[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Electric motors are making like 1000hp nowadays in electric cars. Why can't Russia attach Motors similar to Tesla motors to the T14 drivetrain? With the 1500hp engine, adding 3x 1000hp electric motors or 6x 500hp electric motors could make the Armata a 4500HP tank. If the synchronization of the engine and electric motors goes well it could produce a tank capable of reaching 240kmh on tarmac and about 130kmh offroad. The Armata is like a 45-ton tank so 4500hp will make it fly. Moreso that electric motors give a much quicker acceleration than gas motors. The T14 would fly off the line. It would also allow the engine to be turned off for deep river crossing or to be used as a range extender when the 3 3000hp motors run out of battery. I am surprised the T14s creators haven't even thought of this yet. The Armata would be a beast. It would be highly stealthy. NO exhaust smoke means reduced IR radiation. And reduced noise.

I should add that these motors weigh a lot less than 100kg. Maybe with the battery pack it could be 200kg, but this is 1 battery by the way. 1 giant battery and super capacitor. A hyper car named the Lotus Evija has 4x 500hp motors and each weighs about 40kg. I dont think an extra 2 tons of power equipment would hurt.

The problem with electric is the batteries. At best electric drive can be used for short periods for extra silence.
A tank is pretty heavy, so you need oodles of energy to move it a decent distance. There is a reason why they try to make the electric vehicles as light as possible. Then there are the issues with ignition on lithium ion batteries when they are punctured.

As for the turbines, Klimov is designing the VK-1600 helicopter turbine right now which is supposed to have 1300-1800 hp. I am pretty sure they could design a modern gas turbine for a tank if they wanted to. They are also designing the VK-2500 replacement which is supposed to not require the use of oil as lubricant.

Speaking of the Black Eagle, I remember they were to have a much more powerful 1500 hp GTD engine. Which got me thinking - can that engine be used for the T-14?

Gas turbines are widely used to generate electrical power in power stations and as backup generators, what they are not great for is operating under load, so shifting a 50 ton tank around a battlefield or a 20 ton bus is not ideal compared with existing Diesel alternatives.

If you have a GT electric set up where the GT just generates the electric current where electric motors actually move the vehicle then a GT can be a very good choice... especially as the power requirements increase as diesels tend to get very heavy very quickly as their required power is scaled up, while gas turbines are easier to boost performance with without becoming enormous and heavy and super expensive.

Electric motors are making like 1000hp nowadays in electric cars. Why can't Russia attach Motors similar to Tesla motors to the T14 drivetrain? With the 1500hp engine, adding 3x 1000hp electric motors or 6x 500hp electric motors could make the Armata a 4500HP tank. If the synchronization of the engine and electric motors goes well it could produce a tank capable of reaching 240kmh on tarmac and about 130kmh offroad. The Armata is like a 45-ton tank so 4500hp will make it fly. Moreso that electric motors give a much quicker acceleration than gas motors. The T14 would fly off the line. It would also allow the engine to be turned off for deep river crossing or to be used as a range extender when the 3 3000hp motors run out of battery. I am surprised the T14s creators haven't even thought of this yet. The Armata would be a beast. It would be highly stealthy. NO exhaust smoke means reduced IR radiation. And reduced noise.

Electric motors don't replace Gas Turbine or Diesel engines, they replace the transmission and gearbox and drive train of a vehicle... with a 1,000 hp electric motor... that turns the wheels and the tracks but you would need a gas turbine or a diesel to supply the electricity to run the electric motor.

Electric motors in Diesel Electric Subs can be 10s of thousands of hp in power... as can the electric motors in diesel electric trains that pull thousands of tons of rail cars along a track.

In trucks when you make them electric you generally put electric motors in the wheel hubs to turn the wheels, but you still need some power source to make them work.

To make Armata electric the drive sprocket could be replaced by an electric motor that turns the tracks, or lots of smaller electric motors for each wheel.

Traveling at high speed would be harsh on the tracks and other automotive components.

The amount of energy moving a heavy vehicle like a tank means more work will need to be done by an electric motor as used in a car to move the vehicle, which means the batteries in that 2 ton car that allow it to drive 300km on a single charge probably wont be enough for a 50 ton tank to move anywhere near that distance.

Heavy vehicles like tanks and trains are likely to be hybrids for a while before some real breakthrough in the capacity and performance of batteries can be achieved.

Interestingly as they move to electric motors the appeal of gas turbines will increase because a 3,000hp gas turbine is smaller and lighter and cheaper than a 3,000hp diesel and when it is generating electricity rather than actually directly powering the wheels you can keep it running at fuel efficient speeds and its fuel consumption can be reduced to more practical levels compared with an equivalent diesel engine.

The engine of the Armata is designed for improvements in performance. It is currently rated at about 1,800hp AFAIK but with improvements they expect to expand power output to about 2,400hp I seem to remember... initially with shorter life span, but over time upgrades in materials and design is supposed to make it more reliable and effective and fuel efficient.

The talk of a new vehicle based on the two chassis DT series of snow vehicles envisioned a 3,000hp gas turbine engine on one vehicle and electric motors in both vehicles for mobility with a fully articulated connector between them.

IIRC the Soviets projected that the MBT of the future should have at least 30hp/ton while keeping the 500km range or even exceeding it. Not so much as to make faster more agile tanks, but to provide ample reserves for ever heavier upgrades and the addition of power hungry systems like APS and electric guns. Modularity is also a very welcome addition to make it easier to cannibalize stricken vehicles in wartime for repairs (statistically 3 disabled vehicles have the parts to make one fully operational).

Problem is you still have to provide these contradictory requirements on top of providing unparalleled crew and system protection. I said system protection, so front mounted engines are already out (at least for the MBT).

All of those requirements meant one thing: density. You need to provide a propulsion system that is as dense as you can make it and then start from there.

Every meter of chassis you shave off is 5 tons of weight removed. That is deadweight you don't need to haul or protect. 

So the current diesel engines then are out: it would be difficult to uprate what are originally 700hp (440hp in the case of the V12) engines to more than double the power. The Kharkov diesels were also just trash. 

GT engines were promising but the poor fuel efficiency cuts into the range. The tank's range is its endurance on the battlefield: You want at least 500 km for 3 days of combat operations before you have to be topped up. 

ICE-electrics were looked into but there were concerns regarding production of the expensive alternators and traction motors (namely copper supplies). In the end the trains won out because logistics trumps making slighly superior tanks.

Hybrids with batteries and fuel cells were largely immature or didn't exist and their volatility still remains unsolved until this day. Not really a good idea to include gigajoules of batteries waiting for the slightest provocation to go boom.

In the end the Soviets arrived at the X-engine configuration with a mated partial hydrostatic transmission that the Object 187, 195 and now the T-14 uses to the wailing and gnashing of teeth of NATO faggots. 

Edit: got cut-off
This powerpack is insanely compact. It even fits within the automotive compartment of the T-72 chassis! 

It does 1500 hp but derated to 1200 hp in peacetime with an 1800 hp combat mode. There is an ongoing modernization to push it to 2000 hp nominal (the so-called scalable engine) and this is where they are having real delays, but the base A-85-3 is ready for exploitation.

Fuel consumption is also very modest compared to previous diesels or gas turbines. This allows the T-14 to have all of its fuel stored in internal tanks in the recesses around the turret basket and the space within the firewall between the combat and the automotive compartment. This fuel serves as additional armor and since its internal any fire can be put out by the firefighting equipment with no issue whatsoever, unlike external tanks on the fenders which can only be extinguished by dudes from the outside - good luck doing that in combat.

The transmission also deserves a mention. With it, the T-14 can neutral pivot and reverse as fast as it can go forwards. Very essential for when moving through closed terrain. The transmission is also the key to true multifunctionality lf the Armata chassis as the same chassis for the MBT can be simlpy reversed  and you get a front driving variant that can be used for IFVs, APCs, ARVs etc.

Not insulting the pig is the worst thing I have seen red effect do yet.

That said it is good that westerners are dumb enough to believe that thier pathetic attempts at tanks will be able to defend them.

I also noticed that the abrams x makes the same mistake as the black eagle and the burlak, that is having a poorly armoured turret bustle as the ammunition stowage. The armoured one on the current abrams is bad enough, but the tinfoil one on thier new version will be unable to defend against
even RPG-2s

I recall my attempts to fix the black eagle by coming up with a design using a heavily armoured turret bustle, but while the design was more efficient than your typical westen shitbox it was still extremely heavy when trying to get any level of protection againt modern APFSDS with it.

If the armata's engine has no huge problems, why hasnt it passed factory trials for 7 years now?

It is a tank that the commander cannot stick his head out of the turret and get a good view of the battlefield... do you not understand that issue?

It would be like a new car design with the driver and passengers sitting in the boot.

The new levels of equipment and technology needed to make it work would be comparable to the technology needed in a modern attack helicopter in terms of finding targets and engaging them at extended ranges.

Not to mention that Armata is a vehicle family and not just a tank, the work done on the T-14 can be applied to the K-14 and B-14 or whatever they might be called... most of the tank technology goes into the turret but a lot of other stuff like the crew positions and controls and information channels will be common to all the vehicles in the Armata family and also the Kurganets and Boomerang and Typhoon and DT-30 families.

They are essentially creating avionics packages for ground vehicles with a tank having an avionics suite including a turret carrying sensors and weapons that can be shared across the vehicle families.

New armoured vehicles are like new corvettes, they are multirole and complex and there is a lot to test and check because everything is new.... but equally there is also no hurry... it will be ready when it is ready...

The entire vehicle family of Armata uses the same engine so why do they just keep talking about it being a problem for the T-14.

Honestly I think the T-90AM is good enough right now so there is no urgency to introduce the T-14, but more importantly the introduction of the Armata family of vehicles is going to take time and will likely not even start to be fully useful until about 2026 when Ratnik III is being serial produced and deployed and they can take better advantage of better communication and information sharing between troops and units as well as support units.

They have batches of T-14s in the Army for testing so they must have already passed factory tests which need to be passed first before handing over to the customer.

Me too. What's the rush?

The first batch of junior officers trained on the T-14 won't even graduate until 2025. They in turn will train the future tankers so give them at least 1 year so 2026.

By then the T-14 would have all its issues fixed and most importantly, all the lessons of the SMO would have been internalized. The resulting T-14M would not only be the most technologically advanced war machine of its type, it would also incorporate the latest and greatest battlefield experience in its design straight from fighting NATO in their best.

Annexation of Ukraine would also reintegrate many important supply chains in the Russian MIC. Donetsk would regain the old honor of forging the steel for Russia's tanks, this time for the Armata. Maybe Kharkov can build Armatas in the hundreds as well.

https://www.jpost.com/international/article-740209

T 14 is reportedly already in combat operations in Ukraine.

Jerusalem post?

Reuters article?

fail fail fail...

Ria Novosti.

lancelot wrote:

I show the slat armour replaced on the T-14 and more info on the driver's camera.

>The T-14 is capable of simultaneously tracking 25 aerodynamic and 40 dynamic targets.
Moreover it sends that precision targeting data to the battlenet for others to see. What you thought was an isolated T-14 actually has the sum total of the division's fire support assets one radio away. Engage at your own peril.

>The control of the guidance system, as well as protection and counteraction to strikes, is completely digital, using artificial intelligence, under the control of the commander.
Eventually AI will take in more and more functions over until it runs the tank by itself. Fire control for example is already largely automated - just drag the crosshair close enough for a tracking gate to appear, let it snap, lase, then pull the trigger and watch the target disappear. So simple even guys fresh from Warthunder can pick it up.

>The tank's weight of 48 tons allows it to reach speeds of up to 80 km/h, which the German "Leopard" does not have (the new American "Abrams" should have a comparable one, but its modification M1A2 SEP. v4 is still secret).
Combat load is 55 tons - the same as the original M1.

>For a high rate of fire, up to 70 shells are stored in the Armata turret, loading and firing are automatic, and there is also a fully automated system for loading ammunition on board.
Just 40. 32 in the autoloader, 8 in the bustle.

>"Armata" shoots not only shells, but also missiles, can hit targets at a distance of about 8 km, while Ukrainian and Western tanks - 4-5 km.
That's the missile range. Indirect fire with UAV spotting is easily 20 km+.

T-14s missing from Victory Day parade.  Consistent with those being put to better work.

Backman wrote:

Still a completely f**ing stupid propaganda own-goal.

Will you ever stop bitching?

Backman wrote:
Still a completely f**ing stupid propaganda own-goal.

Don't worry, it will have its own parade in Kiev.

A true victory parade, one it earned after massacring so many of your nazi boyfriends.

They mentioned they were going to have a few formations with all new stuff... presumably T-14s and perhaps early prototypes of Ratnik III and other new technology that is on the verge of service or getting close... will be interesting to see what they learn, though obviously they wont make everything public, but good opportunity to find problems and issues as well as perhaps come up with new tactics and ways of dealing with the enemy.

lancelot wrote:The problem with electric is the batteries. At best electric drive can be used for short periods for extra silence.
A tank is pretty heavy, so you need oodles of energy to move it a decent distance. There is a reason why they try to make the electric vehicles as light as possible. Then there are the issues with ignition on lithium ion batteries when they are punctured.

As for the turbines, Klimov is designing the VK-1600 helicopter turbine right now which is supposed to have 1300-1800 hp. I am pretty sure they could design a modern gas turbine for a tank if they wanted to. They are also designing the VK-2500 replacement which is supposed to not require the use of oil as lubricant.

It would be interesting to know what the average power need is for a tank. Yes they have a close to 2000 hp, but on average what do they need. 1. to travel at top speed on level ground. 2 travel on rough ground at low speed. The thing is with electric motors you can easily give a tank  4000 peak HP, and put maybe a 200 HP turbine in there to keep the 1000 KWH of battery recharged. The batteries will weigh about 6T.Only thing this saves you is the transmission. No idea what that weighs in a tank either. The Turbine will be much lighter then the diesel. It will be quite efficient as there is no need to idle and it will only operate at peak output. I am pretty sure something like this must be on the drawing board esp with a railgun.

Armor needs excess power not to travel faster but to negotiate natural and manmade obstacles and expand the space for maneuver. This improved tactical mobility in turn opens up many opportunities for attack and evasion. You can launch an attack from a surprise axis or bypass prepared killing zones and turn enemy defences around to your advantage...

However it is not the end all be all characteristic. There are other factors like high reliability, low consumption, survivability and SWAP requirements that have to be balanced too. Electrics - battery ran ones moreso, fail almost automatically because while they have huge power reserves once the batteries ran out of juice you are still left with a very heavy deadweight to lug around. Highly flammable and very sensitive deadweight - at least Diesel can be used as armor with the right fuel cell design...

Honestly railguns seem to me like a dead-end, at least on the tactical level of AFVs. Chemical propellants still have plenty of room for development and even then there aren't many targets that can't be taken out with a high pressure cannon...

Well electric powered vehicles are very quiet, but the problem of generating electrical power is the core issue.

Batteries are getting more energy dense and lighter, but for a tank you could have a bank of capacitors and play around with voltages and amps for energy use and temporary storage and instant use.

Work on electric vehicles is going on, they have electric BMP-3s being developed AFAIK, and of course electric drive ships are interesting too.

Regarding vehicle based main guns I would say liquid propellent guns with binary or ternary fluids that can be stored separately in the vehicle that might not be totally safe on their own (ie a bit poisonous if you were stupid enough to drink them, but not violently explosive or even flammable if hit), that could be stored in different places in the vehicle so they would not mix accidently, but when mixed together in the chamber become violently explosive... perhaps even pump them through the barrel to heat them up first or to cool the barrel down during sustained fire to improve combustion...

Regarding engines you could take the TV3-117VMA series 02 engine for Ka-32 helicopters amongst others, it has an emergency power rating of 2,400hp and is 2 metres long and less than 80cm tall and wide and weighs less than 300kgs. Its normal continuous cruise power rating is 1,500hp.

Obviously it sucks a lot of air and blows out a lot of heat and uses lots of fuel, but it is not a new engine and modifications could be made to the new types to get a better type.

Electric drive makes sense but you do need a compact power generation system to run the vehicle.

https://t.me/vorposte/32671
Such a beauty...