Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Share
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  collegeboy16 on Fri Mar 27, 2015 11:10 am

    victor1985 wrote:I saw most of tanks have their weight concentrated to middle or back. Especially to armata i saw is concentrate to back. How that affect the adherence to road? Most important when reaching a hill. Or close to vertical pieces of road.
    i think its opposite- the MBT at least looks to me to be a bit front heavy, what with the the big support devices on the the two front rollers. most MBTs are front heavy anyway- the massive turret and now frontal hull armor would always outweigh the engine at the back. and afaik Merkava 4 which defo takes the cake for front heaviness performs well when going uphill- the extra weight seems to add more traction at the front, making the climb easier.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  collegeboy16 on Fri Mar 27, 2015 11:12 am

    Werewolf wrote:

    What trend? There is not a single gun on tanks that uses liquid propellants.
    well its definitely on the christmas list for next gen tanks- esp. now this mother just exploded in the net.

    victor1985

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  victor1985 on Fri Mar 27, 2015 12:08 pm

    In the images i saw the turret of armata is bigger in back and is sloped in front. That gives a extra weight to back. Also notice that the armour of tank is very sloped in front thus less thicker. Normally the ammunition must be placed in front of armata cause the high angled armour gives enough protection. To compensate the weight of engine that is also necesary. Now i do t know how much the autoloader will weight. Also the fuel weights a lot....
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 806
    Points : 888
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Stealthflanker on Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:45 pm

    I'm curious about autoloader layout. Given the longer penetrator length envisaged for Armata or T-95..the T-72 or T-80 carousel may no longer be used so other layout must be used. One option is to use bustle OR carousel autoloader similar as old US M1TTB unmanned turret prototype.

    This is M1TTB autoloader layout




    Such layout is efficient as it stores more rounds than T-72 layout and allow around 1.1 meter vertical space for rounds BUT.. the loading sequence somewhat more complex than T-72 or T-80. Might affect fire rate in my view.

    victor1985

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  victor1985 on Fri Mar 27, 2015 7:05 pm

    But what whit a magnetic autoloader? Or like in the pistol whit a spring that push all row of missiles. Also one problem is time of fill the tank whit projectiles. In war time is efficient to have less time between empty munition and fill and go back to fight.
    avatar
    Zivo

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Zivo on Fri Mar 27, 2015 8:13 pm

    Zivo wrote:

    That thing, it looks like it could be a independently elevated autocannon. If the barrel was on the far side of it, it would be just about vertically aligned with the main gun. It kind of looks like the crew accidentally depressed the autocannon while the tarp was still on, pulling it up a bit from its original position.

    195 looks less like a prototype and more like a production war machine, I guess it really was ready for service a few years back.

    Anyone recall what 195's APS was designated? It couldn't be Afghanistan could it?



    Cool   30mm autocannon poking out.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  TR1 on Fri Mar 27, 2015 8:16 pm

    Those are two different Obj 195 prototypes btw- you can see the APS installation differences.

    Did not notice the 2A42 earlier.
    avatar
    Zivo

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Zivo on Fri Mar 27, 2015 8:22 pm

    TR1 wrote:Those are two different Obj 195 prototypes btw- you can see the APS installation differences.

    Did not notice the 2A42 earlier.

    I think there was two or three Obj 195 prototypes.
    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2144
    Points : 2309
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Cyberspec on Sat Mar 28, 2015 7:48 am

    Something interesting from Khlopotov's blog...Soviet 1980's project by KB Spetzmash.

    They were planning a promising tank on this platform, heavy BMP, a BMPT and missile tank with vertical launchers.

    And to quote Gur Khan: you can thank 'Misha' Gorbachev for this not entering service in 1989-1991  Very Happy



    Source: http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/2015/03/blog-post_27.html
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  TR1 on Sat Mar 28, 2015 8:25 am

    Well, according to Gur Khan, who is a very biased, often dis-informative source.

    See his current rants about Obj 195.
    avatar
    Viktor

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Viktor on Sat Mar 28, 2015 8:57 am

    T-95

    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  TR1 on Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:11 am

    Cough repost cough Wink.

    Hilarious thing is:
    https://vk.com/id130255473?z=albums130255473

    This retard posted that photo in 2011! No one noticed it till now, and the other secretive 152mm test bed he photographed.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:13 am

    TR1 wrote:Cough repost cough Wink.

    Hilarious thing is:
    https://vk.com/id130255473?z=albums130255473

    This retard posted that photo in 2011! No one noticed it till now, and the other secretive 152mm test bed he photographed.

    Well just like the post of the Project 941 WZ-10 Helicopter designed by kamov, no one believed the guy either, but he was an insider.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sat Mar 28, 2015 2:26 pm

    Stealthflanker wrote:I'm curious about autoloader layout. Given the longer penetrator length envisaged for Armata or T-95..the T-72 or T-80 carousel may no longer be used so other layout must be used.  One option is to use bustle OR carousel autoloader similar as old US M1TTB unmanned turret prototype.

    This is M1TTB autoloader layout

    Such layout is efficient as it stores more rounds than T-72 layout and allow around 1.1 meter vertical space for rounds BUT.. the loading sequence somewhat more complex than T-72 or T-80. Might affect fire rate in my view.

    two or more rows of vertical carousel AL is what i think it would use. outer row is for projectiles, while the inner row/s is for propellant charges.
    if ever they decide to use oversized charges for APFSDS maybe they could also stack two standard charges on top of another, but this would be only for row immediately after outermost.

    for fire rate, maybe there is temp. storage in bustle area a la revolver.
    avatar
    Viktor

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Viktor on Sat Mar 28, 2015 6:23 pm

    Its RT but still its official from Moscow so ...

    Not just tanks: Video with Armata-platform heavy APC emerges

    The crew of both Armata MBT and APC consists of only two operators and is located in the middle of the vehicles, whereas the powerplant is believed to be positioned in front of them. The crew cell ensures that operators remain safe even if the vehicle’s major armor is pierced.

    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  TR1 on Sat Mar 28, 2015 7:44 pm

    RT being stupid like always.

    Well known that Armata has 3 crew members.
    They talked about possible cutting that down to two, in the future.
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 806
    Points : 888
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Stealthflanker on Sat Mar 28, 2015 8:25 pm

    TR1 wrote:RT being stupid like always.

    Well known that Armata has 3 crew members.
    They talked about possible cutting that down to two, in the future.

    yeah.
    Two man tank is possible but.. computer hasn't advanced that far to take role of gunner. Without computer.. workload would be too much for commander.

    i commented on that page too :3
    avatar
    Zivo

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Zivo on Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:39 pm

    Stealthflanker wrote:
    TR1 wrote:RT being stupid like always.

    Well known that Armata has 3 crew members.
    They talked about possible cutting that down to two, in the future.

    yeah.
    Two man tank is possible but.. computer hasn't advanced that far to take role of gunner. Without computer.. workload would be too much for commander.

    i commented on that page too :3

    Although it's not a 100% accurate comparison, many video games have MBT's operated by a two man crew, one driving, and one gunning/commanding. In Arma, many players control MBT's from the gunner position vs the commander position as the rolls become redundant.

    All the control is digital. If you could drive armata with a mouse and keyboard, you could theoretically operate it as is done in videogames.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:32 pm

    Well, the T-90MS and Armata have Okhotnik an image processor system that can scan the battlefield for targets in IR spectrum aswell as form and shape and autotarget and autolockon. This system could take over the commanders role as Hunter Killer based system. So in theory it is possible today but not recommended.
    avatar
    Zivo

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Zivo on Sun Mar 29, 2015 3:13 am

    Werewolf wrote:Well, the T-90MS and Armata have Okhotnik an image processor system that can scan the battlefield for targets in IR spectrum aswell as form and shape and autotarget and autolockon. This system could take over the commanders role as Hunter Killer based system. So in theory it is possible today but not recommended.

    With the automation, the gunner's importance is rapidly fading.

    In the near future, I imagine the commander will wear a helmet mounted 3D video system, and will simply queue up targets. The FCS will deal with the precision details and the commander just has to press the button to fire. Each Armata will have it's own micro UAV to follow it around that will hover a few hundred feet above each vehicle and help mark targets.

    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sun Mar 29, 2015 3:33 am

    Zivo wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:Well, the T-90MS and Armata have Okhotnik an image processor system that can scan the battlefield for targets in IR spectrum aswell as form and shape and autotarget and autolockon. This system could take over the commanders role as Hunter Killer based system. So in theory it is possible today but not recommended.

    With the automation, the gunner's importance is rapidly fading.

    In the near future, I imagine the commander will wear a helmet mounted 3D video system, and will simply queue up targets. The FCS will deal with the precision details and the commander just has to press the button to fire. Each Armata will have it's own micro UAV to follow it around that will hover a few hundred feet above each vehicle and help mark targets.


    The T-14 MBT Armata could have a micro helicopter UAV and a all-weather casing/mount with a built in charger located on top of the turret, that opens up when needed to launch the micro helicopter UAV, and the encasement could close to protect the UAV from the elements.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sun Mar 29, 2015 3:41 am

    So back on to the topic of Armata's self-defense capabilities: As far as APS goes, Armata will have Afghanistan, and will have a X-band AESA derived from the PAK-FA program (that will likely have 10km range), everyone knows this...however we should also realize that the standardized defense suite for Armata should blur the lines of what a APS should be. For example the standardized Afghanistan APS suite should be most useful in defeating top-attack weapons (EFP's, PGM's), APFSDS's, extreme close-range ATGM ambush attacks, however we can't rule out the possibility that with the help of a BMS assisted X-band AESA radar, a T-14 MBT's 30mm autocannon turret mount, or a T-15 BMPT's Gsh-6-23 autocannon turret mount could potentially defeat long-range man-portable ATGM missiles at a safe distance of 1.5km, 2.5km, or (even with 30mm autocannon) at 3 km range on a open battlefield. Even speaking on the X-band AESA, we can't rule out the possibility that it may retain enough power to be capable enough to jam radio-command guided PGM's or man-portable ground radar...but of course this is all just speculation, and we'll have to just wait for a official confirmation to make sure of these potential capabilities.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1175
    Points : 1184
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:52 am

    if the armata MBT ever gets a 30mm coaxial it will be 2a42, and its not exactly CIWS material with its relatively low fire rate...

    i dont worry much about protection- probably the most dangerous would be attack helos but now that even MBTs could have AESA radar and already have top of the line thermals plus multispectral cammo i dare say the hunter just became the hunted.

    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:07 am

    collegeboy16 wrote:if the armata MBT ever gets a 30mm coaxial it will be 2a42, and its not exactly CIWS material with its relatively low fire rate...

    i dont worry much about protection- probably the most dangerous would be attack helos but now that even MBTs could have AESA radar and already have top of the line thermals plus multispectral cammo i dare say the hunter just became the hunted.


    You missed my point, the autocannon it's not supposed to be a CIWS that acts as a de facto SHORAD that defeats any and all PGM's it comes across, but using it's radar + BMS + FCS + autocannon's range to pick off subsonic man-portable ATGM missiles at a safe distance using HE-Frag ammunition.
    avatar
    Zivo

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Zivo on Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:29 am



    The T-14 MBT Armata could have a micro helicopter UAV and a all-weather casing/mount with a built in charger located on top of the turret, that opens up when needed to launch the micro helicopter UAV, and the encasement could close to protect the UAV from the elements.

    IMO something like that will be standard on new AFV's within the next five years. Micro UAV's even at their most expensive, are cheap compared to the vehicles they will be watching over. Having a personal eye in the sky will be a indispensable tool for vehicle crews.

    i dont worry much about protection- probably the most dangerous would be attack helos but now that even MBTs could have AESA radar and already have top of the line thermals plus multispectral cammo i dare say the hunter just became the hunted.

    Helicopters will end up with ATGM's that have at least 10+ km of range over the next decade. HERMES-A will be pushing into the 20+ km category.

    MBT's will still be at a disadvantage, fortunately they will have Pantsirs and whatnot watching their backs.



    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 16, 2017 6:29 am