T-14 Armata - new gen Russian tank

It's hard to tell in the little partial photo, but the model bears a suspicious resemblance to the fictitious XM10 Annihilator from "Best Defense."
 
Madurai said:
It's hard to tell in the little partial photo, but the model bears a suspicious resemblance to the fictitious XM10 Annihilator from "Best Defense."
Click to expand...


32zrm6q.jpg



Not seeing it.


On topic, if it isn't Armata I can only wonder what it is. Just a generic model tank?
 
This model seems just a design to get money from the Russian Govt.


According to my Russian friend this is what the Armata looks like along with other vehicles based on the Armata chassis.

0a7f24da366d-680x290.jpg


The Armata's hull looks very similar to the model's.
 
There is some back and forward about it. Some say it is Armata, some say it isn't. We will see. Either way, we needed an Armata thread.
 
Grey Havoc said:
A couple more photos of the model are over on MilitaryPhotos.net.
Click to expand...

These photos are somewhat clearer and show something very interesting about the secondary armament - it has 6 barrels!

It makes sense that development the Kashtan system has worked out a number of the issues with this weapon. However, fitting such a gun to an MBT is something of a surprise. At those rates of fire ammunition consumption is prohibitive. The extra rate of fire is only really useful for CIWS (mainly CIWS).

This is either a press model (with little relationship to production concepts) or it shows that the Russian's may be anticipating the end of the age of the MBT (with SDBs and other precision weapons having to be shot down rather than merely evaded).

I'm also curious about the electrically operated AK-306 (A-219), which I presume this gun to be a derivative of. What is its minimum rate of fire (ie. allowing for dual use)?
 
At the risk of sounding dumb (for me a distinct possibility) and maybe its the camera angle but if some of those models represent an LAV sized vehicle then this new tank appears to be huge. :eek:
 
08/02/12 "BLACK EAGLE" 2. ON THE IMAGES OF THE NEW ARMORED VEHICLES PROVIDED ROGOZIN
August 2 2012.



Odnako.org , August 1, Alexander Gorbenko. In the Permian television story about the visit, Dmitry Rogozin, "Motovilikha plants" in the frame got new armor models, which previously has not been demonstrated to the public.

First, this is a new reincarnation of the Omsk object "640", better known as the "Black Eagle". Changes compared to previous versions of this and the remaining prospective main battle tank (MBT) was enough to rename it to "combat artillery car." It is evident that part of the insulating housing has increased the size of guns and armor made faceted and that should reduce the visibility in the range of radio waves and, apparently, the thermal signature of the hot barrel during firing.

Attention is drawn to the additional armament - from one side of the gun - Multiple system to another - something resembling AGS-57. Viewing tower on either side of the gun even more reduced angles reservations have become more acute. Ammunition is still available in the rear recess, although its size is reduced and the automatic loader moved into the crew compartment. Above the radar gun ballistic station, allowing the use of new types of high precision munitions.

We can say that Omsk designers did a good job on the bugs. But in general - is a further development of the "Black Eagle". Interestingly, despite the adoption of a new MBT Ural "Armata", work on improving the older machines are not Omsk were dismantled and the original name of the machine allows you to think about her future, along with the Ural MBT.

Virtually no new versions of ACS can be seen - one on the track platform, the other on the basis of wheel machine. A pity, because the chief designer of "MZ" Rogozin said that creates "a fundamentally new types of artillery, which by their performance characteristics, the effectiveness of 2 - 2.5 times greater than and domestic, and the best foreign models." We see only that it is not a prototype double-barreled self-propelled guns, which CRI "Petrel" previously demonstrated as a prototype of the "Coalition-SV".

Models of self-propelled mortars are made on three platforms: a wheeled armored vehicle developed under the R & D "Boomerang", a wheeled armored car "Typhoon" and on the basis of all terrain vehicle "Tiger." Recharge and guidance are likely to largely automated, but on a platform of "Typhoon", even a desert fighting compartment.




On the platform of "Boomerang" and "Kurgan-25" shown the options of a new armed 57-mm automatic cannon. High detail on the layout of towers, says that this weapon has a high degree of readiness. Also next to the "battle of artillery machine," presented version of the "Kurgan" with 45-mm automatic gun with telescopic ammunition. Previously it was thought that the gun is in the initial stage of development. One of these weapons systems will be equipped with "Armata" in the form of heavy infantry fighting vehicles.

Hard to say, as demonstrated on the basis of "Kurgan" with the gun turret in the desert - a light tank or lightweight self-propelled guns. Dimensions and size of guns, the presence of a small recoil device, they say that it is rather a self-propelled guns. The design of the combat unit is more suitable for the tank.

Dmitry Rogozin submitted samples are encouraging, not only as an extra demonstration of progress in creating a new armor. Even if not all of them eventually get to the troops - our defense industry is still able to simultaneously create multiple versions of similar armor. Competing development ultimately leads to quality. A different solution to a problem - it is always for the future.


http://www.militaryparitet.com/ttp/data/ic_ttp/2591/
 
Btw. Any I.D. on the vehicle next to it? Is it the same chassis as the vehicle just before the trucks (with the unmanned turret)?

*edit* They are Kurganets-25 with 45mm, 57mm and 120mm guns...
 
bobbymike said:
At the risk of sounding dumb (for me a distinct possibility) and maybe its the camera angle but if some of those models represent an LAV sized vehicle then this new tank appears to be huge. :eek:
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that the models are to different scales.
 
I take it from these models that we can infer the following:

- Russian studies suggest that the proliferation of guided munitions mean that vehicles have limited survivability on the battlefield.

- In response, higher value vehicles should sacrifice ammunition loads (combat persistence) for defensive capabilities. These will have an anti-air and anti-missile/anti-bomb capability (high RoF 30mm cannon, 45mm fragmentation rounds, active missiles defenses etc.) and some of these anti-air/anti-projectile vehicles will also happen to be MBT or IFV hunters.

- Targets which require large amounts of HE ammunition (ie. infantry), will be primarily engaged by artillery and dedicated close range bombardment vehicles / direct fire support vehicles (such as the TOS-1 and BMP-T). IFVs and MBTs would be seen primarily as escorts for such fire-support vehicles (providing defenses against aircraft, helicopters, UAVs/missiles, anti-tank positions and enemy tanks/IFVs).
 
Avimimus said:
I take it from these models that we can infer the following:

- Russian studies suggest that the proliferation of guided munitions mean that vehicles have limited survivability on the battlefield.

- In response, higher value vehicles should sacrifice ammunition loads (combat persistence) for defensive capabilities. These will have an anti-air and anti-missile/anti-bomb capability (high RoF 30mm cannon, 45mm fragmentation rounds, active missiles defenses etc.) and some of these anti-air/anti-projectile vehicles will also happen to be MBT or IFV hunters.

- Targets which require large amounts of HE ammunition (ie. infantry), will be primarily engaged by artillery and dedicated close range bombardment vehicles / direct fire support vehicles (such as the TOS-1 and BMP-T). IFVs and MBTs would be seen primarily as escorts for such fire-support vehicles (providing defenses against aircraft, helicopters, UAVs/missiles, anti-tank positions and enemy tanks/IFVs).
Click to expand...

insightful reasoning thank you.
 
Avimimus said:
I take it from these models that we can infer the following:

- In response, higher value vehicles should sacrifice ammunition loads (combat persistence) for defensive capabilities. These will have an anti-air and anti-missile/anti-bomb capability (high RoF 30mm cannon, 45mm fragmentation rounds, active missiles defenses etc.) and some of these anti-air/anti-projectile vehicles will also happen to be MBT or IFV hunters.
Click to expand...


This is a fairly incredible leap of logic.
 
Void said:
Avimimus said:
I take it from these models that we can infer the following:

- In response, higher value vehicles should sacrifice ammunition loads (combat persistence) for defensive capabilities. These will have an anti-air and anti-missile/anti-bomb capability (high RoF 30mm cannon, 45mm fragmentation rounds, active missiles defenses etc.) and some of these anti-air/anti-projectile vehicles will also happen to be MBT or IFV hunters.
Click to expand...

we are listening?

This is a fairly incredible leap of logic.
Click to expand...
 
Those CGI images were made by a Russian magazine and claimed to show the T-95 when first published. They certainly are not new.
 
About the Gatling - like some, I find it a bit hard to believe that it's a 30mm but then, how do we know that it is? If the tank isn't outsize (and going by the size of the crew hatches and vision devices, I don't think it is - it's merely modelled to a different scale) the gun doesn't look big enough to be a 30mm to me. Although the latter is merely gut feeling, a smaller caliber (23 or even 7.62mm) might make it less of a leap from conventional wisdom.
 
Trident said:
About the Gatling - like some, I find it a bit hard to believe that it's a 30mm but then, how do we know that it is? If the tank isn't outsize (and going by the size of the crew hatches and vision devices, I don't think it is - it's merely modelled to a different scale) the gun doesn't look big enough to be a 30mm to me. Although the latter is merely gut feeling, a smaller caliber (23 or even 7.62mm) might make it less of a leap from conventional wisdom.
Click to expand...

Yes, I wish I could think along similar lines :D

Barrel lengths:
Gsh-6-23 is 1400mm
Gsh-6-30 is 2040mm

Note that the GShG-5.45, GShG-7.92 and Yak-b are all four barrel weapons. However, while we cannot rule out the possibility that a more reliable six-barrel version has been developed, these guns have considerably shorter barrels.

It is difficult to estimate sizes from such a picture. However, a rough estimate makes the tank somewhere around 10 metres long and 3.5 metres wide - so, normal sized. The main gun should be at least 6000mm barrel length - however, it appears to be somewhat longer (the barrel shroud might be involved). So, it could easily be either a 23mm or 30mm weapon (25% difference in length).

The reason I assumed a 30mm weapon was the need for variable rate of fire (provided by the AK-306) and the move toward a standard of 30mm ammunition (for both logistic and ballistic reasons). However, a smaller caliber would mean more ammunition and a higher permissible rate of fire!
 
Yeah, I am aware of the barrel numbers which is why the first thing I did was to look carefully at the images to see if the list of possibilities could be narrowed down somewhat on that basis. However, I came to the conclusion that it's impossible to tell from the available material - until we get better photos or written information it can't be considered confirmed.


That said, I do agree that the GShG-7.62 can probably be ruled out on the basis of length, looking at the pictures again. BTW, hull length for a typical modern MBT is more like 7 to 8m.
 
Well, the margin of error in my calculations is about that much! ;D

To be fair, as well, there is an alternative explanation - Russian's like big guns. A doctrine of better long-range ballistics and larger HE rounds... Why would we be seeing this now? Engineering may have reduced gun weights. Another explanation is that improved sensors means that a target can be engaged and destroyed with a more limited expenditure of ammunition.

However, this would explain the up-gunned IFVs - putting a six barrel gun on a tank is almost certainly an air-defense measure.
 
Does anyone have a higher resolution photo that can confirm whether or not this mystery weapon is not in fact an AGS-57?


*edit* Found a better photo - the AGS-57 is on the left side of the model's turret. So it is carrying a multi-barrelled gun on the right side... bizarre.
 
I've been thinking that the rotary cannon might not be as profligate on ammunition as suggested.

The gas-powered guns have much faster spin-up than externally-powered units. A Gsh-6-23 can fire ~60 rounds and cease before an M61A is up to speed ( 0.4 seconds ). A more conservative burst might be 20 rounds in < 0.15 seconds giving a dense pattern of AP for consumption of 7 kg of ammunition*.

So if this is a defensive installation designed to fire FCS-controlled restricted bursts then ammunition consumption might not be excessive.

* considering that a 125mm APFS-DS round weights about 20 kg, three bursts-weight of 23mm seems to me to be a good trade-off for antimissile protection
 
If it was me, I would chose +35mm air burst as self defense gun.

The 20 - 30mm rotary cannon is a waste of weight and ammunition, if you rely on direct hit to destroy incoming projectile (hence the high rate of fire of the rotary cannon).
7.62mm to 12.7mm are better candidate because there is not much difference in a direct hit between 7.62 or 30mm (the incoming projectile will be destroyed in both cases). Even the thickest arty shell would be penetrated by 7.62 AP
But smaller caliber means much more ammunition, much lighter gun, and faster reaction time (important on land warfare and close range engagement)

So, if the self defense system neutralizes most incoming threats, what is the shift in the future? I guess large caliber APFSDS will be the choice because it is very hard to shot down. Air force will be useless against armor since most bombs and missiles will be shot down at +100m.

Solution maybe very large EFP and maybe concrete (KE) bomb and hypersonic KE missile?
 
Can't verify the accuracy of this article, so posting in the Bar:

"Russia’s new Armata tank on Army 2015 shopping list"
Published time: February 21, 2015 14:43

Source:
http://rt.com/news/234363-armata-tracked-armored-platform/

Russian troops are receiving beta versions of a future armored tracked platform that could usher in the 5th generation conventional land tank, heavy APC, artillery and missile launcher and possibly fully robotic assault armored vehicle.

After five years of development, the Uralvagonzavod Research and Production Corporation has finalized manufacture of the first batch of Armata tanks and heavy personnel carriers. They have been included in Russia’s 2015 defense order, TASS said.

Reportedly, 20 units have already been manufactured and issued to troops for hands-on training.

The exact characteristics and appearance of the platform remain classified, though this might soon change as the new vehicles are on the verge of taking part in the Victory Day Parade on Red Square, May 9 this year.

A better chance to see these innovative battle vehicles of the future might be given to experts and public alike during Russia Arms Expo 2015 (September 9-12, Nizhniy Tagil).

The new Armata armored tracked platform has reportedly combined and assimilated all the last decade’s major developments and innovations in battle vehicle design and construction.

The platform’s chief tank (T-14) sports an unmanned remotely controlled turret armed with a brand new 125 mm 2A82-1M smoothbore cannon. Its muzzle energy is greater than one of the world’s previously considered best cannons: the German Leopard-2 Rheinmetall 120 mm gun.

The 125 mm gun has 15-20 percent improved accuracy and its rolling fire angular dispersion has improved 1.7 times.

According to Russian media, the Armata tank might also come with a specially developed 152 mm gun, the most powerful ever cannon to be mounted on a main battle tank.

The tank’s turret will also carry a 30 mm sub-caliber ranging gun to deal with various targets, including low-flying aerial targets, such as attack planes and helicopters.

A 12.5 mm turret-mounted heavy machine gun is reportedly capable of taking out incoming projectiles, such as anti-tank missiles. It’s capable of neutralizing shells approaching at speeds of up to 3,000 meters per second.

The tank’s crew is securely enclosed in a multi-layer armored capsule separated from the ammunition container. The vehicle is fully computerized and only needs two servicemen to operate it. Each can also deploy the tank’s weapon systems.

The tank’s targeting is reportedly done with an active-phased array antenna and a large variety of other sensors.

The Armata platform allegedly has a fully mechanized electric transmission, powered by a 1,200 HP diesel engine. For greater efficiency, maintenance and repair schedules have been extended.

Within its blueprint, the Armata armored vehicle has the potential to evolve into a fully robotic battle vehicle.

According to preliminary estimates, 2,300 units are required for the Russian army.
Click to expand...

http://youtu.be/PsAePLKmBfY
 

Attachments

  • armata-tracked-armored-platform.si.jpg
    armata-tracked-armored-platform.si.jpg
    65.5 KB · Views: 562
  • Armata2.jpg
    Armata2.jpg
    71 KB · Views: 542
Triton said:
Can't verify the accuracy of this article, so posting in the Bar: ...
Click to expand...

Most of the other posts neither. But it seems, that there really is a project going on,
so we shouldn't start two separate threads and it seem to fit other information in
this thread, I think.
 
So, if this most recent report is to be believed it is a ?new? 12.5mm machine gun for point-defense, a single-barrelled 30mm autocannon and a 125mm smoothbore. So, no AGS grenade launcher... on the other hand the official model appeared to have an AGS and a cannon calibre multibarrelled weapon.


It is interesting that an anti-missile gun *seems* to be supported by this newspaper report ...I hope they haven't read this thread?! It could just be an artist reinterpreting the official concept model.
 
Jemiba said:
Triton said:
Can't verify the accuracy of this article, so posting in the Bar: ...
Click to expand...

Most of the other posts neither. But it seems, that there really is a project going on,
so we shouldn't start two separate threads and it seem to fit other information in
this thread, I think.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I am not familiar enough with the project to judge whether this is fan art and propaganda from Russia Today, or if the renderings and descriptions are accurate.
 
Avimimus said:
So, if this most recent report is to be believed it is a ?new? 12.5mm machine gun for point-defense, a single-barrelled 30mm autocannon and a 125mm smoothbore. So, no AGS grenade launcher... on the other hand the official model appeared to have an AGS and a cannon calibre multibarrelled weapon.


It is interesting that an anti-missile gun *seems* to be supported by this newspaper report ...I hope they haven't read this thread?! It could just be an artist reinterpreting the official concept model.
Click to expand...

Well it seems the report got some "over interpretation" Mixed in.. That anti missile gun looks like one of it. Kinda hard to believe.

The phased array radar however looks legit.. Can't really have working Active protection system without ESA radar. Won't be surprised if it also double as range finding system to engage target.
 
I don't think the cannon can move that fast to stop two targets for instance. Besides if you use a javelin it tends to hit form lower angle, and then you're gatling countermeasure has little effect. Besides, where is the radar? Furthermore, it is easy enough to create a small stealth SDB.
 
malipa said:
I don't think the cannon can move that fast to stop two targets for instance. Besides if you use a javelin it tends to hit form lower angle, and then you're gatling countermeasure has little effect. Besides, where is the radar? Furthermore, it is easy enough to create a small stealth SDB.
Click to expand...

Sure, but other modern active defenses can handle light anti-tank missiles without rotating the turret (and can engage multiple targets over a few seconds). The tank will certainly have these.

As for an SDB - if the attacking aircraft is detected the tank can swivel the turret in the direction of the attack. Bombs have predictable trajectories. A 725 kg bomb has a terminal velocity around 270 m/s - while an SDB has a higher surface area to weight and a slower flatter trajectory due to being in a guided glide. If the gun takes 0.4 seconds to fire a burst, then even with system firing times the bomb only has to be detectable a few hundred metres out at most. So, it seems technically possible.

Of course, such a system would be most effective against long range anti-tank missiles (e.g. Hellfire and Maverick) which have long flight times and fly in the low subsonic range - and these are certainly contemporary threats. It could also do an admirable job of quickly silencing anti-tank firing positions at medium ranges (2-3 km).
 
If the entire crew is sitting in the hull, will the gunner/commander have a problem with disorientation or dizziness as the turret rotates? Because I assume his view will follow the turret, even if he is "looking" remotely, while his seat will always be facing forward. Or will his seat rotate? Or is this not the issue I imagine it to be?

Also, the article says it takes only two people to operate the tank? Is that in case the third crew member is injured, the other two can carry on? Or will it have only two crew members? I don't care how automated the tank is, that seems like a terrible workload for the gunner/commander.
 
Gavin said:
If the entire crew is sitting in the hull, will the gunner/commander have a problem with disorientation or dizziness as the turret rotates? Because I assume his view will follow the turret, even if he is "looking" remotely, while his seat will always be facing forward. Or will his seat rotate? Or is this not the issue I imagine it to be?

Also, the article says it takes only two people to operate the tank? Is that in case the third crew member is injured, the other two can carry on? Or will it have only two crew members? I don't care how automated the tank is, that seems like a terrible workload for the gunner/commander.
Click to expand...

This new article is pretty ambiguous on the number of crew. The original concept I heard about had all of the crew in the same compartment (good for armouring and morale), with large screen LCD workstations. The idea was that the stations would be interchangeable, so that one crew member could sleep while the other two drove and kept watch. This would allow for greater endurance without having to disembark or reduce awareness. Something particularly desirable when fighting insurgents.

There was also talk of having LLTV, IR, AESA acquisition sensors remotely operated by the crew. So, it may be a situation of panning the acquisition sensors, finding a target, then switching the the targeting/ranging system and firing (much like on a helicopter or a ship) - rather than having a gunner looking down the turret sight throughout the whole process while receiving verbal spotting commands from the commander (as in a traditional tank).

Most of this information is related to Object 195 but the requirements likely have carried through to Armata.
 
But what would the turnrate be of the turret? And the cannon is placed pretty much out of line with the turret. And aren't they pretty hard to detect? So if you have detected such a small projectile, which are actually faster than that, because the maverick goes just below supersonic and the brimstone goes supersonic, you've got a pretty small window of detection...
 
Avimimus said:
Gavin said:
If the entire crew is sitting in the hull, will the gunner/commander have a problem with disorientation or dizziness as the turret rotates? Because I assume his view will follow the turret, even if he is "looking" remotely, while his seat will always be facing forward. Or will his seat rotate? Or is this not the issue I imagine it to be?

Also, the article says it takes only two people to operate the tank? Is that in case the third crew member is injured, the other two can carry on? Or will it have only two crew members? I don't care how automated the tank is, that seems like a terrible workload for the gunner/commander.
Click to expand...

This new article is pretty ambiguous on the number of crew. The original concept I heard about had all of the crew in the same compartment (good for armouring and morale), with large screen LCD workstations. The idea was that the stations would be interchangeable, so that one crew member could sleep while the other two drove and kept watch. This would allow for greater endurance without having to disembark or reduce awareness. Something particularly desirable when fighting insurgents.

There was also talk of having LLTV, IR, AESA acquisition sensors remotely operated by the crew. So, it may be a situation of panning the acquisition sensors, finding a target, then switching the the targeting/ranging system and firing (much like on a helicopter or a ship) - rather than having a gunner looking down the turret sight throughout the whole process while receiving verbal spotting commands from the commander (as in a traditional tank).

Most of this information is related to Object 195 but the requirements likely have carried through to Armata.
Click to expand...

In the old MBT-70 project, the driver sat inside the turret with the rest of the crew, but the driver's seat rotated independently of the turret so the driver would also face forward. Nonetheless, drivers still complained about disorientation and motion sickness -- because the direction of the seat just didn't quite match the direction of the tank.

If you have ever been airsick, you'll understand -- the inner ear can feel that you're moving, but your eyes don't have a frame of reference to see the movement. So your body reacts by turning your stomach upside down.

In the Armata, even if the gunner is looking at a large-screen display, he's still not going to be "looking" forward all the time. But he will be facing forward. So his inner ear and his eyes won't be on the same page, so to speak.

It seems to be that the designers will have to address this somehow.
 
Disorientation for the commander or gunner won't be that much of a problem I think. In the MBT-70 the problem was that the drivers had trained on other tanks and so were used to using the various pieces they could see in their peripheral vision as subconscious cue to determine where the vehicle was facing. If they had trained them from the start in the MBT-70, they wouldn't have had that problem I suspect. It was just one of the excuses used to kill what was considered a very, very expensive project.

In this vehicle though, the commander/gunner will be used to using video games so won't get as easily disorientated. The examples from other vehicles like the Swedish S-tank and similar SP guns seems to indicate that the commander/gunner can cope with the difference of perspective.
 
Gotta love this day and age....cameras everywhere.


Some more photos, videos, and still captures have appeared on the net in the last few hours purporting to show Armata.






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYhyzJ7jdGE
 

Attachments

  • armata.jpg
    armata.jpg
    97.2 KB · Views: 820
  • armata1.jpg
    armata1.jpg
    496.4 KB · Views: 816
  • armata2.jpg
    armata2.jpg
    171 KB · Views: 778

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom