Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Share

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3599
    Points : 3634
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Wed Sep 14, 2016 10:30 am

    galicije83 wrote:
    Mike E wrote:T-14 will not be initially produced with the 152 mm cannon for a few reasons -- if it was, we'd have heard it by now, we know the Object-195's 2A83 was immature and had issues related to barrel life, and the fact of the 2A82-1M's existence in the first place. It was developed for T-14.

    As a result, Grifel is completely off of the table in its initial form.

    This was object or project 299, made by Kirov PB


    this is heavy IFV...


    And this is engineer vehicle obj 232 or komplekt 2.



    All this vehicle was based on one platform obj299 made by Kirov factory. Also grifel rounds made not for obj. 195, but for obj. 299 and obj. 292....

    We dont know will or not armata have 152mm gun in the future. For now it is certain that it will not have this 152mm gun.

    Auto loader on T-14 is identical to auto loader made for T-80 tanks. Why is that i wondering?

    We don't know what system is being used on the T-14. Also the 299 was planned with oscillating turret  in order to work properly. The current turret is self-encased/articulated, like most classical layouts. That difference alone makes the current t-14 more viable. There's a lot of things you seem to invent or mis-interpret. Why is that I'm wondering.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  GarryB on Wed Sep 14, 2016 12:22 pm

    Every time a new caliber has been introduced on tanks has bee because of this reason: To take advantage over the rivals, to have the tank with bigger hability to destroy the warfare of the enemy in case of war.

    The purpose of a tank gun is to penetrate the frontal armour of the enemy tank of the period at battlefield ranges.

    A vehicle in the design phase has to be designed to defeat projected tanks the enemy will operate when it enters service.

    NATO has been talking about making lighter more mobile tanks because their 70 ton tanks are too difficult to move around easily and like all tanks everywhere do not off 360 degree protection from anti armour weapons. There were several western prototypes of 40 ton tanks in the 1990s.

    Against such tanks the 125mm gun would be perfectly adequate.

    If Nato went for 90 ton tanks with even heavier armour then a 152mm gun might be critical.

    The fact is that they still have tanks from the 1970s in service... albeit in upgraded versions.

    If the US started introducing a new tank design with much better armour then the 152mm might need to go into service urgently.... but they aren't so it isn't.

    No-one government that impulse new tank designs is waiting until the current caliber can not do the job. Sorry but you are seriously wrong on this, which is a very basical concept on military engineering, used on every type of warfare, that you obviously do not know.

    It takes ten years to develop a new system and get it into service in numbers to make it relevant.

    Things in design are not developed to combat existing systems but projected future systems the enemy will have in service when the new system is ready.

    The first model abrams had a british 105mm rifled main gun.... which was replaced by the German 120mm smoothbore when it was realised that the 105mm probably would not cut it against late model T-72s.... tanks that were already in service.

    As example, would you say Russia developed the S-400 because the S-300 can not do the job?

    The S-400 was developed because projected western threats were increasing. The S-300 could be improved and was, but new systems are needed periodically.

    The point is that there is nothing in service in the west that demands the Russians have a 152mm tank gun in operational service.

    The armour of western IFVs means 30mm cannon shells are not longer effective for a BMP so a 57mm gun is being developed and will likely be fielded when it is ready.

    The 30mm has been inadequate against Marder IFVs for several decades and newer IFVs make it even worse.

    Would you say Russia developed the Su-PAK-FA because the Su-27 can not do the job?

    Su-27 can't do the job.

    would you say Russia developed the T-14 because the T-90 can not do the job? Far from true.

    The T-90 can't do the job... there is not that much room for further improvement past the T-90AM... in comparison the Armata is just getting started and will fill the role of every vehicle in a division.

    Russia developed all them finding improvements, trying to take advantage over the rivals.

    But the advantage is measured.

    You don't install a big gun to have the biggest gun... that is asinine.

    You have a gun powerful enough to defeat enemy vehicles and projected enemy vehicles likely to be deployed now or in the near future.

    The west has nothing that demands a 152mm gun... now or within the next 5 years.

    In 5 years time they might have something, but until then it just makes sense to keep the 125mm standard all their other front line tanks use, and keep developing the 152mm gun and ammo and use the technology developed for that gun and ammo to develop new more effective ammo for the 125mm.

    The first requirement is a competent weapon of 152mm that improves the features of the current 125mm weapons. Something that is possible to reach.

    It should be fairly easy to create a 152mm gun that offers significant performance advantages over the 125mm gun.

    The question is... is that extra performance actually needed at the moment or near future... and I say the answer is currently no.

    So keep developing the 152mm gun, but introduce the Armata with a 125mm gun with new ammo.

    The T-34 only became useful with the 85 mm gun.

    That is not true at all. The only targets the T-34 needed an 85mm gun to deal with were Tiger and Panther tanks... and how few of those were made?

    There was a version of the T-34 that had a powerful high velocity 57mm gun mounted... it was a total failure because the vast majority of targets the T-34 fired its gun at could better be dealt with using a moderate velocity but heavy HE shell of 76.2mm calibre than a high velocity 57mm shell made of exotic and expensive metals.

    The flexibility of being able to deploy a high
    energy 152 mm gun on the Armata platform is worth quite a bit. I am sure that the Armata platform was designed with such flexibility.

    The Armata family are expected to be the standard front line heavy vehicle for the next 20-30 years so a 152mm gun will be fitted at some stage as a tank gun... a small calibre EM gun might even be fitted in 20 years time or sooner... but right now they don't need more than a 125mm direct fire tank gun.

    The Coalition will have a 152mm gun but not a tank gun.

    In terms of the T-80 autoloader... its main fault was exposed combustable propellant stubs... any penetration of the turret sends a shower of hot burning material onto cardboard coated stubs designed to completely combust in the gun chamber.

    The T-72 model had an armoured plate a few mms thick over both ammo and propellant stubs so combustion from a penetration was unlikely.

    In an unmanned turret as long as there is protection for the stored ammo stubs from hot fragments from a penetration it would not matter whether they were vertical or horizontal.


    _________________
    “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

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 591
    Points : 616
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  eehnie on Wed Sep 14, 2016 1:13 pm

    If you think Russia will wait to introduce the 152mm weapon on tanks until the US has a tank in production that can not be destroyed by 125mm you are dreaming. The 152mm tank weapon is too easy to do for it. The transition from Abrams with 105mm weapons to Abrams with 120mm is not an example of introduction of a caliber in tanks, because the new caliber was working in other models more than a decade before.

    For sure Russia is working hard now on 152mm tank weapons, without wait like you say. No matter if we know it or not. When a 152mm weapon that improves the features of the 125mm weapons is ready, it will be introduced.

    If the procurement of new T-14 is a little delayed, the probability of this tank having 152mm weapon since the begin increases. I'm not sure if Russia wants to have 100, 200 or 400 T-14 with 125mm weapons for 50+ years and the rest of the fleet with 152mm weapons.

    You are far from realistic talking about new weapons. You have low hability of preview what can happen in a decade or two, and this is vital in the design of new weapons. And saying the S-300, the Su-27 and the T-90 can not do the job, you only show that you have low hability of judging the hability of the warfare to do the job.

    Why you mix quotes of different people without write who said every thing?

    Benya
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 178
    Points : 182
    Join date : 2016-06-05
    Location : Budapest, Hungary

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Benya on Wed Sep 14, 2016 4:39 pm

    Some information on the first Armata order


    Russia to receive first 70 T-14 Armata main battle tanks by 2020

    The Russian Armed Forces are to take delivery of around 70 advanced T-14 tanks on the Armata chassis before year-end 2019, a source in the defense industry has told TASS. "The Defense Ministry has signed a contract worth several billion rubles for the first batch of 70 production-standard armored vehicles of the type to be delivered by late 2019," the source said.


    Russia will receive its first 70 T-14 advanced main battle tanks by 2020
    (Credit: Vitaly V. Kuzmin)

    According to him, the tank’s production has been under way since early 2016. The first batch is to be fielded with the 1st Guards Armored Army stationed in the west of Russia, the source added.

    TASS has no official confirmation of the information.

    Vyacheslav Khalitov, deputy director general of the Armata’s manufacturer Uralvagonzavod, said in April 2016 that the first batch of 100 tanks would be fielded in 2017-2018. He did not specify whether the prototypes given to the military for testing were part of the batch.

    The T-14 Armata was unveiled for the first time to the public during the military parade in Moscow for the Victory Day, May 9, 2015.
    The T-14 Armata is equipped with an unmanned turret and all the crew is located at the front of the hull. The new unmanned remote turret of Arama T-14 would be equipped with new generation of 125mm 2A82-1M smoothbore gun with an automatic loader and 32 rounds ready to use.

    Standard equipment of Armata T-14 includes probably day and night vision equipment, NBC system, front mounted dozer blade, fire detection and suppression system and a battle management system as modern Russian-made main battle tanks.

    Source: Arrow http://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/russia_to_receive_first_70_t-14_armata_main_battle_tanks_by_2020_21409161_tass.html



    Very nice thumbsup 20 tanks already in trials, plus 70 new tanks are meaning that the Russian Army will have a fully equipped Armata brigade by 2020. Today's tank brigades are equipped with 94 T-72 / T-80 / T-90 tanks (4 of them are command variants fitted with additional radio sets). Maybe in the near future, the Russian MoD will order Armata vehicles (T-14 MBTs and (BMP)T-15 heavy IFVs) in brigade/regiment sets. Actually, there is a tank brigade (namely the 6th Detached Tank Brigade at Mulino, Nizhniy Novgorod region), so maybe it will be the first russian tank unit to operate Armata tanks/IFVs.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu Sep 15, 2016 7:17 am

    First footage of T-14 with the new gun at 32:00....But HOLY CRAP what proceeds beyond 33:00 is a real jaw-droppa!!!



    ...What was demonstrated was that the Armata series of ERA is so efficient, that it is capable of completely protecting unarmored civilian vehicles from HEAT munitions, which is completely unheard of! Shocked  A real historic eye-watering moment indeed! thumbsup

    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 Thu Sep 15, 2016 11:54 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:...What was demonstrated was that the Armata series of ERA is so efficient, that it is capable of completely protecting unarmored civilian vehicles from HEAT munitions, which is completely unheard of! Shocked  A real historic eye-watering moment indeed! thumbsup

    Agreed. That was quite a jaw-dropping display. That ERA performance is quite simply fucking superb!! Very Happy

    russia

    BKP
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 269
    Points : 278
    Join date : 2015-05-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  BKP on Thu Sep 15, 2016 8:49 pm

    ^^Happen to recognize what weapon was used in that demo? Thx

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Werewolf on Thu Sep 15, 2016 9:01 pm

    BKP wrote:^^Happen to recognize what weapon was used in that demo? Thx

    RPG-18/26. 300-450mm RHA penetration. Not much, would be more impressive if it could stop actual PG-7VL or VR warhead.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu Sep 15, 2016 9:36 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    BKP wrote:^^Happen to recognize what weapon was used in that demo? Thx

    RPG-18/26. 300-450mm RHA penetration. Not much, would be more impressive if it could stop actual PG-7VL or VR warhead.

    The new ERA is designed to defeat munitions up to 150 mm (such as the 152mm Kornet).

    theking950
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 10
    Points : 12
    Join date : 2016-07-29

    watch this

    Post  theking950 on Thu Sep 15, 2016 10:36 pm

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDpMEUOzqi0

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1150
    Points : 1163
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  AlfaT8 on Thu Sep 15, 2016 10:52 pm

    theking950 wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDpMEUOzqi0

    Wrong thread.
    http://www.russiadefence.net/t681-israel-and-nuclear-weapons

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2545
    Points : 2678
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  kvs on Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:20 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    BKP wrote:^^Happen to recognize what weapon was used in that demo? Thx

    RPG-18/26. 300-450mm RHA penetration. Not much, would be more impressive if it could stop actual PG-7VL or VR warhead.

    The directional explosion efficiency is impressive as demonstrated by the small amount of damage to the Nissan.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Fri Sep 16, 2016 8:32 am

    kvs wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    BKP wrote:^^Happen to recognize what weapon was used in that demo? Thx

    RPG-18/26. 300-450mm RHA penetration. Not much, would be more impressive if it could stop actual PG-7VL or VR warhead.

    The directional explosion efficiency is impressive as demonstrated by the small amount of damage to the Nissan.  

    As you can tell the SUV was really fragile and delicate (relatively speaking), and it really opens up Pandora's box with consideration of future applications. Like whats the possibility of applying the Armata series of ERA to BTR-80/82's, to BMP-3/3M/BMD-4, to Typhoon-U/K's, to Bumerang's, for legacy SPG's? For that matter could this new ERA usher in a new generation of defense measures used to defend platforms previously thought to be not possible? Like for example naval ships. to defend against AshM's, or adapted versions for CAS aircraft, to protect them against MANPAD's. There needs to be extensive testing to fully flesh out the potential of these defense measure applications, to protect these platforms like no one else has before.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3599
    Points : 3634
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Fri Sep 16, 2016 9:50 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    BKP wrote:^^Happen to recognize what weapon was used in that demo? Thx

    RPG-18/26. 300-450mm RHA penetration. Not much, would be more impressive if it could stop actual PG-7VL or VR warhead.

    The directional explosion efficiency is impressive as demonstrated by the small amount of damage to the Nissan.  

    As you can tell the SUV was really fragile and delicate (relatively speaking), and it really opens up Pandora's box with consideration of future applications. Like whats the possibility of applying the Armata series of ERA to BTR-80/82's, to BMP-3/3M/BMD-4, to Typhoon-U/K's, to Bumerang's, for legacy SPG's? For that matter could this new ERA usher in a new generation of defense measures used to defend platforms previously thought to be not possible? Like for example naval ships. to defend against AshM's, or adapted versions for CAS aircraft, to protect them against MANPAD's. There needs to be extensive testing to fully flesh out the potential of these defense measure applications, to protect these platforms like no one else has before.
    The problem is that while the Era is really impressive, it is also very heavy and also will only help to defeat one round, before GTFO. This means that the vehicles need to be in bunch in order to cover one another if in HOT area and dismounts can't be available.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  GarryB on Fri Sep 16, 2016 11:05 am

    If you think Russia will wait to introduce the 152mm weapon on tanks until the US has a tank in production that can not be destroyed by 125mm you are dreaming.

    They wont wait until the west has a vehicle in production that requires a 152mm gun to defeat before introducing the new round, but the cost of putting a new round into production and also putting the gun into service needs to be justified.

    When they put the T-34 into service they could have developed all sorts of guns for the vehicle... they chose the gun the chose because it was good enough for all the tasks it needed to perform.

    As I mentioned above they could have chosen a high velocity 57mm round but it had a weak HE round and the vast majority of targets on the battlefield in 1941 didn't need a heavy penetrating round... most needed a good HE shell. Most tanks of the period could easily be defeated with the 76.2mm gun the T-34 was introduced with.

    After meeting the T-34 on the battlefield the Germans introduced first the Tiger, which they were already working on, and the Panther... which was a copy of the T-34 with heavier armour and a better penetrating new gun.

    The T-34/85 didn't get a bigger gun to match the bigger gun in the Tiger (88mm) or to match the high velocity 75mm gun in the Panther. It got a bigger gun so it could fight on equal terms both tanks and penetrate their frontal armour at battlefield ranges.

    The 152mm tank weapon is too easy to do for it. The transition from Abrams with 105mm weapons to Abrams with 120mm is not an example of introduction of a caliber in tanks, because the new caliber was working in other models more than a decade before.

    They changed the gun at short notice because they had doubts the existing gun could do the job.

    The fact that they chose an off the shelf design is not relevant to the situation... they didn't buy the 120mm smoothbores from West Germany... they produced their own and their own ammo which makes it as expensive as introducing the 152mm gun and ammo into the Russian military.

    They wont save any money because the 152mm tank gun is the same calibre as the 152mm artillery as the ammo will likely not be compatible and nor will the guns.

    For sure Russia is working hard now on 152mm tank weapons, without wait like you say. No matter if we know it or not. When a 152mm weapon that improves the features of the 125mm weapons is ready, it will be introduced.

    And that is where your mistake is. Even a simple scaled up gun from 125mm to 152mm gun will have improved performance. A more complex increase where performance parameters are maximised will lead to rather bigger improvements, but those improvements mean nothing if they are either not relevant, or don't justify the cost of introduction.

    If the Russian military believe their current 125mm guns and ammo will penetrate any NATO vehicle from battlefield distances how could they justify introducing a new round not compatible with existing rounds that will also penetrate any NATO vehicle?

    If the procurement of new T-14 is a little delayed, the probability of this tank having 152mm weapon since the begin increases. I'm not sure if Russia wants to have 100, 200 or 400 T-14 with 125mm weapons for 50+ years and the rest of the fleet with 152mm weapons.

    Only in the sense that they will eventually introduce a 152mm tank gun so any delays will of course increase the probability of more vehicles being produced with the new gun as standard when they are produced.

    You are far from realistic talking about new weapons. You have low hability of preview what can happen in a decade or two, and this is vital in the design of new weapons. And saying the S-300, the Su-27 and the T-90 can not do the job, you only show that you have low hability of judging the hability of the warfare to do the job.

    The Russians are replacing the S-300 in service as we speak, and new aircraft are replacing the Su-27 and this thread talks about replacements for the T-90... why would they do that if they could still do the job as front line first defence systems?

    They are not obsolete and can perform their function, but better systems can and have been developed... S-400, S-350, S-300V4, BUK, and Su-35, and Su-30SM and Su-27SM3, and of course Armata tank, Kurganets tank, Boomerang tank, and Typhoon gun platform.

    Why you mix quotes of different people without write who said every thing?

    I try not to make things personal... I just quote what I am replying to... if you are following the thread you will know who said what or can check yourself.


    Very nice thumbsup 20 tanks already in trials, plus 70 new tanks are meaning that the Russian Army will have a fully equipped Armata brigade by 2020. Today's tank brigades are equipped with 94 T-72 / T-80 / T-90 tanks (4 of them are command variants fitted with additional radio sets). Maybe in the near future, the Russian MoD will order Armata vehicles (T-14 MBTs and (BMP)T-15 heavy IFVs) in brigade/regiment sets. Actually, there is a tank brigade (namely the 6th Detached Tank Brigade at Mulino, Nizhniy Novgorod region), so maybe it will be the first russian tank unit to operate Armata tanks/IFVs.

    But when do they start with all the other vehicles... when will they start with command and ambulance and air defence missile and gun and gun/missile vehicles etc etc.

    Will the first units to have armata tanks and IFVs also get other armata platforms or will they replace the tanks and IFVs first?

    RPG-18/26. 300-450mm RHA penetration. Not much, would be more impressive if it could stop actual PG-7VL or VR warhead.

    Actually that is a very impressive display.

    ERA was never applied to IFVs in Russia mainly because ERA is an explosive and when detonated with the warhead often defeated the thin armour of light vehicles anyway.

    ie the warhead didn't penetrate but the combined explosion of the warhead and the ERA blocks crushed the armour in and did serious damage to the vehicle and occupants.

    To use ERA on an unarmoured civilian vehicle like this is impossible.

    This suggests this is NERA.

    BTW In the previous part of the video... at the 31 minute or so mark they are testing ARENA which could easily be used to further degrade the penetration performance of incoming munitions too for lightly or unarmoured vehicles.


    _________________
    “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

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 591
    Points : 616
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  eehnie on Fri Sep 16, 2016 5:23 pm

    The development of a new weapon (no matter the caliber) is justified with the development of the new tank. It would fall in aditional costs if later is necessary the development of a new weapon in the middle of the cycle of life of the tank, but not now. Also, most of the ammunition types needed are covered with the current 152mm ammunition, then this is not a big problem.

    Again, the case of the Abrams is not a case of introduction of a new caliber. At least the T-62, the Chieftain, the T-64, the T-72 and the Merkava used calibers between 115 and 125mm before the Americans come to this conclussion with the Abrams.around 1980. The Abrams was a late entry in the new range of caliber, and not an example of the introduction of a new caliber.

    Russia has the experience of the Soviet Union in how and when to introduce new calibers. If the Russian engineers feel some doubt about the 125mm caliber being not enough for the entire life of the tank they will move forward to the 152mm caliber. It is not about being enough now, it is about being enough in the following 50 years. Here is where your lack of long term view fall. To change the weapon of a tank after 10-20-30 years is a bad business. To have tanks with shorter life because of their weapon becomes obsolete before the end of the cycle of life is also a bad business.

    I expect the 152mm weapon to be introduced during the life of the T-14, I do not know when. The economic analysis favors an early introduction over a late introduction. Despite we hear nothing now, I would not be totally surprised if the 152mm weapon is used since the begin.

    Benya
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 178
    Points : 182
    Join date : 2016-06-05
    Location : Budapest, Hungary

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Benya on Fri Sep 16, 2016 8:49 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    Very nice thumbsup 20 tanks already in trials, plus 70 new tanks are meaning that the Russian Army will have a fully equipped Armata brigade by 2020. Today's tank brigades are equipped with 94 T-72 / T-80 / T-90 tanks (4 of them are command variants fitted with additional radio sets). Maybe in the near future, the Russian MoD will order Armata vehicles (T-14 MBTs and (BMP)T-15 heavy IFVs) in brigade/regiment sets. Actually, there is a tank brigade (namely the 6th Detached Tank Brigade at Mulino, Nizhniy Novgorod region), so maybe it will be the first russian tank unit to operate Armata tanks/IFVs.

    But when do they start with all the other vehicles... when will they start with command and ambulance and air defence missile and gun and gun/missile vehicles etc etc.

    Will the first units to have armata tanks and IFVs also get other armata platforms or will they replace the tanks and IFVs first?


    Actually, what I heard is that the MIM-1A multifunctional engineering vehicle and the UMZ-A mine layer/dispenser vehicles will be firs tested by 2017. I don't know much about the other variants, but they should be at least developed by the time the Armata platform enters service.

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2545
    Points : 2678
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  kvs on Sat Sep 17, 2016 1:38 am

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    BKP wrote:^^Happen to recognize what weapon was used in that demo? Thx

    RPG-18/26. 300-450mm RHA penetration. Not much, would be more impressive if it could stop actual PG-7VL or VR warhead.

    The directional explosion efficiency is impressive as demonstrated by the small amount of damage to the Nissan.  

    As you can tell the SUV was really fragile and delicate (relatively speaking), and it really opens up Pandora's box with consideration of future applications. Like whats the possibility of applying the Armata series of ERA to BTR-80/82's, to BMP-3/3M/BMD-4, to Typhoon-U/K's, to Bumerang's, for legacy SPG's? For that matter could this new ERA usher in a new generation of defense measures used to defend platforms previously thought to be not possible? Like for example naval ships. to defend against AshM's, or adapted versions for CAS aircraft, to protect them against MANPAD's. There needs to be extensive testing to fully flesh out the potential of these defense measure applications, to protect these platforms like no one else has before.

    The problem is that while the Era is really impressive, it is also very heavy and also will only help to defeat one round, before GTFO. This means that the vehicles need to be in bunch in order to cover one another if in HOT area and dismounts can't be available.

    Those explosive plates they were testing looked very light to me. This is not your old style ERA brick system. They have really
    achieved something with the new explosive formulation.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Sep 17, 2016 2:23 am

    kvs wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    BKP wrote:^^Happen to recognize what weapon was used in that demo? Thx

    RPG-18/26. 300-450mm RHA penetration. Not much, would be more impressive if it could stop actual PG-7VL or VR warhead.

    The directional explosion efficiency is impressive as demonstrated by the small amount of damage to the Nissan.  

    As you can tell the SUV was really fragile and delicate (relatively speaking), and it really opens up Pandora's box with consideration of future applications. Like whats the possibility of applying the Armata series of ERA to BTR-80/82's, to BMP-3/3M/BMD-4, to Typhoon-U/K's, to Bumerang's, for legacy SPG's? For that matter could this new ERA usher in a new generation of defense measures used to defend platforms previously thought to be not possible? Like for example naval ships. to defend against AshM's, or adapted versions for CAS aircraft, to protect them against MANPAD's. There needs to be extensive testing to fully flesh out the potential of these defense measure applications, to protect these platforms like no one else has before.

    The problem is that while the Era is really impressive, it is also very heavy and also will only help to defeat one round, before GTFO. This means that the vehicles need to be in bunch in order to cover one another if in HOT area and dismounts can't be available.

    Those explosive plates they were testing looked very light to me.   This is not your old style ERA brick system.   They have really
    achieved something with the new explosive formulation.

    Now that you mention it, at the 34:00-34:04 mark, set the running speed to .25. You will see a ERA block being put in to place by two men. It seems like the 2 had no real trouble carrying the ERA block, which would indicate that it's not immensely heavy.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  GarryB on Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:31 am

    The development of a new weapon (no matter the caliber) is justified with the development of the new tank. It would fall in aditional costs if later is necessary the development of a new weapon in the middle of the cycle of life of the tank, but not now. Also, most of the ammunition types needed are covered with the current 152mm ammunition, then this is not a big problem.

    Development of a new gun is justified by developments by the enemy in armour protection.

    Otherwise the new tanks... T-72, T-80, and T-90 would all need new calibre guns.

    Let me put it in terms of small arms.

    Right now the Russian military are happy with the 5.45mm ammo. If their enemy start wearing armoured vests as standard that can stop 5.45mm ammo then they need more powerful ammo. the obvious is the 7.62 x 54mm ammo they already have in service but that is heavier and rather more powerful, which means bigger heavier weapons would be needed and less ammo will be carried.

    The simple fact is that they could even go to a 12.7 x 108mm calibre range of weapons but the opposition forces don't justify that yet.

    Right now the 125mm is effective enough and the cost of introducing a new calibre is not needed yet.

    That means the 152mm ammo can be further developed and lessons learned can be directly applied to the 125mm ammo in use now or to be introduced soon.

    The gun barrels will be easily swappable as they need to be changed in the field as they wear out with use, but only the Armata based vehicles will be able to carry a 152mm tank gun... the other T series vehicles in service wont have that capacity so even if you introduce it with the first Armata tank it wont be the standard tank gun calibre for some time anyway.

    The Abrams was a late entry in the new range of caliber, and not an example of the introduction of a new caliber.

    The Abrams was a case where they developed a vehicle with one gun in mind and found it to be wanting and so replaced it before it entered full service.

    You could say the same about the T-64 which started life with the T-62s 115mm smoothbore.

    When it first appeared it was bashed in the west because a smoothbore gun was seen as being inaccurate... ignoring the fact that APFSDS rounds don't like to be spun, and nor do HEAT rounds.

    It took a while for the west to accept smoothbore guns as being sensible for main tank guns... and that is part of the reason the M1 Abrams had a 105mm rifled gun.

    If the Russian engineers feel some doubt about the 125mm caliber being not enough for the entire life of the tank they will move forward to the 152mm caliber.

    The Armata is a vehicle family, designed to operate a range of weapon systems... it will likely have several main gun options including foreign guns for export models.

    The Armata will be used for 30-40 years so of course they designed it from the outset to be able to take a variety of main guns.

    To change the weapon of a tank after 10-20-30 years is a bad business. To have tanks with shorter life because of their weapon becomes obsolete before the end of the cycle of life is also a bad business.

    Having your new tank use the same ammo all your other tanks currently use makes obvious economic sense. Having developed a new calibre to meet more formidable future threats that can be adopted into production and service when it is needed makes even more sense... economic, military, and political.

    The economic analysis favors an early introduction over a late introduction.

    Early introduction means all existing tanks have different and now obsolete ammo... it also means new production for tank guns and tank gun ammo. the larger ammo will be more expensive and require all new transport and handling equipment and most likely will require loading equipment because of its size and weight. A human can load a 20kg HE shell and 10kg propellant stub into an autoloader in the floor of a tank, but what human do you know could load a 40kg HE shell and the likely 20kg propellant stubs into an autoloader in an unmanned turret? None? Which means all new machinery and equipment is needed.

    I am looking forward to the new 152mm ammo... the new fusing and electronics they could fit into a gun launched missile should make it a devastating missile against both ground and air targets but it wont be carrying anything like the number of rounds they carry now of the much smaller 125mm rounds. Will 15-20 rounds of 152mm ammo be enough?

    Actually, what I heard is that the MIM-1A multifunctional engineering vehicle and the UMZ-A mine layer/dispenser vehicles will be firs tested by 2017. I don't know much about the other variants, but they should be at least developed by the time the Armata platform enters service.

    The talk was of unification of systems, sensors, and weapons, with the different chassis and power trains, so there should be engineering vehicles based on the armata and Kurganets and boomerang and typhoon so development should be pretty quick in the sense that they are developing four versions of each type. I guess it all depends on how fast they can get models of the base vehicle to do the testing... I suspect most of the development has been done.


    Now that you mention it, at the 34:00-34:04 mark, set the running speed to .25. You will see a ERA block being put in to place by two men. It seems like the 2 had no real trouble carrying the ERA block, which would indicate that it's not immensely heavy.

    A conventional steel plate needed to do the same could not be carried by ten men.

    350-400mm penetration would be a threat to most current MBTs... Hull or turret.



    _________________
    “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

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Sep 17, 2016 12:04 pm

    Magnumcromagnon wrote:What was demonstrated was that the Armata series of ERA is so efficient, that it is capable of completely protecting unarmored civilian vehicles from HEAT munitions, which is completely unheard of! Shocked


    In the video in question is not present any new product from НИИ Стали, not only for heavy platform "Армата" ,but even only for medium and light platforms "Курганец-25" and "Бумеранг".

    The ERA that in this video Н.С. Дорохов (one of ,if not the, greater authority at world in the field of reactive armor )show mounted on the civil car is second half of '90 years technology , optmized for employing on light armoured vehicles -ЭДЗ 4С24-

    The reactive elements mounted today on "Армата" platform pertain to one geneation following 4С23 "Реликт" , with an increase in performances more than two times greater than those.

    Now, even those new elements represent merely a transient solution in the wait for the plain scientifical understanding, at НИИ Стали, of the working principles of the new reactive armor with capabilities simply in another league in comparison also with the new elements mounted on "Армата" platforms and working on a defeating mechanism still at today ( for a way paradoxically) mastered fully only at experimental level but for which do not exist ,still today, a coherent mathematical and physical model of the phenomenons involved , as recently said by the same Institute's representative to Виктор Мураховский Wink

    Therefore ,sorry but not reactive elements for "Армата" here .

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 591
    Points : 616
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  eehnie on Sat Sep 17, 2016 12:20 pm

    Garry, you are totally wrong saying that the T-90, T-72 and T-80 would need a new gun. Their cycle of life is clearly shorter than the cycle of the new T-14.

    The difference is that the T-14 needs the 125mm caliber to remain useful 50 years from now, while the rest need it only for 25 years as maximum, in the case of the T-80 maybe only for 10-15 years. It is a big difference.

    The fact that the 152mm caliber is used in artillery, makes the introduction of the 152mm caliber for tanks be not the introduction of a new caliber in overall terms. Actually both the 125mm and the 152mm are used by the Russian Armed Forces, the change to 152mm on tank weapons only means to increase the fraction of the Army using the 152mm and to decrease the fraction using the 125mm caliber. It means not aditional costs since both are not and will not be used inside the same unit.

    When a new caliber is introduced in advance, like the 125mm was, it can work together with other calibers by some years, like the 125mm did, because the previous caliber is not obsolete still. When a new caliber is introduced as reaction to armour improvements of the enemy is when the replacement is required for all the tanks, since the previous weapon becomes obsolete. Your comment is just wrong also on this. Plus, to wait until this point is both a military disaster and an economic disaster.

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1304
    Points : 1326
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Sep 17, 2016 4:47 pm

    eehnie wrote:At least the T-62, the Chieftain, the T-64, the T-72 and the Merkava used calibers between 115 and 125mm before the Americans come to this conclussion with the Abrams.around 1980.

    Not the Merkava, it was stuck with 105 mm till Mk III came online in 1989.

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 591
    Points : 616
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  eehnie on Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:36 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    eehnie wrote:At least the T-62, the Chieftain, the T-64, the T-72 and the Merkava used calibers between 115 and 125mm before the Americans come to this conclussion with the Abrams.around 1980.

    Not the Merkava, it was stuck with 105 mm till Mk III came online in 1989.

    True, you are right. We can add also to the list the T-80 and barely the Leopard 2.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 18, 2016 11:29 am

    Garry, you are totally wrong saying that the T-90, T-72 and T-80 would need a new gun. Their cycle of life is clearly shorter than the cycle of the new T-14.

    I didn't say they needed a new gun... you did.

    You said:

    The development of a new weapon (no matter the caliber) is justified with the development of the new tank.

    The difference is that the T-14 needs the 125mm caliber to remain useful 50 years from now, while the rest need it only for 25 years as maximum, in the case of the T-80 maybe only for 10-15 years. It is a big difference.

    The T-14 does not need the 125mm to remain useful for 50 years. The T-14 was designed from the outset to be a family of vehicles able to take a wide range of turrets and weapons.

    It is not out of the question to redesign the T-90 to take a fixed mantlet with a 152mm gun like the WWII tanks that needed to be upgunned that could not take a larger turret ring.

    It would be easier to convert them to carry Kornet however.

    The fact that the 152mm caliber is used in artillery, makes the introduction of the 152mm caliber for tanks be not the introduction of a new caliber in overall terms. Actually both the 125mm and the 152mm are used by the Russian Armed Forces, the change to 152mm on tank weapons only means to increase the fraction of the Army using the 152mm and to decrease the fraction using the 125mm caliber. It means not aditional costs since both are not and will not be used inside the same unit.

    You are not getting it.

    Introducing a 152mm tank gun is like introducing a 9mm rifle round.

    Adding a 9x69mm high power rifle round for snipers is not made cheaper because pistols already use 9x18mm rounds and suppressed assault rifles like the AS already use 9x39mm ammo.

    They are different weapons and different rounds so their introduction costs money and takes time.

    The 152mm Armata MBT wont be compatible with the 152mm artillery Coalition in the sense the gun will be different, the ammo will be different, the sensors and equipment will be different too.

    Already having MSTA 152mm artillery vehicles wont make any difference in standard divisions either.

    this new tank round will need new ammo to be put into mass production and for the new weapons to be made and new vehicles to be developed to carry the ammo and load it.

    When a new caliber is introduced in advance, like the 125mm was, it can work together with other calibers by some years, like the 125mm did, because the previous caliber is not obsolete still. When a new caliber is introduced as reaction to armour improvements of the enemy is when the replacement is required for all the tanks, since the previous weapon becomes obsolete. Your comment is just wrong also on this. Plus, to wait until this point is both a military disaster and an economic disaster.

    It certainly can, and if even the first Armata based tank vehicle has a 152mm main gun when it enters service the 125mm gun will likely remain in service for decades to come, on tanks and in towed mounts... but the Russian military has said it does not see a current need to introduce the 152mm tank gun yet.


    _________________
    “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

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 9:00 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 11, 2016 9:00 am