Interesting. I've read elsewhere that the 2a83 has a muzzle velocity of at least 1780mps and other sources have put the muzzle velocity at 2000mps+.
It is a question of projectile to propellant ratio... a full bore or full calibre round like a HE Frag round is about 23kgs... that is the projectile is 23kgs.
The entire round is about 33 kgs so we are talking about 10kgs of propellant pushing 23kgs of projectile... down an old 125mm barrel that means about 850m/s muzzle velocity... which is fine... HE rounds don't need to move fast.
An APFSDS round which is basically a metal dart is about 8kgs and has about 13kgs of propellent pushing it down the barrel at about 1.7km/s down a normal barrel.
A 152mm full bore round... ie not an APFSDS round, would not be travelling faster than 950m/s or so unless it has a very large propellent charge and a very long barrel... it would never get above 1,500m/s.
Of course an APFSDS round that is about 10kgs and with extra propellant would be a lot faster than 1.8km/s I would assume.
If the T-14 Armata did decide to install a 60mm mortar in the turret and stabilized it and connected it to the FCS... how many rounds do you think it could hold in the turret?
If they wanted a secondary small calibre I doubt they would develop a 60mm mortar.. more likely they would adapt something like the 57mm grenade launcher they were working on... the advantage would be much smaller rounds so you could have a much larger number of targets engaged, and a 57mm low velocity grenade would have quite a powerful HE round. Being an external weapon the ammo could be added to the outside of the vehicle and could carry as many rounds as you want... Placing it on the rear of the turret like the 30mm grenade mount on the upgraded BMP-2s would be interesting... it would just need elevation performance rather than 360 degrees rotation which would mean it would not obstruct the roof mounted 12.7mm HMG.
The T-90sm seems to have a BMS like other tanks so I wonder what kind of advanced BMS will be installed on all the Armata variants. I hope I'm not being a nuisance.
Likely all the new vehicles will have a C4IR system that communicates to each other and other platforms. It is likely it will also allow control of UAVs and to get video footage of nearby sensors both air and ground based.
That's true and I guess nitrogen could quickly extinguish any fire within seconds and so I guess a binary liquid propellant is not necessary and would make more sense from a technical and financial level to use these chemicals. Gold platting can be quite dangerous to any military.
No. Even with nitrogen or even Halon if a spark hits the cardboard shell of a 125mm propellant charge then it will burn... it does not need oxygen from the air to burn... when the shell and propellant in the gun ready to fire there is not enough oxygen to burn... it provides its own fuel and oxygen... once ignited it would burn in space or under water... the fact that nitrogen has replaced the air around it would not stop the fire... just slow it down from burning objects nearby.
If you dropped a flare into a nitrogen filled turret the lack of oxygen would stop things in the turret like foam or plastic or wood from burning... it will still be damaged by the heat of the flare but would not burn without the oxygen in the air.
Put 20 propellant stubs in there and drop a burning flare on them even with no oxygen in the air the carboard would burn because it is designed to combust and leave little residue in the chamber... once the flame of the flare hits the propellant... boom and the shower of flame will ignite the other stubs and the pressure spikes exponentially and boom off go the hatches and anyone in that turret is dead... though they already suffocated with a lack of oxygen anyway.
A binary liquid set up is the only way to completely prevent sympathetic explosions but it does seem that it would be a difficult and expensive undertaking.
At its heart it is just plumbing... and a liquid propellant would be more powerful than the current solid propellant.
It would also be easier to change the charge, so a HE shell uses less propellant, while APFSDS rounds have more...
I don't think anyone here has argued that tanks are "impervious", so this seems like a straw man argument on your part. People have consistently reaffirmed that tanks will continue to face potent and deadly threats on the battlefield even as multi-layered countermeasures are developed and deployed to address these challenges.
There is no perfect tank, just like there is no perfect anti tank weapon.
Russia is not just applying a range of technologies to help protect their men, like armoured capsules, ERA, NERA, APS, Nakidka, Shtora, different armour types, but it is also investing in communications and command and control systems and computers down to infantry level as well as systems to defeat the enemies equivalent equipment.