Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Share
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  collegeboy16 on Fri Feb 13, 2015 3:57 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:Top attack is the last thing a russian gun launched ATGM needs to be. They focus should be made on how to make it as fast and countermeasure resistant as possible and rely on a brute force warhead as big as possible.
    i think otherwise- they already have one of those- its called Kornet-EM. well not exactly tank gun fired, or the fastest atgm (not that HEAT warheads benefit from speed and you have to be really fast, apfsds fast to go through even basic APS nowadays) but the capability is mostly there anyway.

    what they really need imo if they want something for extreme range use is either a top attack, or a scramjet(not likely)/solid rocket boosted KE round.

    top attack since the tank can just shoot it a la artillery, extending range and with higher than normal top attack atgm velocity would reach the search area quickly and be really near it- one of the main problems with javelin is that its looking at really distant targets. even an el cheapo radar or thermal seeker should be able to see its target if its basically hurtling at it head on(ofc. this means you cant really blind fire it like arty into some grid, you need more precise location.)

    the souped up KEM would benefit greatly from the enormous speed boost and accuracy increase via midcourse correction in flight.
    avatar
    Mike E

    Posts : 2760
    Points : 2806
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Mike E on Fri Feb 13, 2015 10:11 pm

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    KomissarBojanchev wrote:Top attack is the last thing a russian gun launched ATGM needs to be. They focus should be made on how to make it as fast and countermeasure resistant as possible and rely on a brute force warhead as big as possible.
    i think otherwise- they already have one of those- its called Kornet-EM. well not exactly tank gun fired, or the fastest atgm (not that HEAT warheads benefit from speed and you have to be really fast, apfsds fast to go through even basic APS nowadays) but the capability is mostly there anyway.

    what they really need imo if they want something for extreme range use is either a top attack, or a scramjet(not likely)/solid rocket boosted KE round.

    top attack since the tank can just shoot it a la artillery, extending range and with higher than normal top attack atgm velocity would reach the search area quickly and be really near it- one of the main problems with javelin is that its looking at really distant targets. even an el cheapo radar or thermal seeker should be able to see its target if its basically hurtling at it head on(ofc. this means you cant really blind fire it like arty into some grid, you need more precise location.)

    the souped up KEM would benefit greatly from the enormous speed boost and accuracy increase via midcourse correction in flight.
    That's exactly what I've been thinking about myself...
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2029
    Points : 2033
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Regular on Fri Feb 13, 2015 10:30 pm

    Well top attack could be shallow dive, it doesn't have to climb up like Javelin.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 14, 2015 9:15 am

    Top attack is the last thing a russian gun launched ATGM needs to be. They focus should be made on how to make it as fast and countermeasure resistant as possible and rely on a brute force warhead as big as possible.

    Against any armoured vehicle top attack is the most efficient way of penetrating the armour... the roof armour in comparison to front or even side armour is very thin and vulnerable.

    Just because a top attack flight profile is chosen doesn't mean it will be slow like Javelin... Soviet supersonic anti ship missiles had a variety of tricks including a pop up about 2km before hitting the target followed by a dive into the target at 40-60 degrees to make interception harder.

    One anti ship missile actually dived into the water 10-20m short of hitting the ship and actually detonated below the waterline to maximise the damage. (note water does not compress so if you put a large HE warhead under the water next to the hull of the ship the spherical blast is deformed and instead of blasting out in all directions equally the water reflects the blast back into the hull which almost doubles the effect of the blast inside the ship.

    With a modern IIR sensor and a datalink back to the tank a modern ATGM could climb and circle to one side or the other and hit the target from an angle where their armour is weak. One advantage of a top attack profile however is that in addition to thinner top armour there is less chance of the missile flying into trees or bushes or other obstacles on the way to the target.

    the souped up KEM would benefit greatly from the enormous speed boost and accuracy increase via midcourse correction in flight.

    The main problem with KEM rounds is that they use an enormous amount of fuel to accelerate to a useful speed... to be effective the projectile has to be heavy and very hard and very long, which makes it difficult to store in a tank and load and fire through the main gun. On a helo the Vikhr and Hermes missiles are already over 3m long so a high velocity kinetic missile is not that difficult... solid rocket booster and small scramjet engine to take over from the 1km range on to the target after the solid rocket booster burns out and falls away.

    Well top attack could be shallow dive, it doesn't have to climb up like Javelin.

    A lot of armour protection comes from angled armour... even just coming in at an angle can reduce the effect of the angled plate and greatly reduce the amount of armour needed to be penetrated.

    I would suspect the new missiles will be fire and forget and will likely have IIR guidance and a datalink. Whether they also have laser beam riding or radar homing (MMW radar) to make them compatible with helicopter launched missiles is a question, but the problems of IIR guidance and lock on after launch is already being tackled by missile designers of Morfei... once they have cracked it the more widely they use the solution the quicker it will become cheaper and therefore affordable.

    Needless to say speculation about a vertical launched top attack ATGM would suggest lock on after launch with at least a manual datalink to find targets, with the possiblity to find the targets itself.

    If rifle scopes can determine friend or foe then one would expect their new missiles to do the same...


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 5708
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 on Tue Feb 17, 2015 8:20 pm



    Essentially what T-15 will look like this year.
    Aside from the weird "double" APS creation by the author.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5357
    Points : 5588
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Feb 17, 2015 8:45 pm

    The T-14 chassis has 7 wheels and this is probably just the kurganetz chassis.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 5708
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 on Tue Feb 17, 2015 9:58 pm



    It is definitely the Armata chassis.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4488
    Points : 4661
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Tue Feb 17, 2015 11:14 pm

    TR1 wrote:

    It is definitely the Armata chassis.

    Armata APC with Ephora turret?
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 5708
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 on Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:04 am

    Armata IFV with Epoha-lite essentially. Full Epoha will appear later this decade.

    2A42 is not exactly cutting edge.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4488
    Points : 4661
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Feb 18, 2015 6:00 am

    TR1 wrote:Armata IFV with Epoha-lite essentially. Full Epoha will appear later this decade.

    2A42 is not exactly cutting edge.

    Armata IFV? With a 30mm caliber main weapon? I'm leaning more towards a APC, a 30mm caliber main weapon has no chance in hell of being effective weapon even against modern IFV's that 'don't' have tank level armor. The 30mm caliber would indicate a purely defensive weapon with significant space in the interior for additional troops in the troop compartment, where the 30mm main weapon would act as a tool for suppressive fire for dismounting soldiers.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 5708
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 on Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:02 am

    Gur Khan translates it as T-15 BMP. BMP=IFV.

    As for the armament, newer guns are simply not ready.

    http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2015/02/15.html

    From what I have seen, Kurganets and Boomerange "APC" versions will have a machine gun in the turret. At least posters on Otavaga guessed so, based on some modules that were seen in that very revealing Burevestnik video.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4488
    Points : 4661
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:38 am

    TR1 wrote:Gur Khan translates it as T-15 BMP. BMP=IFV.

    As for the armament, newer guns are simply not ready.

    http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2015/02/15.html

    From what I have seen, Kurganets and Boomerange "APC" versions will have a machine gun in the turret. At least posters on Otavaga guessed so, based on some modules that were seen in that very revealing Burevestnik video.

    I guess they're still testing/developing new 57mm ammunition. BTW checkout the Tarasenko clone in the comment section, it's all about the BMPT-64 an advanced follow up version of the N-64. Very Happy
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1491
    Points : 1521
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Zivo on Wed Feb 18, 2015 8:11 am

    The overhang on the front seems like a strange design choice. Why they did it is apparent, the engine is there and they had to add conformal armor sticking off the front to put more distance between the impact point and the engine. The Merk IV's uses a more recessed design that doesn't pass far in front of the track, granted it has poor frontal armor. In contrast this seems almost too extreme. There has to be a better solution.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 5708
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 on Wed Feb 18, 2015 8:28 am

    Zivo wrote:The overhang on the front seems like a strange design choice. Why they did it is apparent, the engine is there and they had to add conformal armor sticking off the front to put more distance between the impact point and the engine. The Merk IV's uses a more recessed design that doesn't pass far in front of the track, granted it has poor frontal armor. In contrast this seems almost too extreme. There has to be a better solution.

    I was thinking the same, and I suspect the model just extenuates it more than the actual vehicle will.

    I mean, this thing will be extensively tested, and the kind of overhang on that 3d model would result in mobility problems.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 5708
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 on Wed Feb 18, 2015 8:33 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    TR1 wrote:Gur Khan translates it as T-15 BMP. BMP=IFV.

    As for the armament, newer guns are simply not ready.

    http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2015/02/15.html

    From what I have seen, Kurganets and Boomerange "APC" versions will have a machine gun in the turret. At least posters on Otavaga guessed so, based on some modules that were seen in that very revealing Burevestnik video.

    I guess they're still testing/developing new 57mm ammunition. BTW checkout the Tarasenko clone in the comment section, it's all about the BMPT-64 an advanced follow up version of the N-64. Very Happy

    Yeah that was just poor trolling, BMPT-64 is a crude pile of crap. Might as well say BTR-T is better than the T-15.

    I am not too sure Epoha turret can contain a 57mm gun...just by visuals IMO it would be too much. Maybe they will stick to just 30mm for the near future...hopefully with very modern rounds at least.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 18, 2015 8:58 am

    The 30mm offers good and bad features... first its bad features... the main gun of an IFV is supposed to be able to defeat an enemy IFV, so this turret relies on ATGMs for that capability.

    The good feature is that this turret likely does not penetrate into the hull so more space for troops.

    I suspect this is actually the APC turret and the IFV turret is yet to come....


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5357
    Points : 5588
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:22 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    TR1 wrote:Armata IFV with Epoha-lite essentially. Full Epoha will appear later this decade.

    2A42 is not exactly cutting edge.

    Armata IFV? With a 30mm caliber main weapon? I'm leaning more towards a APC, a 30mm caliber main weapon has no chance in hell of being effective weapon even against modern IFV's that 'don't' have tank level armor. The 30mm caliber would indicate a purely defensive weapon with significant space in the interior for additional troops in the troop compartment, where the 30mm main weapon would act as a tool for suppressive fire for dismounting soldiers.

    Since they introduce the new ammunition ZUBR-11 APFSDS rounds for 2A42 guns i would say it has quite good performance to penetrate IFV's from front, but the problem here would be the range which would be significantly outgunned by ATGM's which quite a few foreign IFV's have, meaning it would stil rely on ATGM's to keep itself safe.
    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3247
    Points : 3353
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  flamming_python on Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:56 pm

    IF this is the IFV/BMP version then there would be little point of introducing a machine-gun-only APC/BTR version alongside it. The troop capacity would be the same and the armament/firepower capability would not significantly differ. In this case it would make more sense to unify the IFV and APC concepts into one vehicle version.. the chassis are now the same anyway.

    Therefore the conclusion lends itself to either that the IFV/APC versions have been merged (which we have no indication of), or that what we're seeing is indeed the APC version.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4488
    Points : 4661
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Feb 18, 2015 8:54 pm

    As far as the overhang goes, it might be a design feature thats necessary due to the fact that the Armata IFV/APC wont just have a standard armored capsule crew compartment, but also most likely have a troop compartment with the same armor capsule configuration, likely requiring re-configuring of interior space. The only way to know for sure is to see Armata models (in metal) of the different versions of the platform, compartively between Armata MBT and Armata IFV/APC.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 5708
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 on Wed Feb 18, 2015 9:51 pm

    flamming_python wrote:IF this is the IFV/BMP version then there would be little point of introducing a machine-gun-only APC/BTR version alongside it. The troop capacity would be the same and the armament/firepower capability would not significantly differ. In this case it would make more sense to unify the IFV and APC concepts into one vehicle version.. the chassis are now the same anyway.

    Therefore the conclusion lends itself to either that the IFV/APC versions have been merged (which we have no indication of), or that what we're seeing is indeed the APC version.

    Cost. Those turrets look expensive.

    Though I am not sure there will be an APC version of the Armata, probably just Boomerang and Kurganets.
    IDK.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  collegeboy16 on Thu Feb 19, 2015 3:18 am

    BTR armata is wasteful imo, with heavy armor it should be able to get in much closer to the fight, and while its in there might as well be packing BMP grade firepower...
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4488
    Points : 4661
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:35 am

    collegeboy16 wrote:BTR armata is wasteful imo, with heavy armor it should be able to get in much closer to the fight, and while its in there might as well be packing BMP grade firepower...

    Not at all, on the battlefield despite all the advancements in technology and armor, a well trained soldier is still by a wide margin the most valuable, versatile and lethal element on the battlefield, and they cost a fraction of a dedicated/specialized vehicle. You could have Armata MBTs and APCs fighting side-by-side, and Armata MBT could have the best gun, ammunition, fire control system, sensors, auto-loader in the world, but if dozens upon dozens of 4-5 story buildings are blocking it's path, than it may face trouble trying to destroy enemy armor on the other side of town, however that's not necessarily true with the Armata APC.

    If the Armata APC is capable of carrying 10-12 highly trained ATGM soldiers, than they could go up 3 or 4 of those 4-5 story buildings with their ATGM's, and destroy enemy armor from the rooftops without actually needing to cross town, combined with the fact that the enemy armor would be helpless at the fact that their tanks are incapable to elevate their guns and fire at the ATGM teams on the roof tops.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  collegeboy16 on Thu Feb 19, 2015 6:55 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:

    Not at all, on the battlefield despite all the advancements in technology and armor, a well trained soldier is still by a wide margin the most valuable, versatile and lethal element on the battlefield, and they cost a fraction of a dedicated/specialized vehicle. You could have Armata MBTs and APCs fighting side-by-side, and Armata MBT could have the best gun, ammunition, fire control system, sensors, auto-loader in the world, but if dozens upon dozens of 4-5 story buildings are blocking it's path, than it may face trouble trying to destroy enemy armor on the other side of town, however that's not necessarily true with the Armata APC.

    If the Armata APC is capable of carrying 10-12 highly trained ATGM soldiers, than they could go up 3 or 4 of those 4-5 story buildings with their ATGM's, and destroy enemy armor from the rooftops without actually needing to cross town, combined with the fact that the enemy armor would be helpless at the fact that their tanks are incapable to elevate their guns and fire at the ATGM teams on the roof tops.

    yeah, but why is APC better than IFV in this case? couldnt an IFV do the same - and its not like its a given that the IFV model is gonna have smaller troop size carried, maybe they would go for bustle storage for ammo, keep the troop compartment spacious for 10-12 guys in gear.

    plus any other situation in urban environment and IFV is much better. for example, say a couple IFVs gets ambushed grozny style- before they even empty their troops they would opening fire with programmable HE ammo into rooftops, basements and into windows. you could do that with an APC but you lose a lot on the firepower- unless its armed with 30mm which is an anomaly for APCs i think, only the russians employ them heavily, so HMG and maybe a GL(if lucky) it is. and those are gonna be only effective until they hunker down, at which point you are only left with the GL to shoot over cover. but what if you cant do just that, what if they sandbagged their firing hole- here is where a proper autocannon would do wonders.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 19, 2015 11:00 am

    APC is just an IFV with lighter armament and more focus on carrying more troops.

    There is little chance of an IFV on the Armata chassis that is armed with a 57mm gun that could have a non penetrating turret... in other words the turret will take up the space below it in the hull which means less troops. It will have the engine in the front and three crew and then a turret and the troops will be in the rear separated from the ammo and fuel...

    Of course an IFV armata with the rear troop compartment removed and extra ammo fitted could be used as a BMPT.

    An APC version with a HMG turret with external gun should allow a larger troop option with a RWS.

    All just guesses for now of course.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3247
    Points : 3353
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  flamming_python on Thu Feb 19, 2015 1:28 pm

    IMO, and this is just IMO - an APC version would be best served by having 2-3 remote machine guns, with perhaps a coaxial grenade launcher linked to the main one.

    SO you could have a 12.7mm MG linked with a 40mm automatic grenade launcher, controlled by the APC gunner (we'll assume the APC version will have a crew of two; the gunner and the driver).

    Then you could have 1-2 more 7.62mm machine guns remote-controlled by the squad inside - 1 by the squad leader and the other by the squad machine-gunner or perhaps the assistant squad leader. This would also have the benefit of giving the squad-leader good awareness of his surroundings while in the vehicle, so that he knows what to do when he dismounts (I think that squad-leaders inside BMPs/BTRs also had awareness as they commanded the vehicle while they were in it, but a remote turret with sights sounds like a better option).
    When the squad-dismounts, the auxillary MGs can be slaved to the main MG controlled by the gunner, so that they will also fire if the angle permits. The squad-leader's auxillary MG could even be linked with a co-axial dual-RPO mount, giving him a little extra firepower, that the gunner could also employ when the squad exits.

    The IFV version defo needs to pack a punch though. If 30mm is all it has, I'm thoroughly disappointed. This would also put to bed all the ideas about how IFVs can attain a measure of AA defense by using their 57mm cannons, linked with air-defense radars on other vehicles.

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Oct 24, 2017 4:13 am