[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

The running gear only gets noticeably warmer than the ground when the vehicle is moving. In a static position you can dig tank trenches, drape overhead camo netting to better hide the tank.

In a static position you can set up netting even further from your vehicle to catch drones and ATGMs well away from the vehicle.

"That is, it will have electric propulsion and a diesel engine, with an operating principle similar to that of hybrid cars. They aim to halve fuel consumption, which is a significant advantage," Kornev stresses, explaining that a hybrid engine means lower mass, reduced noise levels and possibly higher acceleration characteristics, which could prove critical on the battlefield.

Halving the fuel consumption of an Abrams probably means it still uses more fuel than Armata or T-90AM...


The real difference is that Armata is planned to be a vehicle chassis for a vehicle family that performs all roles within a Russian armoured division, this new Abrams is a tank.

Throwing some numbers around:

The minimum specific fuel consumption of the AGT1500 engine is 330 g/kWh.

50% more efficient comes up to 220 g/kWh.

The 12N360 engine has slightly less than 220 g/kwh so its actually slightly more efficient.

The AbramsX is a technology demonstrator. It is not an operationally ready platform unlike the T-14 which has passed all factory and state trials and is currently on pre-serial production. It would take the Abrams X at least a decade to go from its current stage to where the T-14 is by now by at which point the T-14 would be in numbers and modernized to a new standard.

Probably against APFSDS arrows based on the entry holes which are quite deep and display the characteristic surface pitting on oblique impacts.

Also suggests that Afghanit uses a DIME filled warhead since it shred the main gun's thermal sleeve (moved off to the side since then) but didn't cause any detectable damage on the turret or the hull that is no more than 5 meters away from the detonation zone.

Note that despite this the sub-caliber arrow is still mostly intact - all the APS has done is deflect the arrow so it hits the actual armor at a sub-optimal angle. You still need heavy complex armor arrays to effectively absorb the hit which is why heavy armor is here to stay despite the presence of hardkill APS.

very nice find!

Also confirms that the sensors many people have referred to as AESA radars are actually optical with those black panels just being the protective covers.

Begome wrote:very nice find!

Also confirms that the sensors many people have referred to as AESA radars are actually optical with those black panels just being the protective covers.

Correct. The panels on the 4 corners of the turret are the UV/IR direction finding sensors. These are purely passive and work by detecting the presence of illuminating lasers or burning rocket motors/muzzle flashes.

The two boxes immediately above the hard kill launcher are high-speed pulse-doppler radars. More importantly these are quite small and only activate on cue by the optoelectronic sensors so the chances of radar detection are minimal.

lyle6 wrote:
The two boxes immediately above the hard kill launcher are high-speed doppler radars.

Which boxes? Please show an image of those.

One of the bigger mysteries for me is still to what degree the APS can act against top-attack threats...by that I don't mean Javelin, as it's angle of attack is actually not that steep (IRL, not in Battlefield lol), so it can almost certainly be dealt with by the hard-kill effectors, but e.g. loitering munitions or EFP-warhead-launching mines or cluster rockets from MLRS etc...the UV/IR sensors seem angled enough to be able to see those threats as long as they're not in a ~30-45° cone above the tank (and the T-14 would shoot its smoke grenades straight up if it thought something was coming from the top, as that "something" would almost certainly be picked up moving into the cone, especially since the T-14 will be sharing data with other vehicles around it), but the hard kill effectors don't have that kind of angle...

Makes me think that the engineers actually intended AI to constantly surveil the environment via the UV/IR sensors and autonomously engage top-attack threats with the machine gun. The chance of accidental friendly fire or danger for civilians is very low, as civilians won't be riding magic carpets through the air, so you could actually leave it on auto without kill confirmation by the gunner/commander, but is the machine gun accurate enough?

What the aforementioned threats have in common is that they're pretty slow, unlike the missiles, which would have higher velocity but also a more shallow AoA. Slower means easier to hit and this hypothesis would also explain another puzzling detail about the T-14, namely that it doesn't come with an HMG (e.g. 12,7mm Kord) like the T-90, but has a regular 7.62mm MG instead...the main advantage of it vs the HMG is the much larger amount of ammo that can be carried (it also has a slightly higher rate of fire and muzzle velocity, which suits this purpose as well), so you can better afford shooting some of your ammo at aerial targets, while keeping plenty for ground targets.

BenVaserlan wrote:Which boxes? Please show an image of those.

He means the front-facing radars:



Edit: actually, scratch that there may not even be a "blindness" cone, if this image from a patent about the soft-kill aspect of Afganit is correct:

Thank you.

Checked the T-90 and T-14 thread, what source or article did you guys find that the Sprinter is 20kms when i only find 8km or 12km figures thrown around for that missile range?

Western sources claim 12km.

GarryB wrote:Western sources claim 12km.

I am asking where and what source states its 20kms, I heard it get discussed here some pages back but I cant find sources. 2nd gen FLIR on Abrams is like 8km and 3rd gen FLIR is to increase that range by 2.6 times meaning 20.8kms. I am wondering when Russia will begin to field such optics soon.

I am asking where and what source states its 20kms, I heard it get discussed here some pages back but I cant find sources. 2nd gen FLIR on Abrams is like 8km and 3rd gen FLIR is to increase that range by 2.6 times meaning 20.8kms. I am wondering when Russia will begin to field such optics soon..

The missile is laser beam riding so a target 12km away is probably optimistic to start with, and your turret mounted optics means nothing if the missile you fire can't detect the laser beam you are pointing at the target to guide it.

If they changed the missile from a laser beam sensor in the rear looking at the launch platform to a laser seeker looking forward for reflections from the target then they range can be anything you want...

thegopnik wrote:Checked the T-90 and T-14 thread, what source or article did you guys find that the Sprinter is 20kms when i only find 8km or 12km figures thrown around for that missile range?

12 km is the figure given by Western sources because that is the range achieved by the MRM-CE. An unpowered projectile with a conventional dual-mode gimballed seeker hard locked for a 9,000 over-g limit and fired from the anemic XM360 gun. The last bit is what fucked it over because it resulted in a very slow shell that took its sweet, sweet time to reach its target.

This gives us a feasible baseline of 12 km range. Even better, Krasnopol shells fired in dumb ballistic mode would have a 12 km range as well so it checks out.

However 3UBK21 Sprinter for the T-14 Armata would definitely be a much heavier missile than the MRM-CE with the capacity to take up substantial solid propellant reserves, if nothing else thanks to its more powerful gun. If Krasnopol only has a measly 12 km in a pure ballistic trajectory, the rocket gives its a boost of 33% to range, and the glide fins take it to the rest of the way to the target out to 20 km, then it stands to reason Sprinter should enjoy a similar performance boost too at the very least while retaining a tactically relevant sustained velocity all throughout.

Krasnopol is also old Soviet guided shell technology so its g-hardening is woefully out of date. Any slight improvement and the Sprinter can be fired at even higher velocities.

Sprinter can be substantially longer than the previous generation of GLATMS. Considering that Invar already pierced about 1000mm, I guess most of the size can be used for extra fuel. It means at least doubling the load. Add new a generation fuel, a longer impulse that will make the missile go faster, and what you have at the end is ... well beyond 12 km.
As lyle6 said, th "12" number is there only to pretend that the western solution is on pair. Well, it is not

New "atgm" for tanks could be those tube launched drones (new lancet). Either mount them around the turret somewhere in mortar position or directly launch them from the gun.

It allows to attack way further for a margin of the price of a kornet.

Let's not forget they will use dedicated vehicles with tens of such drones providing protection to their tanks so the tanks won't need atgm. Apfsds and HE will be enough to deal with the remaining targets.

Actually I think they will have their tanks using drones to scout ahead for targets and being able to launch anti tank missiles at targets they find is part of that system they are creating.

They wont become missile tanks but missiles will become part of their standard armament so if they spot a target ahead they can engage it right away without having to call up other platforms.

Keep in mind that the Armata equivalent of Shturm will be likely carrying something like LMUR with its two way datalink and 15km range from a ground launch.

I am wondering if a 152mm cannon would be enough to make a scramjet or ramjet engine design for an ATGM since a 1st stage engine wont be needed thanks to the muzzle velocity and such missiles will also be too fast for tank projectile APS systems. klevok-D2 and hermes missile have 1st and 2nd staged with warheads. 1st stage looks like its half the length so we can cut that in half and get 1.75 meters and missiles like refleks has a 690mm length but I am assuming maybe a bigger diameter ATGM for a 152mm cannon will make up for the length difference.

They already designed a ramjet apfsds back in soviet times. No real advantages.

Murakhovskiy:
https://t.me/Viktor_Murakhovskiy/510
...

This is a people's war.  In addition to the mobilization of the 300,000 people, there was widespread support for various initiatives carried out by volunteers using funds raised from public money.

I will note those that are carried out for tank troops:
- equipping tanks with closed communication means that allow communication with infantry and artillery, with all interacting bodies;
- equipping tanks with dynamic protection “boxes”;
- equipping tanks with programs for firing from a closed firing position (IOP);
- equipping tanks with electronic warfare equipment;
- equipping tanks with camouflage means.

Now the troops are receiving tanks T-72B3 (upgraded in 2023), T-90M, T-80BVM, T-62MV-1.  Plus, the troops have tanks from previous years of production.  Where is Armata?

Unfortunately, the company of Armata tanks in the army has been disbanded; their further path follows from the desire to improve it.  When will he appear in the troops?  Not until next year.

The T-14 "Armata" will fully play a leading role on the battlefield when it is in a single armored battle formation along with the heavy infantry fighting vehicle T-15 "Barbaris". Advancing after the firing line of the mobile firing zone supplied by 2S35 "Coalition-SV".

This offensive ....

I am wondering if a 152mm cannon would be enough to make a scramjet or ramjet engine design for an ATGM

They did do some work in the past but it didn't go anywhere AFAIK.

Better propellants solved the problems better than a ramjet design... remember ramjets are limited to mach 5 or 6 or so and probably less so close to sea level.

They already designed a ramjet apfsds back in soviet times. No real advantages.

They did, but the two obvious differences was that they were not interested in targets more than 2km away which is just over one seconds flight time for a 125mm APFSDS round leaving the muzzle at 1.8km/s, and also a ramjet would struggle to accelerate something to much more than mach 3 or 4 at such low altitudes, but now they have scramjets which don't need to have a subsonic airflow through the combustion chamber of the jet engine.

The T-14 "Armata" will fully play a leading role on the battlefield when it is in a single armored battle formation along with the heavy infantry fighting vehicle T-15 "Barbaris". Advancing after the firing line of the mobile firing zone supplied by 2S35 "Coalition-SV".

In other words it is part of a set that works vastly better when operating as a set rather than on its own.

This offensive can be supported with:
- ATGM based on MT-LB;
- Tunguska-M1 air defense systems and Tor-M2 air defense systems;
- UR-77 mine clearing installation, BMR-3M combat clearing vehicles, MTU-90 tank bridge layer;
- PRP-5 artillery reconnaissance vehicles;
- combat vehicles of the aircraft controller BOMAN;
- a group of electronic warfare equipment.

In 10 years time imagine the performance of a Russian force where each of the supporting vehicles is Armata based...

But of course an entire force of Armatas would not be affordable and would also require a lot of fuel support, so many units will be Boomerang or Kurganets based.

caveat emptor wrote:
Unfortunately, the company of Armata tanks in the army has been disbanded; their further path follows from the desire to improve it. When will he appear in the troops? Not until next year.

What's more unfortunate is that a lot of people lack the comprehension to read between the lines:
They are disbanding the test company to make way for actual combat formations - the tests are finally done.
All that's left to do is wait for their crews to graduate tank school which, surprise, surprise, is next year.

GarryB wrote:Better propellants solved the problems better than a ramjet design... remember ramjets are limited to mach 5 or 6 or so and probably less so close to sea level.

Ramjets also make for expensive ammo. Russia doesn't want scarce silver bullets, they want mass producible wooden stakes that will **** any number of opponents.

Also, the Russians have yet to use carbon-fiber composite sabots for their subcaliber shells. Composite sabots save like half the weight compared to Aluminium sabots and that is parasitic mass that can go into the arrow itself with no change in ballistics. They have a well-developed manufacturing capability for high strength low weight carbon fiber applications (things like rocket bodies, helicopter blades) but they are not using them. Cost is a factor, but I think they are deliberately leaving this ace in the hole for when they really need a massive almost overnight surge in anti-armor capability.

caveat emptor wrote:
[b]Unfortunately, the company of Armata tanks in the army has been disbanded; their further path follows from the desire to improve it.  When will he appear in the troops?  Not until next year.

The T-14 needs an APS that can INTERCEPT top attacks from ATGMs, loitering munitions, and artillery. Artillery fire has disabled a lot of tanks in this war.