But is there any plan to go back to 23mm from 30mm?
What do you mean by back?
The 23 x 115mm calibre has been the gun calibre of Russian aircraft for some time and is still used on the latest versions of the Hind with the 23mm cannon in the chin turret position.
It is a low power low recoil high rate of fire weapon used where armour penetration is not an issue and HE fragment power is needed rather than anti armour performance.
For a Hind a 57mm or 80mm rocket or ATAKA or Shturm missile would be used against armour... the 23mm cannon is ideal against a wide variety of soft targets.
The high velocity 23 x 152mm round used in the ZSU-23-4 Shilka and ZU-23 twin barrel towed cannon is a different round of much higher velocity but the same projectile.
Again isn't it better to keep the lighter cannon independent than co-axial? It can be also used as a CIWS as the defenses of Armata will detect the incoming enemy projectile. Specially ATGMs from long distance.
No. having its own elevation so it can elevate over a much wider range of angles than the main gun would be good but being able to aim it where the main gun is aiming would be an advantage... you would either use the cannon or the main gun but not both, but both would be used by the gunner
A cannon would not be practical as a CIWS for a tank the APS already use its own interceptor which is much faster and much more efficient.
ATGMs and APFSDS rounds are much smaller and much faster than anti ship missiles and over much shorter ranges with much less warning... a turret would not have time to turn and fire enough rounds and would not carry enough ammo to be effective.
Note in the anti aircraft role the 30mm calibre has become obsolete because you cant fire enough shells at a very small target like a UAV to be effective without airburst shells.
The 57mm calibre rounds are effective because of guided shells and proximity fuses.
I assumed that only in the case of my suggested armaments. Thats why I also stated that 57mm turret should be modular. Which can be installed prior to the mission.
These systems are modular not so they can be fitted just before combat missions like Thunderbird 2. They are modular to save money in design and training and so repairs and battle damage replacements are easier and cheaper.
A tank man from an Armata brigade will be at home in a tank in any other brigade, though in a Typhoon he might have a 57mm gun instead of a 125mm gun or 152mm gun. The sensors and systems and training will be the same.
How about something behind some cover? Lets say rooftop of a building behind the bricks? Can grenades pen?
For targets behind heavy cover you launch your UAV for an aerial view. If there is no top cover lob some 40mm over the wall and hit them from above. If there is heavy top cover fire delay fused 125mm HE shells through the bricks...
Or call in an artillery strike.
(For the sake of argument) Of course they are but like the same way 203mm HE rounds would be more effective than anything less caliber HE? Also I think AP round is needed. HE can't do the job everywhere.
The armour piercing rounds of the 30mm calibre are too weak to perform their original role of penetration of enemy IFVs.
The 57mm high velocity gun will have APFSDS rounds able to penetrate the sides of tanks.
For armour, most of the time the ATGMs will be more use, for everything else a potent HE shell is most effective against soft targets and lightly armoured targets.
The 57mm grenade launcher they have in development is reportedly capable of firing a HE round with the same power of a 76.2mm artillery shell... it sounds rather potent.
For tank support mission tanks will take care or ATGMs. For IFV mission I agree.
Your tanks should be dealing with enemy tanks while your IFVs should be dealing with everything else and then enemy tanks.
A 57mm gun and ATGMs means they can... they wont have enough ATGMs to deal with every enemy IFV and 30mm wont deal with most current NATO IFVs even now.
Depends on the scenario!
AGLs are vastly more effective man killers than rifle calibre machine guns. And have better range too. The new Baikal 40mm grenade launcher can hit targets out to 2.5km... the PKM and PKP are limited to less than 1,500m most of the time.
The HE nature of grenades means direct hits are not needed to injure or kill.
Is that final decision?
The whole purpose of an Armata family of vehicles is to shorten the logistics tail for that force. If you add different vehicles like Kurganets for IFV then you introduce different engines and wheels etc etc for which you need spare parts... you also introduce vehicles with much weaker protection and different mobility characteristics.
The whole purpose of the Armata family is to have tank level mobility and tank level protection so that what happened in urban areas in Chechnia can't happen again where the the columns of vehicles were trapped and IFVs were all picked off and then tanks were taken out without troop support from angles they could not angle their main guns to defend themselves with from with.
Same question again, is that final decision? 30mm against air targets still deadly. Also RoF do matter.
30mm is too weak against current 32 ton NATO IFVs, and against very small targets like enemy UAVs the 30mm does not generate a dense enough pattern of impacts to ensure a hit... a small target will just fly between the shells. A guided 57mm shell with a proximity fuse would be much more effective yet still cheaper than using up missiles against a swarm attack and the 57mm APFSDS would be effective against quite heavy armour at combat ranges.
I think they should make it modular!
In the sense that they are remote weapon stations they would be but integral to the designs to ensure internal ammo storage as the ammo will be big and bulky.
Using a supercapacitor makes it possible to replace hydraulics with a magnetic turret traverse system. Moreover, this not only provides a quick turn of the gun in the proper direction, but also activates the tank combat control system before the main engine is started, that is, gives the opprtunity to immediately use weapons.
That looks awesome.
Very clever design.
Previously as I understand it they used a compressed air starter for the diesel engines, but this is much much better.