Armata

[Sergei_M]

 

That's some nice, gentle trolling on behalf of the guy who wrote that captions.

[Sovngard]

One essential question remains :


WHERE IS THE LOG ?

[scotsman]

http://bastion-karpenko.ru/new-tehnik-parad-150504/

 

[methos]

Giving how heavy the tank is, I would have expected a heavily armored turret especially since there wouldn't need to be any volume inside to fit in crew making it easy to increase armor or so I'm thinking.

 

I think the weight might be misleading. The T-14 tank has a larger hull than it's predecessors and it has lots of armor at the hull. It has what seems to be much thicker hull front armor and more side armor., The T-90 hull sides are only covered by steel-reinforced rubber and three tiny ERA panels on each side (I never understood why they didn't take the side armor from the T-80U...). The Armata has massive side skirts covering ~60-70% of the hull sides. The hull roof at the driver & commander hatches is massive judging by the thickness of the hatches.

 

The turret seems to have thinner frontal armor than most tanks (at least if the bolt-on armour on the roof does not cover the armour cavities). Then there are some huge spots with less possible armour volume:

1. The main sight placed in the turret front should lead to a reduced armour thickness behind it.
2. The tubes of the APS are placed in such a way that there can only be less armour than above them
3. The sensors/laser warners lead to further "ballistic holes"
4. The element behind the laser warners & CCTV cameras seems to be hollow and not contain armour
5. The boxes covering turret bustle look like they might be external storage boxes (I am not sure about that)

Edited May 5, 2015 by methos

[JasonJ]

 

Giving how heavy the tank is, I would have expected a heavily armored turret especially since there wouldn't need to be any volume inside to fit in crew making it easy to increase armor or so I'm thinking.

 

I think the weight might be misleading. The T-14 tank has a larger hull than it's predecessors and it has lots of armor at the hull. It has what seems to be much thicker hull front armor and more side armor., The T-90 hull sides are only covered by steel-reinforced rubber and three tiny ERA panels on each side (I never understood why they didn't take the side armor from the T-80U...). The Armata has massive side skirts covering ~60-70% of the hull sides. The hull roof at the driver & commander hatches is massive judging by the thickness of the hatches.

 

The turret seems to have thinner frontal armor than most tanks (at least if the bolt-on armour on the roof does not cover the armour cavities). Then there are some huge spots with less possible armour volume:

1. The main sight placed in the turret front should lead to a reduced armour thickness behind it.
2. The tubes of the APS are placed in such a way that there can only be less armour than above them
3. The sensors/laser warners lead to further "ballistic holes"
4. The element behind the laser warners & CCTV cameras seems to be hollow and not contain armour
5. The boxes covering turret bustle look like they might be external storage boxes (I am not sure about that)

 

 

Another reason to expect a heavily armored turret is because I would think it be pretty easy to slap on some thick armor over small internal volume space meaning very weight efficient use of armor. Why not take advantage? It shouldn't add much more weight to armor up the turret. Leaving the turret vulnerable to IFV autocannon fire seems like unnecessary risk to turret destruction. If the turret is destroyed, the crew is still alive but the tank is rendered rather useless anyway until it can get a new turret. Just some thoughts. Maybe they have an armored turret version and that has not be revealed yet.

[Mr King]

I'm having a hard time believing the Russians would go to all the trouble of designing a new tank, and leave the turret especially vulnerable compared to the rest of the tank. It just doesnt make sense. I think maybe there is more than meets the eye. Or these don't represent production turrets.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Mr King

[Sovngard]

The turret seems to have thinner frontal armor than most tanks (at least if the bolt-on armour on the roof does not cover the armour cavities). Then there are some huge spots with less possible armour volume:

 

Do you really think that there are good old special armor modules underneath this thin metallic shell ?

[jmcmtank]

I think that turret bustle might be just huge ammo storage for coax MG, and coax MG is indeed on the right side of main gun (small cut out slit for it).

 

Tough that slit might be later enlarged, because right not the metal sheets covering turret are just for demonstration purpose and to mask real size of the turret and these might be changed.

I've got a new theory on the bustle, prompted by a question on ARRSE; there is a tube strapped under it just forward of the silly basket. In some photos you can see daylight forward of this tube. Top view shows the convoy light and antenna base almost on arms either side of it. Could there just be a removable cover to allow a tube for engine air intake while wading?

Edited May 5, 2015 by jmcmtank

[Mr King]

 

[TTK Ciar]

They sure loaded it up with ADS! That should help them survive a counterinsurgency campaign.

 

Do the Russians have anything like Ukraine's Nozh yet, for cutting up incoming long-rods?

[bojan]

K-5 was already effective vs APFSDS, so I guess they stayed current.

[Jim Warford]

 

The turret seems to have thinner frontal armor than most tanks (at least if the bolt-on armour on the roof does not cover the armour cavities). Then there are some huge spots with less possible armour volume:

 

Do you really think that there are good old special armor modules underneath this thin metallic shell ?

 

 

It seems pretty clear that the primary purpose of the thin metallic shell covering the turret is to hide the actual turret shape/design, which (if visible), would speak volumes as to the armor solutions the Russians decided to use. It also allows flexibility to make hidden changes as these prototypes mature into a fielded tank. The automobile industry has been doing the same thing for many years...see below:

 

 

[Sovngard]

It seems pretty clear that the primary purpose of the thin metallic shell covering the turret is to hide the actual turret shape/design, which (if visible), would speak volumes as to the armor solutions the Russians decided to use. It also allows flexibility to make hidden changes as these prototypes mature into a fielded tank. The automobile industry has been doing the same thing for many years...see below:

I share your point of view.

 

Either they decided to only focus the protection (composite & reactive armor) around the crew capsule (which would surprise me) or either the metallic shell is just a mock-up because the final design of the turret with large composite modules is secret or still in development.

 

 

An artist's impression of the "naked" turret :

 

Edited May 6, 2015 by Sovngard

[Damian]

One thing about T-14 protection. From reliable source I know there are planned several protection levels.

 

The light one, so only basic protection.

The medium one, and it is said these vehicles represent medium protection level.

And heavy one, so with maximum protection.

 

Remember that weight of T-14 and other vehicles on "Armata" platform, will range from ~50-55 tons to ~65 tons, that is a lot of armor that can be added.

[M48A5K]

 

 

Does anybody have idea on what these tubes are for? They don't look like hard-kill active protection system.

[methos]

Do you really think that there are good old special armor modules underneath this thin metallic shell ?

 

Maybe the real armour modules were not installed yet, but I would be surprise if the Russian tank designers went with a nearly unarmoured turret for the Armata. Regardless of how safe the crew is, a tank is useless once it cannot fire it's maingun or drive around.

 

 

 

 

Does anybody have idea on what these tubes are for? They don't look like hard-kill active protection system.

 

I think they are part of the active protection system. The Kurganets-25 APC doesn't have them (which afaik was not designed with APS), the Kurganets-25 IFV (which does have an APS) features these tubes. In terms of size they look similar to Drozd.

Edited May 6, 2015 by methos

[alejandro_]

Very interesting Damian. I am surprised that nobody has raised the issue of transportation and weight. Many years ago, when the Black Eagle was shown for the first time, the increase in weight (55tons IIRC) was seen as a problem. Russian rail was limited to this weight, maybe by now it has been improved.

Edited May 6, 2015 by alejandro_

[M48A5K]

 

 

They seem to be similar to smoke dischargers on Shotora series. I found the photo above in SK forum, and it seems that russians don't view those tubes as hardkill APS.

[Sovngard]

Does anybody have idea on what these tubes are for? They don't look like hard-kill active protection system.

 

Which ones ?

 

 

Maybe the real armour modules were not installed yet, but I would be surprise if the Russian tank designers went with a nearly unarmoured turret for the Armata. Regardless of how safe the crew is, a tank is useless once it cannot fire it's maingun or drive around.

 

The current shape of its turret leaves very little space to add thick composite modules.

 

I don't think that it will be its final form.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Sovngard

[M48A5K]

Ones on the lower side of the turret.

[Sovngard]

Ones on the lower side of the turret.

 

Launchers used by the Afganit active protection system.

[M48A5K]

 

Ones on the lower side of the turret.

Launchers used by the Afganit active protection system.

Is it confirmed or just another prediction?

[Damian]

Confirmed, it is said that Afganit is descendant of Drozd, size of launchers is very similiar as well as concept.

 

Smoke launchers are on turret roof and can rotate, also it is speculated that granades in smoke launchers can also be replaced or mixed with smaller interceptors protecting against top attack weapons.

[M48A5K]

 

Well, still can't believe that. I'll just wait for the official announcement.

[CarriE66]

In this patent the APS system uses DROZD-styled tubes to launch a projectile. When the APS-projectile has met the incomming projectile, it detonates forming an EFP taking out the incomming projectile. Some argue that this is Afganit, or atleast something that the Afganit is based on.

 

I translated this with google translate.

 

http://www.freepatent.ru/patents/2263268

 

 

The invention relates to the field of military technology, in particular to the protection of armored targets from anti-tank weapons. The invention consists in that the system includes a protective ammunition and the processing and control system complex. Protective munition is designed as the warhead with a cumulative funnel with a large opening angle for the formation of damaging elements such as "the core of shock." Ammunition set on turning in two planes based on the perimeter of the protected object or above and is associated with process control system complex. Warhead has displaced along the surface of the funnel cumulative point of detonation. The implementation of the invention makes it possible to increase the speed and efficiency of complex weapons systems active protection.

The invention relates to the field of military technology, in particular to the protection of armored targets from anti-tank weapons.

Known automatic active protection of armored objects:

British tank missile system TAMS company "Marconi";

Israeli "warning system about the threat of attack" tank "Merkava MK3";

American "system of active tank protection" (complex SLID);

domestic complexes "Thrush" and "Arena".

In general, the active protection system consists of detection systems for information processing and control and weapons systems.

The basis of the system is the lightweight column book-rests TAMS system with 1-kW servo, which installed two radar company "Marconi" and the weapon system in the form of two paired 7.62-mm machine gun rate of 1200 rds. / Min. The maximum effective range of the TAMS is in the range of 600-900 m, and 400 rounds of ammunition boeukladki enough for 20 attacks (20 shots on the rocket).

The Israeli "Warning System about the threat of attack" tank "Merkava" target detected at a distance of 20-25 m from the tank electro-optical sensors mounted on the upper surface of the machine body along its perimeter and is amazed at some distance from the tank means to counter. Weapons system is launchers for shooting on a signal from a missile detection system (grenades) or with high-explosive fragmentation warhead. Launchers are located on the perimeter of the hull.

The American defeat the purpose of the complex SLID made small-sized guided missile - interceptor. Range projectile hitting a target SLID is 100 meters from the protected armored vehicle.

Some of the considered KAZ proven effective with respect to anti-tank and anti-tank grenades (GHG) emissions. Probability of hitting anti-tank and PG-known complexes of more than 0.7. Due to different designs of ammunition, fuses and various locations in the case of combat units of ammunition are not always high-explosive ammunition protective action leads to hitting the target. In some cases the action of the protective ammunition triggers the forward ammunition trajectory to form a cumulative jet. If the cumulative funnel remains intact, the cumulative impact of the jet on the object to be protected can be sufficient for its destruction, in particular, if the protected object - Machine light weight category.

In addition, these weapons systems KAZ generally not effective against armor-piercing ammunition. This is primarily due to the high velocity of ammunition, their stability in flight, a relatively large mass and a small cross-sectional area.

All weapon systems KAZ characterized by low speed, low speed due to the delivery of protective ammunition at a meeting with a purpose.

The closest to the technical nature of the proposed system is the domestic weapons complex of active protection "Drozd" / 1 /. The complex of active protection "Drozd" weapons system is a four paired bronebloka at an angle of 20 degrees. to each other. Each broneblok serves a sector of 20 degrees. As a protective charge used 107 mm high-explosive shells, undermining the team which comes from the remote time-fuse at a distance of about 7 m from the protected machine.

The disadvantage of this weapon system is the low efficiency when exposed to armor-piercing projectiles, as well as low speed due to the low speed of delivery to the point of meeting of the protective ammunition.

The aim of the present invention is to increase the speed and effectiveness of the weapons complex active protection.

The goal is achieved in that the weapon system is used as a protective munition warhead with a cumulative funnel with a large opening angle, which operates on the principle of "shock core" and mounted on a rotary basis, associated with the control system of the complex protection.

The principle of operation of the proposed weapon system is as follows. After the start of the detection system to accompany the purpose and define its parameters, the signal from the system of processing and control goes to the actuator pivot base, which begins work at the direction of the goal in two planes. The estimated time for the fuse protective ammunition supplied control signal and is its subversion. As a result, it undermines formed striking element - the "core of shock", which, depending on the intended use, may have a diameter of 30-40 cm and armor-piercing capacity of up to 50-80 mm monolithic steel armor average hardness.

The speed of the striking element reaches 2-3 km / s. Thus, the point of intersection killing agent will be delivered in time than in all known systems (bullet speed - 900 m / s, the velocity of the munition KAZ "thrush" - 120 m / s), and therefore, the proposed technical solution allows improve the performance of complex active protection.

Compared with the prototype hit the striking element - "the core of shock" - in GHG ATGM or armor-piercing projectiles lead to its complete defeat. Estimates show that in this case, the residual effect of armor-piercing ammunition striker will be completely absent.

This system allows the weapons hit the target at different distances from the object to be protected and can be used with such a complex weapon system even on light armored vehicles.

To increase the angle of the area affected cumulative funnel advisable to choose from a range of 120-160 degrees.

The proposed system of arms can be incorporated into an object around its perimeter or taken out on the object.

Compared to existing weapons systems, the use of the proposed system would require increasing the accuracy of determining the coordinates of the target, which currently is not technical difficulties. Adjustment of the direction of flight submunitions when it is carried out to undermine further by changing the place of initiation of the protective ammunition. To do this, the protective ammunition (combat unit operating on the principle of "shock core") has several points of initiation, placed at various locations relative to the cumulative ammunition lining.

The main advantages of the proposed technical solution to a known high speed due to high delivery rate of submunitions "shock core" to the point of meeting for the purpose, as well as increased efficiency due to the destruction of any weapons of his great armor penetration, even when using the cumulative facing with a large opening angle.

The proposed solution allows to multiply charged KAZ weapons system that ensures the protection of the sample almost all areas with a significant decrease in weight of the weapon system.

Sources of information

1. Encyclopedia of tanks 1915-2000 biennium. Comp. Holyavsky GL Minsk, OOO "Harvest", 1998 - 576 p.

CLAIMS

Weapon system active protection system, which includes a protective ammunition and a processing system and control complex, characterized in that the shield is designed as a munition warhead with a cumulative funnel with a large opening angle to form the striking element type "hammer core" set on turning in two planes Based on the perimeter of the protected object or above and associated with the system processing and control of the complex, while the warhead is displaceable over the surface of the funnel cumulative point of detonation.

 

Same kind of launchers/tubes can also be seen on the Objekt 195.