• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

T-14 Armata - new gen Russian tank

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,914
Reaction score
14
New 'cold war' means new 'arms race' with new exaggerated claims of weapon performance and technology 'gaps'...?

Idiots (not referring to anyone in this thread - just humanity in general :) )
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
Speculation about so called fourth and even 5th gen is not new. It has been in the Economist. 'Clean' being the word thrown around for decades. and if your not doing it, who is?

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/INESAPTR1.html
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,991
Reaction score
194
Assuming it is a tank shell we are talking about here, it could be an enhanced radiation and/or directed effects shell. Which would be rather problematic for NATO at best.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
Grey Havoc said:
Assuming it is a tank shell we are talking about here, it could be an enhanced radiation and/or directed effects shell. Which would be rather problematic for NATO at best.
Gives a whole new meaning to the term "Hybrid Warfare".
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,991
Reaction score
194
http://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/russia_to_launch_production_of_new_combat_vehicles_based_on_kurganets-25_tracked_chassis_12804172.html

Still seems to be major production bottlenecks. Probably good news for programs like the BMPT though.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,991
Reaction score
194
Via the Tank-net topic on the 2017 Moscow Parade, a picture taken during the dress rehearsals showing a couple of T-14s without their side skirts:

 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
Grey Havoc said:
Via the Tank-net topic on the 2017 Moscow Parade, a picture taken during the dress rehearsals showing a couple of T-14s without their side skirts:

Wow, thank you posting sir, wonder if we are going to stop seeing what the skirts look like in the press altogether.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
Oops skirt appears the same this year.
 

Attachments

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/06/russia-armata-tank-will-outmatch-the-abrams-in-active-armor-and-triple-range-missiles.html
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,444
Reaction score
767
bobbymike said:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/06/russia-armata-tank-will-outmatch-the-abrams-in-active-armor-and-triple-range-missiles.html
Poor article.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
680
Reaction score
52
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
bobbymike said:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/06/russia-armata-tank-will-outmatch-the-abrams-in-active-armor-and-triple-range-missiles.html
Poor article.
Agreed, the website appears to be a (Brian Wangs) personal website.
Bobbymike, what due diligence did you do before posting the link?
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
kaiserd said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
bobbymike said:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/06/russia-armata-tank-will-outmatch-the-abrams-in-active-armor-and-triple-range-missiles.html
Poor article.
Agreed, the website appears to be a (Brian Wangs) personal website.
Bobbymike, what due diligence did you do before posting the link?
I just got back from Moscow where I met with the head of the T-14 program. I then had tea with Vladimir Putin.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
680
Reaction score
52
bobbymike said:
kaiserd said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
bobbymike said:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/06/russia-armata-tank-will-outmatch-the-abrams-in-active-armor-and-triple-range-missiles.html
Poor article.
Agreed, the website appears to be a (Brian Wangs) personal website.
Bobbymike, what due diligence did you do before posting the link?
I just got back from Moscow where I met with the head of the T-14 program. I then had tea with Vladimir Putin.
Are you by any chance Michael Flynn? :)

(Apologies for the digression off the discussion topic...)
 

lastdingo

Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
Joined
Oct 18, 2008
Messages
578
Reaction score
2
Website
defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de
The article has some hyperbole, as is typical of that blog (and many others).
It's not all worthless, though. The problem is mostly that the author has no clue about what's important in tank designs or tank warfare.

Whether a tank is good at cold start at -20°C, can have its powerpack changed in less than 45 minutes or go farther than 200 km with battlefield manoeuvres on soft soil is much more relevant than whether its munitions reach past 3 km range.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,444
Reaction score
767
lastdingo said:
The article has some hyperbole, as is typical of that blog (and many others).
It's not all worthless, though. The problem is mostly that the author has no clue about what's important in tank designs or tank warfare.

Whether a tank is good at cold start at -20°C, can have its powerpack changed in less than 45 minutes or go farther than 200 km with battlefield manoeuvres on soft soil is much more relevant than whether its munitions reach past 3 km range.
Bolded that for you.
 

Void

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
129
Reaction score
2
lastdingo said:
Whether a tank is good at cold start at -20°C, can have its powerpack changed in less than 45 minutes or go farther than 200 km with battlefield manoeuvres on soft soil is much more relevant than whether its munitions reach past 3 km range.
If that were true tanks would have nothing but machine guns. ALL of a tanks capabilities are important, there is no one to rule them all. A tank with no engine is a glorified pillbox. A tank with no gun is a glorified bulldozer.

The article is indeed bad but it hits on an important point: Long range guided weapons, especially if they can be remotely targeted, can in certain engagement scenarios inflict highly disproportionate casualties in tank engagements. The tank that fires usually wins. The US military has every reason to be concerned about this because it was their own work which demonstrated it. Hence the decades-long investigation of the concept through RAKE, X-ROD, STAFF, TERM and MRM. Since US Army tankers have poor camouflage skills, US armored vehicles lack any meaningful top attack protection, the US Army lacks EW systems capable of interfering with their opponents communications, and the military has been unable to bring an APS system into service, the US military is in many ways particularly vulnerable to a weapon like this.

US adversaries are realizing that America has an asymmetric vulnerability to new weapons technologies because the glacial pace of US procurement bureaucracy makes it impossible for the US to bring genuinely new equipment into service on a reasonable timescale.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
Void said:
lastdingo said:
Whether a tank is good at cold start at -20°C, can have its powerpack changed in less than 45 minutes or go farther than 200 km with battlefield manoeuvres on soft soil is much more relevant than whether its munitions reach past 3 km range.
If that were true tanks would have nothing but machine guns. ALL of a tanks capabilities are important, there is no one to rule them all. A tank with no engine is a glorified pillbox. A tank with no gun is a glorified bulldozer.

The article is indeed bad but it hits on an important point: Long range guided weapons, especially if they can be remotely targeted, can in certain engagement scenarios inflict highly disproportionate casualties in tank engagements. The tank that fires usually wins. The US military has every reason to be concerned about this because it was their own work which demonstrated it. Hence the decades-long investigation of the concept through RAKE, X-ROD, STAFF, TERM and MRM. Since US Army tankers have poor camouflage skills, US armored vehicles lack any meaningful top attack protection, the US Army lacks EW systems capable of interfering with their opponents communications, and the military has been unable to bring an APS system into service, the US military is in many ways particularly vulnerable to a weapon like this.

US adversaries are realizing that America has an asymmetric vulnerability to new weapons technologies because the glacial pace of US procurement bureaucracy makes it impossible for the US to bring genuinely new equipment into service on a reasonable timescale.
amen brother
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/serial-production-of-russias-deadliest-tank-to-begin-in-2020/
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
bobbymike said:
https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/serial-production-of-russias-deadliest-tank-to-begin-in-2020/
Thank you for the find and post.
still wanting a 152mm gun....
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
8
FWIW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2-85FSqmX4
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
http://www.janes.com/article/77812/russian-deputy-defence-minister-confirms-armata-order?utm_campaign=CL_Jane%27s%20360-Feb-14-2017_PC5308_e-production_E-6700_KP_0214_0550&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
845
Reaction score
61
Void said:
lastdingo said:
Whether a tank is good at cold start at -20°C, can have its powerpack changed in less than 45 minutes or go farther than 200 km with battlefield manoeuvres on soft soil is much more relevant than whether its munitions reach past 3 km range.
If that were true tanks would have nothing but machine guns. ALL of a tanks capabilities are important, there is no one to rule them all. A tank with no engine is a glorified pillbox. A tank with no gun is a glorified bulldozer.

The article is indeed bad but it hits on an important point: Long range guided weapons, especially if they can be remotely targeted, can in certain engagement scenarios inflict highly disproportionate casualties in tank engagements. The tank that fires usually wins. The US military has every reason to be concerned about this because it was their own work which demonstrated it. Hence the decades-long investigation of the concept through RAKE, X-ROD, STAFF, TERM and MRM. Since US Army tankers have poor camouflage skills, US armored vehicles lack any meaningful top attack protection, the US Army lacks EW systems capable of interfering with their opponents communications, and the military has been unable to bring an APS system into service, the US military is in many ways particularly vulnerable to a weapon like this.

US adversaries are realizing that America has an asymmetric vulnerability to new weapons technologies because the glacial pace of US procurement bureaucracy makes it impossible for the US to bring genuinely new equipment into service on a reasonable timescale.
No idea why you think US army tankers having poor camouflage skill is a fact or how it can be a factor in US army vehicles lacking in meaningful top attack protection. It is a factor of placing the armour where the majority of attacks will come from. Mainly the frontal arc. Be it the M1, Challenger or the T-14, the attack versus defence balance will continue to be made with the best data available at the time. You mention the triad of armoured vehicles but perhaps there needs to be another element, information. New tech defence systems may mitigate the top attack vulnerablity.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
https://www.janes.com/article/82552/russia-unveils-t-15-hifv-armed-with-57-mm-cannon?from_rss=1

Russia has unveiled a variant of the T-15 heavy infantry fighting vehicle (HIFV) fitted with a 57 mm auto-cannon set in a remote turret at the Army 2018 exhibition being held in Kubinka, near Moscow, on 21-26 August.

The cannon is most likely based on that used by the previous AU-220M combat module. The cannon itself is based on an advanced version of the AZP-57 used by the S-60 towed anti-aircraft (AA) gun system.

The turret is equipped with an independent panoramic commander sight and an independently traversable gunner sight. The main armament is complemented by a coaxial machine gun and a bank of two 9M120-1 Ataka laser-beam-riding and/or radio-frequency-link guided missiles located on the right-hand side of the turret.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
bobbymike said:
https://www.janes.com/article/82552/russia-unveils-t-15-hifv-armed-with-57-mm-cannon?from_rss=1

[quoteRussia has unveiled a variant of the T-15 heavy infantry fighting vehicle (HIFV) fitted with a 57 mm auto-cannon set in a remote turret at the Army 2018 exhibition being held in Kubinka, near Moscow, on 21-26 August.

The cannon is most likely based on that used by the previous AU-220M combat module. The cannon itself is based on an advanced version of the AZP-57 used by the S-60 towed anti-aircraft (AA) gun system.

The turret is equipped with an independent panoramic commander sight and an independently traversable gunner sight. The main armament is complemented by a coaxial machine gun and a bank of two 9M120-1 Ataka laser-beam-riding and/or radio-frequency-link guided missiles located on the right-hand side of the turret.]
[/quote]
WOW, what a find. thank you bobbymike. w/ Armata not being fielded for now it seems there is a understanding that near a 60mm is the way to arm an IFV. 60mm makes sense for CRAMA/counter-UAS and potentially in/direct fire if emerging compact /nano-energetics are mature enough.
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,914
Reaction score
14
That would necessitate advanced fusing though (which hasn't been demonstrated).
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
Avimimus said:
That would necessitate advanced fusing though (which hasn't been demonstrated).
Since 40mm is appears on the path so dont think 60 is a problem.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/06/22/new-40mm-air-burst-shotgun-breaching-rounds-developed-us-army-urban-combat-ndia-2017/

Once overheard a AAV program person about near 7km rg for a particular Bushmaster III.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
ammo storage is an issue for sure but

From our fellow traveler Antony Williams
pg 8 shows 50x 330mm Supershot and 57x 347mm SR

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2012/armaments/Tuesday13975williams.pdf

https://www.armyrecognition.com/rae_2015_news_official_online_show_daily_coverage/new_bmp-3_ifv_fitted_with_a_gun_mount_system_au-220m_armed_with_a_57mm_automatic_cannon_10909152.html


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BNOBwaUcf4
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
954
Reaction score
4
wouldn't you just convert space for soldiers to space for ammo?
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,924
Reaction score
25
donnage99 said:
wouldn't you just convert space for soldiers to space for ammo?
Ammunition masses a whole load more than does soldiers. This leads to weight distribution problems, particularly for an amphibious vehicle.
 

GARGEAN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
139
Reaction score
19
donnage99 said:
wouldn't you just convert space for soldiers to space for ammo?
Not in case of T-15 (or Kurganets for that matter). It have unmanned non-intrusion turret, thus pushing it inside hull will take a significant amount of modifying vehicle. OTOH was done on Bumerang...
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,914
Reaction score
14
Quick question: The AU-220M and T-15 turret clearly don't have the Derivatsiya-PVO acquisition optics. But is it still possible that they could have the equipment to control the new guided round developed for the Derivatsiya-PVO? Or should we see these systems as completely different developments of the S-60?
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,914
Reaction score
14
It also occurred to me that a T-15 with the AU-220M could be a very effective weapon against the T-14. The 57mm could be very good at stripping ERA, Afganit, and sensors from the tank while one of the anti-tank missiles closed to finish it off. I wonder how effective 57mm high explosive rounds would be against optics in the tank as well? I wonder if one could produce a mission kill even without the anti-tank missile as a follow-up?
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,914
Reaction score
14
To answer my first question: In 2017 guided 57mm ammo was presented along with the AU-220M in the UAE... so it looks like it is possible (with some variant of the turret at least).

Also: https://twitter.com/russian_defence/status/991993713571389443
 
Top