Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Share
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5429
    Points : 5533
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:23 pm


    37:25 she will be getting female voice as well love


    T-47

    Posts : 207
    Points : 211
    Join date : 2017-07-17
    Location : Planet Earth

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  T-47 on Mon Sep 11, 2017 5:31 pm

    Hopefully some female crews too Razz Razz

    JohninMK

    Posts : 5069
    Points : 5132
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  JohninMK on Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:23 pm

    Jane's by IHS Markit‏ @IHS4DefRiskSec 1h1 hour ago

    Russian plans to upgrade T-80 and T-90 jeopardise Armata programme:


    The Russian Ministry of Defence’s (MoD’s) 7 September announcement that it was revising plans to permanently remove 10,000 armoured vehicles from its inventory and upgrade T-80 and T-90 series main battle tanks (MBTs) could jeopardise the future of the Armata programme. The announcement together with the reduction in potential orders for the T-14 MBT and the continued decline in Russian defence spending have led some sources to claim that the Armata programme has been cancelled.

    Under previous plans, 10,000 reserve vehicles, made available after downsizing the Russian armed forces, were to be melted down by 2020. The revised plan stated that only 4,000 vehicles would be broken down, with the remaining 6,000 kept as a strategic reserve. Russia also plans to upgrade the T-80 to the T-80BVM standard and the T-90 to the T-90M standard as part of a USD417 million contract signed earlier this year. The T-80BVM includes a significant armour upgrade, and the T-90M appears to incorporate many of the improvements from the T-14, such as the commander’s sight with an integrated remotely operated weapon station.

    Initial development of the Armata started out with high hopes, but estimates of the number of vehicles to be procured have plummeted downwards since the T-14 and T-15 were unveiled. In 2015, UralVagonZavod (UVZ) CEO Oleg Sienko announced that 2,300 vehicles would be produced by 2020. In 2016, Deputy Defence Minister Yuri Borisov announced the far more sober figure of 100 before 2020, and later in the year, this figure fell to just 70 vehicles, due by the end of 2019. Borisov’s latest announcement, in August 2017, restates his figure of 100 vehicles by 2020, although this presumably includes the approximately 20 vehicles currently undergoing trials in the Russian armed forces.


    http://www.janes.com/article/74263/russian-plans-to-upgrade-t-80-and-t-90-jeopardise-armata-programme?utm_content=buffer4d9ad&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5429
    Points : 5533
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  PapaDragon on Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:15 pm


    In case this is true then Russia motivated hostile states to develop their own next-gen tanks while at the same time they canceled their own next-gen tank.

    Talk about bending over and giving other guy erection simultaneously....

    Azi

    Posts : 122
    Points : 124
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Azi on Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:48 pm

    Cancelation of Armata is pure unfiltered BULLSHIT!

    Russia use it's good stocks of good tanks! Why not upgrading older tanks? Of course it will cost money, but they will have huge quantities of modern tanks nearly immediatley. To produce large numbers of Armata will takes decades.

    Armata is the future platform for tanks! And they will build 100 to 2020 (only 3 years), that is the half of Germany's MTB fleet! After older tanks are upgraded, Armata will come, after 2020 in larger numbers.

    I'm optimistic Wink Upgrade old stuff, then build new ones!


    Last edited by Azi on Fri Sep 22, 2017 12:46 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Project Canada

    Posts : 622
    Points : 627
    Join date : 2015-07-20
    Age : 29
    Location : Canada

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Project Canada on Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:11 am


    Upgading T-72s, 80s and 90s to make them more capable is not a bad idea, however it is wrong to sacrifice T-14 procurement just because of this, Armata is the backbone of Russian Army's future tank force. I really hope this is just some poorly made article. I know Russia has no infinite resources so they have to priorities their needs, but the shift to hightech and innovative weapon systems needs to keep moving forward.

    ATLASCUB

    Posts : 178
    Points : 180
    Join date : 2017-02-13

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  ATLASCUB on Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:27 am

    The hell?
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1396
    Points : 1396
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  miketheterrible on Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:17 am

    Huh. James must have missed most recent comments. But anyway, its been 100 for some time because it has to go through all trials. Russia isn't rushing to accept anything. After the 100, it will be about 100 or so tanks a year if full production testing goes as planned. Armata program is fine. Reason why they are upgrading old tanks should be obvious to everyone. But I guess it missed most people - the west has been gearing up for war against Russia. If it happens or not isn't the point. Point is Russia has to ha e appropriate number of equipment, modern equipment here and now to deal with it. Armata isn't going anywhere. It will be built in numbers. Just not in short period of time.
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 801
    Points : 883
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Stealthflanker on Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:29 am

    Well that isn't new..just typical stereotype.. Russian build cheap.. when they build something sophisticated they won't be able to afford it. PAKFA and other projects are subject to veeery similar thing.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1396
    Points : 1396
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  miketheterrible on Fri Sep 22, 2017 12:26 pm

    Armata isn't even all that expensive. These upgrades are just very cheap. But Armata is roughly maybe $1M more per tank than T-90A. In end, it will be built. Its just that like you said, stereotyping. Funny thing is, Russian military budget is far more enough to purchase these tanks rather en mass. The thing is, if you can spend $400M to upgrade a bunch of tanks, that is a lot of tanks as $400M is a lot especially when upgrading.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 824
    Points : 822
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Isos on Fri Sep 22, 2017 1:14 pm

    They don't need anymore 15000 tanks like USSR. They bought less than 1000 t-90 in total. Why would they buy more than some hundreds of armatas ? They can sell it in large quantities too.

    Most of NATO countries don t have more than 100 operational tanks, they go for lighter more mobile IFV. And now with all russian vehicules focusing on the ATGM carrying, they even need less. I would buy much more T-15 instead with 100 mm and 30 canon. Enough power to destroy every armourd vehicle (but tanks) and it is much more mobile than a t-14.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1396
    Points : 1396
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  miketheterrible on Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:44 pm

    Russia isn't NATO. It will produce what it needs and how it will need it.

    Armata is ideally the new system. Rushing to produce them en mass leads to mistakes, like Mistakes of the Su-35 initially. So they will go through tough trials till they get it right.

    Media sensation would state that Russia is broke, cant by Armata's, etc etc etc. Which is all far from the truth. Reality is, it is that it will produce what it needs and will keep testing till most bugs are dealt with.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1570
    Points : 1608
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Sep 23, 2017 1:15 am

    Respectable Jane's was suggesting that Russia was resigning from T-14 (and Su-57 too) you believe but when
    respectable BBC was informing about Russian economy in shambles and same level of respectability Reuters about Russians bombing only civilians and opposition in Syria you didn't I wonder why? Shocked Shocked Shocked

    miketheterrible wrote:Russia isn't NATO.  It will produce what it needs and how it will need it.

    Armata is ideally the new system.  Rushing to produce them en mass leads to mistakes, like Mistakes of the Su-35 initially.  So they will go through tough trials till they get it right.

    Media sensation would state that Russia is broke, cant by Armata's, etc etc etc.  Which is all far from the truth.  Reality is, it is that it will produce what it needs and will keep testing till most bugs are dealt with.

    I can completely agree: now relatively cheap upgrades. Thorough testing is one of reasong second is that similar to T-14 tanks can appear in 2030. Why to force mass production now? Not better to wait also then economy goes faster up?
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1396
    Points : 1396
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  miketheterrible on Sat Sep 23, 2017 3:36 am

    Lets think of it this way. What if PAK FA doesn't actually come out in large numbers? What if they make lets say 100 in its entire lifetime? Same with Armata? What happens if they only make a small amount of lets say 200 or 300? Does it mater? Most of that technology can be translated to current existing platforms to make them more effective. Su-35S for example uses a lot of composite materials that are introduced in other jets, even Su-57. They could also apply RAM to it to greatly reduce the radar cross section of the Su-35 making it a far more stealthy aircraft. They can do lots of stuff to existing platforms. They could add the N036 radar to the Su-35 and Su-30 since the N036 AESA is based upon the IRBIS E/BARS platform. Sensors from Su-57 can be applied to future current jets development. etc etc etc. Same with the Armata tank. There has been plans in the past of making current tanks remote turrets and moving placements around to let troops be in separate compartments. Same with adding various sensors to current tanks like the AESA radar modules and what not.

    What I am getting at, is these developments are in a lot of cases a method to bring out new technologies and knowledge. Which in this case, doesn't mean it will all come out at once, be developed at once or even fielded at once. Instead, such systems can be applied to previous systems and even future systems. Maybe they may skip Su-57 after a bit? Maybe they may just work in junction with Mikoyan and build a new jet combining knowledge of MiG-35 development and Su-57 development?

    Nothing really is set in stone and the military knows far better than us. What we know as individuals on the internet is stuff that is just certain fluff for sales purposes and or just outright propaganda. RCA of F-22 is an example of it. Or IRBIS-E Radar capabilities (we don't even know if it is just export variant that way or if local is the same, etc etc etc).

    Its fun to discuss about it, but getting mad about it is pointless. I actually trust the MoD when it comes to airforce, Army and missile development. Problem with the Navy that gets us all worked up, is that they cannot make a decision on anything surface ship related. Submarines are a different case. Surface ships, not so much. And i think it is because there are too many different companies with their hands in the cookie jar, they tried to fix that with USC, but that didn't work because the crew from USC are the same people as the board of directors for these shipyards.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 824
    Points : 822
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Isos on Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:49 am

    I was just pointing the fact that Russia's potential enemy is using much more light vehicle armed with light canon and that T-15 is better suited to fight them. I totally agree with you but armata is not just the T-14. T-15 is more manoeuvrable, easier to use and deployable faster but still needs a bigger canon than the 30 mm or 57 mm.

    And like you said older tanks can be upgraded with armata's technology while BMP have to be replaced. Without active protection they are easy to shoot with rpg and atgm.

    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:03 am

    Janes has little cred...

    Plans change.... that is the nature of planning.

    I would think that upgraded vehicles that can be sent to Syria or simply used for training would be rather more use than scrap metal.

    They have stated they will only scrap about half of those vehicles they were planning to scrap.

    The number of 6,000 tanks is amusing because that was the CFE limit for european Russia... would be funny if instead of scrapping that extra 6,000 they upgraded them and sent them to the far east or far north as reserve forces.

    Either way, this would not effect the Armata programme... or the Kurganets programme, or the Boomerang programme.... all of which will include tanks or gun platforms.


    _________________
    “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
    kvs

    Posts : 3148
    Points : 3271
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  kvs on Sat Sep 23, 2017 3:26 pm

    The tank model does not determine the outcome of a battle. The skill of the tank operators and their support in the larger unit does.
    You can see a couple of knocked out Deashi T-90s by SAA T-72s. So upgrading old T-90s and T-72s and T-80s is the totally
    correct and intelligent thing to do. Anyone who infers from this that the T-14 is "dropped" is either malicious or clueless. But
    build 2000+ T-14s is not that important. More important is the development of 100% secure communications and EW capability.
    The portable anti-tank weapons we have seen in Syria are a game changer. No tank is safe from them so being able to deal
    with this is important and not just throwing a fancier tank in the line of fire.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 824
    Points : 822
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Isos on Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:01 pm

    kvs wrote:The tank model does not determine the outcome of a battle.   The skill of the tank operators and their support in the larger unit does.
    You can see a couple of knocked out Deashi T-90s by SAA T-72s.    So upgrading old T-90s and T-72s and T-80s is the totally
    correct and intelligent thing to do.   Anyone who infers from this that the T-14 is "dropped" is either malicious or clueless.   But
    build 2000+ T-14s is not that important.   More important is the development of 100% secure communications and EW capability.
    The portable anti-tank weapons we have seen in Syria are a game changer.   No tank is safe from them so being able to deal
    with this is important and not just throwing a fancier tank in the line of fire.

    That is why I said they should upgrade T-80 with Arena and new armour and electronics. Armata is specially made for Russian wars and it is connected the way russian army wants it. An export variant won t be better than a T-90 because they won't use it the same way as russians. So they should sell T-80 and T-90 with active defence (every new tank should have it) so that russia order more t-14.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 948
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Sep 23, 2017 6:05 pm

    kvs wrote:The tank model does not determine the outcome of a battle. The skill of the tank operators and their support in the larger unit does.
    You can see a couple of knocked out Deashi T-90s by SAA T-72s.


    Well this is debatable to a long extent kvs.

    While, in facts, is surely true that crew's trainining/proficiency and division-to-brigade level support respresent primary elements in achieving victory on the field in combined mechanized operation both in COIN and in high-end conflicts , MBT's models drammatically influence the outcome of those battles often in a truly decisive way.

    The few T-90 and T-90A of domestic production (and even the older T-72B always of domestic production) have shown directly on the battlefield in Syria,even when operated by the same low proficiency SAA crew, a level of performance both in terms of lethality than, much more, survivability incomparably higher than the export legacy SAA's T-72s, that had suffered enormous losses in the past four years even when involved in less "exposed" positions on the battlefield.

    Much MoD analysts have identified the "injection" of those few domestic-built T-72B /T-90 on the first line of all the major ground operations of the last year and half in Syria as one of the most crucial element allowing the sudden and sharp shift of the equilibrium in SAA's favor on the ground war.

    Those few T-90/T-90s was practiclally present in the very first line of the most important ,deep and Dangerous operations; continually exposed to the potential action of enemy ATGM teams ,a situation that with the export legacy T-72s operated by SAA would have caused losses (both repaireable that not) measured in the hundreds.

    In those conditions the combinmed effect of "Айнет" system (allowing the stand-off destruction of entire ATGM teams before the engagement was initiated) and, on the protection side, integrated PS "Штора" and ДЗ Контакт-5 (both of domestic version) have drammatically depreciated ,up to the next-to-irrelevance, the presence of the enemy ATGMs.

    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:51 am

    I expect you use the same criteria exposed in this comment to analyze the collection of real insults exposed in the comment of this link, that M Zakaharova and myself received.

    Will look at it now.


    Well this is debatable to a long extent kvs.

    You can look at the very weak tanks the Germans used to take much of europe and suggest those with the correct tactics can beat anyone using the wrong tactics but equipped with better armed and better armoured vehicles, but there is more to it than that.

    Despite being poorly armed and poorly armed the Panzer 3 and panzer 4 were optimised for the correct tactics that the Germans used sob effectively.

    put german troops in a two man Char tank and despite having a better gun and much better armour they would not have been anywhere near as successful.

    tactics don't work as well with substandard equipment, but good tactics can hide major faults in bad equipment.

    If you are fighting in a flat desert with superior night vision and air control... fight at night and pound them with air power during the day to minimise your losses.


    _________________
    “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

    ATLASCUB

    Posts : 178
    Points : 180
    Join date : 2017-02-13

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  ATLASCUB on Sun Sep 24, 2017 5:16 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:
    kvs wrote:The tank model does not determine the outcome of a battle. The skill of the tank operators and their support in the larger unit does.
    You can see a couple of knocked out Deashi T-90s by SAA T-72s.


    Well this is debatable to a long extent kvs.

    While, in facts, is surely true that crew's trainining/proficiency and division-to-brigade level support respresent primary elements in achieving victory on the field in combined mechanized operation both in COIN and in high-end conflicts , MBT's models drammatically influence the outcome of those battles often in a truly decisive way.

    The few T-90 and T-90A of domestic production (and even the older T-72B always of domestic production) have shown directly on the battlefield in Syria,even when operated by the same low proficiency SAA crew, a level of performance both in terms of lethality than, much more, survivability incomparably higher than the export legacy SAA's T-72s, that had suffered enormous losses in the past four years even when involved in less "exposed" positions on the battlefield.

    Much MoD analysts have identified the "injection" of those few domestic-built T-72B /T-90 on the first line of all the major ground operations of the last year and half in Syria as one of the most crucial element allowing the sudden and sharp shift of the equilibrium in SAA's favor on the ground war.

    Those few T-90/T-90s was practiclally present in the very first line of the most important ,deep and Dangerous operations; continually exposed to the potential action of enemy ATGM teams ,a situation that with the export legacy T-72s operated by SAA would have caused losses (both repaireable that not) measured in the hundreds.

    In those conditions the combinmed effect of "Айнет" system (allowing the stand-off destruction of entire ATGM teams before the engagement was initiated) and, on the protection side, integrated PS "Штора" and ДЗ Контакт-5 (both of domestic version) have drammatically depreciated ,up to the next-to-irrelevance, the presence of the enemy ATGMs.

             

    To complement this as a response to kvs.... it's due to the reasons he very much listed that the Russian Army needs T-14s. Better armour, better gun, better networking, an APS built for it...... there is no way to spin that T80s,T90s, few T-14s > T-14s in the thousands. Russian's tank corp would be severely improved with T-14s in large numbers. The current upgrades are not qualitative enough.

    I think the only scenario where that type of logic works is in the F-35 program to an extent. Razz
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 18
    Points : 22
    Join date : 2017-09-18

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:35 pm

    Is the T-14s turret final or is it still being improved? Will it get more horizontal active protections systems to protect the side and rear?

    Not sure if anyone already pointed this out but it has 4 pods of upper hemisphere active protection systems on to of the turret 2 traversable and 2 fixed in the vertical position.

    Also will the Armata get more ERA?

    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5429
    Points : 5533
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:20 pm

    The-thing-next-door wrote:Is the T-14s turret final or is it still being improved? Will it get more horizontal active protections systems to protect the side and rear?

    Not sure if anyone already pointed this out but it has 4 pods of upper hemisphere active protection systems on to of the turret 2 traversable and 2 fixed in the vertical position.

    Also will the Armata get more ERA?



    Turret itself is pretty final and if they do make alterations it is unlikely to be noticeable from the outside because what you see on the outside is just external ''package'' or shroud to be more accurate.

    And it is very well protected but you need to keep in mind that because this is unmanned turret (weapon's station actually) it does not require as much protection.

    Main risks when turret gets hit is crew getting injured/killed or munitions catching fire. Those two problems are eliminated here.

    Crew is in protected capsule and machinery in turret is much tougher than human body so if anything does get trough it's less likely to cause damage. Any sensitive parts inside would have their own protective casings.

    I munitions do catch fire entire turret will be automatically flooded with fire extinguishing chemicals like halon. You can't use this on normal tanks because those chemicals are toxic but here it's not a problem because there is nobody in the turret.

    As for ERA it's already there and plenty of it. It is not so noticeable because this tank, unlike it's predecessors, is designed to look good as well so ERA tiles are built to look flat and pretty. But they are there just zoom in on a good photo of front part of Armata and you will see the lines between tiles.
    avatar
    GarryB

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

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  GarryB on Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:00 am

    In fact it would actually make sense to purge the entire turret interior with nitrogen.... it makes up 70% of the earths atmosphere so it is easy to obtain, but is totally inert and would even reduce corrosion issues as it would remove oxygen from the equation.

    Needless to say I rather suspect they will want to make Armata in brigades, so a conventional brigade wont just get its T series tanks replaced with Armata based tanks and its BMPs replaced with Armata IFVs (ieT-15).

    Of course this will likely delay getting the vehicles into service as every armata vehicle type will need to be ready, so they might start with hybrid units that still use BMP and MTLB based support vehicles.

    Hard to say.

    Ideally they would create a complete division equipped only with armata based vehicles and replace an existing div with this new armata div.

    It all depends on how far on they are with all the different vehicle types.

    They will be working on at least 3 and probably 4 vehicle bases for each vehicle type... ie the missile based SAM vehicle will be TOR for 2 or 3 of the 4 with perhaps the light vehicle family using SOSNA-R perhaps as a much lighter system.... the electronics and sensors and systems and weapons will be standardised as far as possible across the armata, kurganets, boomerang, and typhoon, so development would be optimised so making 50 new vehicle types for a division based on 3-4 different vehicle platfoms... which is easier than making 150 to 200 different vehicles on 30-50 different vehicle platforms.


    _________________
    “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
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 18
    Points : 22
    Join date : 2017-09-18

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Mon Sep 25, 2017 6:59 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    The-thing-next-door wrote:Is the T-14s turret final or is it still being improved? Will it get more horizontal active protections systems to protect the side and rear?

    Not sure if anyone already pointed this out but it has 4 pods of upper hemisphere active protection systems on to of the turret 2 traversable and 2 fixed in the vertical position.

    Also will the Armata get more ERA?



    Turret itself is pretty final and if they do make alterations it is unlikely to be noticeable from the outside because what you see on the outside is just external ''package'' or shroud to be more accurate.

    And it is very well protected but you need to keep in mind that because this is unmanned turret (weapon's station actually) it does not require as much protection.

    Main risks when turret gets hit is crew getting injured/killed or munitions catching fire. Those two problems are eliminated here.

    Crew is in protected capsule and machinery in turret is much tougher than human body so if anything does get trough it's less likely to cause damage. Any sensitive parts inside would have their own protective casings.    

    I munitions do catch fire entire turret will be automatically flooded with fire extinguishing chemicals like halon. You can't use this on normal tanks because those chemicals are toxic but here it's not a problem because there is nobody in the turret.

    As for ERA it's already there and plenty of it. It is not so noticeable because this tank, unlike it's predecessors, is designed to look good as well so ERA tiles are built to look flat and pretty. But they are there just zoom in on a good photo of front part of Armata and you will see the lines between tiles.  

    I think it still needs 360 degree active protection and more hardkill tubes as for the upper hemishpere that is already adaqate. Personaly i would up the passive armor to 1200mm effecctive thickness but that is not realy nesasary since nato lack any rounds that can pen 1000. Also indirect fire ATGMS capable of top attack annd anti helicoter roles that can also explode to kill soft targets would be nice.

    Sponsored content

    Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:49 am