Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 5 Mar 2013, 12:26

The experimental model of the tank will be presented in 2015, its serial production will start a year or two later. This development will be the first step towards the creation of weapons "unmanned", called "combat robots" that spoke the authors of science fiction works of the last century.

The military expert Igor Korotchenko explains what it is:

"It will be a tank equipped with a reinforced capsule that will ensure the preservation of the lives of the crew in conditions of combat operations real. Ammunition will be screened out of the capsule. At no tower and no one can be loaded cannon and fire automatically without man's participation. pointing the - operator will take care only to indicate the target and choose the type of projectile, designed to achieve the target. Therefore, it is a platform shielded completely unified and automated which will play a wide circle of missions in combat operations and is an industry first national armored. "

The expert Aleksandr Gurov believes that the wars of the future man's role is reduced to the mission of the organization. Therefore, similar developments are indispensable.

"In the case of an intervention from outer space or on the part of some foreign country, the defense should include both soldiers and robots, unmanned planes and tanks and other kinds of weapons.'s An imposition of the XXI century. Russia is a power that other states can not ignore and that has a wonderful community of scientists. The country should develop similar weapons. "

The existence of heavy Armata platform was unveiled last summer. It is being developed since 2009 and should become the basis of a whole range of modern heavy tanks, the tanks and infantry special vehicles designed to tank brigades and mechanized infantry. The development project is undertaken by Uralvagonzavod's largest industrial complex - Russia's military. Incidentally, today this same company also is developing two more combat platforms - and the Kurganets Bumerang. The Army will receive next year war material built on this basis.

The General Staff Gen. approved the program of creating a series of tanks, which could change the whole structure of armored forces. Developing tank designs - robots got to be done even in Soviet times, but after the collapse of the country all these projects have been frozen. Now scientists and engineers try to revive this promising idea, just as many other projects for the reform of the Armed Forces.

Russian President Dmitri Medvedev recently stated in college Defence Ministry that the reform of the Armed Forces had already yielded serious results - the combat capability of the troops, as well as the degree of equipment with modern war materials increased.

"In general, thanks to the reforms we have made new military, much better able to withstand the threats of our time and respond to potential threats that may arise."

The state has earmarked 20 trillion rubles, ie about 660 billion dollars for the rearmament of the Armed Forces until the year 2020, which will lead to qualitative changes in the equipment of the Armed Forces with new types of armaments.


Armata platform
-------------------------------------------------

The efficiency of the vehicle will compensate the mega investment? Will be this the tank of the future? We'll know in 2015...

Posted by: dangerman1337 5 Mar 2013, 12:51

I've heard the production Armata may actually be shown in September of this year (though not be in service until 2015).

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 5 Mar 2013, 13:04

Yes, the platform Armata will be presented very soon, but an automated version only in 2015.

Posted by: MARS 5 Mar 2013, 18:31

Military future predictions of the United States are always taken with a grain of salt; the same thing should be done when talking about Russian, Chinese, European etc. technologies. It's always easier to imagine this cool, futuristic stuff on paper but at the end of the day, economics and politics decide how much of this is going to become a reality and these two tend to be more unpredictable than the designers and proponents of such cutting-edge weapons would have it.

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 8 Mar 2013, 9:34

It's not real, we'd need to see more UAV and USV tech before this would happen.
If they have the tech for an unmanned tank, they'd have the tech for unmanned trucks and recon planes already, which would have been used.

It's simply not feasable for them to skip so much unmanned tech.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 8 Mar 2013, 11:19

Do not seems logical your reasoning - because they need to develop other robots before Tank?

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 8 Mar 2013, 13:17

Mostly because those robots generally have simpler AIs meaning if they can build a tank, they can build a truck or recon plane already.
There's no reason not to, so why won't they?

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 8 Mar 2013, 16:35

Actually they already do this in parallel and the tank will not have an AI, will be remotely controlled as with the unmanned aircrafts.

Posted by: Col._Sandfurz 13 Mar 2013, 11:36

^ this!!

I highly doubt that we will see a completely new tank family in 2015.. too early. Russian scientists and engineers are very good, but you see delays everywere, especially in projects that try to make a vehicle that can perform a lot of tasks. Remember the F.35 Lightning II.. huge budget owerflows and lag of delivery dates..
Also keep in mind that delayed developnement can not only be seen in US and European military gear, but also occures in the east.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 13 Mar 2013, 12:23

I agree that it is hard to believe that in 2015 the Russian army will replace their old tanks series 'T' by Armata, however Russia, unlike the western countries, urgently needs to modernize its entire army to continue to exercise its geo-political influence, the Russian army today still preserves the patterns of the former Soviet Union, ie, a large army outdated - compared with other military powers like USA, UK, France, Germany - and without an adequate logistics to keep it 'operational', the recent war against Georgia evidenced these problems.

Moscow is investing 20 trillions rubles to modernize the whole army and they are not kidding when say they want to back to being a super military power. Perhaps the Armata is not ready to be produced in 2015 however'll be very soon because it is vital for Russia.

Posted by: MARS 13 Mar 2013, 13:12

If anything, I wouldn't be surprised if the Armata tank ended up as a rare vehicle reserved only for the most elite of tank units while the broader mass of the Russian military continues to use/upgrade the less spectacular albeit still reliable T-80 for a while. That's kinda what you have to do if you want to run a large 'Eastern-style' military whereas 'Western-style' militaries tend to be smaller by comparison, but more standardised.

Posted by: dangerman1337 13 Mar 2013, 20:14

From the looks of it I will not be surprised if the Armata becomes the sole Russian tank since over 2000 MBTs (which is about number as the current amount of tanks that Russia currently operates) will be produced so they won't have to deal logistics of multiple MBTs, though I can see the T-80 being put in reserve as with the T-72 it is still useful (though older tanks will be scrapped). Not sure about the T-90 however.

Posted by: MARS 13 Mar 2013, 20:42

Yeah, I wouldn't get my hopes up for the T-90 either. From what I've read, they didn't produce that many of them and the whole thing didn't really go anywhere. Kinda felt like an interim that didn't take off.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 13 Mar 2013, 21:04

The tanks of the series 'T' will probably continue to be produced after the Armata enter service however will be intended for import already possessing good qualities and are reliable. The Armata should meet the domestic needs of Russia and based on this new configuration (Armata) other vehicles should enter into service very soon.

Posted by: MARS 13 Mar 2013, 22:08

Wouldn't the Armata still be part of the T-series itself? The Russians have been labelling their tanks as T-[] since what feels like the end of WW2 (back then, they also had KV and IS tanks, named after Kliment Voroshilov and Iosif Stalin). At some point, they'll probably just switch over to T-[three digit number] and carry on.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 13 Mar 2013, 22:35

Technically it will not be part of the series 'T' because its chassis and the tower will be completely redesigned, this is the newness of the Armata, instead of adaptations and improvisations as the T-90 which is actually just the T-80 with some improvements the Armata is a completely new tank that served as a platform (chassis, engine, equipment) for new vehicles based on this 'chassis' Armata, based on this new platform that includes a tower not manned the car will be subsequently adapted for unmanned missions.

As you can see is a vehicle for 5th Generation (not manned) technically superior to the old tanks of the series 'T'.

Posted by: MARS 14 Mar 2013, 6:18

Still, why would they stray from their naming pattern? Of course it's technically different from the T-90, T-80, T-72 etc. but at the end of the day, they'd probably stick to the system that has been in use for decades. If the US ever decide to replace their Abrams tanks with an entirely new design, chances are it'd be labelled as the M[] as well, simply because they did that with every tank since WW2.

Posted by: DerKrieger 14 Mar 2013, 6:38

Actually, the Russian Army did purchase several hundred of them, and they recently developed a new variant of the tank. From what I hear they're mostly holding off until the new tank comes out within the next few years, though.

Posted by: Knjaz. 15 Mar 2013, 7:32

Hah, I just discovered this forum. Never really digged SWR forums until now

Depends on the Kremlin, actually. I heard rumors they may postpone showing it to the public, but you can never be sure here.






Unlikely. The whole reason of switching from Object. 195 to Armata was to reduce it's price. Basically, Armata is a downgraded 195 (with some tech. improvements that happened during the period) , that's why it's development took just several years. You can't create an entirely new vehicle in that period (and make it work well at same time).






That's correct. There're different opinions within MOD, but it's mainly about should they just upgrade existing tanks while waiting for the next gen. one, how exactly should they upgrade em, or should they buy T-90's instead because some upgrade's costs almost matches the cost of new T-90.



Also, where did you guys get information for Armata being "unmanned"? It will only have an unmanned tower.

P.S. When it comes to wishes of implementing more unmanned combat vehicles into RuArmy, "Russian military experts" are the last people to listen, seriously. (although there are few decent among them, but they don't get into press that often, especially in resources like ngo/nvo, lenta.ru etc). There won't be any unmanned tanks on the battlefield (at least mass produced ones), until there will be a way to keep them operational in the (relative-) vicinity of nuclear blast, "heavy" EW environment, etc.

Posted by: dangerman1337 15 Mar 2013, 8:33

Well the T-90AM which is a new version does have new stuff like vastly improved ammo storage to protect the crew if it goes off: http://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/new-t-90.200948/#post-6537396 which means that the Russians could just buy say 2000 T-90 AMs, upgrade the existing ones and maybe flog off T-72s (they're still capable tanks in they're own right, most poor performance of the T-72 is from Iraqis who used a ultra-shitty copy cat which were far worse than even soviet monkey models and the Iraqis being hiarlously incompetent) and T-80s with maybe with a few modernization packages for a cheap price for some extra cash. Then afterwards they could focus on a 4th generation MBT in say two decades so they can focus on the polishing a design than trying to play catch up with the west.

Posted by: MARS 15 Mar 2013, 9:21

That new T-90 looks pretty cool. Still very distinctly Russian but not as jagged and edgy as usual.

Posted by: Knjaz. 15 Mar 2013, 9:44

Armata's production should begin in nearest years, not in next decades. As I said, it's basically redesigned 195th, which turned out to be
1) extremely expensive, by Russian standarts (400 million roubles for prototype vehicle with current production capabilities. Around 13 millions USD)
2) Required huge amounts of investment into MIC production capabilities to be able to mass produce that vehicle.

T-80's will be scrapped due to high maintenance costs, especially since T-90 from 1993 already had a better protection than T-80U, as firing tests that were conducted before second Chechen campaign have shown, and T-90A offers a significant improvement over T-90.

T-72B had their armor upgraded several times, in 1985-1989. MOD does not consider them as useless as you do.

"2000 tanks for RuArmy" is an inaccurate number, even if we'll talk only about the amount of tanks that will stay in "first line" units. Although I can't find the specific information on that part, atm, where guys were counting amount of tank btlns in brigades.

Posted by: Knjaz. 15 Mar 2013, 10:30

Well, if you're talking about T-90CM (T-90SM), that's an export version. Guess that affected it's outer looks. T-90AM was not shown to public, afaik, and previous MoD higher-ups were preferring to wait for the next gen. vehicle.

Also, "Armata" is often referred not as a tank, but as a platform for various vehicle types. There's already a set of vehicle types being ordered for development by one of MOD directorates, on the basis of that platform.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 15 Mar 2013, 12:27

Russia is building the tank at the base of the fifth generation of the platform Armata heavy terminating several completely new technical solutions. This combat vehicle will be remotely operated and fitted with a digital cannon.

Source (in Portuguese): http://portuguese.ruvr.ru/2012_03_27/69761981/

Note: Apparently the Armata may conduct non-manned missions being controlled from a distance, however will be able to be manned if the commander desired.

P.S.: The advantages of having a non-manned vehicle for high-risk missions in hostile environments or is something meaningful for the one who holds such an advantage, however remotely controlled systems are an open door for electronic warfare.
--------------------------

Russia probably will not dismantle all its tanks T-80, T-90, not without first testing in a real war Armata performance, however some reserve battalions will probably be replaced, as well as special units should receive some Armatas, and gradually the new tanks should be used as the front line of RuArmy in the future.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 15 Mar 2013, 13:12

This news released today by the Vice-Premier Dmitri Rogozin confirms the intentions of Russia to sudden changes in its military doctrine, adapting to the 'methods of conducting combat actions without contact'.

The news:

Compliance with the state program of retrofitting the Russian Army must resolve, by the year 2020, the task of transition to the so-called methods of conducting combat actions without contact, in order to minimize loss of life, today said the Vice Premier, Dmitri Rogozin.

"We need to make our Armed Forces begin using the methods of conducting war without contact, to be faster than the opponent, and we can destroy it before it comes into his head the idea of ​​the possible destruction of our troops," emphasized Rogozin.

Source (in Portuguese): http://portuguese.ruvr.ru/2013_03_15/Novas-armas-do-Exercito-russo-possibilitarao-acoes-de-combate-sem-contato/

Posted by: Knjaz. 15 Mar 2013, 13:26

Well, the folks in that newspaper should use a better translating software then, unless they got personal spies in UVZ and know something that nobody else does, even MAATD (ГАБТУ).

Tank based on Armata platform will have unmanned tower with, obviously, remotely controlled gun/machinegun. Remotely, as by tank crew that sits in isolated capsule, not by some folks in some control center few km's away.



No need to go through such stuff. MoD's testing programs provide sufficient amount of hard data on tank's performance - after them your average tank looks like it's ready for being scrapped (and that's before testing it's protection level by hammering it with various munitions). Basically, any normal army does those. Ofcourse, there will also be military operational employment testing and evaluation.

basically, there're 3 "tiers" of testing military hardware - development tests (during R&D process), state tests (the one I described above) and military operational test. (when army receives a first set of those vehicles and starts to operate them normally)

Also, about "real war" term - we didn't have "real wars" for about 60+ years, now. And, I hope, won't have in foreseeable future. But nevertheless, even if higher protection requirements (from mines/IEDs especially) were taken into account during the development of new combat vehicles, RuArmy still views large scale conflict between regular armies of first tier military powers as the most dangerous one, and prepares accordingly.

That's where one of Armata's requirements to be able to keep crew inside for 2+ days without leaving the vehicle comes from.



Rogozin in his repertoire. Last time he was insisting on hypersonic version of PAK-DA. Failed, though.

The guy does not determine the doctrine under which RuArmy will be operating, his job is to kick some sense into MiC. He's pretty loud, though, since the transformation from "politician" into "functionary" does not happen over night.

Does not deny the fact that there will be increase in PGMs in Russian arsenal, but in no way it means they're going to turn their ground vehicles into unmanned ones.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 15 Mar 2013, 14:07

The tower will not be manned in fact, this is an idea of Uralvagonzavod that had already been designed for the project 775 (T-95).

I understand that a remotely controlled vehicle is operated at a certain distance and has a cannon digital because someone operates it through a panel as already happens today with the drones, however is a speculation in fact.



When I refer to a "real war" I am referring to regional conflicts that eventually Russia'll be involved. When you test a vehicle you are indeed 'testing' him, you confirm their operational capacity you need to submit it to a real employment situation, only in these circumstances you 'confirms' what is there in theory, the war in Georgia eg demonstrated that certain Russians vehicles are not efficient in some terrains which compromises operational capability besides not being able to face an 'asymmetric war', And I ask you, do not they tested this before?



I do not believe that the Kremlin authorize Rogozin talking nonsense after all he is a representative of the state and military interests of Russia, sure he is not who produces vehicles however he is the spokesman of the inner workings of Russia.

I'll wait for the prototype Armata and the arrival of the year 2015 to take larger conclusions about the autonomy of the tank, however I have no doubt that the 'methods of conducting combat actions without contact' are a reality of the future.

Posted by: Knjaz. 15 Mar 2013, 14:54

I'm glad you didn't hear our generals, yet. These belong to the certain type of people that should not be allowed to the microphone no matter what happens. Because what they say and how they say something in their internal struggles already brought Russia some problems. Makes some colonel-ranked military personnel perform epic facepalms once in a while.

So yes, Rogozin is often expressing his personal opinion regarding various questions.



As far as I know, Georgian conflict did not uncover any unknown problems of Russian military (as a whole of it). It only, finally, forced higher-ups to pay additional attention to those. (first of all, communication capabilities)


P.S. Also, I can't find the original of that Rogozin's statement. Although, I found something... more hillarious, from his today statement.
*facedesks*

Ah, nvm, found it. From the same conference. He also made a parallel between Smartphone/automobile and military weapons/combat vehicles renewal cycle, said that weapons should be renewed constantly, like smartphones, and not "in leaps and bounds" that often last 20-30 years. While the idea is generally correct from MIC point of view and Center approves it, the way he said that was hillarious. Also totally didn't take into account current situation and what has been happening last 20 years.

I bet military folks (and not only them) will be mocking him for this on teh forums (and not just there) once again, today

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 15 Mar 2013, 16:08

In fact politicians in most cases do not have the technical knowledge necessary to talk about military issues, I see it every day in practice, however the generals do not convey much information for internal political issues making it very difficult to understand the real dimension of things, but in parts must be correct because it should be assisted by military analysts and experts without telling businessmen in the Russian military complex that does not like to spread misinformation that discredit the respected armaments industry of Russia, if they say a prototype should be submitted this year and it possess them autonomous capabilities because they do not believe it, after all megacorporations are investing private capital in it and competing to produce a fifth generation tank for the government, I believe that if the Armata was chosen for this platform because it is theoretically is an awesome tank that could revolutionize the concepts of modern warfare.



In fact they actually knew of some problems, however not know the more serious as the mobility of troops which forced the government to discontinue BTRs eg replacing them with the URALs APC which have greater mobility for rough terrain besides providing better conditions for survival for the troops, now they face the same problem with the logistics of navy transport and urgently need to remedy these problems by a matter of operability.

Posted by: Knjaz. 15 Mar 2013, 17:54

Wut? Replacing BTRs with Urals? wth? and what Ural APC you're talking about?!

That Typhoon project? it's not a replacement for BTRs. Replacement for BTR is currently being developed within Kurganets or another similiar (I forgot the name) project. As for now, Russia continues requisition of BTR-82 and modernization of current park. In hundreds, at least.



Ok, now here you're getting Russian MIC absolutely wrong.
First of all - Russian MIC is not a private business, like the one in USA. They're not investing private money into Armata R&D and most importantly, they answer to government/Kremlin. Making profit on internal contracts is secondary, if not tertiary, objective, and the amount of profit they're allowed to make is regulated by government. (at least, this is what recent "wars" between MOD and MIC were about, and this is what Rogozin is currently dealing with).

Second of all, not a single time in Russian press, forums, including by actual people who saw that tank and have some indirect relation to it's development (by working in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Agency_of_Automobiles_and_Tanks_of_the_Ministry_of_Defense_of_the_Soviet_Union) it was stated that Armata will be a remotely controlled vehicle. (obviously, they are giving out only non-classified information ) I can imagine them toying with such option in some future, because, theoretically, due to requirement to install observation cameras for the driver and remotely controlled the vehicle might have minimum amount of required gadgets for it to operate in such manner - but it wasn't stated that it will. And they definitely do not consider it as a viable option for modern combat.

Thirdly, we already had instances where Russian generals during their "battle" with MIC dealt some damage to external contracts, by expressing their opinions in such words that 1) were taken out of context 2) made it look like certain combat vehicles have horrible performance, when in fact they're pretty damn good at their role. I don't know what happened afterwards, but there were some talks about prohibiting these folks talking with press directly. Because in those instances, they weren't assisted by analysts and experts.

The damage it dealt on actual contracts was not that high, because well, customers can test combat vehicles on their own and confirm their parameters, but the amount of sh1tstorms that his "message" raised in the ru-net was... something special.

And yes, it terms of relations with press and public relations, our MOD is pretty much... horrible. They simply dont give a damn when being mocked. The situation became so bad that at some point around 70-80% of "analytic articles" about current condition of RuArmy, it's doctrine etc. by "independent experts", that you could find in Russian press, consisted mostly out of disinformation, and disinformation as in trying to make it look like it's almost dead. Such names as Hramchihin, Ivashov, Felgengauer, Rastopshin, Shurygyn, Ciganok some of which even had general's rank (Ivashov), became pretty infamous.
Guess what? MOD didn't give a single damn. You can be in any rank and can write anything you want in any large press edition about the current state of the army, no matter how far from reality it is or if it falls under "slander" or not - it's guaranteed that MOD won't care.

At least it was before Shoygu came in. Can't say atm if there was any work done in that direction, but it seems they pulled some strings behind the curtain.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 16 Mar 2013, 1:07

Exactly, I was talking about the Typhoon project, although Russia has recently built BTR-82 the army does not want to use this kind of vehicle (BMP-2 and BTR-8 0) in a near future due to unsatisfactory results in the war against Georgia, I believe they should keep this kind of vehicle in operation as a reserve for specific missions, put the new APC URAL will perform a similar function to the U.S.Hummvess, being a high mobility armored vehicle front line. The URAL is in testing phase and has made the Kremlin to cancel the delivery of the second batch of italians Iveco LMV (in Russian, "Lynx"), which was an immediate response to the urgent needs of Russia.

The URAL carrying 10 soldiers, have better armor level 6, better against rockets, resists IDEs and landmines until 8kg and has superior mobility (smaller and lighter).

Link (in Portuguese): http://www.defesanet.com.br/geopolitica/noticia/9730/Russia-suspende-a-compra-do-segundo-lote-de-blindados-da-Italia




To confirm my assertion and possibly solve their doubts about the T-99 Armata (Hey MARS you were right! ) I'll copy some parts of the Russian General-Lieutenant Yuri Kovalenko (he has credit for you?) said about Armata platform:

"Armata combat platform will use many features of the T-95 tank, only a few of Which Have Been prototypes built. Battle tank In the main variant, the ammunition compartment will be separate from the crew, Increasing operational safety while the engine will be more powerful and the armor, main gun and autoloader will be improved. prototype is scheduled to The enter field trials in 2013, about 10 months ahead of schedule. First Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Sukhorukov said. The new tank is under development at Uralvagonzavod in Omsk. The first deliveries of the tank to the Russian Armed Forces are scheduled for 2015. A total of 2.300 MBTS are expected to be supplied by 2020. [2] The tank will have an unmanned, remotely controlled turret. It will be digitally controlled by a crewmember located in a separate compartment. Believed It is this would lead to the development Eventually of a fully robotic tank". (Understood, a FULLY robotic tank )

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Combat_Platform_T-99


From where you took that private capital is not involved in the project? The Uralvagonzavod that developing the Armata is a private company which is developing the platform for the needs of the government along with smaller companies of Russia as KBTM who also developed its own fifth-generation prototype the 'Black Eagle' "Object-640" in year 2001.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Eagle_%28tank%29

Posted by: Knjaz. 16 Mar 2013, 11:45

Don't have much time, so I'll answer briefly.

UVZ is a state owned company.

http://uralvagonzavod.com/investor_relations/47/

The % could change over last 2 years, but it's still recalled as state owned by everyone.
==========================

Typhoon is in no way capable of substituting BTRs on mass scale. Can describe later, why, if needed.
It can (and will) substitute Urals for Internal Troops/Army in conflict zones, and that's what it was created for. It's a MRAP, basically.

P.S. these images are the only open information about the possible look of Kurganets-25 (replacement for BMP) and Bumerang (replacement for BTRs) platforms.
http://topwar.ru/16514-platformy-kurganec-25-i-bumerang-makety-i-predpolozheniya.html
http://www.ljplus.ru/img4/3/0/300m_300m/kurganec_i_bumerang.jpg

and this is what Armata is speculated to be. It was shown accidentally, in summer 2012.
http://media.desura.com/images/groups/1/3/2074/6f845be524e0.jpg
http://www.ljplus.ru/img4/3/0/300m_300m/armata02.jpg

And while the guys that saw it "confirm" that it's the one, some people doubt their words, since they can be misinforming on purpose.

As for that article from wiki regarding armata, it seems they've put together citations of different people and added someone's imagination from a separate article. Well, thats how these things are often written, anyway.

I'll return to this when I'll get back home.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 16 Mar 2013, 12:23

The Uralvagonzavod was privatized by President Putin in late 2012 and now has 75% of its actions for the private sector, so now the company receives private investment, the measure was necessary to increase the dynamism of the company.



All indications are that will replace most of the current APCs, but like I said, there will be BTMS and BTRs for the Russian army however on a reduced scale, the BTR-82 and its variants certainly continue to be sold to peripherals countries since it is a robust vehicle well equipped, however to Russia this model of vehicle no longer serves their needs, the URAL will meet the domesticss needs of Russia and is already being produced on a large scale.



Since nothing has credit and data are provided by people who do not have any knowledge about the project Armata, I'll start to base myself in the opinion of the Internet users, maybe they have more knowledge than the project developers, the politicians who linked with the Ministry Of Defense and the military.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 16 Mar 2013, 13:32

I read a bit more about the project Bumerang and Kurganets-25, Russia should produce these types of vehicle in a very near future replacing the corresponding vehicles of the Soviet era, they will probably form a cavalry similar to the USA, with URALs being a vehicle light and fast for infiltration operations and support, and taking other APCs as heavy vehicles for transportation in areas with higher hostile enemy resistance.

Posted by: MARS 16 Mar 2013, 16:54

Looking at many of these designs makes me miss the 80s and 90s. Nowadays, everyone just turns their military into 'generic streamlined fighting force with generic lightweight wheeled vehicles'.

Posted by: Knjaz. 16 Mar 2013, 16:54

Information incorrect. It's still owned by the state. After diggin' deep, there're plans for partial privatization in 2013-2014. It means that government's share won't go lower than 50%+1
Otherwise, if enterprise becomes private, they can decide by themselves "if they want to take that MOD contract or not". This is not the way Russia works.



Typhoons already produced on a large scale? Another piece of information from parallel universe.
In our reality, they will be undergoing state and army trials that are scheduled to last till 2014.

Also, I believe the cost of that vehicle will prevent it from being produced on the large scale. Set of vehicles for testing purpsoses costed almost as much as BMP's-3 in 2010 (1mil vs 1.3 mil).



Well, I'm basing my opinions solely on the last factor, and I'm observing that source of information since 2008. Conclusion - it's astonishingly correct in information it provides and overall knowledge on the matters. Leads me to conclusion that person in question indeed has relations to GABTU. Now, I'll get back to that "citation" from Wiki.

And yes, as I mentioned before, overall share of outright lies, incorrect and partially incorrect information is somewhere at 70-80% in Russian press, at least it was a year ago (partially incorrect would take biggest %). Granted, thats a personal observation based on the sources I've been encountered. And this is where your western media gets info from, which after addition of "broken phone" factor results in what we witnessed here.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 16 Mar 2013, 17:26

In fact the company will be privatized only in 2013-2014 and this will be the new way of Russia and the same policy will be applied to railways and airports. However the consortium of Armata involves several other private sector companies in Russia therefore involves private capital.



Well, the government has the intention to buy this vehicle in large scale for this reason canceled prior agreements. Probably he will have a high cost however is not possible to renew the army without a big investment, and certainly other APCs that are being planned has a cost even higher. (I'm speculating, missing information).



Well, I will not argue further in this direction because there is not a consensus and I disagree with their assertions. Through the articles I've read is likely that most information is correct.



I agree with you in parts, I disagree on this percentage, I'd say it's a much smaller percentage.

Posted by: Knjaz. 16 Mar 2013, 17:41

Object.195 is not T-95. And yes, Armata is based off 195th.




Correct.



Yep, he said that. Proves the point of it being a "scaled down" 195th. Nobody would be able to create Armata-like tank in 4 years.



Yes, it's developed by UVZ, and, if I'm not mistaken, scheduled for 2015, but about 460 Armatas per year from 2015 to 2020 - it doesn't make any sense, unless they're planning to also substitute tanks in reserves with brand new ones and completely phase T-90 out of active duty.

Basically, from experience of previous years, his words could be translated as:
1) 2300 Armatas till 2020.
2) 2300 Armatas and new T-90's till 2020.
3) 2300 Armatas, new and repaired/modernized T-90's till 2020.

And judging by the experience, it's 3rd, 2nd at best. Because if it's 1st, they will need to keep production going, and they will be putting new Armata's into reserve storage bases. That would definitely take it's toll on the budget, since the total amount of tanks in RuArmy arsenal, by 2020, is believed to be at 6000-9000. (over 2k in active combat-ready units, everything else in reserves). Ofcourse, they won't be filling all of them, but I'm fairly certain that T-90 will stay in active service in 2020.

I'd be pretty happy if they'll manage to pull 1st, though



Correct, same stuff as on Obj.195



As in, next generation? The one that will come after Armata? Well, some people can have such wishes. Like Rogozin had a wish of picking Hypersonic variant for PAK-DA development. (although, you can never be sure, maybe they will indeed end up with such thing )

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 16 Mar 2013, 18:08

It seems to me an error saying that it is being produced just 4 years, this type of vehicle has already been designed by Russian engineers since 1990 under the molds of "Black Eagle" which had a prototype in 2001 but ended up having the same fate as American Commanche by a matter of spending cuts, ie Russia holds the technology and "desing" the vehicle practically ready in a few years, the T-95 also not prospered for the same reason - lack of investment - only now with a consortium in progress the project is finally taking shape.



Remember that the Armata is a universal platform for several different vehicles, I do not think there will be 2300 tanks, the source says 2300 will be "Armatas", ie 2300 "platforms", not necessarily tanks.



Maybe, maybe not ... Only time will tell, however I do not doubt the capabilities of Russian engineering.

Posted by: Knjaz. 16 Mar 2013, 19:53

No, in original Russian source he clearly stated - 2300 tanks. And that kinda brings questions.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 16 Mar 2013, 20:03

In fact it refers to MBTs, I believe that until 2020 is possible to produce this demand, probably UVZ will expand its production line.

Posted by: Knjaz. 16 Mar 2013, 20:11

Erm, it's not about if it's possible to meet that demand. UVZ can meet that demand right now. (if we talk about T-90's). It'll also be able to produce much more than that.

Question is about keeping a steady production rate, in post 2020 environment. Because you can't just cover Army's needs in 5 years and then just close the production line. Doesn't work that way. And I bet export version of Armata won't see light for quite some time (same story as with S-400)

So my bet goes on 3rd option - T-90's, both new and renewed (repaired/modernized), and "Armatas"

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 16 Mar 2013, 20:17

Surely UVZ not want to stop producing the reliable and relatively recent T-90, the Kremlin has contracts with India for production of the tank shall continue producing both MBTS parallel.

Posted by: Col._Sandfurz 17 Mar 2013, 15:21

Very interesting discussion.

I did not know that T-99 Armata is a "downgrade" of the Project 195. Now it is sounding realistic that the Armata will be "ready" in 2015.
Imho this development of the Russian army is very interesting, all of it.

First: I like the idea of unified combat platform, as this simplyfies logistics.
Same with Kurgantes Platform. Is this platform for replacing BMP's?
Do you know what weapons are planned for? I guess a IFV version with 30mm auto canon and ATGM, a tank destroyer with missiles and one with a gun? Will this also provide a platform for AA vehicles?

Second: I like the concept of this new MBT with an unmanned turret, 3 man crew inside a capsule. Only problem could be if the autoloader/gun has a malfunction, then the crew can not solve this problem quickly..
Nontheless I think that this is the direction MBT developnement will go. With this design you can make lighter MBT as there is less space to be covert with armor (or armored better but without letting them be too heavy).
I read somwhere that the US had considered going in the same direction if the cold war had not ended in 1990. But they only made one prototype or so..
What variations ar planned for Armata? MBT version with tank gun and ROWS, heavy IFV like the Namer IFV of the israelis and also a support vehicle like the BMPT afaik..

Posted by: MARS 17 Mar 2013, 19:27

The US/West German MBT-70/KPz-70) would have been vaguely similar in spirit, however, it placed all crew members, including the driver, in the turret cupola whilst the chassis itself was built to be very flat. Would have been a very interesting space age design for its era, but the project was marred by overflowng costs and disagreements among the design teams, so it got cancelled. The US and West Germany used the remains as a starting point for their own designs which eventually resulted in the M1 Abrams and Leopard 2.

Posted by: Mcbob 17 Mar 2013, 20:42

Can you imagine how disastrous the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Combat_Systems_manned_ground_vehicles#Mounted_combat_system program would have been if it actually came to fruition and wasn't cancelled?

The basic platform was going to be a tank (not sure if it was going to replace the Abrams or not) that had protection only up to 45mm in cannon fire. Not to mention it had to be light enough to carry one of them in a C130. Imagine how under-armored it would be in combat. I wouldn't just bet all my money on active protection systems to reduce the amount of basic armor needed to protect against a modern anti-tank round. Even trophy, shtora, arena, and quick-kill have got to have their limits and you can't just rely on getting the first shot out in a combat situation.

Posted by: dangerman1337 18 Mar 2013, 9:53

The ironic thing is that even the US Army which wanted a decade ago wanted to transform into a mobile-quick force that can deploy 72-96 hours around the world because Rumsfeld didn't want to get the political support for things like Iraq and the "light Fighter" movement that wanted to scrap anything that could not get into a C-130 is now considering to go heavier with things like the GCV which will be at least 60 tons and recent insurgencies have shown that heavier vehicles are alot more useful due to the fact that insurgents and similar use IEDs, RPGs, Sniper Rifles and Machine guns more than rifles (rifles are used to cover the guys with the RPGs, Snipers and Machine Guns when drawing back).

Posted by: MARS 18 Mar 2013, 10:07

This entire notion of rapid deployability in regards to counter insurgency is ridiculous anyway. Rapid response is a useful doctrine when you want to provide an immediate reaction for a threat but once that threat has been dealt with, all the advantages you had due to lighter weight and faster mobility turn into disadvantages because counter insurgency operations turn into years long, protracted affairs by their very nature. Once you enter that stage, you'll want something that survives getting hit by RPGs and IEDs, not something that can be deployed to the field in less than a week. To put it simple: Light-weight rapid deployment is useful when you want to invade and raid another country. Protection and durability are necessary if you intend on keeping that country afterwards.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 18 Mar 2013, 11:29

Yes, Kurgantes are planned to replace the MRAP, MBT, BMP, BTR, etc.

I do not find much information about the Kurgante, but some people say the new vehicle may be equipped with a 100mm cannon or 45mm - the 100mm cannon is available for current BMDs-BMPs - and probably Kurgantes will receive ATMGs that already the IFVs from Russia currently have this equipment, as the car will replace various categories of IFVs should be equipped with all kinds of weapons, however I do not know about their capabilities AA.



About Armata I read that it could be a heavy IFV, may receive equipment Anti-Air and can even be converted to a piece of artillery.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 18 Mar 2013, 11:45

Exactly for this reason that many countries are developing lighter vehicles to transport infantry, this new generation of vehicles moving quickly across the battlefield and must preserve the integrity of the occupants when hit by an IED or RPG - this last the most dangerous for the crew - so new armors are being developed, the difficulty is in not raising the weight of the vehicle so to the point of impair its transport.

Posted by: Col._Sandfurz 18 Mar 2013, 15:04

I know the MBT-70/KPz-70, cool ideas they had with all people in the turret and a 20mm AA gun etc.
But I ment something that looked like this:
The http://tanknutdave.com/the-us-expeditionary-tank/ was a prototype to replace the M551 Sheridan.
But somewhere else I read about the future plans of the US, what they expected to need in the 90 and around 2000 if the Cold War had gone longer.
The plan was to develope a tank with an unmanned turret like the current plans of the Armata

I also do not like todays trend of going lighter and lighter.. The FCS of the US Army was such a project..
Hard Kill systems are very capable, but as Mcbob said: I wouldn't just bet all my money on active protection systems
But as we can now see: The GCV is planned to become heavier, ~50t, so I hope this trend has ended now.

Posted by: Knjaz. 19 Mar 2013, 20:48

About Armata, in addition to MBT it will (supposed to) have Tank Support Fighting Vehicles (BMPTs), IMR (obstacle clearing armored vehicle), heavy IFVs, BREM (armored recovery vehicle)

Kurganets/Bumerang will have plenty of different vehicles on their base. Light tanks, self-propelled howitzers, command vehicles, EW vehicles, a separate IFV for VDV troops.

This photo shows models that were shown to Rogozin during one of his visits on UVZ in summer, when Armata's outer look "accidentally" made it way into press.
http://sdelanounas.ru/i/a/w/aWMucGljcy5saXZlam91cm5hbC5jb20vYm1wZC8zODAyNDk4MC8yMjUyNjUvb3JpZ2luYWwuanBn.jpg

Overall, currently there're 30 possible vehicles on Armata/Kurganets/Bumerang platforms. It doesn't mean GABTU will order all of those, ofcourse.

Also, it goes like this
Armata - universal heavy tracked platform.
Kurganets-25 - universal medium tracked platform.
Bumerang - universal medium wheeled platform.


As for AA vehicles on these platforms, it will be possible to create those and, possibly, they're included in the number of total amount of variations, that I gave above - but I didn't hear anything specific, yet. I.e., didn't hear about any specific AA systems being developed on Kurganets or Bumerang platforms.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 27 Feb 2015, 12:22

May 9...

Looking forward to this date to see for the first time T-14 Armata rolling through Red Square; the tanks industry will never be the same...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvLFSQWkES0

Posted by: Karpet 28 Feb 2015, 20:54

I would say both the T-14 and T-90 are quite big threats to the Abrams, not just the T-14 as that title says, for starters it has a lower profile (less space to put more armor on = deadly), Shtora, and I believe it can launch AGTMs from the barrel.

But, hey, always happy to see new stuff in the field of the Russian military.

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 5 Mar 2015, 9:40

There's advantages on either side.

This is purely tank vs. tank, ATGMs don't count into it, the gun-fired ones don't either, since they'd have to hit side or rear at the range they're coming from to do any damage, the abrams has to not use any countermeasures, et cetra. It all falls down to two groups of tanks rolling around shooting the other group with sabots. As such, things that aren't related to that aren't mentioned

Manpower wise, the T-90 is 75% cheaper per man, but the way it's ammo is stowed.........*Shudder* . The M1 is much safer and even if taken down, rarely goes in a mess unless excessive force is involved. Firepower, if multiple rounds are involved, isn't even a contest. You average loader can load much faster than an autoloader at the calibers involved, and individual round wise, it's roughly even, fire control once again, goes to the M1. Defensively, the M1 has a slight lead in turret frontal armor, and everything else is fair game for a sabot to smash, the T90 is around 20% Smaller front-on, crew safety goes to the M-1 given the T-90s distinctly russian autoloader. Logistics wise, Fuel economy goes to the T-90 for the world's most obvious reason, Fuel adaptability (Not sure if right term) goes to the M1 since the damn thing can chug kerosene, ergonomics go to the M1 just as all ergonomics in russian military equipment, the T-90 is an abject failure, and on average a M1's crew is better trained and has more experience, which honestly, is the biggest advantage.

But lets be honest, if we go to war, none of this crap will be anything. It'll just be a 1-day shooting spree, followed by Nuke falls everyone dies, and even otherwise, the war will be won by the air. I don't see much point in these tanks as long as they stomp your average third-world nation good, it's all fine.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 5 Mar 2015, 12:07

This is very relative.

Keep in mind that modern war involving tanks will not be as in WWII where immense columns of tanks advancing gaining ground, instead a small number of tanks advancing with the support of heavy artillery and aircraft, so it is not a ideal target for use of nuclear weapons; in general the use of nuclear weapons is not as simple as it appears.

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 5 Mar 2015, 12:21

Not that.

Any serious military confrontation between two major powers is more or less impossible due to nuclear deterrence. You could possibly fight, but if you had actually started making serious gains, the other side might just find it more appealing to pull the plug.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 5 Mar 2015, 12:39

It is also relative, sometimes it is better to lose a war than to be devastated by a nuclear disaster.

Most contemporary wars between powers are decided outside the home, and when at home by located conflicts in different spectrums as economics, diplomacy, politics etc.

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 5 Mar 2015, 22:38

Point.

Posted by: Karpet 6 Mar 2015, 22:17

A plain tank-on-tank 1v1 is a ridiculously improbable idea for an engagement. Therefore, AGTMs do count. I have never seen a war where countries have sent out their unmodified tanks one by one to fight their enemies.

Only early Soviet era auto loaders were really dangerous. They've evolved a lot since.

If we want to bring up training, I'd like to bring up Chechnya, and the Georgian war where Russia actually fought people in armored vehicle to vehicle combat.

But why do you assume nukes will come into play immediately? Our world may be insane, but not that insane. Do you really think a leader would unleash their entire nuclear arsenal once they lose, and doom the rest of the world to a fiery extinction?

Posted by: MARS 7 Mar 2015, 21:03

I don't think that, in such a catastrophic event, they would come into play immediately, but it would eventually escalate out of control. If one side gains the upper hand, the side that yields ground would eventually consider the option of using tactical nuclear weapons to avert defeat, if the alternative is to lose the war or to lose face by yielding to the opposing side. From then on, the situation becomes messy and ambiguous. First, they would be used as battlefield weapons, but soon, they would also be used to strike strategic targets like airfields or infrastructure. At that point, the other side is forced to think whether these are still tactical strikes, or if it is only the beginning of a larger, more strategic engagement. The idea of a total, pre-emptive strike, a decapitation strike would eventually materialise on both sides until someone makes a mistake, misinterprets a signal, an order, or simply loses their nerves at the thought of being the one that was in charge while NATO/America/Russia/China/whoever was idly waiting, squandering the opportunity, when 'the enemy' was already making the decisive move to wipe it off the map forever. Nobody wants to be the guy who sealed the doom of his country through non-action and if a certain degree of fear, hate, fanaticism or dehumanisation comes into play, the idea of unleashing everything, if only to be 'safe' in knowing you did all you could, might become quite tempting, as insane as it sounds.

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 7 Mar 2015, 23:50

If we add ATGMs, we'd have to mention Helicopters, MANPADS, Ground Attack Planes, Air superiority, Artillery, Etc etc. You get the idea. Simply stacking the two tanks up against eachother works.

They're still carousel designs, which is a death sentence at best whenever there's a cookoff, and the way ammo is stored leads to a higher chance of a cookoff, nasty stuff that.

How much time does a conscript have to train compared to a career soldier? That's the key difference between Russia and other military powers (Heck, even China has a volunteer army, even with conscription laws they never use).

MARS already answered the nuke problem.

Posted by: Karpet 8 Mar 2015, 19:52

War doesn't work by "stacking" stuff against each other. You might as well add all that in, because it's much, much more likely to happen than one tank vs the other.

That's why Russian tanks use ERA, wondrous armor, that stuff is.

Roughly one year for a conscript to be trained, but there will still be lots of professionals. It's not like because conscription happens, there are suddenly no more professionals who are willing to serve more time.

Plus, there are reserves. Reserves? WE'VE GOT THEM. Over 2 million, actually. And since there's conscription, it's likely that a lot of those who have been conscripted have good knowledge of how to use firearms effectively.

Posted by: MARS 9 Mar 2015, 7:04

I have to agree with Karpet on this one too. We live in an age where a conventional war between state militaries would be defined by combined arms and manoeuvre tactics. It won't be one tank of X duking it out with one tank of Y, not even groups of these, no, it would be a combined effort that also involves some combination of mechanized infantry, artillery, helicopters, planes, drones, electronic warfare, what-have-you. And on an even broader strategic level, it also involves the very capability of the conflict parties to wage war, in which way, and for how long; the economies, societies and infrastructures that uphold their war machine. You can try to compare individual pieces of hardware and try to conclude which one might be superior - but it's a conclusion that is hardly even relevant under real life circumstances.

Posted by: DerKrieger 9 Mar 2015, 13:34

Russia is also phasing out conscription in favor of a volunteer army as well.

Posted by: Knjaz. 4 May 2015, 19:39

There, it's finally unveiled. Here's the website:

http://мультимедиа.минобороны.рф/multimedia/photo/gallery.htm?id=21804@cmsPhotoGallery
The description on T-14 photo, from the MoD.
"Meant to conduct mobile combat operations as a main multipurpose combat vehicle within tank or mechanized infantry battlegroups against any adversary in the environment where nuclear weapons or other WMDs are being used".

And a few more photos from the various folks over internets.
(mainly these 2 threads http://www.russiadefence.net/t4020p90-official-armata-discussion-thread http://glav.su/forum/5-military/157/offset/29820/ )

https://pp.vk.me/c624030/v624030390/32091/R9vW_1c5ArA.jpg
https://pp.vk.me/c624030/v624030390/3208a/4SBAoXN-MEk.jpg
https://pp.vk.me/c624030/v624030390/32083/l0bfO8s4ZJI.jpg
https://pp.vk.me/c624030/v624030390/32075/O-Z_9hF7kU0.jpg
https://cs7052.vk.me/c540103/v540103860/3f356/lCIy2FlBins.jpg
https://pp.vk.me/c623219/v623219474/2ebd5/zPsTSrSO1Tk.jpg
http://i19.servimg.com/u/f19/19/21/60/24/14307511.jpg
http://sh.uploads.ru/hBRvU.jpg
http://sg.uploads.ru/wiCZX.jpg
http://i19.servimg.com/u/f19/19/21/60/24/14307516.jpg
http://i19.servimg.com/u/f19/19/21/60/24/14307515.jpg

Some photos of T-15 Heavy IFV:
http://sh.uploads.ru/NaxT1.jpg
http://sh.uploads.ru/oyshC.jpg

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 4 May 2015, 20:32

It seems incredibly armored, while it is not as large or heavy; must be at the same technological level of the Leopard 2, but with the advantage of being a universal plaform and be a new tank, ie, an open design for numerous improvements and possible adaptations; but by the time of the project is being developed must be close to perfect. Finally, a truly MBT worthy of a country like Russia.

Posted by: Svea Rike 4 May 2015, 20:47

Those tanks look sexy as hell. Kinda remind me of the Afterburn mod for Zero Hour, especially the paintjob.

I also believe this is the first Russian tank to not use a circular turret design.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 4 May 2015, 20:53

See the video at the link below of an Armata in tests (note the extra armor on the sides), it seems highly maneuverable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHN1VWgI6aY

Posted by: stukaju87d3 5 May 2015, 5:49

The Polish one will be sexier FFS QQ http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/is-polands-stealthy-pl-01-the-tank-of-the-future-1554395391.

Posted by: Knjaz. 5 May 2015, 6:51

2 more photos, view from above.

T-14
https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/16193/8955119.9/0_9c46f_b6341496_X5L.jpg

T-15.
https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6747/8955119.9/0_9c46e_17221083_X5L.jpg


There's alot of arguing going on about the turret on T-14. Some say it's likely to be changed in future because current ones look like poorly assembled in close-ups, some say it uses very unconventional armor scheme due to it's unmanned nature - i.e. that shell you see is not it's actual armor, because only gun and autoloader need to be well protected.

Posted by: The_Hunter 5 May 2015, 9:53

I can't say i like the way the tank looks all that much.

The other vehicles however look pretty interesting from a visual aspect.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 5 May 2015, 11:17

Yes, it is quite westernized, although the chassis and the tower still have a singular charm; but are the details and accessories that still remind me that it is a Russian Inside™ tank.

Posted by: TimeBurner 5 May 2015, 12:07

The chasis is very sleek to me.But, the turret is so off!

Posted by: Svea Rike 5 May 2015, 12:23

Even though I said it was sexy are we really criticizing how a tank looks? You know these things are designed to kill, right? The turret is probably designed that way because it provides some unknown advantage over their usual rounded design.

Posted by: re_simeone 5 May 2015, 12:50

Tbh that tank looks to me like one of Iranian tank mock ups they show on their parades.
As for new BMP,it looks pretty nice,I am talking just about looks.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 5 May 2015, 14:48

The Russia does not need to show mockups in parades.

If it is a mockup is being prepared almost two decades.

Posted by: The_Hunter 5 May 2015, 19:06

My brain does have more computing power than that of a potato so yes i understand that the technical parts of it are likely to be quite alright but doesn't mean i have to like the visual aspects of the vehicle.
Most modern/new generation vehicle designs tend to look downright awful

Posted by: Svea Rike 5 May 2015, 20:01

And this looked pretty?



Preferences, preferences. I do hope the T-14 does not have to face combat any time soon, but as we all know in a couple of years or decades it surely will.

Posted by: Knjaz. 6 May 2015, 17:41

Well, people are coming to general consensus that actual turret armor layout is much closer to this thing, (that surfaced rather long time ago), than to the outer shape of Armata turret.


Or this concept



Somebody even tried to photoshop it on T14 platform.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 6 May 2015, 18:00

^ I would say that the version with the extended tower (extra armor and external ammunition capsule) can be controlled remotely, but usually must be manned, as in conventional tanks of previous generation.

Also it is discussed the possibility of the tower not be finished and software are being on development for the 100% unmanned tower, it is a possibility since the project is expensive and must be suffering budget cuts, (but it's all is speculation).

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 7 May 2015, 1:51

It has to be angular because angular works better with modern armor, something about the particulars of composite armor or something. Can't quite remember. Round turrets went the way of the rifled cannon, a seemingly good idea at first that the modern arms race somehow turns into a inferior product.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 7 May 2015, 18:32

Other interesting facts disclosed about the T-15:

Will be able as well as the T-80U and T-90 series of fire through the 125mm cannon ATGM projectiles Sokol-1 (I don't find much information on this system that apparently is 'top secret'), which hypothetically makes the difference of Russian's technology for battles between tanks.

The travel speed on paved roads should be 75 km/h (which is not new/innovative).

The government and the Russian media defend the idea that this tank will be the first in the world to be manned 100% remotely in the near future, which of course is doubtful but not impossible.

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 9 May 2015, 11:19

If it were manned remotely, design it for that. The damn thing is designed with a 3 man crew in mind, and has room for 3 squishies in it. A future remote tank would be smaller while keeping the same performance because it didn't have to keep 3 people, air filters, tea warmers, and chairs in there.

TLDR: Sounds like horseshit or bad designing.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 9 May 2015, 12:42

I believe there will be no in the next 50 years a tank that is 100% automated, unable to support a crew, because an exclusively standalone automated version is not interessente to any country since everyone wants to be allowed to control the vehicle with a crew on board; this involves reducing costs, ability to operate the vehicle after any technical problems related to complex software and the ability to export the vehicle to countries that do not have sufucientes technical resources to operate a vehicle 100% automated; therefore the possibility of remote control of the vehicle is something additional and complementary that even should not be a standard configuration of the Armata.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 14 May 2015, 12:57

Another novelty about the Armata: http://&quot;%20<a%20href="http://sputniknews.com/military/20150514/1022123636.html&quot;"%20target="_blank">http://sputniknews.com/military/20150514/1...3636.html&quot;</a>

After decades will be one of the first MBTs to receive a 152mm cannon; the expectation about the development of this tank is constantly increasing; if all this is confirmed it will be a unique vehicle.

Another demonstration of muscles by Russia.

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 14 May 2015, 13:55

Picture related.

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 14 May 2015, 17:17

To get an idea of what should be coming to the Armata I recommend this video: https://youtu.be/0cORGqA5yUE

These robots are the Uran family and are fully controlled by remote control; note that these large vehicles are designed for extinguish fires, rescue and etc; they will appear in the Army 2015 exhibition.

These same robots can be equipped with support arms and are conducting maneuvers tests in Russia; this should be the future of Armata tank and other vehicles to come; Russia is preparing rapidly for a non-conventional war scenario.

Posted by: Pepo 14 May 2015, 21:57

The Americans designed the CATTB, a 140 mm armed Abrams and if I remember correctly Switzerland modified a Leo 2 to carry a 140mm. I don't think this bigger guns offer a great advantage: they take more time to reload and are expensier. Also the main tank killer today is the missile not the gun. I feel that it is a bit of a waste of resources

As for the Armata tank, it is an innovation but it is expensive. Russia might commit the same error of the USSR again: expending too much on weapons rather than to focus that money on the economy. I doubt that the T-14 is the tank Russia needs now. Rather than focus in new , shining tanks when Russia already have A lot of tanks is a waste money. Improving their economic base is not( also the air force need more money than the army in Russia)

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 14 May 2015, 22:13

Specific ammunition must be produced for the new caliber, but in fact the cannons of 125mm are the best so far.

The Russian economy is based on commodities and energy, due to the current geopolitical scenario makes necessary the rapid modernization and restructuring of military means to ensure the flow of this market, vital to Russia.

In fact the Russian Air Force needs modernization, but still is fully operational. In addition to developing new fighters they are already being prepared for the modernizetion of Tu-22M and Tu-95.

Posted by: Pepo 15 May 2015, 15:21

I didn't say that they shouldn't design new weapons, in fact they should, but they aren't going to get any benefit by getting 2000 tanks. With 500 off then it would be enough. The armata isn't cheap, and it is much more expensier than a tipical soviet design. Russia is heading the same way as the USSR: expending too much on weapons rather than in their population the only difference being that the USSR was stronger.

And the air force need a lot more of figther's and scrap the tu-95( Us should done the same with the b-52)Russia air force need the money that Putin is expending on tanks . if a country lacks air control, it would lose any conventional war. And no, SAM aren't a way to get air superiority either

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 15 May 2015, 15:59

Surely Russia did not order the poduction of 2000 Armatas in the near future, we must assume that in fact was a government bluff; Russia would not have financial conditions and how well you said and the need for an order of this size.

The VVS is one of the largest air forces in the world with 160,000 men and powerful fighters for every type of mission (at the regional and global scale), powered by an autonomous aviation industry; It might be better structured than the land and naval forces.

The bombers like the B-52 and Tu-95 hardly cease to exist because they are 'weapons of depth' aimed at intercontinental missions; and above that affect the psychological factor of an enemy. Also are often the first, the last and sometimes the only nuclear option of a superpower against the other depending on the target being attacked and its location.

In fact Russia is unable to control all of it's airspace, which is gigantic, but has returned to invest in it and with the accentuation of dispute for the Arctic was again a priority.