Russian soldiers historically like ridding outside (since Aghan's 80's). From that I heard of, there are more chances of surviving in case of those sideroad TNT or similar 'big boom' under tracks. Plus, troops will be able to imidiatelly to return fire to those "freedom fighters" in ambush. Being inside squally cause more contiguous and wasting time for troops to get out. So ridding on top is risking a bullet for a few, but the rest the soldiers are able to engage enemy right away. More chances of surviving and protect yourself, although a bigger risk. That's how I see it.
Sitting on top of vehicles is common practise when the perceived threat of combat is low, but the main risk comes from land mines... sitting on top gives better chance of spotting an ambush and also your ability to jump off and return fire immediately is much better.
So the crew capsule and likely over-all vehicle dimensions (and armor area/weight) would become over-sized even before it enters full-rate production?
Alternatively, perhaps they have in mind another role for a 3rd crew member to cover, e.g. organic UAV controller?
UAV controller is a possiblity, but having two crew operating the vehicle while one crewman rests and an 8 hour rotation would keep the vehicle fully operational 24/7.
A further crewman back at base would give you the four crewmen you would need to service the tank properly... like replace a track, but in combat you would just abandon a vehicle that loses a track and let the engineers drag it back to base... no way would you replace a track under fire.
Three types (or 3 channel ??) detection/vision system
Thermal, Digital optics, and likely MMW radar. the digital optics would be best for identification, but would be effected by dust, smoke, rain, and snow... and of course night.
Previously expected the tank to be equipped with a radar, but has since been rejected- according to Sergey Maiev
which begs the question what would be used instead of MMW? Perhaps remote optical from UAV is counted as a channel? Or perhaps Lidar? the latter would make sense as it could also detect enemy optics of Javelin or sniper scopes etc etc.
Of course another "channel" would be audio to listen for shots and detect their direction...
Smoothbore gun caliber 125 mm can be used as a launcher for guided missiles, in addition, twin 12 mm gun and 57 mm automatic grenade launcher.
A belt fed 57mm weapon would be very useful... it is like the 100mm gun of the BMP-3 in that it has a very small shell case because it is a low velocity weapon that relies on shell power for performance which makes it much more compact but still very powerful...
the original box feed with 3-5 rounds would be of little use in an unmanned turret...
In the "Armata" you can change the location of the engine from the front to the back, add and remove the necessary arms and equipment. There are about 30 variants of transformation.
Makes sense as each brigade will have at least 30 different vehicles from APC and MBT though engineer and air defence and artillery vehicles etc ambulance, mine clearance, ATGM carrier, TOS and other vehicles.
Which suggests there will also be about thirty different variants of Kurganets and Boomerang too.
So if the 45mm has been chosen then there will be no 57mm in the Army anyway.
Hahaha... to correct myself... if the IFVs are going to be fitted with high velocity anti armour 45mm guns then they wont adopt also the high velocity 57mm gun. It appears however that they are adopting the very different 57mm grenade launcher... its shells will likely be considerably more powerful than the 30mm or 40mm grenade alternatives.
A bit like a lighter Vasilek.
Not true, the general principle of NERA is as old as that of ERA (~early to late 60s for both of them). Sandwiching rubber between armoured steel plates has been in use since the T-64 first rolled out. Also, I am pretty sure that T-80 had a similar NERA arrangement from the very start. Sandwiching rubber b/w steel creates an outward motion of rubber when a cumulative jet first penetrates a steel plate into the rubber underneath. This counter "jet" effectively disrupts the cumulative one, decreasing its potential penetrating power.
perhaps I should clarify... ERA is not an option on light vehicles, and rubber between sheets of steel has never been as effective as ERA except against 1st gen ERA against APFSDS rounds... which it wasn't.
to clarify that.... what I mean is that two sheets of metal with rubber between them (NERA) was more effective against APFSDS rounds when early model ERA did not stop APFSDS rounds. now that new ERA does, it is more effective than NERA... but they have improved NERA.
Of course new ERA plates dont explode so if you have standoff plates on the side of the vehicle you could include ERA on the outer surface so they can be replaced easily and in the middle use NERA, and then on the inside have ERA again... then a gap of up to half a metre to the tracks and hull of the vehicle. If the outer ERA is set off but not the NERA and inner ERA then just replace the outer ERA tiles. If a deeper penetration occurs swap the entire armour skirt with a fresh one and have the damaged components on the skirt replaced... fully modular. Also as ERA and NERA further develop you can insert new versions.
The new NERA is as effective as new ERA with the bonus that there is zero chance of sympathetic detonation of adjacent tiles and it can be used on light vehicles too... in that sense it supersedes ERA by offering the same performance without the disadvantages... and I can assure you it does not consist of two sheets of steel with rubber in the middle.
Anyway, ERA is never going to be obsolete until someone successfully demonstrates a pure NERA that is capable of stopping 125 mm tungsten/du APFSDS rounds travelling at 1.5 km/s. Until that day, I am afraid Kontakt-5/Relikt/Nozh ERAs are the only proven ERA designs to achieve such.
Why? none of those ERAs can do the job of stopping such a projectile without tank level armour behind it...
The general problem with NERA is that although it has better multi-hit capability, is cheaper, less dangerous due to lack of highly explosive elements, and less bulky, it always has lesser effective stopping power versus chemical warheads than ERA of the same weight.
I have seen plates that have been hit and only have a small hole in the outer plate with newer heavier ERA... the risk of ERA exploding all over the place are highly exaggerated.
Modern ERA just puts a metal plate in the way of the incoming threat and moves it so as the beam continues it continues to have to cut its way through... a bit like sliding a piece of sheet metal in front of a bullet so instead of having to penetrate the thickness it has to penetrate the length of metal.
With most NERAs I have seen they appear to have two converging metal sheets so the penetrator has to continue to penetrate both sheets but there is a risk of guillotining the incoming penetrator resulting in the need to reform the point through penetration which wastes an enormous amount of energy... further reducing penetration.
you wont get it to the point where a light vehicle can shrug off full calibre tank gun ammo, but together with APS and indeed smoke and shtora like systems and nakidka the chance of a hit is greatly reduced.
Counter moving armour plates that induce yaw and/or shear the kinetic penetrator (Kontakt-5), or shearing the kinetic penetrator via cumulative "knives" (Nozh) is much more effective than whatever NERA can offer.
ERA uses explosive for that effect... NERA does the same thing, but using the energy of the projectile to get the same effect.
However, I am pretty sure that an effective combination of ERA/NERA which is more effective than either on its own does exist.
Russians have a history of trying all sorts of things to make their tanks safer... not many western equivalents of APS, let alone Shtora, Nakidka, ERA, etc etc...
Interesting - Janes claims 57mm guns on Kurganets where taken off until parade day.
Probably just making assumptions to explain the 30mm cannon on an IFV... it doesn't make sense so perhaps they have jumped to the conclusion they wont fit the 57mm gun till the actual parade.
Of course we have seen a lot about the 57mm gun and very little about the 45mm gun... if we look back in history in the 1980s we saw the Mi-28A first and the Ka-50 much later but the Ka-50 was the chosen aircraft and the information about the Mi-28 was released early for export potential.... based on that can we assume the 45mm has won as TR-1s source suggests?
I think it makes sense.
Last edited by GarryB on Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:05 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Clarity)