Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Share

    Vann7

    Posts : 3471
    Points : 3583
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Vann7 on Fri May 08, 2015 9:39 pm

    Zivo wrote:
    Regular wrote:It seems Armata is having problems with transmission, now it was T-15. It could only move in reverse. So it was evacuated.
    }
    Eventually it managed to board trailer.
    Now makes me thing why they wanted to present tank now, not after a year or so?

    Keep your fingers crossed for the actual parade.

    Armata has a complex transmission, and relies on sensors and computer control to operate. It's a shame that they couldn't sort out the problems with it before the parade.

    Now the damage is done.. they should not be showing the armata at all if not ready . specially because the tanks are still years away of serial production. It looks the engine is faulty and they
    will need to return to the drawing board. It will not be a biggie ,they could just use a T-90 engine with improvements ,but definitively it will delay the tank.
    avatar
    AbsoluteZero

    Posts : 81
    Points : 105
    Join date : 2011-01-29
    Age : 29
    Location : Canada

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  AbsoluteZero on Fri May 08, 2015 9:46 pm

    Vann7 wrote:
    Zivo wrote:
    Regular wrote:It seems Armata is having problems with transmission, now it was T-15. It could only move in reverse. So it was evacuated.
    }
    Eventually it managed to board trailer.
    Now makes me thing why they wanted to present tank now, not after a year or so?

    Keep your fingers crossed for the actual parade.

    Armata has a complex transmission, and relies on sensors and computer control to operate. It's a shame that they couldn't sort out the problems with it before the parade.

    Now the damage is done.. they should not be showing the armata at all if not ready . specially because the tanks are still years away of serial production. It looks the engine is faulty and they
    will need to return to the drawing board. It will not be a biggie ,they could just use a T-90 engine with improvements ,but definitively it will delay the tank.

    I wonder, why does it have to happen now? Im sure they have been testing these vehicles since last year? And the problems are only showing now? When the tarps were on they are working just fine Question
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Stealthflanker on Fri May 08, 2015 9:50 pm

    AbsoluteZero wrote:
    I wonder, why does it have to happen now? Im sure they have been testing these vehicles since last year? And the problems are only showing now? When the tarps were on they are working just fine Question

    Murphy's law i guess.

    factors are many, transmissions, poor crewmanship etc.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7252
    Points : 7546
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  sepheronx on Fri May 08, 2015 10:45 pm

    BKP wrote:Thanks for replies regarding bbc piece. And, yeah, the British press is a real pisser.

    sheytanelkebir wrote:One issue with the microelectronics / imports highlighted is not for the basic ballistic computers and autoloaders etc (which the current generation of russian electronics will easily handle)... but for current / future augmented reality systems where you would need 22nm and better chips to reduce power consumption on visor and UAV mounted electronics...

    Interesting. If RF needs to develop the capability to produce 22nm chips, then I would guess it's considered a priority to do so.

    I remember reading a piece in (I believe) an IEEE publication a couple of years ago about the supreme difficulty in detecting trapdoors and other malicious code in firmware, much more so than in OS or application software. So I would hope that Russia would never opt to use western-designed chips in critical systems.

    My suggestion to you people is to do your research.  Let me help you:

    Chip makers in Russia:

    Elvees Multicore: http://multicore.ru/
    Mikron: http://www.mikron.ru/en/
    Multiclet: http://www.multiclet.com/
    Module: http://www.module.ru/
    Niisi: https://www.niisi.ru/
    My fav
    Elbrus (MCST): http://mcst.ru/

    upcoming:
    Baikal ARM processor R&D: http://baikalelectronics.com/en/

    All of these are chip R&D facilities making various chips for various purposes, some of these are made domestically in Angstrom, and some are made in China/Taiwan with 1 (Modules ARM) is co-developed in Fujitsu Japan.  Nanometer does not indicate instant reduction in power usage, as I should remind some of you, the Elbrus 2C+ operates within 40W, which is pretty darn good for a 90nm processor and operates significantly cooler and less power hungry than the AMD x86 processors running at 40nm and less.
    avatar
    alexZam

    Posts : 343
    Points : 399
    Join date : 2015-04-23
    Location : SoCal

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  alexZam on Fri May 08, 2015 11:19 pm

    Smooth.
    T-15

    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3256
    Points : 3379
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  kvs on Sat May 09, 2015 12:18 am

    sheytanelkebir wrote:One issue with the microelectronics / imports highlighted is not for the basic ballistic computers and autoloaders etc (which the current generation of russian electronics will easily handle)... but for current / future augmented reality systems where you would need 22nm and better chips to reduce power consumption on visor and UAV mounted electronics.

    Also I would say that in the future Armata tanks and IFVs should each have 2-3 small UAVs which are charged on board and launch and fly automatically above / in front of the vehicle as a forward scout and give a better Situational awareness for the crews. Those would also benefit from the 22nm and better chips to reduce power consumption and improve the endurance of each UAV... Imagine that a "buttoned up" tank would be launching and recovering these small UAVs automatically, the commander simply having the feed from these cameras fed to him without having to think about launching or controlling an individual UAV. whilst one UAV is in the air, the other 2 are getting charged on the tank in their own "recharge stations" that they land into automatically when their power goes low.

    Such an addition would only cost maybe $100k per tank (with three thermal camera equipped UAVs). a small price for a dramatic improvement in SA.

    As was shown a few pages ago, there are a series of rear view cameras... so I imagine that the driver can drive the tank forward and backwards effortlessly without having to "think" about which direction he's driving in. when he engages reverse, his visor and controls automatically switch... perhaps he just has a little sign on his visor/screen with "R" on it.


    I just can't see UAV information processing requiring AI computing. Augmented reality I call unnecessary information overload. A system that tracks discrete objects and a human-digestible level of them is all that is needed. Pushing a vast amount of pixels to do real time rendering of landscapes and
    pattern recognition is gross overkill. I see these "VR" tools being more relevant for pilots and not tank operators.

    What a modern tank needs is high level sensors (spanning visible to IR emissions) and the ability to track the significant objects in its vicinity.
    Sophisticated detection technology coupled with training will run circles around some pattern recognition system that "augments"
    the operator.

    If there isn't a war in the next few years, Russia will reach the same IC resolution limits (< 5 nm) that NATO has to deal with. Given
    Russia's previous performance is doing more with less by that stage it will be NATO that will in the clear disadvantage. (BTW, I
    see this "throw more CPU resources at the problem" mindset in the civilian research field, the problem is that the problems involved
    are not one-parameter that they can be "solved" this easily.)
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2028
    Points : 2032
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Regular on Sat May 09, 2015 12:47 am

    alexZam wrote:Smooth.
    T-15

    It sems to have very good torque and very good suspension.
    T-15 looks like perfection to me, it just screams of CC Generals chinese tank.
    I do hope heads will roll and problems will be fixed, cause now haters are having a field day
    avatar
    Flanky

    Posts : 181
    Points : 188
    Join date : 2011-05-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Flanky on Sat May 09, 2015 12:58 am

    All those Armata glitches will be dealth with...
    What i was pretty surprised was the shape of the turret...
    For a Russian tank school that turret is too high and from front aspect ratio not that good armour angle - but then i can be pretty sure that they have a followup turret developments... possibly with a very high caliber gun as well...
    avatar
    Zivo

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Zivo on Sat May 09, 2015 1:19 am



    You can see a bit under the sheet metal.
    avatar
    Werewolf

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Werewolf on Sat May 09, 2015 1:29 am

    It is just the turret core model, no armor at all it will change hopefully to the clamshell we saw of the scale model. Russian turret models are the best protected shapes like T-90A, regardless how the turret moves the armor still protects most of the turret unlike western designs as soon as they move the turret to the side the armor protection is on paper level for every serious AT weapon.
    avatar
    BKP

    Posts : 374
    Points : 385
    Join date : 2015-05-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  BKP on Sat May 09, 2015 1:39 am

    sepheronx wrote:
    BKP wrote:Thanks for replies regarding bbc piece. And, yeah, the British press is a real pisser.

    sheytanelkebir wrote:One issue with the microelectronics / imports highlighted is not for the basic ballistic computers and autoloaders etc (which the current generation of russian electronics will easily handle)... but for current / future augmented reality systems where you would need 22nm and better chips to reduce power consumption on visor and UAV mounted electronics...

    Interesting. If RF needs to develop the capability to produce 22nm chips, then I would guess it's considered a priority to do so.

    I remember reading a piece in (I believe) an IEEE publication a couple of years ago about the supreme difficulty in detecting trapdoors and other malicious code in firmware, much more so than in OS or application software. So I would hope that Russia would never opt to use western-designed chips in critical systems.

    My suggestion to you people is to do your research.  Let me help you:

    HAD TO REMOVE THE LINKS 'CAUSE I'M AN FNG

    All of these are chip R&D facilities making various chips for various purposes, some of these are made domestically in Angstrom, and some are made in China/Taiwan with 1 (Modules ARM) is co-developed in Fujitsu Japan.  Nanometer does not indicate instant reduction in power usage, as I should remind some of you, the Elbrus 2C+ operates within 40W, which is pretty darn good for a 90nm processor and operates significantly cooler and less power hungry than the AMD x86 processors running at 40nm and less.

    I've decided that I'm interested in this subject, so thanks for the links bruh. I'll be sure'n check them out. Very Happy

    I noticed that there was an article about MCST & Elbrus-4C on Russia Insider just the other day:

    h t t p ://russia-insider.com/en/business/russias-mcst-unveils-homegrown-pc-microprocessor-chips/ri6603
    avatar
    BKP

    Posts : 374
    Points : 385
    Join date : 2015-05-02

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  BKP on Sat May 09, 2015 2:59 am

    kvs wrote:
    sheytanelkebir wrote:One issue with the microelectronics / imports highlighted is not for the basic ballistic computers and autoloaders etc (which the current generation of russian electronics will easily handle)... but for current / future augmented reality systems where you would need 22nm and better chips to reduce power consumption on visor and UAV mounted electronics.

    Also I would say that in the future Armata tanks and IFVs should each have 2-3 small UAVs which are charged on board and launch and fly automatically above / in front of the vehicle as a forward scout and give a better Situational awareness for the crews. Those would also benefit from the 22nm and better chips to reduce power consumption and improve the endurance of each UAV... Imagine that a "buttoned up" tank would be launching and recovering these small UAVs automatically, the commander simply having the feed from these cameras fed to him without having to think about launching or controlling an individual UAV. whilst one UAV is in the air, the other 2 are getting charged on the tank in their own "recharge stations" that they land into automatically when their power goes low.

    Such an addition would only cost maybe $100k per tank (with three thermal camera equipped UAVs). a small price for a dramatic improvement in SA.

    As was shown a few pages ago, there are a series of rear view cameras... so I imagine that the driver can drive the tank forward and backwards effortlessly without having to "think" about which direction he's driving in. when he engages reverse, his visor and controls automatically switch... perhaps he just has a little sign on his visor/screen with "R" on it.


    I just can't see UAV information processing requiring AI computing.  Augmented reality I call unnecessary information overload.  A system that tracks discrete objects and a human-digestible level of them is all that is needed.  Pushing a vast amount of pixels to do real time rendering of landscapes and
    pattern recognition is gross overkill.   I see these "VR" tools being more relevant for pilots and not tank operators.

    What a modern tank needs is high level sensors (spanning visible to IR emissions) and the ability to track the significant objects in its vicinity.  
    Sophisticated detection technology coupled with training will run circles around some pattern recognition system that "augments"
    the operator.  

    If there isn't a war in the next few years, Russia will reach the same IC resolution limits (< 5 nm) that NATO has to deal with.  Given
    Russia's previous performance is doing more with less by that stage it will be NATO that will in the clear disadvantage.  (BTW, I
    see this "throw more CPU resources at the problem" mindset in the civilian research field, the problem is that the problems involved
    are not one-parameter that they can be "solved" this easily.)

    Hmm. Now, I'm not disputing with you, because I just don't know enough about it to have a solid opinion yet, but, how do you know for sure that tankers wouldn't benefit from, say, a helmet-mounted VR display? Have you seen some studies indicating that?

    I admit that my instinct says this could be pretty sweet. Maybe it could be like the commander's mellon and torso were sticking up from the top of the turret, with the ability to swivel around 360° like he was seated in Dr. Evil's chair. There could be a transparent overlay of information collected from sensors and network input, like a HUD. Remote views could be constructed, etc. All this without the downside of having those actual body parts atomized by a passing projectile from any weapon you care to name...

    But, maybe that would all be superfluous, IDK.

    Actually, it would obviously be incredibly interesting to know what interface they did come up with, if it's something new or new-ish. But, looks like we won't know for quite some time. The UVZ chief said in an interview the other day that they intend to keep a lot under wraps for a good while (there was a link posted here).
    avatar
    2SPOOKY4U

    Posts : 281
    Points : 294
    Join date : 2014-09-20

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  2SPOOKY4U on Sat May 09, 2015 3:20 am

    Werewolf wrote:It is just the turret core model, no armor at all it will change hopefully to the clamshell we saw of the scale model. Russian turret models are the best protected shapes like T-90A, regardless how the turret moves the armor still protects most of the turret unlike western designs as soon as they move the turret to the side the armor protection is on paper level for every serious AT weapon.

    Relax Werewolf

    The turret is unmanned, meaning it has vastly more places to mount armor, it can have thicker armor than a Leopard, yet the turret can weigh lighter and be smaller at the same time.

    And even if it does not have any armor on the turret, so what?

    The only things that are up there are the gun, targeting, and APS, what is there that you can actually protect?

    A hit to the gun/gun mantlet will disable it, even on the heaviest of tanks, and the aps systems are impossible to armor, and you can forget trying to armor the sights to any level.

    Everything is fine Werewolf, the turret needs no changing, rather everyone else must change to catch up.
    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2142
    Points : 2307
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Cyberspec on Sat May 09, 2015 3:35 am

    I don't think they're going back to smooth looking turrets going by what's been said so far. Reducing the radar/thermal sig seems to be one of the requirements for the tank.

    Regarding equipping the tank with UAV's, IMO that sort of thing is better left to a dedicated recon vehicle. The data can then be passed on to the tanks....I suppose having a mini helicopter type UAV could be feasible and useful in some situations.


    Viktor wrote:
    Austin wrote:Interview with deputy general director of corporation "Uralvagonzavod" Vyacheslav Halitov.

    Armata : http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/1954916?page=2
    Kuragnets: http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/1954916?page=3

    from your link:

    And we offered today its unprecedented level, providing, in addition to the passive armor with ceramic plates, a kind of "protective dome", consisting of active protection and the protection of the upper hemisphere, systems setting screens and electromagnetic protection.

    that settles some speculation Very Happy

    On the Ru Net there's some discussion that the grenade launchers can fire EMP grenades that burn the electronics of the ATGM's

    to repost this link from Niistali

    COMPLEX PROTECTION OF THE UPPER HEMISPHERE (CSWP)

    The principle of operation is based on the detection of an incoming high-precision munition, striking with the upper hemisphere, and disrupting its guidance system or a powerful electromagnetic pulse, or on a securable multi-spectral aerosol cloud and a false thermal targets.

    http://www.niistali.ru/products/nauka/protection/uplook_protection/
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3256
    Points : 3379
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  kvs on Sat May 09, 2015 4:21 am

    BKP wrote:
    Hmm. Now, I'm not disputing with you, because I just don't know enough about it to have a solid opinion yet, but, how do you know for sure that tankers wouldn't benefit from, say, a helmet-mounted VR display? Have you seen some studies indicating that?

    I admit that my instinct says this could be pretty sweet. Maybe it could be like the commander's mellon and torso were sticking up from the top of the turret, with the ability to swivel around 360° like he was seated in Dr. Evil's chair. There could be a transparent overlay of information collected from sensors and network input, like a HUD. Remote views could be constructed, etc. All this without the downside of having those actual body parts atomized by a passing projectile from any weapon you care to name...

    But, maybe that would all be superfluous, IDK.

    Actually, it would obviously be incredibly interesting to know what interface they did come up with, if it's something new or new-ish. But, looks like we won't know for quite some time. The UVZ chief said in an interview the other day that they intend to keep a lot under wraps for a good while (there was a link posted here).

    There is no clarity by what people mean by VR augmentation. If it is some graphics heavy image processing then it is BS that gets
    teenagers all excited but is more show than substance. The operator environment has been evolving towards discrete object
    tracking for a long time and Russian electronics are more than sufficient for the job.

    http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/07/magic-helmet-for-f-35-ready-for-delivery/

    When I read the cursory overview of the functionality of such devices they are nothing to write home about. One would expect
    target tracking to be 360 even in the most basic system. We are long past having to stick your head out of the hatch to see the
    target. Presenting this information can be accomplished in many different ways and the VR graphics heavy format is not the
    obvious winner.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3256
    Points : 3379
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  kvs on Sat May 09, 2015 4:29 am

    2SPOOKY4U wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:It is just the turret core model, no armor at all it will change hopefully to the clamshell we saw of the scale model. Russian turret models are the best protected shapes like T-90A, regardless how the turret moves the armor still protects most of the turret unlike western designs as soon as they move the turret to the side the armor protection is on paper level for every serious AT weapon.

    Relax Werewolf

    The turret is unmanned, meaning it has vastly more places to mount armor, it can have thicker armor than a Leopard, yet the turret can weigh lighter and be smaller at the same time.

    And even if it does not have any armor on the turret, so what?

    The only things that are up there are the gun, targeting, and APS, what is there that you can actually protect?

    A hit to the gun/gun mantlet will disable it, even on the heaviest of tanks, and the aps systems are impossible to armor, and you can forget trying to armor the sights to any level.

    Everything is fine Werewolf, the turret needs no changing, rather everyone else must change to catch up.

    The shape of the unmanned turret tells us a lot. There is no longer a need to bounce off incoming shell damage to protect
    the empty space inside the turret. The whole paradigm of the armour in the unmanned turret is different. Applying some
    simple analysis, the opposite of trying to exclude the damage outside some perimeter is to absorb the damage in a volume.
    The old case was severely constrained by geometry of having to protect the given perimeter encompassing the turret
    interior. In the case of the new turret there are many more options, including layer heterogeneous armour (ceramic,
    steel, rubber) through most of the volume of the turret. No anti-tank projectile in existence would be able to disable
    this turret and there is no point sloping it like before at the expense of turret volume. It seems like with the new
    paradigm, making the turret smaller is actually detrimental.
    avatar
    Werewolf

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Werewolf on Sat May 09, 2015 5:08 am



    Some of the comments under the Ukro propaganda TV of the "paper Armata" was this.

    У танка Армата и его украинских критиков есть одно общее - необитаемая башня
    The tank Armata and his Ukrainian critics have one thing in common - an uninhabited tower (head)
    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2142
    Points : 2307
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Cyberspec on Sat May 09, 2015 6:47 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    У танка Армата и его украинских критиков есть одно общее - необитаемая башня
    The tank Armata and his Ukrainian critics have one thing in common - an uninhabited tower (head)

    Well put Laughing

    eridan

    Posts : 147
    Points : 153
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  eridan on Sat May 09, 2015 8:48 am

    Does anyone have that photo from several days ago (back when t-14 had a tarp over the turret) where t-90 was passing right in front of t-14? So the image was two tanks almost perfectlyy side by side, with t-90 being in front and t-14 being visibly larger behind it?

    Vann7

    Posts : 3471
    Points : 3583
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Vann7 on Sat May 09, 2015 10:33 am

    Victory parade over.. and no armata failed ,at least not in front of cameras..

    It looked more impressive in the training that in Red Square , they were so few armata
    at red square and they passed too fast to see anything really. and the Big Letters of Victory parade covering half the screen. . No  

    any case we will not see Armata in service until 2018 ,so lot can change in the production models. Still was good to have a preview of them.  WOndering if the final specifications of the tank will be released , interested to see more about armata tank and T-15 sensors and technology and how it works.

    full moscow parade..




    avatar
    Shadåw

    Posts : 81
    Points : 88
    Join date : 2012-07-29

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Shadåw on Sat May 09, 2015 2:43 pm

    http://stream.1tv.ru/live

    Jump to.. in terms of hour and time 09:19:50

    Theres a reporter walking around the Armata and patting its armor.
    avatar
    franco

    Posts : 2717
    Points : 2755
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  franco on Sat May 09, 2015 4:15 pm

    Vann7 wrote:Victory parade over.. and no armata failed ,at least not in front of cameras..

    It looked more impressive in the training that in Red Square , they were so few armata
    at red square and they passed too fast to see anything really. and the Big Letters of Victory parade covering half the screen. . No  

    any case we will not see Armata in service until 2018 ,so lot can change in the production models. Still was good to have a preview of them.  WOndering if the final specifications of the tank will be released , interested to see more about armata tank and T-15 sensors and technology and how it works.

    full moscow  parade..





    Not to encourage the nay sayers but you will notice that 3 T-14's and 2 Buk's were pulled and parked down the ramp just before the vehicles enter Red Square in the Parade video. The fact that these new AFV's go directly into testing after the parade will not matter to some.
    avatar
    2SPOOKY4U

    Posts : 281
    Points : 294
    Join date : 2014-09-20

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  2SPOOKY4U on Sat May 09, 2015 6:51 pm

    kvs wrote:
    2SPOOKY4U wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:It is just the turret core model, no armor at all it will change hopefully to the clamshell we saw of the scale model. Russian turret models are the best protected shapes like T-90A, regardless how the turret moves the armor still protects most of the turret unlike western designs as soon as they move the turret to the side the armor protection is on paper level for every serious AT weapon.

    Relax Werewolf

    The turret is unmanned, meaning it has vastly more places to mount armor, it can have thicker armor than a Leopard, yet the turret can weigh lighter and be smaller at the same time.

    And even if it does not have any armor on the turret, so what?

    The only things that are up there are the gun, targeting, and APS, what is there that you can actually protect?

    A hit to the gun/gun mantlet will disable it, even on the heaviest of tanks, and the aps systems are impossible to armor, and you can forget trying to armor the sights to any level.

    Everything is fine Werewolf, the turret needs no changing, rather everyone else must change to catch up.

    The shape of the unmanned turret tells us a lot.  There is no longer a need to bounce off incoming shell damage to protect
    the empty space inside the turret.  The whole paradigm of the armour in the unmanned turret is different.  Applying some
    simple analysis, the opposite of trying to exclude the damage outside some perimeter is to absorb the damage in a volume.
    The old case was severely constrained by geometry of having to protect the given perimeter encompassing the turret
    interior.  In the case of the new turret there are many more options, including layer heterogeneous armour (ceramic,
    steel, rubber) through most of the volume of the turret.   No anti-tank projectile in existence would be able to disable
    this turret and there is no point sloping it like before at the expense of turret volume.   It seems like with the new
    paradigm, making the turret smaller is actually detrimental.

    Making the turret smaller is never detrimental

    There is nothing you can armor on to the turret.

    You could if you wanted to however, you do not suffer the same volume sacrifices necessary for implementation of armor on manned turrets.

    But you are not seeing the big picture here, anything that could be armored, is no longer there.

    triphosgene

    Posts : 4
    Points : 7
    Join date : 2015-03-14

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  triphosgene on Sat May 09, 2015 7:24 pm

    [/quote]

    Not to encourage the nay sayers but you will notice that 3 T-14's and 2 Buk's were pulled and parked down the ramp just before the vehicles enter Red Square in the Parade video. The fact that these new AFV's go directly into testing after the parade will not matter to some.[/quote]

    Many different pieces of military hardware were parket at Manezhnaya sqare, most likely as backups. They were there before the mechanized part of the parade passed by.
    Take a loot at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrSzCnz9Sic at 54:15 timestamp.
    avatar
    Book.

    Posts : 699
    Points : 760
    Join date : 2015-05-08
    Location : Oregon, USA

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Book. on Sat May 09, 2015 7:43 pm



    If repost sry.

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 15, 2017 1:20 pm