Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Share
    avatar
    Werewolf

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

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Dec 27, 2015 12:36 pm

    Cyrus the great wrote:

    The fact that fiber-optic cables are so fragile made me question why the Americans thought of incorporating them into the M1A3, but then I thought maybe military engineers found a way to protect the fiber-optic cables to an extent that was at least respectable, but you made me realise that it isn't such a good idea in a military vehicle - facing the rigor of combat condition. Someone once told me that when Internet fiber-optic cables break at one point, the whole cable is destroyed.

    I can see why the Americans would take these measures to reduce the weight of the Abrams. The Russians don't need to reduce the weight of the tank. I've never served in the Australian Defence Force so I don't know how many men are required for maintenance duties or what exactly these duties entail. Autonomous drones can perform ISR so I guess a 4th crew member isn't required for that. The fact that Russian tanks don't have a 4th crew member is always cited as a weakness when it comes to maintenance. I don't know how true this is.

    That is the entire point of how unreliable such fibre glass optical wires are, one little damage and it is unrepairable you have to change the entire cable and from plattform to plattform some tanks, aircrafts and helicopters use several hundred meter and big airplanes up to kilometers worth of cables to wire and connect all kind of stuff on them. Very expensive stuff to keep maintained and even worse if it breaks on battlefield then that is something crew can never fix. Normal copper or similiar cables can be repaired and fixed by crew, hell even by someone who is not trained. Such repairs are very easy and low-tech right out primitive but they work and are very quick. Just cut the problematic spot of wire away and connect the wires together by cutting some of the isolationing liner away and stringing the ends together and then isolate it again with purposed ducttape which exist in militaries in quantaties higher than ammunition (at least in bundeswehr that is the case). Fibre glass has many benefits in information quantity and quality it can transfer but for military purpose where damage, penetrations, heat or fire, vibrations, lubricants that are often oil based also put overtime stress on different materials made of or based on plastic/glass and textiles or human access to them for maintenance is a on regular basis at least some of them are a constant problem. How they handle that problem is another question it is certainly something worth putting an eye and more solutions to the problems but it isn't without problems even when solutions or better to say measurements to limit the degree of disadvantages it brings.


    Cyrus the great wrote:
    I agree. I just don't see AI being able to supplant the importance of human-beings in the battlefield. Robots and drones will complement soldiers but humans will always have to be in the loop.

    So far humans have no real understanding what the term intelligence actually means or defines to create an artificial intelligence or even a simulation of it to fool anyone to actually believe it. Hell we are not even capable so far to create an artificial stupidity to fool anyone that it is genuinley stupid beyond very simplistic methods and schemes of structuring sentences, responces or a sharade to act stupid.

    I don't think we will ever create something that would even come close to genuine stupidity of a FOX News or BILD consumer.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5609
    Points : 5650
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Militarov on Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:05 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:

    The fact that fiber-optic cables are so fragile made me question why the Americans thought of incorporating them into the M1A3, but then I thought maybe military engineers found a way to protect the fiber-optic cables to an extent that was at least respectable, but you made me realise that it isn't such a good idea in a military vehicle - facing the rigor of combat condition. Someone once told me that when Internet fiber-optic cables break at one point, the whole cable is destroyed.

    I can see why the Americans would take these measures to reduce the weight of the Abrams. The Russians don't need to reduce the weight of the tank. I've never served in the Australian Defence Force so I don't know how many men are required for maintenance duties or what exactly these duties entail. Autonomous drones can perform ISR so I guess a 4th crew member isn't required for that. The fact that Russian tanks don't have a 4th crew member is always cited as a weakness when it comes to maintenance. I don't know how true this is.

    That is the entire point of how unreliable such fibre glass optical wires are, one little damage and it is unrepairable you have to change the entire cable and from plattform to plattform some tanks, aircrafts and helicopters use several hundred meter and big airplanes up to kilometers worth of cables to wire and connect all kind of stuff on them. Very expensive stuff to keep maintained and even worse if it breaks on battlefield then that is something crew can never fix. Normal copper or similiar cables can be repaired and fixed by crew, hell even by someone who is not trained. Such repairs are very easy and low-tech right out primitive but they work and are very quick. Just cut the problematic spot of wire away and connect the wires together by cutting some of the isolationing liner away and stringing the ends together and then isolate it again with purposed ducttape which exist in militaries in quantaties higher than ammunition (at least in bundeswehr that is the case). Fibre glass has many benefits in information quantity and quality it can transfer but for military purpose where damage, penetrations, heat or fire, vibrations, lubricants that are often oil based also put overtime stress on different materials made of or based on plastic/glass and textiles or human access to them for maintenance is a on regular basis at least some of them are a constant problem. How they handle that problem is another question it is certainly something worth putting an eye and more solutions to the problems but it isn't without problems even when solutions or better to say measurements to limit the degree of disadvantages it brings.


    Cyrus the great wrote:
    I agree. I just don't see AI being able to supplant the importance of human-beings in the battlefield. Robots and drones will complement soldiers but humans will always have to be in the loop.

    So far humans have no real understanding what the term intelligence actually means or defines to create an artificial intelligence or even a simulation of it to fool anyone to actually believe it. Hell we are not even capable so far to create an artificial stupidity to fool anyone that it is genuinley stupid beyond very simplistic methods and schemes of structuring sentences, responces or a sharade to act stupid.

    I don't think we will ever create something that would even come close to genuine stupidity of a FOX News or BILD consumer.

    Well, optic cables are geat solution, as long as you do not have to move them alot around, and as long as they are well protected aganist water heat and vibrations. As you can notice tanks are all about being wet, hot and alot of vibrations. There are ways to protect them naturally but i am not sure is it worth it at the end, tanks generally speaking do not work with hundreds of gigabytes of data anyways, if you want fast transfers across your platform, there is nothing that common copper based cables cant do even with USB protocole. And from what i till now spotted in Armata cables are copper based, at least those visible.

    Why Americans insist on optic fibers is that they are very light, and that is by far main avantage of them beside naturally huge data transfer potential. I belive i have read somewhere that Abrams M1A1 has 4 tons of various cables which gets cutted in half by use of optic fiber. I can understand when they insist to use optic fiber on their ships, aircraft, helicopters etc. I used optic cables when company where i worked developed van based observation platform, but its very comfortable city van its not comparable to the tank in terms of physical challenges to the cable.

    Now, what we have on the market are various protective films for optic cables, like this one made to protect cable itself aganist water and moisture, even during winter when it can leak into cables and then freeze (very plausible and very destructive): http://www.occfiber.com/main/index.php?p=31

    And there are various lvls of cable protection aganist fire/smoke/heat: http://ce.superioressex.com/uploadedFiles/docs/pdf/technical-guidelines/TG14-Fiber-FireResRatings.pdf

    Now, not sure how they will do it, try to mix attributes of those and make one protective material and apply to everything? Or protect those likely to be moisturised with water resistant material and those near heat source with other one i do not know. But it is doable i suppose.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 280
    Points : 290
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm

    Thanks, Werewolf.

    People get carried away with all the wild promises of technology without thinking about all the particulars and limitations involved. I can't wait until the Russian armed forces get the Armata in sufficient numbers. It will then have the most advanced mechanized units of any military. I have never been obsessed over an inanimate object as I am over the Armata. It's damn near unhealthy. Embarassed Laughing


    I trust that the people at Uralvagonzavod have designed the Armata in a way that allows a 3 man crew to do maintenance work on it without problems.
    avatar
    Werewolf

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Dec 27, 2015 2:01 pm

    Cyrus the great wrote:Thanks, Werewolf.

    People get carried away with all the wild promises of technology without thinking about all the particulars and limitations involved. I can't wait until the Russian armed forces get the Armata in sufficient numbers. It will then have the most advanced mechanized units of any military. I have never been obsessed over an inanimate object as I am over the Armata. It's damn near unhealthy. Embarassed Laughing


    I trust that the people at Uralvagonzavod have designed the Armata in a way that allows a 3 man crew to do maintenance work on it without problems.

    Well mostly people that get carried away about technology are forumers not the tank developers, they have to struggle at most with tight and highly specified requirements. If the abrams has indeed 4 tons worth of copper cable which sounds far to much for a ground based vehicle especially if is just a tank not an SAM or Radar then maybe they have no other chance but to use optical cables to reduce weight which is one of the requirements of A3.

    fragmachine

    Posts : 124
    Points : 129
    Join date : 2014-05-28
    Location : Poland

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  fragmachine on Sun Dec 27, 2015 2:19 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:Thanks, Werewolf.

    People get carried away with all the wild promises of technology without thinking about all the particulars and limitations involved. I can't wait until the Russian armed forces get the Armata in sufficient numbers. It will then have the most advanced mechanized units of any military. I have never been obsessed over an inanimate object as I am over the Armata. It's damn near unhealthy. Embarassed Laughing


    I trust that the people at Uralvagonzavod have designed the Armata in a way that allows a 3 man crew to do maintenance work on it without problems.

    Well mostly people that get carried away about technology are forumers not the tank developers, they have to struggle at most with tight and highly specified requirements. If the abrams has indeed 4 tons worth of copper cable which sounds far to much for a ground based vehicle especially if is just a tank not an SAM or Radar then maybe they have no other chance but to use optical cables to reduce weight which is one of the requirements of A3.

    Obviously completely robotized AI centered tank is not feasible in this timeframe. People at UVZ has been talking about prospective of limiting tank crew even to two crew members. Completely crew free tank means controlled from HQ centre by specialised personnel, not AI controlled tank I presume.

    That is, obviously well ahead of us.
    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Mon Dec 28, 2015 1:12 am

    Maintainence does not occur in combat.

    In a rear area where it is safe you do maintainence... there should be a few other troops around that could assist in maintainence... no need to haul them around all the time.

    Of course a command vehicle or ATGM vehicle with Krisantema would be in bigger trouble as some of them only have two crew...


    _________________
    “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

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 280
    Points : 290
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Cyrus the great on Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:58 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:Thanks, Werewolf.

    People get carried away with all the wild promises of technology without thinking about all the particulars and limitations involved. I can't wait until the Russian armed forces get the Armata in sufficient numbers. It will then have the most advanced mechanized units of any military. I have never been obsessed over an inanimate object as I am over the Armata. It's damn near unhealthy. Embarassed Laughing


    I trust that the people at Uralvagonzavod have designed the Armata in a way that allows a 3 man crew to do maintenance work on it without problems.

    Well mostly people that get carried away about technology are forumers not the tank developers, they have to struggle at most with tight and highly specified requirements. If the abrams has indeed 4 tons worth of copper cable which sounds far to much for a ground based vehicle especially if is just a tank not an SAM or Radar then maybe they have no other chance but to use optical cables to reduce weight which is one of the requirements of A3.

    Well it's certainly a good thing that the incredibly intelligent engineers that design and build these advanced platforms are nothing like the general public or certain people on the internet. I marvel at technology and get entranced and immediately start thinking maybe it should be incorporated into a platform and then some knowledgeable people [like you] temper such excitement.

    Garry B wrote:

    Maintainence does not occur in combat.

    In a rear area where it is safe you do maintainence... there should be a few other troops around that could assist in maintainence... no need to haul them around all the time.

    Of course a command vehicle or ATGM vehicle with Krisantema would be in bigger trouble as some of them only have two crew...

    That makes sense and I think that the Armata will be significantly easier to maintain than tanks that were designed in the 70s, even with a 3 man crew so the Armata is superior to every tank in every regard. Question: If the Armata does eventually get a 152mm gun, how many rounds do you think it should be able to hold?
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5609
    Points : 5650
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Militarov on Mon Dec 28, 2015 1:41 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:Thanks, Werewolf.

    People get carried away with all the wild promises of technology without thinking about all the particulars and limitations involved. I can't wait until the Russian armed forces get the Armata in sufficient numbers. It will then have the most advanced mechanized units of any military. I have never been obsessed over an inanimate object as I am over the Armata. It's damn near unhealthy. Embarassed Laughing


    I trust that the people at Uralvagonzavod have designed the Armata in a way that allows a 3 man crew to do maintenance work on it without problems.

    Well mostly people that get carried away about technology are forumers not the tank developers, they have to struggle at most with tight and highly specified requirements. If the abrams has indeed 4 tons worth of copper cable which sounds far to much for a ground based vehicle especially if is just a tank not an SAM or Radar then maybe they have no other chance but to use optical cables to reduce weight which is one of the requirements of A3.

    4t from what i at least belive includes cables + their protection aganist heat, moisture and even more importantly fuel and hydraulic liquid. Vehicles i served were always leaking Hydraulic fluids somewhere, either somewhere on lanes or on the pump. But it truly did say that M1A1 has 4t of cables and that A3 will use optic fiber based cabling wich will cut its weight by 2t. So i assume it includes cables + their protection.
    avatar
    Werewolf

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Dec 28, 2015 5:30 pm

    GarryB wrote:Maintainence does not occur in combat.

    In a rear area where it is safe you do maintainence... there should be a few other troops around that could assist in maintainence... no need to haul them around all the time.

    Of course a command vehicle or ATGM vehicle with Krisantema would be in bigger trouble as some of them only have two crew...

    Of course they performe maintenance before and after combat, not during. I find that arguement very funny to put it mildly. If your biggest concern is to have 4 crew per tank for maintenance then i really have to break it down to you that tanks do never go alone into battle of any sort there are always other tanks with their crew, commanding, communication vehicle, in best scenario infantry, air and mobile SHORAD along with some supply vehicles somewhere relative closeby. They will always help that is not about selfishness or about refusing help it is about the combined forces readiness and therefore success and survival. If someone really has such big concerns and necessity for a 4th crew member for their tank for maintenance reasons then i must say that their structure of military command and forces are shit or they are just idiots that drive all by themselfs without any formations, tactic or command. The 4th crew member would be happy not to be with them at that point.


    That makes sense and I think that the Armata will be significantly easier to maintain than tanks that were designed in the 70s, even with a 3 man crew so the Armata is superior to every tank in every regard. Question: If the Armata does eventually get a 152mm gun, how many rounds do you think it should be able to hold?

    Well i wild hold against that claim. Computerized plattforms with many remote controlled functions, stations, and no direct access to most of the devices that make your plattform do what it was designed to do will always have higher maintenance hours and more intensive maintenance overhaul. Not to mention that 70's tanks are very primitive compared with Armata of any configuration. The 70's tanks required almost only mechanical maintenance which was relative short, primitve of requirement to skill and environment which is good to repair/maintain them in the field rather requiring specialized personal, equipment or even a hangar/"boxstop".

    I don't know how many rounds it will hold but i think some number was floating somehwere around of 38 but it think that is to high and rounds will be somewhere ~32 which is actually more then enough. If anything stands after a 152mm rounds and that of 32 times engagement then you should shot your gunner or call hulk (if he is not the target).

    4t from what i at least belive includes cables + their protection aganist heat, moisture and even more importantly fuel and hydraulic liquid. Vehicles i served were always leaking Hydraulic fluids somewhere, either somewhere on lanes or on the pump. But it truly did say that M1A1 has 4t of cables and that A3 will use optic fiber based cabling wich will cut its weight by 2t. So i assume it includes cables + their protection.

    Would make more sense but it still sounds like far more than what someone would expect. Do you know how much tons of cables+protection is in any other tank?

    fragmachine

    Posts : 124
    Points : 129
    Join date : 2014-05-28
    Location : Poland

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  fragmachine on Mon Dec 28, 2015 5:59 pm

    Well, keeping a fourth crewmember as a loader on a tank that have autoloader is useless. Maybe keeping him as an engineer, in the trunk would suffice lol1

    Anyway I have my faith in UVZ an I don't have no excuses to not believe them that Armata is in fact, a revolutionary design. They showed us prototypes in fact.

    152mm on a tank sounds nice, it would act as a tank destroyer/bunker smasher/direct fire support for infantry (and I mean that with just one direct hit from 5km any any Abrams with DU uparmored sides or not would be just unidentified pile of junk afterwards) acting from further distances than typical MBT while 125mm Armata would break enemy on the flanks. It would reduce ammo capacity thought, from current 45(32 ready to fire) to around 32 overall probably but thats my wild guess. 152mm takes some space, ammunition for that gun even more.
    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Tue Dec 29, 2015 4:25 am

    That makes sense and I think that the Armata will be significantly easier to maintain than tanks that were designed in the 70s, even with a 3 man crew so the Armata is superior to every tank in every regard.

    More to the point if they have problems maintaining tanks with only three crew WTF are they? Morons... by my reckoning they have had the T-64, T-72, T-80 and T-90 in service for more than 40 odd years and they haven't noticed they have been having maintainence problems?

    BTW I don't recall any complaints in France about maintainance issues with the 3 man Leclerc...

    Question: If the Armata does eventually get a 152mm gun, how many rounds do you think it should be able to hold?

    I really don't know how big the rounds are but I suspect they should get at least 20 rounds in the vehicle... possibly more.

    Of course the rounds will be rather more powerful so fewer rounds might be needed to get the job done... remember a missile vehicle like Kristantema carries 12 missiles ready to fire but would need a reload when they are fired too.

    In Afghanistan several tanks used, like uparmoured T-62s, had trailers to allow more main gun ammo to be carried safely... such a thing would certainly be an option for armata in an upgraded form I suspect too if needed.

    If a larger gun is fitted a simple hull extension between the rear of the turret and the engine would allow for significant numbers of extra rounds to be carried... fit them in a way so that when the turret magazine is depleted that the turret can turn a specific angle and rounds from the position in front of the engine can be auto fed into the turret autoloader ready for use without the crew needing to leave their positions...



    _________________
    “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
    higurashihougi

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  higurashihougi on Tue Dec 29, 2015 10:10 am

    3 crews mean less people are barbecued when an ATGM hit the tank.

    Engineers can be rushed from the rear to the front when needed.

    I heard that, with the current development of Russian communication and transmitting system, T-14 can be fully zero crew i.e. completely remoted controlled.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 280
    Points : 290
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Cyrus the great on Fri Jan 01, 2016 1:42 pm

    Werewolf wrote:Well i wild hold against that claim. Computerized plattforms with many remote controlled functions, stations, and no direct access to most of the devices that make your plattform do what it was designed to do will always have higher maintenance hours and more intensive maintenance overhaul. Not to mention that 70's tanks are very primitive compared with Armata of any configuration. The 70's tanks required almost only mechanical maintenance which was relative short, primitve of requirement to skill and environment which is good to repair/maintain them in the field rather requiring specialized personal, equipment or even a hangar/"boxstop".

    I don't know how many rounds it will hold but i think some number was floating somehwere around of 38 but it think that is to high and rounds will be somewhere ~32 which is actually more then enough. If anything stands after a 152mm rounds and that of 32 times engagement then you should shot your gunner or call hulk (if he is not the target).

    It makes sense that the more advanced something is, the more mechanically complex it is; this is still worth it because the crew will be infinitely better protected than the crew of all other tanks in use. The Armata will most likely eventually get a self-diagnostic system to help the crew identify areas that require immediate maintenance. I read that most maintenance is performed on the tracks anyway, but this will also extend to the autoloader.  

    I suspect that 32 152mm rounds really are more than enough on the modern battlefield, but a Russian 140mm would be a nice medium and should be able to accommodate a few more rounds - maybe 40 rounds.

    Thanks, Werewolf and Garry.

    Garry B wrote:

    More to the point if they have problems maintaining tanks with only three crew WTF are they? Morons... by my reckoning they have had the T-64, T-72, T-80 and T-90 in service for more than 40 odd years and they haven't noticed they have been having maintainence problems?

    BTW I don't recall any complaints in France about maintainance issues with the 3 man Leclerc..

    The fact that the Russians have used autoloaders for decades without any noteworthy problems puts it into perspective. Certain countries like Japan, France and South Korea wouldn't adopt autoloaders for their tanks if they were unsuitable. I like how the K2 Black Panther's suspension system allows it to "sit", "stand" and "kneel":

    ..the K2 will be able not only to "sit", "stand" and "kneel", but to "lean" towards a side or a corner as well. "Sitting" gives the tank lower profile and offer better handling over roads. "Standing" gives the vehicle higher ground clearance and allows it to have better maneuverability over rough terrain. "Kneeling" increases the amount of angle that the tank's gun barrel can elevate and depress, which allows the tank to fire its main gun downhill—something that very few tanks, if there are any others at all, can do—and give it better ability to engage low-flying aircraft.

    Source: http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2311.html


    This seems like it could be useful in the Armata and so would a short range [8km] onboard radar.
    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jan 02, 2016 7:57 am

    The Armata will most likely eventually get a self-diagnostic system to help the crew identify areas that require immediate maintenance. I read that most maintenance is performed on the tracks anyway, but this will also extend to the autoloader.

    Why would you think it hasn't already got a self diagnostic system?

    The introduction of the USB cable as a connector has done wonders for computing systems as it is a fully two way data and power bus system. Just like with the old SCART connector for connecting a video with a TV communication is two way so when you turn on the Video the TV could detect that through the SCART cable and automatically change to the Video channel (ie AV1 perhaps).

    It is the same with the USB connector... not only can equipment send data to the main computers it can also send performance information and any errors that might have occured.

    Considering the MiG-29SMT has training modes for its radar and self diagnostic systems to warn of problems and potential problems I would expect armata to have rather more than a light indicating it is time for an oil change...

    I suspect that 32 152mm rounds really are more than enough on the modern battlefield, but a Russian 140mm would be a nice medium and should be able to accommodate a few more rounds - maybe 40 rounds.

    AFAIK there is no such thing as a 135mm or 140mm Russian main gun tank calibre.

    NATO is experimenting with a 140mm gun but AFAIK the Russians have no equivalent.

    Of course with experiments in EM weapons they might have a 90mm round perhaps or a 70mm round with very very high velocity...

    I like how the K2 Black Panther's suspension system allows it to "sit", "stand" and "kneel":

    Being able to lower the height of the vehicle by a few decimetres would only have a fairly limited range of uses. Perhaps lowering it to go under a low bridge or to fit into an aircraft might be useful, but good ground clearance is likely more useful and the extra height allowing more movement in the suspension allowing for better shock absorption on rough surfaces at high speeds would be more useful than a very low profile.

    The BMD series have long been able to crouch for getting into smaller aircraft and for parachuting.

    This seems like it could be useful in the Armata and so would a short range [8km] onboard radar.

    Krisantema has radar for engaging targets out to about 6km in any conditions including white out or brown out. I would think armata ATGM platform has a similar system and it will likely have unified the radar in the target detection role with the self defence radar in the APS self defence role to detect incoming projectile threats. Together with optical (ie video and IR systems) and of course audio systems to detect enemy gunfire and to locate enemy positions based on the trajectories of incoming rounds by radar and audio signature... It will likely also have an active laser system to deal with enemy optics too... the FSB uses them in a relatively small binocular device...


    _________________
    “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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Jan 02, 2016 3:12 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    The Armata will most likely eventually get a self-diagnostic system to help the crew identify areas that require immediate maintenance. I read that most maintenance is performed on the tracks anyway, but this will also extend to the autoloader.  

    Why would you think it hasn't already got a self diagnostic system?

    The introduction of the USB cable as a connector has done wonders for computing systems as it is a fully two way data and power bus system. Just like with the old SCART connector for connecting a video with a TV communication is two way so when you turn on the Video the TV could detect that through the SCART cable and automatically change to the Video channel (ie AV1 perhaps).

    It is the same with the USB connector... not only can equipment send data to the main computers it can also send performance information and any errors that might have occured.

    Considering the MiG-29SMT has training modes for its radar and self diagnostic systems to warn of problems and potential problems I would expect armata to have rather more than a light indicating it is time for an oil change...

    Kamov has already self diagnostic due to modular based avionic systems and subsystems that provide pilot with information of any subsystem if does not work like intended he gets a message on the Selfdiagnostic monitor called Ekran Bite aswell the standard Ekran system that warns pilots via audio if they fly to fast towards ground, their angle of attack to notify (stall) before it happens and dozen other notifications. I would expect Armata would have such system installed especially if they plan to make a robot out of it at sometime.

    GarryB wrote:
    I like how the K2 Black Panther's suspension system allows it to "sit", "stand" and "kneel":

    Being able to lower the height of the vehicle by a few decimetres would only have a fairly limited range of uses. Perhaps lowering it to go under a low bridge or to fit into an aircraft might be useful, but good ground clearance is likely more useful and the extra height allowing more movement in the suspension allowing for better shock absorption on rough surfaces at high speeds would be more useful than a very low profile.

    The BMD series have long been able to crouch for getting into smaller aircraft and for parachuting.

    Like GarryB already said such systems are standard on BMD's aswell lot of other airborne dropped plattforms since they are more or less expected BMP-3M aswell has such a system since it is designed as an BMP aswell as BMD for airborne drop duty.

    The problem here is do the tank developers like UVZ see such a technology as necessary or is it just a gimmick and unneeded. You would need to train crew new tactics, when to use it when not to use it, how to use it and all that while it puts higher stress on supply chain and maintenance time. If you do not train your crew how to use it, it will end only up as a rarely if ever used gimmick. I don't expect Armata's being airborne deployed to battlefields. So they are mostly useless.

    This seems like it could be useful in the Armata and so would a short range [8km] onboard radar.

    Krisantema has radar for engaging targets out to about 6km in any conditions including white out or brown out. I would think armata ATGM platform has a similar system and it will likely have unified the radar in the target detection role with the self defence radar in the APS self defence role to detect incoming projectile threats. Together with optical (ie video and IR systems) and of course audio systems to detect enemy gunfire and to locate enemy positions based on the trajectories of incoming rounds by radar and audio signature... It will likely also have an active laser system to deal with enemy optics too... the FSB uses them in a relatively small binocular device...[/quote] If you mean Anti-Sniper Device ASD then i would expect to have such a system aswell installed on it in bigger scale for higher range then just 800-1500m.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 280
    Points : 290
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sat Jan 02, 2016 5:54 pm

    Garry B wrote:
    Why would you think it hasn't already got a self diagnostic system?

    I assumed that because the T-14 Armata is not yet finished that they hadn't yet incorporated all those features.  It's nice to know that I was wrong.

    Garry B wrote:

    AFAIK there is no such thing as a 135mm or 140mm Russian main gun tank calibre.

    NATO is experimenting with a 140mm gun but AFAIK the Russians have no equivalent.

    Of course with experiments in EM weapons they might have a 90mm round perhaps or a 70mm round with very very high velocity...

    The Russians have the more powerful 152mm gun, but I thought maybe a Russian developed 140mm would allow them to carry more rounds as a happy medium. I assume that one hit from either of these calibers would completely destroy or disable all current western tanks in one hit. Before EM weapons are developed and deployed, large rounds could be useful for now.

    Garry B wrote:
    Being able to lower the height of the vehicle by a few decimetres would only have a fairly limited range of uses. Perhaps lowering it to go under a low bridge or to fit into an aircraft might be useful, but good ground clearance is likely more useful and the extra height allowing more movement in the suspension allowing for better shock absorption on rough surfaces at high speeds would be more useful than a very low profile.

    The BMD series have long been able to crouch for getting into smaller aircraft and for parachuting

    I was under the impression that these capabilities were new -- I had no idea that the Russians had developed them considerably earlier.

    Gary B wrote:
    Krisantema has radar for engaging targets out to about 6km in any conditions including white out or brown out. I would think armata ATGM platform has a similar system and it will likely have unified the radar in the target detection role with the self defence radar in the APS self defence role to detect incoming projectile threats. Together with optical (ie video and IR systems) and of course audio systems to detect enemy gunfire and to locate enemy positions based on the trajectories of incoming rounds by radar and audio signature... It will likely also have an active laser system to deal with enemy optics too... the FSB uses them in a relatively small binocular device...

    Now that's what you call advanced. The more I find out about Russian weapon systems, the more I love them. This tank will be the death-knell to American arrogance when it comes to tanks. Unlike American tanks, Russian tanks have auto trackers and already have long range ATGMs [Sokol-1] with a range of 12km. That's insane. I was surprised to find out that the Abrams still doesn't have an external phone, which the Russians have had since WWII.


    Werewolf wrote:
    Kamov has already self diagnostic due to modular based avionic systems and subsystems that provide pilot with information of any subsystem if does not work like intended he gets a message on the Selfdiagnostic monitor called Ekran Bite aswell the standard Ekran system that warns pilots via audio if they fly to fast towards ground, their angle of attack to notify (stall) before it happens and dozen other notifications. I would expect Armata would have such system installed especially if they plan to make a robot out of it at sometime.

    It looks like the Armata will have capabilities usually only seen in aircraft. The French and the Germans better develop the Leopard 3 very soon, which the Americans will then predictably take components from and make the 'best tank in the world'. LOL!


    Garry B wrote:The problem here is do the tank developers like UVZ see such a technology as necessary or is it just a gimmick and unneeded. You would need to train crew new tactics, when to use it when not to use it, how to use it and all that while it puts higher stress on supply chain and maintenance time. If you do not train your crew how to use it, it will end only up as a rarely if ever used gimmick. I don't expect Armata's being airborne deployed to battlefields. So they are mostly useless.

    That is so true. Maintenance will be of tremendous importance in such an automatized, digital machine that only extremely well trained, professional soldiers could possibly make full use of.  Countries that have a lot of hills could specify these features in their Armatas, but only a few Nations could properly operate such an advanced tank.

    Thanks a million, Gary and Werewolf.
    avatar
    Werewolf

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Jan 02, 2016 6:35 pm

    Now that's what you call advanced. The more I find out about Russian weapon systems, the more I love them. This tank will be the death-knell to American arrogance when it comes to tanks. Unlike American tanks, Russian tanks have auto trackers and already have long range ATGMs [Sokol-1] with a range of 12km. That's insane. I was surprised to find out that the Abrams still doesn't have an external phone, which the Russians have had since WWII.

    They have an infantry telephone in M1A2Sep TUSK2 upgrade.



    It looks like the Armata will have capabilities usually only seen in aircraft. The French and the Germans better develop the Leopard 3 very soon, which the Americans will then predictably take components from and make the 'best tank in the world'. LOL!

    That, i have no doubt, will never come to light. Before germany and france cooperate and result in a succesful Tank there will be lightsabers. It will never be finished, and even if they are threatend or blackmailed to work on a tank together it will never reach any sort of success as a project.
    avatar
    x_54_u43

    Posts : 192
    Points : 212
    Join date : 2015-09-19

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  x_54_u43 on Sat Jan 02, 2016 7:56 pm

    I hope you guys realize that Armata does have active suspension, which by definition can increase or decrease the vehicles height.





    Don't worry GarryB, you no longer have to make excuses, for Armata already has it.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5609
    Points : 5650
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Militarov on Sat Jan 02, 2016 8:48 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Now that's what you call advanced. The more I find out about Russian weapon systems, the more I love them. This tank will be the death-knell to American arrogance when it comes to tanks. Unlike American tanks, Russian tanks have auto trackers and already have long range ATGMs [Sokol-1] with a range of 12km. That's insane. I was surprised to find out that the Abrams still doesn't have an external phone, which the Russians have had since WWII.

    They have an infantry telephone in M1A2Sep TUSK2 upgrade.



    It looks like the Armata will have capabilities usually only seen in aircraft. The French and the Germans better develop the Leopard 3 very soon, which the Americans will then predictably take components from and make the 'best tank in the world'. LOL!

    That, i have no doubt, will never come to light. Before germany and france cooperate and result in a succesful Tank there will be lightsabers. It will never be finished, and even if they are threatend or blackmailed to work on a tank together it will never reach any sort of success as a project.





    Some were apparently applied even to original M1A1/2s during service in Iraq without being updated to TUSK, also there are rumons all M1s in service will get it no matter if they reach TUSK or not.

    Funny how they belived phone is useless even tho they had it on basically all previous tanks, even Sherman. Tho it possibly might be due to quite hot exaust of that God damn turbine engine.

    Sherman phone:



    M60A1:



    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:50 am

    The Russians have the more powerful 152mm gun, but I thought maybe a Russian developed 140mm would allow them to carry more rounds as a happy medium. I assume that one hit from either of these calibers would completely destroy or disable all current western tanks in one hit. Before EM weapons are developed and deployed, large rounds could be useful for now.

    developing a whole new calibre is expensive... they would not have developed a 152mm round if a 140mm round would have done the job.

    I was under the impression that these capabilities were new -- I had no idea that the Russians had developed them considerably earlier.

    There have been several small light vehicles with big guns that can lower their suspension and fire from a lower more stable position. Most of the time the ability to lower the suspension is to be able to fit into an aircrafts cargo bay.

    It looks like the Armata will have capabilities usually only seen in aircraft. The French and the Germans better develop the Leopard 3 very soon, which the Americans will then predictably take components from and make the 'best tank in the world'. LOL!

    Don't worry... US Strong Internet warriors will rely on the fact that anything good that is Russian is either a copy of a US system or a lie.

    The Abrams wont be the best tank in the world but it will be the best combat proven tank in the world.... hahaha... and then they will talk about the next gen US tank being the best and they can make up all sorts of capabilities for that tank because it wont exist...

    Don't worry GarryB, you no longer have to make excuses, for Armata already has it.

    I am not making excuses. The BT-7 tank could drive around with no tracks fitted on its standard wheels. It can move much faster in such a setup but it is not as mobile over soft and rough ground like it is with tracks. Modern tanks can't do that either but that doesn't make the BT-7 tank better than modern tanks.
    The analysed its use in combat and peace time and found driving around without tracks was rarely actually used and was really not worth the complication so they dropped it.

    Being able to raise the wheel height of a vehicle is not something that is that critical to the normal operation of a tank or IFV. It means it can be more stable on a train or can fit into an aircraft with a lower roof, but the very idea that it will be bouncing along like some gang bangers car in the US is ridiculous. Higher ground clearance on rough country and the ability to crouch going into another vehicle or aircraft or ship makes sense... but it is hardly likely to be used in conjunction with radar to detect incoming rounds and ducking and dodging incoming rounds...


    _________________
    “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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Jan 03, 2016 2:39 pm

    I find it funny that the same Abramsz fanboys that have bitched about autoloaders being bad here and there, unreliable, slow, complicated, bad designed, missing crew member 404 and so on and so on. Have now changed their attitude towards fanboyism of the revovler autoloader of Abrams and have changed their "anti-autoloader" towards "russian autoloader" being dangerous, unreliable, slow, complicated and so on. Having already very flawed and horrible designed turret of the Abrams that has this massive bustle on the back that can be penetrated from any angle from anything down to PG-7 warheads is not going to be better when you make it bigger by applying two revolver magazines with an autoloader.

    I mean what happend to the 4th crewmember all huge and mighty advantageous of being night guard duty, being extra hands for maintenance and i mean where does his salary go now?

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 280
    Points : 290
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sun Jan 03, 2016 7:04 pm

    x_54_u43 wrote:I hope you guys realize that Armata does have active suspension, which by definition can increase or decrease the vehicles height.





    Don't worry GarryB, you no longer have to make excuses, for Armata already has it.

    I love the Armata. Thanks, x_54_u43

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 280
    Points : 290
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sun Jan 03, 2016 7:10 pm


    Militarov

    I was reading up on the M1A3 development and it is there that they spoke of the need to integrate an external phone onto the tank so I assumed that they didn't have it on any current Abrams. It's strange that they had it on all their tanks and withdrew that feature in the Abrams only to reinstate recently. A million thanks for going to all the trouble of providing the pictures to the forum. Thanks, mate. cheers

    avatar
    Mike E

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Mike E on Sun Jan 03, 2016 7:13 pm

    Armata doesn't have per se 'active' suspension. It's an adjustable system for better absorbing bumps in terrain, the recoil of the gun etc.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 280
    Points : 290
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sun Jan 03, 2016 7:17 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Now that's what you call advanced. The more I find out about Russian weapon systems, the more I love them. This tank will be the death-knell to American arrogance when it comes to tanks. Unlike American tanks, Russian tanks have auto trackers and already have long range ATGMs [Sokol-1] with a range of 12km. That's insane. I was surprised to find out that the Abrams still doesn't have an external phone, which the Russians have had since WWII.

    They have an infantry telephone in M1A2Sep TUSK2 upgrade.



    It looks like the Armata will have capabilities usually only seen in aircraft. The French and the Germans better develop the Leopard 3 very soon, which the Americans will then predictably take components from and make the 'best tank in the world'. LOL!

    That, i have no doubt, will never come to light. Before germany and france cooperate and result in a succesful Tank there will be lightsabers. It will never be finished, and even if they are threatend or blackmailed to work on a tank together it will never reach any sort of success as a project.

    The French do seem to be a little more independent minded, and have a tendency to do things on their own - so I doubt that they will actually work with Germany to develop a new tank. The fact that they withdrew from the project that produced the Eurofighter and developed the Rafale instead is instructive.

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 15, 2017 4:59 pm