[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

x_54_u43 wrote:Ok here is Armata MTI in action for the 4 panoramic cameras.



The first circle points out the tracker detecting the head movement of the person, with the second circle showing detection of the moving feet.

Now to see how integrated the panoramic system is to the rest of the electronic systems.  Only limited by the creativity of those programming it, and since it is a open architecture system, I am sure they will push it to the limit.

Lets speculate on the functions this camera system could perform.

1. 360 degree visibility, (given)
2. Missile Approach Warning System
3. Perhaps cueing for the APS?
4. Add more if you think of anything.

I suspect it will be separated from the defense system. Armata has dedicated radar panels for that purpose.

What's interesting is since these panoramic cameras can ID a target's movement, theoretically, they could automatically queue the weapon systems. A very useful feature when hostile infantry are moving around in cluttered environments.

There isn't a doubt in my mind that quadrotors will be used the same in the real world.

) AAD = a new chassis for Buk M3 and M4 (now with 12 missiles´ loaded) ?

2) If I read correctly not only flying robots ? so maybe a docking station or swarm control for many small hunter killer pairs

3) tracking individuals? My tops: Nabiulina, Yudeva, Chubais, Dvorkovitch, Gref so they try harder

Vann; the M1A2 uses an American gun, with American armor, and American parts.

To get back on topic; it makes sense that we will see SAM and SPAAG'S on the Armata chassis. Even missile carriers are likely

Cyrus the great wrote:Would an 'active damping system' be something that Russia would ever consider for the Armata series of vehicles? The CV90 recently incorporated this technology.

Would an 'active damping system' be something that Russia would ever consider for the Armata series of vehicles? The CV90 recently incorporated this technology.

If disliking goes hand and hand with truthful posts, then lay them on!

Not exactly. The M256 is a L/44, but it doesn't mean it is the L/44. It has a new recoil system, new breech, and slightly modified barrel. It's kind calling the 2A82 a 2A46; sure there are similarities, but in reality they are very different.

M256 and L/44 are very similar in performance, however.

Actually at the moment I am thinking what is an Armata BMPT would look like ? Will it has the similar weapon module like T-15 BMP, or it will use the 57mm module ?

Or may be the T-15 BMP can do some parts of an BMPT ?

Mike E wrote:I suspect it will be separated from the defense system. Armata has dedicated radar panels for that purpose.

max steel wrote:Russia Testing New ‘Stealth’ Paint Making Tanks Almost Invisible

Tank crews in Russia’s central Chelyabinsk region are testing an advanced “stealth” paint that ensures low visibility against electronic surveillance systems, a military spokesman said earlier this month."The paint combines durability, surface self-decontamination capability, low observability for electronic surveillance devices and enhanced icing resistance," Central Military District spokesman Yaroslav Roschupkin added.

Crews of T-72 tanks and BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicles alongside defense industry personnel are running field tests of the new formula at the Chebarkul training range in Chelyabinsk region, just east of the Ural Mountains.The “stealth” paint’s color is fully in line with Russian military standards.


http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150923/1027412583/russia-tanks-stealth-paint.html



the invisibility claim should be taken with a grain of salt. “These claims would have to be proven. Placing heat-generating components ‘deep inside’ in the vehicle won’t help; modern thermal technology is very sensitive and when the tank is moved, or a weapon is fired, or a person is exposed, the thermal signature will light up. Plus, no matter where the engine is, when an engine big enough to move a 40- to 50-ton tank is fired up, it will have a signature isn't it ?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

GarryB wrote:

Actually at the moment I am thinking what is an Armata BMPT would look like ? Will it has the similar weapon module like T-15 BMP, or it will use the 57mm module ?

Or may be the T-15 BMP can do some parts of an BMPT ?

Well the concept of BMPT is an armoured vehicle with the armour of a tank, but with firepower oriented to dealing with non heavy armour targets like ATGM teams and infantry or light infantry vehicles.

So in fact the ideal combination should be an IFV with the troop capacity replaced by extra ammo with the armour of a tank... which should be an armata vehicle with a 57mm gun and lots of ammo... perhaps a couple of RWS on the rear deck above the troop compartment able to fire at multiple targets with PKM and 40mm Balkan grenade launchers...  The crew of three could consist of a driver, a gunner, and a commander... perhaps a bow mounted PKM/40mm grenade launcher RWS operated over the frontal arc by the driver, plus the main turret operated by the gunner with 57mm main gun and perhaps PKT coaxial MG and perhaps a single barrel 23mm weapon based on the KPV for targets that don't require 57mm cannon shells as the 23mm shells have a heavy projectile with good HE capability in a small compact package that could be carried in enormous numbers... actually I think the model shown previously with the 120mm rifled gun/mortar, six barrel 23mm gatling gun and a 40mm grenade launcher would be the ideal mix with an extra bow mounted PKT with 40mm grenade launcher for the driver to deal with targets that appear in front of him.

The thing about the Armata family is that they will be modular, so a wide variety of turrets will be produced from air defence to artillery and everything in between... for rear area units a "light" tank with a 57mm gun might be a very useful system with perhaps 300 rounds on board ready to kill any enemy IFV or light tank or low flying aircraft...

Ideal vehicle for Syrian conflict. IMHO terminator should have  57mm insted 2x30 with high angle to reach top floor, and couple of 40mm grneade launchers.

WRT Armata´s Gatling it was 4 barrel AFAIK  so rather reminder of YAK 12.7 Gatling





BTW long before T-15 in USSR...
http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/2015/03/blog-post_27.html

I use "L/44" to describe the Rhm. 120 mm L/44, if that helps you out.

Ideal vehicle for Syrian conflict. IMHO terminator should have  57mm insted 2x30 with high angle to reach top floor, and couple of 40mm grneade launchers.

WRT Armata´s Gatling it was 4 barrel AFAIK  so rather reminder of YAK 12.7 Gatling

the invisibility claim should be taken with a grain of salt. “These claims would have to be proven. Placing heat-generating components ‘deep inside’ in the vehicle won’t help; modern thermal technology is very sensitive and when the tank is moved, or a weapon is fired, or a person is exposed, the thermal signature will light up. Plus, no matter where the engine is, when an engine big enough to move a 40- to 50-ton tank is fired up, it will have a signature isn't it ?

magnumcromagnon wrote:Focus: Russian tanks leave the German no chance

GarryB wrote:
Claims the Abrams is safer than other vehicles because its ammo is safe are deluding themselves.

A full ammo load for an Abrams includes rounds inside the hull next to the driver, and having the rounds in the turret is not safe if hit by a HEAT warhead that sets off a HE round... blow out panels are fine for propellent type combustion.... in a sense a rifle bullet is an example where propellent is ignited in an enclosed space and the blow out panel is actually the projectile that is blown down the barrel to relieve pressure before another component has a catastrophic failure like the bolt.

With a HE warhead being hit or simply APHE like a 57mm shell hit to the turret bustle the detonation is much more rapid and the pressure increase vastly more rapid and destructive... the blow out panels would shatter and so would the armoured door protecting the crew... with that weight of explosive even if the armoured door is not destroyed the shock wave passing through would turn the crew into pudding.

Then are you implying people who claim T-14 is safer (which I do happen to think BTW) are also deluding themselves?

Because once HE warheads are starting to explode/detonate, I don't think even a completely separated crew-module is going to survive... (although the Armata's ammo storage is undoubtetly better protected then the Abram's turret bustle; still, there's only that much armor you can apply to the sides of a tank).

Basically you're saying: don't bother about propellants, the explosives are gonna kill you anyway.