Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Share

    Austin

    Posts : 6435
    Points : 6836
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Austin on Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:01 am

    Has good details on Armata program

    http://vpk.name/news/64170_gabtu_polozhitelno_ocenivaet_modernizirovannyii_tank_t90.html

    GABTU appreciates modernized T-90 tank

    Interview with Tank-Automotive Directorate of the Ministry of Defence, Major-General Alexander Shevchenko.

    Tanks of the family will be held T-72/T-90 overhaul with modernization and yet still remain long in service of the Armed Forces. The volume of necessary modernization measures, we will determine by the criterion of "cost - effectiveness. It's no secret that T-80 tanks is more expensive to operate than tanks T-72/T-90 family. Therefore, the family of tanks T-80 will undergo repairs in order to maintain the resource, but as it runs out - phased out of the Sun

    - Large public interest is a promising family of armored heavy category, developed in the framework of the ROC "Armata". Which car is supposed to create in this platform? To what extent they can be used on developments OCD "Sovershenstovanie-88", 195 object?


    Technical specification development activities with the code "Armata" provides for the establishment in 2015 unified platform severe category by weight, with a load capacity of 30 tons of gear. As part of the family developed the main tank, infantry fighting vehicle, armored recovery vehicle and the other samples.

    Platform "Armata" incorporates both the latest design and technological solutions and proven design previously made when an object 195, and in other OCD. In particular, it makes sense to use in future tanks developments OCD "Improved 88" in layout, ballistic protection, power plants and others.

    For OCD "Breakthrough-2" obtained good results, similar to the requirements of GABTU on fire control system, they can also be used in the "Armata" after appropriate revision. Figuratively speaking, we stand on the shoulders of their predecessors, their achievements are bound to be involved with the use of perspective to create the samples.

    What machines provided to develop in the middle class?


    In the medium category by weight being OCD "Kurganets-25" and "Boomerang" with a view to establishing by 2016 a single, unified platform for tracked and wheeled chassis, respectively.In particular, in the interests of the Army to track platform designed infantry fighting vehicle, an armored personnel carrier with increased capacity, armored recovery vehicle. Naturally, the two families to fully meet the requirements of interoperability, integration, intellectualization.

    What are the prospects for the emergence in the system chassis with armored vehicles elektrodvizheniem?

    Theoretically, the chassis elektrodvizheniem promises many advantages. However, it is not possible to overcome the technological threshold, which will embody the theoretical advantages in practical solutions. Some key elements of the chassis, especially electric motors, power balancing and regulating equipment, do not meet current and future requirements.

    - What are the current views of future systems and armored vehicles BAT?


    Under the leadership of the Minister of Defence, Chief of General Staff, the Deputy Minister of Defence, Main Tank-Automotive team management in conjunction with academic institutions and industry, a lot of work to assess the performance characteristics of military and armored vehicles, and BAT both domestic and foreign production.

    We visited a lot of armed forces units and specialized enterprises tankoproizvodyaschih major countries, including NATO. Carefully evaluated the experience of combat employment in today's conflicts, identifies prospects, both in combat and technical component.

    To ensure the required parity in the changed in the XXI century ideology of warfare, there is a need to create the most unified with each other fighting vehicles, allowing for qualitative superiority over the competition.

    Today we have a clear idea about the role of armored vehicles on the battlefield, it solved the problems of the currently and prospectively. On sound scientific and practical basis formulated the concept of building a unified system of armored vehicles and BAT of the Armed Forces, with the definition of requirements on the range and types of families of vehicles, their combat and operational parameters.

    It is necessary to achieve the following objectives:

    - Ensure the equipment of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation more modern types of armored vehicles by supplying mass-produced and upgraded models with absolute consideration the economic feasibility of the changes;

    To push the unification of the existing fleet, which allows to significantly reduce the cost of maintaining weapons and military equipment and to reallocate funds for research, development work and mass production;

    Ensure the equipment of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, armored vehicles, which allows to obtain parity with competitors, as well as a technological advance in order to achieve excellence;

    - Create a system of maintenance and repair, allowing in the new image of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, to be sure that the maintenance of equipment in a combat-ready condition.

    The system of armored vehicles and BAT based on a single, unified platform for each class of vehicles, differentiated by categories of weight, respectively: heavy, medium and light. A single, unified platform assumes a maximum unification of the chassis, modules, units, nodes, interfaces within the family of vehicles of one category. But this is not enough - we put forward the requirements of unification and between families of different categories.  Such unification logically leads to the need for a unified platform with open architecture board.

    Briefly the requirements for a new generation of armored vehicles and BAT can be characterized by three "I": interoperability, integration, intellectualization.

    Interoperability - is the operation of the technology for different tasks of the armed forces and arms, their integration into weapons systems, command and control and weapons, without any access restrictions and implementation. Interoperability is a "system of systems" - a set of interconnected public and private systems, which can be integrated to achieve new levels of performance.

    Integration - a union in the family of various design and technological decisions made under the uniform requirements for the platform, individual combat and support units as units and sites.  The common platform with integrated solutions provide multi-modal use and flexible configuration to suit your needs.

    Intellectualization - is automation and computerization of war, and operational functions to ensure the task as possible exceptions to rights of the algorithms of combat activities and everyday use. Intellectualization is a crucial prerequisite for multifunctional integrated combat systems in the medium and long term, and promises for the future creation of robotic combat systems.

    For the first time in the history of domestic tank at the same time we launched development activities (R & D) on four key areas of armored vehicles in light of the requirements. К 2015-2016 гг. we should get from the developers of new-generation equipment broad range that covers the needs of the Armed Forces and meets the highest standards of combat and operational performance.  Such an approach, without exaggeration, be called revolutionary.

    Alexander, you mentioned the term "board with an open architecture. Could you explain what this means?

    This term refers to a platform with interfaces, unified on key parameters - electrical, software, mechanical, weight and size and so on. Within these parameters, you can create functional modules and assemblies for various purposes, which must be installed on any machine within the family, and, in some cases, the machines of other families.

    It's no secret that we had lagged behind in equipping armored vehicles electronics and computers.  The concept of open architecture board requires information integration of functional modules and assemblies based on a single multiplexed bus in onboard information management system.

    To better understand the wide range of readers of the principle of "the board with an open architecture" will give an analogy with the PC. Housing and board form a platform on the basis of which you can build a computer in a very wide range of performance as a general purpose, and for the solution of targets, such as in computer graphics and mathematical modeling. At the same platform interfaces are standardized, and any expansion device, whether it is RAM module or video card, from any manufacturer from around the world without any problems is integrated into the platform for five minutes.

    Let me remind you that the world's few manufacturers of chipsets for motherboards and thousands of factories that produce parts for computers. However, computer, assembled from dozens of parts all over the world, it works fine.

    We want to get close to the level of interoperability in the armored vehicles and BAT. For this purpose, GABTU develop specifications for an open architecture board and by the end of this year will bring them fully up to the enterprises. This is a very important and responsible work, giving the technical specifications in armored vehicles and BAT for many years to come. Its importance can not be overestimated.

    ali.a.r

    Posts : 110
    Points : 115
    Join date : 2011-11-04

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  ali.a.r on Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:44 am

    Impressive. Thanks TR1.

    BTW, I was surfing around and found this photo, which is supposedly of the Manned Ground Vehicle design of the cancelled Future Combat Systems program. Is this similar to the way that the Armata will be used, when it enters service?

    http://i44.servimg.com/u/f44/17/24/29/03/image012.jpg
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Has good details on Armata program

    Post  GarryB on Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:02 am

    Pretty much... yes.

    I have read they were working on pretty ground breaking technology for the cancelled T-95 and that much of what was developed for it will now be adapted to the Armata vehicles.

    Things like sensor fusion, so Image Intensification, Short, medium, and long band thermal Imaging systems, MMW and CM wave radar, Lidar, all used together to detect and track targets and threats.
    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 348
    Points : 369
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  runaway on Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:26 am

    Good news, but no new info...

    Russia will complete the first prototype of the new Armata main battle tank by 2013 and begin production and deliveries to the Russian Armed Forces in 2015, Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov and the CEO of tank manufacturer Uralvagonzavod Oleg Sienko told Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, the Lenta.ru news portal reported.

    Uralvagonzavod and the military are testing the main components of the new tank. No other details were reported. Meanwhile, the Defense Ministry has signed a contract worth six billion rubles with Uralvagonzavod to upgrade 170 T-72 main battle tanks, to be carried out at a specially prepared facility in Omsk, Lenta.ru said.

    “The Russian armed forces will have a new main tank with fundamentally new characteristics, fully automated loading and separate crew compartment by 2015,” Lieutenant-General Yuri Kovalenko, former First Deputy Head of the Russian Defense Ministry’s Automotive Armor Directorate said last April.

    Kovalenko said work from other projects, including Object 195 and Black Eagle, will be incorporated in Armata's design.




    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:23 am

    [qutoe]Kovalenko said work from other projects, including Object 195 and Black Eagle, will be incorporated in Armata's design.[/quote]

    This is interesting...

    The object 195 has an enlarged hull with the crew of three seated side by side at the front under the heaviest armour on the tank. The turret is unmanned with an external gun and all the ammo stored below the turret ring separate from the crew compartment.

    The Black Eagle is a redesign of the T-80 and removed the under turret autoloader and moved it into the turret bustle.
    In many ways the turret bustle autoloader/ammo handling system was like a magazine for a rifle. You could remove the entire bustle and replace it will a bustle full of ammo.

    In other words, you drove into combat and fired off your 31 rounds in the rear turret bustle and then withdrew... a crane would remove the empty turret bustle and replace it with a full one and you drove straight back into battle.

    The objection was that the ammo in the bustle wasn't well protected from enemy fire and if it was targeted then often would burn out rendering the tank unarmed and vulnerable to the fire spreading down into the engine compartment and setting the engine compartment on fire... which is obviously a complete mobility kill.

    Perhaps they listened to my suggestion of an ejection system, so they could have the T-95 layout with external gun and ammo below the turret ring and therefore protected by frontal hull armour, plus an extra turret bustle autoloader in a removable configuration that can be jettisoned if necessary. The main ammo supply in the turret should allow lots of ammo to be carried as the space for two crewmen is there as well as the underfloor autoloader.

    This means turret armament could include a cannon like a 300 weapon with plenty of room for ammo and the ability to elevate separately from the main gun so it can hit targets the BMPT was designed for.

    They could also have a couple of remote 30 cal MG turrets with plenty of ammo to give the tank plenty of close in firepower against infantry.

    The rear turret bustle could carry even more ammo and because it is parallel to the gun the ammo can be rammed straight into the breach without being rotated. It means that long rod penetrators could be used or even long missile rounds.

    The original underfloor autoloader of the T-90/80/72/64 series tanks held 22 rounds, but with no crew in the turret it could have 2 layers of armoured ammo storage bins. That means 44 rounds in the turret plus31 more rounds in the rear turret autoloader all ready to fire without needing human intervention.

    75 rounds ready to fire should mean they will likely run out of fuel in a battle before they run out of ammo.

    In the remaining space in the turret they could fit 500 rounds of 30mm ammo, 8,000 rounds of 30 cal for two turret mounted remote control positions and the coaxial weapon. Perhaps even an auto grenade launcher for indirect fire... the 40mm Balkan looks like it would be ideal... fitted to the turrets with the PKT MGs. 600 grenades with an effective range of 2.5km would be very useful.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 776
    Points : 953
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:19 pm



    "Armata" project and its MBT incarnation accepted by russian MoD, prototype expected by 2013 and production from 2015.


    http://lenta.ru/news/2012/03/23/armata/
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:31 am

    Smile

    Can't wait till we can start a "First photos of Armata" thread... Smile
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:51 pm

    Confirmation that Armata will have an unmanned gun turret with all the crew in the front hull...


    New Russian Tank to Have Remotely Controlled Gun

    Russia’s future main battle tank (MBT) will be equipped with a remotely controlled gun, the Izvestia newspaper said on Monday citing a defense industry source.

    The gun will be digitally controlled by a crewmember located in a separate compartment, which would be made from composite materials and protected by multi-layered armor. The crew compartment will be also isolated from the motor compartment to increase survivability on the battlefield.

    The secret project, dubbed Armata, has been approved by the Russian Defense Ministry. It is being implemented by the tank manufacturer Uralvagonzavod in Russia’s Urals region.

    Work from other projects, including Object 195 and Black Eagle, will be incorporated in Armata's design.

    The prototype of Armata MBT is expected to be ready by 2013. The first deliveries to the Russian Armed Forces are scheduled for 2015.

    Russian experts believe that the appearance of the remotely controlled gun would eventually lead to the development of a fully robotic tank which could be deployed as part of a spearhead in the offensive.

    http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120326/172401704.html

    Austin

    Posts : 6435
    Points : 6836
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Austin on Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:53 pm

    Russian armoured vehicles to roll on single platform

    Russia is the first to be switching to a uniform combat platform in three major types of ground vehicles, which will presumably make them easier and cheaper to build and maintain, while their modular design will allow to develop different systems, depending on their purpose. The first platforms of this kind of modular design will be produced in two to three years.

    Russia’s Defense Ministry has approved the design of a new heavy crawler platform for the Russian armed forces, says Major General Alexander Shevchenko, Chief of General Tank Automotive Directorate. The development of “perspective technologies” for the Russian military is now going through a major transformation. And what comes out of this can forever change the country’s army.

    “Standardization can simplify both the maintenance and combat application of the military hardware, increase modularity in its design, including possible usage of versatiletarget modules on chassis to meet different objectives. All platforms have the so-called “open architecture” avionics to make it easier to add new systems,” says Viktor Murakhovsky, an expert on armoured vehicles. “Different hardware complexes can be built on the basis of a single sighting-system node by adjusting the number of various observation channels to create a system for a combat, reconnaissance or a command vehicle.”

    A new versatile armoured platform, “Armata,” is expected to “set to rights” the Russian armoured forces, plagued by chassis and components of every stripe. The most popular tank, the T-72, and its upgrade, the T-90, will be revamped to stay in the Russian army, except for its first-line units , which are to be equipped with the cutting-edge “Armata” by 2015 to 2025. But the T-90 won’t disappear for good as its recent modification, known as the T-90S, is in fact set to keep its export market. It was announced that the T-90S will make its reappearance at the upcoming Defexpo-2012 show in India.

    The Russian armed forces will have as many as four versatile base platforms: the “Armata” crawler platform for heavy tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and other types of motorized infantry brigades weighing up to 65 tons. Among other projects are the “Kurganets-25” medium crawler platform in the 25-ton range and two wheeled platforms – a medium 25-ton and a light 10-ton platform of the “Bumerang” family.

    The idea to build modular-design platforms was up in the air for quite a while. The collapse of the Soviet Union crippled the production of already existing hardware and stalled its further development. The West was the next in line to dip its toes in this water, with the American line of the “Stryker” wheeled combat vehicles and a whole family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) clearly coming off the charts.

    Still, no Western army ever considered bringing all vehicles of all weight classes onto a single, unified platform. The US tried to grapple with this task in its modernization program called Future Combat Systems (FCS), which was cancelled after over-ambitious plans of the US military command to outfit its vesicles with cutting-edge equipment threatened to drain its funds.

    Russia had it easier, having had to learn from the FCS example, which proved that any sweeping modernization can only bust the budget. In this sense, Russian armoured vehicles, which are capable of employing both the existing equipment and systems that are still under development, have much more chances to come off the blueprints and into reality.
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6312
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Armata main battle tank

    Post  Viktor on Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:32 pm

    Well 65tons Armata. Thats a monster in making.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:54 pm

    It is interesting that with the talk about Armata program they have mentioned the new families of vehicles for the different brigade types and they seem to have changed what was said before.

    Previously there was Armata in the heavy brigades, Kurganets-25 as the tracked vehicle in the medium brigades and Boomerang as the wheeled vehicle in the medium brigade (rear ramp door, 25 ton weight and amphibious), and the wheeled Typhoon in the light brigades.

    The Armata came in two different models, one with the engine at the rear for use as a tank or artillery (is MSTA/coalition type vehicle) and one with the engine at the front with a ramp rear door for IFV use.

    The Kurganets-25 was to have a special Navy version designed and made that could handle rough sea operation and beach landing (as opposed to the standard level of amphibious capability which allowed operation in rivers and lakes only).

    The Boomerang AFAIK was going to come in one model.

    The Typhoon was going to come in a few versions with 4 and 6 wheel configurations.

    The weight restrictions means that they were going to use more exotic and expensive materials to make the armour of the Boomerang and Typhoon and Kurganets-25 to give them very good performance against anti armour weapons.

    I rather suspect that the idea of separating the Typhoon and Boomerang designs was that the focus of Typhoon was on speed and firepower, while the Boomerang will have speed and mobility on roads it will also be much heavier and better protected.

    The recent reports I have read suggest that Typhoon is now a modified (lighter, smaller) Boomerang, so the families are Tracked: Armata for heavy, Kurganets-25 for medium, Wheeled: Boomerang for medium and Boomerang light for light.

    It suggests to me that perhaps Boomerang might have a modular armour package and in the light brigades a lighter armour suite could be fitted.

    In terms of logistics that would be a very good thing because the whole idea behind these vehicle families is to shorten the logistics and support tail of a brigade. With every vehicle in a brigade based on the same vehicle type using the same engines and standard weapons it becomes easier.

    I rather suspect they will capitalise on this by making a medium brigade either wheeled or tracked but not both.

    That means that all the vehicles in a wheeled brigade... whether it s a light wheeled brigade (which all light brigades will be) or a medium wheeled brigade (as opposed to medium brigades with Kurganets-25s which would be tracked) will be Boomerang based vehicles.

    It is important to keep in mind that despite their descriptions the Armata is not a Tank, Kurganets-25 is not a BMP and Boomerang is not a BTR. They are all everything.

    The electronics and sensors and weapons will be unified, so the air defence vehicle in a heavy brigade will be based on the Armata chassis, but the systems and sensors will be the same as the air defence vehicle in the Light Brigade.

    It is all together possible that the weapons might be different.

    Eventually the Armata will be fitted with a 152mm calibre smoothbore main gun and there is very little chance that it might be fitted to a Boomerang in a light brigade, but the 18 ton Sprut on a BMD-3 chassis can use a 125mm gun so the light brigade Boomerang might get that weapon on an 18 ton chassis... its electronics and sights and sensors will be the same as the equipment in the Armata.

    With artillery in the Armata heavy brigades the main artillery vehicle will be coalition with a huge 152mm gun (though it might only have one gun to reduce the turret size to make it more air mobile), but the Light Brigades will likely not need nor want such a giant so they might have a 120mm mortar vehicle instead but based on the Boomerang chassis.

    For Air Defence the Heavy Brigades will have Pantsir-S1 on an Armata chassis, the light brigade Boomerang might have a smaller and cheaper system like SOSNA-R laser beam riding missiles.

    Etc etc.

    The electronic suites have been developed independently of the vehicles and are fully standardised, which means they can probably be included as upgrades for previous generation vehicles to improve their performance and unify a range of different vehicles to allow practise and preparation for tactics that will be possible with the new vehicles.

    It means all the vehicles within one brigade will have similar protection and mobility to all the other vehicles so it will be harder to pick off the light vehicles first...

    I think it is very exciting.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:41 am

    They seem to be calling the Boomerangs Boomerang-25 and Boomerang-10 which is likely their operational weights.

    I would expect the Boomerang 10 to be split into maybe 6 and 4 wheeled versions like the Typhoon did, though perhaps the Boomerang 10 and the Boomerang 25 will be in many ways BRDM-2 and BTR-80, except of course the BTR-80 was about 14 tons and the Boomerang in the medium brigades will be 25 ton.

    Equally although the Boomerang 10 will be a 10 ton vehicle I suspect it will use advanced modular armour and likely NERA type armour and possibly active protection systems as standard and will be rather better protected than a BRDM-2 with better access, and of course the BRDM-2 was a scout car and the BTR-80 was an APC, while these Boomerangs will be entire families of vehicles from artillery, tank, IFV, air defence, engineering, recon, etc etc.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:45 am

    Well 65tons Armata. Thats a monster in making.

    The 65 ton Armata will likely be the Coalition artillery vehicle rather than the tank, which will likely be in the 55 ton range.

    With a remote turret (note both the coalition and the tank will have unmanned turrets) the need for frontal armour on the turret of the tank is gone so most of the armour on the Armata will be around the front hull area where the crew sit.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10757
    Points : 11236
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  George1 on Wed Apr 04, 2012 5:49 am

    http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_03_26/69675961/

    Russian armoured vehicles to roll on single platform

    Russia is the first to be switching to a uniform combat platform in three major types of ground vehicles, which will presumably make them easier and cheaper to build and maintain, while their modular design will allow to develop different systems, depending on their purpose. The first platforms of this kind of modular design will be produced in two to three years.

    Russia’s Defense Ministry has approved the design of a new heavy crawler platform for the Russian armed forces, says Major General Alexander Shevchenko, Chief of General Tank Automotive Directorate. The development of “perspective technologies” for the Russian military is now going through a major transformation. And what comes out of this can forever change the country’s army.

    “Standardization can simplify both the maintenance and combat application of the military hardware, increase modularity in its design, including possible usage of versatiletarget modules on chassis to meet different objectives. All platforms have the so-called “open architecture” avionics to make it easier to add new systems,” says Viktor Murakhovsky, an expert on armoured vehicles. “Different hardware complexes can be built on the basis of a single sighting-system node by adjusting the number of various observation channels to create a system for a combat, reconnaissance or a command vehicle.”

    A new versatile armoured platform, “Armata,” is expected to “set to rights” the Russian armoured forces, plagued by chassis and components of every stripe. The most popular tank, the T-72, and its upgrade, the T-90, will be revamped to stay in the Russian army, except for its first-line units , which are to be equipped with the cutting-edge “Armata” by 2015 to 2025. But the T-90 won’t disappear for good as its recent modification, known as the T-90S, is in fact set to keep its export market. It was announced that the T-90S will make its reappearance at the upcoming Defexpo-2012 show in India.

    The Russian armed forces will have as many as four versatile base platforms: the “Armata” crawler platform for heavy tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and other types of motorized infantry brigades weighing up to 65 tons. Among other projects are the “Kurganets-25” medium crawler platform in the 25-ton range and two wheeled platforms – a medium 25-ton and a light 10-ton platform of the “Bumerang” family.

    The idea to build modular-design platforms was up in the air for quite a while. The collapse of the Soviet Union crippled the production of already existing hardware and stalled its further development. The West was the next in line to dip its toes in this water, with the American line of the “Stryker” wheeled combat vehicles and a whole family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) clearly coming off the charts.

    Still, no Western army ever considered bringing all vehicles of all weight classes onto a single, unified platform. The US tried to grapple with this task in its modernization program called Future Combat Systems (FCS), which was cancelled after over-ambitious plans of the US military command to outfit its vesicles with cutting-edge equipment threatened to drain its funds.

    Russia had it easier, having had to learn from the FCS example, which proved that any sweeping modernization can only bust the budget. In this sense, Russian armoured vehicles, which are capable of employing both the existing equipment and systems that are still under development, have much more chances to come off the blueprints and into reality.

    AJ-47

    Posts : 117
    Points : 118
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Typhoon pictures?

    Post  AJ-47 on Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:33 pm

    [quote="GarryB"]They seem to be calling the Boomerangs Boomerang-25 and Boomerang-10 which is likely their operational weights.

    I saw some picture I think for the Typhoon with 6 wheeled. Is it the right picture of the Typhoon that now will call light Boomerange?

    http://vif2ne.ru/nvk/forum/archive/2247/2247301.htm

    AJ-47

    Posts : 117
    Points : 118
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    not sure

    Post  AJ-47 on Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:36 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    The Armata came in two different models, one with the engine at the rear for use as a tank or artillery (is MSTA/coalition type vehicle) and one with the engine at the front with a ramp rear door for IFV use.


    I think a better idea is to keep the engine in front of the tank, it will give extra protacion for the tank's crew. Keep a small door at the back of it to leave the tank. it will be helpful if the tank get hit. The artillery and infantry must have a rear door.
    avatar
    Mr.Kalishnikov47

    Posts : 293
    Points : 336
    Join date : 2012-02-25
    Age : 29
    Location : U.S.A

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Mr.Kalishnikov47 on Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:55 pm

    Thanks for the pics AJ-47, man, that sure is one nice looking vehicle.

    Edit: Although like Garry said, it is not Armata.


    Last edited by Mr.Kalishnikov47 on Thu Apr 05, 2012 12:17 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 05, 2012 12:13 am

    I saw some picture I think for the Typhoon with 6 wheeled. Is it the right picture of the Typhoon that now will call light Boomerange?

    No, that is the Kamaz Taifun. The Typhoon was a concept vehicle family which seems to have been replaced by a smaller and lighter version of Boomerang.

    The idea of the families of vehicle bases is to improve commonality and reduce the logistics tail of units.

    The original plan split the problem into four families which basically equated to a T-90 tank chassis, a BMP like chassis, a BTR like chassis and a light vehicle... say a BRDM-2 like chassis.

    The difference or course is that these will be from scratch new designs based on experience with existing types, so they got the codenames of Armata, Kurganets-25, Boomerang, and Typhoon... the first two tracked vehicles and the last two wheeled vehicles.

    It seems that they have decided that for better commonality... and because the Kurganets factory was making all the lighter vehicles, while UVZ makes the Armata, that making the lightest vehicle family different from the Boomerang was a waste and that a lighter version of Boomerang would further improve commonality and simplify things.

    This means that the Typhoon has been replaced by a lighter version of the Boomerang design.

    Note all the vehicles will be heavier than their predecessors... Armata tanks will be about 7-8 tons heavier than T-90AMs, and at 25 tons the Kurganets-25 and Boomerang-25 will be about 7-8 tons heavier than the BMP-3 and 10 tons heavier than the BTR-80 they are replacing. The Boomerang-10 will be 10 tons, which is about 3-4 tons heavier than a BRDM-2.

    I think a better idea is to keep the engine in front of the tank, it will give extra protacion for the tank's crew. Keep a small door at the back of it to leave the tank. it will be helpful if the tank get hit. The artillery and infantry must have a rear door.

    The Infantry vehicle will certainly use the front engined model, but the Artillery vehicle and the tank model both have unmanned turrets so the crew are in the hull. If you put them in the back of the vehicle they will be surrounded by the thinnest armour on the vehicle...

    The idea of putting an engine in front of them sounds like a good idea on paper but in practise it is a very stupid idea.

    Engines are not made of high strength hard armour metals and offer very little protection from anything more than small arms fire. A 50 cal rifle round will punch straight through an engine block and still do a lot of damage... for a 120mm APFSDS round it will have even less effect. Worse a penetration of the engine could immobilise the vehicle and with all the fuel lines and oil could start a fire, while offering no protection at all for the vehicle or crew.

    The other issue of course is IR signature... a big 1,400+ hp engine generates a lot of heat and sticking it in the front of your vehicle makes you an easy to spot target on the battlefield and interferes with your thermal sights as well.

    The Russians are not new to front mounted engines in vehicles... the BMP-1 and BMP-2 both have front mounted engines... they know what ineffective armour they provide.

    BTW thanks for the pictures... I only had pictures of computer models of that model... like this:


    AJ-47

    Posts : 117
    Points : 118
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Sorry

    Post  AJ-47 on Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:52 am

    Mr.Kalishnikov47 wrote:Thanks for the pics AJ-47, man, that sure is one nice looking vehicle.

    Edit: Although like Garry said, it is not Armata.

    Sorry I thought that might be the right one

    AJ-47

    Posts : 117
    Points : 118
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  AJ-47 on Thu Apr 05, 2012 3:12 am

    GarryB wrote:
    I saw some picture I think for the Typhoon with 6 wheeled. Is it the right picture of the Typhoon that now will call light Boomerange?

    No, that is the Kamaz Taifun. The Typhoon was a concept vehicle family which seems to have been replaced by a smaller and lighter version of Boomerang.

    The idea of the families of vehicle bases is to improve commonality and reduce the logistics tail of units.

    The original plan split the problem into four families which basically equated to a T-90 tank chassis, a BMP like chassis, a BTR like chassis and a light vehicle... say a BRDM-2 like chassis.

    The difference or course is that these will be from scratch new designs based on experience with existing types, so they got the codenames of Armata, Kurganets-25, Boomerang, and Typhoon... the first two tracked vehicles and the last two wheeled vehicles.

    It seems that they have decided that for better commonality... and because the Kurganets factory was making all the lighter vehicles, while UVZ makes the Armata, that making the lightest vehicle family different from the Boomerang was a waste and that a lighter version of Boomerang would further improve commonality and simplify things.

    This means that the Typhoon has been replaced by a lighter version of the Boomerang design.

    Note all the vehicles will be heavier than their predecessors... Armata tanks will be about 7-8 tons heavier than T-90AMs, and at 25 tons the Kurganets-25 and Boomerang-25 will be about 7-8 tons heavier than the BMP-3 and 10 tons heavier than the BTR-80 they are replacing. The Boomerang-10 will be 10 tons, which is about 3-4 tons heavier than a BRDM-2.

    ***Thanks for that and for sharing with us your knowledge.

    I think a better idea is to keep the engine in front of the tank, it will give extra protacion for the tank's crew. Keep a small door at the back of it to leave the tank. it will be helpful if the tank get hit. The artillery and infantry must have a rear door.

    The Infantry vehicle will certainly use the front engined model, but the Artillery vehicle and the tank model both have unmanned turrets so the crew are in the hull. If you put them in the back of the vehicle they will be surrounded by the thinnest armour on the vehicle...

    The idea of putting an engine in front of them sounds like a good idea on paper but in practise it is a very stupid idea.

    Engines are not made of high strength hard armour metals and offer very little protection from anything more than small arms fire. A 50 cal rifle round will punch straight through an engine block and still do a lot of damage... for a 120mm APFSDS round it will have even less effect. Worse a penetration of the engine could immobilise the vehicle and with all the fuel lines and oil could start a fire, while offering no protection at all for the vehicle or crew.

    The other issue of course is IR signature... a big 1,400+ hp engine generates a lot of heat and sticking it in the front of your vehicle makes you an easy to spot target on the battlefield and interferes with your thermal sights as well.

    The Russians are not new to front mounted engines in vehicles... the BMP-1 and BMP-2 both have front mounted engines... they know what ineffective armour they provide.

    BTW thanks for the pictures... I only had pictures of computer models of that model... like this:


    ****Can't agree with you on that. The Israelis has the most protected tank in the world and his name is Merkava. It's a 70 ton tank that we start engineering after the war in 1973. A lot of tanks get hit, but our repair crew fixed them very quick and send them back to fight. The problem we had was, from were to get the crew to replace the soldiers that get hit.

    After the war Israel start engineering a new tank, we checked every tank that get hit, and we found that most of the hits come from an area of 120 degrees around the front of the tank. One of the lessons from that study, was to protect the crew by all means, and for that the engine, transmission, and everything we could use to protect the crew, we put it in front of the tank and it was saving many lives in the wars to come. By moving the engine to the front, and by getting a small door at the back of the tank, it's allow the crew to get out of the tank, if it get hit. It's not easy for a wounded soldier to get himself out trough the hatch in the roof of the turret, and if they can't do that, you know what will happen, and that's without talking about enemy fire.

    All what you say about shouting on the tank, as nothing to do with this tank, the only thing that can penetrate his armor is very sophisticated ATGM. To defend against ATGM we have the “TROPHY” system.

    Hope you understand my point.

    Link for the Trophy:
    http://defense-update.com/products/t/trophy.htm

    Link for the Merkava
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava

    One more question, I like the RWS with the 14.5 mm HMG on the roof of the Taifun, and don't understand why the T-90 don't have it.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 05, 2012 8:29 am

    Sorry I thought that might be the right one

    Interesting pictures anyway... thanks for posting them.

    ***Thanks for that and for sharing with us your knowledge.

    This is all subject to change of course with any new information, but it is as clear a picture as I can make with the info available.


    ****Can't agree with you on that.

    And we can discuss it of course and at the end of that discussion we don't have to agree that one or the other is right and therefore the other is wrong because there is no right or wrong when it comes to tank design for the most part.

    The Israelis has the most protected tank in the world and his name is Merkava.

    They claim to have the best protected tank but there is no independent confirmation one way or the other.

    Keep in mind that the Merkava has a manned turret. Armata has an external gun and no people in the turret.

    The heaviest armour on a modern MBT is the front of the turret, which has been found to be the most common place for a tank to be hit.

    The Armata can dispense with heavy armour on its turret as there are no crew or ammo to protect above the turret ring.

    Below the turret ring there is lots of ammo but no crew so a side penetration from the middle to the rear of the Armata will not kill or injure the crew either.

    The design of the Armata is for all the heaviest armour protection to be around the very front area where the three crew sit... the point is that with three crew in the front hull if you wanted to put an engine there then you move the turret to the rear and put the crew in the centre of the vehicle which means a much larger area of roof for the engine and crew... which would be vulnerable to top attack weapons and require the heavy armour to be extended back to cover both the engine and the crew.

    The engine itself is not made of armour strength/Armour hard metals so as an armour it is not very effective.

    More importantly it runs very very hot and has lots of tubes with fuel and oil running through it that can easily catch fire.

    The Russians have analysed their own experiences in combat and have said publicly that there will be front and rear engined versions of the Armata. The Tank version with an unmanned turret is very unlikely to have a front mounted engine unless the crew are in the very rear of the vehicle under fairly thin armour... unless you are suggesting all round heavy armour which would be very very inefficient and result in a 90 ton tank.

    Thin armour at the front with the engine with the turret in the middle and the crew at the rear under the heaviest armour wouldn't work either as thin front armour with an engine behind it would be as weak as thin rear armour with an engine in front of it.

    In terms of protection of the crew I think the Armata will be better protected than the Merkava, because from the front the Merkava has heavy frontal armour and then an engine, then driver then turret and then storage space for ammo or men or empty space and then medium rear armour... which means from the back there is not so much between the incoming penetrator and the crew, with the crew spread in the hull and turret.

    With Armata it will have heavy frontal armour with an armoured capsule with three crew side by side (front and back armour protection separating crew from ammo and fuel0, then the turret then at the back the engine and then the rear armour.

    Add the usual ERA and APS as well as things like Shtora that is a passive protection system and I think the use of the front engined version is not needed for the tank or Coalition.

    It's not easy for a wounded soldier to get himself out trough the hatch in the roof of the turret, and if they can't do that, you know what will happen, and that's without talking about enemy fire.

    The Armata will be surrounded by vehicles with similar levels of firepower and armour protection.

    The three crew in the Armata all sit side by side and can help each other to get out if necessary.

    Hope you understand my point.

    I am not saying you are wrong, I merely am pointing out reasons they chose not to do it the way Israel decided to do it. Doesn't mean the Merkava is bad or the Armata is perfect, or vice versa.

    The reality is that it doesn't matter what you do the enemy will always try to find a weak point and exploit it.

    The Russian solution likely has a seriously steep frontal armour angle that has the frontal armour glacis covering the top of the crew seating area so the frontal armour acts as both frontal and roof armour so the threat to the crew from top attack weapons is minimised as there are not many top attack munitions that can penetrate frontal armour with ERA on top.

    Obviously you would expect they will have an APS system modified to deal with top attack weapons and of course soft kill systems like Shtora and Nakidka will also be used to maximise protection.

    One more question, I like the RWS with the 14.5 mm HMG on the roof of the Taifun, and don't understand why the T-90 don't have it.

    Based on what I have read the choice to use the PKT was a combination of increased ammo capacity and reduced vibration, and a change in tactics. There is a rumour that in addition to a 125mm gun the Armata will also have a 30mm cannon in an external mount to deal with helicopters and other aircraft and other targets previously engaged with the 12.7mm gun. This means any small remote control gun setup just needs to deal with very close range elusive targets that tanks so often have trouble dealing with.
    Hense the PKT on the T-90AM doesn't elevate particularly high... something like 40-45 degrees, but offers a good field of view and is largely slaved to the commanders panoramic sight so what he is looking at he can pretty much shoot at straight away.

    (note they describe the Armata as a combination of features from the T-95 and the Black Eagle, now the T-95 is believed to have had a 30mm cannon fitted).

    Also note that while most helicopter launched ATGMs these days outrange a 30mm cannon, with Nakidka and clever tactics like hiding in buildings the opportunities to shoot back would generally be quite good... especially as with modern Thermals the Tank will most likely see the helo before the helo sees the tank...

    With a PKT they could probably have a 2,000 round belt of ammo, but with 14.5mm then they would probably only carry perhaps 300-500 rounds though I think you will agree they are significantly more powerful...

    gloriousfatherland

    Posts : 98
    Points : 123
    Join date : 2011-10-01
    Age : 25
    Location : Zapad and Boctok strong

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  gloriousfatherland on Tue Apr 10, 2012 4:42 am

    Will the armata have a new main gun?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 10, 2012 6:06 am

    It is certainly likely that the Armata will have a further developed 125mm main gun to suit its external mounting and perhaps allow better angles of elevation and depression.

    It will likely be compatible with the 15Xmm calibre gun developed for the T-95 as well so that might require further adaptations to the design.

    I doubt they will increase the pressure too much as the advantage of having a 125mm gun is ammo standardisation... if most of your tanks require special ammo and the new ones can use that ammo and more powerful ammo there could be an issue of supply where the wrong rounds go to the wrong tank units and you end up with a lot of burst barrels and injured crews.

    Ironically the separation of the crew in the Armata means that it could get away with a gun chamber breach due to high pressure ammo because there are no people in the turret, whereas a high pressure round intended for the stronger gun in the Armata in a T-90 or T-72 could do some serious damage.

    The obvious solution would be to impliment a complete replacement of old guns with new guns able to handle the higher pressure and once that is completed then introduce the new higher pressure ammo.

    gloriousfatherland

    Posts : 98
    Points : 123
    Join date : 2011-10-01
    Age : 25
    Location : Zapad and Boctok strong

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  gloriousfatherland on Tue Apr 10, 2012 6:12 am

    thanks garryb
    avatar
    Pugnax

    Posts : 90
    Points : 77
    Join date : 2011-03-15
    Age : 53
    Location : Canada

    armata

    Post  Pugnax on Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:49 am

    Would not also such an unshielded gun mount and sensor guidance be equally affected by harsh terrain,trees and brick work will wreck an un armoured sensor suite.I challenge anyone to find where a unit of reflex tile tanks went through woods 100m deep and at speed,emerged with a full suite,no they dont detonate ,add on armour gets knocked off.Then some bum sprays them with .50 cal heavy ball...every round kills a reflect era tile.
    .


    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:19 am