[Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

KoTeMoRe wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

kvs wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

BKP wrote:^^Happen to recognize what weapon was used in that demo? Thx

RPG-18/26. 300-450mm RHA penetration. Not much, would be more impressive if it could stop actual PG-7VL or VR warhead.

The directional explosion efficiency is impressive as demonstrated by the small amount of damage to the Nissan.  

As you can tell the SUV was really fragile and delicate (relatively speaking), and it really opens up Pandora's box with consideration of future applications. Like whats the possibility of applying the Armata series of ERA to BTR-80/82's, to BMP-3/3M/BMD-4, to Typhoon-U/K's, to Bumerang's, for legacy SPG's? For that matter could this new ERA usher in a new generation of defense measures used to defend platforms previously thought to be not possible? Like for example naval ships. to defend against AshM's, or adapted versions for CAS aircraft, to protect them against MANPAD's. There needs to be extensive testing to fully flesh out the potential of these defense measure applications, to protect these platforms like no one else has before.

The problem is that while the Era is really impressive, it is also very heavy and also will only help to defeat one round, before GTFO. This means that the vehicles need to be in bunch in order to cover one another if in HOT area and dismounts can't be available.

Those explosive plates they were testing looked very light to me. This is not your old style ERA brick system. They have really
achieved something with the new explosive formulation.

kvs wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

kvs wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

BKP wrote:^^Happen to recognize what weapon was used in that demo? Thx

RPG-18/26. 300-450mm RHA penetration. Not much, would be more impressive if it could stop actual PG-7VL or VR warhead.

The directional explosion efficiency is impressive as demonstrated by the small amount of damage to the Nissan.  

As you can tell the SUV was really fragile and delicate (relatively speaking), and it really opens up Pandora's box with consideration of future applications. Like whats the possibility of applying the Armata series of ERA to BTR-80/82's, to BMP-3/3M/BMD-4, to Typhoon-U/K's, to Bumerang's, for legacy SPG's? For that matter could this new ERA usher in a new generation of defense measures used to defend platforms previously thought to be not possible? Like for example naval ships. to defend against AshM's, or adapted versions for CAS aircraft, to protect them against MANPAD's. There needs to be extensive testing to fully flesh out the potential of these defense measure applications, to protect these platforms like no one else has before.

The problem is that while the Era is really impressive, it is also very heavy and also will only help to defeat one round, before GTFO. This means that the vehicles need to be in bunch in order to cover one another if in HOT area and dismounts can't be available.

Those explosive plates they were testing looked very light to me.   This is not your old style ERA brick system.   They have really
achieved something with the new explosive formulation.

Now that you mention it, at the 34:00-34:04 mark, set the running speed to .25. You will see a ERA block being put in to place by two men. It seems like the 2 had no real trouble carrying the ERA block, which would indicate that it's not immensely heavy.

The development of a new weapon (no matter the caliber) is justified with the development of the new tank. It would fall in aditional costs if later is necessary the development of a new weapon in the middle of the cycle of life of the tank, but not now. Also, most of the ammunition types needed are covered with the current 152mm ammunition, then this is not a big problem.

Development of a new gun is justified by developments by the enemy in armour protection.

Otherwise the new tanks... T-72, T-80, and T-90 would all need new calibre guns.

Let me put it in terms of small arms.

Right now the Russian military are happy with the 5.45mm ammo. If their enemy start wearing armoured vests as standard that can stop 5.45mm ammo then they need more powerful ammo. the obvious is the 7.62 x 54mm ammo they already have in service but that is heavier and rather more powerful, which means bigger heavier weapons would be needed and less ammo will be carried.

The simple fact is that they could even go to a 12.7 x 108mm calibre range of weapons but the opposition forces don't justify that yet.

Right now the 125mm is effective enough and the cost of introducing a new calibre is not needed yet.

That means the 152mm ammo can be further developed and lessons learned can be directly applied to the 125mm ammo in use now or to be introduced soon.

The gun barrels will be easily swappable as they need to be changed in the field as they wear out with use, but only the Armata based vehicles will be able to carry a 152mm tank gun... the other T series vehicles in service wont have that capacity so even if you introduce it with the first Armata tank it wont be the standard tank gun calibre for some time anyway.

The Abrams was a late entry in the new range of caliber, and not an example of the introduction of a new caliber.

The Abrams was a case where they developed a vehicle with one gun in mind and found it to be wanting and so replaced it before it entered full service.

You could say the same about the T-64 which started life with the T-62s 115mm smoothbore.

When it first appeared it was bashed in the west because a smoothbore gun was seen as being inaccurate... ignoring the fact that APFSDS rounds don't like to be spun, and nor do HEAT rounds.

It took a while for the west to accept smoothbore guns as being sensible for main tank guns... and that is part of the reason the M1 Abrams had a 105mm rifled gun.

If the Russian engineers feel some doubt about the 125mm caliber being not enough for the entire life of the tank they will move forward to the 152mm caliber.

The Armata is a vehicle family, designed to operate a range of weapon systems... it will likely have several main gun options including foreign guns for export models.

The Armata will be used for 30-40 years so of course they designed it from the outset to be able to take a variety of main guns.

To change the weapon of a tank after 10-20-30 years is a bad business. To have tanks with shorter life because of their weapon becomes obsolete before the end of the cycle of life is also a bad business.

Having your new tank use the same ammo all your other tanks currently use makes obvious economic sense. Having developed a new calibre to meet more formidable future threats that can be adopted into production and service when it is needed makes even more sense... economic, military, and political.

The economic analysis favors an early introduction over a late introduction.

Early introduction means all existing tanks have different and now obsolete ammo... it also means new production for tank guns and tank gun ammo. the larger ammo will be more expensive and require all new transport and handling equipment and most likely will require loading equipment because of its size and weight. A human can load a 20kg HE shell and 10kg propellant stub into an autoloader in the floor of a tank, but what human do you know could load a 40kg HE shell and the likely 20kg propellant stubs into an autoloader in an unmanned turret? None? Which means all new machinery and equipment is needed.

I am looking forward to the new 152mm ammo... the new fusing and electronics they could fit into a gun launched missile should make it a devastating missile against both ground and air targets but it wont be carrying anything like the number of rounds they carry now of the much smaller 125mm rounds. Will 15-20 rounds of 152mm ammo be enough?

Actually, what I heard is that the MIM-1A multifunctional engineering vehicle and the UMZ-A mine layer/dispenser vehicles will be firs tested by 2017. I don't know much about the other variants, but they should be at least developed by the time the Armata platform enters service.

The talk was of unification of systems, sensors, and weapons, with the different chassis and power trains, so there should be engineering vehicles based on the armata and Kurganets and boomerang and typhoon so development should be pretty quick in the sense that they are developing four versions of each type. I guess it all depends on how fast they can get models of the base vehicle to do the testing... I suspect most of the development has been done.

Now that you mention it, at the 34:00-34:04 mark, set the running speed to .25. You will see a ERA block being put in to place by two men. It seems like the 2 had no real trouble carrying the ERA block, which would indicate that it's not immensely heavy.

A conventional steel plate needed to do the same could not be carried by ten men.

350-400mm penetration would be a threat to most current MBTs... Hull or turret.

Magnumcromagnon wrote:What was demonstrated was that the Armata series of ERA is so efficient, that it is capable of completely protecting unarmored civilian vehicles from HEAT munitions, which is completely unheard of! Shocked

In the video in question is not present any new product from НИИ Стали, not only for heavy platform "Армата" ,but even only for medium and light platforms "Курганец-25" and "Бумеранг".

The ERA that in this video Н.С. Дорохов (one of ,if not the, greater authority at world in the field of reactive armor )show mounted on the civil car is second half of '90 years technology , optmized for employing on light armoured vehicles -ЭДЗ 4С24-

The reactive elements mounted today on "Армата" platform pertain to one geneation following 4С23 "Реликт" , with an increase in performances more than two times greater than those.

Now, even those new elements represent merely a transient solution in the wait for the plain scientifical understanding, at НИИ Стали, of the working principles of the new reactive armor with capabilities simply in another league in comparison also with the new elements mounted on "Армата" platforms and working on a defeating mechanism still at today ( for a way paradoxically) mastered fully only at experimental level but for which do not exist ,still today, a coherent mathematical and physical model of the phenomenons involved , as recently said by the same Institute's representative to Виктор Мураховский

Therefore ,sorry but not reactive elements for "Армата" here .

Garry, you are totally wrong saying that the T-90, T-72 and T-80 would need a new gun. Their cycle of life is clearly shorter than the cycle of the new T-14.

The difference is that the T-14 needs the 125mm caliber to remain useful 50 years from now, while the rest need it only for 25 years as maximum, in the case of the T-80 maybe only for 10-15 years. It is a big difference.

The fact that the 152mm caliber is used in artillery, makes the introduction of the 152mm caliber for tanks be not the introduction of a new caliber in overall terms. Actually both the 125mm and the 152mm are used by the Russian Armed Forces, the change to 152mm on tank weapons only means to increase the fraction of the Army using the 152mm and to decrease the fraction using the 125mm caliber. It means not aditional costs since both are not and will not be used inside the same unit.

When a new caliber is introduced in advance, like the 125mm was, it can work together with other calibers by some years, like the 125mm did, because the previous caliber is not obsolete still. When a new caliber is introduced as reaction to armour improvements of the enemy is when the replacement is required for all the tanks, since the previous weapon becomes obsolete. Your comment is just wrong also on this. Plus, to wait until this point is both a military disaster and an economic disaster.

eehnie wrote:At least the T-62, the Chieftain, the T-64, the T-72 and the Merkava used calibers between 115 and 125mm before the Americans come to this conclussion with the Abrams.around 1980.

Not the Merkava, it was stuck with 105 mm till Mk III came online in 1989.

KiloGolf wrote:

eehnie wrote:At least the T-62, the Chieftain, the T-64, the T-72 and the Merkava used calibers between 115 and 125mm before the Americans come to this conclussion with the Abrams.around 1980.

Not the Merkava, it was stuck with 105 mm till Mk III came online in 1989.

True, you are right. We can add also to the list the T-80 and barely the Leopard 2.

Garry, you are totally wrong saying that the T-90, T-72 and T-80 would need a new gun. Their cycle of life is clearly shorter than the cycle of the new T-14.

I didn't say they needed a new gun... you did.

You said:

The development of a new weapon (no matter the caliber) is justified with the development of the new tank.

The difference is that the T-14 needs the 125mm caliber to remain useful 50 years from now, while the rest need it only for 25 years as maximum, in the case of the T-80 maybe only for 10-15 years. It is a big difference.

The T-14 does not need the 125mm to remain useful for 50 years. The T-14 was designed from the outset to be a family of vehicles able to take a wide range of turrets and weapons.

It is not out of the question to redesign the T-90 to take a fixed mantlet with a 152mm gun like the WWII tanks that needed to be upgunned that could not take a larger turret ring.

It would be easier to convert them to carry Kornet however.

The fact that the 152mm caliber is used in artillery, makes the introduction of the 152mm caliber for tanks be not the introduction of a new caliber in overall terms. Actually both the 125mm and the 152mm are used by the Russian Armed Forces, the change to 152mm on tank weapons only means to increase the fraction of the Army using the 152mm and to decrease the fraction using the 125mm caliber. It means not aditional costs since both are not and will not be used inside the same unit.

You are not getting it.

Introducing a 152mm tank gun is like introducing a 9mm rifle round.

Adding a 9x69mm high power rifle round for snipers is not made cheaper because pistols already use 9x18mm rounds and suppressed assault rifles like the AS already use 9x39mm ammo.

They are different weapons and different rounds so their introduction costs money and takes time.

The 152mm Armata MBT wont be compatible with the 152mm artillery Coalition in the sense the gun will be different, the ammo will be different, the sensors and equipment will be different too.

Already having MSTA 152mm artillery vehicles wont make any difference in standard divisions either.

this new tank round will need new ammo to be put into mass production and for the new weapons to be made and new vehicles to be developed to carry the ammo and load it.

When a new caliber is introduced in advance, like the 125mm was, it can work together with other calibers by some years, like the 125mm did, because the previous caliber is not obsolete still. When a new caliber is introduced as reaction to armour improvements of the enemy is when the replacement is required for all the tanks, since the previous weapon becomes obsolete. Your comment is just wrong also on this. Plus, to wait until this point is both a military disaster and an economic disaster.

It certainly can, and if even the first Armata based tank vehicle has a 152mm main gun when it enters service the 125mm gun will likely remain in service for decades to come, on tanks and in towed mounts... but the Russian military has said it does not see a current need to introduce the 152mm tank gun yet.

Interesting. It looks like that the charges of the "Afghanit" APS on the T-14 tank were loaded into the launch tubes during trials.

If you take a closer look at the launch tubes, you can see that they are loaded.

GarryB wrote:

Garry, you are totally wrong saying that the T-90, T-72 and T-80 would need a new gun. Their cycle of life is clearly shorter than the cycle of the new T-14.

I didn't say they needed a new gun... you did.

GarryB wrote:Development of a new gun is justified by developments by the enemy in armour protection.

Otherwise the new tanks... T-72, T-80, and T-90 would all need new calibre guns.

So you said first in the second quote that these tanks would need new caliber guns if the development of the new gun is not done because of developments by the enemy in armour protection. And later you denied it. Here is where we come...

GarryB wrote:The T-14 does not need the 125mm to remain useful for 50 years. The T-14 was designed from the outset to be a family of vehicles able to take a wide range of turrets and weapons.

It is not out of the question to redesign the T-90 to take a fixed mantlet with a 152mm gun like the WWII tanks that needed to be upgunned that could not take a larger turret ring.

It would be easier to convert them to carry Kornet however.

The T-14 is not the Armata platform, is a model of tank, that will have a life around 50 years if the things go well. You can only keep your first sentence:

- If you plan shorter life for the T-14 model of tank, which is a bad business to avoid since the design stage.
- If you plan to replace the gun of the T-14 tanks, wich is expensive and also a bad business to advoid since the design stage.
- If you assure the 125mm will remain 50 years from now. And I'm sure you have not the necessary elements to assure it.

Redesings and weapon replacements are expensive. They are something to avoid in the design phase of the tanks. But well you will read it 1000 times and you will not assume it.

GarryB wrote:

The fact that the 152mm caliber is used in artillery, makes the introduction of the 152mm caliber for tanks be not the introduction of a new caliber in overall terms. Actually both the 125mm and the 152mm are used by the Russian Armed Forces, the change to 152mm on tank weapons only means to increase the fraction of the Army using the 152mm and to decrease the fraction using the 125mm caliber. It means not aditional costs since both are not and will not be used inside the same unit.

You are not getting it.

Introducing a 152mm tank gun is like introducing a 9mm rifle round.

Adding a 9x69mm high power rifle round for snipers is not made cheaper because pistols already use 9x18mm rounds and suppressed assault rifles like the AS already use 9x39mm ammo.

They are different weapons and different rounds so their introduction costs money and takes time.

The 152mm Armata MBT wont be compatible with the 152mm artillery Coalition in the sense the gun will be different, the ammo will be different, the sensors and equipment will be different too.

Already having MSTA 152mm artillery vehicles wont make any difference in standard divisions either.

this new tank round will need new ammo to be put into mass production and for the new weapons to be made and new vehicles to be developed to carry the ammo and load it.

This is wrong. The development of the T-14 includes the development of a new weapon, which can be of 125mm or of 152mm. If a new weapon of 152mm is developed in the begin of the life of the tank, there is not aditional cost, because a new weapon was needed for the new tank.

The introduction of the new caliber would be more expensive outside of this opportunity of saving costs that offers the development of the new weapon for the new tank.

GarryB wrote:

When a new caliber is introduced in advance, like the 125mm was, it can work together with other calibers by some years, like the 125mm did, because the previous caliber is not obsolete still. When a new caliber is introduced as reaction to armour improvements of the enemy is when the replacement is required for all the tanks, since the previous weapon becomes obsolete. Your comment is just wrong also on this. Plus, to wait until this point is both a military disaster and an economic disaster.

It certainly can, and if even the first Armata based tank vehicle has a 152mm main gun when it enters service the 125mm gun will likely remain in service for decades to come, on tanks and in towed mounts... but the Russian military has said it does not see a current need to introduce the 152mm tank gun yet.

There is some link?

So you said first in the second quote that these tanks would need new caliber guns if the development of the new gun is not done because of developments by the enemy in armour protection. And later you denied it. Here is where we come...

The Armata family of vehicles will be in service for a very long time, and because of this it has future growth potential for fitting all sorts of weapons and systems.

Because it may be in service for 30-40 years or more it needs the potential to carry more powerful anti armour weapons that will likely include a 152mm smoothbore gun and possibly even EM guns later on.

You said... in the piece I quoted above that a new tank design requires a new calibre and I mentioned several new tanks that did not introduce new calibres... ie T-72, T-80, and T-90.

They did not introduce new calibres because during their service period there were no enormous increases in opposing forces in terms of armour protection... the 125mm guns were developed for countering western super tanks like the Challanger, Abrams, Leclerc, and Leopard 2, and as new tanks were developed... ie 72,80,90 there was plenty of growth potential in the 125mm gun to meet improvements in enemy armour so a new gun was not a top priority.

It has been developed for the new generation vehicle families, but enemy tank armour has not greatly increased and so its immediate introduction is not critical. This means they can delay its introduction and save some money and do further work on both guns and ammo types so when they do introduce the 152mm smoothbore it will be even better as a weapon.

The introduction of a 152mm smoothbore high pressure tank gun is not made cheaper by already having a rifled 152mm artillery vehicle within the same force structure.

- If you plan shorter life for the T-14 model of tank, which is a bad business to avoid since the design stage.

T-14 is not set in stone and will evolve over the years... and will likely get new designations with major changes or upgrades. What do you mean bad for business? T-14 is not for export sale and I don't think the russian army will reject the T-14M because they decide to keep the 125mm gun a little longer, or decide to change to the 152mm gun... that decision wont be with the maker, it will be with the customer so how is giving the customer the choice bad for business?

[quot]- If you plan to replace the gun of the T-14 tanks, wich is expensive and also a bad business to advoid since the design stage.[/quote]

How is that bad for business? I already said the Abrams started life with a 105mm rifled gun... do you think the customer will reject the M1A1 because it has a bigger more powerful gun?

The cost of introducing a new calibre was high but the cost of having a weak gun unable to do the job is much higher.

The T-64 started life with a 115mm smoothbore but it was always intended to move to the 125mm gun when it was ready. The T-34 had a 76.2mm medium pressure rifled gun and the T-34/85 upgraded that to a high velocity 85mm gun based on combat experience and changes in enemy armour performance.

Sometimes an upgrade is not practical and you need a new vehicle... the T-34 could take an 85mm gun but to put a 100mm high velocity cannon on it you had to take off the turret and put a fixed structure and make it an SU-100. The Armata platform is huge and can easily take much more powerful guns so its future upgrade potential is not an issue.

- If you assure the 125mm will remain 50 years from now. And I'm sure you have not the necessary elements to assure it.

Up until recently the Soviets had T-34s in reserve... well beyond obsolescence. The fact is that even if the 125mm gun can't penetrate the frontal armour of enemy vehicles in 2045 it will likely still be useful against a wide range of lighter vehicles or structures in rear areas or as reserve roles.

Redesings and weapon replacements are expensive. They are something to avoid in the design phase of the tanks. But well you will read it 1000 times and you will not assume it.

Who is talking about redesigns?

Having a 125mm gun is the redesign... not the 152mm gun.

The equipping of T-14 with a 125mm gun makes it simpler and cheaper and allows the use of already produced new ammo that is also carried by the rest of the tank fleet already in service.

When you design a tank to carry a 152mm gun then adapting it to use a smaller lighter less powerful gun is easy and cheap and simple. It also reduces operational costs.

This is wrong. The development of the T-14 includes the development of a new weapon, which can be of 125mm or of 152mm. If a new weapon of 152mm is developed in the begin of the life of the tank, there is not aditional cost, because a new weapon was needed for the new tank.

Of course there is additional cost... you have to produce a whole new range of ammo that is not compatible with any other type of gun in your inventory. You also need to produce all the new ammo loading and carrying assets into your units to provide ammo. Do you think 152mm ammo will be hand loaded into tanks? The HE shells will be 40kgs or so. The propellant and APFSDS rounds wont be that much lighter.

125mm rounds are two piece to reduce length and weight... 152mm shells will be much heavier and much longer and will require automated ammo handling systems... like 152mm artillery systems except instead of operating in rear areas like artillery, they will need to operate on the front line with the tanks.

There is some link?

Here is one example:

https://sputniknews.com/military/20151012/1028402131/armata-secrecy-foreign-buyers.html

The current version of the Armata is equipped with a remotely controlled standard-caliber 125-mm cannon, with fully automated loading, which can fire both regular shells and rockets.

Designers say that a much more powerful 152-mm cannon could be easily fitted to the Armata in the future. The tank's modular structure also allows for quick and easy modernization of its elements and systems.

So the real question should be, if Armata is designed as a modular upgradeable vehicle family of vehicles then why waste time developing a 125mm gun version if it will enter service with a 152mm gun as standard?

They developed a 152mm gun for it, so why waste time with a 125mm gun armed version?

Unless the 125mm gun is currently good enough with room for upgrades to make it effective and retain one tank gun calibre within the fleet.

In ten years time when Armata tanks are the mainstay of the force then upgrading them all to 152mm guns might make sense, but for now it is only the developers saying they could sell them with 152mm guns... not the customer... the Russian Army.

Of course for export 125mm gun versions make perfect sense but who knows when they will be ready for export.

GarryB wrote:

There is some link?

Here is one example:

https://sputniknews.com/military/20151012/1028402131/armata-secrecy-foreign-buyers.html

The current version of the Armata is equipped with a remotely controlled standard-caliber 125-mm cannon, with fully automated loading, which can fire both regular shells and rockets.

Designers say that a much more powerful 152-mm cannon could be easily fitted to the Armata in the future. The tank's modular structure also allows for quick and easy modernization of its elements and systems.

So the real question should be, if Armata is designed as a modular upgradeable vehicle family of vehicles then why waste time developing a 125mm gun version if it will enter service with a 152mm gun as standard?

They developed a 152mm gun for it, so why waste time with a 125mm gun armed version?

Unless the 125mm gun is currently good enough with room for upgrades to make it effective and retain one tank gun calibre within the fleet.

In ten years time when Armata tanks are the mainstay of the force then upgrading them all to 152mm guns might make sense, but for now it is only the developers saying they could sell them with 152mm guns... not the customer... the Russian Army.

Of course for export 125mm gun versions make perfect sense but who knows when they will be ready for export.

These sorts of plausibility arguments are weak. I could raise the possibility that the 125 mm gun is deployed instead of the 152 mm gun
to not create incentive for NATO to upgrade their tank guns. When TSHTF then deploying the 152 mm gun gives the advantage. Russian
officials should not even talk about the 152 mm option at all.

The unmanned T-14 turret is truly a brilliant concept. It weighs almost 1/3 that of the heavily armoured NATO tanks so can be rotated
faster (I am sure we have not seen its peak angular velocity in any of the videos). This is a battlefield advantage since the
tank that fires off the first shot wins. The savings in weight make the T-14 much lighter than NATO tanks even though
it is in the same class. This gives the T-14 faster acceleration ability which adds to its chances to get the first shot in any encounter.
The reduced weight also gives the T-14 more mobility.

I have not seen much noise about the weight issue and it seems that it is fobbed off as a minor detail. It isn't and unless NATO's
main battle tanks are redesigned will be a serious advantage for the T-14.

[quote="kvs"]

GarryB wrote:

There is some link?

These sorts of plausibility arguments are weak.   I could raise the possibility that the 125 mm gun is deployed instead of the 152 mm gun
to not create incentive for NATO to upgrade their tank guns.    When TSHTF then deploying the 152 mm gun gives the advantage.    Russian
officials should not even talk about the 152 mm option at all.    

They should have made both one 125 mm and another 152mm in much lower numbers and keep quiet about it of the 152mm version. For price ,mobility and ammo capacity , i could see the 125mm version being more mainstream. to be multi purpose and the 152mm one used as tank killer only.

What will be nice is if Russia military develops BMPs with active protection and counter electronics on wheels with a 125mm and 152mm gun too. So that will allow Russia to have Huge numbers of "NATO tanks killer" on their light armored vehicles that could be dropped from air from cargo planes and used by paratroops behind enemy lines.

GarryB wrote:You said... in the piece I quoted above that a new tank design requires a new calibre and I mentioned several new tanks that did not introduce new calibres... ie T-72, T-80, and T-90.

They did not introduce new calibres because during their service period there were no enormous increases in opposing forces in terms of armour protection... the 125mm guns were developed for countering western super tanks like the Challanger, Abrams, Leclerc, and Leopard 2, and as new tanks were developed... ie 72,80,90 there was plenty of growth potential in the 125mm gun to meet improvements in enemy armour so a new gun was not a top priority.

The first sentence is not right. I said the T-14 requires a new weapon, and I said that it is not sure that the 125mm caliber will remain 50 years from now as main tank caliber. Said it I would not be surprised if the 152mm is adopted since the begin (of the production in series).

The second sentence is also wrong, because the NATO tanks that your are mentioning are from 1979 or later and the 125 mm caliber was introduced in the T-64 in 1969-1970, and in the T-72 and the T-80 before 1979.

GarryB wrote:

- If you plan shorter life for the T-14 model of tank, which is a bad business to avoid since the design stage.

T-14 is not set in stone and will evolve over the years... and will likely get new designations with major changes or upgrades. What do you mean bad for business? T-14 is not for export sale and I don't think the russian army will reject the T-14M because they decide to keep the 125mm gun a little longer, or decide to change to the 152mm gun... that decision wont be with the maker, it will be with the customer so how is giving the customer the choice bad for business?

- If you plan to replace the gun of the T-14 tanks, wich is expensive and also a bad business to advoid since the design stage.

How is that bad for business? I already said the Abrams started life with a 105mm rifled gun... do you think the customer will reject the M1A1 because it has a bigger more powerful gun?

The cost of introducing a new calibre was high but the cost of having a weak gun unable to do the job is much higher.

The T-64 started life with a 115mm smoothbore but it was always intended to move to the 125mm gun when it was ready. The T-34 had a 76.2mm medium pressure rifled gun and the T-34/85 upgraded that to a high velocity 85mm gun based on combat experience and changes in enemy armour performance.

Sometimes an upgrade is not practical and you need a new vehicle... the T-34 could take an 85mm gun but to put a 100mm high velocity cannon on it you had to take off the turret and put a fixed structure and make it an SU-100. The Armata platform is huge and can easily take much more powerful guns so its future upgrade potential is not an issue.

Fortunately the Russian Armed Forces know why.

GarryB wrote:

- If you assure the 125mm will remain 50 years from now. And I'm sure you have not the necessary elements to assure it.

Up until recently the Soviets had T-34s in reserve... well beyond obsolescence. The fact is that even if the 125mm gun can't penetrate the frontal armour of enemy vehicles in 2045 it will likely still be useful against a wide range of lighter vehicles or structures in rear areas or as reserve roles.

Of course it will be useful. But it will be more useful if in 2045 still can destroy every enemy tank. Russia will care of it because Russia do not want to develop many new models of tanks before 2045 and do not want massive replacement of tank weapons around then. In the following 30 years it is possible to see ready the next platform of Russian main battle tanks (after the Armata), but it would be very young, and very few units would be in service. If the T-14 can not do the job in 2045 Russia would not have at the time tanks to do the job. It was not the case of the T-34.

GarryB wrote:

Redesings and weapon replacements are expensive. They are something to avoid in the design phase of the tanks. But well you will read it 1000 times and you will not assume it.

Who is talking about redesigns?

Having a 125mm gun is the redesign... not the 152mm gun.

You, obviously. As you disect the answers, your comments get out of touch with what was said.

GarryB wrote:The T-14 does not need the 125mm to remain useful for 50 years. The T-14 was designed from the outset to be a family of vehicles able to take a wide range of turrets and weapons.

It is not out of the question to redesign the T-90 to take a fixed mantlet with a 152mm gun like the WWII tanks that needed to be upgunned that could not take a larger turret ring.

It would be easier to convert them to carry Kornet however.

The T-14 is not the Armata platform, is a model of tank, that will have a life around 50 years if the things go well. You can only keep your first sentence:

- If you plan shorter life for the T-14 model of tank, which is a bad business to avoid since the design stage.
- If you plan to replace the gun of the T-14 tanks, wich is expensive and also a bad business to advoid since the design stage.
- If you assure the 125mm will remain 50 years from now. And I'm sure you have not the necessary elements to assure it.

Redesings and weapon replacements are expensive. They are something to avoid in the design phase of the tanks. But well you will read it 1000 times and you will not assume it.

GarryB wrote:The equipping of T-14 with a 125mm gun makes it simpler and cheaper and allows the use of already produced new ammo that is also carried by the rest of the tank fleet already in service.

When you design a tank to carry a 152mm gun then adapting it to use a smaller lighter less powerful gun is easy and cheap and simple. It also reduces operational costs.

The Russian engineers are doing it better than what you say. No-one Russian engineer will allow the T-14 to go to serial production with the 125mm weapons to replace later them by 152mm weapons.

GarryB wrote:

This is wrong. The development of the T-14 includes the development of a new weapon, which can be of 125mm or of 152mm. If a new weapon of 152mm is developed in the begin of the life of the tank, there is not aditional cost, because a new weapon was needed for the new tank.

Of course there is additional cost... you have to produce a whole new range of ammo that is not compatible with any other type of gun in your inventory. You also need to produce all the new ammo loading and carrying assets into your units to provide ammo. Do you think 152mm ammo will be hand loaded into tanks? The HE shells will be 40kgs or so. The propellant and APFSDS rounds wont be that much lighter.

125mm rounds are two piece to reduce length and weight... 152mm shells will be much heavier and much longer and will require automated ammo handling systems... like 152mm artillery systems except instead of operating in rear areas like artillery, they will need to operate on the front line with the tanks.

This is not right.

These sorts of plausibility arguments are weak. I could raise the possibility that the 125 mm gun is deployed instead of the 152 mm gun
to not create incentive for NATO to upgrade their tank guns. When TSHTF then deploying the 152 mm gun gives the advantage. Russian
officials should not even talk about the 152 mm option at all.

You are not getting it... you don't make your soldiers lug around a 50 calibre rifle to penetrate body armour your enemy might deploy in five years time... the cost of the bigger guns, the weight penalty of the heavier weapons and heavier ammo, the problems of recoil of the more powerful ammo making shooting accurately problematic.

You upgrade when it becomes necessary and currently it is not.

It will be necessary when the US and UK and France and Germany introduce a tank that can withstand a 125mm hit guaranteed from the frontal 60 degree arc.

When Russia starts to introduce a bigger gun the result will not be NATO rushing a 140mm gun into service... if they want to reliably penetrate an Armata tank then they will need to do that already.

Guns are not introduced to meet the challenge of the enemy having bigger guns... they are introduced to meet the challenge of the enemy having the armour to stop the rounds from their existing guns.

I have not seen much noise about the weight issue and it seems that it is fobbed off as a minor detail. It isn't and unless NATO's
main battle tanks are redesigned will be a serious advantage for the T-14.

The main drawback of having all the crew in the hull is situational awareness... can the commander still see the battlefield. I would suggest that the combination of EO and UAVs and other platforms nearby sharing information that they should all get a good view of the area around them.

Previously the Commander had to direct the driver because he had a better view of the terrain ahead, but with this arrangement the driver should be able to work it out for themselves relieving the commander of one major task.

They should have made both one 125 mm and another 152mm in much lower numbers and keep quiet about it of the 152mm version. For price ,mobility and ammo capacity , i could see the 125mm version being more mainstream. to be multi purpose and the 152mm one used as tank killer only.

How do you know they aren't doing this... maybe the 152mm gun isn't that much better so they are pretending that will follow when in actual fact the next gun might be a 100mm smoothbore gun with Electromagnetic firing that launches 7kg penetrators at 5km/s.

The Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang and Typhoon are supposed to be modular... this means the tank turret we have seen on the Armata should be the same as the tank turret of the other three vehicle families... which suggests the 152mm gun likely just slips into the place of the 125mm gun and the internal loading mechanisms adapted to hold the larger rounds.

They are not developing a 125mm gun turret for the Armata and a different one for Kurganets and a different one for Boomerang and another one for Typhoon and then a whole new turret with a 152mm gun for each vehicle as well... though I suspect the Typhoon models wont be carrying a 152mm tank gun... but that is just my opinion.

With Sprut a long recoil model of the 125mm gun was fine, so I suspect a long recoil model of the 152mm will also suffice for the other vehicle families and indeed perhaps even the T-90AM is possible with a large turret bustle because of the likely length of the rounds making a turret bustle loader necessary.

The first sentence is not right. I said the T-14 requires a new weapon, and I said that it is not sure that the 125mm caliber will remain 50 years from now as main tank caliber. Said it I would not be surprised if the 152mm is adopted since the begin (of the production in series).

You said above that a new tank needs a new gun. I gave several examples of tanks that did not introduce a new gun.

The second sentence is also wrong, because the NATO tanks that your are mentioning are from 1979 or later and the 125 mm caliber was introduced in the T-64 in 1969-1970, and in the T-72 and the T-80 before 1979.

You are comparing the date the 125mm gun entered service with the dates western vehicles entered service.

It is called espionage.

The Soviets knew the west was working on special armour that performs rather better than RHA and so they developed a gun to deal with that. The fact that the gun entered service well before the armour it was designed to defeat does not mean that was not the purpose of the gun or the reason it was introduced.

The battle of measure and countermeasure is continuous and ongoing... when they finished making Su-27s they started working on what would replace it.

In WWII the vast majority of Soviet tanks were light T-26s... because they were easy to mass produce... many in the west claimed they were totally obsolete but then if you look at the German tank park of 1941 it was not actually that inferior to mk 2 panzers which were also in service in numbers.

Fortunately for the Soviets they were also working on the T-34 design and the KV-1 design.

There was the same problem in the air... the most numerous fighters were Polikarpov I-15s and I-16s, while next generation aircraft like the Yak-1 and LaGG-3 and La-5s and MiG-3s were available in small numbers because they were more complicated and less easy to mass produce.

Of course it will be useful. But it will be more useful if in 2045 still can destroy every enemy tank. Russia will care of it because Russia do not want to develop many new models of tanks before 2045 and do not want massive replacement of tank weapons around then. In the following 30 years it is possible to see ready the next platform of Russian main battle tanks (after the Armata), but it would be very young, and very few units would be in service. If the T-14 can not do the job in 2045 Russia would not have at the time tanks to do the job. It was not the case of the T-34.

You are not getting it... Armata is not just replacing the T-34s through to the T-90s... it is replacing everything... the ACRV command vehicles based on the MTLB, all the other vehicles based on the MTLB and BMP and BTR.

It is like the joke about my fathers favourite hammer... it has only had four new heads and three new handles.

technology will improve and things will be replaced and upgraded... but these vehicles are modular and are designed to have components replaced and upgraded... that is the point.

The T-14 is not the Armata platform, is a model of tank, that will have a life around 50 years if the things go well. You can only keep your first sentence:

- If you plan shorter life for the T-14 model of tank, which is a bad business to avoid since the design stage.
- If you plan to replace the gun of the T-14 tanks, wich is expensive and also a bad business to advoid since the design stage.
- If you assure the 125mm will remain 50 years from now. And I'm sure you have not the necessary elements to assure it.

Redesings and weapon replacements are expensive. They are something to avoid in the design phase of the tanks. But well you will read it 1000 times and you will not assume it.

A power drill is designed from the outset to take different modules for different purposes.

With a sanding head on it it might be called T-14, but when sanding certain materials the T-14 might not be enough, so fitting a new turret, or more likely fitting a new sand paper (gun) t0 the existing turret means it can handle sanding wood or aluminium or whatever the user wants... the point is that you don't completely redesign anything... it just uses different sand paper... it is still doing the same job... having a different grade of paper does not require a complete redesign with a completely new designation. It might get called T-14B or T-14M.

T-14 denotes the tank version of the Armata family... the letter after it will denote the specific version. Foreign customers might choose different numbers and letters... and good for them.

When talking about the T-14 that means the armata tank vehicle... T-15 is the Armata IFV or BMP vehicle... when it gets a 57mm gun it might be called T-15B.

There will be T designations for all Armata vehicles because they are tank based vehicles.

Likely in the Kurganets family the designation will be BMP-14 for the tank and BMP-15 for the IFV.

For the Boomerang it will likely be the BTR-14, and BTR-15 for the tank and IFV version...

Or they might go for a different designation where the kurganets family have a designation labelling them as being medium weight class vehicles with tracks and the Boomerang a designation identifying them as being medium wheeled vehicles...

[qutoe]The Russian engineers are doing it better than what you say. No-one Russian engineer will allow the T-14 to go to serial production with the 125mm weapons to replace later them by 152mm weapons.[/quote]

It is clear from the quote I posted that the gun these vehicles carry into service has nothing to do with the Engineers or the company that makes them. It is down to the customer who already operates the 125mm gun and seems happy with its performance for the moment.

This is not right.

Can you elaborate?

There is no commonality between the 152mm rifled ammo/gun of the Coalition and the 152mm tank gun ammo and gun being developed AFAIK.

There was no benefit at all to having a 122mm calibre artillery vehicle and a 122mm rocket calibre for the Soviet Army, why would it be any different for having the same calibre of tank gun ammo and artillery ammo?

There is no direct benefit to having a 7.62 x 54mm calibre SVD sniper rifle and a 7.62x39mm assault rifle... they have no interchangable parts and neither can use the ammo of the other.

It just introduces the potential for confusion... calling on the radio under fire and saying you need more ammo... they might drop the wrong type.... imagine being on the front line, cut off from supply lines and calling for ammo to be sent. Dozens of boxes arrive and it is 7.62 x 54mm ammo for your snipers and machine gunners, but all your infantrymen have to throw stones...

Interview with Head of the Main Armored Directorate of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation Alexander Shevchenko lieutenant general.

http://vpk-news.ru/articles/32436

GarryB, which of the current tank weapons of 125mm used in previous tanks would you take to put it for 50 years in a T-14? The answer will show you why it has been nececessary the design of a new weapon for the T-14. Of 125mm or of 152mm.

Espionaje, well... Then we must assume that you know that today the NATO is not working in more advanced protection against the 125mm tank weapons, when you rule out the need of the 152mm weapons for tanks?

The measure-countermeasure dynamic is always started by a measure, and not always the initiative must be of the NATO. Russia can also introduce new elements. I do not know why but I see you always against them, against the real innovation, always promoting to continue with the old mold solutions, until the NATO does something new (in this case of the 152mm weapon, explicitly said).

The Russian Armed Forces as custormers, with the advise of their own engineers, never would buy a tank which has a planned change of weapon in the middle of its life.

Maybe better if you care about what you get not, because even get not what I get or not.

GarryB, which of the current tank weapons of 125mm used in previous tanks would you take to put it for 50 years in a T-14? The answer will show you why it has been nececessary the design of a new weapon for the T-14. Of 125mm or of 152mm.

50 years ago there were tanks with 122mm calibre guns... in 50 years time from now for all we know the main guns might be 90mm in calibre.

Do you really think in 50 years time tanks will have conventional shells fired with conventional solid propellant?

I rather suspect the 152mm gun will be the biggest tank gun calibre if it enters service and that future weapons will move to different propellant types including liquid and plasma based propellants that greatly increase muzzle velocity.

Espionaje, well... Then we must assume that you know that today the NATO is not working in more advanced protection against the 125mm tank weapons, when you rule out the need of the 152mm weapons for tanks?

AFAIK the Russian military have said that they will not introduce the 152mm tank gun in the first Armata vehicles because the status of enemy armour does not warrant the move to the more powerful weapon.

They are developing the 152mm gun for when it is needed but if it is not needed then it makes things easier if they don't introduce it.

125mm ammo is smaller lighter and cheaper so they can have more and use more with fewer penalties.

Of course if enemy armour demands more power than the 125mm ammo can provide then they will have to upgrade to the 152mm weapon.

They have the choice because the 152mm gun has been developed.

The measure-countermeasure dynamic is always started by a measure, and not always the initiative must be of the NATO. Russia can also introduce new elements. I do not know why but I see you always against them, against the real innovation, always promoting to continue with the old mold solutions, until the NATO does something new (in this case of the 152mm weapon, explicitly said).

I am against improvements for the sake of improvements that cost in money and performance but lack a necessity.

By keeping the 125mm gun the west will keep most of its existing armour with minor upgrades over time.

Change to a 152mm gun and NATO will invest in new armour solutions... they will spend money and become better... likely copying Russia the way they did with the concept of the BMP and the smoothbore main tank gun.

It does not benefit Russia.

The Russian Armed Forces as custormers, with the advise of their own engineers, never would buy a tank which has a planned change of weapon in the middle of its life.

Actually the opposite is true. The Russian military would never accept a tank design that is supposed to be operational for 30-50 years that cannot accept a main gun bigger than any currently planned.

Current Russian IFVs have a 30mm cannon armed turret with Kornet missiles mounted on it.

The eventual replacement turret will likely have a high velocity 57mm gun and Kornet missiles and be much better able to deal with enemy IFVs.

If the IFV is getting a bigger gun soon then why not the MBT model?

Maybe better if you care about what you get not, because even get not what I get or not.

That is English but it makes little sense to me, can you rephrase this?

GarryB wrote:

Espionaje, well... Then we must assume that you know that today the NATO is not working in more advanced protection against the 125mm tank weapons, when you rule out the need of the 152mm weapons for tanks?

AFAIK the Russian military have said that they will not introduce the 152mm tank gun in the first Armata vehicles because the status of enemy armour does not warrant the move to the more powerful weapon.

They are developing the 152mm gun for when it is needed but if it is not needed then it makes things easier if they don't introduce it.

125mm ammo is smaller lighter and cheaper so they can have more and use more with fewer penalties.

Of course if enemy armour demands more power than the 125mm ammo can provide then they will have to upgrade to the 152mm weapon.

They have the choice because the 152mm gun has been developed.

My theory is that Russia will introduce the 152mm gun when NATO manages to standardize the 130mm German cannon AND standardize the use of an autoloader.

The reason why Russia hasn't introduce anything bigger than the 125mm is because probably Western powers have nothing come very close to it.

But who knows, may be later Armata versions will be a revitalization of mid-XX century missile tanks, as missile is becoming more and more reliable and more mature. After all, conventional tank cannon is much more bulky than missile launcer.

Automatized engineer-sapper vehicle to be created on Armata chassis

---

On the basis of "Armata" create engineering-sapper robot

Automated engineering complex reconnaissance and clearance phase induction will replace several outdated machines

Russian Defense Ministry has begun development of a unique automated complex of engineering reconnaissance and clearance (AIRM), which can independently find and neutralize mines and destroy enemy fortifications. The basis for the latest products that creates a military department, together with the Nizhny Novgorod Research Institute of Radio Engineering, tanks become "Armata" or armored personnel carrier (APC) "Boomerang".
- The main feature of the complex phase induction would be that he would unmanned, - told "Izvestiya" Yuri chief of the engineering troops Stavitskiy. - Its use should increase the pace of engineer reconnaissance twice.
At the same time, as noted by the General, the robot will have to pass intelligence to the control station in a digital format in real time.

Currently, as part of a Ministry of Defense opened AIRM research development (R & D), whose purpose - to determine the shape of a promising machine, the composition of its equipment, as well as to identify the range of tasks. The "Armata" and APC "Boomerang" platform is now regarded as a basic platform of unmanned engineering machines. Complete R & D is planned for 2018, at the same time we will know which platform - "Armata" or "Boomerang" - will be the basis of a new engineering drone.
According to the Defense Ministry specified requirements newest unmanned machine will be able to provide remote management of intelligence minefields, local destruction of mines discovered in the band width of at least 200 meters along the line of movement of the machine, as well as provide a breakthrough anti-tank fortifications and the enemy on the battlefield. AIRM is fraught with engineering intelligence complex on the basis of an unmanned flying vehicle, and integrated with an automated point of engineering intelligence KR-521 collection and processing.
Yuri Stavitskiy told "Izvestia" that a new robot should replace the troops were armed with the 80-ies of the last century engineering reconnaissance vehicles IRM "Beetle", created on the basis of the BMP-1 and BMP-2, as well as the heavier machines on the basis of T-72 and T-90. These machines are still in operation, but they do not meet the main demand of the Ministry of Defense - robotics especially dangerous for the life processes of the military.
Editor of the trade magazine "Arsenal Fatherland" Viktor Murakhovski noted that the US army is currently in active development of unmanned robots-sappers. In particular, currently based Stryker APCs Americans make machine engineering intelligence to rapidly uncover the enemy's defenses.
- The main problem - is to make Wheeled armored personnel carrier to push in front of mine sweeper, which is very difficult. Phase induction machine to be a breakthrough, - said Victor Murakhovski. - Therefore, it would be hard platform that can push ourselves to the continuous trawl demining areas. It is hard to imagine a wheeled armored personnel carriers, several times to undermine the anti-tank mines and continue. Therefore, the foundation of the new robot will most likely prospective tank platform is selected the T-14 "Armata". In any case, it is based on its predecessor, the T-72 and T-90 were created by the basic engineering of the machine the front edge of the offensive.

Source (in Russian, translated to english with Google Translator): http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2016/09/blog-post_57.html

---

Speaking about engineer vehicles on Armata platform, I think that multiple variants should be created to cover all needs.

First, a route clearing vehicle, similar to the BAT-2 combat engineer vehicle.


Second, a mine/obstacle clearing vehicle similar to the IMR-3M mine clearing vehicle.


Third, a trench digger/ditching vehicle, similar to the MDK-3.


And maybe an engineer reconaissance vehicle like the IRM "Zhuk" vehicle, but it would be an "overkill" IMO, since it could perfectly fit onto a Kurganets chassis.

My theory is that Russia will introduce the 152mm gun when NATO manages to standardize the 130mm German cannon AND standardize the use of an autoloader.

Russia wont introduce the 152mm tank gun in response to NATO increasing its gun size.

Introducing the 152mm gun will require gun production and ammo production to be radically increased.

Equipment for handling the new heavier ammo and for working with the new larger heavier guns will also need to be introduced... this all costs money... money that can be spent on other things right now when the 125mm gun is good enough.

Of course the problem for the west is bigger as the 130mm and 140mm guns they have developed use much larger ammo than the 120mm round currently used and the chances the new rounds can be handled by a human loader are becoming less and less likely so the shift to auto loaders is becoming more and more necessary.

GarryB, all this is a non-sense.

The updates and changes in the middle of the life of a model of warfare are not planned at the time of the design. Every update means higher costs and most of the times means redundancies (in this case double main weapon for every tank), and every engineer fights against them in the design process. Early updates are consequence of design mistakes. Not planned. Late updates are consequence of late technological improvements. Also not planned, because at the time of the design there is not a good preview of the technological improvements that can be available 30 or 40 years later.

And this double main weapon for every tank, means approximately double costs in the case of the development of a new weapon in the concrete case of the T-14, because no-one of the current main weapons in use today in the tanks of Russia can be included in a new model of tank for the next 50 years. You tried to avoid to answer to the question but you in fact answered (you cited no-one of the weapons in service today, and this is your answer to the question, no-one of the current weapons in service is valid for the T-14). The current main weapons in service in the Russian tanks are not modern enough for a new model of tank. The T-14 requires the design of a new weapon, the same if the caliber selected is the 125mm or the 152mm. Only some prototypes can go with one of the weapons in use in the current tanks.

What Russia said until now, including the link that you posted, is in agreement with all this. And of course, if Russia plans to introduce the 152mm in tanks will not say it until is done. Russia knows perfectly that the right moment for the introduction of a new caliber is the begin of the life of a new tank, like the T-14. And if the Russian engineers do a good job designing the T-14 (I doubt not about it), Russia would not need another new tank model in the next 25 years (except in case of big war). The introduction of the 152mm caliber for tanks would be now, or approximately in 2040.

And no, Russia will not be waiting to introduce the new caliber until the NATO finds a solution against the 125mm caliber. Then it would be too late, and it would make the transition faster, and as consequence, far more expensive.

PS: It seems that all the things that the Americans do not before, are "improvements for the sake of improvements that cost in money and performance but lack a necessity". But the worst quote is this:

GarryB wrote:By keeping the 125mm gun the west will keep most of its existing armour with minor upgrades over time.

Change to a 152mm gun and NATO will invest in new armour solutions... they will spend money and become better... likely copying Russia the way they did with the concept of the BMP and the smoothbore main tank gun.

It does not benefit Russia.

This negative logic can be applied to every type of warfare. Then, if Russia does nothing to advance in no-one warfare type, the NATO will keep most of the existing warfare of all the types and will not invest. Amazing logic.

Russia to get 2,000  T-14 ‘Armata’ type, does this mean that Russia will 2,000 Armata T 14 Tanks, is that not too much? Why does Russia need that many?


https://southfront.org/the-russian-army-will-receive-2000-armata-tanks/