Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Share

    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 Tue Apr 05, 2016 3:11 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:That isnt new claims. And this was discussed quite quite while before already.

    Apologies. I should have looked.

    Militarov wrote:

    Object 490 "Buntar" and Object 299.

    I looked up the information on these Soviet projects and seems that Soviet engineers (like Alexander Morozov) were thinking of using unmanned tanks as far back as the 1950s. The 1972 Izdelie 450 project was to feature an unmanned turret with the crew safely positioned in the hull. Thanks a lot, Militarov. thumbsup

    Damn, is there anything the American fanboys won't lie about?

    It's not lies per se. It's just the way they see it.

    If you want, for instance I had a very troublesome discussion regarding the viability or American style repeaters in European theatre. I got hit with the battle of Varna during the last Russo-Turkish war. According to an US/English legend, repeaters and volley fire would have been decisive in stalling the Russian attacks on Plevna/Pleven.

    While when you read the actual movement. There are instances where the repeaters did exactly the contrary. They created gaps in the rhythm of fire that allowed both Russians and Romanians to actually sap the Turkish defences and get closer. The fact that the battle ended by a three months old siege doesn't mean that the Turks were "winning", because basically they lost the battle and the war, because of Pleven. And the repeaters were NEVER seen again by any modern European force and even the Turks and later the Russians who tested them, went the good old bolt action route.

    Now for the US weapons aficionados, the truth is that repeaters were king of the hill. But from a military stand point, they were utterly expensive and ammo consuming, especially if you didn't hit. And everyone with a brain went for bolt actions. Including the US.

    Still repeaters were great for cavalary. However due to logistics most cavalary units in the world had to stick with shortened carabine bolt action rifles.

    Yeah until you had to reload...any repeater. And with the Enfield action, the large capacity Henry Martinis were a moot point. They were out ranged, out punched and out reloaded. And then there's the Lebel...

    Cyrus: Once again, it's not a lie if you believe in it. Honest to God, there's the hard belief in American Exceptionalism that goes really deep into how the US was made. And that's how the Americans see it. Then there's the trolls who know better.

    I used to be bothered by that, but thanks to guys like ArtjomH, I've settled down on the technical side of the deal. However the political side is something else.

    Anyway, I'm way off topic.

    I'm oddly amused by American attitudes. You can't even talk to them about the reasons for the 'revolutionary war'; you can't tell them that Britain's treaty with the indigenous people (a treaty that forbade westward expansion) was a conveniently omitted factor for the 'revolutionary' war -- a war that the Americans present as entirely righteous.

    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 Tue Apr 05, 2016 3:11 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:

    Tesla is without a shadow of a doubt the greatest mind that has ever drawn breath, and the fact that he didn't get duly recognized demonstrates that the whole thing is rigged. It's meaningless, especially when Obama got one when he hadn't even done anything.

    No question about fact that he was great, one of the greatest in history for sure. I am proud by fact that my grand-grandmother was his mother cousin, which sort of makes us some far, far cousins Smile

    You seem to have a very good grasp of science, so you may actually have some of the intellectual aptitude that made Telsa the mental giant that he was. I actually cried when I first watched a documentary on Tesla when I was 17, because Tesla poured absolutely everything into science and was not accorded the recognition and respect that he so thoroughly deserved. He also died penniless. Tesla (not Einstein) should be synonymous with genius.

    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 Tue Apr 05, 2016 3:26 pm

    OminousSpudd wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:Find me one fucking genius better than Tesla. His studies, work and scientific thesis and explorations have and are still moving forward concepts in modern technologies which took many decades after his death just to form the basis for such moving and future orientated thesis to actually work towards their realization/confirmation.

    There is a reason the newly born Soviets bought essentially every technical blueprint he ever created, and a reason Russia still experiments with his theories on a grand scale even today.

    Cyrus the great wrote:I'm just going to ignore the Americans from now on (because in addition to being ignorant, arrogant and obnoxious) they seem to be wrong about virtually everything. Thanks guys.

    I am forced to agree with this sentiment. The brainwashing that goes on in that country is extreme. It is exceptional when you find an American who can talk military without inflating US hardware to out of this world proportions. F-16.net, theaviationist, themess, etc. etc. pick your poison.


    And the funny thing is that they think that their media is free of bias and propaganda when they are probably some of the biggest victims of propaganda in the world. Americans (the West in general) are masters of propaganda because they understand that it should be perceived as entirely independent from the center of power whereas non-Western countries commit the folly of creating State controlled media. Every major media outlet in the US is a corporate member of the Council on foreign relations (just like virtually all the politicians) and so they are a little more effective than their non-American counterparts.

    PS: Those websites are absolute trash. I just couldn't believe that some people argued that the F-16 could somehow prevail over the SU-35. It's laughable.

    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 Tue Apr 05, 2016 5:23 pm



    I'm going to be crowned the captain of asking stupid questions, but I maintain that looking foolish is an integral part of learning. So here it goes:

    I understand that some people have discussed the possibility of incorporating anti-aircraft missiles on the Armata, so could the turret of the T-14 Armata physically incorporate the Verba missile by housing it vertically within the unmanned turret? The space required to accommodate the Verba missile would have to be at least 1.5 meters long. I imagine that the turret could *accommodate* three Verba missiles. I know that SHORAD would better protect armored columns from aerial attacks, so I'm asking this admittedly stupid question to satisfy my own curiosity. Embarassed






    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4798
    Points : 4845
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Militarov on Tue Apr 05, 2016 5:49 pm

    Cyrus the great wrote:

    I'm going to be crowned the captain of asking stupid questions, but I maintain that looking foolish is an integral part of learning. So here it goes:

    I  understand that some people have discussed the possibility of incorporating anti-aircraft missiles on the Armata, so could the turret of the T-14 Armata physically incorporate the Verba missile by housing it vertically within the unmanned turret? The space required to accommodate the Verba missile would have to be at least 1.5 meters long. I imagine that the turret could *accommodate* three Verba missiles.  I know that SHORAD would better protect armored columns from aerial attacks, so I'm asking this admittedly stupid question to satisfy my own curiosity.  Embarassed






    Even IF it was ever placed on Armata i dont think they would install vertical launch tubes, as it would probably affect its protection, as they would though turret be laying partially in loader. IF it was ever placed on Armata i personally would do it like its on ZSU-23-4MP Biała for an example:





    Or like this:


    x_54_u43
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 187
    Points : 207
    Join date : 2015-09-19

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  x_54_u43 on Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:50 pm

    Cyrus the great wrote:

    I'm going to be crowned the captain of asking stupid questions, but I maintain that looking foolish is an integral part of learning. So here it goes:

    I  understand that some people have discussed the possibility of incorporating anti-aircraft missiles on the Armata, so could the turret of the T-14 Armata physically incorporate the Verba missile by housing it vertically within the unmanned turret? The space required to accommodate the Verba missile would have to be at least 1.5 meters long. I imagine that the turret could *accommodate* three Verba missiles.  I know that SHORAD would better protect armored columns from aerial attacks, so I'm asking this admittedly stupid question to satisfy my own curiosity.  Embarassed


    Any ground to air functionality would be well performed by the future 57mm that might be mounted to the serial T-14 or the dedicated variant of SHORADS that uses the future 57mm.

    BTW the 57mm is slated for use with laser guided shells.

    Verba would just be a lot of cost with not a lot of functionality outside of shooting down aircraft. Now 57mm, on the other hand, are very, very useful in a variety of roles, from anti-personnel to soft-targets to fuck everything.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Apr 05, 2016 11:43 pm

    The Problem you would face with trying to integrate a Verba MANPAD system on a plattform like a Tank that is a frontline (ground to ground) orientated vehicle is that it does not have Thermial Imagers made to search for threats in the sky and due that being not aware of any threats from the sky like Attack Helicopters. That would mean you would need an OLS (IRST) which cost and will have no use 99% of the time they are installed, get easily dirty and by that decrease their functionality, use and will affect the amount of budget you will have to buy new tanks or maintain them, since such systems are made of highly costly materials such as saphiric lenses and what not, very costly for a system that is still very inferior compared even to an old Tunguska. It has no economical use.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:34 am

    I think you are mostly ignoring the fact that Armata is not a tank.

    There will be a version of Armata that has a turret with a 125mm or later 152mm main gun that is used as a tank, but there will be Pantsir-SM and Tunguska and TOR versions and as mentioned above a 57mm armed version used for infantry transport... an IFV... the Tunguska replacement will likely also have 57mm guns as well because in the anti air role a 57mm cannon shell killing air targets to 12km makes it a very potent gun, and with the air search capabilities it will be effective in the role too.

    I rather suspect with the data communication and battle management systems all Armatas will carry that a new model Svir or Sokol-1 or improved version of either... perhaps incorporating scramjet propulsion might offer superior performance to any MANPADS through the main gun with net centric data from a range of platforms offering the situational awareness to use them at 10km or beyond.

    A standard MBT will not defend itself from aircraft... there will be IFVs and SPAAGs and short range systems armed with SOSNA-R and Morfei and Pantsir and TOR missiles doing that.


    _________________
    “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

    Big_Gazza
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 507
    Points : 531
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Big_Gazza on Wed Apr 06, 2016 1:59 pm

    Werewolf wrote:The Problem you would face with trying to integrate a Verba MANPAD system on a plattform like a Tank that is a frontline (ground to ground) orientated vehicle is that it does not have Thermial Imagers made to search for threats in the sky and due that being not aware of any threats from the sky like Attack Helicopters. That would mean you would need an OLS (IRST) which cost and will have no use 99% of the time they are installed, get easily dirty and by that decrease their functionality, use and will affect the amount of budget you will have to buy new tanks or maintain them, since such systems are made of highly costly materials such as saphiric lenses and what not, very costly for a system that is still very inferior compared even to an old Tunguska. It has no economical use.

    Additionally, doesn't a Verba need to lock its IR seeker onto a target prior to launch? If so, this suggests that it cannot be launched from VLS.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Apr 06, 2016 8:55 pm

    GarryB wrote:I think you are mostly ignoring the fact that Armata is not a tank.

    There will be a version of Armata that has a turret with a 125mm or later 152mm main gun that is used as a tank, but there will be Pantsir-SM and Tunguska and TOR versions and as mentioned above a 57mm armed version used for infantry transport... an IFV... the Tunguska replacement will likely also have 57mm guns as well because in the anti air role a 57mm cannon shell killing air targets to 12km makes it a very potent gun, and with the air search capabilities it will be effective in the role too.

    I rather suspect with the data communication and battle management systems all Armatas will carry that a new model Svir or Sokol-1 or improved version of either... perhaps incorporating scramjet propulsion might offer superior performance to any MANPADS through the main gun with net centric data from a range of platforms offering the situational awareness to use them at 10km or beyond.

    A standard MBT will not defend itself from aircraft... there will be IFVs and SPAAGs and short range systems armed with SOSNA-R and Morfei and Pantsir and TOR missiles doing that.

    I understand entirely, but Armata the name is now, falsely, but non the less a synonyme for T-14. The Armata is the modular based hull, however what he meant was the T-14 being equipped with Verba MANPAD. The battlefield is a combined arms warfare where all the little cogs fit in their intented use and maximize their potential in offensive/defensive capabilities, therefore in no structure of military units is a system like VERBA necessary to be installed as a vertical launcher on a Tank.


    Big_Gazza wrote:Additionally, doesn't a Verba need to lock its IR seeker onto a target prior to launch? If so, this suggests that it cannot be launched from VLS.

    It probably does need a LOBL but maybe it can be linked to IRST with some upgrade.

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4798
    Points : 4845
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Militarov on Wed Apr 06, 2016 9:48 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:The Problem you would face with trying to integrate a Verba MANPAD system on a plattform like a Tank that is a frontline (ground to ground) orientated vehicle is that it does not have Thermial Imagers made to search for threats in the sky and due that being not aware of any threats from the sky like Attack Helicopters. That would mean you would need an OLS (IRST) which cost and will have no use 99% of the time they are installed, get easily dirty and by that decrease their functionality, use and will affect the amount of budget you will have to buy new tanks or maintain them, since such systems are made of highly costly materials such as saphiric lenses and what not, very costly for a system that is still very inferior compared even to an old Tunguska. It has no economical use.

    Additionally, doesn't a Verba need to lock its IR seeker onto a target prior to launch?  If so, this suggests that it cannot be launched from VLS.

    You can feed it into missile externally i belive.

    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 Apr 07, 2016 6:47 am

    As far as shorad missile compromising armor density, I don't think it has to be. Turret bustle could be the place to store the shorad missile and launcher, with a mechanism in the rear of the bustle that could set the missile launcher at a 45 to 90 degree position, though I would recommend the IR seeker guidance being replaced with a laser beam riding channel in the rear of the missile, and or a radio command version similar to the Kristamum system. Turret bustle could also be the place for a smaller MLRS system such as a modernized BM-14 system, to rapidly engage soft-skin and human targets.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9423
    Points : 9915
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  George1 on Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:19 am

    New video with the tank T-14 of the "Armata" platform





    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3225
    Points : 3349
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Vann7 on Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:25 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:The Problem you would face with trying to integrate a Verba MANPAD system on a plattform like a Tank that is a frontline (ground to ground) orientated vehicle is that it does not have Thermial Imagers made to search for threats in the sky and due that being not aware of any threats from the sky like Attack Helicopters. That would mean you would need an OLS (IRST) which cost and will have no use 99% of the time they are installed, get easily dirty and by that decrease their functionality, use and will affect the amount of budget you will have to buy new tanks or maintain them, since such systems are made of highly costly materials such as saphiric lenses and what not, very costly for a system that is still very inferior compared even to an old Tunguska. It has no economical use.

    Additionally, doesn't a Verba need to lock its IR seeker onto a target prior to launch?  If so, this suggests that it cannot be launched from VLS.


    somewhere it was said the Verba can operate in fire and forget mode. And can connect its mini radar to the defense network of any nation. So if confirmed, they can shut down any civil

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2126
    Points : 2241
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  higurashihougi on Thu Apr 07, 2016 10:24 am

    Actually I am more curious about the BMPT version of Armata. It will be similar to what Garry described or it will looks more like the old Terminator ?

    OminousSpudd
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 803
    Points : 822
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 21
    Location : Nelson, New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  OminousSpudd on Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:07 am

    higurashihougi wrote:Actually I am more curious about the BMPT version of Armata. It will be similar to what Garry described or it will looks more like the old Terminator ?

    I want it to look like the old Terminator or obvious reasons. Very Happy

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:41 am

    Big Gazza is right... to be vertically launched the system needs an autopilot and some way of acquiring the target after it is launched... most radar guided missiles like SARH or ARH are launched and then either start looking and find an illuminated target in the case of the SARH or scan for the target themselves in the case of the ARH both after being directed to the area the target is located by autopilot.

    In this case however the Verba requires a view of the target before it can be launched so unless the target is directly above the tank then there would be no launch.

    New missiles like Morfei will use an Imaging IR seeker and a datalink so it can be launched and directed towards where the target is before looking itself and locking onto the target... ie lock on after launch or LOAL.

    somewhere it was said the Verba can operate in fire and forget mode. And can connect its mini radar to the defense network of any nation. So if confirmed, they can shut down any civil

    All Verbas are heat seeking and operate in a fire and forget mode... just like all Igla-S, Igla-1, Igla, and the Strelas before them. None of them have mini radars, but can use nearby radars to cue the operator to point the missile in the correct direction ready for use.

    The idea that in the future a MBT might have small self defence missiles is not actually that far fetched as a trailer with Morphei could be used to shoot down threats like anti armour missiles, but for the moment the Afghanistan APS should suffice and of course any anti aircraft missile would more easily be fired through the main gun to greater ranges than the Verba is effective to.

    Remember against helos some existing ATGMs fired through 125mm gun tubes have a range of 8km with a lofted trajectory even though their anti armour range is 5.5km.

    A newer ramjet powered model could probably be used to much greater range... fit it with the seeker of the Morfei and you could probably hit targets at enormous distances...


    _________________
    “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 : 4798
    Points : 4845
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Militarov on Thu Apr 07, 2016 3:54 pm

    OminousSpudd wrote:
    higurashihougi wrote:Actually I am more curious about the BMPT version of Armata. It will be similar to what Garry described or it will looks more like the old Terminator ?

    I want it to look like the old Terminator or obvious reasons. Very Happy

    I am not rly sure about it happening. We already have T15, which has 30mm cannon and ATGMs and is on tank platform, that basically covers the idea behind Terminator.

    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 Fri Apr 08, 2016 7:12 am

    Militarov wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:

    I'm going to be crowned the captain of asking stupid questions, but I maintain that looking foolish is an integral part of learning. So here it goes:

    I  understand that some people have discussed the possibility of incorporating anti-aircraft missiles on the Armata, so could the turret of the T-14 Armata physically incorporate the Verba missile by housing it vertically within the unmanned turret? The space required to accommodate the Verba missile would have to be at least 1.5 meters long. I imagine that the turret could *accommodate* three Verba missiles.  I know that SHORAD would better protect armored columns from aerial attacks, so I'm asking this admittedly stupid question to satisfy my own curiosity.  Embarassed






    Even IF it was ever placed on Armata i dont think they would install vertical launch tubes, as it would probably affect its protection, as they would though turret be laying partially in loader. IF it was ever placed on Armata i personally would do it like its on ZSU-23-4MP Biała for an example:





    Or like this:



    I understand now that vertical launch tubes would be an altogether bad idea. Your suggestions would not negatively impact the armour protection of the turret, but it does seem as though they would increase the profile of the Armata. The profile of the Armata is just perfect. Thanks for the picture, mate.

    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 Fri Apr 08, 2016 7:40 am

    x_54_u43 wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:

    I'm going to be crowned the captain of asking stupid questions, but I maintain that looking foolish is an integral part of learning. So here it goes:

    I  understand that some people have discussed the possibility of incorporating anti-aircraft missiles on the Armata, so could the turret of the T-14 Armata physically incorporate the Verba missile by housing it vertically within the unmanned turret? The space required to accommodate the Verba missile would have to be at least 1.5 meters long. I imagine that the turret could *accommodate* three Verba missiles.  I know that SHORAD would better protect armored columns from aerial attacks, so I'm asking this admittedly stupid question to satisfy my own curiosity.  Embarassed


    Any ground to air functionality would be well performed by the future 57mm that might be mounted to the serial T-14 or the dedicated variant of SHORADS that uses the future 57mm.

    BTW the 57mm is slated for use with laser guided shells.

    Verba would just be a lot of cost with not a lot of functionality outside of shooting down aircraft. Now 57mm, on the other hand, are very, very useful in a variety of roles, from anti-personnel to soft-targets to fuck everything.


    You're right, the 57mm is infinitely better suited (and cheaper) for that task than MANPADS. The 57mm would also have a far longer range -- making it more effective. The various anti-aircraft systems would more effectively protect armoured columns and soldiers from aerial attack in combined arms operations. Being so fixated on missiles, I forgot just how potent the 57mm is. Thanks for answering my question, mate.




    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 Fri Apr 08, 2016 8:58 am

    Werewolf wrote:The Problem you would face with trying to integrate a Verba MANPAD system on a plattform like a Tank that is a frontline (ground to ground) orientated vehicle is that it does not have Thermial Imagers made to search for threats in the sky and due that being not aware of any threats from the sky like Attack Helicopters. That would mean you would need an OLS (IRST) which cost and will have no use 99% of the time they are installed, get easily dirty and by that decrease their functionality, use and will affect the amount of budget you will have to buy new tanks or maintain them, since such systems are made of highly costly materials such as saphiric lenses and what not, very costly for a system that is still very inferior compared even to an old Tunguska. It has no economical use.

    I definitely get what you're saying, mate:

    A tank (like any other platform) in a modern military doesn't operate in a vacuum but as part of a combined arms team, with each element of that team operating more effectively when they are assigned to execute their intended role (s). Russia undoubtedly has the best air defence systems in the world and so its armoured columns won't be under any threat. Thanks for the thorough explanation, Werewolf. Thanks, mate.

    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 Fri Apr 08, 2016 9:21 am

    GarryB wrote:I think you are mostly ignoring the fact that Armata is not a tank.

    There will be a version of Armata that has a turret with a 125mm or later 152mm main gun that is used as a tank, but there will be Pantsir-SM and Tunguska and TOR versions and as mentioned above a 57mm armed version used for infantry transport... an IFV... the Tunguska replacement will likely also have 57mm guns as well because in the anti air role a 57mm cannon shell killing air targets to 12km makes it a very potent gun, and with the air search capabilities it will be effective in the role too.

    I rather suspect with the data communication and battle management systems all Armatas will carry that a new model Svir or Sokol-1 or improved version of either... perhaps incorporating scramjet propulsion might offer superior performance to any MANPADS through the main gun with net centric data from a range of platforms offering the situational awareness to use them at 10km or beyond.

    A standard MBT will not defend itself from aircraft... there will be IFVs and SPAAGs and short range systems armed with SOSNA-R and Morfei and Pantsir and TOR missiles doing that.

    Too right, Garry. As you point out, armoured vehicles and SHORAD would work together to ensure that there are no gaps in the formation. Scramjet assisted missiles could reach speeds of 2, 000 meters per second, with the Verba being comparatively slow at 500 mps. The Sokol-1 has a max range of 12 km and so a scramjet assisted Sokol-1 missile would be absolutely devastating against helicopters.

    You and Werewolf are the best. Very informative posts. Thanks, mate.

    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 Mon Apr 11, 2016 12:02 pm


    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 Mon Apr 11, 2016 6:54 pm

    Victory Day rehearsal:


    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 13, 2016 11:24 am

    The turret of the M1A2 apparently weighs 24 metric tons and considering that it's a manned turret, it must be considerably heavier than the turret of the T-14 Armata, so how much does the turret of the T-14 weigh? There is one thing in the Merkava that would be great to have in the Armata -- a 60mm mortar, operated automatically from within.

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion Τhread #5

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:15 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:15 am