Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Share

    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1558
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu May 28, 2015 2:03 pm

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    This PKTM and the other weapons on T-14 are all integrated with the AESAs, optical sensors, and the automatic/autonomous fire control systems on the tank; so the tank's integrated weapon system can use the PKTM to shoot down an ATGW, just as well as that of using the primary APS rounds for this purpose.

    Thanks, but I somehow I hardly can imagine if AFC can handle MG with such accuracy to hit ATGW. Specially when T-14 is on move.

    Nevertheless cool news. BTW did any source mention the effective distance for MG to shoot incomming missile down?

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  collegeboy16 on Thu May 28, 2015 2:11 pm

    Zivo wrote:
    In regards to commander RWS, not the auxiliary weapons which seem to have been ruled out. One example of using 23x115mm in a non-traditional roll is on the T-64E. Granted, the placement and the RWS design itself is rather terrible, you can see how compact they can be made, the rounds themselves are not much larger than 12.7mm, yet are more effective in the anti-infantry roll. 7.62mm and 12.7mm are NOT the only options available.

    I think AFV designers need to start looking outside of the typical conventions. These machines are going to run into a wide array of ever evolving threats and they need flexible weapons. The commander's RWS is a good place to start, as it's a bolt on module that can be easily changed.
    that caseless 40mm GL(forgot what its called) is a nice candidate for commander's RWS. healthy amount of explosive filling and very small firing signature, perfect for taking out groups of people.

    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 808
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 28
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Stealthflanker on Thu May 28, 2015 2:30 pm

    xeno wrote:The official expression of the weight of Armata is coming as per Corporate edition of "Uralvagonzavod" journal



    The weight of Armata is менее 55
    Less than 55(t)

    So it is not 48t. It is not 50t
    It is between 50t and 55t...

    You can download journal here
    http://technowars.ru/assets/content/article/174/tw-3-2015-cut.pdf

    Good find Very Happy highly appreciated.

    Well my last estimate on Armata weight based on T-72A and T-90's NGP (Nominal Ground Pressure) Give range of 46-54 ton.

    Half of that weight would be armor.

    Kyo
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 514
    Points : 563
    Join date : 2014-11-03
    Age : 67
    Location : Brasilia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Kyo on Thu May 28, 2015 3:37 pm

    Armata may require 2 years' crew training

    Russia’s newest Armata tank will require crew training for up to two years and conscripts drafted for just one year won’t be able to master the technology, retired Tank Troops Colonel Viktor Murakhovsky said on Thursday.
    "The tank has become considerably more complex by its design and the study of its parts, units and electronic equipment requires considerable knowledge and lengthy training," Murakhovsky told Technowars, a corporate journal published by the tank producer, Uralvagonzavod.


    Stealthflanker
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 808
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 28
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Stealthflanker on Thu May 28, 2015 4:30 pm

    Kyo wrote:Armata may require 2 years' crew training

    Russia’s newest Armata tank will require crew training for up to two years and conscripts drafted for just one year won’t be able to master the technology, retired Tank Troops Colonel Viktor Murakhovsky said on Thursday.
    "The tank has become considerably more complex by its design and the study of its parts, units and electronic equipment requires considerable knowledge and lengthy training," Murakhovsky told Technowars, a corporate journal published by the tank producer, Uralvagonzavod.


    Well, so be it.. Armata will be Contract's playthings then.

    Conscripts can do with thousands of T-72's or T-90.

    So..that doesn't seem to be a problem at all.

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1967
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Thu May 28, 2015 10:44 pm

    How did you go from

    xeno wrote:The weight of Armata is Less than 55(t)

    to

    So it is not 48t. It is not 50t
    It is between 50t and 55t...

    Question

    Ivan the Colorado
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 794
    Points : 828
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Age : 20
    Location : Colorado, USA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Ivan the Colorado on Thu May 28, 2015 11:10 pm

    Meanwhile, hysteria over the Armata continues: http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2002325

    Cyberspec
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1946
    Points : 2117
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Cyberspec on Thu May 28, 2015 11:24 pm

    xeno wrote:The official expression of the weight of Armata is coming as per Corporate edition of "Uralvagonzavod" journal

    Khlopotov (Gur Khan) has called this publication a disgrace on Otvaga. He says the authors are part of the UVZ PR department and don't have access to the T-14 specs....he insists his figures published a couple of days ago are accurate

    Ivan the Colorado wrote:Meanwhile, hysteria over the Armata continues: http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2002325

    There you go....Armata is actually a German tank that was never built Cool

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Viktor on Thu May 28, 2015 11:36 pm

    Nice Very Happy

    2015Tank "Armata" in the future will be remotely controlled

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu May 28, 2015 11:57 pm

    Cyberspec wrote:

    Ivan the Colorado wrote:Meanwhile, hysteria over the Armata continues: http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2002325

    There you go....Armata is actually a German tank that was never built Cool

    It's just like Western media claims about how Soviet's played very little part in defeating the Nazi's, or how Russia doesn't produce or manufacture anything, or how the Afghan Mujahadeen were freedom fighters and not terrorists like the Soviet's claimed... Wink

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Werewolf on Fri May 29, 2015 12:47 am

    Viktor wrote:Nice  Very Happy

    2015Tank "Armata" in the future will be remotely controlled

    TT-14 Tele-Armata


    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Fri May 29, 2015 4:14 am

    I don't have the time, seriously can someone counter the agit-prop of this article?

    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2002325

    xeno
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 143
    Points : 148
    Join date : 2013-02-04

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  xeno on Fri May 29, 2015 4:22 am

    Cyberspec wrote:
    xeno wrote:The official expression of the weight of Armata is coming as per Corporate edition of "Uralvagonzavod" journal

    Khlopotov (Gur Khan) has called this publication a disgrace on Otvaga. He says the authors are part of the UVZ PR department and don't have access to the T-14 specs....he insists his figures published a couple of days ago are accurate

    Ivan the Colorado wrote:Meanwhile, hysteria over the Armata continues: http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2002325

    There you go....Armata is actually a German tank that was never built Cool

    At least a PR guy can officially get the specs from the technical department directly and publish them on the journal with the approval of the boss.

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2129
    Points : 2244
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  higurashihougi on Fri May 29, 2015 4:51 am

    xeno wrote:
    Cyberspec wrote:
    Ivan the Colorado wrote:Meanwhile, hysteria over the Armata continues: http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2002325

    There you go....Armata is actually a German tank that was never built Cool

    At least a PR guy can officially get the specs from the technical department directly and publish them on the journal with the approval of the boss.

    Original Die Welt article: http://www.welt.de/print/die_welt/wirtschaft/article141573502/Russischer-Super-Panzer-kopiert-deutsche-Ideen.html

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Zivo on Fri May 29, 2015 5:57 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:I don't have the time, seriously can someone counter the agit-prop of this article?

    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2002325

    Why? It's just shoulda coulda woulda butthurt.

    Germany can put their money were their mouth is, and in 10 years, produce an armata copy. Rolling Eyes


    On the subject, here's some detailed shots of the Abrams TTB mockup. All it needs is some glossy green paint and a bad PS banner of Khomeini behind it and the TTB could pass as being Iran's next gen MBT. clown








    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1967
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Fri May 29, 2015 11:38 am

    Stealthflanker wrote:
    Good find Very Happy  highly appreciated.

    Well my last estimate on Armata weight based on T-72A and T-90's NGP (Nominal Ground Pressure) Give range of 46-54 ton.

    Half of that weight would be armor.


    Your estimate? Exclamation  Where and when did "you" give "your" estimate?

    Did you even know what ground pressure was?


    Last edited by Morpheus Eberhardt on Fri May 29, 2015 1:52 pm; edited 2 times in total

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1967
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Fri May 29, 2015 11:56 am

    Cyberspec wrote:
    xeno wrote:The official expression of the weight of Armata is coming as per Corporate edition of "Uralvagonzavod" journal

    Khlopotov (Gur Khan) has called this publication a disgrace on Otvaga. He says the authors are part of the UVZ PR department and don't have access to the T-14 specs....he insists his figures published a couple of days ago are accurate


    Of course, to the extent that 49 tonnes is less than 55 tonnes, the publication can not be categorically faulted; however, the article is definitely not being "helpful".

    I should mention that, in this field, if someone says the range of a missile is, for example, 30 km, then a range of 300 km or 3000 km would also be covered. I am getting this feeling that some people think that "a weight of less that 55 tonnes" somehow inherently implies a lower bound.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Werewolf on Fri May 29, 2015 2:47 pm

    The M1TTB testbed is a tincan and i do not min the turret, i mean the chassis, the armor is very thin and it is further weakened by the 3 crew hatches where one (mid) hatch isn't even reachable when the gun is in forward position. They would need a lot and very thick add on armor and i think the hatches would be impossible to open then at least with this kind of fixing of those hatches.

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  collegeboy16 on Fri May 29, 2015 3:07 pm

    Werewolf wrote:The M1TTB testbed is a tincan and i do not min the turret, i mean the chassis, the armor is very thin and it is further weakened by the 3 crew hatches where one (mid) hatch isn't even reachable when the gun is in forward position. They would need a lot and very thick add on armor and i think the hatches would be impossible to open then at least with this kind of fixing of those hatches.
    its TTB for tank test bed, and its only an M1 hull reworked a bit to accommodate an unmanned turret and the displaced crew. heck, the gunner and driver positions are where the internal fuel tanks should be in the vanilla m1 hull. no surprise tho, they were testing the unmanned turret, not a tank.

    xeno
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 143
    Points : 148
    Join date : 2013-02-04

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  xeno on Fri May 29, 2015 3:27 pm

    higurashihougi wrote:
    xeno wrote:
    Cyberspec wrote:
    Ivan the Colorado wrote:Meanwhile, hysteria over the Armata continues: http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2002325

    There you go....Armata is actually a German tank that was never built Cool

    At least a PR guy can officially get the specs from the technical department directly and publish them on the journal with the approval of the boss.

    Original Die Welt article: http://www.welt.de/print/die_welt/wirtschaft/article141573502/Russischer-Super-Panzer-kopiert-deutsche-Ideen.html

    You'd better make sure which post I was replying.

    My post
    "At least a PR guy can officially get the specs from the technical department directly and publish them on the journal with the approval of the boss."
    was replying Cyberspec's
    "Khlopotov (Gur Khan) has called this publication a disgrace on Otvaga. He says the authors are part of the UVZ PR department and don't have access to the T-14 specs....he insists his figures published a couple of days ago are accurate.."

    What the hell does that german thing have anything to do with me?

    Read my Post n°938 again...

    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1558
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri May 29, 2015 8:56 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:I don't have the time, seriously can someone counter the agit-prop of this article?

    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2002325


    I fear that this is more than just butt-hurt pathetic whining. for amny in west since nazi times not much changed in relations with Russia (or general with Slavs). There are enlighten Ubermenschen in west and dirty drunkard Untermenschen in East. angry censored censored censored censored censored

    alexZam
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 409
    Join date : 2015-04-23
    Location : SoCal

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  alexZam on Fri May 29, 2015 11:34 pm

    Good news. Few T-14s are being transported somewhere. Probably, directly to regular army tank brigade for state trials. 




    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2521
    Points : 2654
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  kvs on Fri May 29, 2015 11:40 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:I don't have the time, seriously can someone counter the agit-prop of this article?

    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/2002325

    So they were testing all of these ideas back 30 years ago and have nothing to show for it?   At least we see here
    the US test bed.  Where is the f*cking German one?   Was it so top secret that not a single photo exits and the
    prototypes have been destroyed.

    This is classic butt hurt trash talk.    The real test is in the actual hardware.  I see real tanks rolling down Moscow streets.
    I see not a shred of evidence of these mythical technology demonstrators from Europe.  Anonymous experts and
    uncited evidence is all I see from Germany and other EU chauvinist chest thumpers.

    I think one of the key innovations in the Armata is the layered, cross-grained steel.   This is not some trivial product
    that could be churned out by 3rd world countries.   This is leading edge materials science.  I am quite sure that this
    composite steel did not even exist as a figment of the imagination of those western uber designers 30 years ago.
    So when you hear some anonymous "expert" yap about all of it having been invented in Deutschland since before Christ,
    you know they are so full of shit it is coming out their ears.


    Last edited by kvs on Sat May 30, 2015 12:29 am; edited 1 time in total

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Mike E on Sat May 30, 2015 12:28 am

    Care to explain the ideology behind such a steel? I have no knowledge of today except for that the new "base" steel is 15% more efficient mass/strength wise.

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2521
    Points : 2654
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  kvs on Sat May 30, 2015 12:40 am

    Mike E wrote:Care to explain the ideology behind such a steel? I have no knowledge of today except for that the new "base" steel is 15% more efficient mass/strength wise.

    It's the same concept as carbon fibre composites. Layers of fabric with alternating thread orientation fused in a resin. Steel does not need
    the resin, but having the crystal structure of each steel layer be orientated in alternating directions produces the same mechanical effect as
    for carbon fibre. The steel becomes a composite material with strength that its basic nature cannot provide. Concrete and rebars are another
    type of composite where you get a material with properties that simple concrete could never have.

    This composite steel requires the knowhow how to cast steel with a preferential crystal orientation, which is not trivial. It also requires
    this steel to be worked into thin sheets without losing its crystal coherence. Finally these sheets have to be fused in a way that
    does not degrade the original crystal structure of the each sheet but at the same time is strong enough to produce a single thick
    sheet of super strong steel that does not come apart like filo pastry. I am actually surprised they achieved this on a commercial
    scale and it is quite possible I am hallucinating all of this Smile

    It is interesting that the Japanese sword makers produced what amounts to high quality steel without actually having the recipe
    for producing the steel directly. The smiths would pound the raw metal into ultra think layers stacked on each other. The
    properties of these Japanese swords were very close to those made with Damask steel. Of course, they were not producing the
    material I am talking about, but there is a hint of it.

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 1:06 pm


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:06 pm