while their modular design will allow to develop different systems, depending on their purpose. The first platforms of this kind of modular design will be produced in two to three years.

    Russia’s Defense Ministry has approved the design of a new heavy crawler platform for the Russian armed forces, says Major General Alexander Shevchenko, Chief of General Tank Automotive Directorate. The development of “perspective technologies” for the Russian military is now going through a major transformation. And what comes out of this can forever change the country’s army.

    “Standardization can simplify both the maintenance and combat application of the military hardware, increase modularity in its design, including possible usage of versatiletarget modules on chassis to meet different objectives. All platforms have the so-called “open architecture” avionics to make it easier to add new systems,” says Viktor Murakhovsky, an expert on armoured vehicles. “Different hardware complexes can be built on the basis of a single sighting-system node by adjusting the number of various observation channels to create a system for a combat, reconnaissance or a command vehicle.”

    A new versatile armoured platform, “Armata,” is expected to “set to rights” the Russian armoured forces, plagued by chassis and components of every stripe. The most popular tank, the T-72, and its upgrade, the T-90, will be revamped to stay in the Russian army, except for its first-line units , which are to be equipped with the cutting-edge “Armata” by 2015 to 2025. But the T-90 won’t disappear for good as its recent modification, known as the T-90S, is in fact set to keep its export market. It was announced that the T-90S will make its reappearance at the upcoming Defexpo-2012 show in India.

    The Russian armed forces will have as many as four versatile base platforms: the “Armata” crawler platform for heavy tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and other types of motorized infantry brigades weighing up to 65 tons. Among other projects are the “Kurganets-25” medium crawler platform in the 25-ton range and two wheeled platforms – a medium 25-ton and a light 10-ton platform of the “Bumerang” family.

    The idea to build modular-design platforms was up in the air for quite a while. The collapse of the Soviet Union crippled the production of already existing hardware and stalled its further development. The West was the next in line to dip its toes in this water, with the American line of the “Stryker” wheeled combat vehicles and a whole family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) clearly coming off the charts.

    Still, no Western army ever considered bringing all vehicles of all weight classes onto a single, unified platform. The US tried to grapple with this task in its modernization program called Future Combat Systems (FCS), which was cancelled after over-ambitious plans of the US military command to outfit its vesicles with cutting-edge equipment threatened to drain its funds.

    Russia had it easier, having had to learn from the FCS example, which proved that any sweeping modernization can only bust the budget. In this sense, Russian armoured vehicles, which are capable of employing both the existing equipment and systems that are still under development, have much more chances to come off the blueprints and into reality.

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3182
    Points : 3310
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  flamming_python on Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:05 pm

    Viktor wrote:
    Zivo wrote:Dmitry Rogozin is going to visit Uralvagonzavod on the 21st, info via his facebook. Along with a new article about Armata.

    Hopefully, we get some new info about the project during his trip. Gentlemen, keep those fingers crossed.

    Here you go ... delayed until 2017

    Supplies "Armata" will begin with a delay of two years

    Serial deliveries to the troops of new main battle tank based on the universal platform of heavy armored vehicles, "Armata" will begin in 2017. This is in my Twitter wrote Vice-Premier of Russia , Dmitry Rogozin . Earlier guidance "Uralvagonzavod", which is developing a new tank, stated that the new car will be produced commercially, and delivered to the troops in 2015.
    "The Army of the Russian Federation in 2017 will receive a tank with stealth technology. April 21 visit Uralvagonzavod and tank range. Beware!)," - Wrote Rogozin, giving a tweet a link to his interview to Life News. According to Deputy Prime Minister, the new combat vehicle will be created with the use of stealth technology in radar, infrared and optical spectrum. In particular, it will use specially designed geometries and coatings.

    Russian Ministry of Defense has approved the draft platform of heavy armored vehicles, "Armata" at the end of March 2012. According to the Chief of the Tank-Automotive Directorate of the Ministry of Defence of Russia, Major-General Alexander Shevchenko, the new machine meets all the requirements of the military department at the level of technical design. "Three years later, look at this product in the metal", - added Shevchenko.

    Earlier, sources in the "Uralvagonzavod" stated that the company intends to build the first prototype of the tank on a platform of "Armata" in 2013, and production machines and supplies to the troops to begin in 2015. It clarifies the RIA Novosti , 2020 Russia's armed forces should receive 2.3 thousand new tanks.

    Details of the project are still unknown. Presumably, in the autoloader tank created by the project "Armata", will be 32 rounds for various purposes. In the development of the tank will be used achievements obtained during the implementation of other projects, including "Object 195" and "Black Eagle". At the end of March this year the newspaper "Izvestia" wrote that the tank will get a gun with a digital remote control communication channels that will be protected from interception and suppression.
    The traitor :_)

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Zivo on Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:09 am

    Since they're planning on making a heavy IFV off of the Armata platform, wont that need to have a forward mounted engine? I thought Armata was supposed to retain the rear mounted engine configuration?

    Also, any news about an indirect fire support configuration? Some targets just don't need the Coalition gun system raining shells on them, it's a bit of overkill.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9423
    Points : 9915
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  George1 on Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:44 am

    medium 25-ton and a light 10-ton platform of the “Bumerang” family means 8x8 and 4x4 versions APC?

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Zivo on Tue Apr 17, 2012 10:34 am

    George1 wrote:medium 25-ton and a light 10-ton platform of the “Bumerang” family means 8x8 and 4x4 versions APC?

    Bumerang-25 should be similar to the current BTR platforms but better armored. Bumerang-10 is rather unknown, but as a 10 ton military vehicle, my guess would be 6x6, not 4x4. Supposedly, 10 will be sharing weapon systems with 25, so it will need good stabilization.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:01 pm

    Since they're planning on making a heavy IFV off of the Armata platform, wont that need to have a forward mounted engine? I thought Armata was supposed to retain the rear mounted engine configuration?

    The Armata vehicle is a family of vehicles, and includes front and rear mounted engine models.

    For tank use the engine will be rear mounted and for APC/IFV use and other vehicle use where it is useful it will have a front mounted engine. With an APC or IFV it is useful to have a front mounted engine as that means it can have a rear ramp entry/exit which makes getting in and out quicker and safer.

    For the artillery vehicle the gun and ammo are in the turret so there is no advantage to having a front mounted engine. If it had a small turret and ammo stored in the rear hull then a front mounted engine would allow loading ammo directly into the rear hull.

    Also, any news about an indirect fire support configuration? Some targets just don't need the Coalition gun system raining shells on them, it's a bit of overkill.

    Current tank heavy brigades have a combination of tube and rocket artillery... tube meaning 120mm mortar, 122mm SPA and 152mm SPA. For lighter close range targets the 120mm mortars would be very effective but 80km range Coalition shells with GLONASS guidance kits would make single shots very powerful and effective fire support.

    medium 25-ton and a light 10-ton platform of the “Bumerang” family means 8x8 and 4x4 versions APC?

    I suspect the 25 ton Boomerang will either be an 8x8 or 10x10 vehicle, while the 10 ton models will likely include both 4x4 and 6x6 vehicles ranging in weight from perhaps 8 to 14 tons or so depending on the role and weapon and equipment.

    Bumerang-25 should be similar to the current BTR platforms but better armored. Bumerang-10 is rather unknown, but as a 10 ton military vehicle, my guess would be 6x6, not 4x4. Supposedly, 10 will be sharing weapon systems with 25, so it will need good stabilization.

    Thinking of the new vehicles as specific vehicles makes things confusing...

    The Armata is not a tank. Boomerang is not a BTR. Kurganets-25 is not a BMP.

    Armata is a tank and a BMP and a BTR and a MSTA and a Pantsir-S1 and TOR.

    Every vehicle in the heavy tank and heavy motor rifle brigade will be based on an Armata chassis.

    Every vehicle in a wheeled medium tank and wheeled medium motor rifle brigade will be based on a Boomerang-25 chassis.

    Every vehicle in a tracked medium tank and tracked medium motor rifle brigade will be based on a Kurganets-25 chassis

    Every vehicle in a wheeled light tank and wheeled light motor rifle brigade will be based on a Boomerang-10 chassis.

    Armata will include front and rear engined versions, and Boomerang-10 will include 4 and 6 wheeled models and each vehicle will have a family engine with a higher rating for the heavier vehicles so that all the engines use the same parts but all the vehicles have comparable protection and mobility. The logistics chain just needs to support one engine type.

    The tank vehicle in the Armata brigade will have an electronics and weapon suite.

    The tank vehicle in the Boomerang-10 brigade will have the same sensors and electronics though it might substitute a lighter weapon because of the fact that the light brigade is the most mobile of the brigades and would never be sent into battle against an enemy heavy armour unit or strongpoint.

    For anti tank use it might carry Kornet EM missiles and use a 100mm rifled gun of a BMP-3 or perhaps a 45/57mm gun as its main gun, its sensors and electronics will be standardised with the Armata tank.

    Remember the Armata introduces unmanned turrets for crew safety to separate the crew from ammo and fuel so it is quite possible/likely that the Kurganets-25 and Boomerang-25/-10 do the same for the same reasons.

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Zivo on Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:36 pm

    The Armata vehicle is a family of vehicles, and includes front and rear mounted engine models.

    Interesting. Keeps the flammable engines off the front of the MBT configuration, and still maintain the rear ramp for IFV. As long as parts commonality can be maintained, sounds like a good setup.

    Current tank heavy brigades have a combination of tube and rocket artillery... tube meaning 120mm mortar, 122mm SPA and 152mm SPA. For lighter close range targets the 120mm mortars would be very effective but 80km range Coalition shells with GLONASS guidance kits would make single shots very powerful and effective fire support.

    I hope we see something like Vena or TOS. 152/155mm SPA is almost guaranteed.

    I suspect the 25 ton Boomerang will either be an 8x8 or 10x10 vehicle, while the 10 ton models will likely include both 4x4 and 6x6 vehicles ranging in weight from perhaps 8 to 14 tons or so depending on the role and weapon and equipment.

    Do you think Boomerang-10 will be similar to the US MRAPs? There are versions that come in both 4 and 6 wheeled configurations, the 6x6 versions weigh ~14 tons.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:57 am

    hope we see something like Vena or TOS.

    For the moment they are replacing the 122mm gun of the 2S1 with the 120mm gun/mortar instead of the Vena.

    I rather suspect that by the time they need to replace the 2S1/2S34 Hosta it will be on a kurganets-25/boomerang-25/Armata chassis. For the Boomerang-10 the 120mm weapon might be too heavy, but a light vehicle equivalent with an 82mm Vasilek equivalent would be interesting...

    TOS is being improved and upgraded so I would expect TOS on the new vehicle bases, though considering its role it might be for the heavy brigades only.

    Do you think Boomerang-10 will be similar to the US MRAPs? There are versions that come in both 4 and 6 wheeled configurations, the 6x6 versions weigh ~14 tons.

    When they first developed the theory of unified families of armoured vehicles they had four different vehicle families with the light vehicle codenamed Typhoon. I rather suspect they realised that the protection and mobility and fire power requirements for the light and medium wheeled vehicles were similar enough that one vehicle family could be used for both with a modular armour and weapons package so that you get the benefit of parts commonality and flexibility while eliminating a whole family of vehicles.

    I would suspect that the difference between the Boomerang-25 and Boomerang-10 will be obviously weight, protection and fire power. They will be fairly different in terms of weight so engines will be different too, but the basic layout will be similar with rear ramp entry for troops with side and roof entry/exit as well, so a front mounted engine is likely and perhaps an unmanned turret a possibility too.

    The 25 will have significantly more armour than a current BMP-3, whereas I suspect despite the lighter weight the 10 will have comparable protection to the current BMP-3 through the use of NERA and active protection systems and special armours.

    In many ways the 10 will focus on speed and fire power over armour, while the 25 will have better armour and still be mobile.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5629
    Points : 6282
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Viktor on Sun Apr 22, 2012 4:46 pm

    Russian just got the advance training ground to test new rounds and ammo and train tankers.


    Russia to Set Up Core Armor Testing Area in Urals



    Russia's core center to test armor and shells for it will be established at a testing range of a institute in Nizhny Tagil in the Urals, Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's deputy prime minister in charge of defense industry issues, said on Saturday.
    "The center will be major in Russia for tests of armor and shells for armor. It will be a core demonstration center where we will hold top international meetings," Rogozin told reporters.
    Russian tank makers will be also obliged to train tank crews for foreign customers.
    "We have a great export potential. We are going to widen it by training [the crews] and then [those trainees] will become armed forces trainers for our partners in foreign states," he also said, adding that hotels, showrooms and special simulators of military equipment will be build near the testing range soon.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:20 am

    I rather suspect they already had testing sites for ammo and armour, I suspect this is an all in one training and testing facility that allows testing new stuff and also training domestic and foreign crews in the use of the new stuff.

    I rather expect the new battle management systems and communications equipment and new sights and bits and bobs will require a high standard of training to use effectively so this new facility should be very useful... would be a neat place to visit... the ultimate fun park.... Twisted Evil

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:53 am

    Interesting that it mentions that the new centre will be used for training and international demonstrations.

    Still I guess having a new facility to cater for training and developing new armours and new ways to defeat armour and how to use new vehicles means they are prepared to export their new vehicle families at some stage...

    I suppose they could sell the light and medium brigade vehicle families without compromising their armour technology for their heavy vehicles...

    With modular armour they can keep the most effective for themselves and export a lower performing modular package.

    I would suspect a heavy brigade would be relatively expensive to buy and operate because every vehicle is 50+ tons, but of course with all the vehicles sharing a chassis they should all have the same mobility and protection levels, but they will be designed for fighting NATO level opponents.

    For lessor opponents using the lighter more mobile medium brigades might be more useful for some militaries.

    The problem is that the concept of one chassis to minimise the logistics tail of each brigade means that the idea of using Armata tanks with medium Kurganets-25/Boomerang-25 medium brigades means problems for the medium brigades logistic tail... for a start the medium brigade is an all amphibious unit but obviously the Armata family vehicles would be too heavy to be amphibious and would require recon vehicles to find suitable fording places in rivers so they can snorkel across.

    Obviously those recon vehicles will be Armata based too... like an IMR-3 engineer/recon vehicle, so by adding one you end up adding two or more... so the real solution is to keep the vehicles homogeneous so Armata for heavy brigades and either Kurganets-25 OR Boomerang-25 for medium brigades and Boomerang-10 for light brigades and no mixing and matching in Army Brigades.

    Obviously for paramilitary use wheeled vehicles are more useful on roads in towns and cities, and border patrol in rough country or places where there is deep mud or deep snow then medium tracked becomes useful.

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3225
    Points : 3349
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Vann7 on Wed May 16, 2012 9:56 am



    I cannot see anything exiciting about this Armata tank other than having a good crew protection. FOr what was told here.. it looks Armata will focus its protection ONLY in the crew.

    but at the same time being very weak in most other parts. whats the point of having a tank that can protect always its crew but at the same time can be knocked down the in 1 shot at far distances., cannot penetrate frontal armor of any western MBT and will be released in 2017? Imho i think Russia can do far better than that..
    Its like they focusing in the most useless things aside of crew protection. and real tank have to not only to protect its crew but also survive others attacks.. so can continue fighting. I really don't see how armata will have a chance againts any US ,NATO or Israel MBT.. crew will survive fine but the tank will be destroyed in one hit for not having a full protection. Russia can do far better than that.. They should focus in releasing a super tank with super protection and super gun. That could be sold worldwide .regardless of the weight and price. is not like they will be invaded any time soon.

    For example in Syria.. all those T-72 can be disable by a single rocket grenade. in that kind of urban warfare you don't need speed at all .. but crew and tank protection. Israel Merkavas in the other hand with their new Trophy system will be near imposible to shutdown by a single attack of any terrorist.
    So its better if they have 50 super tanks.. and slowly build them one by one.. than having 400 tanks that cannot defeat western ones at any distance from frontal attack. by the time they get close enough their tank will be disable.. Russian Airforce and Navy are doing very well..releasing state of the art ships and combat jets . but their land armored tanks is like many decades behind of americans MBT .

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 16, 2012 11:35 am

    I cannot see anything exiciting about this Armata tank other than having a good crew protection. FOr what was told here.. it looks Armata will focus its protection ONLY in the crew.

    First of all Armata is not a tank. Armata is a family of vehicles that includes a tank model.

    Armata has an external gun mount, and will be fitted for a new 152mm main gun even though the first models in service will be armed with 125mm weapons... much like the first Abrams had a rifled 105mm British gun while later models got a smoothbore German gun.

    The Armata tank does not only focus on protection, though that is obviously a key area for any tank... protection, firepower, and mobility are the only really important things on a tank.

    The main gun will be externally mounted and ammo will be stored below the turret ring protected by the very thick very steeply angled frontal armour.

    The previous limitations of projectile length will have been addressed as it will have been designed to handle much larger 152mm ammo too.

    whats the point of having a tank that can protect always its crew but at the same time can be knocked down the in 1 shot at far distances.

    What makes you think it can be knocked out with one shot from great distances?

    cannot penetrate frontal armor of any western MBT and will be released in 2017? Imho i think Russia can do far better than that..

    What makes you think it wont be able to penetrate the frontal armour of Western tanks?

    I really don't see how armata will have a chance againts any US ,NATO or Israel MBT.. crew will survive fine but the tank will be destroyed in one hit for not having a full protection.

    Why would it not have a chance against these western vehicles?

    They should focus in releasing a super tank with super protection and super gun. That could be sold worldwide .regardless of the weight and price. is not like they will be invaded any time soon.

    Which begs the question... how well are these western forces going to get on in combat against a Russian heavy tank brigade where they will need the absolute latest 120mm ammo to defeat the command and artillery vehicles in a Russian heavy brigade let alone the tanks. All the vehicles in a Russian heavy tank brigade will have very very heavy armour, while a NATO force will have thin weakly armoured IFVs and other light vehicles the Russians can pick off from extremely long range and leave the NATO tanks exposed and alone...

    For example in Syria.. all those T-72 can be disable by a single rocket grenade. in that kind of urban warfare you don't need speed at all .. but crew and tank protection. Israel Merkavas in the other hand with their new Trophy system will be near imposible to shutdown by a single attack of any terrorist.

    So the new Armata tank vehicle will be a T-72 despite being quite a few tons heavier?

    but their land armored tanks is like many decades behind of americans MBT .

    All the plans for the next generation US tanks have failed and most of them centred around making the tanks lighter and more mobile.

    The Armata tank will be 20 tons lighter than an Abrams.

    The heaviest armour on an Abrams is the turret front... Armata doesn't need heavy frontal turret armour because there is nothing in the turret to protect.

    Shoot the gun I hear you say... well the Armata can shoot the gun on the Abrams too if that is so easy... the armour protection around the gun on any MBT is weak because instead of armour there is the mantlet and the equipment to stabilise and elevate the gun which is not armoured.

    BTW if you read the rules in the introductions and rules section you might note that it is a forum rule that your first post should be an introduction.

    Too late now of course but please take the time to post an introduction thread in the rules and introductions section... I will say welcome to the forum to you there and then we can continue this conversation here. While you are making your introduction thread you might want to check out the introductions other people have posted so you know who you are talking to, and perhaps have a quick look through the rules so you know where you stand and what is expected of you here.

    Smile

    The main problem when talking about armour and Russian tanks is that most of the 125mm ammo we know about was made years ago for use against western armour that was in service years ago. Ammo being designed now will be designed to defeat current and near future opponents and will have rather different penetration performance. AFAIK the newer rounds they are using are DU and appear quite powerful. If that ammo was not effective and there was no growth potential in the calibre they could easily have adopted the new gun they have developed in a larger calibre. They clearly think there is still growth potential to stick with 125mm guns... or do you know better than them?

    The new vehicle will likely have a range of innovations... things mentioned include an independently elevating 30mm cannon, sensor fusion that includes but is not limited to Laser radar, thermal imagers in long, medium and short wavelengths, IRST, MMW radar, and digital video. The unified control stations allow any of the three crew to command, drive, and operate the weapons without changing seats.

    New armour and likely active and passive defence systems likely include upgrades in ERA or NERA, both active and passive defence systems including DIRCMs, and many other innovations... including the family vehicle concept that failed to reach service in the west.

    Sounds to me like the Russians are leading the way yet again.

    Mr.Kalishnikov47
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 298
    Points : 341
    Join date : 2012-02-25
    Age : 28
    Location : U.S.A

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Mr.Kalishnikov47 on Wed May 16, 2012 12:35 pm

    Vann7 wrote:
    So its better if they have 50 super tanks.. and slowly build them one by one.. .

    Super tanks. . Laughing Is that even a thing?

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3225
    Points : 3349
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Vann7 on Wed May 16, 2012 6:49 pm

    [quote="GarryB"]


    New armor and likely active and passive defence systems likely include upgrades in ERA or NERA, both active and passive defence systems including DIRCMs, and many other innovations... including the family vehicle concept that failed to reach service in the west.

    Sounds to me like the Russians are leading the way yet again.

    Apologies for lack of introduction.. just dont socialize much ..and english is not that good.
    Just another fan of Russian military .

    What i see is that Russian philosophy in their next generation tank is heading in the wrong direction.. They had a heavier tank already in test but they canceled because was "too expensive". Saving a life have no price and being able to destroy a Leo2 or Merkava4 frontal armor at 3-5km, with latest upgrades , have no price either.

    No one will invade Russia main land ever. Never we will see another main battle tank war inside Russia like WW2. Any kind of invasion to Russia will end in nuclear hits. so probabilities of happening is ZERO. So they don't need any speed tank ,or any fuel efficient tank to cover long distances. Uralvagonzavod already have t90's that are fast and efficient enough. Russia dont need of another MAIN battle tank that had to be produced in the many hundreds or thousands.

    The future Tank wars Russia and Allies will need to face are..
    Insurgents wars..so called revolutions ,that many say are instigated by the west. This is the new way of world wars.. Conflicts already happening against Russia is syria. And they need to provide them with a tank to fight in cities againts well armed rebels. and potential conflicts that will affect Russia security and tanks will be needed are.. another chenchen ,georgia war ,Lebanon ,Argelia,Armenia and countries around their borders.. what is called Urban warfare.


    So Russia needs like 2 new kind of tanks.. for special conflicts.

    1) They need something like an mini mobile fortress ,that can be deployed anywhere in any city and sustain all kind of heavy attacks from anti-tank weapons and even survive medium size road side bombs and fight back insurgents back with light artillery. doesn't need to be fast. in fact not even need move as long can be deployed in any place and HOLD IT ,saving the life of the security and holding the checkpoint. will save a lot of soldiers and civilians lives.. like in the conflict in syria ,that insurgent easily knockdown all their tanks with rockets grenades while tanks travels in cities. Terrorist have access to all americans and Russian anti-tank weapons with 1000 mm RHA penetration.


    2)and/or they need something (at least) at the level of Merkava-iv with Trophy System. There are israel reports already of that system defeating latest attacks from Rpg-29 in Gaza. with no damages. and other reports of Merkavas iv surviving 7-8 rocket grenades hits. So Israel have there a really powerful tank today ,that can sustain/evade 7-8 direct attacks of the latest rockets grenades,protecting its crew AND the tank.. and allow it to fight back.

    this new tank needs a powerful gun ,superior than anything produced in the west and penetrate frontal armor of any western tank at 2k-3km distance.


    It might look this new direction will be very expensive , but the point here is that Russia don't need to have them in big numbers. Its not a tank to defend their land from foreign invasion ,but to control insurgents in cities..so 60-80 of them should be more than enough for the small conflicts or conflicts with Georgia.they might need to face. and good enough to persuade any Western power from invading that country and losing their best tanks.

    in Summary i think Russia needs a new tank that is ideal for cities , hold check points and counter terrorist new style of urban warfare. But also a tank that can fight back any invasion from US and NATo to countries allied to Russia. It doesn't need to be produced in mass quantity ,. but have to be really strong to persuade any other nation interference. not just a tank that "will do good" in tank complete defense and ok in offense. Russians can do better than that and release something that will make the west return to the drawing board. Not just good but a tank with no contest. If Israel and Germany wich are very small countries with smaller economies can produce world class tanks why not Russia? They need to kick their asses harder and produce something revolutionary next time without taking shortcuts. and imho if they plan to delay their tank for 2017.. its better be really amazing and completely revolutionary in everything.. Or they will end isolated and surrounded by US and NATO with this new "revolutions" around the world.


    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Zivo on Thu May 17, 2012 3:07 am

    Maybe Russia should stop making tanks and just buy Abrams or Merkavas. Rolling Eyes

    But, the fact of the matter is that tanks were not designed for urban warfare, they're designed to charge across a field and blast each others fronts until something explodes.

    Remember the Armata platform is not one vehicle, but a series of vehicles. A few hundred of them most likely will be fitted with a 152mm gun, which will make swiss cheese of Merks, Type-99s, Leos, Abrams, and Chally's at any range in any weather. The problem is getting it on a cheap but well armored chassis that surpasses today's AFVs in terms of protection, with money left over for an APS like Arena 2 and Shtora 2. A 8-12 million dollar udertank will not work. It's better to have something like the T-90 with very good situational awareness, that is easy maintained to limit down-time, and very reliable. Which is exactly what Armata is supposed to be.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 on Thu May 17, 2012 6:25 am

    T-72s took like a dozen RPG hits in Chechnya, let's not generalize.

    One RPG in the right place can take out a Merkava.

    Not sure where you got any of those protection assumptions.
    If there is one thing I am not worried about - the Armata will have clearly superior protection to any current MBT in service. And with its modular nature, it will be prime for modernization over the decades, to keep up with any advantage.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 17, 2012 10:14 am

    Apologies for lack of introduction.. just dont socialize much ..and english is not that good.
    Just another fan of Russian military .

    It is fine, but please take the time to introduce yourself in the appropriate section before continuing to post please.

    As I said you can look at the other introductions if you are not sure what to put... you can put as much or as little as you wish, though some information is expected.

    It is important to remember we are all fans here and there is no right or wrong... especially when it comes to tank design...

    What i see is that Russian philosophy in their next generation tank is heading in the wrong direction.. They had a heavier tank already in test but they canceled because was "too expensive". Saving a life have no price and being able to destroy a Leo2 or Merkava4 frontal armor at 3-5km, with latest upgrades , have no price either.

    That change in philosophy is the best thing they could possibly do.

    The previous philosophy of trying to maintain a force to take on the entire war badly effected the Soviet economy and the Russian economy is a much smaller thing with a lot less people and resources.

    Very simply the new Russian policy is not to match the US and NATO tank for tank missile for missile, but to greatly reduce the quantity of forces and at the same time improve the quality. Mobility as well as protection and fire power are now seen as a valuable way for a reduced size force to cover the still enormous territory.

    If China wants to attack Russia with 20,000 tanks then the obvious response is not to send in 2,000 T-90s or 2,000 Armatas and hope for the best... the solution to that problem is a tactical nuke.

    For any problems smaller than that and the force they are planning will be sufficient.

    No one will invade Russia main land ever.

    Yet it has been invaded multiple times... most often when it was seen by outside powers as being weak. In the nuclear age however an invasion is very unlikely, but you can never be 100% sure of anything.

    Never we will see another main battle tank war inside Russia like WW2.

    The reality is that most wars Russia will be involved with will involve the use of tanks, and actually only a tiny percentage will actually involve significant tank on tank action. You just need to look at the armament choices of the Soviets during WWII to see that they considered the HE shell to be more important than the Armour piercing because in normal combat your tanks punch through the enemy lines and then break through to rear areas where the threats aren't heavy armoured vehicles... they are artillery and HQs and machine gun positions etc etc.

    So they don't need any speed tank ,or any fuel efficient tank to cover long distances. Uralvagonzavod already have t90's that are fast and efficient enough. Russia dont need of another MAIN battle tank that had to be produced in the many hundreds or thousands.

    They will always need a heavy gun platform able to provide heavy direct fire support to infantry units that is able to destroy any equivalent enemy vehicle.

    The future Tank wars Russia and Allies will need to face are..
    Insurgents wars..so called revolutions ,that many say are instigated by the west. This is the new way of world wars.. Conflicts already happening against Russia is syria. And they need to provide them with a tank to fight in cities againts well armed rebels. and potential conflicts that will affect Russia security and tanks will be needed are.. another chenchen ,georgia war ,Lebanon ,Argelia,Armenia and countries around their borders.. what is called Urban warfare.

    So to fight in an urban area you would need an entire unit with the same high level of protection so the IFVs can't be picked off leaving the tanks vulnerable. That would require a whole family of vehicles with tank level armour... lets call that family Armata?

    Please point out the western IFV of the Armata IFV?

    Who is behind whom?

    So Russia needs like 2 new kind of tanks.. for special conflicts.

    Actually Russia is designing and building 4 new kinds of tanks... a very heavy well protected and well armed Armata, a lighter but reasonably protected tracked Kurganets-25, a similarly protected wheeled Boomerang-25 and a light wheeled Boomerang-10... all except Armata are fully amphibious.

    1) They need something like an mini mobile fortress ,that can be deployed anywhere in any city and sustain all kind of heavy attacks from anti-tank weapons and even survive medium size road side bombs and fight back insurgents back with light artillery. doesn't need to be fast. in fact not even need move as long can be deployed in any place and HOLD IT ,saving the life of the security and holding the checkpoint. will save a lot of soldiers and civilians lives.. like in the conflict in syria ,that insurgent easily knockdown all their tanks with rockets grenades while tanks travels in cities. Terrorist have access to all americans and Russian anti-tank weapons with 1000 mm RHA penetration.

    Err.. that would be Armata... except it is not just a tank but an entire brigade of vehicles based on the same chassis with similar levels of protection and a variety of fire power.

    2)and/or they need something (at least) at the level of Merkava-iv with Trophy System. There are israel reports already of that system defeating latest attacks from Rpg-29 in Gaza. with no damages. and other reports of Merkavas iv surviving 7-8 rocket grenades hits. So Israel have there a really powerful tank today ,that can sustain/evade 7-8 direct attacks of the latest rockets grenades,protecting its crew AND the tank.. and allow it to fight back.

    The Armata family have a new engine family rated initially at 1,400hp, but expected to range up to 2,400hp in developed models... as a 50 ton vehicle it should be able to perform both the missions you list above.

    this new tank needs a powerful gun ,superior than anything produced in the west and penetrate frontal armor of any western tank at 2k-3km distance.

    Why does the gun need to be better than any western gun?
    The cost of fitting a 152mm main gun would be enormous and there would be lots of additional costs in terms of weight, in terms of ready to fire ammo, in terms of recoil and in many other aspects... like getting it into production.

    The simple facts are they have developed a new more powerful gun and have decided to delay its introduction into service because they think there is plenty of scope to improve the 125mm ammo for the moment... which is much cheaper and quicker.

    Having the most powerful gun means nothing. Having a very powerful gun in their Panthers and Tigers didn't help German tanks win the war.

    You design your gun to defeat the enemies armour... not to be bigger and more powerful than the oppositions gun... if the biggest gun won then they could easily put a 400mm cannon on a tracked chassis. The secret to good tank design is to have the smallest gun that will still do the job because bigger guns are just a burden.

    It might look this new direction will be very expensive ,

    It wont be cheap, but the modern thermal sights and battle management systems and new communications systems are all well overdue and will greatly improve the performance and cooperation within Russian military branches.

    Western armies have repeatedly tried to introduce new armour but they failed because they wanted to do everything with just one vehicle base.

    The Russians have sensibly split their requirements into four vehicle families that include tracked and wheeled, yet at the same time are actually dramatically reducing the number of different vehicles within their brigades by introducing families.

    but the point here is that Russia don't need to have them in big numbers. Its not a tank to defend their land from foreign invasion ,but to control insurgents in cities..so 60-80 of them should be more than enough for the small conflicts or conflicts with Georgia.they might need to face. and good enough to persuade any Western power from invading that country and losing their best tanks.

    Russia is an enormous country and they have decided that they need about 2,000 operational tanks with a further 4-6,000 tanks in storage in case a problem arises.

    I would suspect that by the end of the 2020s that a large proportion of the tank fleet will be Armatas but into the early 2020s I suspect about 1,000-1,500 Armatas will be in service and the remaining tanks will be T-90s and upgraded T-72s and by then the T-80s will be gone from Russian Army service.

    I actually think that by 2030 that the Armata will have been modified... shifting the crew stations to the hull for protection is a good idea, but shifting them to a van 800km away would also be a good idea too and their multi function crew stations would enable 24/7 operation where one crew might be on watch overnight while the other two rest, while when moving or not actually in combat one crew man can command and keep lookout and the other crew man can drive while the third sleeps on a rotation basis. Obviously in combat when firing and being fired upon all the crew are awake and working at their positions.

    It doesn't need to be produced in mass quantity ,. but have to be really strong to persuade any other nation interference. not just a tank that "will do good" in tank complete defense and ok in offense.

    Small numbers of super tanks would be too easy to pick off... even a KAB-500 TV guided bomb could take out any tank ever made or even ever thought of.

    Russians can do better than that and release something that will make the west return to the drawing board.

    The west wont be replacing their tank park any time soon... and if they did the most likely thing they would change is to reduce the weight so the tanks are easier to deploy. In fact if they managed to produce a tank like the T-90 they would be doing well.

    If Israel and Germany wich are very small countries with smaller economies can produce world class tanks why not Russia?

    Russia is very good at making world class tanks... what they lack is the world class marketing and propaganda capacity of the US and the west.

    They need to kick their asses harder and produce something revolutionary next time without taking shortcuts.

    Revolutionary is a risk... and an expensive one. Building a good new design from scratch to address the issues with the current vehicles is what it is all about... T-90AM is the upgrade with that goal and Armata is the from scratch solution to that problem.

    and imho if they plan to delay their tank for 2017.. its better be really amazing and completely revolutionary in everything.. Or they will end isolated and surrounded by US and NATO with this new "revolutions" around the world.

    But you already stated the chance of a US or NATO invasion of Russia is Zero.

    Armata needs to perform the roles Russia needs... an M4 with thermal scope and laser range finder and ballistic computer that calculates bullet drop, plus vertical foregrips, is on paper much better than a chinese made AKM knockoff... that of course does not mean the well fed and well trained US soldier carrying that M4 is safe from some semi-literate Afghan tribesman with some facepaint he thinks will protect him from bullets with his rusty chinese made AK.

    War simply doesn't work that way.

    t's better to have something like the T-90 with very good situational awareness, that is easy maintained to limit down-time, and very reliable. Which is exactly what Armata is supposed to be.

    Exactly. The 152mm or whatever calibre smoothbore gun has been developed along with its ammo... if the US decides to sell Abrams tanks to Georgia then you might see Armata get stationed in North and South Ossetia and they might get a few fitted with a larger calibre gun than the Armatas deployed elsewhere, but otherwise it is cheaper and easier to keep to the 125mm and explore its potential.

    The external gun mount and the lack of people in the turret means enormous penetrators could be used if they want to...

    One RPG in the right place can take out a Merkava.

    Exactly. One RPG in the right place can take out any tank ever made.

    As a general rule of thumb the front 60 degrees of a tank is supposed to stop the main gun ammo of the enemy at reasonable ranges. The side is supposed to stop the cannons fitted to IFVs and the rear is supposed to stop small arms fire only.

    Engines offer very little protection to anti armour weapons, and are prone to catching fire too, so even a light cannon like a 23mm ZU-23 can be deadly to any modern tank if it gets the rear of the tank lined up. Even from the front it can smash optics and shatter tracks and blind and immobilise a tank.

    Look at the credit given to the 30mm GAU-8 cannon of the A-10... at 800m its armour penetration performance is only about 70mm but because it is coming down from above it is enough to penetrate an engine deck or turret roof.

    The belly of any tank is another vulnerable area that can be targeted by various weapons.

    It is perfectly possible that small armoured unmanned robot vehicles could be designed with an upwards facing huge shaped charge explosive with a simple magnetic fuse that detect large heavy objects like tanks. You could drive them over a small hill using the video view from a UAV above or from the camera on the vehicles themselves and drive them under enemy tanks... the noise modern tanks make they will never hear them coming... cheap and simple... you could use play station controllers and have kids steer them...

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Sujoy on Thu May 17, 2012 10:23 am

    The T 90 MS still remains a very potent MBT . The only issue is that it's quite expensive. As of now we do not really know what the actual Armata would look like as Uralvagonzavod will only create a prototype by mid 2013.

    However, what we do know is that for the first time in the history of the Russian armed forces, a whole line of armoured vehicles will be created on the basis of the single Armata platform. This will save government funds and improve the mobility potential.It is planned for the new platform to be employed for developing modern heavy tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, engineering vehicles and other types of armour for tank and motorised infantry brigades. The idea of having a uniform platform is valid and future-proof.In the Soviet Union, there were three tanks with the same characteristics – the T-80, T-64 and T-72 – but the parts were not mutually substitutable. This proved very costly for the defence industry and the Ministry.

    Russia may later come up with a versatile wheeled platform in addition to the track platform that is now being developed.The Armada automatic loader will include 32 shells designed for various purposes, and the new gun (probably a 125mm one) with two-main stabilisation will be mounted on an unmanned turret.

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Zivo on Thu May 17, 2012 11:30 am

    I'm curious, perhaps this belongs in the NATO section, but what will Armata's rivals be? Any other nation got a serious adversary coming down the pipe during the 2015-20 time frame? I know there was that GCV program that didn't get anywhere, has Germany or Britain spoke about a program comparable to the Armata overhaul in the next few years or will my country keep trucking along in M1s for another three decades? Sad

    Just keep slapping crap on it, we'll eventually get it right!

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3225
    Points : 3349
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Vann7 on Thu May 17, 2012 12:50 pm

    [quote="GarryB"]
    Apologies for lack of introduction.. just dont socialize much ..and english is not that good.

    That change in philosophy is the best thing they could possibly do.

    The previous philosophy of trying to maintain a force to take on the entire war badly effected the Soviet economy and the Russian economy is a much smaller thing with a lot less people and resources.

    is not much different to create new 1000 tanks that are cheap over 80 tanks that are expensive. Point is RUssia don't need a new main battle tank..their will not had to be defended with tanks their main land. Doesnt look like any one will invade Russia anytime soon.


    If China wants to attack Russia with 20,000 tanks then the obvious response is not to send in 2,000 T-90s or 2,000 Armatas and hope for the best... the solution to that problem is a tactical nuke.

    So you confirm that RUssia do not need a new main battle tank to defend their land.. thanks.



    Yet it has been invaded multiple times... most often when it was seen by outside powers as being weak. In the nuclear age however an invasion is very unlikely, but you can never be 100% sure of anything.

    What im not sure why you argue with me about this.. who is going to invade Russia? and risk a nuclear war with them? CHina will invade russia?



    The reality is that most wars Russia will be involved with will involve the use of tanks,

    Not anymore when you have nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles. and submarines with powerful nukes.



    and actually only a tiny percentage will actually involve significant tank on tank action.


    So then you agree or not? Russia will be invaded yes or not?


    You just need to look at the armament choices of the Soviets during WWII to see that they considered the HE shell to be more important than the Armour piercing because in normal combat your tanks punch through the enemy lines and then break through to rear areas where the threats aren't heavy armoured vehicles... they are artillery and HQs and machine gun positions etc etc.


    But this is not world war2.. and the dynamics of war have change. now we live in the nuclear era and remote control fights. So the times of Land invasions between major powers have ended. US will not invade CHina, neither CHina or NATO invade Russia. Nuclear weapons have changed everything when it comes to major powers.



    So to fight in an urban area you would need an entire unit with the same high level of protection so the IFVs can't be picked off leaving the tanks vulnerable. That would require a whole family of vehicles with tank level armour... lets call that family Armata?


    No because for Urban warfare ,city fights against terrorist in a possible future rebelion in your city you don't need mobility ,speed and fuel efficiency ,you not even need a new engine to have a Tank stationed in a check point.. securing a zone. Not even you need a heavy gun to fight soft targets like terrorist. But you need an armored vehicle that can survive the best rounds of anti-tank weapons and Not only protect its crew.. but also protect the tank.. ARmata is not a heavily protected tank like western tanks but a heavily protected crew tank.. which is different. people survive but tank can be disable on its weaks parts.

    Actually Russia is designing and building 4 new kinds of tanks...


    Which is more expensive.. than building two. and focusing of their real needs.


    Err.. that would be Armata... except it is not just a tank but an entire brigade of vehicles based on the same chassis with similar levels of protection and a variety of fire power.


    Armata a mini fortress? last time i saw it was 20-30 tons lighter than a merkava4 or M1a2. and not 360 protection either. I think Russia can do something better than what already exist in the west.


    The Armata family have a new engine family rated initially at 1,400hp, but expected to range up to 2,400hp in developed models... as a 50 ton vehicle it should be able to perform both the missions you list above.


    But since is not a race competition the speed is irrelevant for the kind of conflicts Russia and its allies will face. and 50 ton tank is not even good for a start for a tank released in 2017.. its just a a bit better T90. and will not have 360 protection like merkava iv.



    Why does the gun need to be better than any western gun?

    To persuade any western power of any invasion on an allied country?
    If the west knows that a country in the africa or middle east had tanks that can easily penetrate its M1a2 frontal armor at 3km-5km, with their gun that will be very persuasive to avoid that kind of conflict if they could choose.



    The cost of fitting a 152mm main gun would be enormous and there would be lots of additional costs in terms of weight, in terms of ready to fire ammo, in terms of recoil and in many other aspects... like getting it into production.

    It will be more expensive to lose an allied country that buys lots of arms from you ,and to lose and strategic position in a zone that is important for your interest.


    The simple facts are they have developed a new more powerful gun and have decided to delay its introduction into service because they think there is plenty of scope to improve the 125mm ammo for the moment... which is much cheaper and quicker.


    Can you provide links about that ?


    Having the most powerful gun means nothing. Having a very powerful gun in their Panthers and Tigers didn't help German tanks win the war.


    Your mixing full scale wars with small Insurgents conflicts. Having a powerful tank with a powerful gun that can knockdown western tanks at 3-5km can persuade any US or NATO member to invade a small country you have interest. For the simply reason they sell tanks.. and losing many tanks in combats its bad for their future business and sales.


    Russia is an enormous country and they have decided that they need about 2,000 operational tanks with a further 4-6,000 tanks in storage in case a problem arises.


    problems with what? who is going to invade russia main land? They need zero new tanks to protect their main land. With their T90's and T72s and their airforce they will do fine for another georgian or chenchen war. the tanks they need are for their allies so they can defend from NATO and US invasions.


    Small numbers of super tanks would be too easy to pick off...

    Not for small conflicts and Rebels fights in your cities. You dont need hundreds of tanks to fight a couple hundreds pockets of rebels from time to time.



    even a KAB-500 TV guided bomb could take out any tank ever made or even ever thought of.


    Unfortunately for armed insurgents those aren't mobile and cannot be fired from their shoulders like rocket grenades . They will need a combat jet for that.


    Russians can do better than that and release something that will make the west return to the drawing board.


    The west wont be replacing their tank park any time soon... and if they did the most likely thing they would change is to reduce the weight so the tanks are easier to deploy. In fact if they managed to produce a tank like the T-90 they would be doing well.

    Why will they? they don't need a new tank to counter Russian tanks. Russia needs new tanks to counters theirs.. thats the issue .West is leading in tanks.


    Russia is very good at making world class tanks... what they lack is the world class marketing and propaganda capacity of the US and the west.

    No doubts Russia can produce high quality , problem is not their skills but their direction. They need a tank for the new kind of wars that the world experience. Rebels fights on cities. less dynamic than in wars and mostly Holding a zone or checkpoint. which expose the tank to be attacked easily in their weakest parts.


    Revolutionary is a risk...

    But there is a saying ,.who never take risk in life never wins anything.


    and imho if they plan to delay their tank for 2017.. its better be really amazing and completely revolutionary in everything.. Or they will end isolated and surrounded by US and NATO with this new "revolutions" around the world.

    But you already stated the chance of a US or NATO invasion of Russia is Zero.

    Correct.. but that doesnt means they cannot Encircle Russia with military bases as they doing now..and later provoke conflicts in the zone to weaken Russia economy and stability.


    t's better to have something like the T-90 with very good situational awareness, that is easy maintained to limit down-time, and very reliable. Which is exactly what Armata is supposed to be.

    but unfortunately T-90 cannot handle the kind of warfare Terrorist can push in middle east.. road side bombs and very well armed with Javelins ,predators and Kornets. and educated where to hit the tank. Why i tried to explain here Russia needs a new tank with 100% full protection not only to crew but also to the tank and specially designed for Cities combat to counter rebels. but also with a powerful GUn to knockdown any western tank frontal armor at 3-5km.


    Exactly. The 152mm or whatever calibre smoothbore gun has been developed along with its ammo... if the US decides to sell Abrams tanks to Georgia then you might see Armata get stationed in North and South Ossetia and they might get a few fitted with a larger calibre gun than the Armatas deployed elsewhere, but otherwise it is cheaper and easier to keep to the 125mm and explore its potential.

    Russia don't have much time to "explore" anything, if they wait too much it will be too late for them. and they will end without allies in the world ,and without countries to sell weapons. Looks at IRAN Syria and many others nations. They need a new tank as soon as possible that can crush anything the west have.

    One RPG in the right place can take out a Merkava.

    Not at all.. with their new trophy system.. Merkavas4 are essentially safe from anti-tank guns. and if the system miss they still have 360 heavy armor protection that can take 7-8 hits before shut down.

    IT looks we will have to wait and see but not very excited by their new planned tanks when they cutting corners for a "cost effective tanks" that doesn't sounds very exciting for a next generation tank. Israel and germany don't have the economy of Russia and they still manage to mass produce expensive tanks.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 17, 2012 3:37 pm


    is not much different to create new 1000 tanks that are cheap over 80 tanks that are expensive. Point is RUssia don't need a new main battle tank..their will not had to be defended with tanks their main land. Doesnt look like any one will invade Russia anytime soon.

    They have decided they want a new all Russian designed tank. The T-90 is Russian but directly based on the T-72.

    They don't need a new tank... the T-90 could soldier on for decades just as easily as western tanks.

    They want a new tank.

    So you confirm that RUssia do not need a new main battle tank to defend their land.. thanks.

    The US doesn't need tanks either... they can defend their country using only a nuclear deterrent. They choose to have tanks however, and so does Russia and many other countries on this planet.

    I find your comments a little confusing... here you seem to be trying to make the point they don't need a new tank, but then you talk about them needing 80 super tanks and then you talk about needing a super tank and a western style 70 ton tank.

    AFAIK the plan is to eventually have an all Armata fleet of heavy vehicles, but they will have four types of tanks... Armata, Kurganets-25, Boomerang-25, and Boomerang-10.

    What im not sure why you argue with me about this.. who is going to invade Russia? and risk a nuclear war with them? CHina will invade russia?

    Argue, no... discuss... yes, disagree... it seems yes too. Tanks are not just for invasions... the Russians have borders with a number of countries where there could be disputes or disagreements or skirmishes. Their last use of tanks was in 2008... are you trying to tell me this is the last time they will ever need to use tanks? Really?

    Who knows what the regions around Russia will look like in 10 years let alone 20.

    Not anymore when you have nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles. and submarines with powerful nukes.

    Russia has had those things for decades and they have not prevented a single conflict, though it could be argued that they stopped them escalating... they certainly didn't mean the Russians or the Soviets didn't need to use their tanks.

    So then you agree or not? Russia will be invaded yes or not?

    Kinda irrelevant isn't it? The US has used tanks on multiple occasions... when was it last invaded except at the movies?

    I think a full scale invasion of Russia is very unlikely, but I think the likelyhood of Russia ever needing to use military force in the future is 100% and that in any conflict heavy armour is useful. The west loves air power, but nothing holds ground like a tank.

    But this is not world war2.. and the dynamics of war have change. now we live in the nuclear era and remote control fights.

    No, it is not WWII, yet all the major powers still have tanks in their inventories... they have been declared obsolete lots of times, yet at the end of the day a heavily armoured platform with a big powerful gun has repeatedly proven useful in all sorts of combat situations.

    Nuclear weapons have changed everything when it comes to major powers.

    Russia and the US have had nuclear weapons for half a century... are you suggesting that they haven't needed tanks during that time either?
    The US has tanks in Afghanistan right now and Russia has tanks in South Ossetia and Abkhazia and used them in 2008 when Georgia invaded the former country.
    I believe the Russians still had their nuclear weapons and submarines when that happened.

    ARmata is not a heavily protected tank like western tanks but a heavily protected crew tank.. which is different. people survive but tank can be disable on its weaks parts.

    Perhaps you know something I don't? How do western tanks protect their tracks from being destroyed in combat? How do western tanks protect their engines and bellies and upper surfaces from attack?

    Armata will be fitted with a new active defence system... the Russians invented those by the way... they tested several systems including Drozd and Shater in the 1980s in Afghanistan and developed ARENA and Drozd 2 based on their experience.

    Which is more expensive.. than building two. and focusing of their real needs.

    Actually it will be cheaper. They are designing one electronics suite for their tanks and are applying it to 4 different vehicle chassis. The Armata brigades will be expensive but well protected... the other vehicles will be much cheaper to buy and operate because they will be lighter, yet designed for maximum protection and fitted with the same defence systems they will be fitting to their Armata tanks.

    For logistics there will be one type of vehicle in the brigade with one engine family with standardised parts. Ammo, weapons, and electronics will be standardised across the fleet. Right now they have T-72s, T-80s, and T-90s of various marks and models with parts and systems that are not compatible. They also have a lot of older tanks that don't even use the same ammo for their main guns...

    Armata a mini fortress? last time i saw it was 20-30 tons lighter than a merkava4 or M1a2. and not 360 protection either. I think Russia can do something better than what already exist in the west.

    What is this 360 degree protection crap? An M1A2 can be taken out by a 1970s era RPG-7 with 300mm penetration simply by shooting it into the engine bay and setting the engine on fire. Merkava 4 has a rear hatch door in the hull... do you really think that door offers the same protection level as the front armour?

    But since is not a race competition the speed is irrelevant for the kind of conflicts Russia and its allies will face.

    It is not a race, but mobility is important for any platform on the battlefield and a moving target is always harder to hit than a stationary target... remember the ground is not always perfectly flat and any sniper will tell you it is orders of magnitude harder to get a precise hit on a target that is moving... especially if it is changing direction and speed every few seconds... your best chance for a kill then is to fire a guided round...

    and 50 ton tank is not even good for a start for a tank released in 2017.. its just a a bit better T90. and will not have 360 protection like merkava iv.

    How have they managed to fit the Merkava IV with 1,000mmm of armour on its sides and rear?

    ...and please don't say trophy because that would mean you are assuming the country that invented the APS will not be developing a new system for its new tank... which would be an absurd assumption.

    To persuade any western power of any invasion on an allied country?

    I rather suspect the Topol-M and Yars will do that... besides 1,200mm penetration out to 8.5km with the Kornet-EM probably sends a message too.

    If the west knows that a country in the africa or middle east had tanks that can easily penetrate its M1a2 frontal armor at 3km-5km, with their gun that will be very persuasive to avoid that kind of conflict if they could choose.

    But the race between gun and armour is continuous the wide deployment of a new Russian heavy gun would lead to the rapid deployment of extra addon armour modules for western vehicles... if the Russians don't deploy their 152mm gun then it is possible that the next generation western vehicles might be much lighter to make them cheaper to operate and more deployable and also more reliant on APS and ERA/NERA and other weight saving technologies. Once they get Armata into service it would just be a short overhaul in the workshop to replace the 125mm with the new heavier gun, but while they have the 125mm gun fitted then there is no urgency in the west to react to it...

    It will be more expensive to lose an allied country that buys lots of arms from you ,and to lose and strategic position in a zone that is important for your interest.

    There is little alternative. Russia lost the eastern european countries as a military market in the early 1990s, and has lost a few other markets since, but most of their current clients will not suddenly start buying from China or the west because China isn't offering anything better than a T-90S let alone a T-90SM or Armata, and if they could buy western they probably already would have, but for some reason they went for Russian stuff. If it was price then a T-90SM will be more attractive than an Armata... especially when Armata will likely not be for sale for the next decade as they will be so busy putting out Armata chassis for all the vehicles in a heavy tank or heavy motor rifle brigade in Russia.

    Can you provide links about that ?

    Nothing specific. The 15xmm gun of the T-95 was fully developed and the vehicle was in testing and was ready for initial production... so there is little reason for not putting it into the Armata... unless they feel that the 125mm gun has growth potential. The Armata design allows for 15xmm ammo to be stored below the turret ring and loaded into the externally mounted main gun, so by fitting a 125mm gun they pretty much should be able to load up very very long penetrators.

    Your mixing full scale wars with small Insurgents conflicts.

    Problems with insurgents in small conflicts is not Russian Army business, that would be handled by MVD troops... interior ministry troops.

    Having a powerful tank with a powerful gun that can knockdown western tanks at 3-5km can persuade any US or NATO member to invade a small country you have interest.

    The 125mm gun is a powerful gun able to engage targets out to 6km+ with guided shells that can hit moving targets including helos and vehicles like cars or vans.

    problems with what? who is going to invade russia main land?

    Border problems still happen in this day and age. Who is going to invade the UK? Why do they need tanks? Who is going to invade the US? Or France? Or Germany?

    the tanks they need are for their allies so they can defend from NATO and US invasions.

    But there is no such thing as a tank that would stop a US or NATO invasion. If Iraq had M1A2 Abrams tanks and the US was equipped with M60s do you really think the Iraqis would have won? The US simply would have used their air power and artillery more. In Afghanistan they used their air power and the Northern Alliance... send in a large force of Northern Alliance fighters into an area... the Taliban can either concentrate their forces and repulse the attack... in which case they get hammered by air strikes, or they remain in small pockets which are easy for the larger force of Northern Alliance soldiers to clean up, or they can run away. The point is that they can do any or all of those things but in the end they are either dead because they stood and fought, or they are in Pakistan because running was all they could do.

    If the Iraqis had uber tanks they could simply have done the same.

    Not for small conflicts and Rebels fights in your cities. You dont need hundreds of tanks to fight a couple hundreds pockets of rebels from time to time.

    Rebels are not stupid. They will attack where you are weak and run away when you are strong. Fighting terrorists like Dagestan or Chechnia is MVD work.

    Unfortunately for armed insurgents those aren't mobile and cannot be fired from their shoulders like rocket grenades . They will need a combat jet for that.

    Packing 500kgs of HE in a sewer and then waiting for the tank to drive over it would have the same effect. There is no level of protection that cannot be defeated by a bigger warhead.

    Why will they? they don't need a new tank to counter Russian tanks. Russia needs new tanks to counters theirs.. thats the issue .West is leading in tanks.

    I actually disagree. There are certain areas where western tanks currently have an advantage... like data communication and battle management C4IR, but such things are military wide... just fitting C4IR systems to tanks is not enough... it has to be fitted to everything to be effective.
    In terms of protection Russian tanks have comparable protection in tanks that are 20 tons lighter than western models... and you claim the west has a significant advantage. In many ways the adoption of the T-90AM would secure parity for Russia in most significant areas at a much lower price. Armata will achieve superiority in several areas... generational superiority in fact... which is why it is so important.

    Rebels fights on cities. less dynamic than in wars and mostly Holding a zone or checkpoint. which expose the tank to be attacked easily in their weakest parts.

    We have covered this. The concept of the heavy tank and heavy motor rifle brigade is to have a brigade with all the vehicles sharing MBT level protection so the troop carriers can't be picked off leaving the tanks exposed and vulnerable.
    An Armata brigade is much better prepared to fight in an urban area than an Abrams brigade with all those soft Bradleys and other light vehicles...

    If there is one vehicle that would suit urban combat it will be the Armata brigade.

    its better be really amazing and completely revolutionary in everything..

    It is a full family of heavy armoured vehicles. It is not the death star.

    Correct.. but that doesnt means they cannot Encircle Russia with military bases as they doing now..and later provoke conflicts in the zone to weaken Russia economy and stability.

    Conflicts where a tank might be useful? Conflicts where the main protagonist might not be a rebel, but a military force like Georgia etc.

    but unfortunately T-90 cannot handle the kind of warfare Terrorist can push in middle east.. road side bombs and very well armed with Javelins ,predators and Kornets.

    Exactly which tank are you thinking of that can? And please don't suggest any western tanks or I will post photos of burning hulks of vehicles hit by amatures compared with the new stuff the Russians have had in service for decades... RPG-29 is a 105mm calibre weapon... the RPG-28 is a 125mm calibre weapon with even better performance and larger weapons are likely being worked on now.

    Why i tried to explain here Russia needs a new tank with 100% full protection not only to crew but also to the tank and specially designed for Cities combat to counter rebels.

    What I tried to explain is 100% 360 degree protection with armour is simply not possible.

    Russia don't have much time to "explore" anything, if they wait too much it will be too late for them. and they will end without allies in the world ,and without countries to sell weapons.

    Actually I think it is the west that is running out of time. I am pretty sure most countries are sick of hearing the moralistic preaching of the west in general and the US in particular... especially when it demands certain things from other countries yet ignores those same rules itself.
    There are plenty of countries around the world prepared to do business with Russia, and they have plenty of resources to keep the west interested too.

    The Russians have just been through an almost 20 year period of almost zero funding for military development. The 125mm gun ammo makers have not been asleep, but there has been little or no money for real testing, so they will have had to rely on free stuff, like FSB information about their rivals and the new machine technology that will enable them to produce new rounds and new computers for designing new ammo etc etc. Physics is still the same so they can do their calculations. What has changed with the new T-90A and T-90AM and even more so with the Armata tank is that the former limitation on projectile length to fit it in the autoloader is now gone and they can make them much longer, which will greatly increase penetration. Making a penetrator longer concentrates more weight on the tip of the penetrator on impact and during penetration. Making it out of new Depleted Uranium alloys they have developed further improves performance, and of course firing the new ammo in the new guns developed for the newer tanks that operate at higher pressures means you can accelerate the projectiles to higher speeds... which also increases penetration too... there are plenty of areas to improve the performance of the 125mm rounds... and that includes terminal guidance for the guided missiles and added top attack features.

    Looks at IRAN Syria and many others nations. They need a new tank as soon as possible that can crush anything the west have.

    And if Syria suddenly had such a vehicle in widespread service do you think that would stop the insurrection going on there being fuelled from Turkey and Saudi Arabia?

    Not at all.. with their new trophy system.. Merkavas4 are essentially safe from anti-tank guns. and if the system miss they still have 360 heavy armor protection that can take 7-8 hits before shut down.

    It does not take a genius to work out any measure can have a countermeasure. Trophy uses some method to detect incoming threats... that method to detect incoming threats can be fooled or jammed... or overwhelmed... just get 4 guys with RPGs from 4 different directions to fire at once at the same vehicle...

    BTW what makes you think Armata wont be fitted with APS? It will also have other passive protection systems including an improved Nakidka, improved Shtora, some ARENA replacement and new NERA, plus very thick and very steeply angled main armour.

    IT looks we will have to wait and see but not very excited by their new planned tanks when they cutting corners for a "cost effective tanks" that doesn't sounds very exciting for a next generation tank.

    They are buying cost effective tanks now because the tanks being bought now are place holders... gap fillers. If they spend a fortune on T-90AMs now they will have less money in 2015 to buy Armatas, so they buy cheaper tanks now so they can buy more Armatas when they are available and in production.

    Israel and germany don't have the economy of Russia and they still manage to mass produce expensive tanks.

    When was the last time either of those two countries bought a large number of new tanks? How old is the Leopard II?
    The fact that Russia doesn't want to blow its budget on new tanks now is basic common sense... you don't spend all your money on upgrades and then have no money left in 2015 to buy any of the new generation tanks you have also been spending money developing... that is just stupid.

    It is like the PAK FA... they really don't need the PAK FA or the Armata, but they have decided they want a new state of the art vehicle. The Su-35 and T-90AM would do the job for the next 20 years or so, but they have decided they want state of the art and there is no point in buying hundreds of Su-35s or thousands of T-90AMs right now when they have spent the money to develop their replacements.

    Buy a few Su-35s and T-90AMs and then get the new products into service. Once you have the PAK FA and Armata in service you will know if it is successful and how much it will cost and then you can decide whether you need 200 PAK FAs and 2,000 Armatas or whether a smaller number with an added order of Su-35s and T-90AMs is the best solution.

    ali.a.r
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 105
    Points : 110
    Join date : 2011-11-04

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  ali.a.r on Thu May 17, 2012 6:50 pm

    As much as I hate to interrupt this very interesting "debate/discussion", I have a question thats been nagging me for a while.

    Take a future heavy/Armata brigade for example. What about the brigades recon forces or anyone else who needs fast vehicles? I don't think they would take kindly to having to ride in a 50 ton monster.

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:11 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:11 am