Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 587
    Points : 617
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  mnztr on Thu Nov 05, 2020 2:12 am

    Tanks don't use full power to cruise at their top speed. More commonly their speeds are limited by the track and terrain. A Hybrid will typically keep a min of 10% battery in reserve. Once at cruise it will recharge the battery with surplus power. Need a surge of power? No problem at all.  I cannot think of a scenario where a tank puts a full fuel load through the engine at max power. Yes sometimes tanks do get stuck for a variety of reason, and some times its fatal
    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 140
    Points : 142
    Join date : 2020-09-13

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  lyle6 on Thu Nov 05, 2020 2:45 am

    mnztr wrote:Tanks don't use full power to cruise at their top speed. More commonly their speeds are limited by the track and terrain. A Hybrid will typically keep a min of 10% battery in reserve. Once at cruise it will recharge the battery with surplus power. Need a surge of power? No problem at all.  I cannot think of a scenario where a tank puts a full fuel load through the engine at max power. Yes sometimes tanks do get stuck for a variety of reason, and some times its fatal

    You're assuming the energy consumption schedule for a hybrid in city conditions for a tank - its nowhere near close. Once you leave the roads even flat terrain has all sorts of micro-terrain like gullies and mounds and the like, and all of which require the tank to power through. If moving on hilly terrain that max torque is going to be the deciding factor for you to traverse certain passes. Then you have to consider wet ground from rain, or just the general topography - wet muddy ground requires even more oomph to move through as do snow covered grounds. Forests, or just all manner of vegetation in your way, you guessed it, requires more horsepower still. There's bound to be hundreds if not thousands of obstacles that a tank has to pass through before it even encounters the enemy, and a hybrid simply doesn't have the reliable excess power to do that.

    LMFS likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26613
    Points : 27151
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  GarryB on Thu Nov 05, 2020 7:43 pm

    I suspect they won't need an APU, if you have an electric motor that can deliver the 1200 HP for acceleration, then you only need to provide a bit more power then you need at cruising speed.

    You are confusing things... an APU is a backup power generation source you use when your primary engine is off for what ever reason.

    The electric motor can deliver power to the wheels to make the vehicle move but you need a primary motor to generate the electricity that the motor runs on... batteries store power but they don't generate it... you need a gas turbine and fuel supply to put charge in the batteries and run the electric motors, and you will generally have a small gas turbine as an APU for specific situations.

    A good example is a modern tank... say a T-80. Sitting in the snow in minus 20 degrees C temperatures you will want the heater on and you will want the electronics and optronics working and you will also want to be able to start up the main gas turbine engine quickly in case you need to move.

    Sitting with a 1,250hp engine running to keep the tank warm and the electronics going is going to burn a lot of fuel and generate a large IR signature... sitting with a 50hp gas turbine APU running that generates heat to keep the inside of the tank warm and powers the electronics and electrically heats the main gas turbine engine so it can be started immediately is an excellent compromise... instead of sitting there for 10 hours you can sit there for much much longer and when you do move you will have a lot more fuel in your fuel tank... and you wont be freezing.

    APUs are almost always gas turbines because they don't run under load and when operated at an effecient speed they can be very fuel efficient, but also small and compact and rather quiet, and in cold climates they are easier to cold start than diesel engines...

    Tanks don't use full power to cruise at their top speed. More commonly their speeds are limited by the track and terrain.

    In combat a tank will move from cover to cover at max speed and at max acceleration... riding along at top speed in top gear on a nice flat hard motorway is not comparison. Sitting in overwatch locations has been shown repeatedly on video as being rather dangerous these days in the era of modern ATGMs that terrorists seem to be able to get a hold of very easily...

    More importantly it wont just be electric motors on the wheels that need power... powered armour and a gun that uses power may also become an issue too.

    and a hybrid simply doesn't have the reliable excess power to do that.

    But the thing is that as electric motors get more efficient and more powerful, this will likely change over time.

    All electric power ships and all electric powered land vehicles are being worked on... even all electric powered aircraft...

    In the 1980s the Soviets developed a nuclear battery designed for use in extreme conditions... ie Mars or perhaps arctic or antarctic exploration where the battery itself was about 1m by 1m and about 4m long and generated a few kilowatts of power continuously for about 13 years. The huge benefit for cold places is that its cooling system could be plumbed into the living quarters so the power it generated wasn't needed for heating, and heating was a byproduct of the battery working properly, so the current produced was for electronics and equipment etc.

    Motor car hybrids are very light weight and often have tiny engines because they are there to keep the batteries charged more than anything else.

    This projected tank will have a 3,000hp gas turbine engine, but I don't think it will be excessively heavy.
    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 140
    Points : 142
    Join date : 2020-09-13

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  lyle6 on Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:46 am

    GarryB wrote:
    But the thing is that as electric motors get more efficient and more powerful, this will likely change over time.

    This projected tank will have a 3,000hp gas turbine engine, but I don't think it will be excessively heavy.

    What I meant to say is that a hybrid relying on batteries to provide burst power is less reliable than an ICE with conventional transmission - batteries will run out of charge before diesel fuels run out.

    GarryB wrote:
    This projected tank will have a 3,000hp gas turbine engine, but I don't think it will be excessively heavy.

    It does present its own set of requirements compared to mechanical transmissions. Namely increased volume - electric transmission anything occupies a much larger space than purely mechanical transmission systems. Thermal management is also an issue, given that silicon based power electronics conk out at relatively mild temps of 70 degrees or so, and you have a gas turbine just putting out waste heat like its nobody's business nearby. Still, the idea holds a lot of promise - its just that the technology is not quite there yet.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 6442
    Points : 6593
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Fri Nov 06, 2020 7:50 am

    lyle6 wrote:
    mnztr wrote:I suspect they won't need an APU, if you have an electric motor that can deliver the 1200 HP for acceleration, then you only need to provide a bit more power then you need at cruising speed. with 500 KWh of battery (5x a Tesla) you will be able to supply full power for 30 mins (doubt that is necessary), if you really need all out power you can fire up the 500 HP turbine and strech that out to 45 min at full power. At slow cruise the engine cycles in and out maintaining the battery charge within a range. When parked, it has those massive batteries to supply power.

    Hybrids don't have a place on a military vehicle like a tank, yet. At the tactical level, the tank must have excess horsepower on demand at any given time, for as long as possible, not just 30 minutes. Movement in combat is nothing like commuting to work on your car; you have to overcome a wide variety of off-road terrain, mostly unsurveyed, and more importantly with no set routing. Hybrids also are incapable of dealing with excessive loads so if a hybrid tank does gets stuck or mobility killed he's SOL. At the operational level the tank must be able to drive hundreds of kilometers at high speeds and stop for 10 minutes in the middle of bumf*ck nowhere to refuel. Obviously with a hybrid you can't do any of that. The only reason hybrid cars even have the range on battery power is because the vehicles are built out of low density materials like carbon and plastic composites and even then the batteries take up a significant share of the vehicle's internal space and weight. Did I mention that batteries don't even come anywhere near close to the power density of hydrocarbons? Because they totally aren't, and you need a lot of them just to power a 50 ton vehicle, an amount that more than exceeds the allowable share on the tank's precious, precious internal volume. They couldn't even contribute to the vehicle's protection, not unlike fuels that when compartmentalized can be incorporated in the vehicle's armor matrix as an additional barrier. Unless power storage technology gets a nice exponential boost in capacity petroleum is still the primary and only choice for the military.

    Here's Oleg Salyukov, The Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces from a recent (published Oct. 1st, 2020) interview on this very topic:

    Hybrid propulsion systems

    Hybrid power plants with electric transmissions and energy storage are planned to be used in models of weapons and military equipment.

    "The issue of using hybrid power plants with electric transmissions using high-capacity energy storage units in weapons is being considered. A certain groundwork has already been obtained in this direction," Salyukov said.

    He explained that such a technique would allow performing assigned tasks in various conditions, adapting to the dynamics of changes in external factors, and also significantly increasing the autonomy of troops' actions.

    "The practical implementation of the application of these technical solutions will allow an order of magnitude to increase the amount of energy circulating on board the vehicles, expand the possibilities for the layout of samples and crew habitability, and ensure the use of weapons on other principles of action," the commander-in-chief stressed.

    The introduction of hybrid power plants is considered one of the most promising areas for the development of weapons and military equipment. In Russia, the Kalashnikov concern is working on this, in particular, which presented hybrid buggies and hybrid motorcycles for the Special Operations Forces, the Advanced Research Fund, which is developing a hybrid helicopter, the United Engine Corporation, which is working on the creation of hybrid engines for various purposes, and many others. ...

    https://translate.yandex.com/translate?lang=ru-en&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftass.ru%2Farmiya-i-opk%2F9597331
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26613
    Points : 27151
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 06, 2020 6:35 pm

    What I meant to say is that a hybrid relying on batteries to provide burst power is less reliable than an ICE with conventional transmission - batteries will run out of charge before diesel fuels run out.

    Another factor for the Russians is how well will those batteries hold their charge if they get very cold... there might be situations where you need to run a small 20hp APU gas turbine to keep the batteries warm so they don't lose charge.

    Still, the idea holds a lot of promise - its just that the technology is not quite there yet.

    There are problems that need to be solved but it seems to be the direction most things are moving towards.

    They will likely appear first in unmanned ground vehicles designed to follow a squad of troops and carry their backpacks and heavy gear and perhaps mount a heavy weapon like a grenade launcher or heavy machine gun and a decent store of ammo...

    Conventional diesel and petrol engines have had a century to be perfected for use in motor vehicles.... but many people forget some of the earliest horseless carts were actually electric powered... but the value of energy rich petrol and diesel offered power increases and the ability to store more fuel to reach much greater distances at much higher speeds. Ironically with development that could be reversed with the right investment.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 2284
    Points : 2284
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  LMFS on Fri Nov 06, 2020 7:10 pm

    If you take a look at the energy balance of any EV the first think you realize is that they use several times less energy than an ICE equivalent, and that is critical for the concept to actually work. A good part of the savings come from the more efficient drivetrain, another very good part from aero, weigh and the fanatical limitation of accelerations and in general a very, very conservative drive profile. That is essentially the polar opposite of an incredibly dense tank fighting its way through mud, snow, vegetation and obstacles. It will be hard to get to the point where such vehicles can be electric, but hybrid drive train is a very different thing, where more efficient and compact ICEs can be used and electric motors of huge torque and very small size can drive the tank very quietly and efficiently. The fuel remains, the efficiency increases a lot and the power conversion HW is included that can power things like plasma armour, powerful onboard sensors, EW and so on. in fact without the hybrid drivetrain such huge amount of electric energy cannot easily be generated nor managed.
    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 140
    Points : 142
    Join date : 2020-09-13

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  lyle6 on Fri Nov 06, 2020 11:50 pm

    As I've said the real kicker is the miniaturization and thermal hardening of power electronics and batteries. Once we've made real substantial progress in those areas only then are we going to see hybrid powerpacks going to tanks. As it stands, most applications are on platforms that don't have the stringent power density requirements and tight packing of components that tanks do - they merely sidestep the issue altogether. Its quite easy to implement a hybrid powertrain on something like a ship or a plane where you have much more relaxed volume requirements and near infinite heat sinks surrounding the vehicle than with a tank.

    LMFS likes this post

    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 140
    Points : 142
    Join date : 2020-09-13

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 Empty Electrothermal cannon - a tank cannon of the future?

    Post  lyle6 on Sat Nov 07, 2020 4:08 am

    It is very likely that Russia will be a pioneer in the creation of a weapon based on new physical principles.

    Recently, Army General Oleg Saliukov, Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces, allowed the caliber of Russian tank guns to increase in an interview with Rossiyskaya Gazeta. Experts linked that statement to the beginning of a new stage of tank weapon development. In fact, it is a new round of armor and projectile fighting.

    According to the General, the modern Russian tanks (OBTs) T-72B3, T-72B3M, T-80BVM, T-90M are equipped with 125-mm guns and ensure the use of a wide range of shots. This is good, but not enough for tank wars of the future.

    T-14 is the king of the battlefield

    The gunners specify that the multi-purpose tanks currently serving in the Russian Armed Forces are armed either with the usual 125 mm cannon 2A46 (and its modifications) or 2A82, which was intended for re-equipping the T-72, T-80 and T-90 tank fleets with a small improvement of combat compartments. In addition, the list of tanks equipped with 125-mm guns can also include the T-14 on Armata platform. Its turret is equipped with 2A82 modifications 1M.

    Gun mass 2A82-1M - 2 700 kg, barrel length - 7.000 mm. The muzzle energy of the shot is 15-24 MJ. Initial projectile flight speed - more than 2.000 m/s. The effective range of the projectile is 4,700 m, the projectile guided by the 3UBK21 "Sprinter" projectile - 8,000 m, the anti-tank guided missile (ATUR) "Reflex-M" - 5,500 m. Cannon speed - 10-12 shots per minute. Armor penetration by the armor-piercing sub-caliber shell (APC) - 850-1.000 mm, PTUR - 950 mm. Cannon barrel life - 800-900 shots. Ammunition - 45 projectiles. Charging automat - 32 rounds.

    New is good, but not completely improved old.

    It is easy to notice that 2A83, compared to 2A82-1M, has a number of advantages. I would like to emphasize that 2A83 has a possibility to fire ammunition up to one meter long, such as "Krasnopol", which is fired by, for example, SAU "Msta-S".

    But this tool has a number of shortcomings. One of them is the large mass of the cannon (and the resulting reduced ammunition). Another drawback is that it has a much smaller life span as compared to 2A82-1M. However, experts believe that the ammo problem can be solved by placing additional shells in an awesome niche.

    It is believed that the range of 2A83 rounds will be extended by the depleted uranium sub-caliber rounds that Rosatom experts are working on.

    The new cannon means new tasks

    One way or another, the variant of the T-14 tank with a 152-mm cannon will surely be put into series. But at such power and in the presence of guided missiles "Krasnopol" it will no longer be a tank, but rather a SAU. Destruction of enemy fortifications, high-precision strikes on armored vehicles and air defense at long ranges - all this is listed on the shoulder 2A83 (recall, the range of 2K25 "Krasnopol" - more than 20 km).

    In general, this is quite a specific task, and for the multi-purpose OBT is not always the main one. Therefore, we can assume that the T-14 series with a 152 mm cannon will still be limited. Such machines, most likely, will start to be included in tank groups to solve very narrowly specialized problems.

    And what is on the other side?

    On the battlefield our T-14 with a 152-mm cannon 2A83 will be opposed by NATO tanks with the German 130-mm gun Rheinmetall L51 and the American 140-mm gun XM291. As for the L51, serial production of this cannon is planned to be launched in 2025.

    It is known that the barrel length of the gun is 6.630 mm, weight - 3.000 kg. In the range of ammunition there is an armor-piercing sub-caliber projectile (APFSDS) with an elongated tungsten core, partially burnt with a shell using a new type of powder charge and a multi-purpose shrapnel-phase projectile with programmable air burst, developed on the basis of DM11 projectile.

    Incidentally, Bild has recently written about a new French-German tank, which is due to enter the market in 2035. This tank will be preliminarily named MGCS (Main Ground Combat System), and, according to the developers, will be significantly superior to the characteristics of the German Leopard 2.

    According to the publication, the crew of the new tank will consist of two people. The reduction in number is due to the desire to provide autonomous driving mode. Recharge the shells while they will be manually. Apparently, the MGCS will get a new L51 cannon.

    The American perspective 140 mm XM291 tank gun, according to its designers, has twice as much power as the 120 mm M-256 gun installed on M1A2 Abrams tanks.

    Due to its special design, the 140mm XM291 barrel can be replaced with 120mm barrels, and old types of ammunition can be further used. The XM291 has an automatic loader. Its rate of fire is 12 shots per minute. Ammunition - 22 140-mm shot or 33 120-mm shot. Like the German L51, the American cannon is still being tested. The designers have not yet rid it of a number of serious shortcomings. As one of these, experts call too much momentum of recoil.

    Against this background, the statement of Oleg Salyukov, the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Army about possible increase in the caliber of the tank guns was received with great concern in the USA. The National Interest magazine stressed that the Russian 2A83 cannon could have been successfully used by the tank special forces to break into the enemy's defense.

    Tomorrow's Tank Construction Day

    Meanwhile, Russian designers are already thinking about a fundamentally new generation of tanks. Journalists here are satisfied with only rumors and general reasoning. For obvious reasons, this topic is obviously top secret.

    According to confidential sources in the DIC, the new vehicle should become unmanned. The tank will be controlled by artificial intelligence (which, of course, does not cancel the operators' remote participation). And what is especially important for us in this case is that the project envisages the use of a gun based on new physical principles. We are talking about an electrothermal cannon.

    The thermal principle of acceleration provides for preheating of the throwing substance in the heat exchanger with its subsequent feeding under high pressure into the gun barrel. It is then converted into plasma by means of electrical energy. In this case, it is possible to obtain a more smooth pressure curve in the barrel channel than in conventional guns and, as a result, increase the initial velocity of the projectile almost to 4,500 m/s.

    It should be emphasized that an electrothermal (ETCP) or electrothermal (ETP) gun is similar to a conventional artillery barrel system. It can be installed on existing tanks (and in general self-propelled artillery) without significant design changes in the carrier. Since it has an acceptable size and weight.

    As a result, we get a much shorter projectile flight time to the target, excellent armor penetration, relatively small caliber (according to some sources, about 60 mm), which means that we can significantly increase the ammunition stock and simplify the charging process.

    Russia, as always, is a pioneer

    To date, no army in the world has this type of weapon. It is very likely that Russia will be a pioneer in this area as well. In any case, the statement of Army General Oleg Salyukov indicates that our military does not intend, as they say, to rest on its laurels and is committed to the constant growth of the country's defense potential (in some cases, the growth is even on an exponential basis).

    It is safe to say that contrary to the opinion of skeptics, Russia has fully preserved its own engineering and design school. The country's defense potential is ensured by a large scientific and technical potential, which does not exist in itself, but in close connection with production.

    This state of affairs allows our Motherland to confidently maintain its own political line in the international arena, and its so-called geopolitical partners to bite their elbows in vain attempts to force us to play by the rules of others.

    https://zvezdaweekly.ru/news/t/202010271014-rTjyQ.html

    dino00, magnumcromagnon, Big_Gazza and LMFS like this post

    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 863
    Points : 913
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Sat Nov 07, 2020 8:00 am


    The thermal principle of acceleration provides for preheating of the throwing substance in the heat exchanger with its subsequent feeding under high pressure into the gun barrel. It is then converted into plasma by means of electrical energy. In this case, it is possible to obtain a more smooth pressure curve in the barrel channel than in conventional guns and, as a result, increase the initial velocity of the projectile almost to 4,500 m/s.

    Sounds very similar to an idea I came up with a while ago for transitional energy weapons that use high pressure plasma formed from matter in the cartrige to accelerate a solid projectile t greater velocities than would be achievable with conventional explosives, it seems that this was not such a silly idea after all.

    Though in my scifi weapons there were oten magnetic "pumps" to further increase the pressure of the plasma.

    Anyway, I found this, one minuite in there is a picture of some gun with electrical cable coming out of the breech block on a test mount.

    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 6442
    Points : 6593
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Nov 07, 2020 8:17 am

    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    Anyway, I found this, one minuite in there is a picture of some gun with electrical cable  coming out of the breech block on a test mount.


    Those wires are probably there to control the gun/mount remotely and safely. If you think 4.5 km/s. is phenomenal, you should know that Federation physicists managed to fire objects at 11 km/s. which translates to Mach 32 at low altitude and Mach 37 at high altitude.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 7447
    Points : 7596
    Join date : 2014-09-10
    Location : Canuckistan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  kvs on Sat Nov 07, 2020 10:53 am

    I do not think that a hybrid power plant is not viable for tanks. The generator part of the system is rather small and they
    can distribute the electrical drive motors easier than in a car with the added bonus of removing the transmission outright.
    So in terms of efficiency there is not much more lost to producing electricity instead of direct mechanical driving. In fact,
    the ICE can be optimized to run in a narrower and more efficient range of RPMs and can be reduced in size. Electric motors
    are much better at taking direct loads than pistons in the ICE which just puts it into a less efficient operation regime.

    As with other EVs, the acceleration improves substantially.

    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 140
    Points : 142
    Join date : 2020-09-13

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  lyle6 on Sat Nov 07, 2020 12:50 pm

    kvs wrote:I do not think that a hybrid power plant is not viable for tanks.    The generator part of the system is rather small and they
    can distribute the electrical drive motors easier than in a car with the added bonus of removing the transmission outright.  
    So in terms of efficiency there is not much more lost to producing electricity instead of direct mechanical driving.   In fact,
    the ICE can be optimized to run in a narrower and more efficient range of RPMs and can be reduced in size.   Electric motors
    are much better at taking direct loads than pistons in the ICE which just puts it into a less efficient operation regime.

    As with other EVs, the acceleration improves substantially.  


    Tanks are not supercars; acceleration performance is not just the goal here. Tank designers want a powerplant that consumes a reasonable amount of diesel, has a sufficient amount of performance, comes in a dense package and more importantly is robust for heavy use in a wide variety of environments. Hybrids tick the first 2 boxes but fail in the latter 2. Take a look at this:
    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 Gcv_hed_layout
    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 Gcv_hed_design
    As you can see the hybrid powerplant with ancillaries is absolutely massive; it almost engulfs the entire sides of the tank with how voluminous the entire thing is. The hybrid version also weighs a lot more than the mechanical transmission version: the minimum weight for the former is the maximum weight for the latter at 63 tonnes, and is projected to even go up to 76 tonnes mostly because they have to affix massive slabs of armor at the sides just to maintain a decent amount of side protection. That's the closest we have to the state of the art for a hybrid for a tank, and it doesn't look good at all.

    LMFS likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26613
    Points : 27151
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 07, 2020 9:52 pm

    Those wires are probably there to control the gun/mount remotely and safely. If you think 4.5 km/s. is phenomenal, you should know that Federation physicists managed to fire objects at 11 km/s. which translates to Mach 32 at low altitude and Mach 37 at high altitude.

    4.5km/s is useful if the projectile weight is reasonable... ie over 5kgs.

    The objects they fire at 11km/s are normally tiny bits of plastic with aluminium filaments that enable the plasma and magnetic coils to move the tiny very light projectile.

    Of course work on EM catapults includes software that manages the acceleration to maximise it along its operational path. A chemical gun has propellent designed to work most efficiently under pressure... if you took some propellent and put it on a table in a small pile and lit it the rate at which it burned would blow a lot of the powder up into the air and a significant percentage of the powder would not be ignited.

    Put the same amount of powder inside a shell case supported by the walls of a gun chamber and the face of a bolt and the rapid increase in pressure will ensure more of the powder burns and instead of a pop, you get a real bang from the gas expansion being supersonic.

    What they are talking about with EM guns is managing the pressure behind the projectile to achieve max pressure and maintain it as the projectile moves down the barrel. This leads to much better and much more efficient acceleration to much higher speeds.

    The main problem for a new gun will be enormous velocity and smaller calibre means HE rounds will become less effective.

    At the start of WWII most anti armour guns were small calibre weapons... from 37mm to about 50mm which had high velocity but tiny HE options if they had HE options at all. It led to tanks with multiple turrets which seemed to make sense at the time... small calibre anti armour turrets with 45mm guns, and other turrets with machine guns and short large calibre guns for firing heavy HE shells.

    Having separate turrets made sense because in theory the anti armour guns will be engaging enemy armoured vehicles, while the machine gun turrets and HE turrets will be engaging bunkers and infantry.

    The main problems were that it was cumbersome to have that many turrets and fire control was poor.

    All those turrets and guns meant the tanks where huge which also meant poor armour thickness and most were severely underpowered and too long to manouver well on a real battlefield.

    The best solution was to replace the long barrel 45mm guns and the short barrel 76.2mm guns with a longer barrel 76.2mm gun with a higher velocity shell with a decent HE payload. At close range the smaller calibre rounds had better armour penetration to start with but later models improved and the 76.2mm guns fired heavier projectiles that were effective to much greater ranges than the smaller lighter rounds.

    The thing is that they might develop a super 60mm calibre gun and a super 80mm gun... the latter with lower velocities but heavier projectiles and perhaps a more effective HE round... they might choose the 80mm for tank use.

    For IFV they might take the 100mm round from the BMP-3... it has an effective HE round but a new APFSDS round with a long thin light ( light compared with the HE round) rod penetrator and large propellent mass would be effective against enemy IFVs and be a useful replacement for the 57mm grenade gun being looked at now.

    As you can see the hybrid powerplant with ancillaries is absolutely massive; it almost engulfs the entire sides of the tank with how voluminous the entire thing is. The hybrid version also weighs a lot more than the mechanical transmission version: the minimum weight for the former is the maximum weight for the latter at 63 tonnes, and is projected to even go up to 76 tonnes mostly because they have to affix massive slabs of armor at the sides just to maintain a decent amount of side protection. That's the closest we have to the state of the art for a hybrid for a tank, and it doesn't look good at all.

    Except that looks like western designs and are APCs and not tanks... compared with current western designs a 63 ton tank is normal weight with no increase at all, yet the potential for much better performance with the improved systems.

    In the Mid 1990s a German magazine called Military Technology ran a few articles about electric drives for armour, and they stated even then that the ability to increase power generation from diesels is limited to about 2,000Kwt or so. No such hard limits for gas turbines however.

    Russia has experience with gas turbine powered tanks... the T-80 of course, so they know the problems and advantages, but even they are talking about a 3,000hp GT engine on the tank that replaces the Armata... in 30-40 years time...
    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 140
    Points : 142
    Join date : 2020-09-13

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  lyle6 on Mon Nov 09, 2020 6:58 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Except that looks like western designs and are APCs and not tanks... compared with current western designs a 63 ton tank is normal weight with no increase at all, yet the potential for much better performance with the improved systems.

    In the Mid 1990s a German magazine called Military Technology ran a few articles about electric drives for armour, and they stated even then that the ability to increase power generation from diesels is limited to about 2,000Kwt or so. No such hard limits for gas turbines however.

    Russia has experience with gas turbine powered tanks... the T-80 of course, so they know the problems and advantages, but even they are talking about a 3,000hp GT engine on the tank that replaces the Armata... in 30-40 years time...

    I just posted it to illustrate the disadvantage of the hybrid setup over the conventional powerpack. Would there be any changes compared to the tank version? Absolutely; the tank would have no need for a distributed powerplant and its always preferred to have vital equipment buried under armor else you would see shenanigans like multimillion dollar Abrams set on fire with HMG fire on the external APU. At the same they wouldn't have resorted to their current setup if the entire thing would fit within the volume parameters of the conventional powerpack in the first place. A Russian design likely would run into the same difficulties when trying to fit a hybrid powerplant as their American counterparts if they are to have a go at it - unless they have some nifty storage technology burning a hole in their pockets, that is.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26613
    Points : 27151
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  GarryB on Mon Nov 09, 2020 7:46 pm

    The Russians rejected turret bustles for primary ammo storage precisely for the reason that it is too exposed to enemy fire and to vulnerable a target most of the time... I would suspect their APUs would be located to not be too vulnerable to fire either, but at the end of the day it is going to be another vulnerability that could be exploited by an enemy familiar with Russian vehicles... like for example Chechen rebels who all went through military training and know Soviet tanks inside and out...

    For the US in the past they have not really had to fight any enemy that was familiar with the Abrams and its various weak spots but over time in the Middle East their enemies got to learn their weaknesses and learned to take them out more and more efficiently.

    Obviously T-72s and T-62s in Afghanistan were vulnerable to the Muj because their western trainers would show them exactly where to hit them with RPG fire... most of the weapons they used were Chinese made and paid for by the US and west so it looked like they were rebels using captured weapons and equipment, but examination of the Chinese markings shows immediately these weapons were not captured from the invading Soviet forces...

    The Afghans and Iraqis had now such instruction on where to fire on an Abrams or Bradley... they had to work that out themselves...
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 2134
    Points : 2136
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Big_Gazza on Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:46 am

    AFAIK the Soviets didn't deploy T-72s to Afghanistan. Correct me if I'm wrong but they used T-62s and T-55 throughout.

    GarryB likes this post

    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2218
    Points : 2208
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Tue Nov 10, 2020 5:55 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:AFAIK the Soviets didn't deploy T-72s to Afghanistan.  Correct me if I'm wrong but they used T-62s and T-55 throughout.

    This is correct I believe it was the 40th Soviet Army who was deployed and they had mainly T-62's, 55's and some 64's.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 3374
    Points : 3372
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 44
    Location : Merkelland

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Hole on Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:54 pm

    T-15 porn

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 T-15_a13
    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 T-15_a14
    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 T-15_a15

    GarryB, ahmedfire, LMFS and lancelot like this post

    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 7447
    Points : 7596
    Join date : 2014-09-10
    Location : Canuckistan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  kvs on Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:41 pm

    Re tanks not being supercars.  Not shit Sherlock.  And the acceleration characteristics here involve being able to move over
    rough terrain like it is not there.  It is not about speed, it is about force.

    And hybrid powertrains are demonstrated to be more efficient in terms of fuel consumption.   There is no chance of defending
    the notion that using a 1500 hp diesel for propulsion uses less fuel than an 1000 hp diesel running in the optimal fuel consumption
    regime.  

    Removing the transmission is all by itself a big jump in overall efficiency and mechanical reliability.   We saw how some green recruit
    fucked up on Red Square with a T-14.   That sort of abuse will lead to failure on the front line.   Removing this failure mode is
    worth a lot.

    And those pictures show some sort of idiotic power plant which requires massive cooling. Literally, WTF? Hybrid drivetrains do
    not need any cooling. In fact, the prime heat generation in the ICE driving them is reduced. Whoever thought up this design
    for tracked vehicles is a retard.

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 2284
    Points : 2284
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  LMFS on Tue Nov 10, 2020 5:00 pm

    All power conversion electronics involved do not like high temperatures, batteries hate it too. With new technology for the power accumulation and SiC electronics a hybrid IFV or tank shoud be doable, the idea is clear, but all the technological pieces must fall in its right place before it turns a reality
    avatar
    Arrow

    Posts : 707
    Points : 707
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Arrow on Wed Nov 11, 2020 7:30 am

    The US is reportedly preparing a groundbreaking successor to Abrams, which will overtake all competition.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 6442
    Points : 6593
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Nov 11, 2020 10:03 am

    Arrow wrote:The US is reportedly preparing a groundbreaking successor to Abrams, which will overtake all competition.

    It won't have a autoloader or GLATGM's, it's almost guaranteed in won't. Razz
    marcellogo
    marcellogo

    Posts : 365
    Points : 371
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  marcellogo on Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:20 am

    Arrow wrote:The US is reportedly preparing a groundbreaking successor to Abrams, which will overtake all competition.
    in 2035 when

    Happy to hear that, please call us back when it will be ready i.e. not in the next 12-15 years...

    miketheterrible and LMFS like this post

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6631
    Points : 6621
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Isos on Wed Nov 11, 2020 1:38 pm

    They failed often with their vehicle projects. I doubt this one will succeed.

    They will probavly beg germans for help.

    miketheterrible likes this post


    Sponsored content

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 17 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Nov 24, 2020 12:13 pm