He also says AESA data plus optical system of fire-control system will be used for 3D picture of the battlefield. Seems like sci-fi.
Awesome but significant.
Tank commanders through the ages have taken the risk of poking their vulnerable heads out the top of tank turrets to get that superior view of the battlefield that the top of the turret provides... lots of tank commanders were killed that way... they are not stupid, but the advantage of getting a birds eye view of the battlefield is worth its weight in gold to a tank commander.
Obviously with Armata MBT and other MBT vehicles with a remote gun and no crew in the turret to keep them away from the ammo the tank commander can't stick his head out the top of the turret, so the next best thing is cameras and it seems radar giving a full 360 degree view around the tank from the top of the tank turret... which should be visible to all three crew members.
In the current crew configuration the commander would often direct the driver about paths from cover to cover because his view of the terrain ahead was rather better than the driver down in the hull.
Now the driver should be able to handle the driving himself.
With the remote gun design there was talk of a 24/7 design where the vehicle was operated at any one time by two of the crewmen, where one would act as commander and the other driver because a lot of the time tanks just manouver and observe and only occasionally engage enemy targets. When in direct combat with the enemy then all three would work together, but the rest of the time one could be resting.
The unified control stations mean the crew can change jobs without moving from their seat so the idea was that one person would be commander and one driver with the third taking a break. After long periods of battle it would mean some of the crew are rested and more alert.
With modern auto tracking software a gunner is reasonably redundant as the commander can select ammo type and target and let the gun track the target and push a fire button to engage. In fact the driver could press the fire button to engage while the commander is looking for threats or targets.
"New target found - Destroy / Abort / Ignore" ? )))
Hope it is not Windows...
Adding a 152mm gun could be a mistake anyway. I doubt it could hold many rounds, unless they come up with a great idea.
I suspect it depends on what the next generation western armour looks like... if they go for 100 ton monsters with enormous armoured fronts then a calibre increase for main gun will make sense... certainly in terms of HEAT warhead such a calibre will be more powerful and more efficient, but naval work on EM propulsion and EM powered guns might make powder and liquid propellent conventional guns obsolete.
the increased calibre will make individual rounds more lethal and certainly gun launched anti armour missiles more effective and capable.
It would weigh more as well.
With fully automated ammo handling weight should not be an issue, but introducing a new calibre would be expensive and likely only done when considered necessary.
Russia will sell T-99 tanks like hotcakes. to India and China.
The export tank for some time will be T-90MS.
Also will be nice if the tank could receive
images from an unmanned drone spy too flying above him,so it can have a full top view of the tank and the enemy movements.
It is fully net centric and can receive video from nearby recon platforms including UAVs.
<snip>-Given the current status of the MBT in the western hemisphere, I don't see the situation changing anytime soon.
Armata offers more than the T-90MS, there's no way around it. However, it's a Russian tank, built for Russia's needs first and foremost. It's designed to operate as part of a larger system consisting of various Armata's serving multiple missions. The Armata family is the vehicle's strength, and without its family, it's just a really expensive tank. You wont benefit unless you have a few thousand of them, and the countries who can actually afford that, produce their own domestic MBT's.
Exactly. The armata MBT likely will be as expensive as a modern western tank, but an armata IFV will be rather more expensive than a western IFV just on fuel consumption alone.
I don't think the new vehicle families will be exported any time soon... upgrades of existing types are adequate for export for the next 5-10 years...
T-64's and T-80's were never exported.
Th T-72 was intended as a cheap mass production vehicle that could be exported. It was not a bad tank if you kept to the rules and followed a few guidelines... like no loose tank rounds in the crew compartment etc.
They could make a less automated version... or add features to the T-90MS, like a simpler APS that can still stop APFSDS rounds but be different from that fitted to Armata...