[Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

@Kvs ,be sure that i'm trying to collect informations and i'm actually a russian hardware fan ,so give a little respect here if you didn't mind . Also even if the engine faced issues ,it doesn't mean the project is bad ,it means that the Russians are working to improve the whole project to meet their desire .

This below source is talking about the same issue ,

Все по-новой: в России забраковали двигатель для "Арматы"

Translate

Diesel "Seagull" found unfit
In Russia, one of the reasons for the delay in the Armata and Kurganets platforms, which Moscow has long positioned as outstripping Western counterparts, is becoming clearer.

The promising Chaika engine, which was planned to equip the T-14 Armata tank, the T-15 BMP, the T-16 repair and recovery vehicle and the entire Kurganets platform, has not yet gone into production due to flaws and technically unattainable parameters.

This was reported by Mil.Press with reference to the official response of the Acting General Director of the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant (URALTRAK) Valery Kostyuchenko.

According to him, R&D on the development of the engine will be closed in the first quarter of this year, and the scientific and technical reserve is used in promising designs.

Earlier, Russian Minister of Industry and Trade Denis Manturov said that state tests of promising military vehicles on the Kurganets-25 and Boomerang platforms will be completed according to plan in 2022.

It is worth noting that the Kurganets-25 series was supposed to go back in 2017, similarly all the deadlines were also missed with the Armata platform.

miketheterrible wrote:And where exactly is that quote coming from?  Only thing is from a Ukrainian blogger and that is total horseshit.

I'll explain

Thermal imagers used for the Armata have already been cleared and used in T-90M upgrades and other tanks.  I have posted about this long before.  It is the TPK-K thermal imager using the ФЭМ18М-03 640×512 MWIR cooled imager system



https://www.russiadefence.net/t5826p175-russian-made-scopes-and-optics#234497

https://pikabu.ru/story/rossiyskie_teplovizionnyie_matritsyi_6011136

Here is the order:

https://rt-ci.ru/purchase_information/?id=130900

This same thermal imagers been used and tested going back to 2013 but using a weaker matrices.  This newer device uses more advanced matrices.

And this puts the article to great question - What is his source?  It is assumed, that is what.  The thermal imager used is now already in service with existing tanks and already development for more cleared (T-90M, T-80, T-72B3).  And this was due to the fact Russia couldn't buy Thermal imagers since 2014.  So let me ask, what were they using before hand?  That is right, they had to move to domestic production since the microbelometers where French and not Russian.  Now they are Russian and has been for quite a few years.

Thanks for the informations

We must not forget, that Russia made far longer and far harsher tests for their equipment than NATO. They went to extremes. Of course there could be problems and it is good, that problems are solved in the process of tests. We still remeber with problems during tests with Polyment, Redut and long range 9M96 missiles with Admiral Gorshkov frigate. Almaz Antey is one of the most experienced air defense producer and they still have problem with interference with other equipment on the ship, which they have to solve and they did. Many have far shorter test in more normal conditions, which they pass, but only later they could find out, that it doesn't work that well.

The promising Chaika engine, which was planned to equip the T-14 Armata tank, the T-15 BMP, the T-16 repair and recovery vehicle and the entire Kurganets platform, has not yet gone into production due to flaws and technically unattainable parameters.

So one engine called Chaika is supposed to power the Armata family of vehicles (45 to 65 ton vehicles) AND Kurganets family of vehicles (described as being in the 25 ton weight class)... well that is kinda stupid isn't it? It is a bit like making a truck and a motor bike using the same engine isn't it?

AFAIK the Armata had its own engine with an output rating from 1,400hp in the first models expanding to a max of about 2,400hp after materials development and over time to allow for weight increases and power requirement increases of the vehicles. Have not seen the specs for the Kurganets engine but it is supposed to share a new engine type with the similar weight Boomerang family, so it sounds rather strange for this article to suggest all three families of vehicles use the same engine despite clearly being in two totally different weight classes.

This was reported by Mil.Press with reference to the official response of the Acting General Director of the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant (URALTRAK) Valery Kostyuchenko.

According to him, R&D on the development of the engine will be closed in the first quarter of this year, and the scientific and technical reserve is used in promising designs.

Earlier, Russian Minister of Industry and Trade Denis Manturov said that state tests of promising military vehicles on the Kurganets-25 and Boomerang platforms will be completed according to plan in 2022.

It is worth noting that the Kurganets-25 series was supposed to go back in 2017, similarly all the deadlines were also missed with the Armata platform.

Yeah, Trump also recently quoted Biden offering words of support for his election, but it turned out it was a case of selective editing...

People with agendas do that sort of thing so the original source only has value if you read the complete release...

The huge irony is that the T-90 is already better than the Abrams or any euro tank... there is no real hurry for Armata...

So one engine called Chaika is supposed to power the Armata family of vehicles (45 to 65 ton vehicles) AND Kurganets family of vehicles (described as being in the 25 ton weight class)... well that is kinda stupid isn't it? It is a bit like making a truck and a motor bike using the same engine isn't it?

That's a good point but i didn't see any problem if the engine faced some issues , i mean this is normal during a design of a complicated parts like tank engines .

Keep in mind this is a brand new tank engine... Russian and Soviet tank engines have not changed a whole lot for a very very long time and are basically evolutions and improvements on designs a WWII veteran would not be too unfamiliar with (except of course the electronic components which would likely blow them away and the power performance...)

The new engines are specifically designed for entire vehicle families and were developed to have a growth path... in the case of the Armata engine it is supposed to start out at 1,400 or 1,800hp but over time with new materials and improvements in design eventually go up to about 2,400hp... with ongoing work being done on materials and design to improve reliability and fuel efficiency and to extend parts live and extend maintenance and overhaul times throughout the life of the engines.

The engines for the Kurganets and Boomerang are similar in the sense that these will be new generation engines intended to have growth potential that will be developed to further improve performance and reliability over time...

To remind everyone the Armata is not a tank and the Kurganets is not a BMP and the Boomerang is not a BTR... there is a tank based on the Armata... it is called the T-14, but the BMP based on the Armata is called the T-15 and the BTR based on the Armata will be called T something else... they are going to have an entire range of armata based vehicles in an Armata division including engineer vehicles (T-16) and of course command vehicles with a T designation to replace the ACRVs based on MTLBs that normally perform the role.

It will be the same in the Boomerang division... a Boomerang medium wheeled tank, called K something, and a Boomerang BMP and BTR and air defence vehicle and artillery vehicle and ATGM launcher vehicle and everything else in a current division...

The Kurganets will again have their own divisions with tanks and BMPs and BTRs and command vehicles and engineer vehicles and scout vehicles and jammer vehicles... their designation has a B in it instead of a K or T.

The point is logistics... right now they have motor rifle and tank divisions which both consist of infantry and tanks in different mixes... a motor rifle division has more BMPs and BTRs and troops but it still has tank platoons to support it operations, while a tank division has more tanks but it also has BTRs and BMPs too... the problem is that a current division has an enormous mix of vehicles... all with different engines and wheel types and tracks and transmissions... a tank division might have T-72 tanks, but any artillery like MSTAs are based on T-80s, even though the engines are from T-72s the wheels and tracks are different... the ACRV is a command version of the MTLB which has its own engine and tracks and transmission and wheels, there are BMPs... possibly mixtures of BMP-1 and BMP-2s with different engines and tracks and wheels, and various variants of these vehicles for engineer and other roles, and of course other vehicle types including BTR types and of course vehicles like BRDM-2s and other platforms like Tunguska and SA-9 and SA-13 and OSA and Shilka etc etc... currently the list of spare parts and different types of engine parts and transmission parts and indeed spare ERA tiles is enormous.

With an Armata division it has one engine and one transmission type one track type one wheel type... of course weights will be different, and there are front engined and rear engined versions of the vehicle, but the unification of vehicles into one family for use in one force that operates together simplifies things and makes the logistic tail much much shorter... of course the range of ordinance is necessarily fairly broad from 125mm gun ordinance and 120mm gun/mortar ammo, various missiles and rockets, but that is OK, the payoff is both a shorter logistics tail, but also very importantly a group of vehicles with similar protection levels, similar fire power, and similar mobility... all the vehicles in the Armata division will likely snorkel or use bridges set up by bridging units... all the vehicles of the kurganets and boomerang divisions should be able to flip down the trim guards and the bilge pumps and just roll in to the water... and float across...

Is that confirmed

Promising self-propelled gun "Coalition-SV" 2S35 on the platform "Armata" is not needed

Well it is basically saying the new Coalition vehicle might be based on the T-90 chassis instead of the Armata chassis in its first versions, which might be true... the T-90 chassis is in production and likely cheaper than the Armata chassis.

I would suspect the Armata chassis would be better suited to artillery because of the version with the front mounted engine that would also be used as the IFV and APC model (ie BMP and BTR models) as the rear entry and exit in the hull makes it more useful for loading ammo or troops.

If they can put all the advantages of the Coalition on the T-90 chassis to make it cheaper then it might make sense initially to get them in to service quicker, but later on when all Armata platform units are formed it would make sense to use the standard vehicle platform for all vehicles within that unit.



AFAIK they are still making new model MSTAs which is based on a T-80 with a T-72s engine and T-72 parts... but then the new model MSTA is a good vehicle and would be a useful replacement for older models in use like the 2S3 and 2S1...

anyone knows..
which infra red optics use armata , are them the bielorrusian ones or the french ones ?

how about Su-57... infra red optics? haven't found any info on wikipedia..

Vann7 wrote:

anyone knows..
which infra red optics use armata , are them the bielorrusian ones or the french ones ?

how about Su-57...  infra red optics?  haven't found any info on wikipedia..

French optics are not available for 6 last years, due to sanctions! Russia (or Belarus) developed their own, but I don`t know what are their specifications data and quality. I hope that Russia was capable of producing their own, as IR or rather thermovision are very important and such products are not to be imported, but made domestically, as a rule. French optics were there for purpose of developing Russian proper devices.

Aircraft devices, such as KOLS, are multi-channel and multipurpose and well known for their efficiency for 30 years already.

Russia builds the french Catherine thermal under lisence.

Look at post 202

Prior Russia need to import matrices for their thermal cameras. Few years ago Russia produce their domestic matrices and since than they produce their own thermal cameras. They are no more depending on imports and their production is now more massive as they are no more limited with number and quality of imported matrices. This is why Russia produce way more capable Thermal imagers, which see far longer than those before.

Isos wrote:Russia builds the french Catherine thermal under lisence.

As I mentioned before, Russia couldn't import since 2014 any matrices. So all development afterwards was domestic.

miketheterrible wrote:

Isos wrote:Russia builds the french Catherine thermal under lisence.

As I mentioned before, Russia couldn't import since 2014 any matrices.  So all development afterwards was domestic.

They didn't import them. They had lisences to build them by local firms if I'm not wrong for the domestic tanks.

Of course they have their own production now but the french Catherine ToT was very important for them because they wouldn't have bought it if their own optics were good back then.

It's kinda like drones. They bought israeli ones just for ToT so that they don't spend billions in r&d.

No.

They had license for certain parts minus the matrix (the central diode/chip for the imager).  They never made the Catherine XP matrix, just certain other parts and assembly.  Sosna U was using all of those components till they made their own matrix which apparently wasn't that good at the start (Irbis K which had lower resolution). Recently (two years ago) they made TPK-K thermal imaging system to be used in all armored vehicles that more or less match THALES Matrix in Catherine XP. That was under NPO Orion which is a company within Schvab which makes majority of Russia's optical systems and Thermal and Infrared systems.  Another company now has come forward and created another thermal imaging system to compete against NPO Orion's design.

Russia never made the matrix from France. That was imported. But going back to early 2000's they had designed their own thermal matrix but it was definately not as good as the French Thales system. So they decided to import those and then assembly (screwdriver for thermal imager, manufacturing the shell done in Belarus) until they caught wind they were going to get sanctioned so they went back to early designs which was more or less Irbis K imager seen in 2013. Its performance was lacking though. That changed about 2017/18 and now.

Thermal imagers are very widely needed and deployed... from armoured vehicles to ships and even individual rifle scopes and laser target markers and of course now on drones... it is a bit like AESA radar elements... their mass production means they start using them for everything...

Rob Lee
@RALee85
·
38 min
The Minister of Industry and Trade Denis Manturov said that the T-14 Armata tank was tested in Syria. As with other systems, like the Su-57, this doesn't mean that it was actually used in combat

https://life.ru/p/1173127/amp

"The combat vehicle on which the railotron will be installed will look more like an expensive smartphone with a whole heap of electronic "lotions" than a tank in the usual sense of the word. Given the complexity of the system, it is more rational to place such weapons on completely unmanned vehicles, and here Russian specialists already have a ready-made solution. It is called "Tachanka-B" and is nothing more than a fully unmanned version of the T-14 heavy tank on the Armata platform. Taking into account the ready-made solutions of scientists and the prospective armored vehicles "tested" in the troops, the main question is to combine the two technologies and test the system for efficiency. If everything goes according to plan, then by about 2025–2027 a combat vehicle may appear in Russia, which has no equal,there has not been and will not be in the next few decades. And then all foreign manufacturers will have to urgently decide which technology can be answered."

Is it too early to create a Tachanka-B topic thread( the mig-41 of tanks)? does anyone have a source about electric power armour since I have heard that claim(shells nelt than hit)from some random user?

The only electric power armour I have heard of was British and basically involved electrifying an inner shell and an outer shell with insulated normal armour material in between... a metal rod penetrator or plasma beam from a HEAT warhead basically connects the two shells and millions of volts is directed through the penetrator... vapourising them in the case of the solid metal penetrator or dispersing the plasma stream in the case of the HEAT warhead...

I would expect the Russians have a similar programme but have not heard anything about it in public.

dino00 wrote:

GarryB wrote:The only electric power armour I have heard of was British and basically involved electrifying an inner shell and an outer shell with insulated normal armour material in between... a metal rod penetrator or plasma beam from a HEAT warhead basically connects the two shells and millions of volts is directed through the penetrator... vapourising them in the case of the solid metal penetrator or dispersing the plasma stream in the case of the HEAT warhead...

I would expect the Russians have a similar programme but have not heard anything about it in public.

This?
https://www.russiadefence.net/t6862p150-russian-tanks-era-and-aps#225919

thank you so much