Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Share
    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 7:21 pm

    What do you know, we were just talking about the prospective 57mm turret module for Armata, and it looks like UVZ may show what 'might' become the future Armata's 'unmanned' IFV turret. As of now it's only slated for the 'wheeled' 8x8 AFV from EMRATES DEFENCE TECHNOLOGY (UAE) presented at IDEX 2015, so who knows if it will eventually become the unified unmanned turret for Russian IFV's:

    At IDEX 2015 UVZ present promising developments

    http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/336247.html




    These pictures down here are over-sized, so I couldn't embed them.

    http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/andrei_bt/18425682/344126/344126_original.jpg

    http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/andrei_bt/18425682/344542/344542_original.jpg

    http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/andrei_bt/18425682/344738/344738_original.jpg
    avatar
    TR1

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 on Thu Feb 19, 2015 7:35 pm

    Breathing heavily.
    avatar
    TR1

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  TR1 on Thu Feb 19, 2015 7:38 pm

    Hmmm, word of mouth on forums is MOD is not interested in this turret however.

    Burevestnik's own initiative once again.
    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 7:43 pm

    TR1 wrote:Hmmm, word of mouth on forums is MOD is not interested in this turret however.

    Burevestnik's own initiative once again.

    That's the sense that I got, the Russian equivalent will most likely have a longer barrel. As of now it will be slated for export just like the turret for the ATOM vehicle.

    mutantsushi

    Posts : 282
    Points : 304
    Join date : 2013-12-11

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  mutantsushi on Thu Feb 19, 2015 10:14 pm

    Yes, it seems slated for export ala ATOM, which was aimed and countries (UAE) using French APCs but wanting Russian AFV turrets...
    Apparently it is being offered thru UAE company, which conveniently bypasses sanctions barring EU links with Russian arms companies...
    Lack of missile launchers seems to conflict with Russian tendency, but could be attractive for export markets (and could be added in easily).

    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...
    The 30mm turret is shown not just on Armata, but also Kurganets, so that isn't the whole story...

    IMHO, putting that 30mm turret on ALL APCs seems overkill/expensive/limiting of ammo quantity, but perhaps what is being proposes is a 2nd tier of AFV,
    the 57mm will still go forward, but alongside a 30mm AFV in a different role...  
    Perhaps one will continue conventional troop transport IFV role, with the turret not (or minimally) protuding into vehicle interior,
    while another will reduce the troop capacity to pursue a higher (internal) ammo capacity in more of a BMPT style approach
    (or like French vehicles which are of AFV class weaponry but forgo troop transport completely, essentially light wheeled tanks)
    ...Or the 30mm could just be for export?

    EDIT: On the other hand, check this roundup of new 30mm turrets that are very small, mounted on Humvees/MATVs:
    http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2015/02/oshkosh-atk-demo-30mm-cannon-in-50-cal.html
    Maybe you don't need that on EVERY APC, but putting it on more platforms than "dedicated" IFVs can't hurt, can it?
    Still seems like a lower calliber gun + 40mm grenades would be more useful though...
    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 20, 2015 10:54 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    TR1 wrote:Hmmm, word of mouth on forums is MOD is not interested in this turret however.

    Burevestnik's own initiative once again.

    That's the sense that I got, the Russian equivalent will most likely have a longer barrel. As of now it will be slated for export just like the turret for the ATOM vehicle.

    hopefully they are just being cheapskates for now and order something like these turrets in the near future a la Panstir-S1/ Su-30MKI.
    avatar
    Viktor

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Viktor on Sat Feb 21, 2015 7:02 pm

    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2149
    Points : 2250
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  higurashihougi on Sun Feb 22, 2015 7:38 am


    An Armata with 152mm main gun ?

    Remind me the old Obyekt 195 aka T-95.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sun Feb 22, 2015 7:56 am

    where did they get that "12.5 mm turret-mounted heavy machine gun is reportedly capable of taking out incoming projectiles, such as anti-tank missiles. It’s capable of neutralizing shells approaching at speeds of up to 3,000 meters per second.", LOL, a55pull much?
    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 Sun Feb 22, 2015 7:57 am

    higurashihougi wrote:

    An Armata with 152mm main gun ?

    Remind me the old Obyekt 195 aka T-95.

    But it's put on hold in favor of a modernized 125mm gun, and if NATO goes with 80 ton MBT monstrosities (which is very unlikely) than they have the option go much bigger with the 152mm. As of now the 125mm has lots of untapped potential according to the new gun's designers. Personally I hope they never go with the 152mm main gun caliber, which is the brute force approach, but I hope they go with the finesse approach and develop a electro-magnetic main gun powered by magneto batteries, one with the capability to adjust to different caliber diameters.
    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 Sun Feb 22, 2015 7:59 am

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    where did they get that "12.5 mm turret-mounted heavy machine gun is reportedly capable of taking out incoming projectiles, such as anti-tank missiles. It’s capable of neutralizing shells approaching at speeds of up to 3,000 meters per second.", LOL, a55pull much?

    The editors probably got confused. The whole bit about defeating projectiles traveling at 3km/sec may of been actually referring to the Afghanistan APS.

    AJ-47

    Posts : 116
    Points : 117
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  AJ-47 on Tue Feb 24, 2015 2:34 am

    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.


    I think that the IFV is a wrong concept; it is not carrying enough soldiers in one hand, and don’t have enough fire power in the other hand.
    So IMO, I prefer to separate the IFV to APC and FSV.
    As an APC I will like to have the Kamaz 63969. It’s protected all around from 14.5 mm bullets, and protected from 10 kg mine under the body. If we install the GSh-23-2 on the roof, we will get the protection and the fire power we need for APC.
    The APCs are not on the front line of fire, so we don’t need to have the Armata’s chassis/protection.

    I like the concept for the Armata IFV, as we saw in the picture (T-15). But as the 30mm is under power gun, I will choose the 57 mm gun/turret, as we saw some of his picture lately. As the soldiers will be carrying out on the APC, the IFV (T-15) will not carry dismount soldiers, and it will have enough room for the turret and the ammo.
    This vehicle will become FSV and will support the tanks and the APCs.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 24, 2015 5:02 am

    Funny you should say that because a lot of the speculation about the combat use of the BMP-3 revolved around the heavy firepower it carried and that in some situations you could use them to drop off the troops and then move them to another area to act as light tanks as a mobile reserve.

    In most cases the BMP would operate with the troops offering long range views and magnified optics of the target and heavy direct firepower and communications to direct artillery and air support rapidly on enemy forces.

    Against 90% of the worlds enemies you probably wouldn't need tanks as they are pretty much optimised to only fight each other anyway...

    The situation is muddied however because when we talk about troop transport in future Russian units we now have to add heavy, medium, medium, and light models.

    The idea of the tank in most operations is an armoured vehicle with a heavy gun that can take out at long range any enemy armoured vehicle. It is heavy and expensive, but powerful.

    the problem is that in the Russian military the BMP will have heavy fire power too and some sort of fire and forget diving top attack ATGM could give it the ability to engage any enemy armour too.

    But like the Hind and the Merkava tank each vehicle has a specific role and will perform specific duties in the battlefield and converting an attack helo into a troop transport, or making a troop transport MBT ruins it for both missions.



    _________________
    “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

    victor1985

    Posts : 704
    Points : 741
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  victor1985 on Tue Feb 24, 2015 8:07 am

    Point is every model is for different purposes: heavy APC and IVFs are needed during main conflift when probability to engage enemy fire is huge and big protection is needed. After main conflict those carriers would walk in secure land so no more heavy armour is needed but movement for fast covering of the map. Also is there a problem if use more or less soldiers in the APC fuel consumption and manevrability and armour weight being affectet by number of soldiers. More soldiers less machines but heavyer, less soldiers but more machines more engines. Point is where to use them according to enemy capacity. In this a poor armed enemy can be faced even whit APCs/IFVs medium armoured and armed. Whit a organized enemy mixes whit MBTs are necesarry. Point is this troops also need well comunication and map pointing devices. That gives mobility and element of surprise. And is the best to know where is the enemy for not atack in blind. So in my opinion all comes first whit satellites then aviation and only in last place mass ground battle units. And i forgot the rockets and missiles which are quite important. Ground forces are needed for clearing sectors and secure areas.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 25, 2015 12:26 am

    The Russians have already demonstrated laser based technology that can detect scopes and sights and alert the user to those potential threats. They have also shown microphone arrays that can detect sounds and determine the origin of small arms fire fairly rapidly and accurately.

    Unlike in hollywood, it seems to me that in real combat often it is rounds coming in from a general area but no specific source that is the biggest problem... especially when coming from neutral areas.

    Organisations like the KLA abused such situations to attack Serbian forces from near villages that would not support them in the hope that an over reaction by the police or army units would result in that village becoming more supportive of their aims.

    Being able to tell exactly who was shooting and only shooting back at those doing the shooting would be much more productive in preventing the situation from getting out of hand.

    With the fire power at the hands of modern soldiers do we need more soldiers?

    A couple of soldier with a small hand launched UAV plus a few ground based systems with a PKM MMG could control larger areas of ground than previously a large number of soldiers could cover...

    New sights enabling clean hits from 400-500m should make their fire more effective too.


    _________________
    “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

    victor1985

    Posts : 704
    Points : 741
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  victor1985 on Wed Feb 25, 2015 7:06 am

    And do that cheaper. Training, feed and arm 1000 soldiers to control a area wich a uav can do cost more than the uav and his activities

    victor1985

    Posts : 704
    Points : 741
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  victor1985 on Wed Feb 25, 2015 7:12 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    GarryB wrote:I have read that the most efficient penetrator speed is about 2.5km/s too and that rather than increase velocity it is more energy efficient to increase the penetrator weight.

    Ironically it is actually harder to get higher speed than to increase the penetrator weight ... just make the penetrator longer will increase weight...

    Well form of penetrator plays a big role and if i remeber right there were some forms of the tip that were not as spiky as we usually see on current APFSDS rounds, which would push away the air in a very effecient way so the body after the Tip did not come to much in contact with the air, like a windshadow like driving on highway behind a big truck, which increased the possible velocity and sustained penetrative capability on larger distances then just 2km like the current APFSDS rounds.
    but in this you need powerfull cannon and lighter sabot.... and big cannon mean extra weight for tank so move slower also the turret move slower wich is important. Rate of fire is also affected cause big cannon make big shockwave wich means fewer fires can be made in a minute.also the shockwave make the barrel shake so must wait until stop. Bigger cannon bigger and long time shake.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  collegeboy16 on Wed Feb 25, 2015 2:41 pm

    victor1985 wrote:
    but in this you need powerfull cannon and lighter sabot.... and big cannon mean extra weight for tank so move slower also the turret move slower wich is important. Rate of fire is also affected cause big cannon make big shockwave wich means fewer fires can be made in a minute.also the shockwave make the barrel shake so must wait until stop. Bigger cannon bigger and long time shake.
    speaking with armata mbt in mind, i think an unmanned turret with a potentially heavier(and certainly more powerful) gun system would still be lighter than a manned turret with lighter vanilla gun system. and turret and gun movement for the latter is fast enough- the former should be even faster. the rof is not a problem too, first look first shot is the name of the game anyway, but higher rof is always good. you are right about the need for lighter sabots, just hope they make them affordable. read they cost huge chunk of really pricy murican apfsds and sabot rounds need to be "pumped" quite a few times into enemy armor(esp. moving) to ensure reliable chance of igniting ammo and fuel and kill crew. and that wont really work if you can only carry a couple onboard.

    victor1985

    Posts : 704
    Points : 741
    Join date : 2015-01-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  victor1985 on Wed Feb 25, 2015 3:16 pm

    You have right. Often the rule is first seen first shoot. But.... this means is about effective range that you dont know cause every tank has a armour that is beaten from different distances whith different velocityes. Practically means if two tanks enemy whit each other no matter when they discover enemy at least discover in time they are out of enemy range and in own practic range of cannon. Means that a poor cannon must first get a hit then approach enemy and hit too. When you have countermeasures doesnt look so bad to have a poor cannon. Or better said a lighter one. Cause whith countermeasures lighter cannon mean more speed so fast approach in own effective range.
    Point is a tank must hit whit the sabot a essential part of enemy tank. Cause the sabot do damage only by penetrating armour. A sensor of pressure and split in srapnels after penetrating is a good way to do more damage. Or a grenade in the back of tail....
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16532
    Points : 17140
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 25, 2015 10:34 pm

    The problem with the 30mm cannon is that while it is still effective against aircraft and soft ground targets like cars and trucks and MRAPs, its primary function should include engaging enemy IFVs and most of them are over 30 tons in weight.

    The advantage of going to a much heavier gun is that for most targets an APHE round is possible that is vastly more effective than HEAT or APFSDS in terms of lethality because of its secondary effects on target.

    A 57mm gun wont need max penetration against an MRAP or M113 APC or even a Marine landing vehicle.

    Having a full bore calibre penetrator with a HE charge will make it rather more lethal even if it is not able to penetrate as much armour as a much higher performing APFSDS round.

    APHE are cheaper and likely more accurate and more effective against things like bunkers and light armoured vehicles and indeed aircraft.

    Lower rate of fire is not important if the rounds are guided or just accurately placed on target.


    _________________
    “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
    George1

    Posts : 10523
    Points : 11000
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  George1 on Thu Feb 26, 2015 12:41 pm

    How Will Russia Unveil Its Top-Secret T-14 Battle Tank? Details Revealed

    The new T-14 tank on the Armata platform will be presented at a night-time parade rehearsal as soon as Friday, but it's likely that arms experts will not be able to learn much about it.

    The Russian next-generation T-14 Armata main battle tank, due to be unveiled at the Red Square Victory Day parade in Moscow on May 9 will appear in public at an advance parade rehearsal, according to a source in the defense industry, Russian news site Lenta.Ru reported.

    The latest rehearsal for what is planned to be the biggest Victory Day parade in Russia's recent history is scheduled for Friday, at 6:45 a.m., so it's possible that the Armata tank will appear as soon as this week.

    However, the tank will appear in a camouflage that will distort it's silhouette and make it impossible to examine its exact configuration. The technique, practiced by car manufacturers to protect prospective models from espionage, will likely be adapted for the Armata. One existing technology to conceal a tank's shape is the Nakidka, developed by Moscow's Steel Research Institute, which also conceals a tank's thermal, infrared and radar signatures.

    The first 20 T-14 Armata main battle tanks were handed over to the military earlier in February. It was initially thought that the new tank would be revealed then, but authorities decided to keep the tank's details a secret.

    The T-14 (Object 149) main battle tank is based on the Armata platform, which has been in development at Uralvagonzavod since 2009. Other than the tank, the platform will be used for armored fighting vehicles (AFVs), self-propelled guns (SPGs), engineering vehicles and other uses.

    The Armata tank will reportedly feature a remotely controlled gun and fully automated loading, as well as a separate crew compartment made from composite materials and protected by multilayered armor.

    The tank will go through state trials in 2016, and it is expected that by 2020, over 2,300 tanks on the Armata platform will be supplied to the military.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150225/1018747955.html#ixzz3Sqm8vS00
    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 26, 2015 12:59 pm

    HOLY SH!T Very Happy Laughing , is this for realsies? like tomorrow friday? dayum, would make for a great treat after exams. hope its clad in official camo, not in just mere tarp tho.
    avatar
    Cpt Caz

    Posts : 86
    Points : 95
    Join date : 2013-09-08

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Cpt Caz on Sat Feb 28, 2015 2:56 am

    Bochkarev: the cost of tanks "Armata" will be reduced


    MOSCOW, February 27 - RIA Novosti. Reduced prices for armored vehicles on the platform "Armata" will be made ​​by simplifying the system and non-small-demand parameters, said in an interview with RIA Novosti deputy chairman of the board of the Military-Industrial Commission under the President of the Russian Federation Oleg Bochkarev.

    Earlier it was reported that the Ministry of Defense and the Military-Industrial Commission dissatisfied with the high cost of tanks "Armata". Uralvagonzavod, which produces this technique, promised to reduce the cost. According Bochkareva, tools that will be used to reduce the price quite a lot.

    "As for the price point, it is very important. We may give up some" bells and whistles ". Also, we will go the way of simplifying some systems. The characteristics that we have provided - a very expensive solution. Simplify some things we do not lose the properties this machine, but save a lot in price, "- said Bochkarev.

    He noted that the new technology is expensive, does not go in the series - and this is caused by the high cost of the proposed machines. According to the deputy chairman of the board of MIC on the technique that goes into pilot operation Branch, will be all that "invented" the industry.

    "Everything was done at the request of the customer, and when the operation starts, it becomes clear that a small parameter in demand, so it can be waived", - said the agency.

    Bochkarev confirmed that the pilot operation troop of tanks "Armata" will begin in early 2016.

    Ground forces of the Russian Federation in 2020 plan to renew the fleet of armored vehicles by 70%, and the purchase of modern serial samples will begin in 2016. In troops should enter the tank platform "Armata" armored personnel carrier "Boomerang", infantry fighting vehicle "Kurganets-25" and family cars "Typhoon". Tanks "Armata" will take part in the Victory Parade on Red Square this year.

    РИА Новости http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20150227/1049933241.html#ixzz3T06TyiLk
    avatar
    Viktor

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Viktor on Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:08 pm

    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10523
    Points : 11000
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  George1 on Mon Mar 02, 2015 10:01 pm

    New Russian Tank Armata to Receive Fifth Generation Radio Communication Means



    United Instrument Manufacturing Corporation (included in Rostec) developed unified software and hardware complex (UPTK), which will be part of a new generation of tanks “Armata”. The complex includes a fifth-generation radio communication means, corporation representative said on Monday.

    “The system allows the technique to solve the majority of problems in an automated mode with minimal crew participation and integrates every fighting machine into a single system of tactical control. The UPTK structure consists of fifth-generation radio communication means developed by the concern “Sozvezdie”, in particular, automation and control means, navigation equipment,” was said in a statement.

    According to the developers, the complex implemented “a complete set of functions required of modern tanks”. Its use allows you to “automate most of the process and minimize the participation of the crew”. The complex is uniform and in the future will be installed not only in tanks, but in other military equipment.

    https://rostechnologiesblog.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/new-russian-tank-armata-to-receive-fifth-generation-radio-communication-means/

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:17 pm