Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Share
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3939
    Points : 3966
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sun May 10, 2015 2:31 pm

    k@llashniKoff wrote:Some variation of how Armata looks without the light hull (not mine)

    So I think there is no need for a massive hull like on T-90MS or Leopard-2. The gun and the loader mechanism are well protected with armour and active armour from the top and all the optik and sensors are protected with the light hull from bullets and shrapnel.


    We already know the lines aren't that clean, but I'm fine with that.
    avatar
    Da_Vinci

    Posts : 4
    Points : 4
    Join date : 2015-05-05

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Da_Vinci on Sun May 10, 2015 6:24 pm

    Another attempt for Armata turret
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sun May 10, 2015 6:56 pm

    Da_Vinci wrote:Another attempt for Armata turret

    Remember to introduce yourself in the member introduction forum...
    avatar
    2SPOOKY4U

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  2SPOOKY4U on Sun May 10, 2015 9:02 pm



    Something we haven't mentioned so far I believe...the anti-mine system of the Armata

    The Armata platform is configured with an active mine countermeasure system, designed to detect or trigger mines ahead of the tank.
    The system is mounted on the lower front edge of the vehicle.
    Photo: vitaly-Kuzmin

    I am pretty sure that is the integrated plow, same kind used on T-90.

    Ant-mine systems that use jamming to prevent detonation look like metal boxes with dielectric paneling.

    I don't think we will be seeing anti-mine systems just yet.


    avatar
    k@llashniKoff

    Posts : 90
    Points : 112
    Join date : 2015-04-22
    Age : 29
    Location : Kiel, Germany

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  k@llashniKoff on Sun May 10, 2015 9:17 pm

    And onother one


    Firebird

    Posts : 958
    Points : 990
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Firebird on Sun May 10, 2015 10:17 pm

    The claims on the crew protection capability are interesting.

    But I wonder, if the plan is to have a mega level of protection, wouldn't it make sense to have the crew capsule at the rear?

    There could then be a protective shield at the front, equipment behind that, and then a final protective shield infront of the crew at the back.
    avatar
    k@llashniKoff

    Posts : 90
    Points : 112
    Join date : 2015-04-22
    Age : 29
    Location : Kiel, Germany

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  k@llashniKoff on Sun May 10, 2015 10:39 pm

    Firebird wrote:The claims on the crew protection capability are interesting.

    But I wonder, if the plan is to have a mega level of protection, wouldn't it make sense to have the crew capsule at the rear?

    There could then be a protective shield at the front, equipment behind that, and then a final protective shield infront of the crew at the back.

    Having the crew in the back makes no sence, You have to much armour in the front and the engine = too much weight in the front, the vehicle is unbalanced

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Guest on Sun May 10, 2015 10:56 pm

    Do the dimensions and the space constraints make it possible to fit a T-14 turret to a T-15 allowing for a similar configuration to the Merkava?
    avatar
    Mike E

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Mike E on Sun May 10, 2015 11:01 pm

    Ivan the Colorado wrote:Do the dimensions and the space constraints make it possible to fit a T-14 turret to a T-15 allowing for a similar configuration to the Merkava?
    So... A rear-mounted turret? I'd assume it is possible, but idk what the purpose of such a vehicle would be.

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Guest on Sun May 10, 2015 11:43 pm

    Mike E wrote:
    Ivan the Colorado wrote:Do the dimensions and the space constraints make it possible to fit a T-14 turret to a T-15 allowing for a similar configuration to the Merkava?
    So... A rear-mounted turret? I'd assume it is possible, but idk what the purpose of such a vehicle would be.
    Perhaps if a customer was looking for a vehicle to use the same way as the IDF use the Merkava tank with a huge focus on protecting the crew and maybe having some extra space to carry troops but without sacrificing the firepower of an MBT. I am just brainstorming, maybe there is a niche in the market to have a cross between a MBT and an IFV as an all-in-one solution.
    avatar
    Mike E

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Mike E on Mon May 11, 2015 12:18 am

    Ivan the Colorado wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    Ivan the Colorado wrote:Do the dimensions and the space constraints make it possible to fit a T-14 turret to a T-15 allowing for a similar configuration to the Merkava?
    So... A rear-mounted turret? I'd assume it is possible, but idk what the purpose of such a vehicle would be.
    Perhaps if a customer was looking for a vehicle to use the same way as the IDF use the Merkava tank with a huge focus on protecting the crew and maybe having some extra space to carry troops but without sacrificing the firepower of an MBT. I am just brainstorming, maybe there is a niche in the market to have a cross between a MBT and an IFV as an all-in-one solution.
    Definitely an interesting idea, just not one that I think Russia would care for... Exports may be interested.
    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2141
    Points : 2306
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Cyberspec on Mon May 11, 2015 12:19 am

    2SPOOKY4U wrote:I am pretty sure that is the integrated plow, same kind used on T-90.

    Ant-mine systems that use jamming to prevent detonation look like metal boxes with dielectric paneling.

    I don't think we will be seeing anti-mine systems just yet.

    Yep, I think you're right
    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3261
    Points : 3367
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  flamming_python on Mon May 11, 2015 12:46 am

    Firebird wrote:The claims on the crew protection capability are interesting.

    But I wonder, if the plan is to have a mega level of protection, wouldn't it make sense to have the crew capsule at the rear?

    There could then be a protective shield at the front, equipment behind that, and then a final protective shield infront of the crew at the back.

    In that case why not just have those 2 protective shields at the front instead, with crew behind them?
    That's effectively the solution chosen - just one good block of armour at the front.
    The effect is the same as in your proposal; going through that equipment in the middle isn't going to slow a kinetic round down much.
    However that equipment will end up destroyed or damaged - if that includes the engine then that would leave the vehicle with a safe crew; but immobile.

    By just concentrating the armour at the front - you will protect both the crew and the engine.
    avatar
    Werewolf

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Werewolf on Mon May 11, 2015 1:00 am

    What i always thought about is installing of Igla-S/Verba or Morphei into the turret as vertical launchers with LOAL capability against helicopters. Since the new commanders sight is already capable to observe part of the sky with Okhotnik (image processing) for autotrack and lockon capability why not install such small sized missiles into the turret, it has some room for one or two missiles and that should enhance its survivability against aircrafts quite a bit.

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Guest on Mon May 11, 2015 3:09 am

    Mike E wrote:Definitely an interesting idea, just not one that I think Russia would care for... Exports may be interested.
    Hence why I said market. The Merkava is proven vehicle in terms of what it is made to do and there are countries interested in it so there could be a few countries interested in an upgunned T-15 variant. The Armata family were designed to the requests and specifications of the Russian military from the very start but the modularity of the platform could allow the end users to configure the platform to their own unique purposes. As long as Russia allows customers to customize their Armata vehicles to their needs it could be very successful on the arms market or even revolutionize the market. Customers will no longer have to pick a vehicle built for a different military and have to adapt it to their own needs but customers will be able to get what they want as soon they buy it.
    Werewolf wrote:What i always thought about is installing of Igla-S/Verba or Morphei into the turret as vertical launchers with LOAL capability against helicopters. Since the new commanders sight is already capable to observe part of the sky with Okhotnik (image processing) for autotrack and lockon capability why not install such small sized missiles into the turret, it has some room for one or two missiles and that should enhance its survivability against aircrafts quite a bit.
    Similar to how the Tor system is? That seems like an excellent idea. I personally would try to find a way to mount the missiles vertically on the outside similar to pylons on attack helicopters instead of installing them inside. Mounting the missiles to the outside would result in a quick reloading time that would consist of snapping the spent missile tubes off and snapping new tubes on. That operation could potentially be done on the battlefield without tooling.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  collegeboy16 on Mon May 11, 2015 4:28 am

    Ivan the Colorado wrote:
    Perhaps if a customer was looking for a vehicle to use the same way as the IDF use the Merkava tank with a huge focus on protecting the crew and maybe having some extra space to carry troops but without sacrificing the firepower of an MBT. I am just brainstorming, maybe there is a niche in the market to have a cross between a MBT and an IFV as an all-in-one solution.
    urghh...not this myth again... the reason why they opted for a front mounted powerpack is their lack of viable composite armor tech. back then.
    the merk 4 frontal hull protection isnt even that good when compared to the T-15's. <shots fired>
    and the extra space for troops is ammo storage- not to mention its so fcking cramped the poor bastards are all hunched up it makes the BMD look like a limo.

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Guest on Mon May 11, 2015 5:24 am

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    Ivan the Colorado wrote:
    Perhaps if a customer was looking for a vehicle to use the same way as the IDF use the Merkava tank with a huge focus on protecting the crew and maybe having some extra space to carry troops but without sacrificing the firepower of an MBT. I am just brainstorming, maybe there is a niche in the market to have a cross between a MBT and an IFV as an all-in-one solution.
    urghh...not this myth again... the reason why they opted for a front mounted powerpack is their lack of viable composite armor tech. back then.
    the merk 4 frontal hull protection isnt even that good when compared to the T-15's. <shots fired>
    and the extra space for troops is ammo storage- not to mention its so fcking cramped the poor bastards are all hunched up it makes the BMD look like a limo.
    Sure the Merkava was built as an all-in-one solution but it ended up compromising the best features of both an IFV and a MBT. That is a risk that you take when trying to have a piece of equipment do it all. But having a solution that can do a lot of tasks despite how mediocre it is at performing such tasks can still find a market. If you need an example, look at the F-35 and all the countries that chose to buy it. Same can go for an upgunned variant of T-15 providing even a better alternative to the Merkava which has found potential buyers. There could be some buyer that may want to save money and buy one vehicle instead of two or three. It makes sense to offer the Armata based vehicle in several variations.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  collegeboy16 on Mon May 11, 2015 8:30 am

    Ivan the Colorado wrote:
    Sure the Merkava was built as an all-in-one solution but it ended up compromising the best features of both an IFV and a MBT. That is a risk that you take when trying to have a piece of equipment do it all. But having a solution that can do a lot of tasks despite how mediocre it is at performing such tasks can still find a market. If you need an example, look at the F-35 and all the countries that chose to buy it. Same can go for an upgunned variant of T-15 providing even a better alternative to the Merkava which has found potential buyers. There could be some buyer that may want to save money and buy one vehicle instead of two or three. It makes sense to offer the Armata based vehicle in several variations.
    >ammo capacity
    >passenger capacity
    >merkava
    pick 2. the Merkavas were/are MBTs - where did you get the notion that they are also trying to be IFVs? the IDF does not even have a place for IFVs in their doctrine mind you.

    the upgunning of the T-15 is in the cards already, with a 45 mm gun and a dual 2pac of Kornets it covers almost every target on the ground and potentially even in the air nicely. tanks are a rare sight on the battlefield anyways - esp. those of the caliber of T-14, kornets would be enough for the plebeian tanks.

    and the armata platform is standardized to the degree where you save just about the same money as you would if you just used multirole vehicles. without incurring the penalties in their combat capabilities, that is.
    avatar
    BKP

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  BKP on Mon May 11, 2015 8:32 am

    Ivan the Colorado wrote:
    ... But having a solution that can do a lot of tasks despite how mediocre it is at performing such tasks can still find a market. If you need an example, look at the F-35 and all the countries that chose to buy it.

    Well, the thing about the F-35 is, it's being aggressively pushed onto a captive market by a determined seller uniquely positioned to do two things: twist arms and bribe.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3939
    Points : 3966
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Mon May 11, 2015 9:19 am

    The merkava has a BF taxi redundancy, but it isn't indeed a propfer APC. The fireteam is small and it gets really messy when fully armed. The issue however is that the Merkava isn't a tank for everyone. I'd say it is unnique and tailored for Israel's need and very stretched military budget.

    Vann7

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Vann7 on Mon May 11, 2015 9:42 am

    collegeboy16 wrote:p

    the upgunning of the T-15 is in the cards already, with a 45 mm gun and a dual 2pac of Kornets it covers almost every target on the ground and potentially even in the air nicely. .


    I used to believe the T-15 only had 30mm guns.. where you got the information of 45mm
    Guns? is that is a rumor or the Russian military told there will be a version with that gun?

    Is there an official list/link  or any list by Russian defense ministry that says the different
    versions of T-15 ,if there will be more than one and the guns it will have?
    avatar
    collegeboy16

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  collegeboy16 on Mon May 11, 2015 10:33 am

    Vann7 wrote:
    collegeboy16 wrote:p

    the upgunning of the T-15 is in the cards already, with a 45 mm gun and a dual 2pac of Kornets it covers almost every target on the ground and potentially even in the air nicely. .


    I used to believe the T-15 only had 30mm guns.. where you got the information of 45mm
    Guns? is that is a rumor or the Russian military told there will be a version with that gun?

    Is there an official list/link  or any list by Russian defense ministry that says the different
    versions of T-15 ,if there will be more than one and the guns it will have?
    nothing official...(tho i am extra lazy now). but it would be extremely naive to think that it wont be upgunned at some point in the future.
    ive read the bit about 45mm gun here too - there were noises about a 57mm gun but they seemed to have favored the 45mm since then.
    avatar
    k@llashniKoff

    Posts : 90
    Points : 112
    Join date : 2015-04-22
    Age : 29
    Location : Kiel, Germany

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  k@llashniKoff on Mon May 11, 2015 10:38 am

    What I really like about Armata - it's light weight. Due to unmanned turret, which doesn't have to be heavy armoured, Armata's weight is definitely under 50 t. I was really worried that UVZ will produce some 60-70 t monster. And with the new engine and <50 t weight the dynamic of the vehicle is great. It's light, fast and manoeuvrable.
    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 11, 2015 11:24 am

    Perhaps if a customer was looking for a vehicle to use the same way as the IDF use the Merkava tank with a huge focus on protecting the crew and maybe having some extra space to carry troops but without sacrificing the firepower of an MBT. I am just brainstorming, maybe there is a niche in the market to have a cross between a MBT and an IFV as an all-in-one solution.

    The main difference is of course Armata has no crew in the turret.

    Putting the crew behind the turret doesn't make them better protected... it just surrounds them with side armour instead of side armour at the sides and front armour at their front.

    Having an engine in front of them makes them rather less safe as engines are not made of armour strength metals and are full of very hot components and fuel and oil that can ignite. The troop transport armatas have front mounted engines only so troops can get out the rear ramp doors.

    The BMP-1 and BMP-2 were not better protected than the BMP-3 by having their engines mounted at the front.

    What i always thought about is installing of Igla-S/Verba or Morphei into the turret as vertical launchers with LOAL capability against helicopters. Since the new commanders sight is already capable to observe part of the sky with Okhotnik (image processing) for autotrack and lockon capability why not install such small sized missiles into the turret, it has some room for one or two missiles and that should enhance its survivability against aircrafts quite a bit.

    Actually rather simpler to fire a tank gun launched ATGM through the main gun barrel... the Svir had a range of about 5km for use against enemy vehicles but a range of 8km against enemy helos... which means it likely had better range than all known Russian MANPADS... and can be stored and fired in the main gun as a standard round of ammo.

    and the extra space for troops is ammo storage- not to mention its so fcking cramped the poor bastards are all hunched up it makes the BMD look like a limo.

    Tanks and APCs/IFVs have very different roles on the battlefield and should not be combined.

    The closest to that concept was perhaps the BMP-3 where it was believed the vehicle would drop off its troops and could then be moved to another part of the battlefield to act as a reserve light tank unit. This was a western held belief... have never heard the Russians mention it as a concept. BMP-3s support their troops with the HE firepower better than a BMP-1 and a light 30mm cannon like a BMP-2.

    Well, the thing about the F-35 is, it's being aggressively pushed onto a captive market by a determined seller uniquely positioned to do two things: twist arms and bribe.

    Yes... the sales pitch is basically we are buying these and if you don't buy them too you wont be compatible so we wont support you or work with you in the future if you don't buy them.

    Of course what they really mean is that these things are enormously expensive and we can't afford them on our own so if you don't buy some and help us pay for them we wont be playing with you any more.

    I used to believe the T-15 only had 30mm guns.. where you got the information of 45mm
    Guns? is that is a rumor or the Russian military told there will be a version with that gun?

    The heavy gun for the IFV model of armata, kurganets, boomerang, and typhoon is not ready yet... it will be either a 45mm or 57mm high velocity gun (not related to the 57mm grenade launcher some are talking about for some roles).

    Is there an official list/link or any list by Russian defense ministry that says the different
    versions of T-15 ,if there will be more than one and the guns it will have?

    There was a poster showing the IFV turret that has a development path... what we are seeing is the lite version... the final version will be shown in a couple of years time.

    What I really like about Armata - it's light weight. Due to unmanned turret, which doesn't have to be heavy armoured, Armata's weight is definitely under 50 t. I was really worried that UVZ will produce some 60-70 t monster. And with the new engine and <50 t weight the dynamic of the vehicle is great. It's light, fast and manoeuvrable.

    Most likely the final weight will be in the 50-60 ton range depending upon the model and equipment.

    The engine is supposed to be able to be developed up to about 2.600hp, but at the moment is in the 1.500-1,600hp range... to extend parts life.


    _________________
    “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 : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Werewolf on Mon May 11, 2015 12:32 pm


    Actually rather simpler to fire a tank gun launched ATGM through the main gun barrel... the Svir had a range of about 5km for use against enemy vehicles but a range of 8km against enemy helos... which means it likely had better range than all known Russian MANPADS... and can be stored and fired in the main gun as a standard round of ammo.

    The problem i see here is that GLATGM are slower than MANPAD purposed missiles and the costs for GLATGM is not lower than what a much more capable MANPAD costs. The Commander would need to communicate with the gunner to point him for that target so that the gunner could aim his cannon to shoot the GLATGM towards the target while the Commander still has to Laser Beam that target. If they had even two Morphei vertical launchers similiar to TOR and the morphei is very small but with enough range of 5km+ then the Commander could fire the Morphei himself without guidance without the crucial time between Detection and engagement, because Helicopters depending on range and ATGM time can engage tanks between 12-30 seconds the flight time of GLATGM alone for such distance is higher. The tank could fire his Morphei with Lock On After Launch capability and then smoke screen. The smoke screen is more effective against ground targets, but rather less effective against aircrafts, since they see you from above and will see you if you try to sneak away. After smoke screening the tank and commander will have problem to determine where the enemy is that is targeting and engaging them. As soon as the smoke screen starts to disperse it is easy for the helicopter to spot the tank but with remaining smoke the commander will have a problem to determine what is happening and where the enemy is untill the 2nd ATGM flies to the tank and the tank needs to smoke screen again.

    IMO such vertical launchers even for 2nd Gen MANPADS would greatly enhance survivability of high value tanks like Armata especially since the West is pushing for war and the helicopter fleets tend to grow.

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:09 am