Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
So... A rear-mounted turret? I'd assume it is possible, but idk what the purpose of such a vehicle would be.Ivan the Colorado wrote:Do the dimensions and the space constraints make it possible to fit a T-14 turret to a T-15 allowing for a similar configuration to the Merkava?
+87
Book.
triphosgene
franco
eridan
Flanky
JohnSnow
calripson
:JunioR:
indochina
Captain Nemo
Zhukov-Patton
AbsoluteZero
Mindstorm
NITRO
TheGeorgian
nobunaga
auslander
Swede55
BKP
Siempre_Leal
KoTeMoRe
Shadåw
Khepesh
ebobat
zg18
Neutrality
archangelski
Alex555
Big_Gazza
Strizh
PapaDragon
Vympel
macedonian
rtech
Flyboy77
Mefesto
Acheron
alexZam
Bolt
sheytanelkebir
Redboy
medo
Orocairion
Austin
Cpt Caz
mack8
Kyo
MilSpec
kvs
Viktor
cracker
max steel
2SPOOKY4U
xeno
ult
Mike E
volna
smerch24
tanino
TheArmenian
Brovich
chicken
mutantsushi
Morpheus Eberhardt
jhelb
sepheronx
Regular
Dima
etaepsilonk
Cyberspec
VladimirSahin
KomissarBojanchev
AJ-47
Stealthflanker
victor1985
collegeboy16
Vann7
higurashihougi
George1
runaway
akd
flamming_python
Werewolf
GarryB
TR1
Zivo
magnumcromagnon
91 posters
[Official] Armata Discussion thread #2
Mike E- Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA
Guest- Guest
Perhaps if a customer was looking for a vehicle to use the same way as the IDF use the Merkava tank with a huge focus on protecting the crew and maybe having some extra space to carry troops but without sacrificing the firepower of an MBT. I am just brainstorming, maybe there is a niche in the market to have a cross between a MBT and an IFV as an all-in-one solution.Mike E wrote:So... A rear-mounted turret? I'd assume it is possible, but idk what the purpose of such a vehicle would be.Ivan the Colorado wrote:Do the dimensions and the space constraints make it possible to fit a T-14 turret to a T-15 allowing for a similar configuration to the Merkava?
Mike E- Posts : 2619
Points : 2651
Join date : 2014-06-19
Location : Bay Area, CA
Definitely an interesting idea, just not one that I think Russia would care for... Exports may be interested.Ivan the Colorado wrote:Perhaps if a customer was looking for a vehicle to use the same way as the IDF use the Merkava tank with a huge focus on protecting the crew and maybe having some extra space to carry troops but without sacrificing the firepower of an MBT. I am just brainstorming, maybe there is a niche in the market to have a cross between a MBT and an IFV as an all-in-one solution.Mike E wrote:So... A rear-mounted turret? I'd assume it is possible, but idk what the purpose of such a vehicle would be.Ivan the Colorado wrote:Do the dimensions and the space constraints make it possible to fit a T-14 turret to a T-15 allowing for a similar configuration to the Merkava?
Cyberspec- Posts : 2904
Points : 3057
Join date : 2011-08-08
Location : Terra Australis
2SPOOKY4U wrote:I am pretty sure that is the integrated plow, same kind used on T-90.
Ant-mine systems that use jamming to prevent detonation look like metal boxes with dielectric paneling.
I don't think we will be seeing anti-mine systems just yet.
Yep, I think you're right
flamming_python- Posts : 8988
Points : 9050
Join date : 2012-01-31
Firebird wrote:The claims on the crew protection capability are interesting.
But I wonder, if the plan is to have a mega level of protection, wouldn't it make sense to have the crew capsule at the rear?
There could then be a protective shield at the front, equipment behind that, and then a final protective shield infront of the crew at the back.
In that case why not just have those 2 protective shields at the front instead, with crew behind them?
That's effectively the solution chosen - just one good block of armour at the front.
The effect is the same as in your proposal; going through that equipment in the middle isn't going to slow a kinetic round down much.
However that equipment will end up destroyed or damaged - if that includes the engine then that would leave the vehicle with a safe crew; but immobile.
By just concentrating the armour at the front - you will protect both the crew and the engine.
Werewolf- Posts : 5914
Points : 6103
Join date : 2012-10-25
What i always thought about is installing of Igla-S/Verba or Morphei into the turret as vertical launchers with LOAL capability against helicopters. Since the new commanders sight is already capable to observe part of the sky with Okhotnik (image processing) for autotrack and lockon capability why not install such small sized missiles into the turret, it has some room for one or two missiles and that should enhance its survivability against aircrafts quite a bit.
Guest- Guest
Hence why I said market. The Merkava is proven vehicle in terms of what it is made to do and there are countries interested in it so there could be a few countries interested in an upgunned T-15 variant. The Armata family were designed to the requests and specifications of the Russian military from the very start but the modularity of the platform could allow the end users to configure the platform to their own unique purposes. As long as Russia allows customers to customize their Armata vehicles to their needs it could be very successful on the arms market or even revolutionize the market. Customers will no longer have to pick a vehicle built for a different military and have to adapt it to their own needs but customers will be able to get what they want as soon they buy it.Mike E wrote:Definitely an interesting idea, just not one that I think Russia would care for... Exports may be interested.
Similar to how the Tor system is? That seems like an excellent idea. I personally would try to find a way to mount the missiles vertically on the outside similar to pylons on attack helicopters instead of installing them inside. Mounting the missiles to the outside would result in a quick reloading time that would consist of snapping the spent missile tubes off and snapping new tubes on. That operation could potentially be done on the battlefield without tooling.Werewolf wrote:What i always thought about is installing of Igla-S/Verba or Morphei into the turret as vertical launchers with LOAL capability against helicopters. Since the new commanders sight is already capable to observe part of the sky with Okhotnik (image processing) for autotrack and lockon capability why not install such small sized missiles into the turret, it has some room for one or two missiles and that should enhance its survivability against aircrafts quite a bit.
collegeboy16- Posts : 1135
Points : 1134
Join date : 2012-10-05
Age : 27
Location : Roanapur
urghh...not this myth again... the reason why they opted for a front mounted powerpack is their lack of viable composite armor tech. back then.Ivan the Colorado wrote:
Perhaps if a customer was looking for a vehicle to use the same way as the IDF use the Merkava tank with a huge focus on protecting the crew and maybe having some extra space to carry troops but without sacrificing the firepower of an MBT. I am just brainstorming, maybe there is a niche in the market to have a cross between a MBT and an IFV as an all-in-one solution.
the merk 4 frontal hull protection isnt even that good when compared to the T-15's. <shots fired>
and the extra space for troops is ammo storage- not to mention its so fcking cramped the poor bastards are all hunched up it makes the BMD look like a limo.
Guest- Guest
Sure the Merkava was built as an all-in-one solution but it ended up compromising the best features of both an IFV and a MBT. That is a risk that you take when trying to have a piece of equipment do it all. But having a solution that can do a lot of tasks despite how mediocre it is at performing such tasks can still find a market. If you need an example, look at the F-35 and all the countries that chose to buy it. Same can go for an upgunned variant of T-15 providing even a better alternative to the Merkava which has found potential buyers. There could be some buyer that may want to save money and buy one vehicle instead of two or three. It makes sense to offer the Armata based vehicle in several variations.collegeboy16 wrote:urghh...not this myth again... the reason why they opted for a front mounted powerpack is their lack of viable composite armor tech. back then.Ivan the Colorado wrote:
Perhaps if a customer was looking for a vehicle to use the same way as the IDF use the Merkava tank with a huge focus on protecting the crew and maybe having some extra space to carry troops but without sacrificing the firepower of an MBT. I am just brainstorming, maybe there is a niche in the market to have a cross between a MBT and an IFV as an all-in-one solution.
the merk 4 frontal hull protection isnt even that good when compared to the T-15's. <shots fired>
and the extra space for troops is ammo storage- not to mention its so fcking cramped the poor bastards are all hunched up it makes the BMD look like a limo.
collegeboy16- Posts : 1135
Points : 1134
Join date : 2012-10-05
Age : 27
Location : Roanapur
>ammo capacityIvan the Colorado wrote:
Sure the Merkava was built as an all-in-one solution but it ended up compromising the best features of both an IFV and a MBT. That is a risk that you take when trying to have a piece of equipment do it all. But having a solution that can do a lot of tasks despite how mediocre it is at performing such tasks can still find a market. If you need an example, look at the F-35 and all the countries that chose to buy it. Same can go for an upgunned variant of T-15 providing even a better alternative to the Merkava which has found potential buyers. There could be some buyer that may want to save money and buy one vehicle instead of two or three. It makes sense to offer the Armata based vehicle in several variations.
>passenger capacity
>merkava
pick 2. the Merkavas were/are MBTs - where did you get the notion that they are also trying to be IFVs? the IDF does not even have a place for IFVs in their doctrine mind you.
the upgunning of the T-15 is in the cards already, with a 45 mm gun and a dual 2pac of Kornets it covers almost every target on the ground and potentially even in the air nicely. tanks are a rare sight on the battlefield anyways - esp. those of the caliber of T-14, kornets would be enough for the plebeian tanks.
and the armata platform is standardized to the degree where you save just about the same money as you would if you just used multirole vehicles. without incurring the penalties in their combat capabilities, that is.
BKP- Posts : 473
Points : 482
Join date : 2015-05-03
Ivan the Colorado wrote:
... But having a solution that can do a lot of tasks despite how mediocre it is at performing such tasks can still find a market. If you need an example, look at the F-35 and all the countries that chose to buy it.
Well, the thing about the F-35 is, it's being aggressively pushed onto a captive market by a determined seller uniquely positioned to do two things: twist arms and bribe.
KoTeMoRe- Posts : 4212
Points : 4227
Join date : 2015-04-22
Location : Krankhaus Central.
The merkava has a BF taxi redundancy, but it isn't indeed a propfer APC. The fireteam is small and it gets really messy when fully armed. The issue however is that the Merkava isn't a tank for everyone. I'd say it is unnique and tailored for Israel's need and very stretched military budget.
Vann7- Posts : 5385
Points : 5485
Join date : 2012-05-16
collegeboy16 wrote:p
the upgunning of the T-15 is in the cards already, with a 45 mm gun and a dual 2pac of Kornets it covers almost every target on the ground and potentially even in the air nicely. .
I used to believe the T-15 only had 30mm guns.. where you got the information of 45mm
Guns? is that is a rumor or the Russian military told there will be a version with that gun?
Is there an official list/link or any list by Russian defense ministry that says the different
versions of T-15 ,if there will be more than one and the guns it will have?
collegeboy16- Posts : 1135
Points : 1134
Join date : 2012-10-05
Age : 27
Location : Roanapur
nothing official...(tho i am extra lazy now). but it would be extremely naive to think that it wont be upgunned at some point in the future.Vann7 wrote:collegeboy16 wrote:p
the upgunning of the T-15 is in the cards already, with a 45 mm gun and a dual 2pac of Kornets it covers almost every target on the ground and potentially even in the air nicely. .
I used to believe the T-15 only had 30mm guns.. where you got the information of 45mm
Guns? is that is a rumor or the Russian military told there will be a version with that gun?
Is there an official list/link or any list by Russian defense ministry that says the different
versions of T-15 ,if there will be more than one and the guns it will have?
ive read the bit about 45mm gun here too - there were noises about a 57mm gun but they seemed to have favored the 45mm since then.
k@llashniKoff- Posts : 90
Points : 112
Join date : 2015-04-22
Age : 36
Location : Kiel, Germany
What I really like about Armata - it's light weight. Due to unmanned turret, which doesn't have to be heavy armoured, Armata's weight is definitely under 50 t. I was really worried that UVZ will produce some 60-70 t monster. And with the new engine and <50 t weight the dynamic of the vehicle is great. It's light, fast and manoeuvrable.
GarryB- Posts : 38916
Points : 39412
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Perhaps if a customer was looking for a vehicle to use the same way as the IDF use the Merkava tank with a huge focus on protecting the crew and maybe having some extra space to carry troops but without sacrificing the firepower of an MBT. I am just brainstorming, maybe there is a niche in the market to have a cross between a MBT and an IFV as an all-in-one solution.
The main difference is of course Armata has no crew in the turret.
Putting the crew behind the turret doesn't make them better protected... it just surrounds them with side armour instead of side armour at the sides and front armour at their front.
Having an engine in front of them makes them rather less safe as engines are not made of armour strength metals and are full of very hot components and fuel and oil that can ignite. The troop transport armatas have front mounted engines only so troops can get out the rear ramp doors.
The BMP-1 and BMP-2 were not better protected than the BMP-3 by having their engines mounted at the front.
What i always thought about is installing of Igla-S/Verba or Morphei into the turret as vertical launchers with LOAL capability against helicopters. Since the new commanders sight is already capable to observe part of the sky with Okhotnik (image processing) for autotrack and lockon capability why not install such small sized missiles into the turret, it has some room for one or two missiles and that should enhance its survivability against aircrafts quite a bit.
Actually rather simpler to fire a tank gun launched ATGM through the main gun barrel... the Svir had a range of about 5km for use against enemy vehicles but a range of 8km against enemy helos... which means it likely had better range than all known Russian MANPADS... and can be stored and fired in the main gun as a standard round of ammo.
and the extra space for troops is ammo storage- not to mention its so fcking cramped the poor bastards are all hunched up it makes the BMD look like a limo.
Tanks and APCs/IFVs have very different roles on the battlefield and should not be combined.
The closest to that concept was perhaps the BMP-3 where it was believed the vehicle would drop off its troops and could then be moved to another part of the battlefield to act as a reserve light tank unit. This was a western held belief... have never heard the Russians mention it as a concept. BMP-3s support their troops with the HE firepower better than a BMP-1 and a light 30mm cannon like a BMP-2.
Well, the thing about the F-35 is, it's being aggressively pushed onto a captive market by a determined seller uniquely positioned to do two things: twist arms and bribe.
Yes... the sales pitch is basically we are buying these and if you don't buy them too you wont be compatible so we wont support you or work with you in the future if you don't buy them.
Of course what they really mean is that these things are enormously expensive and we can't afford them on our own so if you don't buy some and help us pay for them we wont be playing with you any more.
I used to believe the T-15 only had 30mm guns.. where you got the information of 45mm
Guns? is that is a rumor or the Russian military told there will be a version with that gun?
The heavy gun for the IFV model of armata, kurganets, boomerang, and typhoon is not ready yet... it will be either a 45mm or 57mm high velocity gun (not related to the 57mm grenade launcher some are talking about for some roles).
Is there an official list/link or any list by Russian defense ministry that says the different
versions of T-15 ,if there will be more than one and the guns it will have?
There was a poster showing the IFV turret that has a development path... what we are seeing is the lite version... the final version will be shown in a couple of years time.
What I really like about Armata - it's light weight. Due to unmanned turret, which doesn't have to be heavy armoured, Armata's weight is definitely under 50 t. I was really worried that UVZ will produce some 60-70 t monster. And with the new engine and <50 t weight the dynamic of the vehicle is great. It's light, fast and manoeuvrable.
Most likely the final weight will be in the 50-60 ton range depending upon the model and equipment.
The engine is supposed to be able to be developed up to about 2.600hp, but at the moment is in the 1.500-1,600hp range... to extend parts life.
Werewolf- Posts : 5914
Points : 6103
Join date : 2012-10-25
Actually rather simpler to fire a tank gun launched ATGM through the main gun barrel... the Svir had a range of about 5km for use against enemy vehicles but a range of 8km against enemy helos... which means it likely had better range than all known Russian MANPADS... and can be stored and fired in the main gun as a standard round of ammo.
The problem i see here is that GLATGM are slower than MANPAD purposed missiles and the costs for GLATGM is not lower than what a much more capable MANPAD costs. The Commander would need to communicate with the gunner to point him for that target so that the gunner could aim his cannon to shoot the GLATGM towards the target while the Commander still has to Laser Beam that target. If they had even two Morphei vertical launchers similiar to TOR and the morphei is very small but with enough range of 5km+ then the Commander could fire the Morphei himself without guidance without the crucial time between Detection and engagement, because Helicopters depending on range and ATGM time can engage tanks between 12-30 seconds the flight time of GLATGM alone for such distance is higher. The tank could fire his Morphei with Lock On After Launch capability and then smoke screen. The smoke screen is more effective against ground targets, but rather less effective against aircrafts, since they see you from above and will see you if you try to sneak away. After smoke screening the tank and commander will have problem to determine where the enemy is that is targeting and engaging them. As soon as the smoke screen starts to disperse it is easy for the helicopter to spot the tank but with remaining smoke the commander will have a problem to determine what is happening and where the enemy is untill the 2nd ATGM flies to the tank and the tank needs to smoke screen again.
IMO such vertical launchers even for 2nd Gen MANPADS would greatly enhance survivability of high value tanks like Armata especially since the West is pushing for war and the helicopter fleets tend to grow.
alexZam- Posts : 343
Points : 399
Join date : 2015-04-23
Location : SoCal
Please note after 6:20 2 Armatas are rolling with a good speed (got a little behind others and were catching up). Smooth, solid, no smoke, no awkward noises, just right.
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
So what are some of the conclusions about the T-14's MBT's turret? Here's some of my ideas of why they chose this design path:
1.) The menagerie of polygon shapes are indication of a low-observable stealthy turret, designed to counter the formidable artillery radar/MLRS combination.
2.) The turret bustle looks independent and detachable. Likely used to add ammo quickly, and when struck it will likely be ejected (with the help of charges) some ten meters behind the T-14 as one of the many safety pre-cautions.
3.) The current turret design isn't a 'End-all-be-all', there's likely several different configurations such a ERA-heavy 'clam-shell' turret.
...This is just a sample of my thoughts, I'll add significantly more to these points later...
1.) The menagerie of polygon shapes are indication of a low-observable stealthy turret, designed to counter the formidable artillery radar/MLRS combination.
2.) The turret bustle looks independent and detachable. Likely used to add ammo quickly, and when struck it will likely be ejected (with the help of charges) some ten meters behind the T-14 as one of the many safety pre-cautions.
3.) The current turret design isn't a 'End-all-be-all', there's likely several different configurations such a ERA-heavy 'clam-shell' turret.
...This is just a sample of my thoughts, I'll add significantly more to these points later...
Viktor- Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-26
Age : 43
Location : Croatia
It would be interesting to see a unified work of both T-90A/M/MS and T-14 simultaneously against the enemy.
Like T-34 and IS-3 or KV-1 at steaming ahead and sharing data. Heavy tanks and medium tanks.
Like T-34 and IS-3 or KV-1 at steaming ahead and sharing data. Heavy tanks and medium tanks.
Guest- Guest
I am excited to see if it gets even lighter in the future as the APS technology matures and becomes more and more prolific. Right now, rumor has it that it is floating around the 55 t range. Which is still heavier the UVZ's past vehicles, but not that heavy when put into perspective with last generation Western tanks like the M1 Abrams, the 70 t pig.k@llashniKoff wrote:What I really like about Armata - it's light weight. Due to unmanned turret, which doesn't have to be heavy armoured, Armata's weight is definitely under 50 t. I was really worried that UVZ will produce some 60-70 t monster. And with the new engine and <50 t weight the dynamic of the vehicle is great. It's light, fast and manoeuvrable.
Cyberspec- Posts : 2904
Points : 3057
Join date : 2011-08-08
Location : Terra Australis
k@llashniKoff wrote:What I really like about Armata - it's light weight. Due to unmanned turret, which doesn't have to be heavy armoured, Armata's weight is definitely under 50 t. I was really worried that UVZ will produce some 60-70 t monster. And with the new engine and <50 t weight the dynamic of the vehicle is great. It's light, fast and manoeuvrable.
Hlopotov (Gur Khan) has suggested the same on Otvaga. That it weighs no more than 50t, about the same as the T-90MS....he's also hinted that a new turret is in the works for the T-72/T-90 which has already been shown to the Algerians apparently.
Garry wrote:Vann wrote:Is there an official list/link or any list by Russian defense ministry that says the different
versions of T-15 ,if there will be more than one and the guns it will have?
There was a poster showing the IFV turret that has a development path... what we are seeing is the lite version... the final version will be shown in a couple of years time.
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #2 - Page 39 Th_383448436_Epoha_X_122_736lo](https://2img.net/h/img222.imagevenue.com/loc736/th_383448436_Epoha_X_122_736lo.jpg)
OminousSpudd- Posts : 942
Points : 947
Join date : 2015-01-03
Location : New Zealand
Cyberspec wrote:
Hlopotov (Gur Khan) has suggested the same on Otvaga. That it weighs no more than 50t, about the same as the T-90MS....he's also hinted that a new turret is in the works for the T-72/T-90 which has already been shown to the Algerians apparently.
Possibly T-72B4? A new turret for the T-72 sounds like a very sensible idea.
As for the the T-90 I'd be very suprised to see them develope yet another turret, especially when the T-90MS/AM essentially fulfills every requirement for the next few decades.
Cyberspec- Posts : 2904
Points : 3057
Join date : 2011-08-08
Location : Terra Australis
OminousSpudd wrote:Cyberspec wrote:
Hlopotov (Gur Khan) has suggested the same on Otvaga. That it weighs no more than 50t, about the same as the T-90MS....he's also hinted that a new turret is in the works for the T-72/T-90 which has already been shown to the Algerians apparently.
Possibly T-72B4? A new turret for the T-72 sounds like a very sensible idea.
As for the the T-90 I'd be very suprised to see them develope yet another turret, especially when the T-90MS/AM essentially fulfills every requirement for the next few decades.
It could be just a UVZ research project, although he made it sound like work has started on it...
collegeboy16- Posts : 1135
Points : 1134
Join date : 2012-10-05
Age : 27
Location : Roanapur
i agree that the faceting of the turret faces is aimed against arty/mlrs observers - plus with whatever the hell they are using to minimize IR sigs. also makes it possible for the tank to engage attack helos in its effective range of fire.magnumcromagnon wrote:So what are some of the conclusions about the T-14's MBT's turret? Here's some of my ideas of why they chose this design path:
1.) The menagerie of polygon shapes are indication of a low-observable stealthy turret, designed to counter the formidable artillery radar/MLRS combination.
2.) The turret bustle looks independent and detachable. Likely used to add ammo quickly, and when struck it will likely be ejected (with the help of charges) some ten meters behind the T-14 as one of the many safety pre-cautions.
3.) The current turret design isn't a 'End-all-be-all', there's likely several different configurations such a ERA-heavy 'clam-shell' turret.
...This is just a sample of my thoughts, I'll add significantly more to these points later...
the turret bustle definitely looks ripe for a replacement with 30mm autocannon and its mounting.
about a clam-shell, ERA heavy turret, i doubt it. why? the technical reasons have been done and beaten to death so i wont go there, so instead ill just say that the edgy turret looks way cooler than any clamshell, even T-90MS'.
|
|
|