[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

What i am interested in is stuff that wasn't mentioned before, not noticed or maybe i am interested in stuff that is maybe boring...

Haven't seen anything similiar on testbeds or previous tanks...

Werewolf wrote:

Cyberspec wrote:First official response?....Germany and France to team up to design next generation tank to replace the Leopard and Leclerk

Looking at the political atmosphere in the next 5 years i doubt they will finish this project but split half the way for own projects. Germany's MIC is in really bad shape. When Poland and Saudis ordered leo 2's our KMW could not keep up the pace of production to set met the dealines so by the end the production quality suffered, weldings were not finished ... the quality was really to worry when they had to build more than they could with the limited amount of workers they have.

collegeboy16 wrote:i smell an MBT-70 in the making. both sides have arguably different priorities, Germany focuses on home defence while France leans on expeditionary.
besides Leclercs are still good for 10 years more in 2030 if we are to take the lifetime of tanks as 50 years before it needs to be urgently replaced.

magnumcromagnon wrote:Meanwhile Armata platform (as opposed to being just a MBT) is designed in it's onset to be a modular platform with literally hundreds of combinations while simultaneously maintaining a relatively small logistics tail, it's also designed to out last its foreign competitors due to it's flexible modularity. ...How will they allocate money for a brand new MBT program (likely it'll just be a MBT and not a modular platform like Armata)?

I'm really unsure why you think any future EU heavy track platform would not be modular?  They currently utilize MBT platforms for other tasks e.g. artillery, why would this be different?  Of course, they may not have interest in fielding the exact same #/types of platform variants as RU army, but that doesn't impinge the modularity concept per se.  Your point re: French difference in focus vs. Germany exactly calls for FR variant atop same platform.

Positing that France may not want to induct new tanks as soon as Germany in fact is a POSITIVE for the program IMHO, since it allows more efficient rationalization of production, rather than upfront over-capacity ala Eurofighter, and integrally supports a spiral upgrade process (e.g. France may just as well go ahead with block upgrade, which half-funds next block upgrade etc).  The anecdote about PL/SA exports just reflects that dynamic, trying to re-equip ALL EU land armies simultaneously just requires so much production capacity that is impossible to achieve ongoing sustainable export sales volume with, so better to aim for staggered production.

Moreover, I would say the tie-up between Nexter and KMW is hugely important in ensuring the viability of this program... Regardless of how production contracts are structured, FR is already "bought into" the program thru R&D and Nexter involvement, so they will have no option but to purchase it at some point, with details of timing and the exact features/upgrades they want being irrelevant to the basic fact they are involved in the program.

Obviously, what exactly Russia would be inducting in 15-20 years, upgrades/new systems etc, is another question.

We already saw some posters for the new ammunition ZUBR-11 APFSDS rounds.... And few other ammunition types like Airburst 30mm.

Can somebody explain this to me?  The caption suggests it uses timed fusing for airburst mode (derived from laser rangefinder, presumably), but then it also mentions remote optical command trigger, would that be "man in loop" triggering of the in-flight rounds via laser control (with sensor in rear of projectile)?  Regardless, this precision air-burst capability seems to be the developing standard to aim for, negating cover etc.

franco wrote:http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1314003.html

The picture says it all.

So... 8.3 m length and 3.4 m in width.

Still refining my measurements on Armata :3

mutantsushi wrote:
I'm really unsure why you think any future EU heavy track platform would not be modular?  They currently utilize MBT platforms for other tasks e.g. artillery, why would this be different?  Of course, they may not have interest in fielding the exact same #/types of platform variants as RU army, but that doesn't impinge the modularity concept per se.  Your point re: French difference in focus vs. Germany exactly calls for FR variant atop same platform.

Positing that France may not want to induct new tanks as soon as Germany in fact is a POSITIVE for the program IMHO, since it allows more efficient rationalization of production, rather than upfront over-capacity ala Eurofighter, and integrally supports a spiral upgrade process (e.g. France may just as well go ahead with block upgrade, which half-funds next block upgrade etc).  The anecdote about PL/SA exports just reflects that dynamic, trying to re-equip ALL EU land armies simultaneously just requires so much production capacity that is impossible to achieve ongoing sustainable export sales volume with, so better to aim for staggered production.

Moreover, I would say the tie-up between Nexter and KMW is hugely important in ensuring the viability of this program... Regardless of how production contracts are structured, FR is already "bought into" the program thru R&D and Nexter involvement, so they will have no option but to purchase it at some point, with details of timing and the exact features/upgrades they want being irrelevant to the basic fact they are involved in the program.

Obviously, what exactly Russia would be inducting in 15-20 years, upgrades/new systems etc, is another question.

good points, now it makes more sense seeing it that way.

No reason for there to be one, and hopefully there won't be one.

If there is a 30mm gun the best place to mount it would be coaxial with the main gun to benefit from the central location in terms of recoil and stabilisation... obviously able to elevate beyond the range of the 125mm gun... which means adding a coaxial... either 7.62 or 12.7 should be easier and would also benefit from the increased elevation range.

A 30 mm gun is a very bad substitute for a coax.

X2

First official response?....Germany and France to team up to design next generation tank to replace the Leopard and Leclerk

What else could they say?

We are fked?

Can we buy some of yours?

Your entitled to your opinion, but I really don't understand why you would 'hope' for it not to be there considering that the turret is completely modular, and a 30 mm autocannon could be fitted for one operation and removed from the turret for another operation.

If they just need 30mm armed vehicles then sending in the APC with the Epocha turret would be easier than removing the gun and ammo from a gun vehicle.

Can penetrate light armored vehicles or act far better as a last resort AA weapon when wasting an expensive ATGM isn't worth it

In combat I rather doubt any tank crewman will think about the cost of the round vs the cost of the target.... just look at Javelin use in Afghanistan... the $60K a missile cost could buy the entire village, but will only destroy one room of a building.

but then it also mentions remote optical command trigger, would that be "man in loop" triggering of the in-flight rounds via laser control (with sensor in rear of projectile)?

Laser trigger is interesting, but if a burst is fired then a laser would set all the rounds in the burst off wouldn't it?

I suspect these are just like ANIET... basically the target is lased to get precise distance to the the target. the fire control computer then calculates the precise flight time and the fuse setting system sets the fuses for the rounds as they pass through the fuse setter on their way to the gun breach and are fired.

Regardless, this precision air-burst capability seems to be the developing standard to aim for, negating cover etc.

Most cannon projectiles are long and slim to reduce drag and increase flight performance so the largest area of effective splinters are the sides of the round.

this means that most of the most effective frags go sideways so air bursting rounds directly above the target aims lots of fragments down into the target area... top cover is normally forgotten in the rush to get behind cover when an enemy weapon opens up...

I'm really unsure why you think any future EU heavy track platform would not be modular?  They currently utilize MBT platforms for other tasks e.g. artillery, why would this be different?

The T series tanks and BMP IFVs are also used for other tasks but that does not make them modular...

production capacity that is impossible to achieve ongoing sustainable export sales volume with, so better to aim for staggered production.

The idea of joint production is supposed to reduce costs by increasing production numbers.

If they follow what you are suggesting they will be buying the same base vehicle but designing and producing duplicated but different enough modules for half their vehicles... that would make it more expensive, not less expensive...

I wonder if Germany will end up feeling like the Indians (Rafale) and the Russians (Mistral) in their future dealings with France?  I doubt anything they come up with will be cheap.

mack8 wrote:

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1314003.html

The picture says it all.

Can't be, surely! It's freaking huge!

There is big difference in the overall length and the main contributor to that is not the hull length per se....but its the so called fuel tanks (which I'm not yet sure it is) and the protruding fenders.



To me the bmpd comparison doesn't looks exact... another comparison pic someone posted in that bmpd link which I think could be closer...

thought of posting one funny post (yet unfortunately true w.r.t comments by usual suspects) from this link about T-14 Armata which is basically meant to appease the kindergarten groups.

Prav said...

My guide to posting about the armata.
guide to posting about the Armata.

Suspension:
6 wheels? Obsolete, no modernization potential.
7 wheels? Excessive, heavy.

Exhaust:
Side? Hard to conceal, makes tank vulnerable.
Rear? Impedes the tank's movement in a column.

Optics:
Direct optical channel: makes the tank expensive and complicated, signifies primitive electronics.
No direct optical channel: the system is unreliable, the tank becomes blind after the smallest mishap.

Protection:
Side armour is insufficient (always)
Top armour is insufficient (always)

Active protection system:
No? Any tank without active protection has no future.
Yes? Active protection reveals the tank and impedes cooperation with infantry.

Reactive armour:
Poor (always)

Fire control
Poor (always)

Sights:
Poor (always)

AA machinegun:
12.7 mm: excessive obsolete caliber, all the cool kids have 7.62
7.62 mm: insufficient obsolete caliber, all the cool kids have 12.7

Armament:
125 mm: insufficient and obsolete caliber for an MBT.
152 mm: excessive caliber, signifying primitive shell technology

Cost:
Less than 5 million: disposable garbage
More than 5 million: kickbacks

The India stronkkk crew on some websites like this trishu like the bkaharat website or what name it had is even lower niveau than F-16 or mp net.
Reminds me of the videos of Top 10 Artillery on youtube where the author a kid, obviously, has ranked them by their costs per unit where an old and woren out US M110 infront of G6, PzH2000 and MSTA-S was not in the ranking at all, such people are on such blogs.

Werewolf wrote:What i am interested in is stuff that wasn't mentioned before, not noticed or maybe i am interested in stuff that is maybe boring...

Haven't seen anything similiar on testbeds or previous tanks...

I'm not too into the technical side of these but could the lower larger tubes be smoke and the higher smaller ones be chaff.

Powerpoint of ATGM's

Its not even the real India strong groups, but an overwhelming number of these guys live and work for US companies and are just bound to show their gratitude to their paymasters. Like the saying - "Patriotism is the last refuge for a scoundrel" ....these guys hide under promoting national/indigenous products and are hyperactive when the products are of Russian make. Another casually used cover for these groups is "diversifying" from putting eggs in a single basket. But then we see these same pseudo patriots promoting single basket theory when it come to P-8, C-17, C-130, Socrpene, just to name a few.

That above sarcastic post by the person in that trishul blog is actually a summery of what the kindergarten group BRF says generally about Russian stuffs.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:152 mm super-2A83 gun on Armata vs competition from interesting blog: comparison of 2A83  against US/DE competition

http://youinf.ru/2a83-super-oruzhie-armaty/

But what's that gun so that the projectile has a view Rogozin? In an interview with KP a member of the expert Council of the Military-industrial Commission of the Russian Federation Viktor Murakhovsky answered this question so:

Gun already exists. It was developed in the framework of the ROC on the tank T-95. Can even name the brand of this gun – A. It has been successfully tested, including new types of ammunition. In fact, this gun can punch and more than a meter of steel. The inventor of the new weapon became an artillery plant No. 9 in Ekaterinburg, which is included in research and production Corporation Uralvagonzavod. And shells – machine engineering technologies Corporation, which is engaged in the development of ammunition for tank, artillery and naval guns.

I attended the conference, which presented the results of the development of new ammunition for the new tank gun on "the Lead." There and showed photos of the real "work" as its armor-piercing, cumulative ammunition. Therefore, I can responsibly say that the expression "more meters" true.

GarryB wrote:
The idea of joint production is supposed to reduce costs by increasing production numbers.

If they follow what you are suggesting they will be buying the same base vehicle but designing and producing duplicated but different enough modules for half their vehicles... that would make it more expensive, not less expensive...

Still platform basis costs are shared thus still cheaper then development of separate platforms

GarryB wrote:
I wonder if Germany will end up feeling like the Indians (Rafale) and the Russians (Mistral) in their future dealings with France?  I doubt anything they come up with will be cheap.

Besides self-illusions to be an empire, France is way to weak to say non simple US order. After US era finally goes to ashes for Germany and France will be still beneficial to cooperate. So mistralization is not an option here IMHO. As for costs military is not to be cheap this is business

2A82M1 muzzle velocity of APFSDS is 2km/s?

With existing ammunition or newly made?

I guess the later...

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

GarryB wrote:
The idea of joint production is supposed to reduce costs by increasing production numbers.

If they follow what you are suggesting they will be buying the same base vehicle but designing and producing duplicated but different enough modules for half their vehicles... that would make it more expensive, not less expensive...

Still platform basis costs are shared thus still cheaper then development of separate platforms

actually we may have been underestimating the political need for domestic production for both countries, esp. France, did i mentioned already France?
Both have complete chain of suppliers for MBTs, and both are very protective of them.
because of this you may have a situation where the French and the Germans manufacture practically the same tank in separate factories- greatly reducing the potential for price decrease and ups the tendency for huge divergence in parts.

Werewolf wrote:
2A82M1 muzzle velocity of APFSDS is 2km/s?

With existing ammunition or newly made?

I guess the later...

mango but prolly Vacuum-1 since they list BPS(btw what does this acronym mean, i assume its something Russian, provide trans. to eng too, thanks) penetration of up to 1m.

Werewolf wrote:

Powerpoint of ATGM's

So.. it's true.. Grifel is made for 2A83. and introduced in 2005 ?

So is 2A83 152mm or 125mm ?

Stealthflanker wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

Powerpoint of ATGM's

So.. it's true.. Grifel is made for 2A83. and introduced in 2005 ?

So is 2A83 152mm or 125mm ?

2A83 is 152mm.

152 mm mock ammo. it big

otvaga2004

T.14
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftwower.livejournal.com%2F&sandbox=1

T-15
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftwower.livejournal.com%2F&sandbox=1

The performance characteristics of the T-14 and T-15 infantry fighting vehicles on the platform "Armata". It should be noted that the accuracy of the data series is in doubt, and the material must be taken with caution.

Tank T-14 ("Object 148") on the platform of "Armata", JSC "SPC" Uralvagonzavod"

Intended for maneuver warfare against any opponent as part of the tank and mechanized infantry units as the main multi-purpose combat funds in terms of use of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.

Performance characteristics:
Crew ...................................3 person
Combat weight …………….........48 tons
Length with gun forward ...... 10,8m
Width .................................3,5m
Height ................................3,3m

Armament:
1x125mm smoothbore gun-launcher 2A82-1M
Ammunition of 40 shots (32 of them in the autoloader)
1x7,62mm PKTM gun in remote controlled device,
Ammunition 2,000 rounds in a continuous tape

Power:
X-shaped, turbocharged multi-fuel diesel-2B 12-3A
Power 1500 hp (1200 hp in normal operation)
Maximum speed ........................................... 75-80km / h
The average speed over rough terrain ...........45-50km / h
Cruising (without drums) ................................ 500km

Protection combined, In addition to dual-reactive armor Malachit the T-14 features an active protection system Afghanit


Heavy T-15 infantry fighting vehicles ("Object 149") on the platform "Armata", JSC "SPC" Uralvagonzavod "


Intended for maneuver warfare against any opponent as part of the tank and mechanized infantry units to transport infantry department with full armament and equipment, its fire support in combat, destruction of manpower, antitank weapons and lightly armored vehicles of the enemy in the conditions of use of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.

Performance characteristics:
Crew ....................................2 person
Troopers ...............................9 people
The combat weight ………………...49 tons
Length ..................................9.5m
Height ..................................,3.5m

Armament:
Epoch Remote Control Turret development of " KBP Instrument Design Bureau"
1. 30-mm 2A42 AP with 500 ammunition cartridges (160 BPS / 340OFS), and range up to 4000m
2. Kornet-EM (4 pcs. On two launchers), and range up to 8000m ATGM, SD "Kornet" with NDC - to 10000m.
3. The 7.62-mm machine gun PKT with 2,000 rounds ammunition.

Power:
X-shaped, turbocharged multi-fuel diesel-2B 12-3A
Power 1500 hp (1200 hp in normal operation)
Maximum speed ........................................75-80km / h
The average speed over rough terrain ...........45-50km / h
Cruising (without drums) ..............................500km

Protection combined, In addition to dual-reactive armor Malachit the T-14 features an active protection system Afghanit

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1314925.html

Read this latest piece by US funded media outlet Diplomat :

Is Russia in trouble? Is the 'World’s Deadliest Tank' Bankrupting Russia?




Moscow is overspending on its armed forces and still might not get the military it wants by 2020.


Russia is expected to spend more money on its military in 2015 than in any previous year in its entire post-Soviet history.

According to an analysis conducted by Forbes Magazine, Russia will spend an estimated 5.34 percent of its economic output on defense in 2015. This estimate is based on the assumption that the Russian economy will contract by 3 percent and a 15 percent hike in the real value of the military budget.

However, another estimate quoted in the Wall Street Journal based on Russian government data notes that country’s GDP may even decrease by 4.6 percent largely due to lower oil prices and Western sanctions. Consequently, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev recently announced that this year’s 3.3 trillion rubles military budget will need to be adjusted and cut by five percent or 157 billion rubles.

Even worse, according to newly published budget data of the first three months of 2015, military expenditure exceeded 9 percent of quarterly GDP – almost twice the amount cited in Forbes Magazine.

The verdict is simple: Russia cannot afford military expenditures at such scale in the long-run. “The modern Russian economy just does not generate enough resources to finance the current 2011-2020 rearmament program. This seriously reduces the ability to efficiently renew the Russian armed forces’ equipment,” a recent analysis by the Moscow-based defense think tank CAST notes.

The only way for Russia to currently finance its growing military expenditure is to tap into the country’s reserve fund – money the Kremlin put aside over the last few years when oil prices were high and meant to cushion the economy against shocks. With the help of the reserve fund – worth approximately six percent of the country’s total GDP – Russia could maintain a 3.7% deficit for less than two years, according to the economist Sergei Guriev.

Yet, this calculation may perhaps be too optimistic, the Russian-born scholar admits, given the Kremlin’s exorbitant spending on defense: “Russia has already spent more than half of its total military budget for 2015. At this rate, its reserve fund will be emptied before the end of the year.”

In a recent article, he recounts what some Russian spectators have said when Russia’s newest main battle tank, the T-14 Armata, abruptly grounded to a halt during a rehearsal for Moscow’s big May 9 Victory Day parade on Red Square (see: “Did the ‘World’s Deadliest Tank’ Just Break Down?”): “The Armata truly has unprecedented destructive power; a battalion can destroy the entire Russian budget!”

By 2020, Russia plans to produce 2,300 T-14 Armata models. Each tank costs about $ 8 million. The Russian military intends to replace 70 percent of its tank corps with the new tracked vehicle, replacing the older T-72 and T-90 main battle tanks. Overall, Russia military spending plan called for the modernization of 30 percent of the armed forces’ weapons this year.

Back in 2010, President Vladimir Putin launched a massive 20 trillion rubles military modernization project aimed to replace 70 percent of Soviet-era military hardware by 2020, including 50 new warships for the navy, hundreds of new fighter jets and thousands of new vehicles for the ground forces.

However, in April this year, Putin admitted that “the [defense] industry is not entirely ready to produce certain types of weapons on time.” Yet, he immediately added: “But without a doubt, the program will be fulfilled.”

According to Russian military expert Dmitry Gorenburg, Moscow may want to slow down the acquisition process until oil prices have recovered, because, “with cost overruns, the money allocated may not be sufficient to build what they want to build.” Additionally, he noted that “regarding what it is they want to build, they won’t get as many of them, they may take longer to build, but the programs will keep running as they are now.”

Yet, Sergie Guriev’s verdict on Russia’s military spending should it continue at current rates is grim: ”If Russia could not afford a 4%-of-GDP defense budget in good times, it cannot possibly manage such a high rate of military spending now, when it confronts rock-bottom oil prices, Western sanctions, and economic recession(…) like the T-14 in Red Square, Putin’s luck may be about to stall out.”


http://thediplomat.com/2015/05/is-the-worlds-deadliest-tank-bankrupting-russia/