[Official] Armata Discussion thread #3

Werewolf wrote:
Can you post any research papers/files or principles and basis on physics that explain this SLERA?

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a563683.pdf
nanothermites, son!
embed particles of this material in non-newtonian fluid along with dense metal fragments. as the target impact pressure is reached, the area in contact sort of hardens, locks the nanothermites and frags in place, the former which then triggers after a short while, pushing the metal frags into the penetrator and surrounding areas. however nanothermites are designed to not trigger with the frags themselves, only with the kinetic energy penetrator or shaped charge since the frags would just push the fluid away. so basically this is like the eroding action of ceramic based composite armors, only on steroids because they are dense metal fragments and propelled by explosions.
interestingly this sort of tech. could be behind FOAB's power.

Non-Newtonians that use strong nano-particals are basically the future of everything... I wouldn't call it a SLERA simply because SLERA is just a form of ERA. 

Maybe...non-Newtonian Adaptable Reactive Armor; NARA

What Mindstorm basically said was that the new Self-Limiting-Explosive-Reactive-Armor:


1. Limits itself to a local area that possesses potential to be affected by any penetrator.

2. The reaction is several times higher than previous iterations of dynamic protection.

3.The effect on the penetrator element reaches a whole new level.

4. It has been validated, however enormous costs means that a transient solution using what was learned will be used. Until a method of mass production is realized.

collegeboy16 wrote:offending element is going to be confined such that multi-hit capability is retained.

The main reason for the self limitation is to be able to reach a whole new level of performance.

Multi-hit capability means you can hit the same panel of dynamic protection over and over, just not in the same place where the previous tunneling element was present in.

Mike E wrote:So basically...instead of a larger explosive ala ERA this SLERA uses a material to mimic multiple, smaller explosions?

Not smaller explosions, just one concentrated reaction force against the tunneling element.

Mike E wrote: I wouldn't call it a SLERA simply because SLERA is just a form of ERA.

Calling this new generation of dynamic protection just ERA is rather understating it.

There are some serious differences between the two types, and the performance gap alone warrants the new title.

I would wait before calling it non-Newtonian. There are many ways to achieve this performance, such as layers with specific function of containment.



I will go browse the russian patents to see if there is anything interesting.

My point was that SLERA is a form of ERA, which is true. If it uses explosives, it is a variant of ERA.

The SLERA title is fine...

Wasn't being specific to whatever reactive armor the president was talking about...just non-Newtonians in general. 

My guess would be that it is a NN simply based on the alleged performance.

Stealthflanker wrote:have anyone out there come up with armor thickness estimate :3 ? For armata's front hull armor.

Nothing outside of the "over 900 mm" we got from an official... Thickness itself is probably at least that including spacing. 

The important part is that it will be impenetrable to the M829A3/A4 and any other NATO round. 

My one worry is a possible lack of protection for the lower plate, like the Soviet MBT's had.

Mike E wrote:
My one worry is a possible lack of protection for the lower plate, like the Soviet MBT's had.

not really a problem.

plus terrain usually gets in the way, ie a small rise of dirt here and there.

So a T-15 caught fire?

chicken wrote:So a T-15 caught fire?

Time for a source, buddy.

BMP T-15 "Armata" caught fire during transport to Nizhny Tagil

chicken wrote:

BMP T-15 "Armata" caught fire during transport to Nizhny Tagil

The awning caught fire, not the T-15 itself.

sepheronx wrote:

At this point, awning, covering the "Armata", sparks, flames erupted, and the fire spread to the lining of the BMP. The result is slightly burned surface several panels infantry fighting vehicle. The fire was quickly able to extinguish the officer who accompanied the team. He dragged the ordinary Ilnur Z., who after the shock was unconscious.

No damage but the soldier is injured with 70% of the burns on his body.  The tarp caught on fire when two wires touched.  Worst done to the T-15 is some burnt marks on paint.

Love how a Ukrainian is jumping for joy over this on the Gurkhan forum.  What an idiot.

Other than the injured soldier who I hope recovers quickly and well, why even bother attracting attention to the details of the incident. Now every Western, Indian, etc. defense journalists will jump on this non-event.

sepheronx wrote:

At this point, awning, covering the "Armata", sparks, flames erupted, and the fire spread to the lining of the BMP. The result is slightly burned surface several panels infantry fighting vehicle. The fire was quickly able to extinguish the officer who accompanied the team. He dragged the ordinary Ilnur Z., who after the shock was unconscious.

No damage but the soldier is injured with 70% of the burns on his body.  The tarp caught on fire when two wires touched.  Worst done to the T-15 is some burnt marks on paint.

poor soldier, i hope he recovers quickly and gets all the help he needs to resume normalcy.
incidentally, what caused the sparks that started the fire?

Interesting bit of info from Almaz Antey's report related to the "Armata"

completed (preliminary) testing of radar for OCD "Armata"

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1372526.html

I have been thinking of the Standard APS system mounted on T-14/15.


I rather doubt the Russian designers would go back to the Drozd type layout over the Arena type. The Arena layout was very good to help break up APFSDS rounds, and even directed the shrapnel down towards the ground to prevent injury to surrounding troops in urban combat situations. So what could prompt the designers to go back to the Drozd type layout with tubes all over the place?



My theory is that the APS munitions in fact function like the antitank submunitions found on cluster munitions, like that on Smerch, UPAB-1500, etc.

These anti-tank submunitions spin around looking for targets, and when found, fires a EFP(Explosively Formed Penetrator).

I think the APS munitions function the same way, when the radar detects an incoming threat, the system calculates the optimum tube from which to launch the munition.

The submunition, upon launch is shaped to spin in a reliable way, or the launch itself imparts a spin,(perhaps rifling in the tube?)

The system calculates the number of spins before detonation, in degrees, so that at detonation, the EFP rips precisely through the enemy munition.

This allows for very low footprint and engagement of a broad spectrum of targets, from RPGs to ATGMS to APFSDS.

You could stack the APS munitions in the tube, allowing for the multi shot capability that was spoken of by TR1s insider source.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:I have been thinking of the Standard APS system mounted on T-14/15.

standard is for T-95, the aps for t-14/15 is afghanistan.

2SPOOKY4U wrote:
I rather doubt the Russian designers would go back to the Drozd type layout over the Arena type. The Arena layout was very good to help break up APFSDS rounds, and even directed the shrapnel down towards the ground to prevent injury to surrounding troops in urban combat situations. So what could prompt the designers to go back to the Drozd type layout with tubes all over the place?


My theory is that the APS munitions in fact function like the antitank submunitions found on cluster munitions, like that on Smerch, UPAB-1500, etc.

These anti-tank submunitions spin around looking for targets, and when found, fires a EFP(Explosively Formed Penetrator).

I think the APS munitions function the same way, when the radar detects an incoming threat, the system calculates the optimum tube from which to launch the munition.

The submunition, upon launch is shaped to spin in a reliable way, or the launch itself imparts a spin,(perhaps rifling in the tube?)

The system calculates the number of spins before detonation, in degrees, so that at detonation, the EFP rips precisely through the enemy munition.

This allows for very low footprint and engagement of a broad spectrum of targets, from RPGs to ATGMS to APFSDS.

You could stack the APS munitions in the tube, allowing for the multi shot capability that was spoken of by TR1s insider source.

Werewolf wrote:

collegeboy16 wrote:
afghanistan hard kill interceptor, if i am not mistaken.
so it really is an EFP. erroneously thought all this time its HE-frag.
very elegant in operation in theory too i might add. instead of fragile swiveling mount prone to battle damage the interceptors themselves
change their orientation/ rotate around to their targets. they also split their targets lengthwise, delivering the most damage.
not only that each interceptor has greatly overlapping sectors with the nearby of its kind and are ready to pop out at moment's notice- as long as the radar can function well the system can cope with about as much projectiles as there are interceptors that overlap that sector.

That is speculation...the Warheads themselfs have a HE-Frag designation so that is more likely to be the case then the speculations.

My idea is rather different collegeboy16, instead of spinning with lateral EFP ready to detonate, my idea had the EFP rotate in an ever increasing cone, like that seen on anti-tank submunitions.





This munition spins around on its own axis, and does so in an ever increasing manner, meaning with each revolution, its field of view becomes larger.

I think the Afghanit APS works the same way, as a lateral EFP would not be as powerful.

Isn't it just HE-FRAG? EFP's would be more efficient but they need a direct hit to do anything.... The HEF can simply explode next to the incoming projectile, and either knock it out of path or destroy it completely.

Stealthflanker wrote:
This is unnecessarily complex. you'll end up with expensive munition and complicated fuzing system. Something which Russians will avoid, especially in making throw in items like missiles or APS munitions. That EFP idea might work if what you're intercepting is slow and have relatively large "soft" area such as RPG's or ATGM.. and it doesn't even need the munitions to rotate. APFSDS however is very different animal, very fast and very small  I highly doubt that "EFP" munition can properly hit it or even inducing enough moment to make it yaw or even deflect it off the flightpath.

Simple explosion however have been demonstrated to be capable of dealing with everything from RPG's to APFSDS.  see Iron Fist APS system developed by Israelis.  

You do not need a complicated fuzing system, just a good timer. The computer can easily calculate the degrees needed to rotate to hit.

Russians are making laser-guided 57mm shells, why not a APS munition with a timer?

An EFP will transfer far more kinetic energy to the incoming munition, and yes APFSDS rounds are fast, but with a good radar, it will easily anticipate it. The fact that APFSDS rounds do not maneuver lends itself well to this.

You could stack these munitions in the tubes as well, coming back to the multishot mention in the insider information.

Stealthflanker wrote:It's much easier to just calculate range and determine when to explode. Rotation will only make it much more complex.

It is not complex for a computer. Much less with the electronics and sensors Armata packs.

Stealthflanker wrote:Why rotations if simple explosion can do the trick.

Why rely on blast overpressure when you can use directed penetrators.

Stealthflanker wrote:Show me at least one scientific paper supporting this.

For explosive.. see this paper :
https://www.scribd.com/doc/262936180/IEffect-of-a-Spherical-Explosion-Upon-the-Flight-Path-and-Spatial-Orientation-of-a-Projectile

Show me at least one scientific paper that says Blast Overpressure is better optimized for defeat of kinetic penetrators than a direct kinetic hit on the projectile itself.

I'll give you a hint, a T-90A can withstand a 30Knt nuclear detonation from a distance less than 1 kilometre.

I politely recommend you consider the effect of a blast-overpressure type munition on a highly dense penetrator traveling at extreme speeds.

This excerpt from that rag you linked should conclude this paragraph nicely.

"The effect of the explosion on the flight path seems to be insignificant".

Stealthflanker wrote:Much more convincing than the "EFP theory"

Good radar in fact will also help explosive based APS. reducing miss distance means smaller amount of explosive can be used.

It is no theory, merely my humble postulation on the workings of the Afghanit system.

Good radar helps everything, and again, with blast overpressure you simply waste energy. Blast Overpressure as a defeating element leaves doubts to its effectiveness.

Stealthflanker wrote:And why small explosive can't do the trick ? Why should be EFP ?

Because blast overpressure is less effective than directed kinetic interceptors.

Computers aren't the solution to everything... You'd be much more stressed to get a DIRECT hit on the incoming projectile than simply detonating next to it. 

HEF is more than enough for incoming projectiles... The blast stresses and redirects it, while fragmentation weakens it to the point of breaking. 

This is the CIWS argument all over again... Frag is more reliable than an interception with an EFP, and like it or not Afganit uses it...