[Official] Armata Discussion thread #6

Mir wrote:

marcellogo wrote:
Strv-105 design only deserves the higher of praises anyway.

Sorry that they haven't tried to come with a successor.

Yes I agree the Strv-103 was an excellent design, but not without it's drawbacks. However the basic design would still be valid on the modern battlefield.

They actually looked at a local successor for the Stridsvagn but was dropped in favour of a shootout between the M1 Abrahams, the Leclerc and the Leopard 2. The Leopard 2 won as we know.

The Local design was known as MBT-2000 (Strv-2000) but only made it into a mock-up as far as I know. It was armed with a powerful 140mm gun and a 40mm canon.



There was also a tank destroyer that made it into prototype form and was based on an articulate design - known as the Udes XX-20

Yes, I was referring to the last one as the successor.
Now, I think the two hulled model is something the Russian are thinking about.

lyle6 wrote: As a nasty side effect, computer vision that is advanced enough to recognize very small drones will have comparatively less issues against infantry sized targets...

Anti "protest" system.

I think the radar is key to these anti-drone turrets. Trying to train AI to pick out a drone from the background is an almost unsolvable
challenge since training automatically biases the functionality to the training database. AI is not actual AI put a fancy pattern regression system.
Spewing bullets at cloud features in the background is not an effective approach. "Radar" can involve acoustic devices like sonar for air.
Air is not water so sound waves are dissipated faster but over distances associated with drone attacks, this is not a show stopper.

Interference from battlefield noise is not a problem since time domain Fourier analysis filters out random noise. All sorts of sound pulses can be
configured for detection which simplify detection.

EM detectors can work as well on cheap plastic drones since there motors are metal and electrical. A drone is not going to be magically shielded
and if it was, then it would be a metal shrouded device that radar can work on.

I still cannot believe these are new 1500hp engines, if they were, then they are the best gas turbine tank engines in the world, much better than those on M1.

I honestly think the solution is LIDAR for detection over relatively short ranges and fixed angled munitions like the ARENA APS system originally used to cover angles and directions that the threat would approach... obviously jamming and active defence like a dazzling laser that blinds or damages optical systems including visible and IR wavelengths would be important.

Make it multipurpose so it can intercept anything from a light drone to an APFSDS round and everything in between.

LIDAR would see up to a few hundred metres but could be designed just to detect within 100m or less for drones... drones are more difficult than ATGMs in the sense that they are flown and could shift target or approach at an unusual angle that initially might not appear to be an attack flight profile, so the system needs to detect and threat assess and decide to engage very swiftly, but like anything on the battle field you need good awareness and the right systems.

Some sort of airborne detection system like a Ka-31 or rigid airship with radar and IIR sensors and Lidar along with passive sensors that detect signals from drone controllers and from video streams from cameras on drones to locate the drones and the operators.

The blimp might operate at 5km altitude so above small arms fire and MANPADS range.

You would also expand IADS to include anti drone vehicles and units and systems that operate with pretty much everything else.

A Tigr with a gun and jammer turret with perhaps a 23mm cannon from the Shilka with air burst shells and maybe a belt fed shotgun round for close range engagement... perhaps using the 23mm calibre 8 gauge shotgun round used in the KS-23 riot shotgun used by Russian police... being turret mounted the extra recoil and extra weight is not a problem, but the extra reach and extra projectiles in the buckshot rounds would be useful to extend effective range.

Maybe a laser dazzler in the turret too to blind drones over rather long distances too.

Such a platform would benefit from LIDAR too.

Having light wheeled mobile vehicles would make them affordable, but of course the terminator is also supposed to be used against drones too so add a LIDAR... the LIDAR could incorporate a laser dazzler and a more powerful laser option for actually bringing down some more fragile drones like the Aussie ones made of cardboard.

I mean there is footage of them using lasers to cut down a stand of trees... so taking out drones should not be impossible.

By incorporating multiuse equipment you make things better... for instance with T-14... a LIDAR and laser dazzler... the latter can be used against IIR guided weapons like Spike and Javelin as well as drones, and it could also be used against semi active laser homing weapons like copperhead and its more modern replacements.

Modifiying the APS system to also engage drones just makes the APS system more useful and munitions to intercept drones might also be suitable to "intercept" enemy troops approaching the vehicle too.

lyle6 wrote:
It looks goofy, but a sentry gun powered by computer vision is probably going to be the definitive answer against the cheap drone threat. Imagine future MBTs bristling with sentry guns on their turret roof like old WW2 battleships, only orders of magnitude more accurate. You can launch massive swarms of FPV drones and it would end up just a big massive turkey shoot. As a nasty side effect, computer vision that is advanced enough to recognize very small drones will have comparatively less issues against infantry sized targets...

It doesn't look like it has great range

Although I suppose an APS system to protect the vehicle would have a lot less range still, and be no cheaper for sure.

Really the best answer would be any sort of programmable shell, say the 57mm cartridge which is being development or has already finished development with the Derivatsiya-PVO being presented recently. One such cannon in a group and a decent radar will be able to neutralize the threat from far away.

Of course one has to take into account that a skilled FPV drone operator can pilot his drone through to the target at basically ground level and locating it might not be so easy or engaging it without risking friendly fire. EW means are in any case a must and an APS system for any mission critical vehicle certainly.

This is supposed to be a sentry gun that you place around things that drones might be used to attack like trench lines or perhaps parked vehicles.

It is a piece of the solution, but only a piece.

Having a short range with shotgun rounds is probably a good thing... imagine the friendly fire risk with a HMG mount blazing away at drone targets... drone operators could fly between defensive guns to get those defensive guns to fire at each other, or spray each weapons position with AA fire the way the Ukrainians are hitting civilian targets in their own cities with S-300s and other air defence missiles.

They should produce Armata at both tank factories. In a diesel and gas turbine version.
But right now it is better to exploit the available resource of existing Soviet era tank hulls.

I would say developing a gas turbine powered vehicle would be backward... what they should do is develop an electric drive T-14 that uses a gas turbine as an energy source to generate the power.

Should allow a more compact power supply and a lighter vehicle.

Having two gas turbines would be most efficient... one small GT for duties where the vehicle sits still and heats the crew compartment and operates its electronics and optics and other systems but does not drive around much, while the main GT could be used for normal operations where it drives around and operates normally.

Worst case scenario where you need more power... say with electric armour and an electric enhanced power main gun and perhaps also electric camouflage you could operate both GTs to meet the electrical needs of the vehicle.