Armata

[Anduriel]

With the current situation, I hope nothing will be cut, especially the tank

Don't worry, military oreders won't be cut. In Russia military industry holds a quite important place, it's essentilaly foundation for Russian industry as a whole and a locomotive of said industry in terms of upgrading. Also, it holds quite a lot of job places.

It should be noted, that cutting defence spending in crisis makes sense when your military equipment is imported form other country. Russia is mostly self-sufficient, thus most of money don't leave the country.

 

Regarding the image of Armata above. This is fantasies of a 3D modeller and appeared first at Otvaga forums in Runet. It's based on a model that was showed in 2013 for higher-ups, and likely will have only passing resemblance to the real T-14 tank. Note that autor paced T-80 sideskirts with K-5 ERA, and T-14 will have it's own ERA set. Additionally, there is no ammo boxes or feeds for 12.7 YaKB 4-barrel machinegun and 30-mm 2A42 autocannon.

[Sovngard]

Additionally, there is no ammo boxes or feeds for 12.7 YaKB 4-barrel machinegun and 30-mm 2A42 autocannon.

I cannot understand why a gatling gun would be so useful on a MBT.

[Ken Estes]

Unless it is not real?

[Gavin-Phillips]

 

Additionally, there is no ammo boxes or feeds for 12.7 YaKB 4-barrel machinegun and 30-mm 2A42 autocannon.

I cannot understand why a gatling gun would be so useful on a MBT.

 

 

For the cool factor, it'd look good in movies I'm sure... and on models too for that matter.

 

Does Russia make all of the sighting equipment for its tanks as well? Things like thermal imagers, sensors and other parts of fire control system?

 

I'm still hoping that a full on, no tarp, hi res picture/pictures of the T-95 will be made public! If the project has been cancelled, surely it will be revealed at some point?

Edited December 23, 2014 by Gavin-Phillips

[Anduriel]

Does Russia make all of the sighting equipment for its tanks as well? Things like thermal imagers, sensors and other parts of fire control system?

Yes. Russia is capable of creating it's own thermal imagers.

For example, imagers that has been made since long ago:

 

AGAT-MDT - 320x256 matrix, 3-5 micrometers, GaAsIn;

Irbis-K - 4x288 matrix, 8-12 mircormetrs, CdHgTe;

 

Recently next matrixes gained O1 letter (ready to serial production):

1280x960, 3-5 micrometers, GaAsIn;

768x576, 8-12 micrometers, CdHgTe.

 

Still behind prominent companies (Thales have already QWIP thermal imagers, and QWIP is really cool shit, believe me), but not that much.

With advent of PAK-FA and it's technologies (they build special plant for this plane to produce GaN radar T/R, and I wouldn't be surprized that it's IRST and FLIR are QWIP we may see modern sensors elsewhere).

 

I'm still hoping that a full on, no tarp, hi res picture/pictures of the T-95 will be made public! If the project has been cancelled, surely it will be revealed at some point?

Unlikely. Object 195 is still secret project and considering that Armata uses technological decisions achieved at Obj. 195 we;ll see this tank in HD quality maybe in 20 years or so.

[Max H]

 

Additionally, there is no ammo boxes or feeds for 12.7 YaKB 4-barrel machinegun and 30-mm 2A42 autocannon.

I cannot understand why a gatling gun would be so useful on a MBT.

 

 

You have more mass among all the barrels, so you provide sustained fire for longer without the barrel overheating - IIRC, rheinmetall offered something similar a while back. Of course, that's assuming you can fit enough 12.7mm ammo to overheat a conventional MG inside a russian tank

[Jim Warford]

We need to continue this discussion until the "unveiling;" good stuff...I wonder just how much the Armata MBT has in common with the Object 187?

 

[Harkonnen]

We need to continue this discussion until the "unveiling;" good stuff...I wonder just how much the Armata MBT has in common with the Object 187?

 

 

 

What can be common whith t-72 mod and a new design tank?

[Simon Tan]

Well....what is known about Armata if anything?

[Jim Warford]

Here's a bit...from "Armata: History of Russian Tank Perspective" (05/08/14), Weapons and Conflict:

 

"And when worked through the concept of "Almaty was" - namely modular logistics required that the prospective tank could be either with the engine and the turbine. Structural diagram of the body "object 187" was subsequently modified and migrated to the object 195, and in the future - on the "Armata".

 

"Continued to "Improving the 88" and that by the year 2000, and went on to create a new model, which became known as "Object 195", or T-95. Thus, from the T-72B tank, through the "Object 187", we come to the "195th" car."

 

"New weapons, new tower, MSA, management information system...Military required a machine that would be guaranteed to take away any enemy tank. And such a tank in Tagil appeared - it was "Object 187".

 

This seems to confirm what was once posted here (IIRC), that the Object 187 was actually a better solution that the selected Object 188 (T-90).

[dejawolf]

what fofanov writes on the T-95:

 

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/MBT/n_tagil.html

[lemd]

what fofanov writes on the T-95:

 

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/MBT/n_tagil.html

 

It is very old and it seems he does not care about it anymore. He stated that "The level of crew protection should ensure its survival when the tank is hit by any anti-tank munitions from any aspect or angle, thanks to the crew placement in a unitary armored pod inside the hull", but I don't think this is possible, especially with crew in the hull, because in that case, you cant place enough armor in the side against flank. This is the weakness of crew in the hull, as the hull can not be rotated to change the protected direction like the turret, so a flank ambush will guarantee penetrate the tank at some smaller calibers, e.g even with 40mm auto cannon. With turret, you can have thicker side armor than the hull, and can be rotated

 

The main advantage of crews in hull is low profile, which is harder to hit, and the tank is stronger since most of its mass is static. But for offensive tank without hull down position, and the precision of modern guns, aiming a bit lower is not that hard. Also, the LOS thickness of the hull is limited, e.g. the Leopard 2 has 1.5m LOS for armor, I doubt this could be applied for hull armor

[Damian]

Actually hull can be better armored than turret, with my collegue we were discussing this issue and he made some drawings, I won't show all of them here but one can be shown, tank concept is inspired by several real world technology demonstrators and prototypes.

 

 

Front hull armor effective thickness is 1,5m or more, shaped so eventuall additional armor modules or ERA can be installed without problems. Turret is of course unmanned, and is smaller than it looks like because it can mount addon armor present on drawing and APS components.

 

"Naked" without addon armor such vehicle can weight ~50 metric tons, with full set of addon armor it's weight will increase to ~60 metric tons.

Edited December 31, 2014 by Damian

[lemd]

While the front of the hull can be heavily armored, the side of the hull, where the track runs through, can not be armored as the side of the turret. And the hull can not be rotated to face the most dangerous direction, so its side will always be static. When a large formation goes forward side by side, they always expose the flank, this is simple geometry. And I doubt the hull can be armored to the +- 30 degree like the turret (which means side armor thickness is at 1/2 of front armor) because there is no space for it. That is the weakness of the hull

 

And IIRC, the LOS of leo 2 is nearly 2m, even bigger than your future tank. The foremost point of the wedge runs to the front of the tank.

[Wiedzmin]

While the front of the hull can be heavily armored, the side of the hull, where the track runs through, can not be armored as the side of the turret.

 

hull side 250-300mm without any problem on some real soviet project + external armor modules 300-500...

[Ken Estes]

Uh huh. And where are they now?

[Wiedzmin]

the same place where the Soviet Union now...

 

but some "new" tanks based on soviet design

[Ken Estes]

So I thought....

[Gavin-Phillips]

When it was announced that the T-95 was one of the cancelled projects, I was completely gutted since I was really hoping to finally get a good look at this monster which had been lurking in the shadows for the last couple of decades, creating arguments and debates all across the cyber world.

 

Now I'm thinking the same thing about the Armata. I'd like to see the tank rolling off the production lines (good for maintaining skills, jobs, etc), looking all sleek and menacing but I just don't know...

[lemd]

 

While the front of the hull can be heavily armored, the side of the hull, where the track runs through, can not be armored as the side of the turret.

 

hull side 250-300mm without any problem on some real soviet project + external armor modules 300-500...

 

 

Even 500 seems too little for all around protection against full caliber KE. Current front armor is 800+, and I guess to keep up with next gen ammo, 1m+ LOS is required.

 

In theory, hull armor must always sacrifice 700mm for the track, while a similar space can be used for turret side armor. Of course if you ignore the width limit then the hull side can have as much armor as needed, or just use pure heavy metal which may triple the weight easily.

 

The armata and T95 place all three crews side by side, so I doubt they could get that much of armor (250-300mm) for the side.

[BLAH]

Any idea what it looks like?

 

I'm guessing a beefy hull with a low profile saucer turret.

[Damian]

While the front of the hull can be heavily armored, the side of the hull, where the track runs through, can not be armored as the side of the turret. And the hull can not be rotated to face the most dangerous direction, so its side will always be static. When a large formation goes forward side by side, they always expose the flank, this is simple geometry. And I doubt the hull can be armored to the +- 30 degree like the turret (which means side armor thickness is at 1/2 of front armor) because there is no space for it. That is the weakness of the hull

 

And IIRC, the LOS of leo 2 is nearly 2m, even bigger than your future tank. The foremost point of the wedge runs to the front of the tank.

 

Wrong, hull sides can be armored just as well or better if combined with external modules.

 

The vehicle at drawing here have side hull armor over crew compartment is 180mm (composite), over ammunition storage compartment is 90mm and over engine compartment is 45mm, rear is 45mm, additional to this there are avaiable two sets of addon armor, composite 120mm thick + ERA.

 

 

So side protection is solid, for crew compartment is it 300mm composite + ERA + space between side skirt and hull side bulkhead.

For ammunition compartment it is 210mm composite + ERA + space between side skirt and hull side bulkhead.

For engine compartment it is 165mm composite + ERA + space between side skirt and hull side bulkhead.

 

You can replace ERA with thicker composite armor if necessary.

 

Dimensions of this tank project are:

 

Full lenght - 13 184 mm,

Hull lenght - 9328 mm,

Width with tracks - 3532 mm,

Hull width with basic side skirts - 3625 mm,

Hull width with side skirts + ERA - 4387 mm,

Maximum and minimum ground clearence (vehicle uses hydropneumatic suspension with variable ground clearence) - 588/208 mm,

Vehicle height to turret roof - 2724 mm.

 

Als I would not overestimate Leopard 2 front turret LOS, most of it is empty space.

Edited January 1, 2015 by Damian

[Ken Estes]

All these have been possible before. Any idea why not undertaken? Have said conditions changed?

[Damian]

Cold war ended, defence budgets cut, no need for further revolutionary development as existing design had enough modernization potential for existing and possible threats seen for near term future.

 

But at some point design change must happen, unless armor weight could be decreased so we can increase protection without increasing weight above reasonable levels.

[dejawolf]

not exactly the same, but similar concept:

 

however, instead of unmanned turret, it has a manned low-profile turret.

48 tons, front hull is T-90 level, close to 800mm, side hull has full-width heavy ERA protection, although in the standard configuration it only protects against ATGMs at 30 degree off angle from front.

but with improved corrugated ERA on the sides, it protects against ATGM from the sides as well.

pic of corrugated ERA from BTVT.

Edited January 2, 2015 by dejawolf