Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Share

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4467
    Points : 4658
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Apr 20, 2016 9:10 am

    No more second guessing, T-14 confirmed by UVZ to be 3 times cheaper than Abrams which costs around $8.5 million...it (T-14) was original thought to cost something in the ballpark of $3.7 million but it turns out that it's cheaper, like virtually $1 million cheaper at $2.8, also the new gun barrel is 30% more effective than the last version of the 125 mm barrel produced. I think I recall the barrel on T-90MS using a different and older barrel than the T-14. Also, tops speed for T-14 with 1350 HP engine is 80 km/h, but serial engines will be 1500 hp. Also drone T-72 fire-fighting MBT's confirmed. Lastly UVZ has stated their desire to integrate their Armata's with the 57 mm with max range of 16 km (and not the 45 mm):

    - Tank T-72B3, which supply the Russian army, in six or seven times cheaper than foreign analogues. T-90 for our army five times cheaper than we sell in foreign markets. "Armata" today is three times cheaper than the "Abrams", "Leopard" or "Leclerc". Exactly three times. Only its capacity is considerably higher. But I will not say how much it will cost otmarketovanny on the world market. At the same time the same T-72 and T-90 in its survivability, combat potential is higher than other countries in the production of tanks, oddly enough. We carried out a lot of tests in different climatic conditions, know the potential of our competitors. We believe that the ratio of "price-quality" we have the most optimal.

    https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fvpk.name%2Fnews%2F153808_Oleg_Sienko_Armata_ruchnoi_rabotyi_v_tri_raza_deshevle_Abramsa.html&edit-text=&act=url

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3580
    Points : 3615
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Wed Apr 20, 2016 9:29 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:No more second guessing, T-14 confirmed by UVZ to be 3 times cheaper than Abrams which costs around $8.5 million...it (T-14) was original thought to cost something in the ballpark of $3.7 million but it turns out that it's cheaper, like virtually $1 million cheaper at $2.8, also the new gun barrel is 30% more effective than the last version of the 125 mm barrel produced. I think I recall the barrel on T-90MS using a different and older barrel than the T-14. Also, tops speed for T-14 with 1350 HP engine is 80 km/h, but serial engines will be 1500 hp. Also drone T-72 fire-fighting MBT's confirmed. Lastly UVZ has stated their desire to integrate their Armata's with the 57 mm with max range of 16 km (and not the 45 mm):

    - Tank T-72B3, which supply the Russian army, in six or seven times cheaper than foreign analogues. T-90 for our army five times cheaper than we sell in foreign markets. "Armata" today is three times cheaper than the "Abrams", "Leopard" or "Leclerc". Exactly three times. Only its capacity is considerably higher. But I will not say how much it will cost otmarketovanny on the world market. At the same time the same T-72 and T-90 in its survivability, combat potential is higher than other countries in the production of tanks, oddly enough. We carried out a lot of tests in different climatic conditions, know the potential of our competitors. We believe that the ratio of "price-quality" we have the most optimal.

    https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fvpk.name%2Fnews%2F153808_Oleg_Sienko_Armata_ruchnoi_rabotyi_v_tri_raza_deshevle_Abramsa.html&edit-text=&act=url

    It will be cheaper, we knew it would be cheaper. It's not new. Whan we need to know is how the tank is going to stand up to the test of time.

    Cyrus the great
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 241
    Points : 251
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Cyrus the great on Wed Apr 20, 2016 11:24 am



    Just how similar is the armour of the T-15 to the T-14? As I understand it, the T-15 uses the same hull as the T-14 Armata except that it has its engine in the front - which would make it the best protected IFV right now if that's the case. The only way it could be improved is if it had a 60/57 mm hyper-velocity gun and two 23mm autocannons to accompany the Kornet EM missiles.

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4836
    Points : 4883
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Militarov on Wed Apr 20, 2016 11:33 am

    Cyrus the great wrote:

    Just how similar is the armour of the T-15 to the T-14? As I understand it, the T-15 uses the same hull as the T-14 Armata except that it has its engine in the front - which would make it the best protected IFV right now if that's the case. The only way it could be improved is if it had a 60/57 mm hyper-velocity gun and two 23mm autocannons to accompany the Kornet EM missiles.  

    Hull should be identical so in terms of physical protection it should the same. 23mm caliber is slowly fading from service so i dont think they would develop new platfom featuring that caliber. And two cannons would just make ammunition waste an issue and logistics would get messier.

    57mm gun will come in future but from what i could figure it will be used on lighter tracked platfrom K25 and there will be AA variant.

    Cyrus the great
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 241
    Points : 251
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Cyrus the great on Wed Apr 20, 2016 11:59 am

    Militarov wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:

    Just how similar is the armour of the T-15 to the T-14? As I understand it, the T-15 uses the same hull as the T-14 Armata except that it has its engine in the front - which would make it the best protected IFV right now if that's the case. The only way it could be improved is if it had a 60/57 mm hyper-velocity gun and two 23mm autocannons to accompany the Kornet EM missiles.  

    Hull should be identical so in terms of physical protection it should the same. 23mm caliber is slowly fading from service so i dont think they would develop new platfom featuring that caliber. And two cannons would just make ammunition waste an issue and logistics would get messier.

    57mm gun will come in future but from what i could figure it will be used on lighter tracked platfrom K25 and there will be AA variant.

    Excellent! Thanks, bro. I prefer the 30mm to the 23mm but it limits the amount of ammo that can be carried, and if the 23mm was just a secondary armament, I don't think that its ammo would be used all that much. I've never served so I don't really know.

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4836
    Points : 4883
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Militarov on Wed Apr 20, 2016 12:23 pm

    Cyrus the great wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:

    Just how similar is the armour of the T-15 to the T-14? As I understand it, the T-15 uses the same hull as the T-14 Armata except that it has its engine in the front - which would make it the best protected IFV right now if that's the case. The only way it could be improved is if it had a 60/57 mm hyper-velocity gun and two 23mm autocannons to accompany the Kornet EM missiles.  

    Hull should be identical so in terms of physical protection it should the same. 23mm caliber is slowly fading from service so i dont think they would develop new platfom featuring that caliber. And two cannons would just make ammunition waste an issue and logistics would get messier.

    57mm gun will come in future but from what i could figure it will be used on lighter tracked platfrom K25 and there will be AA variant.

    Excellent! Thanks, bro. I prefer the 30mm to the 23mm but it limits the amount of ammo that can be carried, and if the 23mm was just a secondary armament, I don't think that its ammo would be used all that much. I've never served so I don't really know.

    If there was already 57mm gun on it, there is higher chance of it having HMG + 30mm grenade launcher than another cannon, or maybe slaved 30mm cannon like 100/30 are on BMP-3/BMD-4.

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  max steel on Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:09 pm

    SDB can easily take down T-72 tanks.

    Cyrus the great
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 241
    Points : 251
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Cyrus the great on Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:12 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:

    Just how similar is the armour of the T-15 to the T-14? As I understand it, the T-15 uses the same hull as the T-14 Armata except that it has its engine in the front - which would make it the best protected IFV right now if that's the case. The only way it could be improved is if it had a 60/57 mm hyper-velocity gun and two 23mm autocannons to accompany the Kornet EM missiles.  

    Hull should be identical so in terms of physical protection it should the same. 23mm caliber is slowly fading from service so i dont think they would develop new platfom featuring that caliber. And two cannons would just make ammunition waste an issue and logistics would get messier.

    57mm gun will come in future but from what i could figure it will be used on lighter tracked platfrom K25 and there will be AA variant.

    Excellent! Thanks, bro. I prefer the 30mm to the 23mm but it limits the amount of ammo that can be carried, and if the 23mm was just a secondary armament, I don't think that its ammo would be used all that much. I've never served so I don't really know.

    If there was already 57mm gun on it, there is higher chance of it having HMG + 30mm grenade launcher than another cannon, or maybe slaved 30mm cannon like 100/30 are on BMP-3/BMD-4.

    I'll be more than satisfied if they put a 57mm hyper-velocity gun on the T-15, but a 30mm sure would be nice. I just don't know if there would be enough space for 30mm rounds in a turret already hosting 57mm rounds.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3580
    Points : 3615
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:13 pm

    max steel wrote:SDB can easily take down T-72 tanks.

    SDB is a 100+ kg munition. Hitting from zenith, it most likely will cause harm. So yeah...it can take down pretty much anything on that circumstance.

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4836
    Points : 4883
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Militarov on Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:15 pm

    Cyrus the great wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:

    Just how similar is the armour of the T-15 to the T-14? As I understand it, the T-15 uses the same hull as the T-14 Armata except that it has its engine in the front - which would make it the best protected IFV right now if that's the case. The only way it could be improved is if it had a 60/57 mm hyper-velocity gun and two 23mm autocannons to accompany the Kornet EM missiles.  

    Hull should be identical so in terms of physical protection it should the same. 23mm caliber is slowly fading from service so i dont think they would develop new platfom featuring that caliber. And two cannons would just make ammunition waste an issue and logistics would get messier.

    57mm gun will come in future but from what i could figure it will be used on lighter tracked platfrom K25 and there will be AA variant.

    Excellent! Thanks, bro. I prefer the 30mm to the 23mm but it limits the amount of ammo that can be carried, and if the 23mm was just a secondary armament, I don't think that its ammo would be used all that much. I've never served so I don't really know.

    If there was already 57mm gun on it, there is higher chance of it having HMG + 30mm grenade launcher than another cannon, or maybe slaved 30mm cannon like 100/30 are on BMP-3/BMD-4.

    I'll be more than satisfied if they put a 57mm hyper-velocity gun on the T-15, but a 30mm sure would be nice. I just don't know if there would be enough space for 30mm rounds in a turret already hosting 57mm rounds.

    Well 57mm guns shall be stored inside the hull i belive and i imagine secondary weapon would have shells stored externally. I am just speculating ofc.

    Cyrus the great
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 241
    Points : 251
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Cyrus the great on Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:59 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:

    Just how similar is the armour of the T-15 to the T-14? As I understand it, the T-15 uses the same hull as the T-14 Armata except that it has its engine in the front - which would make it the best protected IFV right now if that's the case. The only way it could be improved is if it had a 60/57 mm hyper-velocity gun and two 23mm autocannons to accompany the Kornet EM missiles.  

    Hull should be identical so in terms of physical protection it should the same. 23mm caliber is slowly fading from service so i dont think they would develop new platfom featuring that caliber. And two cannons would just make ammunition waste an issue and logistics would get messier.

    57mm gun will come in future but from what i could figure it will be used on lighter tracked platfrom K25 and there will be AA variant.

    Excellent! Thanks, bro. I prefer the 30mm to the 23mm but it limits the amount of ammo that can be carried, and if the 23mm was just a secondary armament, I don't think that its ammo would be used all that much. I've never served so I don't really know.

    If there was already 57mm gun on it, there is higher chance of it having HMG + 30mm grenade launcher than another cannon, or maybe slaved 30mm cannon like 100/30 are on BMP-3/BMD-4.

    I'll be more than satisfied if they put a 57mm hyper-velocity gun on the T-15, but a 30mm sure would be nice. I just don't know if there would be enough space for 30mm rounds in a turret already hosting 57mm rounds.

    Well 57mm guns shall be stored inside the hull i belive and i imagine secondary weapon would have shells stored externally. I am just speculating ofc.

    Wouldn't that put the crew in unnecessary danger? I think that an unmanned turret bustle is where the 57mm rounds should be placed. You could then put 23mm (or 30mm) cannons on the side of the turret. I read that the T-15 holds 7 dismounts but I expected it to hold up to 9 dismounts in addition to the crew of 3. It should have enough space considering that it doesn't have a manned turret or weapons in the hull. The front profile of the T-15 is a bit unusual, so why exactly is it like that?

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Mindstorm on Wed Apr 20, 2016 7:06 pm

    max steel wrote:SDB can easily take down T-72 tanks.

    This acronym should stand for ? Small Diameter Bomb ?

    If it is so :

    1) I truly do not understand what should be the point of this note in the particular debate in course.

    2) SDBs also if delivered in enormous amount would have a very hard time to incapacitate even only one T-72A (unless of course we talk of a motionless tank ,at example one in long term repair)


    The GPS aided gliding bomb in question has is niche of employment as weapon against small size not reinforced fixed structures ; moreover not only its very low speed and dependence from satellite in-flight correction render its kill chain one of the most frail among any relatively modern air to ground ammunitions ,both against EW and SHORAD, but its low potential warhead and CEP (in the same league of JDAM and similar) render it, even in its latest iteration with terminal IR homing, totally unsuited for the engagement even only of unarmoured semi-mobile systems (such as legacy SAM adn radar system with transition times ij the order of 30-40 minutes) except some random target of opportunity.

    Against heavy armoured targets ,such as MBTs, those negative features are even more exacerbated because the range of suppression of the detonation of a non HEAT warhead such as that of a SDB would be barely perceived by even a vastly outdated specimen.

    This was one of the main reasons for the horrible attrition results achieved by the fixed wing branch of Coaltion Air Forces ,with theirs JDAM, against Iraqi armoured formations.



    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3580
    Points : 3615
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Wed Apr 20, 2016 7:39 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:
    max steel wrote:SDB can easily take down T-72 tanks.

    This acronym should stand for ?  Small Diameter Bomb ?

    If it is so :

    1) I truly do not understand what should be the point of this note in the particular debate in course.

    2) SDBs also if delivered in enormous amount would have a very hard time to incapacitate even only one T-72A (unless of course we talk of a motionless tank ,at example one in long term repair)


    The GPS aided gliding bomb in question has is niche of employment as weapon against small size not reinforced fixed structures ; moreover not only its very low speed and dependence from satellite in-flight correction render its kill chain one of the most frail among any relatively modern air to ground ammunitions ,both against EW and SHORAD, but its low potential warhead and CEP (in the same league of JDAM and similar) render it, even in its latest iteration with terminal IR homing, totally unsuited for the engagement even only of unarmoured semi-mobile systems (such as legacy SAM adn radar system with transition times ij the order of 30-40 minutes) except some random target of opportunity.

    Against heavy armoured targets ,such as MBTs, those negative features are even more exacerbated because the range of suppression of the detonation of a non HEAT warhead such as that of a SDB would be barely perceived by even a vastly outdated specimen.

    This was one of the main reasons for the horrible attrition results achieved by the fixed wing branch of Coaltion Air Forces ,with theirs JDAM, against Iraqi armoured formations.      


     

    The idea was a hit right on with the GBU 39/1-2. Right on the GBU would go straight through the engine deck and explode. Or hit heavily on the turret and repaint it black and red. No one is going to use the SDB's on heavy AFV's moving. They have Submunition elements for that. On top of all the rest.

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Zivo on Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:37 pm



    Re. the 57mm. On the current module, the ammo is stored externally, with a small column that protrudes into the PAX compartment. Obviously this is Kurganets, but it should be similar on the T-15.

    It's to early to say anything definitive about the 57mm weapon system, the ammo storage situation could go either way. It could have just the small external magazine, a large internal magazine like the older 57mm proposals, or maybe a hybrid solution with the small external mag plus bolt in armored box that sits off to the side of the PAX compartment and automatically feeds ammo through the ceiling to reload the ready-to-fire external magazine. Notice the 100/30 module uses a kind of revolving door tunnel system, that could also be an option to increase ammo count on the 57m

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 21, 2016 12:21 pm

    Would comment on the 30mm vs 23mm question.

    First to be clear the 30 x 165mm ammo is a much more powerful round than the 23 x 114mm round.

    The 30 x 165mm round is a high velocity round effective in anti armour and HE use, and the 23mm round is like an enlarged 14.5mm HMG round with a much smaller shell case with much lower velocity.

    The 30mm would be best as a high velocity anti armour weapon as used on BMP-2 and BMP-3, but current and near future NATO IFV wont be penetrated by 30mm from effective battlefield ranges so the shift will have to be up to 57mm calibre weapons.

    Now the 57mm cannon shells are huge so it will mostly be used for anti aircraft and anti armour use... so what do you use against enemy infantry or soft ground targets?

    A 23mm cannon is a low velocity round with a small compact case so you can carry lots of rounds but the HE projectile is rather heavy and effective so it would be useful as a replacement for a 14.5mm HMG against soft targets... its 23mm HE shells being much more powerful because of their extra weight and size.

    Note the 23mm Shilka and ZU-23 round is a completely different round with a high velocity 23 x 152mm shell that takes up more space... the HE projectile is the same however so it is effective but gets there slower.

    Note the Mi-35M2 with the 23mm chin turret uses 23 x 114mm rounds and it would make sense to replace the 14.5mm guns in IFVs and APC with this 23mm round as its HE effectiveness is excellent with a small compact low recoil round.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4836
    Points : 4883
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Militarov on Thu Apr 21, 2016 12:31 pm

    Zivo wrote:

    Re. the 57mm. On the current module, the ammo is stored externally, with a small column that protrudes into the PAX compartment. Obviously this is Kurganets, but it should be similar on the T-15.

    It's to early to say anything definitive about the 57mm weapon system, the ammo storage situation could go either way. It could have just the small external magazine, a large internal magazine like the older 57mm proposals, or maybe a hybrid solution with the small external mag plus bolt in armored box that sits off to the side of the PAX compartment and automatically feeds ammo through the ceiling to reload the ready-to-fire external magazine. Notice the 100/30 module uses a kind of revolving door tunnel system, that could also be an option to increase ammo count on the 57m

    External magazines are quite small compared to what i expect from IFV armed with 57mm gun, so i think they will have hull penetrating ammo bustle. Especially if they plan on using it as secondary AA system.

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Zivo on Fri Apr 22, 2016 2:21 am

    Militarov wrote:
    Zivo wrote:

    Re. the 57mm. On the current module, the ammo is stored externally, with a small column that protrudes into the PAX compartment. Obviously this is Kurganets, but it should be similar on the T-15.

    It's to early to say anything definitive about the 57mm weapon system, the ammo storage situation could go either way. It could have just the small external magazine, a large internal magazine like the older 57mm proposals, or maybe a hybrid solution with the small external mag plus bolt in armored box that sits off to the side of the PAX compartment and automatically feeds ammo through the ceiling to reload the ready-to-fire external magazine. Notice the 100/30 module uses a kind of revolving door tunnel system, that could also be an option to increase ammo count on the 57m

    External magazines are quite small compared to what i expect from IFV armed with 57mm gun, so i think they will have hull penetrating ammo bustle. Especially if they plan on using it as secondary AA system.

    They might be able to get by, if they use 57mm missiles for AA.

    I think it was KBP who developed the missile, but IIRC their product had a 80% Pk. at 8km with a two round salvo. So even with 20 missiles, that would be ~8 dead targets @ 8km. This was an older system, and today they can probably get more reach through stabilization and auto tracking. The current AU-220M, the newest 57mm system carries 80 rounds and doesn't penetrate into the hull.

    Edit:

    Here we go, I found a shot of the naval version of the AU-220M. So there is a real version that has a basket magazine. Who knows, this could end up on the T-14.



    However, there's a problem with this configuration for the BMP/IFV roll:



    I didn't realize just how far back the turret was on the T-15, their only option may be the 80 round roof magazine system.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5673
    Points : 6079
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Austin on Sun Apr 24, 2016 7:44 am


    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Apr 24, 2016 1:59 pm

    T-14-152 the modern ISU-152 Very Happy

    Big_Gazza
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 510
    Points : 534
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sun Apr 24, 2016 2:34 pm

    Werewolf wrote:T-14-152 the modern ISU-152 Very Happy

    ..except with a turret Very Happy

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4467
    Points : 4658
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sun Apr 24, 2016 10:39 pm

    Something interesting from GurKhan blog, apparently preliminary work on next-gen AFV gas turbines power supplies/electric transmission. for hybrid engines (diesel engines with gas turbine power supplies) having comparable fuel efficiency to superior efficiency and acceleration than their pure diesel counter parts:

    Do not forget that major work was carried out by national experts and in the other direction - the creation of a gas turbine power plant, significantly increases the speed armored cars. Experts note that GTD implementation of this technique in a difficult task, however, with the right level of attention this issue is quite capable to solve.

    As experts explain, GTE should be further developed for the power supply system to the specific fuel consumption was comparable, and was lower than the diesel powerplant. It is also possible adaptation of another type of power plant - a hybrid engine. By the way, this technology is already implemented in the metal - experimental armored car "Krymsk" based on the BTR-90 already uses a hybrid propulsion system with a specially designed electric transmission.

    https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fgurkhan.blogspot.com%2F2016%2F04%2Fblog-post_33.html&edit-text=&act=url


    ...Gas turbines for AFV's by themselves are gas guzzling 'gold-plating', but combined with diesel engines you have both superior fuel consumption, acceleration but you'll also likely to have the ability to run your AFV's on relative 'silent' mode, and theirs also the future development of electric armor.


    Last edited by magnumcromagnon on Sun Apr 24, 2016 10:40 pm; edited 1 time in total

    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1518
    Points : 1681
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  TheArmenian on Mon Apr 25, 2016 3:57 am

    Werewolf wrote:T-14-152 the modern ISU-152 Very Happy
    Indeed, a modern day equivalent to the ZVERABOY (Beast-slayer) of the Great Patriotic War.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:15 am

    The advantage of gas turbines is they are small and compact for the power they produce, and when they are connected to a dynamo to generate power rather than a transmission to generate torque they have excellent fuel efficiency.

    It is when they are used to shift a 40+ ton tank around the battlefield that they become inefficient because most movements by a tank on a battlefield are short high acceleration bursts of speed from a position of cover and protection to another position of cover and protection most of the time... this is very fuel inefficient for a gas turbine.

    If you instead run the gas turbine at optimum speed generating the max potential electrical current then rapidly accelerating from one place to another using electric motors is vastly more efficient and effective.... and quiet.

    Regarding the 152mm gun armed armata, this is the MBT version, not the heavy artillery version, which would be coalition. This would be a direct fire anti obstacle and anti armoured vehicle system so the ISU-152 analogy would be accurate except its sensors and optics would mean it has every advantage in sighting and target detection as any enemy MBT.

    In fact UAVs might be launchable from its main gun to find targets out of line of sight and to mark targets of interest with a laser beam so that GLATGMs could be used against them too by the whole unit...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Zivo on Mon Apr 25, 2016 4:50 pm

    http://military-informant.com/army/na-baze-universalnoy-boevoy-platformyi-armata-sozdayut-novyiy-universlanyiy-raketnyiy-kompleks.html

    JSC "Instrument Design Bureau" together with the designers of the universal combat platform "Armata" started to develop a universal missile system capable of performing the task of destroying armored vehicles, manpower low-flying enemy targets, as reported by its own power military-informant.com portal.

    The new missile system placed on the crawler combat vehicle Armata will combine the capabilities of operational-tactical complex, multiple rocket launchers and anti-tank complex. On the basis of the chassis will be available with a universal launcher class "surface-to-surface" missiles and "surface-to-air" in special military transport containers.

    The composition of promising missile system will include armored launcher and machine guidance system and reconnaissance on the battlefield. A fundamentally new missile system will be able to interact with all modern weapons and obtain intelligence information from aerial surveillance, ground-based reconnaissance and other combat systems on the battlefield.

    The new missile system based on the Armata platform designed to engage single and multiple targets, including tanks, engineering and fortifications, surface targets and low-speed flight vehicles at distances up to 145 km. It is assumed that the Ammunition of the new missile system will be about 20 ready-to-launch missiles for various purposes.



    Since it's KBP, and given the wide target envelope, I'm assuming they're referring to Hermes.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  medo on Mon Apr 25, 2016 6:48 pm

    http://gurkhan.blogspot.si/2016/04/blog-post_25.html

    Gur Khan: predictability. Speech in this case, all of the same contract for 100 units, as previously reported. Some felt that the contract relates only to the T-14. But this is not the case. It applies to all cars on the "armatovskoy" platform: tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and ARV. According to my estimates personally, I ordered something about ARV 10 T-16, T-60 tanks and 14 BMP-30, T-15. Naturally, there is not exactly 100 cars, and a little more - and still BMP probably go battalion sets.

    It seems order for 100 Armatas is not only for T-14 tanks. They ordered 60 tanks T-14, 30 heavy BMPs T-15 and 10 BREM T-16.

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 3:05 am


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:05 am