Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+71
Azi
sepheronx
Arkanghelsk
Podlodka77
Scorpius
Cheetah
Tingsay
Rasisuki Nebia
Shaun901901
Broski
Lennox
Swede55
Mir
ALAMO
RTN
jhelb
flamming_python
Russian_Patriot_
x_54_u43
Backman
limb
Kiko
TMA1
Lurk83
lyle6
The_Observer
Atmosphere
SeigSoloyvov
lancelot
mnztr
Stealthflanker
Viktor
JohninMK
Sujoy
xeno
Mindstorm
TheArmenian
d_taddei2
AlfaT8
dino00
thegopnik
ahmedfire
AJ-47
marcellogo
Arrow
PhSt
Kimppis
miketheterrible
BenVaserlan
Vann7
Cyberspec
william.boutros
Walther von Oldenburg
GarryB
kvs
bolshevik345
LMFS
Hole
hoom
medo
ult
The-thing-next-door
franco
George1
Big_Gazza
higurashihougi
calripson
magnumcromagnon
PapaDragon
Isos
kumbor
75 posters

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    avatar
    kumbor


    Posts : 312
    Points : 304
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 Empty [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  kumbor Fri Aug 31, 2018 7:06 am

    LMFS wrote:Two questions:

    1) Is 125 mm not enough? (i.e. something notably bigger being necessary to counter development of APS?)
    2) Would not the amount of ammo onboard be tank be notably reduced with this huge calibre?

    Thanks!

    125mm is still enough, as bigger calibres in the West are largely experimental. New construction of autolader in Armata enables new, longer KE projectiles to be used. 152mm gun on object292 proved the possibility of installing such a gun on tank chassis. Trials were successful, but number of rounds is notably reduced. Also, tank guns have limited elevation due to small space within turret, typically -5/+15 degs on T72 and variants. SP gun needs much bigger elevation in order to be useful as an artillery ordnance, while the express use of a tank is combat with other tanks.
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5094
    Points : 5090
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  LMFS Fri Aug 31, 2018 10:57 am

    Thanks kumbor!
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38765
    Points : 39261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  GarryB Fri Aug 31, 2018 1:48 pm


    I find that T-14 Armata MBT looks to me like heavy tank "танк прорыва" of the past, used in rather limited numbers on major directions of the attack as spearheads. They should be followed by the main mass of T-90, modernised T-80 and T-72BZs, as well as other armoured vehicles, BMPs and BTRs, including those with ATGMs.

    Except they are actually lighter than Tiger IIs and will be operated in divisions where every vehicle is armata based... ideal for urban combat... against very well equipped enemies.

    In-tank warfare whoever sees who first generally will get the kill.

    Normally would agree, but when one side has APS systems able to destabilise APFSDS rounds, then it might take quite a few shots to get a kill... if it is even possible from the front at long range...

    2) Would not the amount of ammo onboard be tank be notably reduced with this huge calibre?

    If they arm it with a BB gun they could carry millions of rounds.... Smile

    Larger calibre increases internal volume for smarter missiles and more powerful warheads.


    125mm is still enough, as bigger calibres in the West are largely experimental.

    125mm is enough but it has nothing to do with the size of western guns and more to do with western armour... they will change to 152mm when they think 125mm wont be powerful enough to do the job...

    SP gun needs much bigger elevation in order to be useful as an artillery ordnance, while the express use of a tank is combat with other tanks.

    Also as mentioned a self propelled gun is artillery so its primary round is usually HE... which benefits from being spun in flight to stabilise it and a big muzzle brake to reduce recoil.

    A tank gun relies on velocity (APFSDS) and calibre (HEAT)... and a long narrow projectile can't be spun fast enough to stabilise it... which is why darts and arrows and APFSDS rounds have fins to stabilise them (literally what FS stands for in APFSDS), and HEAT warheads don't like to be spun as that reduces their penetration.

    A tank gun is smoothbore with fin stabilised rounds because velocity is more important and no muzzle brake as they can damage sabots which effects accuracy of APFSDS rounds...

    Smoothbores are cheaper to make... easier to clean, can be lighter than a rifled gun and can either be shorter for the same muzzle velocity, or the same length with better performance.
    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 10504
    Points : 10482
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 47
    Location : Scholzistan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Hole Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:50 pm

    The heavier gun has nothing to do with more range. The T-14 can hit targets that are 4 - 6 km away with KE and HEAT projectiles, 5 - 8 km away with gun-launched laser-guided missiles and 15 - 20 km away in indirect fire mode. With the 152mm gun they would be able to fire a KE projectile that could penetrate any armour in a distance of 5 - 6 km.
    avatar
    kumbor


    Posts : 312
    Points : 304
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  kumbor Fri Aug 31, 2018 5:02 pm

    Hole wrote:The heavier gun has nothing to do with more range. The T-14 can hit targets that are 4 - 6 km away with KE and HEAT projectiles, 5 - 8 km away with gun-launched laser-guided missiles and 15 - 20 km away in indirect fire mode. With the 152mm gun they would be able to fire a KE projectile that could penetrate any armour in a distance of 5 - 6 km.

    But also, 152mm gun has immense recoil forces and carries less rounds, not more than 30 I think, in comparison with 42-44 in 125mm gun. We still don`t know nothing about gunwear in 152mm gun, which can be excessive, concerning pressure buildup, copper and powder residues in the barrel. On the other side, 152mm round not only can defeat any existing armour if KE, but can easily knock off tank turret if common HE. The effective hit distance depends more on FCS employed.
    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 10504
    Points : 10482
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 47
    Location : Scholzistan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Hole Fri Aug 31, 2018 7:34 pm

    Today a 152mm tank gun would be pure Overkill. Like firing a P-1000 on a small fishing vessel. You could do it... but why?
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11273
    Points : 11243
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Isos Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:14 pm

    Hole wrote:Today a 152mm tank gun would be pure Overkill. Like firing a P-1000 on a small fishing vessel. You could do it... but why?

    Overkill has a psychologic impact on any human. It basicaly means you can't counter it so you are dead if it sees you.

    Anyway 152 is big. So less rounds in the tank. They should have developed something between 125 and 152 like a 130 or 135mm gun. It would certainly be enough against any existing and future tank.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon


    Posts : 13243
    Points : 13285
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  PapaDragon Fri Aug 31, 2018 11:58 pm

    Isos wrote:
    Hole wrote:Today a 152mm tank gun would be pure Overkill. Like firing a P-1000 on a small fishing vessel. You could do it... but why?

    Overkill has a psychologic impact on any human. It basicaly means you can't counter it so you are dead if it sees you.

    Anyway 152 is big. So less rounds in the tank. They should have developed something between 125 and 152 like a 130 or 135mm gun. It would certainly be enough against any existing and future tank.

    125mm is already enough against any existing and future tank, that's why they shelved 152mm version for now
    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 10504
    Points : 10482
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 47
    Location : Scholzistan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Hole Sat Sep 01, 2018 7:58 am

    Or the old Sturmgeschütz is making a comeback.

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 003110
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38765
    Points : 39261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  GarryB Mon Sep 03, 2018 5:01 am

    The heavier gun has nothing to do with more range.

    Being able to hit a target at 6km with a 125mm APFSDS round is one thing, but it actually penetrating the armour of the target it hits is another thing entirely.

    A 125mm gun might be able to hit targets to 4-6km but a 5.56mm bullet from an M16 might hit a target at 800m too.

    5.56mm bullets have not proved very effective at ranges greater than 250m or so.

    In practical terms you are not going to normally be shooting targets in combat at more than 250m anyway... very occasionally you might spot something further away, but if it is camouflaged and moving and you are being shot at... having a .338 Lapua magnum chambered assault rifle with an effective range of 1.5km is of no real value without actually being a sniper.

    When the 125mm no longer penetrates enemy armour at useful distances they can revert to the 152mm main gun.

    They might create separate units with tanks fitted with 152mm guns and leave the rest at 125mm because the 125mm can still deal with 90% of battlefield targets.

    Overkill has a psychologic impact on any human. It basicaly means you can't counter it so you are dead if it sees you.

    The bigger gun also comes at a cost in terms of price and operational use...

    A 152mm gun would certainly have less ready to fire rounds, but then if your 125mm rounds are not penetrating... how useful will those extra rounds be?

    One could say fewer rounds of 152mm ammo is OK because it will need fewer rounds to do its job.

    If some hard target needs 152mm rounds to deal with it then Coalition can provide 152mm HE rounds for that role or indeed likely some sort of diving top attack anti armour round that is guided and packs a real punch...
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon


    Posts : 8138
    Points : 8273
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  magnumcromagnon Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:48 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    Hole wrote:Today a 152mm tank gun would be pure Overkill. Like firing a P-1000 on a small fishing vessel. You could do it... but why?

    Overkill has a psychologic impact on any human. It basicaly means you can't counter it so you are dead if it sees you.

    Anyway 152 is big. So less rounds in the tank. They should have developed something between 125 and 152 like a 130 or 135mm gun. It would certainly be enough against any existing and future tank.

    125mm is already enough against any existing and future tank, that's why they shelved 152mm version for now

    1.) I think you might be missing the bigger potential of a 152 mm cannon, and here's a hint, it's not tank warfare. Take the RPO Shmel launcher. It's thermobaric munitions at a 93 mm diameter has the same destructive potential as a 155 mm HE-Frag shell...now think about that potential scaled up to 152 mm cannon thermobaric shells. At 152 mm, you might see destructive potential rivaling a 203 mm HE-Frag shell, or maybe close to 240 mm mortal HE-Frag shelsl. While it's possible they could do something similar with with the 125 mm, the best thing a 152 mm shell could bring would be both the destructive potential and the extended range.

    2.) Now lets also think about the potential biggest threats to MBT's....short answer it's not other MBT's. The two biggest threats facing MBT's as of now (taking in to consideration the recent conflicts in the ME) are insurgents with man-portable ATGM's, and modern MLRS. In my opinion the 152 mm is better suited to fight these threats because of the additional range it could bring, that the 125 mm couldn't. Destructive potential without sacrificing extended range is the main point here.

    3.) With a guided thermobaric shells, at 152 mm, you could potential engage insurgents ATGM's from possible stand-off ranges as far as 10-15 km's, and destructive potential nearing a 203 mm HE-Frag shells. You could literally clear out a 5 story buildings harboring insurgents (think Syria, Chechnya), hitting every floor, hitting windows from opposite ends, either obliterating or suffocating them. 10 to 15 shells could potential see a partial collapse of one side of a multi-story building, killing many insurgents and exposing the rest in the process.

    4.) Using some technology from Koalitsiya, stand-off range shells could be developed, maybe with a glide-kit you could see a shell that has a range of 40-60 km's. Because it's smooth-bored, it wont have the 70 km range base standard that Koalitsiya has, so this is why a glide-kit would be necessary. Naturally this shell will be significantly less powerful than the thermobaric guided shell because it will be HE-Frag, and the warhead weight would be decreased as well in favor of extended range. This wouldn't be a problem because this shell's main purpose would be as a anti-MLRS munition, and most MLRS are minimally armored, the main purpose is it's range, giving it the ability to engage MLRS on a more even-footing. Even a UAV could be developed from that shell.

    5.) Don't think the 152 mm T-14 would be the standard version replacing the 125 mm version, think if it as a support version complimenting the 125 mm version. May'be a good ratio would be for every '10' 125 mm T-14's, there should probably '1' 152 mm version, situated behind (may'be 500 m, to 1 km) advancing and forward operating 125 mm T-14's.
    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 10504
    Points : 10482
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 47
    Location : Scholzistan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Hole Thu Sep 06, 2018 8:28 am

    There is artillery to do this.
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11273
    Points : 11243
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Isos Thu Sep 06, 2018 9:02 am


    5.) Don't think the 152 mm T-14 would be the standard version replacing the 125 mm version, think if it as a support version complimenting the 125 mm version. May'be a good ratio would be for every '10' 125 mm T-14's, there should probably '1' 152 mm version, situated behind (may'be 500 m, to 1 km) advancing and forward operating 125 mm T-14

    That could be the commander version which usally has more thing inside to coordinate the tanks around.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon


    Posts : 8138
    Points : 8273
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  magnumcromagnon Thu Sep 06, 2018 6:28 pm

    Hole wrote:There is artillery to do this.

    The same argument could be said for the 57 mm autocannon...there's already Sosna, Pantsir, Tunguska, Tor, so why do you need the 57 mm gun? Because the vehicle will be able the travel with the armored squadron with adequate armor. Also it's good not to put all your eggs in one basket, you could have artillery and MLRS 50 km's away, but it's good to have some heavy fire power within 10-15 km's, with better situational awareness. Also artillery is either lightly armored, or too big of a target. The 152 mm smooth-bore would be better suited for direct fire (as in shooting inside buildings), and thermobaric shells are better used hitting inside buildings, not as good as indirect fire (something that artillery would do, hitting on top of buildings). Also indirect fire of artillery isn't as good at clearing out floors in a building, because you limited to just hitting the top of the buildings, which gives insurgents time to escape through the lower floors. The direct fire from the smooth-bore will allow you to clear out each floor, and the thermobaric shells will consume the oxygen, leaving just dust and smoke in each floor, leaving them choking and blind. You would be able to clear out each floor, from the bottom floor to the top floor, leaving no room for the insurgents to escape. Again you could have direct fire from your artillery, but artillery is usually too big of a a target or too lightly armored, and it also defeats the purpose of artillery to get so close to the action. Also you could technically take on other MLRS with your own MLRS/Artillery, but it's always good not to put all you eggs in one basket, and just adding an additional ability to your T-14's, adding the capability would not be a huge cost expenditure because the numbers of 152 mm smooth-bore would significantly less than their 125 mm counter-part.

    Isos wrote: That could be the commander version which usally has more thing inside to coordinate the tanks around.

    No. The commander vehicle would be entirely different vehicle, probably based on the T-15 AFV, and not the T-14. The T-15 command vehicle would be heavily armored, but lightly armed, because most of the eternal space would be dedicated to people sitting at their desktop computers. Something like 3 crew members in the front (Driver, Commander, and light or heavy machine turret controller) and 8 commanders controlling various situational awareness scenarios within their Armata squadron. The T-14 152 mm smooth-bore compliments the 125 mm T-14 because it allows direct fire engagement with either AFV's or bunkered insurgents at safer stand off ranges, but their numbers should be significantly less than the 125 mm variant.
    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 10504
    Points : 10482
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 47
    Location : Scholzistan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Hole Thu Sep 06, 2018 8:11 pm

    There´s already HE-FRAG munition for the 125mm gun. To kill some guys in a civilian building 300 metres before your tank you don´t need more power.

    What you want is a Sturmgeschütz, but that would be somehting else, not a T-14 tank. Where are we now? T-17? So lets call it the T-17 fire support vehicle.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon


    Posts : 8138
    Points : 8273
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  magnumcromagnon Thu Sep 06, 2018 9:02 pm

    Hole wrote:There´s already HE-FRAG munition for the 125mm gun. To kill some guys in a civilian building 300 metres before your tank you don´t need more power.

    What you want is a Sturmgeschütz, but that would be somehting else, not a T-14 tank. Where are we now? T-17? So lets call it the T-17 fire support vehicle.

    300 meters is within the range of many man-portable ATGM's (i.e. Kornet-E max range of 5.5 km's), you'd need to be in a range beyond 6 km's to be safe, the 152 mm would have that over 125 mm. Also thermobaric shells also have nearly double the destructive power of HE-Frag shells, but are less effective in open-air outdoor engagements, however are vastly superior to HE-Frag's in indoor engagements, due to the fact that fragmentation shrapnel can get blocked within indoor interiors, meanwhile thermobaric munitions tend to 'bring-the-house-down.' Thermobaric shells also consume the oxygen within buildings, making it hard to breathe for the insurgents. As I mentioned before, you could potentially make a thermobaric shell for 125 mm, but the 152 mm would give the standoff range too comfortably engage ATGM infantry within safe distance.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38765
    Points : 39261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  GarryB Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:19 pm

    1.) I think you might be missing the bigger potential of a 152 mm cannon, and here's a hint, it's not tank warfare. Take the RPO Shmel launcher. It's thermobaric munitions at a 93 mm diameter has the same destructive potential as a 155 mm HE-Frag shell...now think about that potential scaled up to 152 mm cannon thermobaric shells. At 152 mm, you might see destructive potential rivaling a 203 mm HE-Frag shell, or maybe close to 240 mm mortal HE-Frag shelsl. While it's possible they could do something similar with with the 125 mm, the best thing a 152 mm shell could bring would be both the destructive potential and the extended range.

    TOS for ranges up to about 12km in the current version and Smerch out to probably 120km or more... plus coalition...

    Certainly no tank gun will be firing at targets more than 110km away.

    2.) Now lets also think about the potential biggest threats to MBT's....short answer it's not other MBT's. The two biggest threats facing MBT's as of now (taking in to consideration the recent conflicts in the ME) are insurgents with man-portable ATGM's, and modern MLRS. In my opinion the 152 mm is better suited to fight these threats because of the additional range it could bring, that the 125 mm couldn't. Destructive potential without sacrificing extended range is the main point here.

    Insurgents can be dealt with using standard weapons on IFVs and APCs and the roof mounted remote weapon stations on the Armata tank... while their RPGs will be stopped by APS systems.

    MLRS will be 40km plus away from the targets they are engaging... Russian MLRSs will be even further away... no tank will be in a position to deal with those.

    [quote[]3.) With a guided thermobaric shells, at 152 mm, you could potential engage insurgents ATGM's from possible stand-off ranges as far as 10-15 km's, and destructive potential nearing a 203 mm HE-Frag shells. You could literally clear out a 5 story buildings harboring insurgents (think Syria, Chechnya), hitting every floor, hitting windows from opposite ends, either obliterating or suffocating them. 10 to 15 shells could potential see a partial collapse of one side of a multi-story building, killing many insurgents and exposing the rest in the process.[/quote]

    Easier to just deal with the ATGM using APS and if you want to bring down a city block 12km away, then TOS...

    4.) Using some technology from Koalitsiya, stand-off range shells could be developed, maybe with a glide-kit you could see a shell that has a range of 40-60 km's. Because it's smooth-bored, it wont have the 70 km range base standard that Koalitsiya has, so this is why a glide-kit would be necessary. Naturally this shell will be significantly less powerful than the thermobaric guided shell because it will be HE-Frag, and the warhead weight would be decreased as well in favor of extended range. This wouldn't be a problem because this shell's main purpose would be as a anti-MLRS munition, and most MLRS are minimally armored, the main purpose is it's range, giving it the ability to engage MLRS on a more even-footing. Even a UAV could be developed from that shell.

    But why fit such things to your tanks? surely the anti MLRS role is better played by the Smerch at 120km plus...

    And coalition has guided shells with 70km range already... why waste time giving tanks the capability to do the same?

    5.) Don't think the 152 mm T-14 would be the standard version replacing the 125 mm version, think if it as a support version complimenting the 125 mm version. May'be a good ratio would be for every '10' 125 mm T-14's, there should probably '1' 152 mm version, situated behind (may'be 500 m, to 1 km) advancing and forward operating 125 mm T-14's.

    Its main advantage is the ability to kill tanks at extended ranges so you would not just put one there on its own a couple of kms behind the other vehicles.

    A 152mm calibre gun unit would be deployed in an overwatch position to destroy enemy vehicles when they appear at long range... the other tanks will try to get closer where their 125mm guns will be effective...

    The same argument could be said for the 57 mm autocannon...there's already Sosna, Pantsir, Tunguska, Tor, so why do you need the 57 mm gun?

    the main gun on an IFV needs to be able to deal with enemy vehicles... its ATGM should deal with the heaviest enemy armour, but the main gun needs to be able to deal with the rest, and the 30mm is not powerful enough to deal with 32 ton NATO IFVS... and air burst 57mm shells will deal better with UAVs than 30mm cannon shells can.

    300 meters is within the range of many man-portable ATGM's (i.e. Kornet-E max range of 5.5 km's), you'd need to be in a range beyond 6 km's to be safe, the 152 mm would have that over 125 mm.

    A 125mm HE Frag round would be rather accurate as it is direct fired, and can hit targets out to about 10km with a relatively flat trajectory.

    If that is not powerful enough then the 220mm odd rounds from the current model TOS should be plenty of fire power.
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11273
    Points : 11243
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Isos Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:41 pm

    https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/t-14-armata-top-priority-of-army-chiefs-russia-visit/articleshow/66050040.cms

    India wants to buy 1770 t-14 and probably t-15. Price per tabk will be reduced by more orders so russia will buy more than expected.
    avatar
    kumbor


    Posts : 312
    Points : 304
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  kumbor Fri Oct 05, 2018 6:22 pm

    Isos wrote:https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/t-14-armata-top-priority-of-army-chiefs-russia-visit/articleshow/66050040.cms

    India wants to buy 1770 t-14 and probably t-15. Price per tabk will be reduced by more orders so russia will buy more than expected.


    If India decides to buy Armata AFV - that will be real quantum leap for this tank, and will ensure its survival and further development. Let`say that south korean K-2 is some 10m$ apiece, and that is not among best tanks on the market. Armata surely won`t be more than 10M$, it can only cost less.
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5094
    Points : 5090
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  LMFS Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:30 pm

    kumbor wrote:If India decides to buy Armata AFV - that will be real quantum leap for this tank, and will ensure its survival and further development. Let`say that south korean K-2 is some 10m$ apiece, and that is not among best tanks on the market. Armata surely won`t be more than 10M$, it can only cost less.
    Why do you think India is needed to ensure survival of the Armata? This is the (very brilliant) future of Russian army. If all, they will honour their long standing strategic partnership with India by allowing them to operate such a revolutionary development. But this will be in the future and it wont be cheap, it cannot be cheap. Simply because such vehicles are head and shoulders above anything else India can buy.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38765
    Points : 39261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  GarryB Sat Oct 06, 2018 9:45 am

    Domestic price for the Armata tank model is reported to be around 6 million... pretty much the same price as a late model Abrams or Leopard...

    The point however is that there are over a dozen different armata based vehicles that would be best deployed together as a division of all armata based platforms.

    India on the other hand is looking for a MBT... which is fine too...

    The difference is when you meet an Indian Armata force there will be Armata tanks but also BMPs and ACRVs and BTRs and other vehicle types with a wide range of mobility and armour levels.

    When the Russian forces are finally ready an armata division will have all armata based vehicles so MBT, BMP, BTR, Air Defence vehicles, recon vehicles, artillery (tube and rocket), air defence vehicles, ambulance, engineer, TOS, BMPT... will all be armata based with heavy armour.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon


    Posts : 8138
    Points : 8273
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  magnumcromagnon Wed Nov 14, 2018 3:57 am

    This is not directly related to the Armata series, but this is exactly the reason why their should be T-15 vehicles dedicated to launching and controlling quad/hexcopter UAV's:


    NORINCO has developed a concept for the use of swarm multicopters

    TSAMTO, November 12th. At the Airshow China 2018 exhibition held in Zhuhai on November 6-11, the China North Industrial Corporation NORINCO (China North Industries Corporation) presented the concept of using armed multicopter in the swarm.

    According to Jane's Defense Weekly, the concept, which can be adapted to different tactical scenarios, includes the use of several UAVs of the MR40 (quadcopter) and MR150 (hexacopter) series, equipped with search radar and guidance radars, intelligence subsystems and various weapons, including guided missiles, fragmentation bombs, as well as active-jet ammunition equipped with a brake parachute.

    Multicopters are also equipped with a multi-channel data line and can operate in a network-centric environment.

    Within the framework of the NORINCO concept, it is intended to use a swarm of UAVs to destroy various targets, including lightly armored and armored vehicles, artillery systems, radar stations, military and storage facilities, communications centers, aircraft shelters and supply lines.

    According to the company, the BLA swarm can be used for an hour at ranges up to 30 km. It can also be armed with air-to-air missiles to attack short-range air targets.

    The concept involves the use of a swarm of UAVs for striking and reconnaissance, as well as assessing the results of fire damage. In addition, the swarm can be used to destroy militant groups in populated areas.

    The NORINCO presented at the Airshow China 2018 exhibition of UAVs were armed with anti-submarines, air-surface Blue Arrow-5 missiles and LG5A automatic grenade launchers.

    https://vpk.name/news/234404_norinco_razrabotala_koncepciyu_primeneniya_roya_multikopterov.html


    For all the types of UAV's mentioned picture 2 dedicated T-15 Armata vehicles dedicated to quad/hexcopter UAV's; a command control vehicle and a launcher vehicle. The launcher vehichle will have all the different copter UAV's on them. The command and control vehicle will have 8-16 +2  personnel on computers controlling vehicles, it'll break down to 3 crew, of which besides the driver, the 'commander' and 'gunner' will also be UAV operators, while the main crew of 8-16 people will be on computers. I say 8-16 crew because the UAV's aren't super sophisticated and are designed to be expendable, so the computers operating won't be super sophisticated either so you could fit 4-6 computers on each side of the compartment, another 4 computers opposing side of the door, while gunner and commander have UAV computers on their own. For all the types of UAVs just reference the article. Similarly there should be T-15 command and control and launcher vehicles for UGV's, basically similar principle but for ground based UAV's.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38765
    Points : 39261
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  GarryB Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:20 am

    My understanding is that most Armata vehicles will have tethered UAVS that can climb vertically and will be equipped with thermal sensors and radar sensors to detect enemy positions and vehicles from behind cover.

    It will receive power through the tether and will transmit data via the tether too so particularly in an urban or forest environment... or indeed hedgerows type environments it will be able to see enemy threats and targets including vehicles and air targets like enemy UAVs on its own.

    AFAIK these UAVs will not fly around much and will just loiter above the vehicle that operates it... therefore putting it above all Armata and lighter vehicles makes a lot of sense because if you see one pop up you really don't know if it is a light Tigr below it looking for targets or a 55 ton tank bristling with weapons there... either way the data is collected and added to the on board battle management system that will share with other Russian vehicles nearby and pass data on to HQ and support units like attack helo and artillery.
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5094
    Points : 5090
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  LMFS Mon Nov 26, 2018 8:16 pm

    Pictures of the T-15 interior:

    https://z5h64q92x9.net/proxy_u/ru-en.ru/tehnoomsk.ru/node/3480
    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 Image006_0
    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 Image005_0
    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 Image004_0
    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 Image011_0
    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 10504
    Points : 10482
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 47
    Location : Scholzistan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Hole Mon Nov 26, 2018 8:41 pm

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 020711

    Sponsored content


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:59 pm