[Official] Armata Discussion thread #2

collegeboy16 wrote:if the armata MBT ever gets a 30mm coaxial it will be 2a42, and its not exactly CIWS material with its relatively low fire rate...

i dont worry much about protection- probably the most dangerous would be attack helos but now that even MBTs could have AESA radar and already have top of the line thermals plus multispectral cammo i dare say the hunter just became the hunted.

You missed my point, the autocannon it's not supposed to be a CIWS that acts as a de facto SHORAD that defeats any and all PGM's it comes across, but using it's radar + BMS + FCS + autocannon's range to pick off subsonic man-portable ATGM missiles at a safe distance using HE-Frag ammunition.

The T-14 MBT Armata could have a micro helicopter UAV and a all-weather casing/mount with a built in charger located on top of the turret, that opens up when needed to launch the micro helicopter UAV, and the encasement could close to protect the UAV from the elements.

IMO something like that will be standard on new AFV's within the next five years. Micro UAV's even at their most expensive, are cheap compared to the vehicles they will be watching over. Having a personal eye in the sky will be a indispensable tool for vehicle crews.

i dont worry much about protection- probably the most dangerous would be attack helos but now that even MBTs could have AESA radar and already have top of the line thermals plus multispectral cammo i dare say the hunter just became the hunted.

Helicopters will end up with ATGM's that have at least 10+ km of range over the next decade. HERMES-A will be pushing into the 20+ km category.

MBT's will still be at a disadvantage, fortunately they will have Pantsirs and whatnot watching their backs.

Zivo wrote:

The T-14 MBT Armata could have a micro helicopter UAV and a all-weather casing/mount with a built in charger located on top of the turret, that opens up when needed to launch the micro helicopter UAV, and the encasement could close to protect the UAV from the elements.

IMO something like that will be standard on new AFV's within the next five years. Micro UAV's even at their most expensive, are cheap compared to the vehicles they will be watching over. Having a personal eye in the sky will be a indispensable tool for vehicle crews.

i dont worry much about protection- probably the most dangerous would be attack helos but now that even MBTs could have AESA radar and already have top of the line thermals plus multispectral cammo i dare say the hunter just became the hunted.

Helicopters will end up with ATGM's that have at least 10+ km of range over the next decade. HERMES-A will be pushing into the 20+ km category.

MBT's will still be at a disadvantage, fortunately they will have Pantsirs and whatnot watching their backs.

A group of Armata vehicles could potentially all direct their AESA's on to a attack helicopter, and using a high output setting to jam the helicopters avionics, radar, FCS.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Zivo wrote:

The T-14 MBT Armata could have a micro helicopter UAV and a all-weather casing/mount with a built in charger located on top of the turret, that opens up when needed to launch the micro helicopter UAV, and the encasement could close to protect the UAV from the elements.

IMO something like that will be standard on new AFV's within the next five years. Micro UAV's even at their most expensive, are cheap compared to the vehicles they will be watching over. Having a personal eye in the sky will be a indispensable tool for vehicle crews.

i dont worry much about protection- probably the most dangerous would be attack helos but now that even MBTs could have AESA radar and already have top of the line thermals plus multispectral cammo i dare say the hunter just became the hunted.

Helicopters will end up with ATGM's that have at least 10+ km of range over the next decade. HERMES-A will be pushing into the 20+ km category.

MBT's will still be at a disadvantage, fortunately they will have Pantsirs and whatnot watching their backs.

A group of Armata vehicles could potentially all direct their AESA's on to a attack helicopter, and using a high output setting to jam the helicopters avionics, radar, FCS.

That's about as believable as Lockmart's claim that the F-35 can jam the S-400's exponentially more powerful radars before swooping in unmolested and dropping a JDAM.

Zivo wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Zivo wrote:

The T-14 MBT Armata could have a micro helicopter UAV and a all-weather casing/mount with a built in charger located on top of the turret, that opens up when needed to launch the micro helicopter UAV, and the encasement could close to protect the UAV from the elements.

IMO something like that will be standard on new AFV's within the next five years. Micro UAV's even at their most expensive, are cheap compared to the vehicles they will be watching over. Having a personal eye in the sky will be a indispensable tool for vehicle crews.

i dont worry much about protection- probably the most dangerous would be attack helos but now that even MBTs could have AESA radar and already have top of the line thermals plus multispectral cammo i dare say the hunter just became the hunted.

Helicopters will end up with ATGM's that have at least 10+ km of range over the next decade. HERMES-A will be pushing into the 20+ km category.

MBT's will still be at a disadvantage, fortunately they will have Pantsirs and whatnot watching their backs.

A group of Armata vehicles could potentially all direct their AESA's on to a attack helicopter, and using a high output setting to jam the helicopters avionics, radar, FCS.

That's about as believable as Lockmart's claim that the F-35 can jam the S-400's exponentially more powerful radars before swooping in unmolested and dropping a JDAM.

I'm not talking about '1' Armata vehicle, I'm talking about something like 12 to 15 Armata vehicles all simultaneously using a high output setting, including Armata Tor, Armata Pantsir, Armata Morphei launcher, etc. Armata SHORAD vehicles which are all wielding much more powerful AESA radars than standard.

You guys are going into fantasy territory.

Let's be real. Armata won't be using magical T-50 jamming radars. That was just journos making shit up.

As for now, the only thing we know for sure is it will have radar systems for APS.
And Koalition will have shell correction radar.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Zivo wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Zivo wrote:

The T-14 MBT Armata could have a micro helicopter UAV and a all-weather casing/mount with a built in charger located on top of the turret, that opens up when needed to launch the micro helicopter UAV, and the encasement could close to protect the UAV from the elements.

IMO something like that will be standard on new AFV's within the next five years. Micro UAV's even at their most expensive, are cheap compared to the vehicles they will be watching over. Having a personal eye in the sky will be a indispensable tool for vehicle crews.

i dont worry much about protection- probably the most dangerous would be attack helos but now that even MBTs could have AESA radar and already have top of the line thermals plus multispectral cammo i dare say the hunter just became the hunted.

Helicopters will end up with ATGM's that have at least 10+ km of range over the next decade. HERMES-A will be pushing into the 20+ km category.

MBT's will still be at a disadvantage, fortunately they will have Pantsirs and whatnot watching their backs.

A group of Armata vehicles could potentially all direct their AESA's on to a attack helicopter, and using a high output setting to jam the helicopters avionics, radar, FCS.

That's about as believable as Lockmart's claim that the F-35 can jam the S-400's exponentially more powerful radars before swooping in unmolested and dropping a JDAM.

I'm not talking about '1' Armata vehicle, I'm talking about something like 12 to 15 Armata vehicles all simultaneously using a high output setting, including Armata Tor, Armata Pantsir, Armata Morphei launcher, etc. Armata SHORAD vehicles which are all wielding much more powerful AESA radars than standard.

They wont be jamming it, they will be shooting missiles at it.

At best Armata's AESA's may behave as a synthetic aperture, sharing data between vehicles to produce a unified, real time localized map. That's the likely extent of it for now.

TR1 wrote:You guys are going into fantasy territory.

Let's be real. Armata won't be using magical T-50 jamming radars. That was just journos making shit up.

As for now, the only thing we know for sure is it will have radar systems for APS.
And Koalition will have shell correction radar.

Do you lack reading comprehension? How about you go back and re-read what I posted:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

So back on to the topic of Armata's self-defense capabilities: As far as APS goes, Armata will have Afghanistan, and will have a X-band AESA derived from the PAK-FA program (that will likely have 10km range), everyone knows this...however we should also realize that THE STANDARDIZED defense suite for Armata should blur the lines of what a APS should be. For example the standardized Afghanistan APS suite should be most useful in defeating top-attack weapons (EFP's, PGM's), APFSDS's, extreme close-range ATGM ambush attacks, however we can't rule out the possibility that with the help of a BMS assisted X-band AESA radar, a T-14 MBT's 30mm autocannon turret mount, or a T-15 BMPT's Gsh-6-23 autocannon turret mount could potentially defeat long-range man-portable ATGM missiles at a safe distance of 1.5km, 2.5km, or (even with 30mm autocannon) at 3 km range on a open battlefield. Even speaking on the X-band AESA, we can't rule out the possibility that it may retain enough power to be capable enough to jam radio-command guided PGM's or man-portable ground radar...but of course this is all just speculation, and we'll have to just wait for a official confirmation to make sure of these potential capabilities.

https://www.russiadefence.net/t3691p435-official-armata-discussion-thread#85346

...I clearly stated that it's speculation, and we have to wait for an official confirmation.

Zivo wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Zivo wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Zivo wrote:

The T-14 MBT Armata could have a micro helicopter UAV and a all-weather casing/mount with a built in charger located on top of the turret, that opens up when needed to launch the micro helicopter UAV, and the encasement could close to protect the UAV from the elements.

IMO something like that will be standard on new AFV's within the next five years. Micro UAV's even at their most expensive, are cheap compared to the vehicles they will be watching over. Having a personal eye in the sky will be a indispensable tool for vehicle crews.

i dont worry much about protection- probably the most dangerous would be attack helos but now that even MBTs could have AESA radar and already have top of the line thermals plus multispectral cammo i dare say the hunter just became the hunted.

Helicopters will end up with ATGM's that have at least 10+ km of range over the next decade. HERMES-A will be pushing into the 20+ km category.

MBT's will still be at a disadvantage, fortunately they will have Pantsirs and whatnot watching their backs.

A group of Armata vehicles could potentially all direct their AESA's on to a attack helicopter, and using a high output setting to jam the helicopters avionics, radar, FCS.

That's about as believable as Lockmart's claim that the F-35 can jam the S-400's exponentially more powerful radars before swooping in unmolested and dropping a JDAM.

I'm not talking about '1' Armata vehicle, I'm talking about something like 12 to 15 Armata vehicles all simultaneously using a high output setting, including Armata Tor, Armata Pantsir, Armata Morphei launcher, etc. Armata SHORAD vehicles which are all wielding much more powerful AESA radars than standard.

They wont be jamming it, they will be shooting missiles at it.

At best Armata's AESA's may behave as a synthetic aperture, sharing data between vehicles to produce a unified, real time localized map. That's the likely extent of it for now.

They'll likely want to test the water's first before jumping head first...

What I'm curious about, as all APS relies on radar, what is the possibility of placing a jammer on the ATGM launcher that electronically attacks the tank as the missile is en route.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

TR1 wrote:You guys are going into fantasy territory.

Let's be real. Armata won't be using magical T-50 jamming radars. That was just journos making shit up.

As for now, the only thing we know for sure is it will have radar systems for APS.
And Koalition will have shell correction radar.

Do you lack reading comprehension? How about you go back and re-read what I posted:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

So back on to the topic of Armata's self-defense capabilities: As far as APS goes, Armata will have Afghanistan, and will have a X-band AESA derived from the PAK-FA program (that will likely have 10km range), everyone knows this...however we should also realize that THE STANDARDIZED defense suite for Armata should blur the lines of what a APS should be. For example the standardized Afghanistan APS suite should be most useful in defeating top-attack weapons (EFP's, PGM's), APFSDS's, extreme close-range ATGM ambush attacks, however we can't rule out the possibility that with the help of a BMS assisted X-band AESA radar, a T-14 MBT's 30mm autocannon turret mount, or a T-15 BMPT's Gsh-6-23 autocannon turret mount could potentially defeat long-range man-portable ATGM missiles at a safe distance of 1.5km, 2.5km, or (even with 30mm autocannon) at 3 km range on a open battlefield. Even speaking on the X-band AESA, we can't rule out the possibility that it may retain enough power to be capable enough to jam radio-command guided PGM's or man-portable ground radar...but of course this is all just speculation, and we'll have to just wait for a official confirmation to make sure of these potential capabilities.

https://www.russiadefence.net/t3691p435-official-armata-discussion-thread#85346

...I clearly stated that it's speculation, and we have to wait for an official confirmation.

You are certainly free to speculate, I am just saying, don't keep your hopes up for this level of performance of features.

Zivo wrote:What I'm curious about, as all APS relies on radar, what is the possibility of placing a jammer on the ATGM launcher that electronically attacks the tank as the missile is en route.

You would be really space limited for a jammer (not to mention unit cost).

Plus if the APS hits a rough area (vs a precision counter) like essentially all do, you could just trigger it in the direction of the jamming, with much the same effect. Only issue I could see is time of deployment for the APS.

Optical backup would fix this though.

TR1 wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

TR1 wrote:You guys are going into fantasy territory.

Let's be real. Armata won't be using magical T-50 jamming radars. That was just journos making shit up.

As for now, the only thing we know for sure is it will have radar systems for APS.
And Koalition will have shell correction radar.

Do you lack reading comprehension? How about you go back and re-read what I posted:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

So back on to the topic of Armata's self-defense capabilities: As far as APS goes, Armata will have Afghanistan, and will have a X-band AESA derived from the PAK-FA program (that will likely have 10km range), everyone knows this...however we should also realize that THE STANDARDIZED defense suite for Armata should blur the lines of what a APS should be. For example the standardized Afghanistan APS suite should be most useful in defeating top-attack weapons (EFP's, PGM's), APFSDS's, extreme close-range ATGM ambush attacks, however we can't rule out the possibility that with the help of a BMS assisted X-band AESA radar, a T-14 MBT's 30mm autocannon turret mount, or a T-15 BMPT's Gsh-6-23 autocannon turret mount could potentially defeat long-range man-portable ATGM missiles at a safe distance of 1.5km, 2.5km, or (even with 30mm autocannon) at 3 km range on a open battlefield. Even speaking on the X-band AESA, we can't rule out the possibility that it may retain enough power to be capable enough to jam radio-command guided PGM's or man-portable ground radar...but of course this is all just speculation, and we'll have to just wait for a official confirmation to make sure of these potential capabilities.

https://www.russiadefence.net/t3691p435-official-armata-discussion-thread#85346

...I clearly stated that it's speculation, and we have to wait for an official confirmation.

You are certainly free to speculate, I am just saying, don't keep your hopes up for this level of performance of features.

And that's why I said we have to wait for official confirmation. Early model Armata's will not likely be that capable, however later model upgrades (circa 2030's) could be a different story entirely.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

You missed my point, the autocannon it's not supposed to be a CIWS that acts as a de facto SHORAD that defeats any and all PGM's it comes across, but using it's radar + BMS + FCS + autocannon's range to pick off subsonic man-portable ATGM missiles at a safe distance using HE-Frag ammunition.

if you are talking about destroying the launcher before the missile even hits then im sure that would work- tho i prefer a fused 125 he round to their faces.

Zivo wrote:

Helicopters will end up with ATGM's that have at least 10+ km of range over the next decade. HERMES-A will be pushing into the 20+ km category.

MBT's will still be at a disadvantage, fortunately they will have Pantsirs and whatnot watching their backs.

they can hit much farther, yes- but i doubt they can spot the cammo equipped armatas until they are much, much closer, enough for the armatas to retaliate with their own weapons. and ironically the MBTs could spot the attack helos much farther than they can attack them(in clear areas, devoid of intervening earth ofc.) with their neat thermals(as good as catherine xp i hope) and even more with the AESA.

magnumcromagnon wrote:
A group of Armata vehicles could potentially all direct their AESA's on to a attack helicopter, and using a high output setting to jam the helicopters avionics, radar, FCS.

they could, but then his mates now have targetting solutions for all those armatas...

The initial start-up costs (production lines, buying and maintaining) for the early model Armata models will likely be the biggest limiting factor on how capable those early model systems will be. The army will likely want to get them in to service as quick and as cheap as possible, then 10 to 15 years down the line look at potential upgrade and modernization packages, likely looking at more ambitious upgrades such as a standardized DIRCM suite etc.

collegeboy16 wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:
A group of Armata vehicles could potentially all direct their AESA's on to a attack helicopter, and using a high output setting to jam the helicopters avionics, radar, FCS.

they could, but then his mates now have targetting solutions for all those armatas...

As mentioned before, Armata Tor, Armata Pantsir, Armata Morphei launcher...

Never heard anything about Armata based Tor or Pantsir.

Or Morphei for that matter.

Kurganets chassis would make sense though.

TR1 wrote:You guys are going into fantasy territory.

Let's be real. Armata won't be using magical T-50 jamming radars. That was just journos making shit up.

ofc. it wont- those cost millions of dollars a piece. use only a fraction of T/R modules and it makes more sense.

TR1 wrote:Never heard anything about Armata based Tor or Pantsir.

Or Morphei for that matter.

Kurganets chassis would make sense though.

...OK then Armata based 57mm autocannon SHORAD. That should be relatively cheaper.

I suspect that will appear only on the Kurganets chassis, though I have nothing to prove that aside from that model of Derivation in that famous screen cap of a line of vehicles including a supposed Armata version, Kurganets, trucks, etc etc.


Not sure where Derivation ends up for that matter. Lot of rumors about Burevestnik shoving that 57mm gone down the armed force throat. Not sure if that pertains to Navy or Army too though.

The only reason i see for Armata with radars its to intercept not only low flying aircraft and helicopters.
But also intercept low flying- top attack anti tank weapons , like Javelin missiles ,hellfire or spike missiles.
It makes sense for Russia defense industry to deploy defenses in armate against the most common threat
they will be facing ,and that is top attack anti tanks weapons..  US developed them knowing the vulnerability
of Russian and most world tanks from top attacks.. So perhaps ARmata main battle tank will have a limited
Pantsir functionality of shutting down missiles flying withing a 1-3km area range ,using a 30mm gun.. And its Active protection system could complement the system against very low flying rockets.. that attack in a linear trajectory like kornets or Rpg rockets.

What i would not be surprised however is if the armata line.. some of their armored vehicles ,or all of them..
have very aggressive counter electronics jamming hardware..  Someone asked the use of counter electronics
for a tank ? Simply any guided anti tank weapon or missile using radio communications (like hellfire missiles fired from apaches..) towards its target or any missile guided by TV camera.. (like spike missiles) can be easily jammed..and they will fail to hit the intended target.. the signal will be interrupted somewhere  in the path.. and in the case of the spike missiles ,TV camera.. it will be blinded,so they will see nothing and will hit nothing...

Only wired anti tank missiles system or lazer guided like kornets will be able to be guided.. but im sure
that a system to counter that is possible..too.. ie.. that reads Lazer signals aimed at the tank.. and a system
on board can reproduce the lazer away of the tank position.. to fool the missile. If im not mistaken a similar system exist in Russia latest attack hellicopters.. at least a promotional video i saw.. appears to promote an anti lazer jamming system without using classic smoke wall..

Counter electronics is the future.. of modern warfare.. it can declare no fly zones against enemy drones and make
it impossible for any radio guided anti tank or aircraft missile to land on its target.. it will also jam tv camera guided weapons like spike and some air to ground missiles NATO have.. and it will also jam best NATO artillery that is GPS guided.. and GPS guided tomahawks too.

if you mix that with smart decoys ,that simulate tank signal or any hardware signal.. then effectively you will blind any NATO strike capability at at distance. and forcing them to fly at very close visual distance,to see their targets..which will make the their planes or helicopters very vulnerable to manpads or tanks 30mm guns..
with radars.  

Never heard anything about Armata based Tor or Pantsir.

Why do you think Armata units would operate without air defence vehicles?

Considering the Tunguska weighs about 34 tons I would say if any unit has Pantsir and TOR versions it will be the Armata units while the medium and lighter brigades will have lighter systems like SOSNA-R.

Zivo wrote:
What I'm curious about, as all APS relies on radar, what is the possibility of placing a jammer on the ATGM launcher that electronically attacks the tank as the missile is en route.

I thought about the same. I thought about a system similiar to EMT-7 Electromagnetic mineplowing equipment for T-72/90 tanks that generate an EM field infront of the tank so Electromagnetic fuzed mines believe there is a tank right above them and detonate in safe distance from the tank itself. So some low powered decoy that creates an EM field distorting the data recieved from the APS radars so they counter either before the ATGM is even in range or that the APS radars can not track down its direct angle to the next APS counter explosive charge, so APS may use a charge in a wrong direction so the ATGM can pass through and hit the tank.

TR1 wrote:Never heard anything about Armata based Tor or Pantsir.

Or Morphei for that matter.

Kurganets chassis would make sense though.

So you're saying that after sinking billions of roubles into first the R&D, and then the production of Armata vehicles - they won't actually bother to spend the money on a SHORAD system for Armata-vehicle brigades?

Or are you insinuating that in Armata-vehicle brigades they will actually use Kurganets-vehicle based SHORAD systems?
In which case do you honestly think that the amount of money they save by using some Kurganets vehicles instead of Armata vehicles in Armata brigades - will be less than the logistical complications they incur by having to support two different types of vehicles instead of just one?

I'm afraid the only chassis that makes sense in an Armata-based brigade, for any role - is a an Armata chassis.

No, I am implying the concept of an entire Armata based brigade is bullshit and will never appear.

You can quote me on that.

Logistical savings still apply if the entire military is transferred to three basic platforms. Brigades don't operate in bubbles outside the larger logistical chain.

Placing a SHORAD on a heavy, expensive Armata chassis will not gain some magical logistical savings that are worth it- if once again the armed forces as a whole have transferred to the 3 new unified chassis as a whole.

Armata brigades will have reco vehicles, they will have liaison vehicles....you guys seriously think they will all be on the Armata chassis? Please.