Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Share

    Project Canada
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 529
    Points : 538
    Join date : 2015-07-20
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Project Canada on Sat Oct 08, 2016 2:56 am


    Apologies if this was posted already


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 08, 2016 4:00 am

    Russian used this autoloader from T-80 because u can use bigger and longer rounds then u can use in T-72 autoloader.

    No you can't.

    The only real difference between the T-72/90 autoloader (made in Russia) and the T-64/80 autoloader (now from a country called the Ukraine) is that the propellent stubs in the former lay flat above the ammo which also lay flat pointing to the centre of the turret ring.

    In the T-64 the propellant stubs were vertical around the outside of the turret ring... and vulnerable to fire if the turret is penetrated.

    The 152mm calibre Armata MBT will have a much larger turret ring which will allow both larger propellant and rounds to be used and there is no crew above them so they can be stacked in multiple rows.


    _________________
    “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

    A1RMAN
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 37
    Points : 39
    Join date : 2016-10-08

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  A1RMAN on Sat Oct 08, 2016 9:10 pm

    0nillie0 wrote:

    - Is the 7.62mm the correct choice for the T-14? Or will we likely see other/additional weapon systems and a different commander sight setup in future production versions of the T-14?



    Viktor Murakhovsky wrote that T-14 is gonna get 30mm auto-cannon with brand new ammo. And possibly 57-mm grenade launcher in perspective.

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4812
    Points : 4859
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Militarov on Fri Oct 14, 2016 7:44 pm



    Drawing allegedly from the 80s, which describes armored-protective crew combat capsule of a tank which was in perspective back then. Seems drawing was made in Malyshev Factory in todays Ukraine. Similar in concept what we have today on Armata.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 15, 2016 9:26 am

    Except that Armata is a three crew arrangement and the controls for each position are duplicated so there isn't three steering wheels and three joysticks to aim the gun...


    _________________
    “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 : 4812
    Points : 4859
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Militarov on Sat Oct 15, 2016 2:25 pm

    GarryB wrote:Except that Armata is a three crew arrangement and the controls for each position are duplicated so there isn't three steering wheels and three joysticks to aim the gun...

    Well "similar in concept".

    Benya
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 173
    Points : 177
    Join date : 2016-06-05
    Location : Budapest, Hungary

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Benya on Sat Oct 15, 2016 3:04 pm

    GarryB wrote:Except that Armata is a three crew arrangement and the controls for each position are duplicated so there isn't three steering wheels and three joysticks to aim the gun...

    One steering wheel for the driver (to control the tank's movement), a joystick-like controller for the gunner (to rotate the turret, and elevate/depress the gun) and something similar for the commander (to control his sight and RCWS). I think that this is the proper control layout for the T-14 tank.

    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 Oct 15, 2016 5:55 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Except that Armata is a three crew arrangement and the controls for each position are duplicated so there isn't three steering wheels and three joysticks to aim the gun...

    Well "similar in concept".

    The U.S. had a similar concept, so that point is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Kharvov's plant's insistence on keeping propellant stubs vertical would of main their MBT still vulnerable. We cannot also forget live combat experience, the T-80's performance in Chechnya compared to the T-90's experience in Syria.

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4812
    Points : 4859
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Militarov on Sat Oct 15, 2016 6:20 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Except that Armata is a three crew arrangement and the controls for each position are duplicated so there isn't three steering wheels and three joysticks to aim the gun...

    Well "similar in concept".

    The U.S. had a similar concept, so that point is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Kharvov's plant's insistence on keeping propellant stubs vertical would of main their MBT still vulnerable. We cannot also forget live combat experience, the T-80's performance in Chechnya compared to the T-90's experience in Syria.

    And T-72s experience in Chech which is not even slightly brighter than one of T-80s, some turrets still did not fall back to the ground how far up they went.

    This is just showing that crew capsule is not new thing when its about Russian/Soviet/Ukrainian tank designs and that it existed almost two decades before first hull featuring it was actually built.

    Also we are talking numbers here, in Chech you had hundreds of tanks in full scale urban assault (which was really, really stupid idea), in Syria you have what? 1 batallion of T-90s used outside of urban areas as much as possible. Not really comparable situations.

    A1RMAN
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 37
    Points : 39
    Join date : 2016-10-08

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  A1RMAN on Sat Oct 15, 2016 6:37 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:We cannot also forget live combat experience, the T-80's performance in Chechnya compared to the T-90's experience in Syria.

    I don't know. Comparison like that could lead to false conclusions.

    Chechnya was absolute and complete clusterf@ck. Quality of command, communication, technical side were awful. Traitors everywhere - starting from bottom to the highest ranks of military and political command.

    How can you rate certain combat unit performance when it's understaffed, in poor technical condition and all combat information being sold to the enemy? Any goddamn T-100500 Uber-Tank would perform poorly.

    OminousSpudd
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 805
    Points : 824
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 21
    Location : Nelson, New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  OminousSpudd on Sat Oct 15, 2016 8:30 pm

    A1RMAN wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:We cannot also forget live combat experience, the T-80's performance in Chechnya compared to the T-90's experience in Syria.

    I don't know. Comparison like that could lead to false conclusions.

    Chechnya was absolute and complete clusterf@ck. Quality of command, communication, technical side were awful. Traitors everywhere - starting from bottom to the highest ranks of military and political command.

    How can you rate certain combat unit performance when it's understaffed, in poor technical condition and all combat information being sold to the enemy? Any goddamn T-100500 Uber-Tank would perform poorly.
    Right, and not to forget the weaponry that the enemy had access to. RPG-29s vs. T-80Us with empty ERA bricks does not go well.

    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Oct 16, 2016 11:44 pm

    An artist vision of BMPT-3.... looks like with 57mm gun to me


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:39 am

    The BMPT is a fire power vehicle that operates with tanks that can deal with pretty much anything except enemy tanks.

    Very early versions were Shilkas and Tunguskas in the sense that anti aircraft vehicles were used for their enormous fire power and ability to obliterate a patch of ground rapidly and effectively.

    The suitability of the "BMP-4" or Armata based IFV level armament for a BMPT role is actually pretty good... in fact some of the early model BMPTs had BMP-3 turrets, but the externally mounted twin 30mm cannon won because of the very low profile turret giving tank level protection to the turret crew without requiring frontal turret level protection.

    The 57mm gun mount with missiles would be excellent for the job trading rate of fire for much more powerful rounds and guided round precision. The ready to fire guided missiles would also be a bonus though the 57mm gun will have serious HE fire power too.

    Obviously the rear troop compartment would contain extra ammo for the 57mm cannon and likely replacement missiles.


    _________________
    “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

    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Oct 17, 2016 7:59 am

    GarryB wrote:The BMPT is a fire power vehicle that operates with tanks that can deal with pretty much anything except enemy tanks.

    Very early versions were Shilkas and Tunguskas in the sense that anti aircraft vehicles were used for their enormous fire power and ability to obliterate a patch of ground rapidly and effectively.

    The suitability of the "BMP-4" or Armata based IFV level armament for a BMPT role is actually pretty good... in fact some of the early model BMPTs had BMP-3 turrets, but the externally mounted twin 30mm cannon won because of the very low profile turret giving tank level protection to the turret crew without requiring frontal turret level protection.

    The 57mm gun mount with missiles would be excellent for the job trading rate of fire for much more powerful rounds and guided round precision. The ready to fire guided missiles would also be a bonus though the 57mm gun will have serious HE fire power too.

    Obviously the rear troop compartment would contain extra ammo for the 57mm cannon and likely replacement missiles.


    one more advantage I´d say - AAD role..when does with tanks can hit any helo, UAV or A-10 within range of 10 kms or so...with size of Armata chassis indeed ammo supply can be like 300 rounds...

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  GarryB on Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:16 am

    I would expect the Tunguska replacement within an Armata unit will already have a 57mm cannon and all the optics and sensors of all types to find and destroy helos and low flying aircraft... including air burst munitions to take out swarms of UAVs...

    The net centricity should allow IFVs and BMPTs to also add weight of fire when the air threat is particularly bad but most of the time they will be looking for threats on the ground.


    _________________
    “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

    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Oct 18, 2016 2:31 pm

    GarryB wrote:I would expect the Tunguska replacement within an Armata unit will already have a 57mm cannon and all the optics and sensors of all types to find and destroy helos and low flying aircraft... including air burst munitions to take out swarms of UAVs...

    The net centricity should allow IFVs and BMPTs to also add weight of fire when the air threat is particularly bad but most of the time they will be looking for threats on the ground.


    It seems ammo is not yet but one step ahead. Some time ago I´ve found on Grukhan´s blog an article from early 2000´s about guided and HE 57mm shells. 57mm shell could be packed with more HE and less propellent (for misiona where 1000m/s is not required but 700m/s is enough) an carry explosives same as in 76mm.... for BMPT looks like new opportunities.


    In army arsenals back shrapnel

    http://izvestia.ru/news/638481?utm_source=rnews

    The defense Ministry is testing a unique small-caliber artillery ammunition intelligent system for remote detonation, is able with one shot to shoot down a small reconnaissance drone or quadcopter, the amount of which does not exceed a few tens of centimeters. The latest exploding shells, flying to their targets, creating around itself a cloud of small pieces of metal or heavy duty plastic, which disables the drone. Development of a range of new shells of different calibers conducts NPO "Pribor" company "tehmash" (included in "rostec").

    As told "Izvestia" the chief designer of the small-caliber rounds for automatic guns of the NGO "Device" group "tehmash" Oleg Chizhevsky, the development has already passed the stage of experimental-design works and came in preliminary tests in the framework of the joint project "Derive", implemented in partnership with the Nizhny Novgorod CDB "savages".

    In view of the prospects and importance of the work for the military testing new weapons will be held in the near future, — have informed "news" Chizhevsky. — Then you can expect them to adopting. At the first stage of our unique get ammunition 57-mm combat module AU-220M "Baikal", which were already included in the armament of armored personnel carriers "boomerang" and infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) based on the platform "Armata" T-15 and BMP family of "kurganets-25". In the future we plan to develop ammunition with a caliber of 30 mm for the older BTR-82, BMP-2 and BMP-3.

    In the defense Ministry to "Izvestia" explained that currently, ammunition is developed in the framework of the project "Derivation", included in the perspective nomenclature of ammunition of Russian armored vehicles. The first such work was commissioned by industry in 2012. The arrival of new shells to the troops is planned, together with deliveries of new armored vehicles, but no later than 2020.

    New shells looks no different from ordinary. As told Chizhevsky, the main highlight of munitions — miniature fuse with artificial intelligence. It allows you, at the time of the shot or immediately after it, to program the shell to undermine at a certain time, calculated automatically by the computer depending on the distance to the target. Bounding up to her, and the munition explodes, dispelling the cloud of thousands of shrapnel balls. In the future it may even be pieces of heavy duty plastic. Small drones are almost not protected, so that, once in the cloud of submunitions, have no chance to survive. The falling on his own position, the shrapnel or plastic is absolutely not dangerous for the soldiers, protected by helmets and body armor.

    — Small drones have already flooded the sky in war zones, and then there will be more and more, — explained the "Izvestia" military historian Alex Hassle. — The detection and interception of young scouts is a serious problem. Shoot them down with antiaircraft missiles is the same as throwing them in gold bullion. The price of the scout, as a rule, does not exceed one thousand dollars, and the rocket is much more expensive. Each drone is very dangerous, as it leads not only exploration, combat formations, but also induces light aircraft, helicopters, large armed drones, artillery and tanks of the enemy.

    Currently in the armed forces of NATO countries are being actively implemented multi-rotor copters, which are used by infantry units for reconnaissance in woodland and settlements. Recently the U.S. armed forces bought a few dozen quadcopters Scout, who had already suffered during combat operations in Afghanistan. Weighing in at 1.3 kg and length less than a meter drone is able to hang in the air for about half an hour and fly at a speed of about 50 km/h.

    As noted by Alex Khlopotov, about the relevance of fighting with these order say active work of Western companies to create an inexpensive but highly effective interception of small drones. In France is developed by a 40-millimeter anti-aircraft gun RAPID Fire, able to shoot remotely undermine ammunition. On a similar system operates with the German company Rheinmetall.

    — In the creation of small-caliber ammunition with intelligent remote detonation we are seriously ahead of Western developers, says Alex Hassle. Is relatively inexpensive, but highly effective means of destruction of small drones.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3560
    Points : 3595
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:42 pm

    Militarov wrote:

    Drawing allegedly from the 80s, which describes armored-protective crew combat capsule of a tank which was in perspective back then. Seems drawing was made in Malyshev Factory in todays Ukraine. Similar in concept what we have today on Armata.

    Actually armored capsule is straight out of the 60's when they were all about ATGM tanks (Obj 775/Rubin) that's what you're looking at. The tank was deemed too costly and the IT-1 Drakon was accepted for a limited run. AMriki always second best.

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4812
    Points : 4859
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Militarov on Tue Oct 18, 2016 5:15 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Militarov wrote:

    Drawing allegedly from the 80s, which describes armored-protective crew combat capsule of a tank which was in perspective back then. Seems drawing was made in Malyshev Factory in todays Ukraine. Similar in concept what we have today on Armata.

    Actually armored capsule is straight out of the 60's when they were all about ATGM tanks (Obj 775/Rubin) that's what you're looking at. The tank was deemed too costly and the IT-1 Drakon was accepted for a limited run. AMriki always second best.

    Object 775 tho from what i remember had separate capsule inside turret itself rather than one inside the hull. This drawing looks to me like its ment to be placed inside the hull.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3560
    Points : 3595
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Tue Oct 18, 2016 5:37 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Militarov wrote:

    Drawing allegedly from the 80s, which describes armored-protective crew combat capsule of a tank which was in perspective back then. Seems drawing was made in Malyshev Factory in todays Ukraine. Similar in concept what we have today on Armata.

    Actually armored capsule is straight out of the 60's when they were all about ATGM tanks (Obj 775/Rubin) that's what you're looking at. The tank was deemed too costly and the IT-1 Drakon was accepted for a limited run. AMriki always second best.

    Object 775 tho from what i remember had separate capsule inside turret itself rather than one inside the hull. This drawing looks to me like its ment to be placed inside the hull.

    Not with that width and the Turret was a placeholder for both the capsule and moving parts of mechanism which was a revolver type with a cyclical funnel that went up to the front hull and acted as a separator between TC and driver. Also last detail the capsule was fixed and aiming forward. It didn't rotate with the firing system. Which forced a kind of tilting Gun/turret, just like the older Soviet tank obj 232/299-50 that has strong hints of the Armata.

    Spacing between driver and gunner would have made any other solution impractical given that the tanks transmission for most USSR tanks were manual, thus more space was needed. The only tank with a two man crew other than the Drakon was the Rubin. And both were trialed with auto trannie. None kept it.

    Also while you're correct about the hull capsule, the definition of a safety capsule, disregarding the layout is something that requires an automated mechanism, something both nations trialed, but only the USSR introduced in its MBT's. Dare I say the Obj 775 was an old series autoloading tank but with a totally different ammunition thus it needed to have that capsule.

    And welcome back btw.

    Benya
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 173
    Points : 177
    Join date : 2016-06-05
    Location : Budapest, Hungary

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Benya on Tue Oct 18, 2016 6:03 pm

    GarryB wrote:I would expect the Tunguska replacement within an Armata unit will already have a 57mm cannon and all the optics and sensors of all types to find and destroy helos and low flying aircraft... including air burst munitions to take out swarms of UAVs...

    The net centricity should allow IFVs and BMPTs to also add weight of fire when the air threat is particularly bad but most of the time they will be looking for threats on the ground.

    Yeah, but with a single barrel? I would suggest a 2 barrel configuration both for the AA and the BMPT, simply because these two vehicles would perform critical tasks on the battlefield, and by critical tasks, I mean convoy/sector air defense and the urgent clean-up of any hidden serious threats to tanks. Just think about it Garry, imagine that you are an 57 mm SPAA operator, and you would have to defend an entire tank battalion, and the last thing you would wish is that your single barrel would fail amidst the battle (the loaded round jams/cooks of, or firing mechanism malfunction would disable the gun), similar problem can also happen to a single barrelled BMPT. Plus a single barrel would greatly hinder the effectiveness of the BMPT, since some pew-pew (2-4) from a single gun would only kill an enemy infantry (10-16 soldiers) or dedicated anti-tank squad/detachment, while a 6-8 shot salvo from two guns would be able to wipe out platoon-sized units.

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:An artist vision of BMPT-3.... looks like with 57mm gun to me


    That is just a T-15 eqiupped with the Baikal-M combat module. It is possible that every new Russian IFV/APC would get it in the future.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  GarryB on Wed Oct 19, 2016 8:57 am

    One barrel is enough for a MBT... why would it not be enough for a BMPT or SPAAG?

    A single barrel gun like a 57mm weapon will have all sorts of failsafes where rounds that fail to fire can be ejected or fired.

    30mm cannons have squibs that burn hot jets of molten propellent into the side of cartridge case so if a primer fails the round can still be fired and cycled to load a fresh round.

    In an unmanned turret such backup measures are even more important and so a failed round would be extracted and ejected and a fresh round loaded to continue firing.

    Having two barrel greatly increases weight and cost with the increase in complication and size and weight for the vehicle... the 57mm gun will have multiple feed options so different rounds can be loaded for different targets... add another gun and that other gun will need multiple feed options too... and for what?

    So you can fire 600 rpm instead of 300rpm?

    Most of the time the 57mm gun will fire one or two rounds at most targets at a time.

    Area targets could be engaged with a short burst of 4-5 rounds but as each shell has the power of a 76mm gun it would not need too many hits to be looking for new targets.

    Having air burst rounds means even a swarm of UAVs could be engaged with a few shots of air bursting rounds.

    With every air defence vehicle and every IFV with a 57mm gun I don't think there will be a problem if one has a gun malfunction.

    Even MBTs with 152mm gun fired missiles will be able to take on air targets, and new SAMs like Morfei and SOSNA-R and TOR and PANTSIR will make airpower extinct near a Russian ground force of the future.


    _________________
    “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

    Benya
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 173
    Points : 177
    Join date : 2016-06-05
    Location : Budapest, Hungary

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Benya on Sat Nov 19, 2016 10:43 pm

    Armata-based Combat Vehicles to be equipped with surveillance drones

    According to the Izvestia newspaper a local media, Russia’s advanced combat vehicles based on the Armata platform will be equipped with surveillance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), which will be scanning the battlefield for dozens of miles around and will give situationnal awareness to the crew.



    The T-14 Armata Main Battle Tank (Photo V. Kuzmin)

    The UAV called Pterodactyl, developed by the Moscow Aviation Institute (MAI), will be connected to the vehicle through a cable and will be able to operate as long as the vehicle is running. The drone will be equipped with a radar and thermal scope and will have a maximum flight range of 100 meters.

    "We are currently carrying out research and development work, and we will hand over the device for tests to the Defense Ministry in a year," Vitaly Poliansky, a research associate at MAI's department of aviation robotic systems, told the media outlet. The drone is expected to move with the same speed as the vehicle, and it will be capable of taking off from the hull of the machine. A tether management system will provide full data protection.

    In April, Oleg Sienko, the director of UralVagonZavod, The company manufacturing the Armata platform, had told to RIA Novosti news agency about the possibility of equipping the Armata-based vehicles with surveillance drones.

    “It is a necessary element at a tactical level. It is very hard to move forward in the column ‘without eyes,’ that’s why the UAV is provided there and we will be actively introducing it,” Sienko said.

    It is not yet known which UAV will be used to fit into the vehicle, but it will certainly be one made in Russia, Sienko said, adding that it is for the Russian Defense Ministry to decide which device to choose as it runs the trials.

    “We will install whichever one [the ministry] tells us to. But there will be one for sure,” he said.

    The drone is expected to move with the same speed as the vehicle, and it will be capable of taking off from the hull of the machine. A tether management system will provide full data protection.


    The T-15 Armata Infantry Fighting Vehicle (Photo V. Kuzmin)

    Source: Arrow http://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/armata-based_combat_vehicles_to_be_equipped_with_surveillance_drones_51811163.html


    Good concept! thumbsup With a "Takhion" drone, the vehicle would be perfect for artillery reconaissance, or with a "Leer-3" drone for electronic warfare (signal detection and jamming, or with a bit bigger one, for battlefield surveillance, or a drone that can be used as an airborne communications relay/node. The list of possibilities is endless.

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4812
    Points : 4859
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Militarov on Sat Nov 19, 2016 10:53 pm

    Benya wrote:Armata-based Combat Vehicles to be equipped with surveillance drones

    According to the Izvestia newspaper a local media, Russia’s advanced combat vehicles based on the Armata platform will be equipped with surveillance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), which will be scanning the battlefield for dozens of miles around and will give situationnal awareness to the crew.



    The T-14 Armata Main Battle Tank (Photo V. Kuzmin)

    The UAV called Pterodactyl, developed by the Moscow Aviation Institute (MAI), will be connected to the vehicle through a cable and will be able to operate as long as the vehicle is running. The drone will be equipped with a radar and thermal scope and will have a maximum flight range of 100 meters.

    "We are currently carrying out research and development work, and we will hand over the device for tests to the Defense Ministry in a year," Vitaly Poliansky, a research associate at MAI's department of aviation robotic systems, told the media outlet. The drone is expected to move with the same speed as the vehicle, and it will be capable of taking off from the hull of the machine. A tether management system will provide full data protection.

    In April, Oleg Sienko, the director of UralVagonZavod, The company manufacturing the Armata platform, had told to RIA Novosti news agency about the possibility of equipping the Armata-based vehicles with surveillance drones.

    “It is a necessary element at a tactical level. It is very hard to move forward in the column ‘without eyes,’ that’s why the UAV is provided there and we will be actively introducing it,” Sienko said.

    It is not yet known which UAV will be used to fit into the vehicle, but it will certainly be one made in Russia, Sienko said, adding that it is for the Russian Defense Ministry to decide which device to choose as it runs the trials.

    “We will install whichever one [the ministry] tells us to. But there will be one for sure,” he said.

    The drone is expected to move with the same speed as the vehicle, and it will be capable of taking off from the hull of the machine. A tether management system will provide full data protection.


    The T-15 Armata Infantry Fighting Vehicle (Photo V. Kuzmin)

    Source: Arrow http://www.armyrecognition.com/november_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/armata-based_combat_vehicles_to_be_equipped_with_surveillance_drones_51811163.html


    Good concept! thumbsup With a "Takhion" drone, the vehicle would be perfect for artillery reconaissance, or with a "Leer-3" drone for electronic warfare (signal detection and jamming, or with a bit bigger one, for battlefield surveillance, or a drone that can be used as an airborne communications relay/node. The list of possibilities is endless.

    I am rather prone to concluding it will be some type of quadcopter or hybrid rather than any of the conventional wing-desiegned UAVs as it will carry cable and will have to land on the hull too.

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2515
    Points : 2648
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  kvs on Sat Nov 19, 2016 11:11 pm

    Good idea to include drone(s). Being able to see over obstacles and over a much wider area is gold during combat. The tank can
    engage targets and assess threats from a much greater distance. The drones can also feed information up the command chain to
    get a fine grained view of the global battlefield.

    There would be no excuse not to include this feature.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 20, 2016 2:17 am

    My first thought was some sort of mini airship for duration at relatively low speeds, but if it is linked to the tank all the time then all electric makes sense as the cable can be for two way data communication and power supply.

    Some sort of quad copter would certainly be ideal, though tethering it to the hull might restrict the ability of the turret to turn as the gun would get in the way of the tether.

    Perhaps attaching it to the turret top might be more sensible...

    BTW the article above about the 57mm gun ammo being used for the IFV versions of Armata and the other vehicle types confirms what I had suspected.

    The development of new 30mm ammo for older models and lighter types is interesting as well and can be used on a wide variety of platforms including the new Tigrs with the 30mm cannon turrets.

    Making them more flexible and useful.

    The drone having a radar and a thermal imager would make it rather useful at 100m above the tank... standard tanks will have the recon capability that current recon vehicles only dream of.

    more important in built up areas or areas of forest or hilly areas such a view would be a huge advantage.

    More importantly with data sharing you just need to launch one UAV and pass the information on to HQ and other platforms... for the enemy there might be one Armata tank behind that low hill or there might be none... it could be a UAV operating from a Tigr... or there could be a huge number of tanks there just selecting a target to fire upon.

    With the Sokol-1 missile using optical guidance the launching tank wont need a direct line of sight to find and hit a target... when they move to a 152mm main gun the space inside the projectile will likely allow MMW radar or IIR guidance which again can be fire and forget for specific targets.

    They have integrated laser marking and aiming systems into the fire control systems of their new helos so they can launch laser homing and laser beam riding missiles without modification... if this drone carries radar and thermal optics it should be able to determine the actual location of the targets it detects and therefore GLONASS guidance with optical terminal guidance could be a cheap and simple option.


    _________________
    “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 8:38 pm


      Current date/time is Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:38 pm